From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Oct 1 03:54:28 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id DAA13931; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 03:54:27 -0400 X-Sender: schmid@ns1.nias.knaw.nl Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 09:57:33 +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: 1399 On Tue, 30 sep 1997, Vincent Broman wrote (inter alia): >-----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. Let's clear up just one point, Vincent. What do you mean by "the files"? Your initial reply referred to the following question (no name attached): > I would like to know if there are already text or > database files available of individual manuscripts? As far as I understand this question, it refers to files of individual _manuscripts_. The "Text und Textwert" volumes give "Teststellen" of individual manuscripts but not individual _manuscripts_. The first installment of the editio critica maior gives the text of individual manuscripts _of the Epistle of James_. Apart from very few fragments which contain only text of James, there is no such thing as "files available of individual manuscripts". Ulrich Schmid, Netherlands Institute for Advanced Studies From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Oct 1 07:37:58 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id HAA14328; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 07:37:57 -0400 Message-ID: <343252B9.5873@uni-muenster.de> Date: Wed, 01 Oct 1997 13:40:09 +0000 From: Klaus Wachtel Organization: Institut f. neutestamentliche Textforschung X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Macintosh; I; PPC) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Electronic Texts? References: <19970930164634.26156.qmail@np.nosc.mil> 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: 2121 Vincent Broman wrote: > me: > >> The IfNTTF in Muenster evidently has substantial files of > >> that sort, but they treat them as commercially valuable secrets. That's nothing but rumor. > > 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 files and programms Aland refers to on pp.270sq in TNT were on a mainframe computer at the Computer Center of Muenster University which recently was replaced by a new one. Believe it or not: the programms which generated those files don't run on the new computer. So not even members of the INTF have access to those electronic treasures anymore, - the price of progress. The Mark volume of "Text and Textwert" we are currently preparing for printing and the first installment of the ECM are in formats that can in principle be made available online. But the INTF hasn't even got a homepage yet. I know that rumor also has it that we have infinite resources of funding and manpower, but in fact there is noone at the institute who has the time _and_ the knowledge to publish the results of our work online. I'm sure that we will sooner or later, but before that a lot of problems have to be solved, among them the problem of copyright which normally is not the institute's once a work is published. > > 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). Who of us guys did you contact, Vincent? Klaus Wachtel, INTF From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Oct 1 09:12:11 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA15567; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 09:12:10 -0400 Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 08:16:36 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <343252B9.5873@uni-muenster.de> References: <19970930164634.26156.qmail@np.nosc.mil> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Electronic Texts? Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1555 On Wed, 01 Oct 1997, Klaus Wachtel wrote, in part: [ ... ] >The files and programms Aland refers to on pp.270sq in TNT were on a >mainframe computer at the Computer Center of Muenster University which >recently was replaced by a new one. Believe it or not: the programms >which generated those files don't run on the new computer. So not even >members of the INTF have access to those electronic treasures anymore, >- the price of progress. It's no surprise that the programs won't run. Very few mainframes can run each others' software without modification. On the other hand, it should not be hard to "port" the software. I've written similar software that, with a couple of changes that are documented in the software itself, should run on any IBM PC, Macintosh, or UNIX machine that has a Pascal compiler. Or that can easily be converted to C. (I should have written it in C, but it's difficult to run generic C on a Macintosh....) What's more, the software is quite fast; on my slow machine, with no code optimization, it can check 900 readings in 50 manuscripts (or 50 readings in 900 manuscripts) in about two minutes. If someone wants to send me the source code and data files, (not likely, I realize...), I would be happy to look at it. I suspect conversion to a form that will run on personal computers would not be difficult. And if I'm right, I would even be willing to do the conversion. 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 Wed Oct 1 11:48:11 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA19205; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 11:48:10 -0400 Date: Wed, 01 Oct 1997 11:52:41 -0400 (EDT) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Ro 1:16 X-Sender: jwest@mail.highland.net (Unverified) To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19971001114758.363f3fc2@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: 463 That Marcion omits _prwton_ seems to suggest that his presuppositions have gotten the upper hand on his honesty. But that Westcott and Hort (evidently following B) did so seems irrational in light of the overwhelming internal and external evidence. My question- does B follow Marcion regularly, or is this simply an anomaly? 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 Oct 1 12:07:54 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA19551; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 12:07:53 -0400 X-Sender: schmid@ns1.nias.knaw.nl Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 18:10:53 +0100 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: schmiul@nias.knaw.nl (U. Schmid) Subject: Re: Ro 1:16 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 783 On Wed, 1 oct 1997, Jim West wrote: >That Marcion omits _prwton_ seems to suggest that his presuppositions have >gotten the upper hand on his honesty. But that Westcott and Hort (evidently >following B) did so seems irrational in light of the overwhelming internal >and external evidence. >My question- does B follow Marcion regularly, or is this simply an anomaly? 1. G (012) and the facing Old Latin column g also omit PRWTON in Rm 1:16. Therefore, it is entirely possible that Marcion already found the omission in the text he used. 2. By consequence, the alternative in your question is too narrow. 3. To put the issue my way: B and Marcion do not agree significantly when it comes to rarely attested readings. Ulrich Schmid, Netherlands Institute for Advanced Studies From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Oct 1 12:34:13 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA20030; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 12:34:13 -0400 Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 11:38:40 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19971001114758.363f3fc2@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: Ro 1:16 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2131 On Wed, 01 Oct 1997, Jim West wrote: >That Marcion omits _prwton_ seems to suggest that his presuppositions have >gotten the upper hand on his honesty. But that Westcott and Hort (evidently >following B) did so seems irrational in light of the overwhelming internal >and external evidence. "Overwhelming" external evidence? I can't agree. The word is found in Aleph A C D K L 33 81 1175 1739 1881 Byz a b d bo, but omitted by B G g Marcion Tertullian Ephraim. In other words, two text-types (the Alexandrian and the 1739 group) include it, one (Zuntz's proto- Alexandrian, witnessed by B sa) omits, and the "Western" type is split (D a b d vs. G g Tertullian). I'd say external evidence favours the word, but only very slightly. I would agree that internal evidence probably favours it, but how does one decide what is "overwhelming" internal evidence? I personally consider this one a close call. I think the word belongs in the text, but I would be tempted to bracket it. (BTW -- we're trusting Tertullian's text of Marcion here. We might want to think about *that* for a bit.) >My question- does B follow Marcion regularly, or is this simply an anomaly? Regularly? No. (Remember, Marcion has many readings not found anywhere else.) But B has a very ancient text (not Alexandrian-mixed-with-"Western," as too many handbooks still say, but independent and perhaps pre-Alexandrian). So, obviously, does Marcion -- at least at the points where he preserves that ancient text. The two therefore agree frequently -- though hardly constantly. I think, too, that serious consideration should be given to places where they agree. After all, Marcion has a text which is influenced by Roman and Asian types, and B is from Egypt. Agreements between the two are rarely the result of mixture. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Oct 1 12:52:43 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA20395; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 12:52:43 -0400 Date: Wed, 01 Oct 1997 12:57:02 -0400 (EDT) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: Ro 1:16 X-Sender: jwest@mail.highland.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19971001125218.21976280@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: 648 At 06:10 PM 10/1/97 +0100, you wrote: >1. G (012) and the facing Old Latin column g also omit PRWTON in Rm 1:16. >Therefore, it is entirely possible that Marcion already found the omission >in the text he used. Thanks for this info. > >2. By consequence, the alternative in your question is too narrow. > Yes, I see that. >3. To put the issue my way: B and Marcion do not agree significantly when >it comes to rarely attested readings. > Again, thanks. > >Ulrich Schmid, >Netherlands Institute for Advanced Studies Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@highland.net From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Oct 1 13:01:25 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA20601; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 13:01:24 -0400 Date: Wed, 01 Oct 1997 13:05:42 -0400 (EDT) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: Ro 1:16 X-Sender: jwest@mail.highland.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19971001130058.2197de2a@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: 2257 At 11:38 AM 10/1/97 -0500, you wrote: >"Overwhelming" external evidence? I can't agree. The word is found >in Aleph A C D K L 33 81 1175 1739 1881 Byz a b d bo, but omitted by >B G g Marcion Tertullian Ephraim. In other words, two text-types Yes- two text types- one which tends to theological "purification" or to use Bart's word, "corruption"; and another which seems to attend fairly faithfully to the text received by the scribe. >(the Alexandrian and the 1739 group) include it, one (Zuntz's proto- >Alexandrian, witnessed by B sa) omits, and the "Western" type is >split (D a b d vs. G g Tertullian). I'd say external evidence favours >the word, but only very slightly. > I would agree with this, if only the last phrase (but only very slightly) were omitted. >I would agree that internal evidence probably favours it, but how >does one decide what is "overwhelming" internal evidence? > The "tone" of the author in his writings. (This, I suppose, is where TC becomes more art than science). >I personally consider this one a close call. I think the word >belongs in the text, but I would be tempted to bracket it. > I would include it sans brackets. >(BTW -- we're trusting Tertullian's text of Marcion here. >We might want to think about *that* for a bit.) > True! >>My question- does B follow Marcion regularly, or is this simply an anomaly? > >Regularly? No. (Remember, Marcion has many readings not found anywhere >else.) But B has a very ancient text (not Alexandrian-mixed-with-"Western," >as too many handbooks still say, but independent and perhaps >pre-Alexandrian). So, obviously, does Marcion -- at least at the points >where he preserves that ancient text. The two therefore agree >frequently -- though hardly constantly. I think, too, that serious >consideration should be given to places where they agree. After all, >Marcion has a text which is influenced by Roman and Asian types, and >B is from Egypt. Agreements between the two are rarely the result >of mixture. > Thanks for this. >-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- > > Robert B. Waltz Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@highland.net From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Oct 1 15:33:31 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA22654; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 15:33:30 -0400 Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 14:37:55 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19971001130058.2197de2a@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: Ro 1:16 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 3460 On Wed, 01 Oct 1997, Jim West wrote, quoting me: I'm not sure this discussion is worth continuing, but since Jim West is interpreting my words in ways I did not intend, I want to make *my* views clear. (BTW -- I'm not accusing him of twisting my words -- just treating them in the light of out-of-date theory.) >At 11:38 AM 10/1/97 -0500, you wrote: > >>"Overwhelming" external evidence? I can't agree. The word is found >>in Aleph A C D K L 33 81 1175 1739 1881 Byz a b d bo, but omitted by >>B G g Marcion Tertullian Ephraim. In other words, two text-types > >Yes- two text types- one which tends to theological "purification" or to use >Bart's word, "corruption"; and another which seems to attend fairly >faithfully to the text received by the scribe. I think we're referring to two different text-types here. You, as best I can tell, are referring to the Alexandrian and "Western." I am *not*; the two which unequivocally include PRWTON are the Alexandrian text (Aleph A C 81 bo; 33 is Byzantine in Romans) and the Family 1739 text (1739 6 630 1881). I did make one mis-statement; I should have said two *early* text-types support the word. It has, of course, the support of a third text-type, the Byzantine. As for the "Western" type, please do not confuse the nature of the "Western" type in Paul with that of Codex Bezae. Even among so-called "Western" witnesses, Bezae is extreme. Whereas the "Western" text of Paul, although clearly poorer than the other types, is relatively close to the original text. >>(the Alexandrian and the 1739 group) include it, one (Zuntz's proto- >>Alexandrian, witnessed by B sa) omits, and the "Western" type is >>split (D a b d vs. G g Tertullian). I'd say external evidence favours >>the word, but only very slightly. >> > >I would agree with this, if only the last phrase (but only very slightly) >were omitted. I can't omit that. It's two good text-types (Alexandrian and 1739) against one good text-type (B-sa), with the fourth text-type uncertain. Most people, of course, consider 1739 to be Alexandrian. Zuntz placed it with p46 and B. If either are right, though, the reading becomes even *more* muddied -- one good text-type against another, with the "Western" text split, or one good text-type and the others split. I'll stand by my statement that the external evidence is not strongly decisive. >>I would agree that internal evidence probably favours it, but how >>does one decide what is "overwhelming" internal evidence? >> > >The "tone" of the author in his writings. (This, I suppose, is where TC >becomes more art than science). That last parenthesis shows why I so dislike relying on internal evidence.... :-) I'll also mention a psychological point. I don't know about anyone else, but I'm used to this phrase with PRWTON in place. "To the Jew first and also to the Greek" is one of those phrases I remember very well. I think we all have a tendency to "protect" readings we are used to, and to interpret the internal evidence in their favour. (I offer as evidence 1 Corinthians 13:3.) Something to think about in assessing internal evidence.... -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Oct 1 15:49:26 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA23019; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 15:49:25 -0400 Date: Wed, 01 Oct 1997 15:53:55 -0400 (EDT) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: Ro 1:16 X-Sender: jwest@mail.highland.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19971001155117.27efa512@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: 2722 At 02:37 PM 10/1/97 -0500, you wrote: >I'm not sure this discussion is worth continuing, but since Jim West >is interpreting my words in ways I did not intend, I want to make *my* >views clear. > >(BTW -- I'm not accusing him of twisting my words -- just treating >them in the light of out-of-date theory.) > Surely this was not my intention! > > >I think we're referring to two different text-types here. You, as >best I can tell, are referring to the Alexandrian and "Western." I >am *not*; the two which unequivocally include PRWTON are the >Alexandrian text (Aleph A C 81 bo; 33 is Byzantine in Romans) and >the Family 1739 text (1739 6 630 1881). No, it seems to me that family 1739 is Western! (a rose by any other name...) > >I did make one mis-statement; I should have said two *early* text-types >support the word. It has, of course, the support of a third text-type, >the Byzantine. > But, of course, the Byzantine is fairly late. >As for the "Western" type, please do not confuse the nature of the >"Western" type in Paul with that of Codex Bezae. Even among >so-called "Western" witnesses, Bezae is extreme. Whereas the "Western" >text of Paul, although clearly poorer than the other types, is >relatively close to the original text. This is the very heart of the question- What does "relatively close" mean? > >I can't omit that. It's two good text-types (Alexandrian and 1739) against >one good text-type (B-sa), with the fourth text-type uncertain. Again, 1739 does not seem so independent of the Western type. > >Most people, of course, consider 1739 to be Alexandrian. Zuntz placed >it with p46 and B. If either are right, though, the reading becomes >even *more* muddied -- one good text-type against another, with the >"Western" text split, or one good text-type and the others split. > No- 1739 is far closer to Western than Alexandrian. >I'll stand by my statement that the external evidence is not >strongly decisive. > OK. >I'll also mention a psychological point. I don't know about anyone >else, but I'm used to this phrase with PRWTON in place. "To the Jew >first and also to the Greek" is one of those phrases I remember >very well. I think we all have a tendency to "protect" readings >we are used to, and to interpret the internal evidence in their >favour. (I offer as evidence 1 Corinthians 13:3.) Something to >think about in assessing internal evidence.... Quite true- but just because a phrase is familiar does not make it secondary!! > >-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- > > Robert B. Waltz Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@highland.net From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Oct 1 16:22:57 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA23641; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 16:22:56 -0400 Message-Id: <9710012126.AA18593@iris.arcadis.be> Subject: QUERY: HEBREW PALEOGRAPHY Date: Mer, 1 Oct 97 22:29:27 +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: 1714 This query is a bit special, I hope you won't find it totally off-topic. Ten years ago, when travelling in the Middle East (to be precise, in Syria) I had the chance of acquiring two Hebrew scrolls. They are fragments of the Pentateuch, their text has nothing sensational as it is the usual consonantal text - No, I'm not announcing you any exceptional discoveries! - but I would like to learn more about them. My problem is: is it possible to _date_ such things? After having looked at S. Birnbaum's "The Hebrew Scripts" I understand it's quite difficult, as the writing of scrolls, due to its especially sacred character, was subjet to nearly no evolution in centuries. But one of my two scrolls has a quite unusual, irregular writing quite different from the standardized writing of the other one or of most other Torah scrolls (which I've seen in photograph or sometimes in real exemplars). So I ask myself why it is so: is it old, is it coming from a different backgorund (maybe the caraites or some other dissidence?), was it not intended for liturgical use? And maybe, because of its different style, it might be possible to get some information. I would like to have the opinion of a specialist about this. As I just got a scanner for my computer, I have "photographed" a few lines of this very personal handwriting. I thought that may be one of the participants to this list has some abilities in hebrew paleography, or has a contact (maybe in the university where he's working) with a specialist in the field. If such is the case, I am ready to send a graphic file (in the GIF format, it's 1.4 Mb) attached to an off-list email. Thank you for your help. Jean Valentin - Brussels From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Oct 1 18:19:55 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA24776; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 18:19:53 -0400 Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 17:23:48 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19971001155117.27efa512@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: 1739 text (Was: Re: Ro 1:16) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 5716 On Wed, 01 Oct 1997, Jim West wrote, in part: [ ... ] >>I think we're referring to two different text-types here. You, as >>best I can tell, are referring to the Alexandrian and "Western." I >>am *not*; the two which unequivocally include PRWTON are the >>Alexandrian text (Aleph A C 81 bo; 33 is Byzantine in Romans) and >>the Family 1739 text (1739 6 630 1881). > >No, it seems to me that family 1739 is Western! (a rose by any other name...) Are you serious? I know it's been called "Western" in Acts (though I question even that), but to call it "Western" in Paul strikes me as bizaare. As data I offer the following table of rates of agreement. This is based on a sample of 550 readings. What follows are the rates at which 1739 agrees with a variety of manuscripts: P46 212/374=56.7% Aleph 342/547=62.5% A 329/521=63.1% B 298/464=64.2% C 214/341=62.8% D 252/545=46.2% F 218/467=46.7% G 223/478=46.7% K 219/471=46.5% L 253/539=46.9% P 289/522=55.4% Psi 278/537=51.8% 6 361/525=68.8% 33 330/535=61.7% 81 335/543=61.7% 104 286/547=52.3% 223 255/547=46.6% 330 264/544=48.5% 365 298/532=56.0% 424** 125/144=86.8% 436 274/545=50.3% 630 322/545=59.1% 1175 305/501=60.9% 1505 272/541=50.3% 1506 80/132=60.6% 1881 432/547=79.0% a 233/496=47.0% b 224/475=47.2% d 226/489=46.2% f 247/478=51.7% sa 285/435=65.5% bo 283/436=64.9% arm 246/441=55.8% If you'll observe, the lowest rate of agreement in the entire set is that between 1739 and D, and the other "Western" witnesses rank equally low. (BTW -- it is interesting, although almost irrelevant, to note that in this sample 1739, 1881, and 424** form a group which conforms to *both* halves of the Colwell definition of a text-type: agreement in excess of 70%, *and* a gap of over 10 percentage points. I don't believe in the Colwell definition, but for those who do, it applies to family 1739.) "But," you might say, "1739 has many characteristically 'Western' readings." Yes, it does -- some. But it has more readings characteristic of other types. Using the same sample, and looking for readings where 1739 has 5 or fewer supporters, we learn that there are a total of 41 (none of which, BTW, are singular -- and interesting comment on the care with which 1739 was copied). Listing these, we find the number of agreements 1739 has in characteristic readings with each of the major mss: P46 12 Aleph 9 A 4 B 16 C 0 D 3 F 1 G 2 K 0 L 0 P 2 Psi 0 6 16 33 3 81 2 104 0 223 0 330 1 365 0 424** 17 436 0 630 10 1175 2 1505 0 1506 1 1881 19 a 1 b 3 d 3 f 0 sa 0 bo 0 arm 3 Again, the agreement with the "Western" manuscripts is trivial, the agreement with the Alexandrians is greater, the agreement with P46 and B is high, and the agreement with 424** and 1881 (as well as 6 and 630, considering that the latter two are heavily Byzantine) is extremely impressive. I could cite many individual instances of the striking agreements of 1739, 6, 424**, and 1881 (plus 0121 0243) with the Alexandrians -- but I think the above is probably enough evidence. :-) The question is not "is 1739 'Western'?" It is not. The question is, "Is Zuntz right (in placing 1739 with P46 B) or am I (in placing 1739 in its own text-type)?" >> >>I did make one mis-statement; I should have said two *early* text-types >>support the word. It has, of course, the support of a third text-type, >>the Byzantine. >> > >But, of course, the Byzantine is fairly late. Exactly my point. >>As for the "Western" type, please do not confuse the nature of the >>"Western" type in Paul with that of Codex Bezae. Even among >>so-called "Western" witnesses, Bezae is extreme. Whereas the "Western" >>text of Paul, although clearly poorer than the other types, is >>relatively close to the original text. > >This is the very heart of the question- What does "relatively close" mean? Agreed. All I am saying is that the "Western" type, in Paul, deserves a fair hearing. Where it stands alone -- as it frequently does -- it is almost certainly secondary. But where it has support from any other major group (P46/B, 1739, Aleph/A/C/33), it deserves strong consideration. >> >>I can't omit that. It's two good text-types (Alexandrian and 1739) against >>one good text-type (B-sa), with the fourth text-type uncertain. > >Again, 1739 does not seem so independent of the Western type. I think I've covered that. :-) I'm curious -- what evidence led you to believe 1739 is "Western"? [ ... ] >>I'll also mention a psychological point. I don't know about anyone >>else, but I'm used to this phrase with PRWTON in place. "To the Jew >>first and also to the Greek" is one of those phrases I remember >>very well. I think we all have a tendency to "protect" readings >>we are used to, and to interpret the internal evidence in their >>favour. (I offer as evidence 1 Corinthians 13:3.) Something to >>think about in assessing internal evidence.... > >Quite true- but just because a phrase is familiar does not make it secondary!! Oh, agreed. I'm just saying we must be aware of the insidious effects of familiarity. :-) -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Oct 1 19:19:22 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA25292; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 19:19:22 -0400 Date: 1 Oct 1997 23:23:11 -0000 Message-ID: <19971001232311.26735.qmail@np.nosc.mil> To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu In-reply-to: <343252B9.5873@uni-muenster.de> (message from Klaus Wachtel on Wed, 01 Oct 1997 13:40:09 +0000) 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: 2696 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- wachtel@uni-muenster.de said: > Believe it or not: the programms > which generated those files don't run on the new computer. So not even > members of the INTF have access to those electronic treasures anymore, > - the price of progress. I am flabbergasted. The magnitude of such a pratfall can scarcely be believed. After investing the effort to collate and keyboard, the data is just discarded? Did no one keep a backup tape? Can't the programs (the source code) be compiled on another machine? If you still have the data somewhere, _I_ could port the software, for heaven's sake. > But the INTF hasn't even got a homepage yet. The http://www.uni-muenster.de/EvangelischeTheologie/Seminare.HTML#NTF was not too hard to find. I just checked and ftp://ftp.uni-muenster.de and http://www.uni-muenster.de both appeared fully functional to me. > there is noone at the > institute who has the time _and_ the knowledge to publish the results > of our work online. Perhaps people have inflated ideas of the effort required. All you have to do is copy some files to some directory accessible by an FTP server, announce the location to some people, and you're published. The ENTMP (or I personally) can provide technical expertise on making things comprehensible or usable. > a lot of problems have to be solved, among them the problem of > copyright What many people are interested in is MS transcriptions or collations. An ancient MS text cannot be copyrighted. What you copyright when you publish something like Text und Textwert is your original arrangement of the data, with your original analysis and commentary. Software used is generally not published with the book, so you never sell the rights to that. Besides, you can produce whatever kind of reports or dumps of the TuT data that you want, oder? > Who of us guys did you contact, Vincent? My memory is cloudy, but I wrote to Aland a couple of times and got one response from a Mitarbeiter delegated to write back. 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 iQCVAwUBNDLbTmCU4mTNq7IdAQEGdgP/bjL/Z/886tpq2DMuI2afPUDuiGjQ9eRo /FcbpliUeA3ocxMc4Up3lTgWAZt+kG9FzKy7VoqD+c/uv7M9raPT88TMLtGEMTEv 6Ov2QP8rttavTFBfd3Tn4Arht0cf/Gg4NzS6dX9MxHRN6yqswuZWhBvDUBHne/XY ZdUjjChDTZQ= =5+eD -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Oct 1 22:14:19 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA26517; Wed, 1 Oct 1997 22:14:18 -0400 Date: Wed, 01 Oct 1997 22:18:44 -0400 (EDT) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: 1739 text (Was: Re: Ro 1:16) X-Sender: jwest@mail.highland.net (Unverified) To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19971001221606.2b2f3990@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: 1334 At 05:23 PM 10/1/97 -0500, you wrote: > >I could cite many individual instances of the striking agreements of >1739, 6, 424**, and 1881 (plus 0121 0243) with the Alexandrians -- >but I think the above is probably enough evidence. :-) And very well done! > >The question is not "is 1739 'Western'?" It is not. The question >is, "Is Zuntz right (in placing 1739 with P46 B) or am I >(in placing 1739 in its own text-type)?" > This merits further attention, I think. > >Agreed. All I am saying is that the "Western" type, in Paul, >deserves a fair hearing. Where it stands alone -- as it >frequently does -- it is almost certainly secondary. But >where it has support from any other major group (P46/B, 1739, >Aleph/A/C/33), it deserves strong consideration. > Indeed it does. >I'm curious -- what evidence led you to believe 1739 is "Western"? > Material I read many years ago now; in a source forgotten. I have requested 1739 from Claremont and will do my own collation. Where did you find your figuers; or was the info. you provided your own examination? "Almost thou persuadest me to" believe in the Alexandrian leanings of 1739; but I will have to check for myself. Thanks for your input. >[ ... ] Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@highland.net From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Oct 2 06:43:47 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id GAA28837; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 06:43:46 -0400 From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" Organization: Divinity Faculty To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 11:45:54 +000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: 1739 text (Was: Re: Ro 1:16) Priority: normal In-reply-to: References: <1.5.4.16.19971001155117.27efa512@mail.highland.net> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.54) Message-ID: <39442DA781A@div.ed.ac.uk> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2135 Bob Waltz wrote (on ms 1739): > As data I offer the following table of rates of agreement. This is > based on a sample of 550 readings. What follows are the rates at > which 1739 agrees with a variety of manuscripts: > > P46 212/374=56.7% > Aleph 342/547=62.5% > A 329/521=63.1% > B 298/464=64.2% > C 214/341=62.8% > D 252/545=46.2% > F 218/467=46.7% > G 223/478=46.7% > K 219/471=46.5% > L 253/539=46.9% > P 289/522=55.4% > Psi 278/537=51.8% > 6 361/525=68.8% > 33 330/535=61.7% > 81 335/543=61.7% > 104 286/547=52.3% > 223 255/547=46.6% > 330 264/544=48.5% > 365 298/532=56.0% > 424** 125/144=86.8% > 436 274/545=50.3% > 630 322/545=59.1% > 1175 305/501=60.9% > 1505 272/541=50.3% > 1506 80/132=60.6% > 1881 432/547=79.0% > a 233/496=47.0% > b 224/475=47.2% > d 226/489=46.2% > f 247/478=51.7% > sa 285/435=65.5% > bo 283/436=64.9% > arm 246/441=55.8% Could you please clarify something that puzzles me? I take it that the two figures separated by a slash-mark are number of agreements/of variation units. If so, why do the variation unit numbers vary so much? Percentages of agreement are meaningful (to the limits of my lights at least) only if the dataset is constant. Could you clarify how you're arriving at/using the numbers? > "But," you might say, "1739 has many characteristically 'Western' > readings." Yes, it does -- some. But it has more readings > characteristic of other types. Using the same sample, and looking > for readings where 1739 has 5 or fewer supporters, we learn that > there are a total of 41 (none of which, BTW, are singular -- > and interesting comment on the care with which 1739 was copied). > > Listing these, we find the number of agreements 1739 has in > characteristic readings with each of the major mss: And how have you established the "characteristic" readings of these individual mss?? 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 Oct 2 09:29:36 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA29703; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 09:29:35 -0400 Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 08:33:58 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19971001221606.2b2f3990@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: 1739 text (Was: Re: Ro 1:16) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1730 On Wed, 01 Oct 1997, Jim West wrote, in part: [ ... ] >>The question is not "is 1739 'Western'?" It is not. The question >>is, "Is Zuntz right (in placing 1739 with P46 B) or am I >>(in placing 1739 in its own text-type)?" >> > >This merits further attention, I think. I'm working on it. :-) It comes down to the question of "What is a text-type?" I'm sure that one could "cook" the definition to make the matter come out either way. To me, though, it appears that 1739 stands alone -- because, in fact, it has certain unique readings, plus special agreements with all three other text-types. [ ... ] > >>I'm curious -- what evidence led you to believe 1739 is "Western"? >> > >Material I read many years ago now; in a source forgotten. I have requested >1739 from Claremont and will do my own collation. Where did you find your >figuers; or was the info. you provided your own examination? The data comes from various sources (miscellaneous collations, the data in UBS and NA, etc.) I put it together myself, and wrote the relevant code. I hope to make both data and software available soon. BTW -- Lake & New published a collation of 1739 in _Six_New_ _Testament_Manuscripts_. If it's good enough for Zuntz, it's good enough for me. :-) For that matter, if you just want to check the readings of 1739, the data in Nestle should prove more than adequate to prove its affinities. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Oct 2 09:29:44 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA29718; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 09:29:43 -0400 Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 08:34:04 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <39442DA781A@div.ed.ac.uk> References: <1.5.4.16.19971001155117.27efa512@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: 1739 text (Was: Re: Ro 1:16) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 4636 On Thu, 2 Oct 1997, "Professor L.W. Hurtado" wrote: >Bob Waltz wrote (on ms 1739): > >> As data I offer the following table of rates of agreement. This is >> based on a sample of 550 readings. What follows are the rates at >> which 1739 agrees with a variety of manuscripts: >> >> P46 212/374=56.7% >> Aleph 342/547=62.5% >> A 329/521=63.1% [...etc... ] >Could you please clarify something that puzzles me? I take it that >the two figures separated by a slash-mark are number of agreements/of >variation units. If so, why do the variation unit numbers vary so >much? Percentages of agreement are meaningful (to the limits of >my lights at least) only if the dataset is constant. Could you >clarify how you're arriving at/using the numbers? I guess habit made this seem obvious to me. :-) You are correct about what the numbers means. Taking P46 as an example, the figure is the number of agreements, 374 is the number of points of variation at which both P46 and 1739 exist. As to why the number vary so much, the reason is that not all the manuscripts exist at all points. Of the most important manuscripts (P46, Aleph, A, B, C, D, G, 33, 1739), only three -- Aleph, 33, 1739 -- are complete, and even *they* (particularly 33) are illegible at some points. Also, the versions are sometimes ambiguous, or (especially in the case of the Bohairic), the versional tradition is itself split. However, it is simply not feasible to restrict ourselves to places where all the manuscripts exist. There would be too little text left to assess. Hurtado is right in that the meaning of numbers varies depending on the sample. (This, BTW, is something most scholars do not lay enough stress on.) This means that one set of numbers -- the rates of agreement for 1739 -- are not enough data *in themselves* to form conclusions. (This, I believe, is the root cause of my disagreement with Zuntz, who really looked only at three manuscripts: P46, B, 1739.) We need the same statistics for all the manuscripts in our sample. But even one set of statistics tells us something about the manuscript we are studying. If our sample is large enough -- and "large enough" generally means "at least 500" -- we can live with the fact of defect in certain manuscripts, as long as we use the same points of variation throughout. >> "But," you might say, "1739 has many characteristically 'Western' >> readings." Yes, it does -- some. But it has more readings >> characteristic of other types. Using the same sample, and looking >> for readings where 1739 has 5 or fewer supporters, we learn that >> there are a total of 41 (none of which, BTW, are singular -- >> and interesting comment on the care with which 1739 was copied). >> >> Listing these, we find the number of agreements 1739 has in >> characteristic readings with each of the major mss: > >And how have you established the "characteristic" readings of these >individual mss?? Simple enough (I'm more or less repeating the description above). If a reading has six or fewer supporters (out of the fifty I studied), it's characteristic (my terminology is "near-singular"). I would note that this differs from the method of Ehrman. My method is mechanical. It is possible, the way I do things, for a "near-singular" have support from (a few members of) multiple text-types. I consider this a price worth paying in exchange for a method which does not rely on an individual's decisions about what is and is not "characteristic." (Obviously this is a point on which Ehrman and I will never agree. My scientific training -- or something -- means that the goal must always be an entirely algorithmic method.) I believe, BTW, that this is the reason why 1739 shows so many more characteristic agreements with P46 and B than with Aleph etc. The P46/B type has only three witnesses -- P46, B, sa. The Alexandrian has many witnesses (Aleph, A, C, 33, 81, 104, 365, 1175, 1962, etc., although many of these are mixed). Thus a reading which has the *unanimous* support of the P46/B type will have fewer supporters than one that has the support of only a fraction of the Alexandrian witnesses. So P46 B inherently have more near-singular readings than, say, Aleph. No doubt that's more answer than anyone wanted, so I'll stop there. :-) -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Oct 2 10:42:05 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA00314; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 10:42:04 -0400 Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 10:46:30 -0400 (EDT) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: 1739 X-Sender: jwest@mail.highland.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19971002104350.2ebf6802@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: 208 Robert, Could you give the authors name of the 1739 collation again, please. Thanks, Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@highland.net From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Oct 2 11:17:37 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA00663; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 11:17:36 -0400 From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" Organization: Divinity Faculty To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 16:19:34 +000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: 1739 text (Was: Re: Ro 1:16) Priority: normal In-reply-to: References: <39442DA781A@div.ed.ac.uk> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.54) Message-ID: <398D2A34391@div.ed.ac.uk> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2125 Bob Waltz wrote in response to my query about his table of agreements/variation-units: > You are correct about what the numbers means. Taking P46 as an > example, the figure is the number of agreements, 374 is the number > of points of variation at which both P46 and 1739 exist. > > As to why the number vary so much, the reason is that not all the > manuscripts exist at all points. Of the most important manuscripts > (P46, Aleph, A, B, C, D, G, 33, 1739), only three -- Aleph, 33, 1739 -- > are complete, and even *they* (particularly 33) are illegible at > some points. Also, the versions are sometimes ambiguous, or > (especially in the case of the Bohairic), the versional > tradition is itself split. Yes, I ran across this problem in my study of Codex W, in attempting to include P45 into the witnesses. When it came to assessing the W-P45 relationship, however, I chose to assess it in comparison to the agreements of any two (or more) of my witnesses *at the variation-units where P45 is extant*, precisely so that we could compare agreements of *all* witnesses on the same units, i.e., over the same data. I also compared agreements of the witnesses other than P45 separately, over all variation-units where they existed (omitting the material beyond Mk 16:8, for similar reasons). I suggest that it is difficult to assess the meaning of % of agreement unless one is comparing % of pretty much the same count. This is esp. so in the Colwell-influenced approach (to which I must plead "guilty"), where the *only* meaning of % figures (e.g., the now controversial "70%") is *comparative* % of agreement. > However, it is simply not feasible to restrict ourselves to places > where all the manuscripts exist. There would be too little text left > to assess. I found 103 variation units in Mark where P45 is extant. If we're dealing with mere scraps, then I suggest that we can't make any meaningful statements about % of agreement. 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 Oct 2 11:45:24 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA00953; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 11:45:23 -0400 Message-ID: <3433DE25.7433@uni-muenster.de> Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 17:47:17 +0000 From: Klaus Wachtel Organization: Institut f. neutestamentliche Textforschung X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Macintosh; I; PPC) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Electronic Texts? References: <19971001232311.26735.qmail@np.nosc.mil> 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: 2930 Vincent Broman wrote: > wachtel@uni-muenster.de said: > > Believe it or not: the programms > > which generated those files don't run on the new computer. So not even > > members of the INTF have access to those electronic treasures anymore, > > - the price of progress. > > I am flabbergasted. The magnitude of such a pratfall can scarcely be believed. > After investing the effort to collate and keyboard, the data is just discarded? > Did no one keep a backup tape? Don't worry, Vincent, the files still exist. But what do you expect them to contain? Full collations? "Text und Textwert" is designed for determining the manuscripts which should be collated in full. > Can't the programs (the source code) > be compiled on another machine? Probably this is possible, but we didn't care for it so far, because the files served their purpose: Those volumes of "Text and Textwert" (Catholic Letters, Pauline Letters, Acts) are published, although only on paper, and we learned or will learn from them, which manuscripts to select for full collation. >If you still have the data somewhere, > _I_ could port the software, for heaven's sake. Thanks for the offer, I'll think about that. > > But the INTF hasn't even got a homepage yet. > > The http://www.uni-muenster.de/EvangelischeTheologie/Seminare.HTML#NTF > was not too hard to find. I just checked and ftp://ftp.uni-muenster.de > and http://www.uni-muenster.de both appeared fully functional to me. I wouldn't call our address a homepage. > > there is noone at the > > institute who has the time _and_ the knowledge to publish the results > > of our work online. > > Perhaps people have inflated ideas of the effort required. > All you have to do is copy some files to some directory accessible > by an FTP server, announce the location to some people, > and you're published. The ENTMP (or I personally) can provide > technical expertise on making things comprehensible or usable. Thank you, but I think you overestimate the technical aspect of publishing. Texts have to be written, information has to be kept up to date, comments and questions have to be answered. And I think, not many would be happy with databases published as a mere matrices. So programs have to be written which enable people to search them. > > > a lot of problems have to be solved, among them the problem of > > copyright > What you copyright > when you publish something like Text und Textwert is your original > arrangement of the data, with your original analysis and commentary. > Software used is generally not published with the book, so > you never sell the rights to that. Besides, you can produce > whatever kind of reports or dumps of the TuT data that you want, oder? Partly right, although publishers, in case of TuT deGruyter, may be of a different opinion in this respect. Klaus Wachtel, INTF From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Oct 2 12:41:46 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA01651; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 12:41:45 -0400 Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 11:46:16 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19971002104350.2ebf6802@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: 1739 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 784 On Thu, 02 Oct 1997, Jim West wrote: >Robert, > >Could you give the authors name of the 1739 collation again, please. Kirsopp Lake & Silva New, Six Collations of New Testament Manuscripts. (1932) Collated by Morton S. Enslin from photographs by R.P. Blake. I'm afraid I don't have the publisher at hand. For a fuller (though by no means complete!) bibliography of material on 1739, see the article on that manuscript at the web site below. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Oct 2 12:59:19 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA01834; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 12:59:18 -0400 Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 12:03:48 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <398D2A34391@div.ed.ac.uk> References: <39442DA781A@div.ed.ac.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: 1739 text (Was: Re: Ro 1:16) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 4486 On Thu, 2 Oct 1997, "Professor L.W. Hurtado" wrote: >Bob Waltz wrote in response to my query about his table of >agreements/variation-units: >> You are correct about what the numbers means. Taking P46 as an >> example, the figure is the number of agreements, 374 is the number >> of points of variation at which both P46 and 1739 exist. >> >> As to why the number vary so much, the reason is that not all the >> manuscripts exist at all points. Of the most important manuscripts >> (P46, Aleph, A, B, C, D, G, 33, 1739), only three -- Aleph, 33, 1739 -- >> are complete, and even *they* (particularly 33) are illegible at >> some points. Also, the versions are sometimes ambiguous, or >> (especially in the case of the Bohairic), the versional >> tradition is itself split. > >Yes, I ran across this problem in my study of Codex W, in attempting >to include P45 into the witnesses. When it came to assessing the >W-P45 relationship, however, I chose to assess it in comparison to >the agreements of any two (or more) of my witnesses *at the >variation-units where P45 is extant*, precisely so that we could >compare agreements of *all* witnesses on the same units, i.e., over >the same data. This is, of course, ideal -- but it won't work if we use large groups of manuscripts. Not when we have so many witnesses to deal with. And we must, if we are to understand all text-types, study the entire tradition, not just selected samples. If we compare, say, P46 and B where they both exist, and then P46 and A where *they* both exist, we wind up with incommensurate numbers. I studied fifty manuscripts. If I took only the points of variation where all fifty exist, I would have ended up with something like three readings. The warning here is that we must not prejudge our results based on one set of statistics. (Particularly since I only gave you about a third of the data I generated.) To judge the relationship between 1739 and P46, for instance, we must look at the complete data for *both* 1739 *and* P46 -- each compiled over the points of variation where the individual manuscripts exist. Also recall that my goal is not the same as Hurtado's. He was assessing the relationship between P45, W, and the "Caesarean" witnesses. I agree that he managed to break the link between P45/W and the others. But that is a limited objective. I'm trying for something larger. >I also compared agreements of the witnesses other than P45 >separately, over all variation-units where they existed (omitting the >material beyond Mk 16:8, for similar reasons). As did I -- I just didn't publish them all here. The results take up 200K! >I suggest that it is difficult to assess the meaning of % of >agreement unless one is comparing % of pretty much the same count. Agreed, more or less. However, "pretty much" is vague. I would maintain that, in 550 readings, a shift of +/- 100 readings can qualify "pretty much." The difference between samples means that a difference between, say, agreement rates of 45% and 48% means nothing. (It wouldn't mean much even if the samples were identical.) But the difference between 45% (the rate at which 1739 agree with the "Western" witnesses) and 60% (the rate at which it agreed with the Alexandrians) *is* significant. And that's all I'll say on the subject until somebody shows enough mathematical sophistication to tell me how the Central Limits Theorem applies here. :-) >This is esp. so in the Colwell-influenced approach (to which I must >plead "guilty"), where the *only* meaning of % figures (e.g., the now >controversial "70%") is *comparative* % of agreement. >> However, it is simply not feasible to restrict ourselves to places >> where all the manuscripts exist. There would be too little text left >> to assess. >I found 103 variation units in Mark where P45 is extant. If we're >dealing with mere scraps, then I suggest that we can't make any >meaningful statements about % of agreement. Agreed -- but there were very few "scraps" in my list of manuscripts. 103 variants is, in fact, an awfully small number -- but even P46 had many times that many points of variation. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Oct 2 17:09:51 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA03923; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 17:09:50 -0400 Message-Id: <9710022213.AA19229@iris.arcadis.be> Subject: HEBREW SCROLLS PICTURES (was: Hebrew paleography) Date: Jeu, 2 Oct 97 23:16:20 +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: 1725 Deear TC-ers, Following my query about my hebrew scrolls, Jimmy Adair kindly offered to put pictures of them on the TC web site, so that they can be examined. A picture of each of the scrolls is now available at the following locations: http://purl.org/TC/extras/scroll1.gif http://purl.org/TC/extras/scroll2.gif scroll1.gif This is the scroll I was speaking about in my previous message. You can notice the irregular and quite "personal" writing. Is it a sign of "antiquity" (between quotation marks because, of course, it's not the writing of the DSS!) or of a special (confessional?) origin? In what measure is it possible to date such a writing? scroll2.gif This is provided for comparison, as a "standard" writing. The writing of this scroll is more conventional. Quite regular, it has the usual features like the "taggin" (the little crowns above letters that are specified by the scribal rules. The scrolls were bought in Damascus (Syria) ten years ago. Both scrolls are not on parchment, but on leather - my scanner is only black and white, otherwise you would see the characteristic brown colour of the animal skin (parchment is usually grey). I've read somewhere (but where? it was long ago...) that it's usual in the East to have scrolls written on skin rather than on parchment. Each of the files takes approximately 300 Kb, so it might take some time to download them before you can view them completely (here in Western Europe, with a 28.8 bps modem, it took 2-3 minutes for each). Thanks to any of you who could provide me any information about my treasures, and also once again thanks to Jimmy Adair for his help in providing the images to you. Greetings, Jean Valentin - Brussels From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Oct 2 18:43:52 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA04450; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 18:43:52 -0400 Message-ID: <3434266F.18FB7F31@accesscomm.net> Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 17:55:44 -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: HEBREW SCROLLS PICTURES (was: Hebrew paleography) X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <9710022213.AA19229@iris.arcadis.be> 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 RAA26682 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2119 Jean VALENTIN wrote: > Deear TC-ers, > > Following my query about my hebrew scrolls, Jimmy Adair kindly offered > to > put pictures of them on the TC web site, so that they can be examined. > A > picture of each of the scrolls is now available at the following > locations: > > http://purl.org/TC/extras/scroll1.gif > http://purl.org/TC/extras/scroll2.gif > > scroll1.gif > This is the scroll I was speaking about in my previous message. You > can > notice the irregular and quite "personal" writing. Is it a sign of > "antiquity" (between quotation marks because, of course, it's not the > writing of the DSS!) or of a special (confessional?) origin? In what > measure is it possible to date such a writing? > > scroll2.gif > This is provided for comparison, as a "standard" writing. The writing > of > this scroll is more conventional. Quite regular, it has the usual > features like the "taggin" (the little crowns above letters that are > specified by the scribal rules. > > The scrolls were bought in Damascus (Syria) ten years ago. Both > scrolls > are not on parchment, but on leather - my scanner is only black and > white, otherwise you would see the characteristic brown colour of the > animal skin (parchment is usually grey). I've read somewhere (but > where? > it was long ago...) that it's usual in the East to have scrolls > written > on skin rather than on parchment. > > Each of the files takes approximately 300 Kb, so it might take some > time > to download them before you can view them completely (here in Western > Europe, with a 28.8 bps modem, it took 2-3 minutes for each). > > Thanks to any of you who could provide me any information about my > treasures, and also once again thanks to Jimmy Adair for his help in > providing the images to you. > They are indeed interesting. They appear to be medieval in style. Thewords are separated and YHWH is in square script and not palaeohebrew. Sure looks like Exodus IV to me....I'll study it a bit more. 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 Thu Oct 2 22:49:48 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA05539; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 22:49:47 -0400 Message-Id: <199710021543.RAA27007@dom.vr.pl> From: "Grzegorz P. Turkanik" To: Subject: Books about Nestle-Aland. Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 17:38:10 +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=Windows-1250 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 499 I have a book called: "The Text of The Old Testament. An Introduction to = the Biblia Hebraica" by Ernst Wurthwein. I find it extremely helpful.=20 My question is: Could you let me know of similar book about Nestle-Aland = - some kind of "Introduction to the Nestle-Aland"? Thanks for your help. Gregor P. Turkanik _____________________________________ student of Biblical studies at Christian Academy of Theology=20 in Warsaw, Poland E-mail: gat@dom.vr.pl _____________________________________ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Oct 3 04:14:53 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id EAA06487; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 04:14:52 -0400 Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 16:19:13 +0800 (WST) From: Timothy John Finney X-Sender: finney@central To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Electronic texts In-Reply-To: <199709260630.CAA23353@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: 797 Bret Rolan asked whether there were any electronic texts of manuscripts. He was pointed to entmp, which was set up for the encouragement of electronic texts of the New Testament. If any of you have one sitting on your desk top send it to us! I have updated the transcription guide which I will send to you if you email me. It's a rehash of the transcription method I used for the papyri and uncials of Hebrews (Peter Robinson's Collate method), with a bit of SGML awareness mixed in. How many electronic texts do we have? The ones Jim West has done for us (i.e., P1 to P4). So after three years we have about one page worth. Sigh. There are also my transcriptions of Hebrews which I promise to make freely available as soon as I hand in my thesis. Two months? Oh wonderful day! Tim Finney. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Oct 3 07:08:27 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id HAA06665; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 07:08:26 -0400 Date: Fri, 03 Oct 1997 07:13:01 -0400 (EDT) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: Books about Nestle-Aland. X-Sender: jwest@mail.highland.net (Unverified) To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19971003071017.244738aa@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 05:38 PM 10/2/97 +0100, you wrote: >I have a book called: "The Text of The Old Testament. An Introduction to the Biblia Hebraica" by Ernst Wurthwein. I find it extremely helpful. >My question is: Could you let me know of similar book about Nestle-Aland - some kind of "Introduction to the Nestle-Aland"? > >Thanks for your help. > >Gregor P. Turkanik Try Kurt Aland's "The Text of the New Testament". In this text ALand discusses not only the methods and practices of NT textual criticism; he also describes the major editions of the Greek NT. >_____________________________________ > >student of Biblical studies >at Christian Academy of Theology >in Warsaw, Poland > >E-mail: gat@dom.vr.pl >_____________________________________ > Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@highland.net From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Oct 3 07:33:01 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id HAA06703; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 07:33:00 -0400 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <85E3D8410116B2D1> Date: Fri, 3 Oct 97 07:38:27 -0500 From: "ROLAN, BRET R" Organization: Reliance To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: 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: 579 Tim Finney said: >Bret Rolan asked whether there were any electronic texts of manuscripts. >He was pointed to entmp, which was set up for the encouragement of >electronic texts of the New Testament. If any of you have one sitting on >your desk top send it to us! . . . > >How many electronic texts do we have? The ones Jim West has done for us >(i.e., P1 to P4). So after three years we have about one page worth. Sigh. Alas, the ENTMP site only displays the following message: "The site is currently being renovated and will be available again shortly. " Bret Rolan From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Oct 3 08:53:55 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA07070; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 08:53:55 -0400 Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 07:58:24 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19971003071017.244738aa@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: Books about Nestle-Aland. Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1625 On Fri, 03 Oct 1997, Jim West wrote: >At 05:38 PM 10/2/97 +0100, you wrote: >>I have a book called: "The Text of The Old Testament. An Introduction to >the Biblia Hebraica" by Ernst Wurthwein. I find it extremely helpful. >>My question is: Could you let me know of similar book about Nestle-Aland - >some kind of "Introduction to the Nestle-Aland"? >> >>Thanks for your help. >> >>Gregor P. Turkanik > >Try Kurt Aland's "The Text of the New Testament". In this text ALand >discusses not only the methods and practices of NT textual criticism; he >also describes the major editions of the Greek NT. With, I might add, extreme and undue emphasis on his own. :-) Seriously, if you believe in the UBS/NA text, you should read Aland & Aland, as well as the Metzger _Textual Commentary_. If at some point you decide to use one of the other hand editions, you should look up Greenlee's _Introduction_. It gives information on how to use the other editions. BTW -- Another question for less experienced TCers on this list. Should the ENTTC include an article on the merits (or lack thereof) of the various NT editions (NA, UBS, Merk, W&H, Von Soden, etc.) They all do have their strengths and weaknesses, and need some knowledge to use. Is this something that concerns people? Thanks. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Oct 3 09:10:39 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA07264; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 09:10:39 -0400 Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 09:15:07 -0400 (EDT) From: Nichael Cramer To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Books about Nestle-Aland. 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: 119 Robert B. Waltz wrote: > Seriously, if you believe in the UBS/NA text, [...] A most curious turn of phrase. ;-) N From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Oct 3 09:16:50 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA07316; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 09:16:49 -0400 From: dwashbur@nyx.net Message-Id: <199710031321.GAA25678@smtp.northlink.com> Comments: Authenticated sender is To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 06:20:35 -7000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Electronic texts 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: 523 Tim Finney wrote: > How many electronic texts do we have? The ones Jim West has done for us > (i.e., P1 to P4). So after three years we have about one page worth. Sigh. ????? Last year I posted transcriptions of 071, 0166, P10 and P22 here and also sent sgml-ready versions to James Tauber. Did he never get around to including them? If that's the case, Tim, contact me off-list and I'll get them to you. Dave Washburn dwashbur@nyx.net http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur/ If you don't know where you're going, don't lead. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Oct 3 09:23:18 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA07408; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 09:23:17 -0400 Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 08:27:45 -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: Re: Books about Nestle-Aland. Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 902 On Fri, 3 Oct 1997, Nichael Cramer wrote: >Robert B. Waltz wrote: > >> Seriously, if you believe in the UBS/NA text, [...] > >A most curious turn of phrase. > > >;-) > >N I suppose it is.... On the other hand, there seem to be people who rely on the UBS text with almost as much fervour as the TR advocates. Whereas I, while I do not think it a bad text, am not fond of its theoretical underpinnings. So I tried to express my reservations, in my "curious" way. :-) If you listen to me long enough, I'm sure you will hear things "curiouser and curiouser." :-) -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Oct 3 09:52:06 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA07793; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 09:52:05 -0400 Message-ID: From: Curt Niccum To: "'tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu'" Subject: RE: HEBREW SCROLLS PICTURES (was: Hebrew paleography) Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 08:58:18 -0500 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: 2977 Jean, I think the differences between your two manuscripts are largely due to age. The script of your first manuscript resembles that of some Spanish manuscripts from the 15th and 16th centuries. The presence of Taggin in the second, of course, suggests a later date. I have little background in "ancient" Hebrew mss (apart from the Dead Sea Scrolls), and most of my exposure has been to rabbinic texts, the scripts of which are often quite different than those of the Tanakh. I am by no means a paleographer, nor the son of a paleographer, so please consider my remarks an uneducated guess or even "a shot in the dark" (if that idiom is familiar to you). I doubt that you will find the expertise you need (unfortunately) on the tc-list. I would suggest contacting one of the European libraries with large Hebraica/Judaica holdings or Professor Malachi Beit-Arie at The School of Library, Archive and Information Studies, The Hebrew University, P.O. Box 1255, Givat Ram Campus, Jerusalem 91904, Israel. Curt Niccum -----Original Message----- From: Jean VALENTIN [SMTP:jgvalentin@arcadis.be] Sent: Thursday, October 02, 1997 4:16 PM To: Liste TC-List Subject: HEBREW SCROLLS PICTURES (was: Hebrew paleography) Deear TC-ers, Following my query about my hebrew scrolls, Jimmy Adair kindly offered to put pictures of them on the TC web site, so that they can be examined. A picture of each of the scrolls is now available at the following locations: http://purl.org/TC/extras/scroll1.gif http://purl.org/TC/extras/scroll2.gif scroll1.gif This is the scroll I was speaking about in my previous message. You can notice the irregular and quite "personal" writing. Is it a sign of "antiquity" (between quotation marks because, of course, it's not the writing of the DSS!) or of a special (confessional?) origin? In what measure is it possible to date such a writing? scroll2.gif This is provided for comparison, as a "standard" writing. The writing of this scroll is more conventional. Quite regular, it has the usual features like the "taggin" (the little crowns above letters that are specified by the scribal rules. The scrolls were bought in Damascus (Syria) ten years ago. Both scrolls are not on parchment, but on leather - my scanner is only black and white, otherwise you would see the characteristic brown colour of the animal skin (parchment is usually grey). I've read somewhere (but where? it was long ago...) that it's usual in the East to have scrolls written on skin rather than on parchment. Each of the files takes approximately 300 Kb, so it might take some time to download them before you can view them completely (here in Western Europe, with a 28.8 bps modem, it took 2-3 minutes for each). Thanks to any of you who could provide me any information about my treasures, and also once again thanks to Jimmy Adair for his help in providing the images to you. Greetings, Jean Valentin - Brussels From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Oct 3 11:30:30 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA08636; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 11:30:29 -0400 From: lakr@netcom.com (lakr) Message-Id: <199710031535.IAA10662@netcom9.netcom.com> Subject: Re: Books about Nestle-Aland. To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 08:35:00 -0700 (PDT) Cc: lakr@netcom.com (lakr) In-Reply-To: from "Robert B. Waltz" at Oct 3, 97 07:58:24 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 700 > BTW -- Another question for less experienced TCers on this list. > Should the ENTTC include an article on the merits (or lack thereof) > of the various NT editions (NA, UBS, Merk, W&H, Von Soden, etc.) > They all do have their strengths and weaknesses, and need some > knowledge to use. Is this something that concerns people? > > Robert B. Waltz > waltzmn@skypoint.com > Yes ! I for one am just getting used to my Nestle/Aland 27 and I am sure I am missing out on, or miss-understanding many of the features. Also, I was under the impression that the UBS and NA were so close there is no benefit to owning both. Is that correct ? Larry Kruper From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Oct 3 12:12:51 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA08912; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 12:12:50 -0400 Date: 3 Oct 1997 16:17:01 -0000 Message-ID: <19971003161701.27296.qmail@np.nosc.mil> To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu In-reply-to: <3433DE25.7433@uni-muenster.de> (message from Klaus Wachtel on Thu, 02 Oct 1997 17:47:17 +0000) 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: 2066 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- wachtel@uni-muenster.de wrote: > the files served their purpose: ... > we learned or will learn from them, which manuscripts to select for full > collation. Their only purpose? The initial crude analysis printed in T.u.T. is a start, but a satisfactory profile analysis and MS classification effort will need to revisit that data in an electronic form, because the dead-tree edition is poorly suited for large-scale processing. > not many > would be happy with databases published as a mere matrices. So programs > have to be written which enable people to search them. Programs exist. Programs can be written by others. E.g. ego. The collation and keyboarding needed to obtain the matrices is the hard part. (Well, thinking clearly about what to do with them is the other hard part, but that doesn't require as much time/money.) The T.u.T. collations, even if only samples, are important achievements of the Institute, but I have a hard time time imagining that no one has transcribed/collated e.g. the sinaitic syriac, P46, or Vaticanus completely. The obstacle to the eventual public release of the machine-readable _data_ underlying the T.u.T., the NA26/27, the UBS3/4, the SQE, the syriac NT materials, the Kurzgefasste Liste, etc. is mainly their status as income-producing property, not the minor technical problems in copying files to a server. Vincent Broman San Diego, California, USA Email: broman at sd.znet.com (home) or spawar.navy.mil or nosc.mil (work) Phone: +1 619 284 3775 Starship: 32d42m22s N 117d14m13s W === PGP protected mail preferred. For public key finger me at np.nosc.mil === -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBNDUaZ2CU4mTNq7IdAQHEVwP/TAKfB57/mH9yYx/CiMfDPad5yLlHyhn3 ISNIwrzjmvafwzAJJ5x510TEXef7vhX3LrsXazgnPrE+uRb+MFZMiyJ9vdjPWxYC NanzSzjMGdsbpQjcpQFH9oSsfl0gc9yu3SStSVYHlpDH4Oo8k/rEQPvuX6Huob7e vfU96LmnvUY= =5BPA -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Oct 3 13:07:49 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA09458; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 13:07:48 -0400 Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 12:12:15 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199710031535.IAA10662@netcom9.netcom.com> References: from "Robert B. Waltz" at Oct 3, 97 07:58:24 am Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Books about Nestle-Aland. Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2070 On Fri, 3 Oct 1997, lakr@netcom.com (lakr) wrote: >Also, I was under the impression that the UBS and NA were so >close there is no benefit to owning both. Is that correct ? > >Larry Kruper Depends on what you want to use them for. As far as the *text* is concerned -- yes, the text is identical; no point in having both. So if you're just looking up the readings of passages, either is fine (although UBS is probably easier to use). On the other hand, if you are interested in TC, then both are useful. UBS has a very limited number of variants, but they are generally important variants, and the apparatus includes many more important manuscripts. It is also an easier apparatus to understand. The NA apparatus, by contrast, has fewer manuscripts but more variants (though by no means a complete list, as a glance at Tischendorf or Von Soden -- or even Merk -- will demonstrate). Thus if you really want to get a feeling for the text and its variants, NA is the way to go. For that matter, I think every aspiring textual critic should also have a copy of Merk. The apparatus is hard to understand, and has a lot of errors, but it has many more variants than NA, and also has a critical (if not always accurate) apparatus of the Latin. As far as the other major editions are concerned, Tischendorf is invaluable but hard to find. Von Soden can only be used if you have the appropriate Secret Decoder Ring (oops, I mean book :-). Souter has an easy-to-read apparatus, but the text is half-Byzantine, half-eclectic, and it doesn't note many variants. The same can be said for Vogels, and it doesn't even have the virtue of an easy-to-understand apparatus. Bover's apparatus is limited to points where other editions disagree. 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 Fri Oct 3 13:07:50 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA09459; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 13:07:49 -0400 Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 12:12:19 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <19971003161701.27296.qmail@np.nosc.mil> References: <3433DE25.7433@uni-muenster.de> (message from Klaus Wachtel on Thu, 02 Oct 1997 17:47:17 +0000) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Electronic Texts? Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2734 On 3 Oct 1997, Vincent Broman wrote: >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > >wachtel@uni-muenster.de wrote: >> the files served their purpose: ... >> we learned or will learn from them, which manuscripts to select for full >> collation. > >Their only purpose? The initial crude analysis printed in T.u.T. is >a start, but a satisfactory profile analysis and MS classification effort >will need to revisit that data in an electronic form, because the dead-tree >edition is poorly suited for large-scale processing. Or even large-scale use. Try, just try, to find the closest relative of, say, 1611 across the entire Pauline corpus. You'll have to look through a dozen or so lists, and you can't even look at just the first two or three items in the lists, because they'll all be fragments.... >> not many >> would be happy with databases published as a mere matrices. So programs >> have to be written which enable people to search them. > >Programs exist. Programs can be written by others. E.g. ego. >The collation and keyboarding needed to obtain the matrices is the hard part. >(Well, thinking clearly about what to do with them is the other hard part, >but that doesn't require as much time/money.) I can confirm this from personal observation. I have databases of my own, and have written various programs to interpret them. I have massively rewritten those programs at least four times now. Even so, I have spent roughly five times as long entering the data as I have spent writing the code. And that's when using someone else's collations. If I'd had to collate the data myself, I'd still be working on it.... >The T.u.T. collations, even if only samples, are important achievements >of the Institute, but I have a hard time time imagining that no one has >transcribed/collated e.g. the sinaitic syriac, P46, or Vaticanus completely. >The obstacle to the eventual public release of the machine-readable _data_ >underlying the T.u.T., the NA26/27, the UBS3/4, the SQE, the syriac NT >materials, the Kurzgefasste Liste, etc. is mainly their status as >income-producing property, not the minor technical problems in copying files >to a server. I can understand using the information to generate revenue. I don't *like* it, but I realize that checking all those manuscripts was a very large job. But I have to agree with Vincent Broman: The information ought to be available electronically. If the Institute staff doesn't want to give it away, *sell* it. That way we can get the information we need, and no trees wasted. :-) 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 Oct 3 15:02:14 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA11396; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 15:02:14 -0400 Message-Id: <199710031906.MAA28696@m8.sprynet.com> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Lewis Reich" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 15:06:53 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: HEBREW SCROLLS PICTURES (was: Hebrew paleography) Priority: normal In-reply-to: <3434266F.18FB7F31@accesscomm.net> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.54) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 662 On 2 Oct 97 at 17:55 Jack Kilmon wrote: > They are indeed interesting. They appear to be medieval in style. > Thewords are separated and YHWH is in square script and not > palaeohebrew. Wouldn't you expect the Tetragrammaton in (Samaritan) palaeohebrew only if it was a Samaritan scroll? > Sure looks like Exodus IV to me....I'll study it a bit more. I think you'll find that scroll 1 is Exodus 19, just before the ten commandments, while scroll 2 is Leviticus 14. What also strikes me as interesting is the apparent lack in scroll 1 of the usual scribed horizontal lines to guide the scribe in forming them letters. Lewis Reich lbr@sprynet.com From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Oct 3 15:33:02 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA11860; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 15:33:02 -0400 Message-ID: <34354B42.9DD8F9EE@accesscomm.net> Date: Fri, 03 Oct 1997 14:45:07 -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: HEBREW SCROLLS PICTURES (was: Hebrew paleography) X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <199710031906.MAA28696@m8.sprynet.com> 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 OAA21589 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 942 Lewis Reich wrote: > On 2 Oct 97 at 17:55 Jack Kilmon wrote: > > > They are indeed interesting. They appear to be medieval in style. > > > Thewords are separated and YHWH is in square script and not > > palaeohebrew. > > Wouldn't you expect the Tetragrammaton in (Samaritan) palaeohebrew > only if it was a Samaritan scroll? No, it was the practice to write YHWH in palaeohebrew. I am sendingyou a gif of 1Qps (psalms Scroll) where if you enlarge the view of the first page (on the right) you will see the palaeohebrew YHWH is the Hasmonean style Hebrew. > > Sure looks like Exodus IV to me....I'll study it a bit more. > > I think you'll find that scroll 1 is Exodus 19, just before the ten > commandments, while scroll 2 is Leviticus 14. I see that now...took a little time to read it. 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 Fri Oct 3 18:13:36 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA13078; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 18:13:35 -0400 Message-Id: <9710032317.AA18018@iris.arcadis.be> Subject: Re: HEBREW SCROLLS PICTURES (was: Hebrew paleography) Date: Sam, 4 Oct 97 00:20:21 +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: 814 >I think you'll find that scroll 1 is Exodus 19, just before the ten >commandments, while scroll 2 is Leviticus 14. > This is right :-) >What also strikes me as interesting is the apparent lack in scroll 1 >of the usual scribed horizontal lines to guide the scribe in forming >them letters. No, they simply don't appear on the scanned image (it's an old, second-hand scanner). But as usually, the horizontal lines are drawn with a dry pen. 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 Fri Oct 3 18:14:51 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA13094; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 18:14:50 -0400 Message-Id: <9710032318.AA18119@iris.arcadis.be> Subject: Re: HEBREW SCROLLS PICTURES (was: Hebrew paleography) Date: Sam, 4 Oct 97 00:21:41 +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: 760 > No, it was the practice to write YHWH in palaeohebrew. I am >sendingyou a gif of 1Qps (psalms Scroll) where if you enlarge the view >of the >first page (on the right) you will see the palaeohebrew YHWH is the >Hasmonean style Hebrew. > Such was the practice in several Dead Sea scrolls and very old manuscripts, but I've never heard or read of that in regular, masoretic manuscripts. 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 Fri Oct 3 20:55:22 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA13576; Fri, 3 Oct 1997 20:55:21 -0400 Message-Id: <199710040059.UAA12297@erebus.rutgers.edu> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Richard D. Weis" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 21:06:22 +0000 Subject: Jean Valentin's MSS 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: 1647 Dear TC-List Members; Concerning the two mss about which Jean Valentin has queried us: 1. They are medieval, but this is indicated by the script, not the use of spaces between the words or the use of square script rather than palaeo-Hebrew for the name of God, as some have suggested. 2. The divine name is also written in square script in the DSS. Note, for example, 1QDeut-b, to mention only the first ms at which I looked. 3. When Jack Kilmon referred to the use of spaces to separate the words, I expect he had Greek mss in mind. The DSS, of course, already used spaces to divide words. 4. Birnbaum's compendium of sample pages of mss remains an important resource for palaeographic dating of medieval mss. 5. One might also profitably consult: Beit-Arie, Malachi. _Hebrew Codicology: Tentative Typology of Technical Practices Employed in Dated Hebrew Medieval Manuscripts._ Paris: Institut de recherche et d'histoire des textes, 1977. Prof. Valentin, if you cannot get access to this last reference work, let me know and I can check it for you for your first scroll (for which I could print out the .gif file). However, it will be a couple of weeks before I will be able to do so. Regards, 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 Sat Oct 4 03:06:50 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id DAA14227; Sat, 4 Oct 1997 03:06:49 -0400 From: REElliott@aol.com Date: Sat, 4 Oct 1997 03:11:23 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <971004031122_1132481037@emout01.mail.aol.com> To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: KJV Only Debate Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 75 Count me in also! Yes, I'm still here! Rich Elliott General Editor, ENTTC From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Oct 4 03:07:13 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id DAA14242; Sat, 4 Oct 1997 03:07:12 -0400 From: REElliott@aol.com Date: Sat, 4 Oct 1997 03:11:46 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <971004031146_-561763186@emout05.mail.aol.com> To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: KJV-onlyism and Talmud of Jmmanuel Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 755 In a message dated 97-09-17 17:16:59 EDT, you write: << 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 >> And yet you offer no evidence to back up what errors Jimmy may have committed. I don't wish to offend any, especially Mr. Meier, but since when does experience and sincerity equal truth as your statement (that begs the question) implies? Mormons make the same fatal error. Let's leave these things and continue on with scholarly examinations and exchanges of ideas in the area of NT TC. Thanks You Rich Elliott From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Oct 4 05:27:41 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id FAA14587; Sat, 4 Oct 1997 05:27:41 -0400 Message-Id: <199710040932.CAA23836@m8.sprynet.com> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Lewis Reich" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Sat, 4 Oct 1997 05:32:51 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: HEBREW SCROLLS PICTURES (was: Hebrew paleography) Priority: normal In-reply-to: <9710032317.AA18018@iris.arcadis.be> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.54) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 963 On 4 Oct 97 at 0:20 Jean VALENTIN wrote: > >What also strikes me as interesting is the apparent lack in scroll 1 > >of the usual scribed horizontal lines to guide the scribe in forming > >them letters. > No, they simply don't appear on the scanned image (it's an old, > second-hand scanner). But as usually, the horizontal lines are drawn > with a dry pen. I didn't do a good job of communicating my thought here. I didn't, of course, expect to see the lines themselves.. However, where they are used, usually the letters are aligned in such a way as to make their presence obvious. In scroll 1, that sort of alignment is not evident. That is, although the lines of letters appears to be straight, neither their tops nor bottoms seem to be aligned with a single horizontal line. Since they are there visible on the original I do find it interesting that the scribe did not follow this practice. Lewis Reich lbr@sprynet.com From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Oct 4 05:43:17 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id FAA14619; Sat, 4 Oct 1997 05:43:16 -0400 Message-Id: <199710040947.CAA24664@m8.sprynet.com> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Lewis Reich" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Sat, 4 Oct 1997 05:48:26 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: HEBREW SCROLLS PICTURES (was: Hebrew paleography) Priority: normal In-reply-to: <9710032318.AA18119@iris.arcadis.be> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.54) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 841 On 4 Oct 97 at 0:21 Jean VALENTIN wrote: > > No, it was the practice to write YHWH in palaeohebrew. I am > >sendingyou a gif of 1Qps (psalms Scroll) where if you enlarge the view > >of the first page (on the right) you will see the palaeohebrew YHWH is the > >Hasmonean style Hebrew. > Such was the practice in several Dead Sea scrolls and very old > manuscripts, but I've never heard or read of that in regular, > masoretic manuscripts. Nor I; the reason I suggested that it might be Samaritan is that they were the only group I was aware of who continued to use a palaeohebrew for the Tetragrammaton into later times. Unfortunately, the image as displayed onmy computer is not clear enough for me to tell whether it is the rather distinctive development of palaeohebrew used by the Samaritans. Lewis Reich lbr@sprynet.com From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Oct 4 13:21:38 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA15594; Sat, 4 Oct 1997 13:21:37 -0400 Date: Sat, 4 Oct 1997 10:26:08 -0700 (PDT) From: Jim Deardorff To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: KJV-onlyism and Talmud of Jmmanuel In-Reply-To: <971004031146_-561763186@emout05.mail.aol.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1169 On Sat, 4 Oct 1997 REElliott@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 97-09-17 17:16:59 EDT, you write: > > << 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 >> > And yet you offer no evidence to back up what errors Jimmy may have > committed. > I don't wish to offend any, especially Mr. Meier, but since when does > experience and sincerity equal truth as your statement (that begs the > question) implies? Rich, I didn't expand on the falsehoods & misimpressions because the rest of the TC-List who spoke out aren't interested in any more discussion of text evidence that emerged only recently, lacks the origins scrolls, or that is sensational in character. The errors weren't Jimmy's fault; he was just paraphrasing from a debunker's website. In fact, I'm quite surprised you re-raised the issue. If you're sincerely interested, e-mail me privately and I'll give you the web sites and follow-up info. Jim Deardorff From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Oct 4 15:51:37 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA16117; Sat, 4 Oct 1997 15:51:36 -0400 From: "Peter R. Burton" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Jean Valentin's MSS Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Mailer: POPmail 2.3b7 Message-Id: <34369f533c83196@mhub1.tc.umn.edu> Date: Sat, 4 Oct 97 14:56:03 -0500 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 761 Subject: Jean Valentin's and other medieval Hebrew MSS Dear TC-List Members Richard Weis has recommended a book by Prof. Beit-AriŽ. A more recent collection of his work is his very helpful <> The Magnes Press, The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1993 ISBN 965-223-804-X - distributed by The Magnes Press, P.O. Box 7695, Jerusalem 91076. It is particularly useful for learning criteria to date medieval Hebrew mss and to determine their original locations. If it is not already covered in the electronic journal, I highly recommend it. Codicology is lacking in most Hebrew programs I have seen. This book begins to fill the gap. Peter Burton burto009@maroon.tc.umn.edu From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Oct 5 21:28:50 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA20476; Sun, 5 Oct 1997 21:28:49 -0400 Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 09:32:56 +0800 (WST) From: Timothy John Finney X-Sender: finney@central To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: entmp holdings In-Reply-To: <199710041721.NAA15613@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: 734 I wrote: > How many electronic texts do we have? The ones Jim West has done for us > (i.e., P1 to P4). So after three years we have about one page worth. Sigh. Then Dave Wahburn wrote: > ????? Last year I posted transcriptions of 071, > 0166, P10 and P22 > here and also sent sgml-ready versions to James Tauber. Did he never > get around to including them? If that's the case, Tim, contact me > off-list and I'll get them to you. My apologies Dave. So we now have P1, P2, P3, P4, P10, P22, U71, and U166. James is presently renovating the entmp site. He is a busy man so it is hard to say when it will be online again. Best regards, Tim Finney. PhD student. Baptist Theological College (W. Aust.) and Murdoch University. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Oct 5 23:12:08 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id XAA20710; Sun, 5 Oct 1997 23:12:07 -0400 From: dwashbur@nyx.net Message-Id: <199710060316.UAA00486@smtp.northlink.com> Comments: Authenticated sender is To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Sun, 5 Oct 1997 20:15:56 -7000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: entmp holdings 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: 960 Tim Finney wrote: > I wrote: > > > How many electronic texts do we have? The ones Jim West has done for us > > (i.e., P1 to P4). So after three years we have about one page worth. > Sigh. > > Then Dave Wahburn wrote: > > > ????? Last year I posted transcriptions of 071, > > 0166, P10 and P22 > > here and also sent sgml-ready versions to James Tauber. Did he never > > get around to including them? If that's the case, Tim, contact me > > off-list and I'll get them to you. > > My apologies Dave. No sweat. Reading back over my post, I now see that it probably sounded an awful lot like an ego thing. I certainly didn't mean it that way, I just wanted to be sure the transcriptions are in the hands of those who need them. I offer my own apologies for coming across in such a way. I'll dig them out again and get them to you ASAP. Dave Washburn dwashbur@nyx.net http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur/ If you don't know where you're going, don't lead. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Oct 6 02:42:02 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id CAA21104; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 02:42:02 -0400 From: "Dr Johann Cook" Organization: University of Stellenbosch To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 08:54:41 GMT+0200 Subject: Re: HEBREW SCROLLS PICTURES (was: Hebrew paleography) X-Confirm-Reading-To: "Dr Johann Cook" X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.40) Message-ID: <4804BBC4C69@SEMT.sun.ac.za> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1347 > Subject: Re: HEBREW SCROLLS PICTURES (was: Hebrew paleography) > Date: Sam, 4 Oct 97 00:21:41 +0200 > From: Jean VALENTIN > To: > Reply-to: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu > > No, it was the practice to write YHWH in palaeohebrew. I am > >sendingyou a gif of 1Qps (psalms Scroll) where if you enlarge the view > >of the > >first page (on the right) you will see the palaeohebrew YHWH is the > >Hasmonean style Hebrew. > > > Such was the practice in several Dead Sea scrolls and very old > manuscripts, but I've never heard or read of that in regular, masoretic > manuscripts. > > 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" > _________________________________________________ > Beste Jean Ek mis u fraaie Afrikaanse gesegde! Wil u dit tog weer gebruik! Met vriendelike groete > 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 Mon Oct 6 07:01:36 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id HAA21696; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 07:01:35 -0400 From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" Organization: Divinity Faculty To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 12:03:18 +000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: HEBREW SCROLLS PICTURES (was: Hebrew paleography) Priority: normal In-reply-to: <9710032318.AA18119@iris.arcadis.be> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.54) Message-ID: <3F4906433E9@div.ed.ac.uk> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 441 On abbreviations of YHWH in Hebrew biblical mss, see the following: --M. Delcor, "Des diverse manieres d'ecrire le tetragramme sacre dans les anciens documents hebraiques," RHR 147(1955): 145-73. --J. Z. Lauterbach, "Substitutes for the Tetragrammaton," PAAJR (1930-31): 39-67. 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 Mon Oct 6 07:53:12 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id HAA21849; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 07:53:11 -0400 Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 07:57:48 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: MS 1346 and Swanson 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: 988 Gentlemen, I have collated MS 1346 as regards the pericope adultera here in Muenster, and have compared my collation with that of Swanson in his volumes, and it appears that whatever MS Swanson collated thinking it was 1346, it definitely was _not_ 1346 (at least for the pericope adultera); the Muenster MS is definitely 1346, and it differs dramatically in that pericope from Swanson's data. I so far have not identified which MS pertains to Swanson's 1346, but am wondering if (assuming Swanson got his microfilms from Claremont) whether the one in the 1346 box might have been the wrong one. Is there anyone in or around Claremont who might be able to check on this possibility? _________________________________________________________________________ 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 Oct 6 08:16:20 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA21919; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 08:16:19 -0400 X-Sender: schmid@ns1.nias.knaw.nl Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 14:19:07 +0100 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: schmiul@nias.knaw.nl (U. Schmid) Subject: Re: MS 1346 and Swanson Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1104 On Mon, 6 oct 1997, Maurice Robinson wrote: >Gentlemen, > >I have collated MS 1346 as regards the pericope adultera here in Muenster, >and have compared my collation with that of Swanson in his volumes, and it >appears that whatever MS Swanson collated thinking it was 1346, it >definitely was _not_ 1346 (at least for the pericope adultera); the >Muenster MS is definitely 1346, and it differs dramatically in that >pericope from Swanson's data. > >I so far have not identified which MS pertains to Swanson's 1346, but am >wondering if (assuming Swanson got his microfilms from Claremont) whether >the one in the 1346 box might have been the wrong one. Is there anyone in >or around Claremont who might be able to check on this possibility? I have no idea about the Claremont boxes, but I'm pretty sure that Swanson's MS 1346 in fact is MS 346. You can easily check my suggestion by comparing 346 at the pericope you are examining right now. You may also ask Wolgang Richter at the Institute for further information on Swanson's MS 1346. Ulrich Schmid, Netherlands Institute for Advanced Studies From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Oct 6 15:13:19 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA25638; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 15:13:19 -0400 Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19971006192124.00673274@sd.znet.com> X-Sender: gipe@sd.znet.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 06 Oct 1997 12:21:24 -0700 To: From: Mark Gipe Subject: Substitutes for the Tetragrammaton - Hurtado Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 509 I am new to the TC list. I have only been reading it for about a week now. I find it interresting. Could you please tell me what PAAJR stands for in the posting about the book "Substitutes for the Tetragrammaton". I am working on a book about an old Hebrew manuscript of Matthew known of the Du Tillet text. In this manuscript it uses the substitute of three yods. I am looking for the oldest known manuscript that uses three yods. If any one can help with this ----Thanks alot. Mark Gipe Gipe@sd.znet.com From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Oct 6 15:43:17 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA25959; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 15:43:16 -0400 Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 15:43:15 -0400 (EDT) From: "James R. Adair" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Substitutes for the Tetragrammaton - Hurtado In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19971006192124.00673274@sd.znet.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: 520 On Mon, 6 Oct 1997, Mark Gipe wrote: > Could you please tell me what PAAJR stands for in the posting about the book > "Substitutes for the Tetragrammaton". Proceedings of the American Academy of Jewish Research. For this and other common abbreviations, see http://purl.org/TC/TC-abbrev.html, accessible from the Instructions for Contributors page, linked to on the TC home page. Jimmy Adair General Editor of TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism -------------------> http://purl.org/TC <-------------------- From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Oct 6 17:30:08 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA27008; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 17:30:07 -0400 Message-Id: <9710062233.AA00355@iris.arcadis.be> Subject: Re: Substitutes for the Tetragrammaton - Hurtado Date: Lun, 6 Oct 97 23:37:02 +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: 718 >I am working on a book about an old >Hebrew manuscript of Matthew known of the Du Tillet text. In this manuscript >it uses the substitute of three yods. I am looking for the oldest known >manuscript that uses three yods. What are your conclusions about that text ? I'm working on it too and my impression is that it's translated from an old latin text. _________________________________________________ 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 Mon Oct 6 18:05:52 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA27120; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 18:05:51 -0400 Message-Id: <9710062309.AA03206@iris.arcadis.be> Subject: Daar is ie weer Date: Mar, 7 Oct 97 00:12:45 +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: 521 And for those who don't understand Dutch: there it is again, at the general demand ;-) _________________________________________________ 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" "Wat te eenvoudig is, is verkeerd; wat te ingewikkeld is, is onbruikbaar" _________________________________________________ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Oct 7 02:15:26 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id CAA28962; Tue, 7 Oct 1997 02:15:25 -0400 From: "Dr Johann Cook" Organization: University of Stellenbosch To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 08:28:29 GMT+0200 Subject: Re: Daar is ie weer X-Confirm-Reading-To: "Dr Johann Cook" X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.40) Message-ID: <497DCC312CD@SEMT.sun.ac.za> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 981 > Subject: Daar is ie weer > Date: Mar, 7 Oct 97 00:12:45 +0200 > From: Jean VALENTIN > To: "Liste TC-List" > Reply-to: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu > And for those who don't understand Dutch: there it is again, at the > general demand ;-) > > > _________________________________________________ > 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" > "Wat te eenvoudig is, is verkeerd; wat te ingewikkeld is, is onbruikbaar" > _________________________________________________ Dank u wel!! > > 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 Wed Oct 8 01:42:44 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id BAA05868; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 01:42:43 -0400 Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19971008055102.0067ce80@sd.znet.com> X-Sender: gipe@sd.znet.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 07 Oct 1997 22:51:02 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: Mark Gipe Subject: Re: Substitutes for the Tetragrammaton - Hurtado Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1490 Jean Valentin wrote about the Du tillet Hebrew text of Matthew >What are your conclusions about that text ? I'm working on it too and my >impression is that it's translated from an old latin text. Mark Gipe's reply is About the Du tillet Hebrew text of Matthew Where did it come from? From a Hebrew original, translation from Greek, from Latin, from Aramaic? Well I have been working on this project for some time now. I have the whole Hebrew text entered into my computer. I have the English translation on the facing face. I still have questions.....maybe someone can be of some help? What other text of the NT book of Matthew has all 42 names in the genealogy? I know the Curetonian has ")bywr" = "Aviur" which is a combination of "Avihud and Avner" which the Du tillet text has in Matt 1:13. Why does the text use Aramaic phrases in places that no other manuscript does, such as in Matt 11:12 where you find "mkryxyn gwzlyn" meaning ( the forceful are robbing). Why use Aramaic in this verse when most of the text is in Hebrew? No other text that I know of has Aramaic in this verse. What other text has "My God my God why have you forgotten me" in Matt 27:46 in place of "My God my God why have you forsaken me" ? If you can answer these 3 questions. Which texts? Which language? I have a lot more questions that I would like answers too. Sorry I do not have the time to write more now. See you later LEHITRAOT Todah Rabah BeYeshua Mark Gipe gipe@sd.znet.com From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Oct 8 01:51:00 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id BAA05894; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 01:50:59 -0400 Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19971008055921.00674f74@sd.znet.com> X-Sender: gipe@sd.znet.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 07 Oct 1997 22:59:21 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: Mark Gipe Subject: Du tillet text of Matthew - Revised reply Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1594 Jean Valentin wrote about the Du tillet Hebrew text of Matthew >What are your conclusions about that text ? I'm working on it too and my >impression is that it's translated from an old latin text. Mark Gipe's revised reply is NICE to know that you are working on the text!! Maybe you can be of help to me and I to you? About the Du tillet Hebrew text of Matthew Where did it come from? From a Hebrew original, translation from Greek, from Latin, from Aramaic? Well I have been working on this project for some time now. I have the whole Hebrew text entered into my computer. I have the English translation on the facing page. I still have questions.....maybe someone can be of some help? What other text of the NT book of Matthew has all 42 names in the genealogy? I know the Curetonian has ")bywr" = "Aviur" which is a combination of "Avihud and Avner" which the Du tillet text has in Matt 1:13. Why does the text use Aramaic phrases in places that no other manuscript does, such as in Matt 11:12 where you find "mkryxyn gwzlyn" meaning ( the forceful are robbing). Why use Aramaic in this verse when most of the text is in Hebrew? No other text that I know of has Aramaic in this verse. What other text has "My God my God why have you forgotten me" in Matt 27:46 in place of "My God my God why have you forsaken me" ? If you can answer these 3 questions. Which texts? Which language? I have a lot more questions that I would like answers too. Sorry I do not have the time to write more now. See you later LEHITRAOT Todah Rabah BeYeshua Mark Gipe gipe@sd.znet.com > From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Oct 8 06:47:49 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id GAA06904; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 06:47:49 -0400 Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 06:52:29 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: MS 1346 and Swanson 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: 1029 On Mon, 6 Oct 1997, U. Schmid wrote: > I'm pretty sure that > Swanson's MS 1346 in fact is MS 346. I now have checked MS 346 and, while it does agree with Swanson in many more particulars than did MS 1346 which Swanson claimed, it too has still some differences which are not recorded in Swanson, even though they should have been in light of Swanson supposedly covering all variants. Examples (MS 346 readings which are NOT included by Swanson in his claimed MS 1346 collation within the pericope adultera): Swanson ) MS 346 7:53 aphlqon ) aphlqen 8:4 ep auto forw ) ep autw tw fwrw 8:6 mh prospoioumenos ) mh prosioumenos (sic) 8:8 omit katw ... elegcomenoi ) include all 8:11 eipen auth ) kai o IC eipen auth 8:11 katakrinw ) katekrinw The other readings within the pericope which Swanson cites for 1346 are typical of Fam.13, and MS 346 basically agrees with those others as would be expected. But I still am not convinced that Swanson's 1346 is actually 346 unless Swanson greatly erred in his collations. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Oct 8 10:42:51 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA07877; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 10:42:50 -0400 Date: 8 Oct 1997 14:46:40 -0000 Message-ID: <19971008144640.7640.qmail@np.nosc.mil> To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu In-reply-to: (message from Maurice Robinson on Wed, 8 Oct 1997 06:52:29 -0400 (EDT)) Subject: Re: MS 1346 and Swanson From: Vincent Broman Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1262 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- mrobinsn@mercury.interpath.com wrote: > But I still am not convinced that Swanson's 1346 is actually > 346 unless Swanson greatly erred in his collations. Previous authorities classified 1346 in family Pi and 346 in family 13, but Swanson claimed 1346 was in f13. My cursory comparison of the text of 1346-according-to-Swanson indicated that it agreed with fPi in stretches and with f13 in stretches, suggesting block mixture. Could it be that Swanson mixed together the two texts by some unusual secretarial blunder? If we don't come up with an explanation soon, I'll try to telephone Swanson at home sometime. Vincent Broman San Diego, California, USA Email: broman at sd.znet.com (home) or spawar.navy.mil or nosc.mil (work) Phone: +1 619 284 3775 Starship: 32d42m22s N 117d14m13s W === PGP protected mail preferred. For public key finger me at np.nosc.mil === -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBNDuciWCU4mTNq7IdAQEe9QQAn4SPVPLniqQkZbS/hDbMxdAM25yVpYyk xdvRHgDxFgtiOQkTX2GdsUIB8YwUCwkZLs+ecPfwE9R0cFl41cWHWPEOMrc5vxJr yJgV31auDKEdTBZpcDgxuQxBidVxdc19Nqc1yu/baEAOrUtLKS7PptamlRtKmA8R bMacMwLtOH8= =WHRe -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Oct 8 18:51:49 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA12162; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 18:51:49 -0400 Message-Id: <9710082355.AA03146@iris.arcadis.be> Subject: tc-list Re: Du tillet text of Matthew Date: Jeu, 9 Oct 97 00:58:51 +0200 X-Sender: vale5655@mail.arcadis.be X-Mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1 From: Jean VALENTIN To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 14481 > >Mark Gipe's revised reply is > >NICE to know that you are working on the text!! Maybe you can be of help = to >me and I to you? > >About the Du tillet Hebrew text of Matthew > Before saying something about the questions you are asking, I will = make a brief summary about what we're talking about, since this = manuscript might not be known to those who practice textual criticism = mainly on Greek manuscripts. In 1555, Jean du Tillet published in Paris the text of a hebrew = manuscript containing a version of the Gospel according to Matthew. = Yes, I believe it is a version and nothing else, and I will justify = this later. This manuscript he apparently got during a trip to Italy, and it is = now stored in the Bibliotheque Nationale in Paris (Paris, BN Hebrew = 132). I have a microfilm of this manuscript and in my free time = (usually, I work on the Eastern versions) I explore this interesting = text. Several theories have been emitted concerning this text. Some believe = it represents the original text of Mt, others have linked it to the = mysterious version handed down by the Spanish rabbi Ben Shaphrut = (though this version has a quite different vocabulary). Compared to the album of hebrew paleography of S. Birnbaum, the = writing is Italian and belongs to the Renaissance. Maybe the ms was = copied for du Tillet himself? >Where did it come from? From a Hebrew original, translation from Greek, = from >Latin, >from Aramaic? Well I have been working on this project for some time now. = I >have the >whole Hebrew text entered into my computer. I have the English translation >on the facing >page. I still have questions.....maybe someone can be of some help? > How can we ascertain the "Vorlage" of a version? This point has been = discussed several times on the list before you joined us, and it = would be long (and unnecessary to most members of the list) to = discuss this in detail again. Briefly: (1) variants can be misleading. Suppose several variants survive only = in manuscripts of one language (whether it be greek, latin or = syriac). This doesn't prove that the version you're studying was = translated from that language, as those variants may have existed in = other, lost, manuscripts in other languages. For example, several = latin or syriac variants, though today we meet them only in mss of = those languages, may have existed in greek manuscripts. Also, and = I've met this often in Arabic versions, a scribe that is translating = from one language can be influenced by another text that he has in = mind if this text or version is the one that is usually used in the = liturgy of his church. For example, there are Arabic versions that = are indiscutably translated from Greek, but in which you will find = many Syriac and Syropalestinian variants. To take the example of the = Melkite church: The Greek had the prestige of being the original = language of the Gospels and in making a translation, it was necessary = to go to the Greek text. Also, Greek was the official language of the = Byzantine world, and was used in the educated circles of that church. = So, when translating, they would use the Greek text. But many monks = and scribes, when they were not at work in their scriptorium, would, = during all their life, go the office where the text would be read in = Syriac or in Syropalestinian, and knowing those versions by heart, = they were prone to introduce variants from these versions in the = Arabic versions they were prepairing. The influence of liturgy on the = copying of the texts is powerful. All this to say that variants shouldn't be taken into account when = trying to determine the "vorlage" of a version (unless they = _massively_ and _unequivocally_ attests a _well-known_ text-type, and = this is very rare). (2) The best way for finding the language of the model (the = "source"-language) is to wait until you find constructions that are = incorrect in the "target"-language. Generally, the biblical text = being viewed as sacred, it is translated quite literally and often, = strange constructions appear. There are exceptions to this rule. = There are translators that take the effort of writing in a correct = language, but most often you can "catch" them at some point. Also, = sometimes, not only do they translate (too) litterally, but they make = mistakes or nonsenses that are very useful. In such a case, with some = thinking, it can be easy to reconstruct the intellectual path that = led to the mistake made by the translator. I will give some example from an Arabic version on which I'm working, = then we will proceed to the text of Paris hebrew 132. (My excuses to the other participants, I have to repeat things that = we've discussed earlier). Sinai Arabic 71 is a manuscript from the Xth century. It contains = dozens of interesting variants, that you will find in all possible = greek text-types and versions. Sometimes it shares unique variants = with versions like the old syriac, the georgian, the syropalestinian, = or texts that are more remote like the latin versions or the persian = diatessaron for example. But we have the chance that the translator = has made some blunders. Look at a few that I've selected: (a) In Mt 23.5, he translated "phylakteria" by a strange word : = ah.faz. (I put the points of the emphatics after their letter because = in e-mail it's impossible to put them under!) This word simply = doesn't exist in Arabic, it means nothing. But it comes from the root = h.fz., which means "to keep". What happened? The translator didn't = know the meaning of this technical term coming from judaism, but = could recognize its etymologycal derivation (phylasso =3D "to keep"). = So he made an etymological pseudo-translation, leaving to his reader = the care to understand... But this eliminates also the two other = candidate languages that were in use in his church, syriac and = syropalestinian, as in none of the version that exist in those = languages, the word "phylakteria" is translated by a derivative of a = root meaning "to keep". So at this point we can be certain that the = translator worked on a Greek text, and that he didn't consult another = text in another language, since neither syriac nor syropalestinian = could suggest him the notion of "keeping" (syr: tephle, like the = hebrew tephillin; sypal: emrotho, from the root 'mr "to say"). (b) In Mt 26.18, the greek word "deina" (go to the house of _"such"_) = is a hapax. This word being rare, the translator doesn't understand = it. He simply transliterates it and writes in Arabic characters: = "deina"!. Here also, the mistake is possible only from Greek. The = syriac and syropalestinian texts all have a derivative of the root = f-l-n (it exists also in Hebrew: pilon), a root that also exists in = Arabic with the same meaning, so he would have understood it. So here = again, we have a mistake that finds its explanation only in one = "source"-language. Had I followed only the variants of this text, I would have decreted = that it was translated from a vetus syra or some unknown vetus = palaestina (?), but this above (and other evidence) is contriving. Of = course, not all tranlstors make such mistakes. There are intelligent = translators that produce intelligible versions (such, in fact, is = mostly the case), but here I was lucky to find a careless translator. Now to our HEBREW text. There are not such visible things as in my = Arabic ms, but nevertheless I have noticed several interesting things. (1) If you compare the text of Paris Heb. 132 with any greek text, = you will notice a strange oscillation between the determination and = the indetermination. There are many cases where the greek has an = article before a noun, and the hebrew doesn't, and reversely. How can = we account for such a feature? Here are some examples: 3.7 min perushim w-min s.eduqim >< _TWN_ pharisaiwn kai saddoukaiwn 6.32 goyim >< _TA_ ethnh 14.15 el kefarim >< esi _TAS_ kwmas 3.8 HA-peri HA-ra'uy >< karpon axion 4.18 ETH-HA-reshet >< amphiblhstron 7.9 ETH-HA-leh.em >< arton And there are many more. Have you noticed them? Now, how can we = account for this? If the translator had a greek text under his eyes, = he would have put an article in Hebrew where it was in Greek, and = none where there was none (and, for those who hold that the hebrew = text is the original from which the greek was translated, the same = holds of course). There is an explanation for this. The translator was working from a = language that has no article, and as hebrew has an article, he had to = restitute them using his own logic. But of course, it was impossible = for him to have 100% of agreement with the greek text because he = didn't consult it. Many languages have no article (ethiopic, georgian, and even syriac = where the difference between determinate and undeterminate is = blurred). But the first to which I think for a western manuscript is = latin. Are there other syntactic features that will add evidence? Yes there = are: - There are cases of participal constructions, a construction that is = (horribly!) un-hebrew, but that exists in Greek and Latin: 2.16 az Horodos ro'eh : then, Herodes seeing... 12.2 W-ha-perushim ha-ro'im : and, the pharisees seeing... 17.5 (odam medabberim : they still speaking... And there are others. The participial phrase is impossible in hebrew, = but it betrays the literal translation of a greek or latin model = (here, the construction exists in both languages, but I decide for = latin because of the feature above, the oscillation of the = determination/indetermination). - Look at a well-known passage like Mt 6.10: ke-ba-shamayim w-ba-ares. In latin, "et" can have the meaning of "also", just like the greek = "kai". Not understanding this, the translator produced a text that is = rather awkward in hebrew: "Thy will be done (where?) like in heaven = _and_ on earth". A more correct translation would have been = "ke-ba-shamayim _ken_ ba-ares.". Etc, etc... There are many more such examples, and they all point to = the same direction: latin. But which latin then? And it is here that = it becomes interesting. When you compare this text to the vulgate, = you notice many variants, mostly attested by the old latin = manuscripts and the diatessaronic witnesses (and sometimes, remoter = texts). But this comes off-topic with your question. We can discuss = it later if you want, and if the discussion is interesting for the = other participants, who might find the subject of a secondary version = not very relevant to their work. >What other text of the NT book of Matthew has all 42 names in the = genealogy? >I know >the Curetonian has ")bywr" =3D "Aviur" which is a combination of "Avihud = and >Avner" >which the Du tillet text has in Matt 1:13. > To clarify for those who don't know what we're talking about, it has = been noticed that in the third part of Jesus genealogy there is one = more name in our hebrew text, that of a certain Abner. What is = troubling is that without this name, there are only thirteen (and not = 14) _male_ names in this part of the genealogy. So several people = (Mark, I suppose you've read James Trimm's booklet ;-) are aguing = that here the hebrew preserves the original text that has been lost = by the rest of the tradition... BUT... what if Mary is counted ? Then there are 14 names in the = genealogy. In fact this interpretation was already proposed by St = Jerome (P.L. XXIV, 144), who saw in this curiosity of the text a way = to attract the attention of the reader to the special role that Mary = played in the begetting of Christ. We can then hypotesize that the = addition of "Abner" was made by somebody who was not aware of this = subtility and who wanted to have exact numbers. >Why does the text use Aramaic phrases in places that no other manuscript >does, such as in >Matt 11:12 where you find "mkryxyn gwzlyn" meaning ( the forceful are >robbing). Why >use Aramaic in this verse when most of the text is in Hebrew? No other = text >that I know >of has Aramaic in this verse. > But are you sure it's Aramaic? In medieval hebrew, it is quite usual = to have the masculine plural termination in -in. See M.SEGAL, = Mishnaic Hebrew Grammar (Oxford, 1927), =A7 281 p. 126. Medieval = hebrew being an admixture of mishnaic hebrew with biblical hebrew, it = is no wonder that you find such features. They are absolutely normal = in Hebrew and it is not necessary to recur to Aramaic. >What other text has "My God my God why have you forgotten me" in Matt = 27:46 >in place >of "My God my God why have you forsaken me" ? The hebrew text of the manuscript is here difficult to read. It most = probably has "lammah shakah.tani" which you correctly translate "why = have you forgotten me". But consider: (1) The meaning in itself is not very remote. To forget Christ on the = cross was to forsake Him, and reversely. So in itself, the = translation is not wrong and both shades of meaning can have been = present in the latin original. (2) Once again, let's start from latin. The translator (I look at = Jullicher's edition of the old latin) could have read "lama = sabachtani" or "lama sabacthani". Supposed he read the first one, he = would use a kaf-raphe to transliterate the sound "ch". Suppose then = that this kaf was taken for a beth during the copy proccess, as both = letters are very similar in the handwriting of that period?... > >If you can answer these 3 questions. Which texts? Which language? >I have a lot more questions that I would like answers too. > I hope I haven't been too long in my answers, and I hope that this = will give you some hints as to the methods (and languages) that are = necessary to study this text. If you want to go on discussing about = this interesting text, it's ok for me but we should listen to the = other participants of the list if they find we're off-topic. >Sorry I do not have the time to write more now. See you later LEHITRAOT Greetings from Belgium and shlama, 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" "Wat te eenvoudig is, is verkeerd; wat te ingewikkeld is, is = onbruikbaar" _________________________________________________ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Oct 8 23:28:26 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id XAA13377; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 23:28:25 -0400 Message-Id: <3.0.1.16.19971008233810.343f5724@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: scarlson@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (16) Date: Wed, 08 Oct 1997 23:38:10 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Stephen C. Carlson" Subject: tc-list Matthew 12:47 and the Diatessaron 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 sent this message a while ago, but didn't see an answer. Can anyone help? >Matthew 12:47 ("But someone said to him, Behold your mother and your >brothers are standing outside asking to speak to you.") is enclosed >in brackets and given a grade of {C} for its inclusion. Although >reasons for and against including the verse are interesting (and >would be appreciated), the focus of my question is the following: > >My UBS4 lists the Diatessaron as a witness for inclusion. If it is >possible that Mt12:47, if not original, is a harmonization to Mk3:32 >and/or Lk8:20, how can the Diatessaron, itself a harmony, be evidence >one way or another on this passage of Matthew? Stephen Carlson -- Stephen C. Carlson : Poetry speaks of aspirations, scarlson@mindspring.com : and songs chant the words. http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/ : -- Shujing 2.35 From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Oct 9 03:00:42 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id DAA14042; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 03:00:41 -0400 Message-ID: <343C8410.4FBD500E@accesscomm.net> Date: Thu, 09 Oct 1997 02:13:20 -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: tc-list Re: Du tillet text of Matthew X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <9710082355.AA03146@iris.arcadis.be> 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 CAA07247 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1127 Jean VALENTIN wrote: > > > I hope I haven't been too long in my answers, and I hope that this > will give you some hints as to the methods (and languages) that are > necessary to study this text. If you want to go on discussing about > this interesting text, it's ok for me but we should listen to the > other participants of the list if they find we're off-topic. Jean: Your posts on the du Tillet Matthew have been among the most informative I have ever read on the lists. So far, I have only seen portions of du tillet and also Shem Tov sufficient to lead me to believe they were translated from either a Latin version (more probable) or an old Syriac version no longer extant (less probable but possible). This is but a cursory judgement until I can acquire complete facsimiles. I am not convinced that the Matthean scribe was competent in either Hebrew or Aramaic, hence his use of the LXX. Please continue your discussion...I am archiving them for future reference. 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 Thu Oct 9 05:52:33 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id FAA14370; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 05:52:33 -0400 X-Sender: petersen@ns1.nias.knaw.nl Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:55:20 +0100 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: WLPetersen@nias.knaw.nl (William L. Petersen) Subject: tc-list Hebrew Matthews Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1659 Three brief notes on this topic: (1) Du Tillet's text was linked to the western harmonized tradition by D. Plooij in his various publications in the 1920s and 1930s. The connexion rests on textual agreements. This virtually insures that a Latin *Vorlage* is in play. See the numerous examples in the apparatus of D. Plooij, *The Liege Diatessaron* (Amsterdam 1929-1970). Incidentally, this apparatus is one of the most useful ever constructed for the study of the gospels: Plooij included an enormous range of versional, commentary [gloss], and Patristic evidence. (2) On the text of Shem-Tob, see my review of G. Howard's *The Gospel of Matthew according to a Primitive Hebrew Text,* which appeared in *JBL* 108 (1989), pp. 722-726, which offers eleven examples of agreements between Shem-Tob and the Middle Dutch tradition. (3) At the moment, I am finishing both a full-length article on Shem-Tob (in reply to the article of Shedinger in *NTS* this year), and also a review of Howard's second edition of Shem-Tob (*Hebrew Gospel of Matthew*). The review is at the invitation of *TC*, and will be available in the not too distant future. Again, the investigation shows that the text of Shem-Tob is not, in general, "primitive" or "antique," but medieval (and datable because of certain readings), and based almost certainly on a Latin *Vorlage.* On a totally unrelated topic: the Baarda FS will be published by Brill (and presented in Amsterdam) tomorrow; a list of the contents will be posted over the weekend, as many of the articles treat text-critical matters. --Petersen, Penn State University, Netherlands Institute for Advanced Studies. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Oct 9 06:29:34 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id GAA14512; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 06:29:34 -0400 X-Sender: petersen@ns1.nias.knaw.nl Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 12:32:19 +0100 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: WLPetersen@nias.knaw.nl (William L. Petersen) Subject: tc-list Re: Matthew 12:47 and the Diatessaron Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 4625 S. Carlson wrote: >>Matthew 12:47 ("But someone said to him, Behold your mother and your >>brothers are standing outside asking to speak to you.") is enclosed >>in brackets and given a grade of {C} for its inclusion. Although >>reasons for and against including the verse are interesting (and >>would be appreciated), the focus of my question is the following: >> >>My UBS4 lists the Diatessaron as a witness for inclusion. If it is >>possible that Mt12:47, if not original, is a harmonization to Mk3:32 >>and/or Lk8:20, how can the Diatessaron, itself a harmony, be evidence >>one way or another on this passage of Matthew? A few observations: (1) There *are* differences in the parallels in Matt, Mark, and Luke. For instance: *"Behold," for example, is missing in Luke, but present in Matt and Mark. *"sisters" in only in Mark, and only in some MSS. *"standing" is only in Matt and Luke. *"to see" is only in Luke. *"to speak to you" is distinctly Matt. *who tells Jesus this differs in each gospel. Therefore, if one is working from the Greek text, it is relatively easy to see what gospel (or elements from what gospels) are being employed. Your question presumes that there is no difference among the gospels here. (Tatian could *not* have cobbled together the same passage *unless* it stood in Matt, for only Matt has "to speak to you.") So if we find the passage, there is a way to test whence it comes (from Matt, Mark or Luke) and, if it is harmonized, to determine what elements come from where. (2) In the UBS edition, "Diatessaron" reference means that Ephrem has it in his *Commentary* (extant in the original Syriac and also in an Armenian translation, both edited by L. Leloir). I have looked in both the Armenian and the Syriac, and discovered something very strange. Neither edition have the reading as indicated in the UBS apparatus. It appears to be an error--although I can guess how it arose. First, the reading in Ephrem. The indices in all three of Leloir's editions (he also did a French translation, based on the Armenian and the Syriac, for *Sources chretiennes,* Vol. 121), and *none* list a parallel for Matt 12:47. This suggests that Leloir didn't think Ephrem quoted the passage. I checked the parallels, however, and found that Leloir lists Ephrem as citing Mark 3:32 (Leloir lists no parallel for Luke 8:20). Checking the Mark 3:32 citation, it is in Chap. XI.9 (p. 107 in the Latin translation of the Armenian [CSCO 145, Ser. Arm. 2], and pp. 58-59 in the Syriac). The text runs "Et in eo iterum quod (dicitur): Ecce mater tua et frates tui quaerunt te." ("Behold your mother and your brothers are seeking you.") An introduction to the quotation is lacking (no gospel citation, to help guide us), so we are left to parse the quotation. "Behold" narrows the text to Mark or Matthew; "seeking" is also Matt or Mark, but not Luke. The omission of "standing" agrees with Mark, against Luke and Matt. So Leloir's attribution to Mark seems correct: the quotation lacks the features one would need to see to attribute it to Luke; it also lacks the features one would need to attribute it to Matt. How, then, did UBS end up attributing it to *Matt*? The reason may well turn on the fact that Ephrem is citing Matt 12:39-40, 12:41, 12:43, 12:44, and 12:45 in XI.1 through XI.8. The citations are Matthean, and it is obvious that Ephrem, presumably following the Diatessaron's text, is giving Matthew's account and commenting upon it. Then comes this abrupt shift to Mark for Mark 3:32. The editors of UBS may have concluded that since Ephrem (and, presumably, the Diatessaron) were following a Matthean text, and then suddenly this passage stands at precisely the place where one would expect it, it also stood in Matthew in the Diatessaron at this point. (No other Marcan references are in this vacinity in Ephrem.) Therefore, while *I* certainly would not have done it this way, and I disagree with the reference in the apparatus of UBS--it simply appears wrong--I can infer how they arrived at their conclusion. *IMPORTANT POSTSCRIPT* While I have not checked all the major Diatessaronic witnesses (which would mean about 15 texts in about a dozen languages), the Liege Harmony (in Middle Dutch) does present the Matthean form ("someone" tells him; the relatives "want to speak to him"). It may be that--despite the UBS's apparent blunder (for their apparatus is here based solely on Ephrem)--the reading, ironically, actually *is* Diatessaronic. *Not proofed, and in haste.* --Petersen, Penn State University, Netherlands Institute for Advanced Studies. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Oct 9 11:08:22 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA15855; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:08:21 -0400 Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 08:13:02 -0700 (PDT) From: Jim Deardorff To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list Re: Du tillet text of Matthew In-Reply-To: <343C8410.4FBD500E@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: 493 On Thu, 9 Oct 1997, Jack Kilmon wrote: > [...] I am not convinced that the Matthean scribe was competent in > either Hebrew or Aramaic, hence his use of the LXX. > Please continue your discussion...I am archiving them for future > reference. > > Jack Another reason why the scribe/translator would likely have used the LXX is that, being very familiar with it, he would wish his translation of Hebrew material that very closely paralleled the LXX to come out "right." Jim Deardorff From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Oct 9 12:23:45 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA16491; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 12:23:44 -0400 Message-ID: <343D0808.6D0A19F3@accesscomm.net> Date: Thu, 09 Oct 1997 11:36:25 -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: tc-list Re: Du tillet text of Matthew 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 LAA27333 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1133 Jim Deardorff wrote: > On Thu, 9 Oct 1997, Jack Kilmon wrote: > > > [...] I am not convinced that the Matthean scribe was competent in > > either Hebrew or Aramaic, hence his use of the LXX. > > Please continue your discussion...I am archiving them for future > > > reference. > > > > Jack > > Another reason why the scribe/translator would likely have used the > LXX is > that, being very familiar with it, he would wish his translation of > Hebrew > material that very closely paralleled the LXX to come out "right." That's very possible, Jim, but it is not just the Matthean scribe's use of the LXX that causes me to question his Hebrew/Aramaic competence. There are cases of his completely losing the Semitic idiom in his Greek and his transliterations of 20-odd vox ipsissima Iesu Aramaisms are somewhat clumsy. I realize that my position that Luke (writing to a gentile audience) was more competent in Aramaic than Matthew (writing to a Jewish audience) counters consensus. 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 Thu Oct 9 12:41:07 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA16690; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 12:41:05 -0400 X-Sender: schmid@ns1.nias.knaw.nl Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 18:44:33 +0100 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: schmiul@nias.knaw.nl (U. Schmid) Subject: Re: tc-list Re: Du tillet text of Matthew Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 540 On Thu, 9 oct 1997, Jim Deardorff wrote: >Another reason why the scribe/translator would likely have used the LXX is >that, being very familiar with it, he would wish his translation of Hebrew >material that very closely paralleled the LXX to come out "right." There is reason to doubt that the LXX, at least in pre-Christian and early-Christian times ever gained the status of let's say the Latin Vulgate or the King James Version to become what is considered to be "right". Ulrich Schmid, Netherlands Institute for Advanced Studies From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Oct 9 13:52:49 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA17170; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 13:52:48 -0400 Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 10:57:27 -0700 (PDT) From: Jim Deardorff To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list Re: Du tillet text of Matthew 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: 811 On Thu, 9 Oct 1997, U. Schmid wrote: > On Thu, 9 oct 1997, Jim Deardorff wrote: > > >Another reason why the scribe/translator would likely have used the LXX is > >that, being very familiar with it, he would wish his translation of Hebrew > >material that very closely paralleled the LXX to come out "right." > > There is reason to doubt that the LXX, at least in pre-Christian and > early-Christian times ever gained the status of let's say the Latin Vulgate > or the King James Version to become what is considered to be "right". > > Ulrich Schmid, I give the external evidence that Matthew came out first, and was written in Aramaic/Hebrew, more weight than you do, Ulrich. Thus I see the translator of Matthew into Greek as being another who made use of the LXX in his translation. JIm Deardorff From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Oct 9 14:23:28 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA17429; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 14:23:26 -0400 X-Sender: schmid@ns1.nias.knaw.nl Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 20:26:55 +0100 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: schmiul@nias.knaw.nl (U. Schmid) Subject: Re: tc-list Re: Du tillet text of Matthew Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1158 On Thu, 9 oct 1997, Jim Deardorff wrote: >On Thu, 9 Oct 1997, U. Schmid wrote: > >> On Thu, 9 oct 1997, Jim Deardorff wrote: >> >> >Another reason why the scribe/translator would likely have used the LXX is >> >that, being very familiar with it, he would wish his translation of Hebrew >> >material that very closely paralleled the LXX to come out "right." >> >> There is reason to doubt that the LXX, at least in pre-Christian and >> early-Christian times ever gained the status of let's say the Latin Vulgate >> or the King James Version to become what is considered to be "right". >> >> Ulrich Schmid, > >I give the external evidence that Matthew came out first, and was written >in Aramaic/Hebrew, more weight than you do, Ulrich. Thus I see the >translator of Matthew into Greek as being another who made use of the LXX >in his translation. This simply has no bearing on the point I was making against your previous suggestion regarding the LXX as something considered to be "right". The issue of when and in which language Matthew (first) came out is not at stake to my way of thinking. Ulrich Schmid, Netherlands Institute for Advanced Studies From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Oct 9 15:05:07 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA17867; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 15:05:06 -0400 From: lakr Message-Id: <199710091909.MAA11218@netcom9.netcom.com> Subject: Re: tc-list Re: Du tillet text of Matthew To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 12:09:41 -0700 (PDT) Cc: lakr@netcom9.netcom.com (lakr) In-Reply-To: from "U. Schmid" at Oct 9, 97 08:26:55 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 476 Dear TC'ers To me, the most distinctive feature I have heard discussed concerning the Shem Tob and the Du tillet is the use of the symbol for the divine name in 19 locations. Does anyone know if both manuscripts put that symbol in the same place or is there variation ? Concerning the theory that these manuscripts were translated from an old latin Vorlage, how are these symbols accounted for ? Do these symbols appear in any Latin manuscripts ? Sincerely, Larry Kruper From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Oct 9 15:29:20 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA17999; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 15:29:19 -0400 Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 15:29:18 -0400 (EDT) From: "James R. Adair" To: TC List Subject: tc-list STYX address 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: 340 If anyone knows the mailing address of STYX (the publisher, not the rock group) in Groningen, please e-mail me off-list. Thanks. Jimmy Adair Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press and Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site ---------------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu <----------------- From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Oct 9 17:05:43 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA18565; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 17:05:42 -0400 Message-ID: <343D49DA.9D271083@accesscomm.net> Date: Thu, 09 Oct 1997 16:17:14 -0500 From: Jack Kilmon X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jim Deardorff , tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: tc-list Re: Du tillet text of Matthew 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 QAA14496 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 4719 Jim Deardorff wrote: > Hi Jack, > > What do you think of the possibility that an early Vorlage to the > Shem-Tob text was sufficiently early that it lacked the longer ending > of > Matthew (Mt 28:19), and so the Shem-Tob does also? I believe the Shem-Tob text was a product of medieval Judaism to use as a tool to argue *against* the messianic claims of the Gospel. I do not have my references handy at the moment but if memory serves me, it was constructed from a Latin diatessaronic style text reminiscent of the Middle Dutch Liege Harmony that itself preserves Semitisms from the Syriac texts. It is not surprising to me that a Tatian style "Harmony" would drop the longer Matthean ending over Mark. These harmonies were prevalent at the time of the making of Shem-Tob. Howard's claim in his 1988 work "The Gospel of Matthew according to a Primitive Hebrew Text" that Shem-Tob represented an original Matthean composition, just does not hold up. I think he backed off of this some in his 1995 edition. The Gospel of Matthew is clearly, to me, the work of a Syrian Greek-speaking Jew of Asia Minor (Antioch or Ephesus) stimulated by the recent expulsion of the "minim" (which included Christians) from the synagogues in 85 CE. I think the Matthean scribe used Greek translations of earlier Aramaic sources as well as Mark. I don't think he was that competent in Hebrew and Aramaic. His audience was Greek-speaking Jews of the diaspora to convince them, through OT prophecies...sometimes forced....that Jesus was the expected Messiah. Eusebius cites Papias as reporting that the disciple Matthew compiled the "sayings" (logia) of Jesus in Aramaic and "everyone translated them as well as he could." This makes sense...Matthew, perhaps a cousin of Jesus, was a scribe. He was best suited to set down many of Jesus sayings almost as he spoke them..or shortly after. Eusebius refers to these sayings as a "Gospel" in his account that "Matthew published a gospel for the Hebrews in their own tongue (Aramaic)." Now let's go to Pantaenus, an Alexandrian of Stoic philosophical background, reminiscent of Apollos, who goes to India and finds a "Hebrew" (Aramaic) Matthew already in use. Taken to India by Nathanael bar Tolmai (Bartholomew) and Yehuda Toma (Thomas), this is a link between Thomas and the Aramaic "sayings." This, of course, depends on what credibility we give Eusebius and the apostolic traditions. Accordingly, I believe the original "Matthew" (sayings) and the Aramaic "proto-Thomas" were one and the same...also called the "Gospel of the Hebrews." Thereafter, the Matthean "Logia" became the "Gospel of Thomas." The "Gospel of the Hebrews" was not lost...just renamed. These written sayings included with oral tradition may have later been set down in Greek to became what is now known as the "Q" source and the Greek GThomas (POxy) of the latter 1st century and then later redacted in Coptic in the 2nd century by Gnostics (Nag Hammadi). The Matthean scribe used the "logia" for which reason the gospel was titled the "Book of Matthew." He added these sayings to Mark along with other sources (special M) and collated various OT references to convince Greek-speaking Jews that Jesus was the Messiah. Therefore, the canonical Gospel of Matthew was never, in my view, penned originally in Hebrew or Aramaic, but instead in Greek using Greek translations of Aramaic source material following the scribe's same pattern of using the LXX instead of the Masoretic text for his OT citations. It is for this, and other reasons why I view Thiede's interpretation of the 2nd century Magdalen Papyri as a 1st century "Eyewitness to Jesus" as untenable. As Christian/Jewish polemic continued into the Medieval period, mainly from the Christian side, and the Gospel of Matthew being a primary "weapon" against Jews, it became necessary for scholarly Jews to disemminate Matthew in Hebrew to answer the anti-Jewish and Messianic claims of the Gospel, hence the du Tillet and Shem-Tob mss. As you know, however, I am but a humble layman compared to the knowledgable scholars of the list, but I think your question is a good one which may be better treated by such experts as Bill Peterson who has published on Shem-Tob (JBL 108, 1989). I may have gone afield from matters TC in my reply but certainly the textual relationship between Shem-Tob and the contemporary medieval texts is pertinent. Accordingly, I will post this on-list, if you don't mind, since we both may benefit from the views of the pros. 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 Thu Oct 9 17:47:01 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA19445; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 17:47:00 -0400 Message-Id: <199710100051.XAA26297@mail1.arcadis.be> Subject: Re: tc-list Re: Du tillet text of Matthew Date: Jeu, 9 Oct 97 23:54:07 +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: 1624 > I believe the Shem-Tob text was a product of medieval Judaism to use >as >a tool to argue *against* the messianic claims of the Gospel. I do not >have my references handy at the moment but if memory serves me, it >was constructed from a Latin diatessaronic style text reminiscent of >the Middle Dutch Liege Harmony that itself preserves Semitisms from >the Syriac texts. It is not surprising to me that a Tatian style >"Harmony" >would drop the longer Matthean ending over Mark. About the Shem-Tob text, have you noticed how many of the "peraqim" begin with formulae like "in that time", "Jesus said again", etc... Such formulae we find in lectionaries. It would be interesting to know if there's a lectionary system that allows for the same formulae at the same places. Once I consulted somebody who told me that the "cutting in parts" (how am I to call that? the beginnings and ends of the pericopae) of the text resembles that of Spanish lectionaries (which is quite normal, as the text is coming down from Spain). I'm glad to hear on the list that Bill Petersen is working on an article on the Shem-Tob text. Please, please, let us know when it is published. 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" "Wat te eenvoudig is, is verkeerd; wat te ingewikkeld is, is onbruikbaar" _________________________________________________ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Oct 9 22:38:35 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA20489; Thu, 9 Oct 1997 22:38:33 -0400 Message-Id: <3.0.1.16.19971009224728.3027a164@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: scarlson@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (16) Date: Thu, 09 Oct 1997 22:47:28 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu, tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Stephen C. Carlson" Subject: Re: tc-list Re: Matthew 12:47 and the Diatessaron In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1345 At 12:32 10/9/97 +0100, William L. Petersen wrote: >A few observations: [omitted] Thank you very much for your response. It was very clear and helpful. >The indices in all three of Leloir's editions (he also did a French >translation, based on the Armenian and the Syriac, for *Sources >chretiennes,* Vol. 121), and *none* list a parallel for Matt 12:47. This >suggests that Leloir didn't think Ephrem quoted the passage. I checked the >parallels, however, and found that Leloir lists Ephrem as citing Mark 3:32 >(Leloir lists no parallel for Luke 8:20). Checking the Mark 3:32 citation, >it is in Chap. XI.9 (p. 107 in the Latin translation of the Armenian [CSCO >145, Ser. Arm. 2], and pp. 58-59 in the Syriac). The text runs "Et in eo >iterum quod (dicitur): Ecce mater tua et frates tui quaerunt te." ("Behold >your mother and your brothers are seeking you.") Just a thought. This being the case, could Ephraem's Diatesseron then be considered a witness to the lack of KAI hAI ADELFAI SOU ("and your sisters") in Mk3:32? I think it meets the criteria for a patristic citation explained on p. 29* of UBS4. Stephen Carlson -- Stephen C. Carlson : Poetry speaks of aspirations, scarlson@mindspring.com : and songs chant the words. http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/ : -- Shujing 2.35 From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Oct 10 01:36:52 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id BAA20932; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 01:36:52 -0400 Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19971010054456.0067fcc4@sd.znet.com> X-Sender: gipe@sd.znet.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 09 Oct 1997 22:44:56 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: Mark Gipe Subject: Re: tc-list Re: Du tillet text of Matthew Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 4090 I can see you guys are having fun with this..... GOOD! As I am new to the list please let me know if I am ever out of line. First of all I am not a dogmatic person. The older I get the less I know. As I friend told me once "We know what we know, but the problem is - we don't even know what we don't know!" Thanks Jean Valentin for your ideas. Thanks to William Peterson, Jack Kilmon, Jim Deardorff, Ulrich Schmid and Larry Kruper. My ideas might be from a different point of view. I don't think that the text known as the Du Tillet Hebrew text of Matthew is just what Matthew penned. I have not seen any manuscript of the Bible that I think is just the way the original writer wrote it! I do not think that the original writers of the Greek N.T used the Nomina Sacra. The M.T. is not the same as the Dead Sea Scrolls and so on ..................... The Du Tillet text is very interesting to me. I first got photographs of the whole text in 1980. Yes I have seen James Trimm's Book. I do not like the lay out of his book, it was a 10 cent job to a dollar question. The book I am hoping to publish within the next six months, is with the Hebrew of the text in nice block Hebrew, so that anyone that can read Hebrew what-so-ever without points can read this text, as I have put in verse numbers to it and translated it into English, added notes in Aramaic, Syriac, Greek and Latin with Manuscript #s. After it is published you can really have fun with it. I plan to reply to Jean's comments in detail this weekend, as I do not have the time to write them down at this moment. Yes Jean I have noticed the inconstancy of the definite article, I have also noticed the inconstancy of the definite article in the M.T. I will write the verses down in my reply this weekend. I know that in some places the Du Tillet text is not good Hebrew. English is my mother tongue...and some times what I write is not good English. I have also noticed that the Greek of Revelation is very bad Greek as are also a number of other books of the Bible, were they from Latin? If Jerome had anything to do with the Latin Vulgate and IF he ever really saw a Hebrew version of the book of Matthew that he says ( that is the writings that we think he wrote says ) he holds in high esteem - would it be that surprising that the Latin would be close to the Hebrew. Do not get me wrong, I think that there were a number of Hebrew versions of N.T. books in the 1st and 2nd century and this is just one that MIGHT have come from these, with changes along the way. It has many interesting readings and I like them, which is right, which is wrong? Who knows. Just to make this point clear - The quotations of the Tanach in the Du Tillet Hebrew text of Matthew are almost letter for letter to the M.T. and in some of the places that it is not, it is letter for letter with older Hebrew manuscripts such as - some of Dead Sea scroll texts. To give a short answer to Larry Kruper. The Du Tillet text uses the abbreviation of three yods for the Divine Name ( with the center yod raised ) 17 times Matt 1:22; 1:24; 2:13, 2:15; 2:19; 3:3; 4:4; 4:7 4:10; 5:33; 21:9; 21:42; 22:37; 22:44; 23:39; 27:10; 28:2. The Sham Tov Hebrew text of Matthew uses the abbreviation of the Hebrew letter "He" for the Divine Name which is an abbreviation for the phase "HaShem" meaning "The Name" 18 times - Matt 1:22; 1:24; 2:13; 2:19; 3:13; 4:14; 4:7; 4:10; 5:33; 21:9; 21:12; 21:31&32; 21:42; 22:37; 22:44; 27:9 28:2; And in Matt 28:9 the Shem Tov text uses the full phase of "HaShem" written out in full. Does this mean that Greek speaking Christians used the Divine Name? - There is no proof of this anywhere. Does this mean that Hebrew speaking Christians used the Divine Name? The Babylonian Talmud in the book of Shabbat chapter 16 says that they wrote it. Read the whole chapter ( in Aramaic ) before you say that these persons were not Christians. Thanks for reading I will reply again sometime Monday 10/13/97 Lehitraot Mark Gipe gipe@sd.znet.com From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Oct 10 12:14:24 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA23286; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 12:14:24 -0400 Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 12:18:07 -0400 (EDT) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: tc-list Rom 3:28 X-Sender: jwest@mail.highland.net (Unverified) To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19971010121258.194f39dc@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: 757 Colleagues, Rom 3:28 says: LOGIZOMEQA GAR DIKAIOUSQAI PISTEI ANQRWPON XWRIS ERGWN NOMOU The inclusion of gar in manuscripts like Aleph, A, D* Athos Laurae, 81, 1739 and some of the versions is only barely superior to the absence of the word in B, C, D, K, P, 33, 614 and the Byzantine family. Since the external evidence is so divided, internal criteria must be evoked. It seems to me that v.28 explains v.27 and therefore an explanatory particle is needed. Yet it is this grammatical necessity which suggests that gar was added by a secondary scribe to smooth the grammar. Does anyone have some other suggestion? Thanks, Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@highland.net From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Oct 10 14:19:50 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA24173; Fri, 10 Oct 1997 14:19:49 -0400 Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 13:24:27 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19971010121258.194f39dc@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: tc-list Rom 3:28 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1969 On Fri, 10 Oct 1997, Jim West wrote: >Colleagues, > >Rom 3:28 says: >LOGIZOMEQA GAR DIKAIOUSQAI PISTEI ANQRWPON XWRIS ERGWN NOMOU > >The inclusion of gar in manuscripts like Aleph, A, D* Athos Laurae, 81, 1739 >and some of the versions is only barely superior to the absence of the word >in B, C, D, K, P, 33, 614 and the Byzantine family. Since the external >evidence is so divided, internal criteria must be evoked. It seems to me >that v.28 explains v.27 and therefore an explanatory particle is needed. >Yet it is this grammatical necessity which suggests that gar was added by a >secondary scribe to smooth the grammar. > > >Does anyone have some other suggestion? Are you sure you're talking about the same variant as in the major critical apparati? The variant in Romans 3:28 is not add/omit GAR; it is substitute GAR/OUN. As best I can tell, there is no Greek evidence for omitting the word. The evidence for GAR includes Aleph A D* F G 81 326 436 1506 family 1319 (=256 263 365 1319 2127 etc.) family 1739 (=1739 630 1881) a b d f vg al The evidence for OUN is B C D** 6 33 614 1175 2464 Byz m Note, however, that in Romans 33 1175 2464 are *all Byzantine*. (Yes, that's what I said. Outside Romans, they are valuable -- but not here.) So the evidence for GAR includes - The Alexandrian text (Aleph A 1506; 81 family 1319; etc.) - The "Western" text (D* F G a b d f vg) - family 1739 (classify it how you like, this is its reading) The evidence for OUN includes - B - The Byzantine text Barring overwhelming internal evidence (which I don't see here), GAR is obviously the preferable reading. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Oct 11 08:39:20 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA27062; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 08:39:19 -0400 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 11:58:41 +0100 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: Steven Carr Subject: tc-list Patristic Citations In-Reply-To: <9710082355.AA03146@iris.arcadis.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1223 2nd-century patristic citations are very important. In 'The New Testament Documents - Are They Reliable?' F.F.Bruce writes 'In 3 works whose date is probably around AD 100 - The Epistle of Barnabas, The Didache and 1 Clement - we find fairly certain quotations from the common tradition of the Synoptic Gospels, from Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, Ephesians, Titus, Hebrews , 1 Peter and possible quotations from other books of the New Testament. In the letters written by Ignatius... there are reasonably identifiable quotations from Matthew, John, Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus and possible allusions to Mark, Luke,Acts, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians,Philemon, Hebrews and 1 Peter. Polycarp, in a letter to the Philippians quotes from the common tradition of the Synoptic Gospels, from Acts, Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Hebrews, 1 Peter and 1 John' As I am assured that you don't get to be a university professor by making unsupported assertions your stock-in-trade, I would be grateful to know how much support these assertions have. -- Steven Carr steven@bowness.demon.co.uk From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Oct 11 08:52:24 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA27097; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 08:52:23 -0400 Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 08:57:02 -0400 (EDT) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: tc-list A new book X-Sender: jwest@mail.highland.net (Unverified) To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19971011085749.256f3d28@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: 934 Colleagues, DC Parker has written a very readable and quite useful book, "The Living Text of the Gospels" (Cambridge: 1997). 1- The Theory 2- The Materials 3- The Practice 4- The Lord's Prayer 5- Marriage and Divorce 6- The Women taken in Adultery 7- Secrets and Hypotheses 8- The Ending of Mark's Gospel 9- The Last 3 Chapters of Luke 10- The Development and Transmission of the 4th Gospel 11- From Codex to Disk 12- The Living Text (I do not know if the number of chapters is significant; but... !!!) This is, in my estimation, an extraordinary book as it is quite clear- crystal clear in fact. Perfect for beginning students but not without its benefits for those who work daily in the subject. So, I write this brief little note to encourage you to look at this excellent, thorough, well written piece. Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@highland.net From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Oct 11 10:50:10 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA27416; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 10:50:09 -0400 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 14:44:43 +0100 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: Steven Carr Subject: Re: tc-list A new book In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19971011085749.256f3d28@mail.highland.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 663 In message <1.5.4.16.19971011085749.256f3d28@mail.highland.net>, Jim West writes >DC Parker has written a very readable and quite useful book, "The Living >Text of the Gospels" (Cambridge: 1997). I just bought this on Thursday. I think it is an excellent book. >This is, in my estimation, an extraordinary book as it is quite clear- >crystal clear in fact. Perfect for beginning students but not without its >benefits for those who work daily in the subject. As a beginning student, I agree very much with those words. -- Steven Carr steven@bowness.demon.co.uk Visit the UK's leading atheist Web page http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Oct 11 12:56:04 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA27766; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 12:56:02 -0400 X-Sender: schmid@ns1.nias.knaw.nl Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 18:59:33 +0100 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: schmiul@nias.knaw.nl (U. Schmid) Subject: Re: tc-list Patristic Citations Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 698 On Sat, 11 oct 1997, Steven Carr wrote: >2nd-century patristic citations are very important. >In 'The New Testament Documents - Are They Reliable?' F.F.Bruce writes [snip] >As I am assured that you don't get to be a university professor by >making unsupported assertions your stock-in-trade, I would be grateful >to know how much support these assertions have. As I am assured that you don't get to be considered a serious student by simply disrespectfully treating a reputable scholar, I would be grateful to know, if you ever considered the possibility of getting hold of one of Prof. Bruce's other publications on the subject. Ulrich Schmid, Netherlands Institute for Advanced Studies From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Oct 11 14:03:45 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA28198; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 14:03:45 -0400 Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 11:08:28 -0700 (PDT) From: Jim Deardorff To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list Patristic Citations 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: 2148 On Sat, 11 Oct 1997, Steven Carr wrote: > 2nd-century patristic citations are very important. > In 'The New Testament Documents - Are They Reliable?' F.F.Bruce writes > 'In 3 works whose date is probably around AD 100 - The Epistle of > Barnabas, The Didache and 1 Clement - we find fairly certain quotations > from the common tradition of the Synoptic Gospels, from Acts, Romans, 1 > Corinthians, Ephesians, Titus, Hebrews , 1 Peter and possible quotations > from other books of the New Testament. ... Hello Steven, There most definitely do exist dissenting views to F.F.Bruce's statement above, and I think it's worth keeping them in mind. From the _Second Century_ journal's article by Bellinzoni (1992/93, v. 9, No. 4), one finds Koester's view summarized that the most that can be said on this regarding the Epistle of Barnabas is that it used some of the same oral tradition as found in the Gospels. Similarly 1 Clement's abbreviated beatitudes are argued to stem from oral tradition; they include one not in the Sermon on the Mount. The writer of Matthew could well have utilized them in his Gospel. In the same article, one argument is presented that dates the Didache to around 150, and others are made that strongly suggest it is dependent upon Matthew. > In the letters written by Ignatius... there are reasonably identifiable > quotations from Matthew, John, Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, > Ephesians, Philippians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus and possible allusions to > Mark, Luke,Acts, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, Philemon, Hebrews and 1 > Peter. Ignatius's quotations similar to what's in Matthew, where not explainable by oral tradition, can be explained by Matthew coming out shortly after Ignatius's time, in my opinion. Although this is an unorthodox viewpoint, it's quite tenable even with respect to Papias's fragment from the Presbyter John, since we don't know when the presbyter made his observations. I'm not aware that the shorter versions of Ignatius's epistles appear to quote from the Gospel of John. I share your interest in the value of the 2nd-century patristic citations. Jim Deardorff From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Oct 11 14:38:01 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA28243; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 14:38:01 -0400 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 18:27:14 +0100 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: Steven Carr Subject: Re: tc-list Patristic Citations In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1188 In message , "U. Schmid" writes >On Sat, 11 oct 1997, Steven Carr wrote: > >>2nd-century patristic citations are very important. >>In 'The New Testament Documents - Are They Reliable?' F.F.Bruce writes >>As I am assured that you don't get to be a university professor by >>making unsupported assertions your stock-in-trade, I would be grateful >>to know how much support these assertions have. > >As I am assured that you don't get to be considered a serious student by >simply disrespectfully treating a reputable scholar, I would be grateful to >know, if you ever considered the possibility of getting hold of one of >Prof. Bruce's other publications on the subject. Well, of course I have, but I have yet to find where he gives the quotes from 1 and 2 Timothy in Polycarp, along with the others. People like Elaine Pagels say that Paul's letters are very little quoted until Irenaeus and I am just trying to find out whom to believe. I would be thankful if you could tell me if the letters of Ignatius and Polycarp do, or do not, cite, quote or allude to the New Testament books that F..F.Bruce mentioned in his book. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Oct 11 16:18:23 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA28534; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 16:18:22 -0400 X-Sender: schmid@ns1.nias.knaw.nl Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 22:21:55 +0100 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: schmiul@nias.knaw.nl (U. Schmid) Subject: Re: tc-list Patristic Citations Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2703 On Sat, 11 oct 1997, Steven Carr wrote: >In message , "U. Schmid" > writes >>On Sat, 11 oct 1997, Steven Carr wrote: >> >>>2nd-century patristic citations are very important. >>>In 'The New Testament Documents - Are They Reliable?' F.F.Bruce writes > >>>As I am assured that you don't get to be a university professor by >>>making unsupported assertions your stock-in-trade, I would be grateful >>>to know how much support these assertions have. >> >>As I am assured that you don't get to be considered a serious student by >>simply disrespectfully treating a reputable scholar, I would be grateful to >>know, if you ever considered the possibility of getting hold of one of >>Prof. Bruce's other publications on the subject. > >Well, of course I have, but I have yet to find where he gives the quotes >from 1 and 2 Timothy in Polycarp, along with the others. People like >Elaine Pagels say that Paul's letters are very little quoted until >Irenaeus and I am just trying to find out whom to believe. > >I would be thankful if you could tell me if the letters of Ignatius and >Polycarp do, or do not, cite, quote or allude to the New Testament books >that F..F.Bruce mentioned in his book. I suggest you also consult _B.M. Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament, Oxford 1987_. Concerning Polycarp and the Pastorals I may draw your attention to, e.g.: a) Pol. 2 Phil 5.2 where you find three adjectives DIABOLOI, DILOGOI, AFILARGYROI. Two of them only occur in the Pastorals as far as NT writings are concerned (the exception is AFILARGYROI also occuring in Heb 13.5). The three of them together occur in 1 Tim 3.3.8.11 (in reversed order) in largely comparable contexts. b) In the same Polycarp passage shortly after the mentioned adjectives you will find expressions and thoughts resembling 2 Tim 2.11-13 (we are promised "to rise from the dead" = SYZHSOMEN, "to rule with him as King" = SUMBASILEYOMEN, "if we act according to his standards" = EI ARNHSOMEQA EKEINOS ARNHSETAI HMAS). Passages of this type are usually held to be indicative of displaying Polycarp's knowledge of the Pastorals. You will note that these are allusions, at best. However, if there is a considerable amount of those identified, the cumulative evidence seems to point to literary dependency. It may be interesting to note that H. Frh. von Campenhausen, _Polykarp und die Pastoralbriefe (Campenhausen, Aus der Fruehzeit des Christentums, Tuebingen 1963, pp. 197-252)_, reached the opposite conclusion as far as literary dependency is concerned. He argues that Polycarp himself wrote the Pastorals. Ulrich Schmid, Netherlands Institute for Advanced Studies From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Oct 11 16:29:57 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA28568; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 16:29:56 -0400 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 20:09:13 +0100 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: Steven Carr Subject: Re: tc-list Patristic Citations In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 3173 In message , Jim Deardorff writes >On Sat, 11 Oct 1997, Steven Carr wrote: >> 2nd-century patristic citations are very important. >> In 'The New Testament Documents - Are They Reliable?' F.F.Bruce writes >> 'In 3 works whose date is probably around AD 100 - The Epistle of >> Barnabas, The Didache and 1 Clement - we find fairly certain quotations >> from the common tradition of the Synoptic Gospels, from Acts, Romans, 1 >> Corinthians, Ephesians, Titus, Hebrews , 1 Peter and possible quotations >> from other books of the New Testament. ... >There most definitely do exist dissenting views to F.F.Bruce's statement >above, and I think it's worth keeping them in mind. From the _Second >Century_ journal's article by Bellinzoni (1992/93, v. 9, No. 4), one finds >Koester's view summarized that the most that can be said on this regarding >the Epistle of Barnabas is that it used some of the same oral tradition as >found in the Gospels. >Similarly 1 Clement's abbreviated beatitudes are argued to stem from oral >tradition; they include one not in the Sermon on the Mount. The writer of >Matthew could well have utilized them in his Gospel. > >In the same article, one argument is presented that dates the Didache to >around 150, and others are made that strongly suggest it is dependent upon >Matthew. >> In the letters written by Ignatius... there are reasonably identifiable >> quotations from Matthew, John, Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, >> Ephesians, Philippians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus and possible allusions to >> Mark, Luke,Acts, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, Philemon, Hebrews and 1 >> Peter. >Ignatius's quotations similar to what's in Matthew, where not explainable >by oral tradition, can be explained by Matthew coming out shortly after >Ignatius's time, in my opinion. Although this is an unorthodox viewpoint, >it's quite tenable even with respect to Papias's fragment from the >Presbyter John, since we don't know when the presbyter made his >observations. I'm not aware that the shorter versions of Ignatius's >epistles appear to quote from the Gospel of John. > >I share your interest in the value of the 2nd-century patristic citations. Thank you for your comments. As I hold the view that 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus were written possibly after Ignatius's letters and probably after 100 AD, I am very interested in the idea that there is knock-down evidence which would blow that out of the water. Having Titus quoted by 1 Clement would destroy the idea that the Pastorals are 2nd-century works. Having Paul's letters quoted by people like Ignatius is evidence, if not conclusive evidence, against my view that many of Paul's ideas were not considered totally orthodox by early Christian writers like Ignatius, Polycarp and Justin. If there is evidence against my views, I want to hear it and to revise my opinions accordingly, which is why I'm interested in seeing why a major figure like Professor Bruce wrote what he did. -- Steven Carr steven@bowness.demon.co.uk Visit the UK's leading atheist Web page http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Oct 11 17:28:10 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA28678; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 17:28:09 -0400 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 22:07:57 +0100 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: Steven Carr Subject: Re: tc-list Patristic Citations In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1845 In message , "U. Schmid" writes >>I would be thankful if you could tell me if the letters of Ignatius and >>Polycarp do, or do not, cite, quote or allude to the New Testament books >>that F..F.Bruce mentioned in his book. > >I suggest you also consult _B.M. Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament, >Oxford 1987_. > >Concerning Polycarp and the Pastorals I may draw your attention to, e.g.: >a) Pol. 2 Phil 5.2 where you find three adjectives DIABOLOI, DILOGOI, >AFILARGYROI. Two of them only occur in the Pastorals as far as NT writings >are concerned (the exception is AFILARGYROI also occuring in Heb 13.5). The >three of them together occur in 1 Tim 3.3.8.11 (in reversed order) in >largely comparable contexts. >b) In the same Polycarp passage shortly after the mentioned adjectives you >will find expressions and thoughts resembling 2 Tim 2.11-13 (we are >promised "to rise from the dead" = SYZHSOMEN, "to rule with him as King" = >SUMBASILEYOMEN, "if we act according to his standards" = EI ARNHSOMEQA >EKEINOS ARNHSETAI HMAS). > >Passages of this type are usually held to be indicative of displaying >Polycarp's knowledge of the Pastorals. You will note that these are >allusions, at best. However, if there is a considerable amount of those >identified, the cumulative evidence seems to point to literary dependency. >It may be interesting to note that H. Frh. von Campenhausen, _Polykarp und >die Pastoralbriefe (Campenhausen, Aus der Fruehzeit des Christentums, >Tuebingen 1963, pp. 197-252)_, reached the opposite conclusion as far as >literary dependency is concerned. He argues that Polycarp himself wrote the >Pastorals. Thanks for the useful information. I have never heard the suggestion that Polycarp wrote the Pastorals. I'm not quite sure what to make of it. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Oct 11 17:29:59 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA28695; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 17:29:58 -0400 Message-Id: <199710112129.RAA28690@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> From: "Steve Carson-Rowland" To: Subject: Re: tc-list Patristic Citations Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 07:37:56 +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: 1418 STEVEN CARR wrote: 2nd-century patristic citations are very important. In 'The New Testament Documents - Are They Reliable?' F.F.Bruce writes 'In 3 works whose date is probably around AD 100 - The Epistle of Barnabas, The Didache and 1 Clement - we find fairly certain quotations from the common tradition of the Synoptic Gospels, from Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, Ephesians, Titus, Hebrews , 1 Peter and possible quotations from other books of the New Testament. STEVE CR What does he mean by quotations? Clement cites the words of Jesus in two places (and these are generally thought to be from the oral tradition behind the synoptics.), he 'recalls' the words of Paul and how he wrote to the Corinthians (he is familiar with it and cites the content but not an exact quotation). However, although there may be many allusions to other NT writings, he does not quote from them using any quotation formula. Clearly at some point allusions can be identified if enough words (especially unusual words) or sentences are similar, and Clement appears to be familiar with Hebrews, but I am unsure how reliable allusion identification is. For 'Letter of Barnabas' - 'many are called but few are chosen' is cited as scripture, but that's about it for NT quotations. It's a similar story for Ignatius and Polycarp. Over to the experts for demonstration of allusions. Regards, Steve Carson-Rowland Brisbane, Australia From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Oct 11 20:26:05 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA28984; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 20:26:05 -0400 From: jeffcate@juno.com To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 17:21:36 -0500 Subject: Re: tc-list Patristic Citations Message-ID: <19971011.172208.7006.1.jeffcate@juno.com> References: X-Mailer: Juno 1.38 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-3,5-9,11-29,32-33,38-42 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1803 >2nd-century patristic citations are very important. >In 'The New Testament Documents - Are They Reliable?' F.F.Bruce writes >'In 3 works whose date is probably around AD 100 - The Epistle of >Barnabas, The Didache and 1 Clement - we find fairly certain >quotations from the common tradition of the Synoptic Gospels, from Acts, Romans, >1 Corinthians, Ephesians, Titus, Hebrews , 1 Peter and possible >quotations from other books of the New Testament. > >In the letters written by Ignatius... there are reasonably >identifiable quotations from Matthew, John, Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, >>Ephesians, Philippians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus and possible allusions >to Mark, Luke,Acts, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians,Philemon, Hebrews and 1 >Peter. > >Polycarp, in a letter to the Philippians quotes from the common >tradition of the Synoptic Gospels, from Acts, Romans, 1 and 2 >Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 and >2 Timothy, Hebrews, 1 Peter and 1 John' > >As I am assured that you don't get to be a university professor by >making unsupported assertions your stock-in-trade, I would be grateful >>to know how much support these assertions have. > >Steven Carr steven@bowness.demon.co.uk Steven, You may want to consult: *The New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers.* Compiled by a Committee of the Oxford Society of Historical Theology. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1905. I haven't had a chance to consult it in response to your questions, but Prof. Bruce may have used it in making his statements. It provides the passages (citations, adaptations, and allusions) from the NT in the Apostolic Fathers with a letter ranking the probability that it is consulting the NT source. Jeff Cate Assoc. Prof. of Christian Studies California Baptist College From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Oct 11 20:32:47 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA29006; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 20:32:47 -0400 Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 19:37:17 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: tc-list New article on web page Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1139 Sorry to inflict this on the entire list, but I forgot who asked about this.... As per request from (someone), I have added a brief article about the texts and apparati of some of the leading critical editions. So far I've done Hodges & Farstad (and don't say it's not a critical edition; whatever you may think, it has an apparatus :-), Merk, Nestle (editions 1-25 and editions 26-27), Souter, Tasker, and UBS. Examples of how to use the apparatus are included for Merk and Nestle. I'm going to wait to hear people's reactions before adding Bover, Tischendorf, von Soden, etc. I've updated a few other articles; I hope they too will prove useful. This is probably going to be the last update for a while. Too many other things to do.... I hope that answers all questions addressed to me. It's been a busy week.... -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Oct 11 22:18:42 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA29170; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 22:18:41 -0400 Message-Id: <199710120218.WAA29163@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> From: "Steve Carson-Rowland" To: Subject: Re: tc-list Patristic Citations Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 12:26:54 +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: 828 Jeff Cate wrote: You may want to consult: *The New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers.* Compiled by a Committee of the Oxford Society of Historical Theology. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1905. I haven't had a chance to consult it in response to your questions, but Prof. Bruce may have used it in making his statements. It provides the passages (citations, adaptations, and allusions) from the NT in the Apostolic Fathers with a letter ranking the probability that it is consulting the NT source. STEVE CR In fact, from memory Bruce mentions this work in his book. It is not in my library (University of Queensland), although I want to read it. Have any modern editions been done of it? Or failing that, are there any comparable works which have been published more recently? Regards, Steve Carson-Rowland Brisbane, Australia From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Oct 12 15:08:46 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA00762; Sun, 12 Oct 1997 15:08:45 -0400 X-Sender: petersen@ns1.nias.knaw.nl Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 21:11:56 +0100 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: WLPetersen@nias.knaw.nl (William L. Petersen) Subject: tc-list New Book Notice Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2300 Friday saw the publication (and presentation) of the Baarda FS. Bibliographic info and the TOC follow. *Sayings of Jesus: Canonical and Non-canonical. Essays in Honour of Tjitze Baarda,* edd. W.L. Petersen, J.S. Vos, and H.J. de Jonge, Supplements Novum Testamentum 89 (Leiden: Brill 1997). Pp. xxvi + 344. Price: check with Brill (about US$70-80.00 is my recollection) ISBN: 90 04 10380 5. Table of Contents: 1. J. Neville Birdsall (Birmingham): "The Marcosians' Text of Jesus' Cry of Jubilation (Matt 11:26 parr. Luke 10:21) in Irenaeus *Adv. haer.* I.20.2" 2. Sebastian P. Brock (Oxford): "The Gates/Bars of Sheol Revisited" 3. Joel Delobel (Louvian): "Luke 23:34a: A Perpetual Text-critical Crux?" 4. J. Keith Elliott (Leeds): "Mark and the Teaching of Jesus: An Examination of LOGOS and EUAGGELION" 5. Eldon Jay Epp (Case Western Reserve): "The New Testament Papyri at Oxyrhynchus in their Social and Intellectual Context" 6. Jan Helderman (Free Univ. Amsterdam): "Die Herrenworte ueber das Brautgemach im *Thomasevangelium* und im *Dialog des Erloesers*" 7. Pieter W. van der Horst (Utrecht): "'The Finger of God.' Miscellaneous Notes on Luke 11:20 and its *Umwelt*" 8. Henk Jan de Jonge (Leiden): "The Sayings on Confessing and Denying Jesus in Q 12:8-9 and Mark 8:38" 9. Marinus de Jonge (Leiden): "Mark 14:25 among Jesus' Words about the Kingdom of God" 10. Helmut Koester (Harvard): "The Sayings of Q and Their Image of Jesus" 11. Andreas Lindemann (Bethel): "Die Endzeitrede in *Didache* 16 und die Jesus-Apokalypse in Matthaeus 24-25" 12. Gerard Mussies (Utrecht): "Double Vocatives" 13. William L. Petersen (Penn State): "OUDE EGO SE [KATA]KRINO. John 8:11, the *Protevangelium Iacobi,* and the History of the *Pericope adulterae*" 14. James M. Robinson (Inst. for Antiquity and Christianity): "*Galilean Upstarts*: A Sot's Cynical Disciples?" 15. Wolfgang Schenk (Saarbrucken): "Die rhetorische Funktion der Fastenwarnung Mk 2,20" 16. Johan S. Vos (Free Univ. Amsterdam): "Das Agraphon 'Seid kundige Geldwechsler!' bei Origenes" A full bibliography of Baarda's scholarly publications are found on pp. ix-xix; the volume also contains full indices (author, subject, locorum). --Petersen, Penn State University, Netherlands Institute for Advanced Studies. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Oct 12 15:22:21 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA00791; Sun, 12 Oct 1997 15:22:20 -0400 Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 15:26:00 -0400 (EDT) From: Bart Ehrman X-Sender: behrman@login3.isis.unc.edu To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list New Book Notice 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: 2604 Bill, Congratulations, to both you and Tjitze! The book looks terrific! I'm looking forward to seeing it. -- Bart On Sun, 12 Oct 1997, William L. Petersen wrote: > Friday saw the publication (and presentation) of the Baarda FS. > Bibliographic info and the TOC follow. > > *Sayings of Jesus: Canonical and Non-canonical. Essays in Honour of Tjitze > Baarda,* edd. W.L. Petersen, J.S. Vos, and H.J. de Jonge, Supplements Novum > Testamentum 89 (Leiden: Brill 1997). Pp. xxvi + 344. Price: check with > Brill (about US$70-80.00 is my recollection) ISBN: 90 04 10380 5. > > > Table of Contents: > > 1. J. Neville Birdsall (Birmingham): "The Marcosians' Text of Jesus' Cry of > Jubilation (Matt 11:26 parr. Luke 10:21) in Irenaeus *Adv. haer.* I.20.2" > > 2. Sebastian P. Brock (Oxford): "The Gates/Bars of Sheol Revisited" > > 3. Joel Delobel (Louvian): "Luke 23:34a: A Perpetual Text-critical Crux?" > > 4. J. Keith Elliott (Leeds): "Mark and the Teaching of Jesus: An > Examination of LOGOS and EUAGGELION" > > 5. Eldon Jay Epp (Case Western Reserve): "The New Testament Papyri at > Oxyrhynchus in their Social and Intellectual Context" > > 6. Jan Helderman (Free Univ. Amsterdam): "Die Herrenworte ueber das > Brautgemach im *Thomasevangelium* und im *Dialog des Erloesers*" > > 7. Pieter W. van der Horst (Utrecht): "'The Finger of God.' Miscellaneous > Notes on Luke 11:20 and its *Umwelt*" > > 8. Henk Jan de Jonge (Leiden): "The Sayings on Confessing and Denying Jesus > in Q 12:8-9 and Mark 8:38" > > 9. Marinus de Jonge (Leiden): "Mark 14:25 among Jesus' Words about the > Kingdom of God" > > 10. Helmut Koester (Harvard): "The Sayings of Q and Their Image of Jesus" > > 11. Andreas Lindemann (Bethel): "Die Endzeitrede in *Didache* 16 und die > Jesus-Apokalypse in Matthaeus 24-25" > > 12. Gerard Mussies (Utrecht): "Double Vocatives" > > 13. William L. Petersen (Penn State): "OUDE EGO SE [KATA]KRINO. John 8:11, > the *Protevangelium Iacobi,* and the History of the *Pericope adulterae*" > > 14. James M. Robinson (Inst. for Antiquity and Christianity): "*Galilean > Upstarts*: A Sot's Cynical Disciples?" > > 15. Wolfgang Schenk (Saarbrucken): "Die rhetorische Funktion der > Fastenwarnung Mk 2,20" > > 16. Johan S. Vos (Free Univ. Amsterdam): "Das Agraphon 'Seid kundige > Geldwechsler!' bei Origenes" > > > A full bibliography of Baarda's scholarly publications are found on pp. > ix-xix; the volume also contains full indices (author, subject, locorum). > > > --Petersen, Penn State University, > Netherlands Institute for Advanced Studies. > > > From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Oct 13 04:29:10 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id EAA02867; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 04:29:09 -0400 Message-ID: From: "DC PARKER" Organization: Fac of Arts:The Univ. of Birmingham To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 09:32:21 GMT Subject: tc-list Re: Latin nouns 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: 205 The nominative plural of apparatus is apparatus, with a long u, not apparati. 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 Mon Oct 13 04:51:54 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id EAA02896; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 04:51:53 -0400 X-Sender: petersen@ns1.nias.knaw.nl Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 10:54:57 +0100 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: WLPetersen@nias.knaw.nl (William L. Petersen) Subject: tc-list Thanks... Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 239 Thanks for your kind words, Bart. As soon as Brill gets offprints to me, I'll send you one of my article, which mentions you NTS piece. All for now: I've been away from the books too long, and the work is piling up. Cheers! --Bill. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Oct 13 06:01:09 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id GAA03020; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 06:01:09 -0400 X-Sender: petersen@ns1.nias.knaw.nl Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 12:04:03 +0100 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: WLPetersen@nias.knaw.nl (William L. Petersen) Subject: tc-list Apologies Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 82 Apologies inflicting a private message to Bart Ehrman on the list. --Petersen. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Oct 13 09:27:50 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA03536; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 09:27:49 -0400 Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 08:32:25 -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: Plural of "apparatus" (Was:tc-list Re: Latin nouns) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 770 On Mon, 13 Oct 1997, "DC PARKER" wrote: >The nominative plural of apparatus is apparatus, with a long u, not >apparati. OK, I checked my dictionary, and it's true -- the plural of "apparatus" is "apparatus" or (gack!) "apparatuses." (Don't blame me for that last....) But I, at least, was taught that, in English, the proper plural of all nouns ending in -us was -i. So how did this mess arise? And how do we settle which nouns fall into which class without constantly referring to the dictionary? I realize this isn't much of a TC question -- but given how often TCers use Latin, the matter might come up again.... 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 Mon Oct 13 09:28:10 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA03553; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 09:28:09 -0400 X-Sender: petersen@ns1.nias.knaw.nl Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 15:31:04 +0100 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: WLPetersen@nias.knaw.nl (William L. Petersen) Subject: tc-list Matthew 12:47 and the Diatessaron Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 3502 >Stephen Carlson asked (apropos of my reply concerning the Diatessaronic >reading >at Matt 12:47): >Just a thought. This being the case, could Ephraem's Diatesseron then be >considered a witness to the lack of KAI hAI ADELFAI SOU ("and your sisters") >in Mk3:32? I think it meets the criteria for a patristic citation explained >on p. 29* of UBS4. This is possible. But then anything is possible. Recall that the inverse is also possible: the passsage might be the text of Matthew, as Tatian knew it. In view of the uncertainty as to which gospel the passage belongs, I, at least, would not make too much of it. In the interval, I have checked four of the most important Diatessaronic witnesses, whose text I present below: 1) Arabic Harmony (ed. Marmardji, p. 153): Un homme lui dit: "Voici ta mere et tes freres se tenant dehors, et ils demandent a te parler." The Arabic agrees with the Matthean text here ("un homme lui dit"; + "demandent a te parler"). ----------- 2) Codex Fuldensis (ed. Sievers, p. 61): Dixit autem ei quidam Ecce mater tua et fratres tui foris stant quaerentes te. The intro in Codex Fuldensis is Matthew ("Dixit autem ei quidam"); the quotation could be either Mark or Matthew ("stant" = Matthew, omit "loqui" = Mark). ----------- 3) Codex Sangallensis (ed. Masser, p. 203): tho quad imo sum. senu thin muoter inti thine bruoder statent uze suohhente thih. The intro is Matthew again, the quotation is again either Matthew or Mark, for exactly the same reasons as in (2). ----------- 4) Liege Harmony (ed. Plooij, p. 131): Doe seide een mensche van din volke to te hem. Dyn moeder en dine brudere staen ghinder bute en begheren te sprekene iegen di. Liege's intro is Mark ("van din volke"); the quotation, however, is Matthew, save for the missing "ecce" (+ "te sprekene iegen di"). ----------- 5) As already noted, Ephrem's text ("Et in eo iterum quod [dicitur]: Ecce mater tua et frates tui quaerunt te") has the Matthean intro, and, apparently, the Marcan quotation. As can be seen, this is not an easy puzzle to solve: Both the Matthean and the Marcan forms of the quotation can be found in both East and West (Matthew = Arabic & Liege; Mark = Ephrem & Fuldensis/Sangallensis). Considerable time is needed to assemble the materials (we would have to check all the main Diatessaronic witnesses, relevant Patristic witnesses, and apparatuses, to get a real map of the possibilites, and I simply don't have time for that), and then examine it (I have had recourse to various lexica during this little exercise). My nose, however, tells me (and my nose is often disproven by the evidence) that (1) the consistently Matthean intro and (2) the persistent presence of the distinctly Matthean "standing" in all of the texts, when coupled with (3) the very slight difference between the Matthean and the Marcan texts here (+ or - "loqui"), suggests that the Diatessaron followed Matthew here--or, alternatively, knew a text of Mark which contained "standing," and omitted "and your sisters." (The matter of the omission of "sisters" may, however, been influenced by Tatian's Encratism...) Another problem is the distinct possibility of confusion in the eye and minds of scribes between the very similar v. 46 (in Matt) with v. 47 (and the same in the other gospels). The matter is *very* difficult to decide, and I would not even bet a pair of dirty socks on either side. --Petersen, Penn State Univ., Netherlands Institue of Advanced Studies. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Oct 13 09:52:08 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA03716; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 09:52:07 -0400 Message-ID: From: "DC PARKER" Organization: Fac of Arts:The Univ. of Birmingham To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 14:56:24 GMT Subject: Re: Plural of "apparatus" (Was:tc-list Re: Latin nouns) 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: 702 Robert Waltz wrote > OK, I checked my dictionary, and it's true -- the plural of "apparatus" > is "apparatus" or (gack!) "apparatuses." (Don't blame me for that last....) > But I, at least, was taught that, in English, the proper plural of > all nouns ending in -us was -i. So how did this mess arise? And how > do we settle which nouns fall into which class without constantly > referring to the dictionary? It isn't a mess. It's Latin. Apparatus is a 4th declension noun in -u. Nouns with gen. sg. and nom. pl. in -i are 2nd declension nouns in -o, like annus, anni. 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 Mon Oct 13 10:16:52 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA03895; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 10:16:51 -0400 Message-Id: <9710131420.AA01211@lagonda> X-Sender: hoffmann@mail.wsl.ch X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 16:20:57 +0200 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: Christian Hoffmann Subject: Re: Plural of "apparatus" (Was:tc-list Re: Latin nouns) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1491 Bob, The mess arises, because in Latin you have at least two declinations where the nominative is -us, the so called O-declination (dominus, domini, domino, dominum, domino; domini, dominorum, dominis, dominos, dominis), and the U-declination (apparatus, apparatus, apparatui, apparatum, apparatu; apparatus, apparatuum, apparatibus, apparatus, apparatibus). At 08:32 1997.10.13 -0500, you wrote: >On Mon, 13 Oct 1997, "DC PARKER" wrote: > >>The nominative plural of apparatus is apparatus, with a long u, not >>apparati. > >OK, I checked my dictionary, and it's true -- the plural of "apparatus" >is "apparatus" or (gack!) "apparatuses." (Don't blame me for that last....) >But I, at least, was taught that, in English, the proper plural of >all nouns ending in -us was -i. So how did this mess arise? And how >do we settle which nouns fall into which class without constantly >referring to the dictionary? You will have to use a Latin dictionary and a grammar to be precise, or stick to the English one. >I realize this isn't much of a TC question -- but given how often >TCers use Latin, the matter might come up again.... > >Bob Waltz >waltzmn@skypoint.com > >"The one thing we learn from history -- > is that no one ever learns from history." > > > > Christian Hoffmann Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research CH-8903 Birmensdorf, Switzerland phone: ++41-1-739 22 77 fax : ++41-1-739 22 15 e-mail: hoffmann@wsl.ch From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Oct 13 10:32:36 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA03934; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 10:32:35 -0400 Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 09:36:27 -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: Plural of "apparatus" (Was:tc-list Re: Latin nouns) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1178 Sorry to drag this out, but.... On Mon, 13 Oct 1997, "DC PARKER" wrote: >Robert Waltz wrote > >> OK, I checked my dictionary, and it's true -- the plural of "apparatus" >> is "apparatus" or (gack!) "apparatuses." (Don't blame me for that last....) >> But I, at least, was taught that, in English, the proper plural of >> all nouns ending in -us was -i. So how did this mess arise? And how >> do we settle which nouns fall into which class without constantly >> referring to the dictionary? > >It isn't a mess. It's Latin. Apparatus is a 4th declension noun in -u. Nouns >with gen. sg. and nom. pl. in -i are 2nd declension nouns in -o, like >annus, anni. Yes, but what does one do in the perhaps slightly hypothetical case that one is not fluent in Latin? I have Latin dictionaries that I can look things up in (I've never managed to memorize grammatical genders -- not in German, not in Greek, and not in Latin). But is there any sort of rule that one can teach those who have no Latin at all, other than "Look it up"? 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 Mon Oct 13 14:11:43 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA05309; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 14:11:42 -0400 Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 11:16:22 -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: tc-list Re: Plural of "apparatus" (off topic) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 854 >On Mon, 13 Oct 1997, "DC PARKER" wrote: > >>The nominative plural of apparatus is apparatus, with a long u, not >>apparati. > >OK, I checked my dictionary, and it's true -- the plural of "apparatus" >is "apparatus" or (gack!) "apparatuses." (Don't blame me for that last....) >But I, at least, was taught that, in English, the proper plural of >all [Latin] nouns ending in -us was -i. So how did this mess arise? And how >do we settle which nouns fall into which class without constantly >referring to the dictionary? > >Bob Waltz >waltzmn@skypoint.com > RALPH NIELSEN There is a small group of Latin nouns ending in "us" which keep the same ending in the nominative plural. "Apparatus" is one of them; if I remember correctly, "spiritus" is another. Also, if Julius Caesar got along without a dictionary, why can't we? From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Oct 13 16:30:34 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA06044; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 16:30:33 -0400 Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 16:35:12 -0400 (EDT) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: tc-list no original? X-Sender: jwest@mail.highland.net (Unverified) To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19971013163557.34d737c4@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: 1070 I hope that those who know better can hel*p me with a difficulty I am having. In David Parker's book he suggests that the object of TC is not to recover the original text; but to investigate the development of the text in its various manifestations. (I hope I have that right). My difficulty arises when I imagine Paul sitting at a table or pacing the floor and dictating to Silas or someone else. The end product- Romans. If I understand David correctly our object is not to recover that text, but to rediscover the path that text has taken. My question- do we then disregard what Paul wrote; or is it so irrecoverable that it is simply a waste of time to look for it? Does interest then shift to scribal activity and away from the intention of the author? Can we, in fact, even speak anymore of authorial intention or do we simply adopt the perspective of the "reader-oriented criticism" now in vogue? Thanks for helping me see the light. Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@highland.net From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Oct 13 16:38:43 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA06124; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 16:38:42 -0400 Message-Id: <3.0.1.16.19971013164755.30bf7594@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: scarlson@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (16) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 16:47:55 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu, tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Stephen C. Carlson" Subject: Re: Plural of "apparatus" (Was:tc-list Re: Latin nouns) In-Reply-To: References: 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: 1303 At 09:36 10/13/97 -0500, Robert B. Waltz wrote: >Yes, but what does one do in the perhaps slightly hypothetical case >that one is not fluent in Latin? I have Latin dictionaries that I can >look things up in (I've never managed to memorize grammatical genders -- >not in German, not in Greek, and not in Latin). But is there any sort >of rule that one can teach those who have no Latin at all, other than >"Look it up"? There is no royal road to Latin -- and no substitute for looking things up. However, the small class of 4th declension nouns (a.k.a. "u"- declension) contains many nouns derived from the stem of the perfect participle. APPARATUS is one of those words, coming from the verb APPARO, -ARE, "to prepare, get ready, provide." So all you need to do is identify whether the particular Latin noun in question could possibly be based on the perfect participle. ;-) In the perhaps slightly hypothetical case that one is not fluent in Latin, a heuristic I can suggest is: if the noun ends in "-tus" or "-sus", then you should look up the plural in the dictionary. Stephen Carlson -- Stephen C. Carlson : Poetry speaks of aspirations, scarlson@mindspring.com : and songs chant the words. http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/ : -- Shujing 2.35 From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Oct 13 18:31:14 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA06708; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 18:31:13 -0400 Message-Id: <199710132235.SAA27296@erebus.rutgers.edu> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Richard D. Weis" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 18:40:27 +0000 Subject: tc-list Re: MS 1346 and Swanson 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: 1250 Dear Prof. Robinson (and TC-List Members); Maurice Robinson wrote: > I so far have not identified which MS pertains to Swanson's 1346, but am > wondering if (assuming Swanson got his microfilms from Claremont) whether > the one in the 1346 box might have been the wrong one. Is there anyone in > or around Claremont who might be able to check on this possibility? If Swanson got his films from Claremont, they probably were part of the IGNTP collection on permanent loan to the Ancient Biblical Manuscript Center. As the custodians of the collection, the ABMC will surely be interested in clarifying whether 1346 has been misboxed, and if so, in correcting the situation. I'd suggest that you send a message to the center's director, Michael Phelps, at the ABMC's new e-mail address: tradents@abmc.org Regards, 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 Mon Oct 13 21:47:51 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA07130; Mon, 13 Oct 1997 21:47:49 -0400 Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 18:52:32 -0700 (PDT) From: Jim Deardorff To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list no original? In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19971013163557.34d737c4@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: 2465 On Mon, 13 Oct 1997, Jim West wrote: > I hope that those who know better can hel*p me with a difficulty I am > having. In David Parker's book he suggests that the object of TC is not to > recover the original text; but to investigate the development of the text in > its various manifestations. (I hope I have that right). > My difficulty arises when I imagine Paul sitting at a table or pacing the > floor and dictating to Silas or someone else. The end product- Romans. If > I understand David correctly our object is not to recover that text, but to > rediscover the path that text has taken. > My question- do we then disregard what Paul wrote; or is it so irrecoverable > that it is simply a waste of time to look for it? Does interest then shift > to scribal activity and away from the intention of the author? Can we, in > fact, even speak anymore of authorial intention or do we simply adopt the > perspective of the "reader-oriented criticism" now in vogue? Jim, I think your question points out why there is a definite distinction between text critics and redaction critics. May I shift from Paul to the Gospels to make the point? Many of the redaction critics would tell you that, e.g., all of Mt 25 is a redaction, or those in the Jesus Seminar that their group is on record for concluding that some 92% of the teaching/discourse verses of Mark did not, or probably did not, stem from the mouth of Jesus. So how could text critics possibly claim to be attempting to recover the text of an (or the) original Gospel author who was writing the truth? Only by rejecting the redaction critics' conclusions could they claim that, and that then leads to a polarization between the two groups. I gather that this is a prevailing view, or the view of the "reader-oriented" text critic. On the other hand, the text critic can point out that the redaction critics cannot, for the most part, agree on just which verses/pericopes are historical and which are not. So what sense does it make through textual analysis of manuscripts to claim any more than an attempt to recover the text as it was in mid-2nd century, say, or after being penned by the respective evangelists who identities may not have been Matthew,...? The redaction critics and the text critics with this view can coexist peaceably and exchange helpful information in areas where their interests overlap, though which redaction critic is the text critic to trust? Jim Deardorff From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Oct 14 00:35:12 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id AAA07468; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 00:35:11 -0400 Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19971014044334.006827bc@sd.znet.com> X-Sender: gipe@sd.znet.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 21:43:34 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: Mark Gipe Subject: Re: tc-list Re: Du tillet text of Matthew Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1210 TC list I just received a copy of a version of Matthew in Hebrew printed by Sebaftiani Munfteri in Switzerland 1537. I have read about this book before, but I have never seen it. It is in pointed Hebrew with Latin translation. Munfteri says that he has corrected the Hebrew from a Manuscript which he found. It seems to me that Munfteri must have had a copy of a manuscript very close to what Du Tillet found in 1553. As the texts have readings in common that I have never seen anywhere else, but in the Du Tillet text. I can see how Munfteri might have changed some of the readings from a manuscript that was like the text that Du Tillet found, as the Du Tillet text is a little rough sometimes. But never would anyone produce a manuscript like the Du Tillet text if he had a text like Munfteri's in front of him. As the Muntferi text reads almost perfect. So it seems to me that the Du Tillet Manuscript must have the older readings, but I will need some more time with this. As I have a lot of work right now that I must do being that I run my own company, so will have to answer Jean Valentin in detail in a few days from now. Sorry ani mitzta'er. BeShem HaElohim VeAvi Adonenu Yeshua Mark Gipe From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Oct 14 02:02:09 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id CAA07596; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 02:02:09 -0400 From: "Dr Johann Cook" Organization: University of Stellenbosch To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 08:15:45 GMT+0200 Subject: Re: tc-list no original? X-Confirm-Reading-To: "Dr Johann Cook" X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.40) Message-ID: <53FAB7538B5@SEMT.sun.ac.za> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1912 > Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 16:35:12 -0400 (EDT) > From: Jim West > Subject: tc-list no original? > To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu > Reply-to: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu > I hope that those who know better can hel*p me with a difficulty I am > having. In David Parker's book he suggests that the object of TC is not to > recover the original text; but to investigate the development of the text in > its various manifestations. (I hope I have that right). > My difficulty arises when I imagine Paul sitting at a table or pacing the > floor and dictating to Silas or someone else. The end product- Romans. If > I understand David correctly our object is not to recover that text, but to > rediscover the path that text has taken. > > My question- do we then disregard what Paul wrote; or is it so irrecoverable > that it is simply a waste of time to look for it? Does interest then shift > to scribal activity and away from the intention of the author? Can we, in > fact, even speak anymore of authorial intention or do we simply adopt the > perspective of the "reader-oriented criticism" now in vogue? > > Thanks for helping me see the light. > > Jim > > +++++++++++++++++++++++ > Jim West > > Adjunct Professor of Bible, > Quartz Hill School of Theology > > jwest@highland.net > > This problem is even more acute in OT TC where the transmission history of texts is simply much more complicated. Even though I do not think one should distinguish too strictly between textual criticism and other disciplines such as literary criticism, there is nevertheless a different methodology involved. TC in the first place has to do with TEXTS and not with WORDS. > 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 Oct 14 05:30:39 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id FAA07945; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 05:30:38 -0400 From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" Organization: Divinity Faculty To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 10:32:43 +000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: tc-list no original? Priority: normal In-reply-to: <1.5.4.16.19971013163557.34d737c4@mail.highland.net> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.54) Message-ID: <4B3145F69D7@div.ed.ac.uk> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1061 David Parker can best account for his own views on aims of NT TC. But many of us would affirm that the discipline has had and continues validly to have at least three broad aims: --to seek to recover the earliest available form(s) of the text of the NT writings; --to trace the history of the transmission of the NT text (I fit within the camp that sees this as a necessary part of the previous aim, as well as being a perfectly valid aim on its own); --to contribute to the integration of the textual history of the NT with the larger history of the early church (e.g., doctrinal history). Contra Jim Deardorff, redaction-criticism has *nothing* to do with the question. Redaction-criticism has to do with the relation between the final editor/author and any tradition used/appropriated by him/him. Textual criticism has to do with the transmission of what the editor/author produced. L. W. Hurtado University of Edinburgh, New College Mound Place Edinburgh, Scotland EH1 2LX Phone: 0131-650-8920 Fax: 0131-650-6579 E-mail: L.Hurtado@ed.ac.uk From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Oct 14 06:05:22 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id GAA08019; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 06:05:21 -0400 Message-ID: From: "DC PARKER" Organization: Fac of Arts:The Univ. of Birmingham To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 11:07:57 GMT Subject: Re: tc-list no original? 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: 1291 Jim West wrote > I hope that those who know better can hel*p me with a difficulty I am > having. In David Parker's book he suggests that the object of TC is not to > recover the original text; but to investigate the development of the text in > its various manifestations. (I hope I have that right). > My difficulty arises when I imagine Paul sitting at a table or pacing the > floor and dictating to Silas or someone else. The end product- Romans. If > I understand David correctly our object is not to recover that text, but to > rediscover the path that text has taken. > > My question- do we then disregard what Paul wrote; or is it so irrecoverable > that it is simply a waste of time to look for it? Does interest then shift > to scribal activity and away from the intention of the author? Can we, in > fact, even speak anymore of authorial intention or do we simply adopt the > perspective of the "reader-oriented criticism" now in vogue? > Let me just point out that my book is 'The Living text of the GOSPELS'. Paul's letters are a different literaure with a different kind of origin and a different textual history. One must discriminate. 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 Oct 14 08:25:52 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA08192; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 08:25:51 -0400 Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 08:30:34 -0400 (EDT) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: tc-list re: no original? (with apologies) X-Sender: jwest@mail.highland.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19971014083110.2237b65a@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: 1989 I appreciate David and Larry's responses. I am quite aware that the Gospels and the Pauline materials are different and must be handled differently. I am also aware that tc is a different discipline than redaction criticism. But my question remains unanswered. So I will try to put it more plainly. A few years ago a friend read a paper at the Southeastern regional meeting of the SBL. In question time one observer said something like "yours was a good paper until you began to talk about the "original text". There is no original text". But surely this is impossible. Even in the Gospels somone wrote something. It might have been copied later and even edited by someone else- but there was an original text! Again, even in the gospels the analogy of a shakespearean play breaks down. The gospels were not taken to theater to be approved or disapproved by the crowds- they were sent, even at their earliest date, to believing communities who saw them as authoritative texts about Jesus; and there seems to be little likelyhood that the congregation hissed and that the author changed a line or two to meet their fancy. So my humble question remains- if there is no original, where does tc attempt to lead (if not simply to a "history of the text"; which I agree with Larry, is a valid pursuit)? If there is an original text, then it seems appropriate that tc seeks to recover it- not just for the benefit of believing communities, but also for purely scholarly purposes. Ad fontes!, you'll recall, was the cry of the humanists. But what if there was no source, no "original text"? Where did the spring of tradition that we call biblical texts come from? I apologize that I simply cannot fathom the suggestion that the Biblical texts are "without father or mother". I do not believe it of Melchezidek and I do not belive it of texts either. Thanks, Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@highland.net From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Oct 14 09:18:00 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA08420; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 09:17:59 -0400 Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 08:22:38 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19971014083110.2237b65a@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: tc-list re: no original? (with apologies) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2541 On Tue, 14 Oct 1997, Jim West wrote: >I appreciate David and Larry's responses. I am quite aware that the Gospels >and the Pauline materials are different and must be handled differently. I >am also aware that tc is a different discipline than redaction criticism. >But my question remains unanswered. So I will try to put it more plainly. > >A few years ago a friend read a paper at the Southeastern regional meeting >of the SBL. In question time one observer said something like "yours was a >good paper until you began to talk about the "original text". There is no >original text". I would actually put it the other way: There are *too many* original texts. Since the question is about Paul, let's take 2 Corinthians. It appears that there may have been as many as three stages in its composition: 1. Paul wrote at least 2, perhaps 3, conceivably 4 letters to Corinth 2. The damaged remains of these letters were combined to produce a single document 3. This document was incorporated into the Pauline corpus as 2 Corinthians Now which are we to reconstruct? #1 is out of reach, but #2 and #3 are both reasonable targets. Or take Jeremiah in the OT. There are two significantly different versions (MT and LXX). Both have defenders. Which do we reconstruct? The MT, which is the "final word" of the synagogue, or LXX, which may well represent the oldest surviving version of the text -- or even some "original word" of Jeremiah, now lost in literary tradition? Examples of this sort could be multiplied; many works seem to have gone through multiple stages of editing. This provides a basis for arguing that there is no "original text." But I personally don't think that's the problem. I think this person simply heard that the *autographs* of the various documents have not survived (obviously true), and that no extant manuscript represents THE original text of the autograph (not certain, but most of us think it true). I personally don't see a great difference between reconstructing the "original text" and the "earliest possible text." Chances are that they are not the same (no two critics agree on everything, and even if they did, there are still primitive errors). But the "earliest possible text," even if it never existed in exactly the form we recreate it, is a reasonable approximation of the original The distinction shouldn't bother anyone. IMHO, of course.... 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 Oct 14 13:10:14 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA09580; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 13:10:13 -0400 Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 10:15:01 -0700 (PDT) From: Jim Deardorff To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list no original? In-Reply-To: <4B3145F69D7@div.ed.ac.uk> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2096 On Tue, 14 Oct 1997, Professor L.W. Hurtado wrote: > David Parker can best account for his own views on aims of NT TC. > But many of us would affirm that the discipline has had and continues > validly to have at least three broad aims: > --to seek to recover the earliest available form(s) of the text of > the NT writings; > --to trace the history of the transmission of the NT text (I fit > within the camp that sees this as a necessary part of the previous > aim, as well as being a perfectly valid aim on its own); > --to contribute to the integration of the textual history of the NT > with the larger history of the early church (e.g., doctrinal > history). These I also see as valid goals of TC. Where the misunderstanding arose is that Jim West wondered about recovering the "original text:" what does that refer to? (a) Does it include reference to NT gospel texts only *after* their editors/evangelists had done with them? Or (b) can it refer to recovering earlier text upon which the first gospel was based? Only the latter has relevance if one desires to know what it was that Jesus taught. Should or does TC have any interest in that? Perhaps Dr. West was only referring to text of type (a), however. This kind of question was also raised by Robert Waltz re Jeremiah, e.g., as to what should TC try to reconstruct: the MT, the LXX or some earlier "original word?" > Contra Jim Deardorff, redaction-criticism has *nothing* to do with > the question. Redaction-criticism has to do with the relation > between the final editor/author and any tradition used/appropriated > by him/him. Textual criticism has to do with the transmission of > what the editor/author produced. But if the question concerns (b) above, then redaction criticism is of course all important. Even then, however, such exegesis relies upon textual criticism to supply the best text (reconstruction of earliest canonical text) upon which to apply redaction criticism. It seems that the distinction between (a) and (b) needs to be made clear in questions of this type. Jim Deardorff From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Oct 14 13:38:32 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA09868; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 13:38:31 -0400 Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 13:43:18 -0400 (EDT) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: tc-list no original? X-Sender: jwest@mail.highland.net (Unverified) To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19971014133756.25073c8e@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: 3219 At 10:15 AM 10/14/97 -0700, Jim Deardorff wrote: (responding to Larry) >> --to seek to recover the earliest available form(s) of the text of >> the NT writings; >> --to trace the history of the transmission of the NT text (I fit >> within the camp that sees this as a necessary part of the previous >> aim, as well as being a perfectly valid aim on its own); >> --to contribute to the integration of the textual history of the NT >> with the larger history of the early church (e.g., doctrinal >> history). > >These I also see as valid goals of TC. Where the misunderstanding arose >is that Jim West wondered about recovering the "original text:" what does >that refer to? (a) Does it include reference to NT gospel texts only >*after* their editors/evangelists had done with them? Or (b) can it refer >to recovering earlier text upon which the first gospel was based? Only >the latter has relevance if one desires to know what it was that Jesus >taught. Should or does TC have any interest in that? Perhaps Dr. West >was only referring to text of type (a), however. No- to be precise I am referring to the notion that there is no such thing as an original text as every text is portrayed as undergoing a multi-edition simultaneous publication. It is this multi-edition simultaneous publication notion that is causing me trouble. As far as I know, no author publishes a first edition and a second edition the same day. > >This kind of question was also raised by Robert Waltz re Jeremiah, e.g., >as to what should TC try to reconstruct: the MT, the LXX or some earlier >"original word?" > That simply skirts the issue, so far as I can tell. The author of Jeremiah simply did not sit, pen in both hands, writing a Greek edition and a Hebrew edition which he gave to the professional scribes on one and the same day in order to publish both. I am, dear folks, not trying to reduce the proposition to absurdity. I am honestly trying to comprehend how it is possible for someone to suggest that a text was published in multiple editions at the same time. Something was written first! Either the vorlage of the LXX or the vorlage of the MT; but surely not both at the same time!!! It is this "first" text which is of interest, and which I would call the "original" text. What else could it be called? Further, the fact that my question goes unanswered seems to suggest that a) there is no answer (which is fine by me) or b) the question is taken as irrelevant. If b) then I must go on to ask exactly what it is that text critics are looking for- merely the textual history of a document? This seems to be the only possible solution; thus TC is not about recovering an original text but it is instead about tracing the textual history of a document. Again, if this is the answer, I can live with that. What I cannot live with is the dread purgatory of a both/and dialectic. >It seems that the distinction between (a) and (b) needs to be made clear >in questions of this type. > No- the subdivision of the question merely ignores the larger issue. >Jim Deardorff Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@highland.net From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Oct 14 14:56:05 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA10582; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 14:56:04 -0400 Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 14:56:02 -0400 (EDT) From: "James R. Adair" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list no original? In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19971014133756.25073c8e@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: 2345 On Tue, 14 Oct 1997, Jim West wrote: > No- to be precise I am referring to the notion that there is no such thing > as an original text as every text is portrayed as undergoing a multi-edition > simultaneous publication. It is this multi-edition simultaneous publication > notion that is causing me trouble. As far as I know, no author publishes a > first edition and a second edition the same day. Jim, you might be interested in reading Harry Y. Gamble, _Books and Readers in the Early Church_, especially chapter 3, "The Publication and Circulation of Early Christian Literature." I wrote the TC review of this book, and I summarize some matters he discusses relating to the question of an original text and multiple editions in pars. 10-12 (http://purl.org/TC/vol02/Gamble1997rev-os.html). (I might also note in passing that Gamble offers very stimulating discussions of many issues of interest to text critics, from a historical perspective). > That simply skirts the issue, so far as I can tell. The author of Jeremiah > simply did not sit, pen in both hands, writing a Greek edition and a Hebrew > edition which he gave to the professional scribes on one and the same day in > order to publish both. I am, dear folks, not trying to reduce the > proposition to absurdity. I am honestly trying to comprehend how it is > possible for someone to suggest that a text was published in multiple > editions at the same time. Something was written first! Either the vorlage > of the LXX or the vorlage of the MT; but surely not both at the same time!!! > It is this "first" text which is of interest, and which I would call the > "original" text. What else could it be called? Well, it could be called the first edition rather than the original text. In that case, you might have two "original" texts, original in the sense that both are intentional products of the author (or later editor). When literary and textual criticism overlap, identifying the "original" text is problematic, but I don't think that there is no "original" text for _any_ biblical book. Whether it can be reconstructed may be a different story! 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 Tue Oct 14 14:59:22 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA10624; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 14:59:22 -0400 Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 14:03:58 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19971014133756.25073c8e@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: tc-list no original? Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 4151 On Tue, 14 Oct 1997, Jim West wrote: >No- to be precise I am referring to the notion that there is no such thing >as an original text as every text is portrayed as undergoing a multi-edition >simultaneous publication. It is this multi-edition simultaneous publication >notion that is causing me trouble. As far as I know, no author publishes a >first edition and a second edition the same day. Not quite true. One might offer different editions for different purposes. I'll give a modern example The magazine I publish has an associated web page. We publish a certain number of articles in both places. But they are rarely identical. For example, the web page usually has fewer graphics, because we have a limited amount of space. But the web page often has more bibliographic resources, because columns don't have to fit onto a fixed page. It is conceivable -- though I don't believe it -- that NT authors could have done something similar. The closest thing to a reasonable example is Ephesians, which might have existed in multiple copies (one to Ephesus, another perhaps to Laodicea, and the "file copy" with no listed destination). Alternately, take the "two editions of Acts" theory. Perhaps (this is *not* an official theory, merely an example) Luke prepared one for use by Paul in his defense in Rome and another for use by the church in Rome. I repeat, I *don't* think this is the case with the NT. But it is conceivable. >> >>This kind of question was also raised by Robert Waltz re Jeremiah, e.g., >>as to what should TC try to reconstruct: the MT, the LXX or some earlier >>"original word?" >> > >That simply skirts the issue, so far as I can tell. The author of Jeremiah >simply did not sit, pen in both hands, writing a Greek edition and a Hebrew >edition which he gave to the professional scribes on one and the same day in >order to publish both. True enough -- though I don't consider it skirting the issue! Since *neither* proceeded directly from Jeremiah, I think it reasonable to ask which is original.... >I am, dear folks, not trying to reduce the >proposition to absurdity. I am honestly trying to comprehend how it is >possible for someone to suggest that a text was published in multiple >editions at the same time. Something was written first! Either the vorlage >of the LXX or the vorlage of the MT; but surely not both at the same time!!! >It is this "first" text which is of interest, and which I would call the >"original" text. What else could it be called? In the case of Jeremiah, or perhaps even 2 Corinthians, I'm not sure that's relevant. These are *assembled* books, with pieces coming from all over the place. There is no "first edition," since the parts circulated separately. But I agree this is exceptional and does not address your main problem. >Further, the fact that my question goes unanswered seems to suggest that a) >there is no answer (which is fine by me) or b) the question is taken as >irrelevant. Speaking for me personally, I think that a person who believes there is no "original text" is wrong -- at least in most cases. There usually is something we should be attempting to reconstruct. (Though I am not always sanguine about our ability to do so.) >If b) then I must go on to ask exactly what it is that text critics are >looking for- merely the textual history of a document? This seems to be the >only possible solution; thus TC is not about recovering an original text >but it is instead about tracing the textual history of a document. Again, >if this is the answer, I can live with that. What I cannot live with is the >dread purgatory of a both/and dialectic. I actually think both are useful -- but the history of the text is useful primarily for determining the original text (i.e. it's a tool). If that 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 Tue Oct 14 15:13:46 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA10753; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 15:13:45 -0400 Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 15:13:44 -0400 (EDT) From: "James R. Adair" To: TC List cc: e.d.wardini@easteur-orient.uio.no Subject: tc-list Re: ane Greek glosses in Hebrew Manuscripts? (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: 1079 The following message is forwarded with permission from Elie Wardini. Please reply to the list but copy Prof. Wardini. 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 <----------------- On Thu, 2 Oct 1997, Elie Wardini wrote: > A colleague of mine is working on the Church-Slavic version of Ester. She > asked me if I have ever come upon an example when a hebrew word is > explained with a Greek gloss, in the margin or above it something similar. > I must admit that I have not come across such an example. Has anyone seen > such a case? > > She is especially interested in the reference to the month Tebeth in Ester. > > > > Elie Wardini > Department for East-European and Oriental Studies > Semitic languages > P.O. Box 1030 Blindern, N-0315 Oslo, Norway > > tel. off.: +47 - 22 85 71 21 > home: +47 - 22 18 03 49 > fax: +47 - 22 85 41 40 > e-mail: e.d.wardini@easteur-orient.uio.no > > From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Oct 14 15:50:09 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA11091; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 15:50:07 -0400 Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 15:54:53 -0400 (EDT) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: tc-list no original? X-Sender: jwest@mail.highland.net (Unverified) To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19971014155529.251f52be@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: 240 At 02:03 PM 10/14/97 -0500, Bob Waltz wrote: >If that helps. :-) Yes, very much. Thanks for your clarifications. > Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@highland.net From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Oct 14 15:50:08 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA11088; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 15:50:07 -0400 Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 15:54:50 -0400 (EDT) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: tc-list no original? X-Sender: jwest@mail.highland.net (Unverified) To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19971014155525.251f3c4e@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: 1324 At 02:56 PM 10/14/97 -0400, Jim Adair wrote: > >Jim, you might be interested in reading Harry Y. Gamble, _Books and >Readers in the Early Church_, especially chapter 3, "The Publication and >Circulation of Early Christian Literature." I wrote the TC review of this >book, and I summarize some matters he discusses relating to the question >of an original text and multiple editions in pars. 10-12 >(http://purl.org/TC/vol02/Gamble1997rev-os.html). (I might also note in >passing that Gamble offers very stimulating discussions of many issues of >interest to text critics, from a historical perspective). Thanks- I will look at it right away. > >Well, it could be called the first edition rather than the original text. >In that case, you might have two "original" texts, original in the sense >that both are intentional products of the author (or later editor). When >literary and textual criticism overlap, identifying the "original" text is >problematic, but I don't think that there is no "original" text for >_any_ biblical book. Whether it can be reconstructed may be a different >story! Thank you, Jimmy, for a lucid, brief, and concise response!!! This is very helpful. > >Jimmy Adair Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@highland.net From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Oct 14 17:01:19 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA11626; Tue, 14 Oct 1997 17:01:18 -0400 Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 17:06:00 -0400 (EDT) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West X-Sender: jwest@mail.highland.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19971014170636.2abfb0d2@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: 961 Thanks to Jenee Woodard who pointed me to this book which others also might find interesting regarding modern TC and its presuppositions: (Jenee tells me that though not primarily interested in biblical tc- the book covers it as well). A Critique of Modern Textual Criticism by Jerome J. McGann Table of Contents Foreword By D. C. Greetham Preface, 1992 Acknowledgments Introduction 1. Modern Textual Criticism: A Schematic History 2. Modern Textual Criticism: The Central Problems 3. The Ideology of Final Intentions 4. A Modern Instance: Editing Byron 5. Final Intentions and Textual Versions 6. Final Authorial Intentions: Exceptions and Misconceptions 7. The Problem of Literary Authority 8. Modernized Editions and the Theory of Textual Criticism 9. Summary 10. Conclusion Appendix: A Possible Objection Notes Index +++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@highland.net From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Oct 15 02:53:06 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id CAA13138; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 02:53:05 -0400 From: HPS.Bakker@nias.knaw.nl X-Sender: bakker@ns1.nias.knaw.nl Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 08:56:24 +0100 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list Re: ane Greek glosses in Hebrew Manuscripts? (fwd) Cc: e.d.wardini@easteur-orient.uio.no Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 954 >On Thu, 2 Oct 1997, Elie Wardini wrote: > >> A colleague of mine is working on the Church-Slavic version of Ester. She >> asked me if I have ever come upon an example when a hebrew word is >> explained with a Greek gloss, in the margin or above it something similar. >> I must admit that I have not come across such an example. Has anyone seen >> such a case? >> >> She is especially interested in the reference to the month Tebeth in Ester. >> Dear Elie, If a Greek gloss can be found in the Old Slavic Ester, it is likely to be a gloss on a *Greek* word and not a Hebrew word. As a rule, Slav translators were using Septuagint MSS as Vorlage. I will contact two Slavists who are experts in these matters. Michael Dr H.P.S. Bakker Netherlands Institute for Advanced Study (NIAS) Meijboomlaan 1 2242 PR Wassenaar The Netherlands tel.: +31 70 512 2700 fax: +31 70 511 7162 Slavic Seminar University of Amsterdam Spuistraat 210 1012 VT Amsterdam From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Oct 15 12:52:57 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA15356; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 12:52:56 -0400 Date: 15 Oct 1997 16:57:14 -0000 Message-ID: <19971015165714.8406.qmail@np.nosc.mil> To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: tc-list contents of NT papyrus and parchment uncials From: Vincent Broman Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2584 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- I've substantially updated the databases that James Tauber has been distributing at the ENTMP site called pap-cont.txt and unc-cont.txt, which describe the contents of NT uncials on papyrus and parchment, i.e. listing by book, chapter, and verse how much of each MS is extant. Besides correcting some errors, the list now covers everything in NA27 and Aland-tTotNT, including many MSS which are only listed in NA27 as "e+", for instance, totaling 96 papyri and 252 parchment uncials. Tauber has info on miniscules, too, but I haven't dealt much with those. The new file is at http://www.znet.com/~broman/pyuncont.zip and it looks like this, the columns representing MS, book, chapter, verses. ... 0289 Rm 8 19-21 32-35 1Cor 2 11-16 Z 3 1-23 Z 4 1-12 13 13 Z 14 1 3-11 13-19 0291 Lc 8 45-56 Z 9 1-2 If the verse listing ends in "Z", this means the final verse listed is the end of the chapter (so you can find lacunas without memorizing chapter lengths). If the verse listing is simply "part", then Aland's fold-out chart is my only source, and all I know is that part of the chapter is extant. Following are the chapters still listed as "part", and _I_would_appreciate_updates_ from anyone who has more exact info on these MSS. I don't have access to a Kurzgefasste Liste. 023/O Mt 7 11 13-24 031/V Mt 5 6 9 10 22 23 031/V Jo 21 033/X Mt 6 9 11 12 17-19 21-27 033/X Mc 6 15 16 033/X Jo 2 13 15 16 043/Phi Mt 6-8 18-20 043/Phi Mc 14 047 Mt 2 3 28 047 Mc 5 6 8 9 047 Jo 12 14 18 049 1Cor 5 049 Eph 1 2 049 Ph 2 3 049 1Th 4 0133 Mt 1 5 23 25-27 0133 Mc 1 2 5 6 10 11 0150 Rm 13 0151 1Tm 6 0233 Mt 2 4-16 18 19 21 22 23 25-27 0233 Mc 1 8-16 0233 Lc 1 2 4-6 10-15 18-22 0233 Jo 1 3-8 10 11 13-16 0248 Mt 1 5 6 8-10 13 15 16 18 21 0257 Mt 5 8 12 14-16 21 22 24-26 0257 Mc 6-8 11 14 16 Vincent Broman San Diego, California, USA Email: broman at sd.znet.com (home) or spawar.navy.mil or nosc.mil (work) Phone: +1 619 284 3775 Starship: 32d42m22s N 117d14m13s W === PGP protected mail preferred. For public key finger me at np.nosc.mil === -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBNET0JWCU4mTNq7IdAQH4TgQAtJKJwwOV51iRtvJ1R6zkGP8ud07Q0m2C sKmkCLlK1EG3eRnsrOQlJBKJikDVnYTwAIrgUJtnTyKuz9Y3S3Ls/jwo8lP/Upuv SzQzYhArntTtaLG8Jmo7ZMhO6iPAW7/FKX60Cckreao20DiTNx3SQRhlWAC+0bwb UwZHfAJUWg4= =4CSw -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Oct 15 13:23:29 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA15582; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 13:23:28 -0400 Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 13:23:26 -0400 X-Sender: TRINET\flint\flint@charity.twu.ca 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: Peter Flint Subject: tc-list Plural of "apparatus" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 855 >>The nominative plural of apparatus is apparatus, with a long u, not >>apparati. > >OK, I checked my dictionary, and it's true -- the plural of "apparatus" >is "apparatus" or (gack!) "apparatuses." (Don't blame me for that last....) >But I, at least, was taught that, in English, the proper plural of >all nouns ending in -us was -i. So how did this mess arise? And how >do we settle which nouns fall into which class without constantly >referring to the dictionary? Dear Bob, This is not "a mess" but perfectly logical. -us -i nouns are second declension. us -us nouns are fourth declension. If this is really a problem what are you doing on the TC list? __________________________ Peter W. Flint Dead Sea Scrolls Institute Trinity Western University 7600 Glover Road Langley, BC CANADA Tel. (604) 888-7511 Fax (604) 513-2018 email: flint@twu.ca From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Oct 15 14:43:05 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA16078; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 14:43:04 -0400 From: HPS.Bakker@nias.knaw.nl X-Sender: bakker@ns1.nias.knaw.nl Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 20:46:21 +0100 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list Plural of "apparatus" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 949 >>>The nominative plural of apparatus is apparatus, with a long u, not >>>apparati. >> >>OK, I checked my dictionary, and it's true -- the plural of "apparatus" >>is "apparatus" or (gack!) "apparatuses." (Don't blame me for that last....) >>But I, at least, was taught that, in English, the proper plural of >>all nouns ending in -us was -i. So how did this mess arise? And how >>do we settle which nouns fall into which class without constantly >>referring to the dictionary? > >Dear Bob, >This is not "a mess" but perfectly logical. > -us -i nouns are second declension. us -us nouns are fourth declension. >If this is really a problem what are you doing on the TC list? > Bob,do not despair. Sometimes one can choose between declensions. Even Cicero wrote 'acta'. So instead of the plural 'actus' (apostolorum) you may also write 'acta'. Michael Bakker Netherlands Institute for Advanced Studies - Si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses - From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Oct 15 18:10:39 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA17075; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 18:10:39 -0400 From: lakr Message-Id: <199710152215.PAA09730@netcom9.netcom.com> Subject: tc-list Rev 4:11 variants To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 15:15:03 -0700 (PDT) Cc: lakr@netcom9.netcom.com (lakr) In-Reply-To: from "Robert B. Waltz" at Oct 14, 97 02:03:58 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2191 Dear TC'ers, I have been looking at the variants found at Rev 4:11 with regard to the following : [ please be forwarned that I am new to this. ] A. ACIOS EI [ O KURIOS KAI ] O QEOS HMWN NA27 B. ACIOS EI [ KURIE ] O QEOS HMWN AV SYh C. ACIOS EI [ KURIE O KURIS KAI ] O QEOS HMWN Aleph I consulted Nestle/Aland27 Alfords and Merk. The only other interesting thing I found is that reading B. uses SYh, which is supposed to be a very good critial edition, but that noone has done much work on how well it does on Revelation. 1. Internal evidence I have looked at occurences of KURIOS and KURIE in Revelation and my preliminary feeling is that KURIE is used each time it is clear that direct address is being used, and KURIOS is used in all other occurrences, EXCEPT for Re 4:11. Does this mean that the internal evidence favors KURIE ? KURIE Re 7:14;11:17;15:3,416:7;22:20 KURIOS Re 1:8;4:8,11;11:8;17:14;18:8;19:6,16;21:22;22:5,6; 2. The longer reading to me appears to be my C. above. I interpret longer as meaning the most words when all is said and done. Is this correct ? 3. The more difficult reading. I guess for me it would be A. above considering how I feel about the internal evidence. 4. Now the tough part for me. I went and zeroxed the only Uncial manuscript that I could find which happens to be the Alexandrinus. The whole part that I need is not legible, unfortuneately. But I do note that the QEOS is a nomina sacra with Bar-Theta/Sigma and the KURI[OS | E] only has space for the two characters, so I know it is also a nomina sacra. I put it in [brackets] below. ...........___........__..... ACIOS EI O [KS] KAI O QS HMWN ............................. Now, in looking at the table of nomina sacra's provided on Bob's web site, I only see one nomina sacra for KURIOS - a KS. So, how can one be sure if ANY occurence of KURIOS is nominitive or vocative ? I sure someone has a good explanation for this. My conclusion: I like reading C. It is the longest reading and from what little I know about TC, Aleph is a primary witness for Revelation. Where did I go wrong ? I did not come to the same conclusion as the experts ! Sincerely, Larry Kruper From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Oct 15 19:02:33 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA17380; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 19:02:32 -0400 Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 16:06:53 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew Johnson Subject: Re: Plural of "apparatus" (Was:tc-list Re: Latin nouns) 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: 1499 On Mon, 13 Oct 1997, Robert B. Waltz wrote: > On Mon, 13 Oct 1997, "DC PARKER" > wrote: > > >Robert Waltz wrote > > > >> OK, I checked my dictionary, and it's true -- the plural of "apparatus" > >> is "apparatus" or (gack!) "apparatuses." (Don't blame me for that last....) > > > >It isn't a mess. It's Latin. Apparatus is a 4th declension noun in -u. Nouns > >with gen. sg. and nom. pl. in -i are 2nd declension nouns in -o, like > >annus, anni. > Isn't this getting off the topic for this list? I can understand a little confusion over this topic, especially when in this list people sometimes use Latin words according to Latin rules, but at other times according to English rules. So hoping to have the last word (ha! Fat chance of that!) I propose the following for this list: 1) When using the English word "apparatus" (obviously borrowed from Latin), follow the English rule, i.e., look it up in the dictionary if you don't know whether the plural is "apparatus", "apparatuses" or "apparati". 2) When using the Latin word "apparatus", take a hint from pre-Augustan orthography: since we cannot write the macron in net-ascii, spell it "apparatus" when singular, "apparatuus" when plural if the difference has textual signifigance. 3) Follow the same rule for other 4th declension words. 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 Wed Oct 15 19:29:02 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA17499; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 19:29:01 -0400 Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 18:33:42 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199710152215.PAA09730@netcom9.netcom.com> References: from "Robert B. Waltz" at Oct 14, 97 02:03:58 pm Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: tc-list Rev 4:11 variants Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 4169 On Wed, 15 Oct 1997, lakr@netcom9.netcom.com (lakr) wrote: (BTW -- I have personally devoted almost no time to the study of the Apocalypse, and have no feeling either for the text or for the witnesses, so I'm going to skip over large parts of this where I don't know enough to have a clear opinion.) >Dear TC'ers, > >I have been looking at the variants found at Rev 4:11 with regard to >the following : [ please be forwarned that I am new to this. ] > > A. ACIOS EI [ O KURIOS KAI ] O QEOS HMWN NA27 > B. ACIOS EI [ KURIE ] O QEOS HMWN AV SYh > C. ACIOS EI [ KURIE O KURIS KAI ] O QEOS HMWN Aleph Let's expand this evidence just a bit O KURIOS KAI A 046 104 1611 Byz(K) KURIE 1854 Byz(Andreas) hark KURIE O KURIOS KAI Aleph On this basis it appears that O KURIOS KAI is the best-attested. It has two of the four text-types, and the other two are split. It also has most of the better minuscules. [ ... ] >1. Internal evidence > >I have looked at occurences of KURIOS and KURIE in Revelation >and my preliminary feeling is that KURIE is used each time it >is clear that direct address is being used, and KURIOS is used >in all other occurrences, EXCEPT for Re 4:11. Does this mean >that the internal evidence favors KURIE ? If your feeling is right (and this is one of those places where I have no opinion :-), I would say it is, as being more in accord with the author's style. > KURIE Re 7:14;11:17;15:3,416:7;22:20 > KURIOS Re 1:8;4:8,11;11:8;17:14;18:8;19:6,16;21:22;22:5,6; > >2. The longer reading to me appears to be my C. above. I interpret >longer as meaning the most words when all is said and done. Is this >correct ? Yes, although the rule about longer/shorter reading is a very weak reed on which to base anything. I'd call it a "canon of last resort." :-) [ ... ] >4. Now the tough part for me. I went and zeroxed the only Uncial >manuscript that I could find which happens to be the Alexandrinus. > >The whole part that I need is not legible, unfortuneately. But I do >note that the QEOS is a nomina sacra with Bar-Theta/Sigma and the >KURI[OS | E] only has space for the two characters, so I know it is >also a nomina sacra. I put it in [brackets] below. > >...........___........__..... >ACIOS EI O [KS] KAI O QS HMWN >............................. > >Now, in looking at the table of nomina sacra's provided on Bob's web >site, I only see one nomina sacra for KURIOS - a KS. So, how can >one be sure if ANY occurence of KURIOS is nominitive or vocative ? >I sure someone has a good explanation for this. Perhaps this is something I need to make more explicit in the article on the nomina sacra. They *do* inflect; there are always enough letters at the end to determine the inflection. So the NS for KURIOS is KS; that for KURIE is KE (as I recall). > >My conclusion: > >I like reading C. It is the longest reading and from what little I >know about TC, Aleph is a primary witness for Revelation. Where did >I go wrong ? I did not come to the same conclusion as the experts ! You're right, Aleph is a primary witness -- the *only* complete witness to the P47/Aleph text-type (although most scholars don't think much of this type). But you missed the fact that reading C is a singular reading of Aleph. Your case might be good if it had some more support. But it is more likely to be a scribal error in Aleph. In general, one should not accept singular readings unless the other readings offer such a hopeless tangle that none emerges as superior. That's what I can say about this reading. I leave the rest up to others. And BTW -- don't be afraid to disagree with the experts. Remember, no two scholars have agreed completely about what is the best text. Experts may require respect; they don't require worship. (At least as long as you don't have to take classes from them, anyway. :-) -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Oct 15 19:30:34 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA17516; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 19:30:33 -0400 Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 16:35:14 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew Johnson Subject: Re: tc-list Rev 4:11 variants To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu In-Reply-To: <199710152215.PAA09730@netcom9.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: 3107 On Wed, 15 Oct 1997, lakr wrote: > Dear TC'ers, > > I have been looking at the variants found at Rev 4:11 with regard to > the following : [ please be forwarned that I am new to this. ] > > A. ACIOS EI [ O KURIOS KAI ] O QEOS HMWN NA27 > B. ACIOS EI [ KURIE ] O QEOS HMWN AV SYh > C. ACIOS EI [ KURIE O KURIS KAI ] O QEOS HMWN Aleph > Larry- I can only offer a few observations, the harder questions will have to wait for more expert people to respond. But I do have a few points. The first of them is that it is always better practice to evalute external evidence more thoroughly before turning to internal evidence. I admit that this is harder for Revelation than for most other NT books simply because there are so many fewer witnesses to this book. > I consulted Nestle/Aland27 Alfords and Merk. The only other interesting > thing I found is that reading B. uses SYh, which is supposed to > be a very good critial edition, but that noone has done much > work on how well it does on Revelation. > > 1. Internal evidence > > I have looked at occurences of KURIOS and KURIE in Revelation > It is clear that direct address is being used, and KURIOS is used > in all other occurrences, EXCEPT for Re 4:11. Does this mean > that the internal evidence favors KURIE ? Not unconditionally. But it certainly is a factor that must be considered. > > KURIE Re 7:14;11:17;15:3,416:7;22:20 > KURIOS Re 1:8;4:8,11;11:8;17:14;18:8;19:6,16;21:22;22:5,6; > > 2. The longer reading to me appears to be my C. above. I interpret > longer as meaning the most words when all is said and done. Is this > correct ? > This is true, of course, but the _signifigance_ of this fact remains unclear until you can establish whether it is longer because it C. is a conflation of A and B, or because it is stylistic polishing or whatever. In this case, I would guess that it is a conflation (rather than the others being shorter versions of C). But again, I would like to see the external evidence before making this conclusion (as I write this, my NA26 is unavailable). > 3. The more difficult reading. I guess for me it would be A. above > considering how I feel about the internal evidence. > Interesting. I would say C. is the harder reading. A. is not likely to have been considered the harder reading by the scribe simply because hO KYRIOS = KYRIE is so common in Biblical and Liturgical Greek. But the repetition KYRIE hO KYRIOS sounds cumbersome, much like asyndeton. [snip] > ...........___........__..... > ACIOS EI O [KS] KAI O QS HMWN > ............................. > > Now, in looking at the table of nomina sacra's provided on Bob's web > site, I only see one nomina sacra for KURIOS - a KS. So, how can > one be sure if ANY occurence of KURIOS is nominitive or vocative ? > I sure someone has a good explanation for this. > It sounds like Bob listed the nomina sacra only in the nominative singular. KE KY KN also occur. I hope this helps. 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 Wed Oct 15 20:44:06 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA17711; Wed, 15 Oct 1997 20:44:05 -0400 Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 20:48:02 -0400 Message-Id: <199710160048.UAA06546@server1.netpath.net> X-Sender: rlmullen@server1.netpath.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Roderic L. Mullen" Subject: tc-list REV 4:11 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 455 In re the textual question on Rev. 4:11, let me point out the most recent commentary by David Aune, REVELATION ,Word Biblical Commentary 52a, (Dallas: WordBooks, 1997). I just picked up my copy last week and have found it excellent on textual questions. (By the way, for the newcomers, Aune, following Schmid, points out that the best group of textual witnesses "in general" in the Apocalypse is the combination A and C.) Hope this helps-- Rod Mullen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Oct 16 04:38:01 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id EAA18763; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 04:38:00 -0400 X-Sender: schmid@ns1.nias.knaw.nl Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 10:41:34 +0100 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: schmiul@nias.knaw.nl (U. Schmid) Subject: Re: tc-list Rev 4:11 variants Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 5172 On Wed, 15 oct 1997, Larry Kruper wrote: >Dear TC'ers, > >I have been looking at the variants found at Rev 4:11 with regard to >the following : [ please be forwarned that I am new to this. ] > > A. ACIOS EI [ O KURIOS KAI ] O QEOS HMWN NA27 > B. ACIOS EI [ KURIE ] O QEOS HMWN AV SYh > C. ACIOS EI [ KURIE O KURIS KAI ] O QEOS HMWN Aleph > >I consulted Nestle/Aland27 Alfords and Merk. The only other interesting >thing I found is that reading B. uses SYh, which is supposed to >be a very good critial edition, but that noone has done much >work on how well it does on Revelation. Lt's clarify just one point. Syh is an early 7th century Syriac revision of the Philoxeniana (early 6th century Syriac version) based on Greek MSS (one to three Greek MSS have been used depending on the various parts of the NT). The main features of syh are 1) a very literal rendering of the Greek, and 2) marginal notes (incl. critical signs) refering to variant readings in the Greek as well as in the Syriac. Syh, therefore, offers a high degree of certainty regarding its underlying Greek text(s), and displays interesting insights into ancient "critical" editing. Thus, it may be safe to call syh a "critical edition". However, I'm a bit reluctant to call it a "good" critical edition, certainly not in the sense that it offers a very old and superior text. Note, at best it gives the testimony of three Greek MSS from the early 7th century, which, no doubt, in case of Revelation would be more interesting than in other parts of the NT. However, in Revelation only one Greek MS seems to have been used. And, you're right not much work has been done in this particular field. However, you may note _A. V=F6=F6bus, The Apocalypse in the Harklean Version, 1978 (CSCO 400)_. >1. Internal evidence > >I have looked at occurences of KURIOS and KURIE in Revelation >and my preliminary feeling is that KURIE is used each time it >is clear that direct address is being used, and KURIOS is used >in all other occurrences, EXCEPT for Re 4:11. Does this mean >that the internal evidence favors KURIE ? > > KURIE Re 7:14;11:17;15:3,416:7;22:20 > KURIOS Re 1:8;4:8,11;11:8;17:14;18:8;19:6,16;21:22;22:5,6; I very much sympathize with this approach. As a rule, discussions of variant readings should not be done in isolation. Usually a lot of valuable TC information shows up when working on similar morphological or syntactical phenomena of the same text or author, even to the end of complicating the whole issue. Larry, you probably realized that in Re 11:17 p47 and Aleph (!) give the variant reading (ho) KYRIOS instead of KYRIE. What do you make of that? >2. The longer reading to me appears to be my C. above. I interpret >longer as meaning the most words when all is said and done. Is this >correct ? Yes. >3. The more difficult reading. I guess for me it would be A. above >considering how I feel about the internal evidence. > >4. Now the tough part for me. I went and zeroxed the only Uncial >manuscript that I could find which happens to be the Alexandrinus. > >The whole part that I need is not legible, unfortuneately. But I do >note that the QEOS is a nomina sacra with Bar-Theta/Sigma and the >KURI[OS | E] only has space for the two characters, so I know it is >also a nomina sacra. I put it in [brackets] below. > >...........___........__..... >ACIOS EI O [KS] KAI O QS HMWN >............................. > >Now, in looking at the table of nomina sacra's provided on Bob's web >site, I only see one nomina sacra for KURIOS - a KS. So, how can >one be sure if ANY occurence of KURIOS is nominitive or vocative ? >I sure someone has a good explanation for this. Bob Waltz and Matthew Johnson already dealt with that issue. However, I would like to add a small remark on the use of "nomina sacra". "Nomina sacra" is plural and, again, it is Latin. The singular is _a_ *nomen sacrum*. Please, don't be upset when it comes to seemingly unimportant corrections of that sort. TC, like any other scholarly enterprise, has a certain technical "jargon" that is conventionally defined and reasonably clear. Don't complain, it's simply business. BTW-- Medical students have to learn much more technical "jargon" derieved from Latin. >My conclusion: > >I like reading C. It is the longest reading and from what little I >know about TC, Aleph is a primary witness for Revelation. Where did >I go wrong ? I did not come to the same conclusion as the experts ! Maybe because an argument like "I like reading C" is usually not considered to be very decisive in scholarly discussion. The same goes for "the longest reading" in TC, though that may be more open to discussion. Your last argument regarding Aleph is generally true. It is a primary witness, though with lots of peculiar features which warrant careful examination. In the very case of Re 4:11 the reading of Aleph can be explained as either a conflate reading (of A. and B.) or as a pious expansion in order to complete the doxological "jargon" as, e.g., in Re 1:8 and more striking in Re 7:10. Ulrich Schmid, Netherlands Institute for Advanced Studies From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Oct 16 06:58:44 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id GAA18868; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 06:58:44 -0400 From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" Organization: Divinity Faculty To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 12:00:51 +000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: tc-list Re: nomina sacra Priority: normal References: <199710152215.PAA09730@netcom9.netcom.com> In-reply-to: X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.54) Message-ID: <3FFDC61C8@div.ed.ac.uk> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 512 As mentioned by one of us, the nomina sacra are more varied than might at first appear. E.g., in the "contracted" forms (lst letter + last letter) of theos, kyrios, christos, Iesous, the nomina sacra forms with be the lst letter and last letter *of the inflected forms*: thus,e.g., for theos: theta-sigma for nom., theta-upsilon for gen., etc. 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 Oct 16 12:55:22 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA20863; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 12:55:22 -0400 Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 12:55:20 -0400 (EDT) From: "James R. Adair" To: TC List Subject: tc-list German Bibliography 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: 1991 You may remember that Eric Weinberger asked a couple of weeks ago about classic books in German that people thought ought to be translated. Here are the books that were submitted by people on this list. Note that he has changed umlauts to "e," as in u-umlaut = ue, etc. EDUARD NORDEN Agnostos Theos GUENTER KLEIN Die Zwoelf Apostel HANS-JOACHIM SCHOEPS (spelt the same way even when special characters available) Theologie und Geschichte des Judenchristentums RUDOLF STECK Der Galaterbrief nach seiner Echtheit untersucht nebst kritischen Bemerkungen des Christentums HEINRICH EBERHARD GOTTLOB PAULUS Das Leben Jesu als Grundlage einer reinen Geschichte des Urchristentums KARL HEINRICH VENTURINI Natuerliche Geschichte des grossen Propheten von Nazareth CHRISTIAN HERMANN WEISSE Die evangelische Geschichte kritisch und philosophisch bearbeitet JULIUS HOLTZMANN Die synoptischen Evangelien BRUNO BAUER Kritik der Evangelien BRUNO BAUER Kritik der paulinischen Briefe BRUNO BAUER Christus und die Caesaren: Der Ursprung des Christentums aus dem roemischen Griechentum SIGMUND MOWINCKEL Psalmenstudien ALFRED RAHLFS Lucians Rezension der Koenigsbuecher (+ other volumes in the Septuaginta-Studien series) E. SCHURMANN Das Lukasevangelium F. REHKOPF Die lukanische Sonderquelle - ihr Umfang und Sprachgebrauch J. SCHMID Matthaeus und Lukas: Eine Untersuchung des Verhaeltnisses ihrer Evangelien ADOLF JULICHER Die Gleichnisreden Jesu. 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 Oct 16 13:54:26 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA21139; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 13:54:25 -0400 Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 13:58:02 -0400 (EDT) From: Bart Ehrman X-Sender: behrman@login2.isis.unc.edu To: TC List Subject: Re: tc-list German Bibliography 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: 406 Sorry, I missed Weinberger's initial request. But if someone's thinking about a translation project, I'd like to put in a huge (supply your own superlative for that) plug for Walter Bauer, _Das Leben Jesu im Zeitalter der neutestamentlichen Apokryphen_ (Darmstadt, 1967). It's brilliant -- and has significant text-critical discussions. -- Bart Ehrman University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Oct 16 17:56:25 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA22806; Thu, 16 Oct 1997 17:56:24 -0400 From: lakr Message-Id: <199710162201.PAA19660@netcom9.netcom.com> Subject: Re: tc-list Rev 4:11 variants To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 15:01:06 -0700 (PDT) Cc: lakr@netcom9.netcom.com (lakr) In-Reply-To: from "U. Schmid" at Oct 16, 97 10:41:34 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1484 > >I have looked at occurences of KURIOS and KURIE in Revelation > >and my preliminary feeling is that KURIE is used each time it > >is clear that direct address is being used, and KURIOS is used > >in all other occurrences, EXCEPT for Re 4:11. Does this mean > >that the internal evidence favors KURIE ? > > > > KURIE Re 7:14;11:17;15:3,416:7;22:20 > > KURIOS Re 1:8;4:8,11;11:8;17:14;18:8;19:6,16;21:22;22:5,6; > > I very much sympathize with this approach. As a rule, discussions of > variant readings should not be done in isolation. Usually a lot of valuable > TC information shows up when working on similar morphological or > syntactical phenomena of the same text or author, even to the end of > complicating the whole issue. Larry, you probably realized that in Re 11:17 > p47 and Aleph (!) give the variant reading (ho) KYRIOS instead of KYRIE. > What do you make of that? > Ulrich Schmid I've just started looking at this, and I have not looked at all the variations for each occurence. That sounds like a good idea. I see the similarity between 4:11 and 11:17. The thing that bothers me about all these variations (for KS,KE) is that we know that the original text did not have the nomina sacra -- not even one nomen sacrum (could not resist). So, since we know for a fact that we are not looking at the original text, is it not possible that whatever was there before was not changed consistently by different witnesses ? Sincerely, Larry Kruper From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Oct 17 11:17:10 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA26240; Fri, 17 Oct 1997 11:17:09 -0400 Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 10:21:50 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: tc-list Mailing list for ENTTC? Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1224 TCers -- Believe it or not, I do *not* like being the source of controversy. But some of us have controversy "thrust upon us" (as, e.g., when we pervert quotations such as that one :-). But I am managing the site for the Encyclopedia of NT TC until such time as Rich Elliot can turn it into a real book. And that means that I sometimes need to ask for opinions and make announcements. (I need an opinion right now, in fact.) Rather than burden the TC list with these, it seems to me that I should start a mailing list devoted to the ENTTC. It won't be a "real" mailing list -- I don't want to set up a LISTSERV -- but if you want to send me your e-mail addresses, I will add your name to the list I am compiling for release information and announcements. And then the list won't have to hear any more of my silly announcements. Thereafter I will be able to confine myself to silly PROnouncements. :-) -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Oct 17 13:28:50 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA27134; Fri, 17 Oct 1997 13:28:49 -0400 Message-Id: <199710171640.KAA04508@rtn> From: "Francisco Orozco" To: Subject: RE: tc-list Mailing list for ENTTC? Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 10:26:06 -0600 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: 972 Robert B. Waltz wrote, > TCers -- > > Believe it or not, I do *not* like being the source of controversy. > But some of us have controversy "thrust upon us" (as, e.g., when > we pervert quotations such as that one :-). > > But I am managing the site for the Encyclopedia of NT TC until > such time as Rich Elliot can turn it into a real book. And that > means that I sometimes need to ask for opinions and make > announcements. (I need an opinion right now, in fact.) > > Rather than burden the TC list with these, it seems to me that > I should start a mailing list devoted to the ENTTC. It won't > be a "real" mailing list -- I don't want to set up a LISTSERV -- > but if you want to send me your e-mail addresses, I will add > your name to the list I am compiling for release information > and announcements. > Please add me to the List. And, thank you for your labors in this regard. I have profited much from your web site. Francisco Orozco fran4@rtn.uson.mx From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Oct 17 14:41:32 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA27716; Fri, 17 Oct 1997 14:41:31 -0400 Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 13:46:17 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: tc-list Sorry! Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 310 Sorry for sending my last message to the list. I hadn't noticed that the request also came via the TC list. I'll be more careful hereafter. I guess it proves that my signature is true.... 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 Oct 17 14:57:57 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA27825; Fri, 17 Oct 1997 14:57:56 -0400 From: dwashbur@nyx.net Message-Id: <199710171902.MAA22327@smtp.northlink.com> Comments: Authenticated sender is To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 12:01:50 -7000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: RE: tc-list Mailing list for ENTTC? 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: 699 > > Rather than burden the TC list with these, it seems to me that > > I should start a mailing list devoted to the ENTTC. It won't > > be a "real" mailing list -- I don't want to set up a LISTSERV -- > > but if you want to send me your e-mail addresses, I will add > > your name to the list I am compiling for release information > > and announcements. > > > > Please add me to the List. And, thank you for your labors in this regard. > I have profited much from your web site. > > Francisco Orozco What he said. Add me too, please. And while you're at it, ignore the grumblers. Dave Washburn dwashbur@nyx.net http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur/ If you don't know where you're going, don't lead. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Oct 17 20:25:45 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA29281; Fri, 17 Oct 1997 20:25:44 -0400 Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 17:30:33 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew Johnson Subject: tc-list Re: Books about Nestle-Aland. To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu cc: lakr In-Reply-To: <199710031535.IAA10662@netcom9.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: 806 On Fri, 3 Oct 1997, lakr wrote: [snip] > Also, I was under the impression that the UBS and NA were so > close there is no benefit to owning both. Is that correct ? Not quite. It is the _text_ of NA and UBS that are almost identical. The critical apparatuses are quite different. I keep my UBS4 around for three reasons: 1) the typeface is _so_ much more pleasant to read 2) the patristic citations are more complete 3) it has a punctuation apparatus. But to try to understand the history of the variants of any passage I use the NA's apparatus. Even that is incomplete and has been accused (not without some justification) of a strong "Alexandrian" bias. 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 Sat Oct 18 15:21:15 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA01105; Sat, 18 Oct 1997 15:21:14 -0400 From: dwashbur@nyx.net Message-Id: <199710181925.MAA26046@smtp.northlink.com> Comments: Authenticated sender is To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Sat, 18 Oct 1997 12:25:09 -7000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: tc-list Semi-TC announcement 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: 1105 This only barely qualifies as TC; for those who are interested, I also posted this on the Orion list. Since the Dead Sea Scrolls, including the non-biblical ones, are important for Hebrew Bible TC, I decided to go ahead and post the notice here as well. In brief, I have created an online transcription of the "Manual of Discipline" and posted it to my website. Here's the announcement as it appeared on Orion: I just posted column 11 of my online transcription of 1QS to my website. So it's now complete. There are a few html things I want to do to it, such as adding "next column" and "previous column" links, but the hard work is done. To check it out you can either go to my home page and find the link to it under the heading "Dead Sea Scrolls" or go directly to the main page at http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur/1qsintro.htm The main page has an email link on it as well. If you find a typo or other sort of error that needs correction, please drop me a note and let me know. Dave Washburn dwashbur@nyx.net http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur/ If you don't know where you're going, don't lead. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Oct 19 14:42:22 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA03651; Sun, 19 Oct 1997 14:42:21 -0400 Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19971019194717.0077944c@mail.link.net.mt> X-Sender: rayzamm@mail.link.net.mt X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 20:47:17 +0100 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: ray zammit Subject: tc-list Jesus asks : Do You Know Me ? Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1076 Dear list members, between the 18th and 26th October the Archbishop's Seminary (in Malta - Europe) will be orgainising an Open Week with the logo "Tafni?" (that is, the Maltese for: "Do you know me?" with the reference being to Jesus Christ). I encourage you to take a look at the homepage which has been set up for the occasion http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Prairie/6982/OpenWeek97_e.htm *********************************************************************** You may wish to answer the question yourself at: http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Prairie/6982/quest_tafni_e.htm *********************************************************************** You may also wish to answer a vox pop at http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Prairie/6982/voxpop_e.htm Regards, Ray Zammit =============================================================== rayzamm@mail.link.net.mt tel: 455497 fax: 459811 http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Prairie/6982/OpenWeek97_e.htm http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Prairie/6982/index.htm http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/Union/1321/ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Oct 20 02:03:14 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id CAA05876; Mon, 20 Oct 1997 02:03:13 -0400 From: dwashbur@nyx.net Message-Id: <199710200607.XAA08691@smtp.northlink.com> Comments: Authenticated sender is To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 23:07:02 -7000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: tc-list 1QS Column 1 transcription corrections 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: 362 Marty Abegg graciously put a lot of work into examining my transcription of column 1 and showed me several typos. I would like to offer public thanks to him for all his effort, and to let folks know that the corrected version is now on the web site. Dave Washburn dwashbur@nyx.net http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur/ If you don't know where you're going, don't lead. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Oct 21 06:49:17 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id GAA11540; Tue, 21 Oct 1997 06:49:16 -0400 Message-Id: <199710211049.GAA11535@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> From: "Steve Carson-Rowland" To: "Textual List" Subject: tc-list Majority text -question from a beginner Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 19:27:25 +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: 1416 In an essay entitled 'The Significance of the Papyri for determining the nature of the NT text in the second century: A dynamic view of textual transmission' by Eldon Jay Epp (In 'Gospel Traditions in the Second Century', ed. William L. Peterson), the author writes: The "A" text cluster, that is, the 'accepted' text of the Koine or later Byzantine textual group, need not be further considered here, for the early papyri are not involved (although a few papyri of the 6th and 7th centuries do represent the "A" text). Furthermore, everyone recognises that this textual group exists, though not until the 4th century- that is, after the period of the earliest papyri. Moreover, everyone also acknowledges that this can actually be called a "text-type". The recognised constituent members can be found in standard handbooks. Firstly I found the statement a little confusing. Why mention the papyri of the 6th and 7th century if the textual group exists from the 4th century onwards? Is there any significance in Epp's parenthetic comment? Secondly, how clear is the evidence for the majority text not existing before the 4th century? There would be about 45 papyri dated up to the end of the 4th century, but many/most(?) of them with only a few verses - for example I have p77 as only having 10 verses, p12 with 1 verse, etc. Thanks, Steve Carson-Rowland Brisbane, Australia From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Oct 21 08:07:47 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA11713; Tue, 21 Oct 1997 08:07:46 -0400 X-Sender: petersen@ns1.nias.knaw.nl Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 14:11:09 +0100 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: WLPetersen@nias.knaw.nl (William L. Petersen) Subject: tc-list Re: Majority text -question from a beginner Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2639 Steve Carson-Rowland writes: >In an essay entitled 'The Significance of the Papyri for determining the >nature of the NT text in the second century: A dynamic view of textual >transmission' by Eldon Jay Epp (In 'Gospel Traditions in the Second >Century', ed. William L. Peterson), the author writes: > > >The "A" text cluster, that is, the 'accepted' text of the Koine or later >Byzantine textual group, need not be further considered here, for the early >papyri are not involved (although a few papyri of the 6th and 7th centuries >do represent the "A" text). Furthermore, everyone recognises that this >textual group exists, though not until the 4th century- that is, after the >period of the earliest papyri. Moreover, everyone also acknowledges that >this can actually be called a "text-type". The recognised constituent >members can be found in standard handbooks. > > >Firstly I found the statement a little confusing. Why mention the papyri of >the 6th and 7th century if the textual group exists from the 4th century >onwards? Is there any significance in Epp's parenthetic comment? Reread Epp's title: "The Significance *of the Papryi*..." He mentions the VI/VII cent. papyri because the papyri are the subject of his article, and because, in the case of his "A"-text, these VI/VII cent. papyri are the earliest *papyri* evidence for this text. > >Secondly, how clear is the evidence for the majority text not existing >before the 4th century? There would be about 45 papyri dated up to the end >of the 4th century, but many/most(?) of them with only a few verses - for >example I have p77 as only having 10 verses, p12 with 1 verse, etc. Crystal clear. No manuscript, no father, no apocryphal work seems to know or use it. Check the handbooks (Metzger, *The Text of the NT*, Kenyon, *The Text of the Greek Bible*). While there are those who disagree, there is a simple question to pose to them: What second-century (or even third-century) source uses the "majority text"? There are many which display the Western Text, and some which seem to display the so-called Alexandrian Text. For examples, see my chapter "What Text Can NT Textual Criticism Ultimately Reach?" in *New Testament Textual Criticism, Exegesis and Church History,* edd. B. Aland and J. Delobel, CBETh 7 (Kampen [the Netherlands]: Kok/Pharos, 1994), pp. 136-152, or my *Tatian's Diatessaron,* VigChr.S 25 (Leiden: Brill, 1994), pp. 9-26. The archives of this list have numerous exchanges on the matter; you would do well to read them. --Petersen, Penn State University, Netherlands Institute for Advanced Studies. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Oct 21 09:45:11 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA12176; Tue, 21 Oct 1997 09:45:10 -0400 Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 08:49:57 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199710211049.GAA11535@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: tc-list Majority text -question from a beginner Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 3593 On Tue, 21 Oct 1997, "Steve Carson-Rowland" wrote: [ ... ] > >The "A" text cluster, that is, the 'accepted' text of the Koine or later >Byzantine textual group, need not be further considered here, for the early >papyri are not involved (although a few papyri of the 6th and 7th centuries >do represent the "A" text). Furthermore, everyone recognises that this >textual group exists, though not until the 4th century- that is, after the >period of the earliest papyri. Moreover, everyone also acknowledges that >this can actually be called a "text-type". The recognised constituent >members can be found in standard handbooks. > > >Firstly I found the statement a little confusing. Why mention the papyri of >the 6th and 7th century if the textual group exists from the 4th century >onwards? Is there any significance in Epp's parenthetic comment? Yes, but indirect. Our earliest evidence for the "A" (Byzantine) text is from the fourth century. The early papyri, which might contain the Byzantine text if it existed, do *not* do so. Thus they represent evidence, although not strong evidence, that it did not exist before that time. >Secondly, how clear is the evidence for the majority text not existing >before the 4th century? There would be about 45 papyri dated up to the end >of the 4th century, but many/most(?) of them with only a few verses - for >example I have p77 as only having 10 verses, p12 with 1 verse, etc. I think we can give a slightly less grumpy response to this than William L. Petersen did. :-) You are right, of course, that most of the early papyri are fragmentary. But none of these fragments contain clearly Byzantine texts. And some early papyri are substantial -- p13, p45, p46, p47, p66, p72, p75. And all of these are *clearly* non-Byzantine. The same is true of the versions (Old Latin, Old Syriac, Coptic) known to have been made before the fourth century. Most books state that the earliest evidence for the Byzantine text is Chrysostom (or the slightly earlier but much less important Asterius the Sophist). Also usually dated to the fourth century (although this is debated, and I've seen nothing conclusive on the subject) is the Peshitta Syriac, which -- while not purely Byzantine -- is Byzantine enough that it attests to the existence of the type. The above is true in the Gospels. In the other parts of the NT, the earliest Byzantine witness is usually the Harklean Syriac, which was compiled from multiple manuscripts, one of which seems in most sections to have been Byzantine. The earliest Greek witnesses for the Byzantine text are A of the Gospels (fifth century), probably Psi (VIII/IX) for Acts and Paul, K L 049 (IX) in the Catholics, and P 046 (IX) in the Apocalypse. As Petersen stated, the evidence for the other types is usually earlier. It is also stronger in the early centuries (for example, we have four substantial witnesses -- p66 p75 Aleph B -- to the Alexandrian text of the gospels from the fourth century and earlier). Combine this with the fact that the Byzantine text is usually held to be textually inferior, and it is no surprise that it is held to be late. None of this, be it noted, constitutes proof. But it is very strong evidence.... -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Oct 21 10:43:03 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA12478; Tue, 21 Oct 1997 10:43:01 -0400 X-Sender: petersen@ns1.nias.knaw.nl Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 16:46:21 +0100 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: WLPetersen@nias.knaw.nl (William L. Petersen) Subject: tc-list A query: the date of the Peshitta Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 690 Robert Waltz wrote: >Most books state that the earliest evidence for the Byzantine text >is Chrysostom (or the slightly earlier but much less important >Asterius the Sophist). Also usually dated to the fourth century >(although this is debated, and I've seen nothing conclusive on >the subject) is the Peshitta Syriac, which -- while not purely >Byzantine -- is Byzantine enough that it attests to the existence >of the type. Would you be kind enough to name the sources which describe the Peshitta as "fourth cent." and "Byzantine enough that it attests to the existence of the [text] type"? Thank you. --Petersen, Penn State University, Netherlands Institute for Advanced Studies. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Oct 21 12:35:40 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA13048; Tue, 21 Oct 1997 12:35:39 -0400 Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 11:40:28 -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: tc-list A query: the date of the Peshitta Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2018 On Tue, 21 Oct 1997, WLPetersen@nias.knaw.nl (William L. Petersen) wrote: >Robert Waltz wrote: > >>Most books state that the earliest evidence for the Byzantine text >>is Chrysostom (or the slightly earlier but much less important >>Asterius the Sophist). Also usually dated to the fourth century >>(although this is debated, and I've seen nothing conclusive on >>the subject) is the Peshitta Syriac, which -- while not purely >>Byzantine -- is Byzantine enough that it attests to the existence >>of the type. > > >Would you be kind enough to name the sources which describe the Peshitta as >"fourth cent." and "Byzantine enough that it attests to the existence of >the [text] type"? As for the Peshitta, the consensus of the texts I checked (UBS4, Methger _Introduction_ and _Early Versions_, Souter, Greenlee, etc.) gives a date of IV or early V (my spot check surprised me by revealing more support for "early V" than I thought, but where there is no real evidence, the difference between IV and early V is slight). It cannot be later than V, as we have manuscripts from that era. If anyone has other evidence as to the date, I would welcome it. As far as the text goes, I found statements to the effect that the Peshitta is Byzantine in Metzger (_Early Versions_ 61) and Vaganay/Amphoux (p. 34). I concede that the studies Metzger cites appear to be badly flawed methodologically. The results, however, seem to be solid. The table below shows the rate of agreement of the Peshitta with certain major witnesses to the Gospels. This is based on a sample of 811 readings Aleph 40% A 68% B 36% D 42% E 70% K 70% Gamma 68% Theta 57% Omega 69% fam 1 56% f 13 62% It is obvious that the Peshitta is not purely Byzantine; in fact it has a long way to go. But it is much closer to that type than to any other. BTW -- it appears that it is less Byzantine outside the Gospels. 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 Oct 21 12:40:14 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA13079; Tue, 21 Oct 1997 12:40:13 -0400 Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 12:45:07 -0400 (EDT) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: tc-list P9 at 1 Jn 4:11 X-Sender: jwest@mail.highland.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19971021123926.0caf80c4@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: 520 Colleagues, I am transcribing P9 for the ENTMP. V. 11 says: O Q!S! TAPRISEN? H?[MAS KAI HMEIS] OFILOMEN AL[L]H?[LOUS AGAPAN (n.b. ! denotes a superscript horizontal line marking an abbreviation; ? denotes an unclear letter; [ ] denotes a missing letter or letters that have been supplied.) My question- what is TAPRISEN and does it replace AGAPH? Is it from TAPRIZW? Thanks, Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@highland.net From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Oct 21 12:52:30 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA13212; Tue, 21 Oct 1997 12:52:29 -0400 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 09:53:21 -0500 Subject: Re: tc-list Majority text -question from a beginner Message-ID: <19971021.095324.12550.2.jeffcate@juno.com> References: X-Mailer: Juno 1.38 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-5,17-18,20-24 From: jeffcate@juno.com (James J. Cate) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1206 "Robert B. Waltz" writes: >Most books state that the earliest evidence for the Byzantine text >is Chrysostom (or the slightly earlier but much less important >Asterius the Sophist). Asterius the Sophist (d. post 341) would be earlier than Chrysostom (d. ca. 407) and is often mentioned by Gordon Fee (*Studies in the Theory and Method of NT TC*, SD 45, pp. 187, 205-6, 352, 358) as the earliest witness to the Byzantine type of text. However, since Fee's articles were first published, further study has shown that not all the works attributed to Asterius the Sophist are in fact from him. In 1990, Wolfram Kinzig analyzed Asterius' *Homilies on the Psalms* and discovered: (1) the homilies were by one author; (2) the author's name was Asterius; (3) the author was *not* Asterius the Sophist; (4) the author was not an Arian, but a Nicean; (5) the writings originate from 385-410 in Palestine or Western Syria; (6) the specific identity of Asterius the Homily-Writer can not be identified. Ergo, evidence for the Byzantine type of text cannot be pushed beyond the last decades of the fourth century. Jeff Cate, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof. of Christian Studies California Baptist College From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Oct 21 14:52:16 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA14160; Tue, 21 Oct 1997 14:52:15 -0400 From: dwashbur@nyx.net Message-Id: <199710211856.LAA17723@smtp.northlink.com> Comments: Authenticated sender is To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 11:56:00 -7000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: tc-list P9 at 1 Jn 4:11 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: 602 > Colleagues, > > I am transcribing P9 for the ENTMP. V. 11 says: > > O Q!S! TAPRISEN? H?[MAS KAI HMEIS] > OFILOMEN AL[L]H?[LOUS AGAPAN > > (n.b. ! denotes a superscript horizontal line marking an abbreviation; ? > denotes an unclear letter; [ ] denotes a missing letter or letters that have > been supplied.) > > My question- what is TAPRISEN and does it replace AGAPH? Is it from TAPRIZW? > Jim, I already transcribed this one for ENTMP. I'll send you a copy off-list. Dave Washburn dwashbur@nyx.net http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur/ If you don't know where you're going, don't lead. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Oct 21 14:55:28 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA14178; Tue, 21 Oct 1997 14:55:28 -0400 From: dwashbur@nyx.net Message-Id: <199710211900.MAA17930@smtp.northlink.com> Comments: Authenticated sender is To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 11:59:33 -7000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: tc-list A query: the date of the Peshitta 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: 1455 Bob Waltz wrote: > >Would you be kind enough to name the sources which describe the Peshitta as > >"fourth cent." and "Byzantine enough that it attests to the existence of > >the [text] type"? > > As for the Peshitta, the consensus of the texts I checked (UBS4, > Methger _Introduction_ and _Early Versions_, Souter, Greenlee, > etc.) gives a date of IV or early V (my spot check surprised me > by revealing more support for "early V" than I thought, but > where there is no real evidence, the difference between IV and > early V is slight). It cannot be later than V, as we have > manuscripts from that era. > > If anyone has other evidence as to the date, I would > welcome it. Up to the days of Westcott and Hort, the Peshitta was thought to be second-century, and in fact Burgon and others used it as evidence that the Byzantine text-type was just as old as the "Neutral." I don't remember who it was that proposed the later date - Streeter comes to mind, but don't quote me on that - but I do remember that it looked (and at times still looks) suspiciously like redating in order to accomodate the WH theory of the time. I'm not saying it is or it isn't, so I won't don my flame-proof suit at this time, I'm just saying that the accusation was made from various quarters, and the accusation may not be totally without merit. Dave Washburn dwashbur@nyx.net http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur/ If you don't know where you're going, don't lead. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Oct 21 15:00:05 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA14222; Tue, 21 Oct 1997 15:00:04 -0400 From: dwashbur@nyx.net Message-Id: <199710211904.MAA18252@smtp.northlink.com> Comments: Authenticated sender is To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 12:04:06 -7000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: tc-list Majority text -question from a beginner 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: 2004 Bob Waltz wrote: > >Firstly I found the statement a little confusing. Why mention the papyri of > >the 6th and 7th century if the textual group exists from the 4th century > >onwards? Is there any significance in Epp's parenthetic comment? > > Yes, but indirect. Our earliest evidence for the "A" (Byzantine) text > is from the fourth century. The early papyri, which might contain the > Byzantine text if it existed, do *not* do so. Thus they represent > evidence, although not strong evidence, that it did not exist before > that time. > > >Secondly, how clear is the evidence for the majority text not existing > >before the 4th century? There would be about 45 papyri dated up to the end > >of the 4th century, but many/most(?) of them with only a few verses - for > >example I have p77 as only having 10 verses, p12 with 1 verse, etc. > > I think we can give a slightly less grumpy response to this than > William L. Petersen did. :-) > > You are right, of course, that most of the early papyri are fragmentary. > But none of these fragments contain clearly Byzantine texts. And some > early papyri are substantial -- p13, p45, p46, p47, p66, p72, p75. > And all of these are *clearly* non-Byzantine. The same is true of > the versions (Old Latin, Old Syriac, Coptic) known to have been made > before the fourth century. It's been a while since I've seen this come up: what's the current state of Harry Sturz' research, in which he found numerous "Byzantine" readings in very early papyri? As I recall he wasn't arguing for Byzantine priority, but was saying that the presence of readings that have been considered purely Byzantine in the early papyri means that Byzantine readings should be given equal consideration with other text-types for application of internal evidence. Do his conclusions about such readings in the papyri still stand, or have they been disproven? Dave Washburn dwashbur@nyx.net http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur/ If you don't know where you're going, don't lead. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Oct 21 15:24:41 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA14282; Tue, 21 Oct 1997 15:24:40 -0400 Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 14:29:22 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199710211900.MAA17930@smtp.northlink.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: tc-list Re: the date of the Peshitta; also Majority text.... Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 3003 On Tue, 21 Oct 1997, dwashbur@nyx.net wrote: [ ... ] >Up to the days of Westcott and Hort, the Peshitta was thought to be >second-century, and in fact Burgon and others used it as evidence >that the Byzantine text-type was just as old as the "Neutral." I >don't remember who it was that proposed the later date - Streeter >comes to mind, but don't quote me on that - but I do remember that it >looked (and at times still looks) suspiciously like redating in order >to accomodate the WH theory of the time. I'm not saying it is or it >isn't, so I won't don my flame-proof suit at this time, I'm just >saying that the accusation was made from various quarters, and the >accusation may not be totally without merit. Just for the record, Metzger says that it was Burkett who proposed the more recent date for the Peshitta. And I agree -- it *does* look suspiciously like redating to fit the textual theory. Which is why I mentioned the point. :-) Of course, we should acknowledge that the Sinai Syriac was discovered after the time of W&H. Again, if someone has solid *evidence* as to the date of the Peshitta (except for the fact that it's from before 450), I'd love to hear about it. dwashbur@nyx.net also wrote: >It's been a while since I've seen this come up: what's the current >state of Harry Sturz' research, in which he found numerous >"Byzantine" readings in very early papyri? As I recall he wasn't >arguing for Byzantine priority, but was saying that the presence of >readings that have been considered purely Byzantine in the early >papyri means that Byzantine readings should be given equal >consideration with other text-types for application of internal >evidence. Do his conclusions about such readings in the papyri still >stand, or have they been disproven? The problem with Sturz is that his methodology is bad. It does no good to prove that certain Byzantine readings are old. (The simple fact is that the vast majority of Byzantine readings are old, because they are places where there is no variation in the text. :-) What Sturz did was provide a list of Byzantine readings that are older than we thought. But he could not offer any evidence of a manuscript prior to those mentioned which was *purely Byzantine.* Thus his work did nothing to advance the theoretical discussion. (Except, perhaps, to prove that the Byzantine text is more conservative than we thought: Almost all its readings are derived from earlier materials.) We can't prove Sturz wrong; we can't prove the Majority Text advocates wrong. You can't prove that something doesn't exist, only that it *does* exist. But I, at least, do not find his arguments convincing. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Oct 21 18:30:47 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA15144; Tue, 21 Oct 1997 18:30:46 -0400 X-Sender: petersen@ns1.nias.knaw.nl Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 00:34:10 +0100 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: WLPetersen@nias.knaw.nl (William L. Petersen) Subject: tc-list The date of the Peshitta; also Majority text.... Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 7718 Robert Waltz now writes: >As for the Peshitta, the consensus of the texts I checked (UBS4, >Methger _Introduction_ and _Early Versions_, Souter, Greenlee, >etc.) gives a date of IV or early V (my spot check surprised me >by revealing more support for "early V" than I thought, but >where there is no real evidence, the difference between IV and >early V is slight). It cannot be later than V, as we have >manuscripts from that era. This is quite different that your earlier statement: >Also usually dated to the fourth century >(although this is debated, and I've seen nothing conclusive on >the subject) is the Peshitta Syriac... It is sometimes beneficial to consult sources *before* zipping off a reply... As you now indicate, the consensus date is early fifth cent., not "the fourth century," as in your earlier post today (pardon my grumpiness, but while a century here..., a century there..., may not seem much to some, to others a mistake of about 25% of the possible range [100-500 CE] is not a minor matter...). Your remark that "where there is no real evidence, the difference between IV and early V is slight" is absurd. There is evidence, and it is in the studies of Voeoebus (esp. his "Investigations into the Text of the New Testament used by Rabbula" in *Contributions of the Baltic University [Pinneburg]* 59 [1947]), and many others (e.g., M. Black in *Die alten Uebersetzungen des Neuen Testaments,* ed. K. Aland; Baarda in *VigChr* 14 [1960]; etc.). Just because your are unfamilar with the evidence does not mean that it does not exist. Regarding the list of experts Waltz consulted ("UBS4, Methger, Souter, Greenlee"), I (1) restore "Metzger" for "Methger" (pedant that I am), (2) toss out UBS, for Metzger essentially = UBS, and (3) note that of this list--to the best of my knowledge--only Metzger knows Syriac, and even he would never describe himself an expert on the Syriac versions. The novice would be well advised to go to the sources, rather than rely on second-hand opinions in Metzger--passed on third-hand, and incorrectly, at that. >As far as the text goes, I found statements to the effect that >the Peshitta is Byzantine in Metzger (_Early Versions_ 61) >and Vaganay/Amphoux (p. 34). I have Metzger's *Early Versions* open in front of me to p. 61, and no statement even remotely suggesting that the Peshitta has a Byzantine type of text is found on that page. In fact, the only place the word "Byzantine" even appears on the page is in the following quotation: "It has been frequently stated that the type of text represented by the Peshitta is what Hort designated the Syrian text and Ropes the Antiochian--a form of text which also appears in the writings of John Chrysostom and which eventually developed into the Byzantine Textus Receptus." Metzger footnotes von Soden for this analysis. Anyone who can read English should be able to understand that (1) "the type of text represented by the Peshitta is...a form...which *eventually developed* into the Byzantine Textus Receptus" does not mean that the Peshitta's text *is* Byzantine (Waltz: "I found statements to the effect that the Peshitta is Byzantine in Metzger [_Early Versions_ 61]"); and (2) Metzger's lead-in ("It has been frequently stated...") does *not* imply that this is so; indeed, it is often a rhetorical set-up for an inversion (for example: "It has been frequently stated that..., but as we now know..."). Indeed, in the next sentence on the same page (p. 61), Metzger states: "*Nevertheless,* in a considerable number of readings the Peshitta agrees with one or other of *the pre-Syrian* Greek texts, *against the Antiochian Fathers and the late Greek text.*" His "Nevertheless" suggests exactly the opposite of the "It has been frequently stated..." intro, and for his "the late Greek text," I presume he is thinking of the Byzantine Text. Metzger again, and on p. 61 again: "In a detailed examination of Matt. chaps. i-xiv, Gwilliam [who edited the Peshitta] found that the Peshitta agrees with the Textus Receptus 108 times and with codex Vaticanus (B) sixty-five times, while in 137 instances it differs from both, usually with the support of the Old Syriac and/or the Old Latin, though in thirty-one instances (almost one-fourth of the whole number) it stands alone." Or again (pp. 61f.): "In a similar examination of the Peshitta text of Mark, Mrs. Downs collected all significant readings in that Gospel where the Sinaitic Syriac (the Curetonian manuscript fails almost completely for Mark) and the Peshitta are identical, but where all other witnesses disagree. Seventy unique agreements were found. She also drew up a list of agreements between the Siani palimpsest and the Peshitta in Mark having some support in Greek manuscripts or in other versions or both. An analysis of the 135 reading of this list shows that 'in no case is the Neutral, Caesarean, or Western the prime factor...Obviously Rabbula used a copy of the Evangelion da-Mepharreshe as the basis of his translation.'" In short, not only does Metzger NOT say "the Peshitta is Byzantine" (to quote Waltz's characterization of Metzger), Metzger three times, quoting three separate studies STATES EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE. Ladies and gentlemen: the net is free. Anyone can say anything they want. They can claim anything they want. They can mischaracterize scholars like Metzger at will, and without blushing. They can say pigs fly. But that does not make it so, and that has nothing to do with scholarship. I find it incredible that, when one obviously cannot read a page of contemporary English prose accurately, one would then presume to practise textual criticism on ancient Greek texts. It simply boggles the mind.... >I concede that the studies Metzger >cites appear to be badly flawed methodologically. The results, >however, seem to be solid. The table below shows the rate of >agreement of the Peshitta with certain major witnesses to the >Gospels. This is based on a sample of 811 readings > >Aleph 40% >A 68% >B 36% >D 42% >E 70% >K 70% >Gamma 68% >Theta 57% >Omega 69% >fam 1 56% >f 13 62% Would you be so kind as to tell me how these statistics were derived? Who selected the variation units, what editions were used, and who decided on the translation equivalencies between Greek and Syriac? For example: Is the Syriac *mehstutha* the Greek *gamos* or the Greek *heorte*? >It is obvious that the Peshitta is not purely Byzantine; in fact >it has a long way to go. But it is much closer to that type than >to any other. This statement is simply not true. It not only directly contradicts all the studies cited second-hand by Metzger; it is also inconsistent with the direct experience of anyone who has *read* the Peshitta. Its closest textual relative is, as one might expect, the Old Syriac--hardly a "Byzantine" Text. I find this little episode illustrative of the type of information frequently disseminated on this list. To describe it as grossly inaccurate is to be charitable. A self-described novice (Mr. Carson-Rowland) asks a simple question; he receives an answer which (1) deviates from the topic (neither Carson-Rowland nor I raised the matter of the date of the Peshitta; Waltz volunteered it), (2) misdates the Peshitta (on the basis of secondary literature, compiled from three named sources--two-thirds of whom don't read Syriac) by a one-quarter of the possible range, and (3) then repeatedly mischaracterizes its text ("Byzantine"), by displaying (4) an inability to read simple English. The net is free, folks, and you certainly get what you pay for. --Petersen, Penn State University, Netherlands Institute for Advanced Studies. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Oct 21 19:59:08 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA15261; Tue, 21 Oct 1997 19:59:07 -0400 Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 19:03:57 -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: tc-list The date of the Peshitta; also Majority text.... Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 9590 On Wed, 22 Oct 1997, WLPetersen@nias.knaw.nl (William L. Petersen) wrote: (To the best of my ability, I will reply without sarcasm. I hope the Christians on this list will pardon what I expect will be occasional failings in that regard.) >Robert Waltz now writes: > >>As for the Peshitta, the consensus of the texts I checked (UBS4, >>Methger _Introduction_ and _Early Versions_, Souter, Greenlee, >>etc.) gives a date of IV or early V (my spot check surprised me >>by revealing more support for "early V" than I thought, but >>where there is no real evidence, the difference between IV and >>early V is slight). It cannot be later than V, as we have >>manuscripts from that era. > >This is quite different that your earlier statement: > >>Also usually dated to the fourth century >>(although this is debated, and I've seen nothing conclusive on >>the subject) is the Peshitta Syriac... > >It is sometimes beneficial to consult sources *before* zipping off a reply... I admit that I did not remember every source. I will also admit that I tried to apply a little logic: If we have manuscripts (plural) from the fifth century, that seems to imply a date somewhat earlier. I still don't think the difference between "IV" and "early V" is of great importance here. It *would* be of importance if we could assign an exact date -- but so far I haven't seen any firm evidence on the subject. The difference, as I see it, falls within our margin for error. BTW -- do you (Petersen) have more information on the subject, or has anyone else something to add? Is there evidence not cited which *does* reflect on the date of the Peshitta? It still sounds to me as if we cannot assign a minimum date. [ ... ] >Regarding the list of experts Waltz consulted ("UBS4, Methger, Souter, >Greenlee"), I (1) restore "Metzger" for "Methger" (pedant that I am), (2) >toss out UBS, for Metzger essentially = UBS, and (3) note that of this >list--to the best of my knowledge--only Metzger knows Syriac, and even he >would never describe himself an expert on the Syriac versions. The novice >would be well advised to go to the sources, rather than rely on second-hand >opinions in Metzger--passed on third-hand, and incorrectly, at that. I agree that Metzger is responsible for much of the information here. Obviously that does not automatically mean he's right. But on the other hand, his are the most important manuals on the subject available to beginners. This makes it reasonable to consult them -- and reasonable to correct them if wrong. >>As far as the text goes, I found statements to the effect that >>the Peshitta is Byzantine in Metzger (_Early Versions_ 61) >>and Vaganay/Amphoux (p. 34). > >I have Metzger's *Early Versions* open in front of me to p. 61, and no >statement even remotely suggesting that the Peshitta has a Byzantine type >of text is found on that page. In fact, the only place the word >"Byzantine" even appears on the page is in the following quotation: > >"It has been frequently stated that the type of text represented by the >Peshitta is what Hort designated the Syrian text and Ropes the >Antiochian--a form of text which also appears in the writings of John >Chrysostom and which eventually developed into the Byzantine Textus >Receptus." Metzger footnotes von Soden for this analysis. To my mind, this is saying that the sources Metzger consulted called the text Byzantine. >Anyone who can read English should be able to understand that (1) "the type >of text represented by the Peshitta is...a form...which *eventually >developed* into the Byzantine Textus Receptus" does not mean that the >Peshitta's text *is* Byzantine (Waltz: "I found statements to the effect >that the Peshitta is Byzantine in Metzger [_Early Versions_ 61]"); This is incomprehensible to me. I understand the words, but I simply do not see the point. The Byzantine Text is not a unity -- 2500 or so manuscripts that all have exactly identical wording. The obvious reading of Metzger's words is that the Peshitta possesses a text similar to the early form of the Byzantine text. >and (2) >Metzger's lead-in ("It has been frequently stated...") does *not* imply >that this is so; indeed, it is often a rhetorical set-up for an inversion >(for example: "It has been frequently stated that..., but as we now >know..."). This, frankly, is irrelevant. In reading the following paragraphs in Metzger, he *draws no conclusions.* He makes no attempt to rebut the various studies. He merely summarizes their results. The statement at the top of the page (paraphrased) is that many have said the Peshitta is Byzantine. Unless, perhaps, Petersen is objecting that Hort's Syrian text is not the Byzantine text? >Indeed, in the next sentence on the same page (p. 61), Metzger states: >"*Nevertheless,* in a considerable number of readings the Peshitta agrees >with one or other of *the pre-Syrian* Greek texts, *against the Antiochian >Fathers and the late Greek text.*" I believe that is what *I* said. The Peshitta approaches the Byzantine text; it is not identical. >Metzger again, and on p. 61 again: > >"In a detailed examination of Matt. chaps. i-xiv, Gwilliam [who edited the >Peshitta] found that the Peshitta agrees with the Textus Receptus 108 times >and with codex Vaticanus (B) sixty-five times, while in 137 instances it >differs from both, usually with the support of the Old Syriac and/or the >Old Latin, though in thirty-one instances (almost one-fourth of the whole >number) it stands alone." Observations: First, this is bad methodology (as one would expect in 1903 :-). But note that P agrees with the TR more than with B. Subtracting the 31 instances where P stands alone, and it is closer to the TR than anything else. >Or again (pp. 61f.): > >"In a similar examination of the Peshitta text of Mark, Mrs. Downs >collected all significant readings in that Gospel where the Sinaitic Syriac >(the Curetonian manuscript fails almost completely for Mark) and the >Peshitta are identical, but where all other witnesses disagree. Seventy >unique agreements were found. She also drew up a list of agreements >between the Siani palimpsest and the Peshitta in Mark having some support >in Greek manuscripts or in other versions or both. An analysis of the 135 >reading of this list shows that 'in no case is the Neutral, Caesarean, or >Western the prime factor...Obviously Rabbula used a copy of the Evangelion >da-Mepharreshe as the basis of his translation.'" I can't see that this says *anything* about the Byzantine text. [ ... ] >Ladies and gentlemen: the net is free. Anyone can say anything they want. >They can claim anything they want. They can mischaracterize scholars like >Metzger at will, and without blushing. As we see when Petersen mischaracterizes me. [ ... ] >>I concede that the studies Metzger >>cites appear to be badly flawed methodologically. The results, >>however, seem to be solid. The table below shows the rate of >>agreement of the Peshitta with certain major witnesses to the >>Gospels. This is based on a sample of 811 readings >> >>Aleph 40% >>A 68% >>B 36% >>D 42% >>E 70% >>K 70% >>Gamma 68% >>Theta 57% >>Omega 69% >>fam 1 56% >>f 13 62% > >Would you be so kind as to tell me how these statistics were derived? Who >selected the variation units, what editions were used, and who decided on >the translation equivalencies between Greek and Syriac? For example: Is >the Syriac *mehstutha* the Greek *gamos* or the Greek *heorte*? As for the reading base, we've been over this before. (Wasn't it Petersen who referred us to earlier discussions on the list about the Byzantine text? Remember, that's what we're SUPPOSED to be talking about.) I don't claim any knowledge of Syriac. I simply took the data from UBS and NA26. If that data is inaccurate, is there a source which offers corrections? >>It is obvious that the Peshitta is not purely Byzantine; in fact >>it has a long way to go. But it is much closer to that type than >>to any other. > >This statement is simply not true. It not only directly contradicts all >the studies cited second-hand by Metzger; it is also inconsistent with the >direct experience of anyone who has *read* the Peshitta. Its closest >textual relative is, as one might expect, the Old Syriac--hardly a >"Byzantine" Text. Textual relative or linguistic relative? There is a difference. I am willing to believe that the Peshitta "reads like" the Old Syriac. But the same could be said, e.g., of the relationship between the King James Version and the English Revised Version. The ERV sounded like the KJV. But at textually significant points, the two differ strongly. It seems to me this could also be true of the Peshitta. >I find this little episode illustrative of the type of information >frequently disseminated on this list. To describe it as grossly inaccurate >is to be charitable. A self-described novice (Mr. Carson-Rowland) asks a >simple question; he receives an answer which (1) deviates from the topic >(neither Carson-Rowland nor I raised the matter of the date of the >Peshitta; Waltz volunteered it), In connection with the date of the Byzantine text -- in connection with which it is significant. There was even a debate around the turn of the century in which the date of the Peshitta was the crucial evidence. Enough. I would love to respond to this post in the tone it was offered, but that is not the purpose of this list. 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 Oct 21 22:54:28 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA15712; Tue, 21 Oct 1997 22:54:28 -0400 From: dwashbur@nyx.net Message-Id: <199710220259.TAA15731@smtp.northlink.com> Comments: Authenticated sender is To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 19:58:29 -7000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: tc-list Re: the date of the Peshitta; also Majority text... 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: 1013 Bob Waltz wrote: > On Tue, 21 Oct 1997, dwashbur@nyx.net wrote: > > [ ... ] > > >Up to the days of Westcott and Hort, the Peshitta was thought to be > >second-century, and in fact Burgon and others used it as evidence > >that the Byzantine text-type was just as old as the "Neutral." I > >don't remember who it was that proposed the later date - Streeter > >comes to mind, but don't quote me on that - but I do remember that it > >looked (and at times still looks) suspiciously like redating in order > >to accomodate the WH theory of the time. I'm not saying it is or it > >isn't, so I won't don my flame-proof suit at this time, I'm just > >saying that the accusation was made from various quarters, and the > >accusation may not be totally without merit. > > Just for the record, Metzger says that it was Burkett who proposed That's the name I couldn't pull out of my head. Thanks. Dave Washburn dwashbur@nyx.net http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur/ If you don't know where you're going, don't lead. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Oct 21 23:27:11 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id XAA15780; Tue, 21 Oct 1997 23:27:11 -0400 Message-ID: <344D75F2.A24DAD7D@accesscomm.net> Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 22:41:39 -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: tc-list The date of the Peshitta; also Majority text.... 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 WAA12652 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1766 William L. Petersen wrote: > Would you be so kind as to tell me how these statistics were derived? > Who > selected the variation units, what editions were used, and who decided > on > the translation equivalencies between Greek and Syriac? For example: > Is > the Syriac *mehstutha* the Greek *gamos* or the Greek *heorte*? This reminds me of an interesting question that has crossed my mind a number of times as it relates to TC. m$twt) is a synonym for "Wedding" and "Banquet" *only* in the Aramaic and this has led to Greek variants from the synonymous choices. Since only the single Aramaic synomym encompasses the Greek variants, and the context of the Aramaic leads to "Banquet" as the preferred reading.....perhaps probative of the Lukan use of an Aramaic source....does TC consider this type of apparatus in the quest for the original reading? A similar parallel could be the Aramaic xowbyn/Greek OFEILEIMATA in the Matthean LP as "Debts" where only the Aramaic is also an idiom for "sin." Luke seems to know this since he renders AMARTIAJ in the first half of the petition and returns to OFEILONTI (participial) in the second half...another hint that Luke was competent in Aramaic and saw fit to "explain" the idiom. This would indicate that "sin/sinners" is the preferred reading. Another clue for the original reading? I realize that TC can only utilize the extant GREEK witnesses in determination of preferred readings but surely some weight should be given to Greek variants that converge to one single reading in Aramaic which could weigh in favor of a "preferred reading." Comments? 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 Wed Oct 22 00:46:10 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id AAA15996; Wed, 22 Oct 1997 00:46:09 -0400 Message-Id: From: "Mark Johnson" To: Subject: tc-list Majority text and papyri Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 23:49:46 -0500 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 938 I thought that none of the papyri represented the alpha text. Which papyri is the quote speaking of? Could anyone give me a reference that deals with these late, Byzantine papyri? Thanks in advance. Mark Johnson ------------------------------ From: "Steve Carson-Rowland" [...] The "A" text cluster, that is, the 'accepted' text of the Koine or later Byzantine textual group, need not be further considered here, for the early papyri are not involved (although a few papyri of the 6th and 7th centuries do represent the "A" text). Furthermore, everyone recognises that this textual group exists, though not until the 4th century- that is, after the period of the earliest papyri. Moreover, everyone also acknowledges that this can actually be called a "text-type". The recognised constituent members can be found in standard handbooks. [...] ------------------------------ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Oct 22 05:42:40 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id FAA16570; Wed, 22 Oct 1997 05:42:39 -0400 From: CrollCLeM@aol.com Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 05:47:26 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <971021153401_1900698699@emout19.mail.aol.com> To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: tc-list German Bibliography Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 269 Dear Jimmy I missed the original request, but if someone is doing some translation from German of classic TC books how about J Schmid's great and oft quoted work on the text of the Apocalypse, Studien zur Geschichte des griechischen Apokalypse-Textes? Charles Croll From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Oct 22 08:57:32 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA16892; Wed, 22 Oct 1997 08:57:31 -0400 Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 08:02:18 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: tc-list Date of the Peshitta (My last word....) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2389 Given the all-too-personal level of the debate on the date of the Peshitta (to which I know I have contributed -- my apologies), I am going to bow out of the discussion. I would like, however, to make a last statement. I then leave last words to others. :-) I went through eleven sources last night, checking their dates for the Peshitta. The earliest (Hort, Scrivener; also references in Metzger) give early dates. The nine who wrote in the twentieth century all give dates in the fourth or (more usually) fifth century. Several, however, are more particular, and they all mention the same three dates: * 373 - Death of Ephraem, who did not use the Peshitta * 411 - Consecration of Rabbula, sometimes credited with creating and/or promulgating the Peshitta (Voobus, however, gives evidence that Rabulla did not produce the Peshitta) * 431 - Schism in the Syriac church. The most specific sources all date the Peshitta between 373 and 431. The reason for the latter date is obvious. Since both sides in the schism used the Peshitta, it must have been in use by then. The early date is based on Ephraem's writings. Ephraem did not use the Peshitta (preferring the Diatessaron and the Old Syriac). Thus it follows that the Peshitta was not the official version in his time. So the consensus is that the Peshitta dates from the late fourth or early fifth century. And certainly it must predate 431. Does the fact that Ephraem does not use it mean it must be later than 373? I don't think that is certain, though it is likely enough. Ephraem may have been conservative, or the Peshitta may simply not have reached him in his lifetime. After all, I never quote the King James Version, yet it is demonstrably 350 years older than I am. :-) I would also argue that the widespread acceptance of the Peshitta in 431 argues that it is considerably older than that date. Note that none of this constitutes proof. A fifth century date is certainly possible. But so is a fourth century date. And with that I am done. I don't have the expertise to say more. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Oct 22 09:41:50 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA16990; Wed, 22 Oct 1997 09:41:49 -0400 Message-ID: From: "DC PARKER" Organization: Fac of Arts:The Univ. of Birmingham To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 14:43:58 GMT Subject: Re: tc-list The date of the Peshitta; also Majority text... 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: 947 There are, characteristically, various red herrings drawn across the trail here. May I dispose of one of them by saying that the question of the priority of the Curetonian to the Peshitta and hence the date of the latter was discussed long before 1881 and Westcott & Hort? The first studies on the subject date to 1859, the year after Cureton published his edition. Some references may be found, for example, on p. 17 of the 4th ed. of Scrivener's _Plain Introduction_. I would like also to observe that I see no justification for offence at Petersen's restrained and well-directed criticisms of Waltz's reading of Metzger. To ignore them is simply to to reject the need for precision and discrimination that is necessary in text-critical work, and to despise a careful scrutiny from an expert in the field. 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 Wed Oct 22 12:41:31 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA17844; Wed, 22 Oct 1997 12:41:31 -0400 Message-ID: <01BCDEDE.4E4FF460@dial28.icct.net> From: Mark and Wendy Proctor To: "'Textual Criticism Discussion Group'" Subject: tc-list In need of some bibliography Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 11:32:14 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 309 If anyone is aware of some bibliography on the OL codices a, ff2, and = r1, please pass this information on to me. I'm working on the textual = variant concerning Jesus' emotional response to the leper at Mark 1:41, = and am in need of some direction with regards to this material. Sincerely, Mark Proctor From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Oct 22 12:42:09 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA17861; Wed, 22 Oct 1997 12:42:09 -0400 Message-ID: From: "David G.K. Taylor" Organization: Fac of Arts:The Univ. of Birmingham To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 17:02:37 GMT Subject: tc-list The date of the Peshitta / "TC-Pro" list 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: 588 In the light of the assertions countered by Bill Petersen in this discussion, can I ask what happened to the idea floated some time ago about the creation of a "TC-Pro" list? If anything justifies it this surely does? Yours wearily, David Taylor ********************************************************************* Dr David G.K.Taylor email: d.g.k.taylor@bham.ac.uk Department of Theology, tel: 0121-414 5666 University of Birmingham, fax: 0121-414 6866 Birmingham B15 2TT, U.K. ********************************************************************* From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Oct 22 14:28:06 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA18552; Wed, 22 Oct 1997 14:28:05 -0400 Message-Id: <199710221832.NAA08244@endeavor.flash.net> From: "Perry L. Stepp" To: Subject: Re: tc-list In need of some bibliography Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 13:50:59 -0500 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 825 Marcus Aurelius Proctologist III-- Hope all is well. I'm not going to San Francisco, but if you're still in need of a room mate, I know that Brad Green is in similar straits. The carrell is not the same without you. Still working with Talbert on preliminary work toward my dissertation. Prelims in August--I'm not nervous *yet*. PLStepp **************************************************************** Pastor, DeSoto Christian Church, DeSoto TX Ph.D. candidate in New Testament, Baylor University Keeper of the Top-10 List, alt.fan.letterman #1 Dallas Cowboy Homer Check out the Hardline page at http://hardliners.com I saw a werewolf drinking a pina colada at Trader Vic's And his hair was perfect. Ahoooooooooooo! **************************************************************** From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Oct 23 05:00:10 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id FAA21169; Thu, 23 Oct 1997 05:00:09 -0400 Message-ID: From: "DC PARKER" Organization: Fac of Arts:The Univ. of Birmingham To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 10:02:14 GMT Subject: Re: tc-list In need of some bibliography 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: 1185 > From: Mark and Wendy Proctor > To: "'Textual Criticism Discussion Group'" > > Subject: tc-list In need of some bibliography > Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 11:32:14 -0500 > Reply-to: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu > If anyone is aware of some bibliography on the OL codices a, ff2, and r1, please pass this information on to me. I'm working on the textual variant concerning Jesus' emotional response to the leper > at Mark 1:41, and am in need of some direction with regards to this material. > > Sincerely, > > Mark Proctor > You don't say what kind of information you want. There are palaeographical descriptions in Lowe, Codices Latini Antiquiores & in P. McGurk, Latin Gospel Books from 400 to 800. There are 2 editions of a: Belsheim, 1894 (not good); Gasquet, 1914; ff2 was edited by Buchanan in OLBT, 1907; r1 by Abbott, 1884. On the text-types, Fischer on the Latin versions in ANTF 5. That's a start, and I hope it helps. 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 Thu Oct 23 10:01:23 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA21821; Thu, 23 Oct 1997 10:01:22 -0400 Message-Id: <199710231406.JAA12523@endeavor.flash.net> From: "Perry L. Stepp" To: Subject: tc-list My Apologies Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 17:06:54 -0500 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 134 My apologies to all for sending a personal message to the list. (I'm just glad I didn't say anything scatological.) Perry L. Stepp From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Oct 23 10:25:28 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA21947; Thu, 23 Oct 1997 10:25:26 -0400 Message-ID: From: "DC PARKER" Organization: Fac of Arts:The Univ. of Birmingham To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 15:28:48 GMT Subject: Re: tc-list P9 at 1 Jn 4:11 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: 274 There was a query about a reading in P9. There is no such word as trapizo so far as I know. As Grenfell & Hunt noted, it's corrupt for egapesen. 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 Thu Oct 23 10:32:19 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA21981; Thu, 23 Oct 1997 10:32:18 -0400 Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 10:37:12 -0400 (EDT) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: tc-list P9 at 1 Jn 4:11 X-Sender: jwest@mail.highland.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19971023103125.0ca7bdcc@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: 646 At 03:28 PM 10/23/97 +0000, you wrote: >There was a query about a reading in P9. There is no such word as >trapizo so far as I know. As Grenfell & Hunt noted, it's corrupt for egapesen. > David, Thanks. But that would be quite a corruption! What would cause such an error or problem? I tried to find the word (TARPIZO) in Bauer, but it is not there; nor is it in Liddell-Scott. Jim >DC PARKER >DEPT OF THEOLOGY >UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM >TEL. 0121-414 3613 >FAX 0121-414 6866 >E-MAIL PARKERDC@M4-ARTS.BHAM.AC.UK > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@highland.net From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Oct 23 14:00:18 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA23390; Thu, 23 Oct 1997 14:00:17 -0400 Message-ID: <01BCDFB2.7250C540@dial16.icct.net> From: Mark and Wendy Proctor To: "'Textual Criticism Discussion Group'" Subject: tc-list Metzger on the Peshitta Text Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 12:50:28 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2584 In the course of my reading for another topic, I came across a couple of = quotes in Metzger's works that some may find interesting in light of the = recent discussion on the text of the Peshitta. Here they are: (1) In his chap. on the Syriac Versions in *Early Versions*, Metzger = makes a few comments which lead me to believe he thinks the Peshitta's = text has suffered "vulgatization" (see Petersen for the meaning of this = word). First, in commenting on the worth of the Arabic Diatessaron for = text-critical purposes, Metzger states the following: "From the point = of view of the textual critic who wishes to ascertain whether a given = reading stood originally in Tatian's Diatessaron, most scholars have = considered the Arabic Diatessaron to be worthless, either because it had = been translated from a Syriac Diatessaron which was almost completely = assimilated to the Peshitta text, or because the Arabic translation = itself had been accomodated to the Peshitta" (16). In other words, the = Arabic Diatessaron is of little value for TC b/c its text is too much = like that of the Peshitta; i.e., it reflects a late stage in the = development of the NT text, a stage which has suffered widespread = corruption. Second, on the next page Metzger argues that only when one = or more witnesses to the Arabic Diatessaron "implies a Syriac text = different from the Peshitta, particularly when such readings agree with = the Old Syriac and/or with other Diatessaric witnesses, . . . may [we] = with some measure of confidence regard such readings as genuine Tatianic = remnants." This statement sets the text of the Peshitta at odds with = both the Old Syriac and the Diatessaron. (2) In chap. four of *Chapters in the History* Metzger makes another = pertinent statement in the middle of his section on the Syriac Harmony: = "Evidence is now coming to light . . . that the Peshitta version did not = immediately supplant all Old Syriac readings. Voobus, for example, has = unearthed a large amount of evidence which shows that non-Peshitta = (Voobus would say, Old Syriac) readings appear relatively frequently = down to the thirteenth century" (107). Once again, Metzger clearly sets = the text of the Peshitta over against the OS, and implicitly suggests = that the Peshitta represents a later form of text. Please pardon the block quotes. I merely wanted everyone to have the = opportunity to determine for themselves whether or not I was capable of = reading a page of English prose and drawing reasonable inferences from = it. Sincerely, Mark Proctor From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Oct 23 16:11:23 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA24485; Thu, 23 Oct 1997 16:11:22 -0400 Date: 23 Oct 1997 20:15:36 -0000 Message-ID: <19971023201536.10033.qmail@np.nosc.mil> To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu In-reply-to: (WLPetersen@nias.knaw.nl) Subject: Re: tc-list The date of the Peshitta; also Majority text.... From: Vincent Broman Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 3966 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Without going into the date of the Peshitta, I would like to nuance the discussion of its textual affinities. WLPetersen@nias.knaw.nl wrote: > Anyone who can read English should be able to understand that (1) "the type > of text represented by the Peshitta is...a form...which *eventually > developed* into the Byzantine Textus Receptus" does not mean that the > Peshitta's text *is* Byzantine What I read Metzger reporting as "frequently stated" is that the Peshitta was of the Alpha text type, in its 4th-6th century form (or forms). The fact that this text type only *developed* into the Byzantine TR later on doesn't mean that it isn't Byzantine because it isn't the TR. Equating the Alpha text with the TR instead of Chrysostom+A(evv.)+Gothic is a frequently seen confusion, (missing the date by 80% of the possible range). A millenium here, a millenium there, pretty soon it adds up to real money! :-) > Metzger's lead-in ("It has been frequently stated...") does *not* imply > that this is so; indeed, it is often a rhetorical set-up for an inversion... Perhaps often, but in this case it looks like Metzger is balancing or moderating the force of the assertion. Summarized conclusions such as: "The Peshitta [of Galatians] contains several readings that cannot be traced entirely to a Greek original represented by the Textus Receptus." are not resounding denials. The results from Gwilliam and Downs are disappointingly slanted in how they report their numbers (not sure where they fall in the spectrum of lies ... statistics), but what they do establish is that the Peshitta Gospels exhibit a substantial number of unusual readings shared with the Old Syriac, along with an affinity to the Alpha text type. The Alands' summary is appropriate: "The very presence of Old Syriac readings in the Peshitta proves that it was not a new version but the result of a revision (or revisions) of a form of the Old Syriac text following an exemplar of a (mainly) Koine type text." (Text of the NT, p. 197) > not only does Metzger NOT say "the Peshitta is Byzantine"... > ...Metzger three times, quoting > three separate studies STATES EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE. Perhaps one reason this impression could have been formed is the older view that textual affinity is determinable from a modest number of shared unusual readings. This is particularly striking to "anyone who has *read* the Peshitta" because the unusual readings jump out to the eye. In the presence of mixture, this kind of evidence is problematic, and these days more convincing results are often obtained working from Colwell's requirement that affinity be proved by agreement in a large majority of *all* readings. I'd be interested in learning the relative preponderance of the Old Syriac and Alpha text ingredients in the Peshitta mixture, as determined by modern methods. The Gwilliam study I'll try to find, but I shouldn't build up my hopes for what it will prove. Any other suggested sources in print? > I find this little episode illustrative of the type of information > frequently disseminated on this list. Another thing you'll frequently notice on the net is the itchy trigger finger on the flamethrower. Vincent Broman San Diego, California, USA Email: broman at sd.znet.com (home) or spawar.navy.mil or nosc.mil (work) Phone: +1 619 284 3775 Starship: 32d42m22s N 117d14m13s W === PGP protected mail preferred. For public key finger me at np.nosc.mil === -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBNE+vuGCU4mTNq7IdAQGTcwQAkkENtWlN+RxrWuVTU6CZJGz8H8RECSB6 VmY2awMCILR/PutJfJXwpvYOr9C/lrz35FULgA8JehSMlmqfSTB0Cw5DRMszQrmF 7lpOoerKM35/HkqJm3RnFppiWchIsQGlzt1/35dGg3TotRGk8UVwnlMCgL415yM7 Na3OFZtc+Fs= =nY40 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Oct 23 16:16:38 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA24521; Thu, 23 Oct 1997 16:16:37 -0400 Message-Id: <199710232018.WAA20851@mail1.arcadis.be> Subject: tc-list Peshitto: an example Date: Jeu, 23 Oct 97 22:21:28 +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: 7903 Is the peshitto byzantine? I must say that once again I get the feeling that it would be much more useful to discuss variants instead of speaking generally. That would make the discussion much more useful, because it gets concrete and probably less emotional too. So, to the facts! Some time ago, I had to study the variants of Mt 23 and I tried to see what it taught me about the peshitto. Of course, I realize that studying a chapter is not enough if one wants to issue general statements like "the peshitto is / is not byzantine". Nevertheless, it's better to have a concrete example about which to discuss, and an example can be useful in that it gives an impression of the many and intricate problems of the peshitto. So here you will find a catalogue of variants from this chapter which personnally leads me to (1) reject any clear-cut declaration like those we have read the last days, (2) have the impression that there is still much which I do not understand about the peshitto. Any conclusion, at this stage, can only be a hypothesis which remains to be tested on larger portions of text. ______________________ 1. SYP as against the Greek text-types. (a) variants of D against B and Byz 9 "umin" with D and Theta, sys and syc 15 "ina poihshte" with D only in Greek, sys and syc 39 legw gar umin: add. "oti" (syr. d-) with D Th f1 f13 (b) variant of B against D and Byz 4 desmeuousin _de_ with B Aleph f13, sys, syc (c) variants of B and Byz against D (these are variants typical of D) 27 oitines exwqen men fainontai wraioi eswqen de gemousin, with B Byz sys etc... 34 egw apostellw pros umas, with B Byz sys etc... 34 + kai mastigwsete en tais sunagwgais umwn, with B Byz sys etc... (d) variants of D + Byz against Byz 4 autoi de tw: Aleph B D L 33 892 sys syc (e) other Greek, non-Byz, variant 4 omission of kai dusbastakta L f1 892 sys syc (f) other Byz variant against B and D, but not without extra-Byz support 5 add. "twn imatiwn autwn" after "kraspeda" Byz L 33 f13 etc, sys syc ________________ 2. variants without any known Greek support 16 tou naou: da-b-hayklo "which is in the temple" (would correspond to "ho en tw naw") with sys syc 20 kai en pasi tois: b-kul mo (singular, indefinite) with sys syc 24 ton kwpona: plural, with sys syc 24 kamhlon: plural, with sys syc 26 farisaie tufle: plural, with sys 28 dikaioi: ayk zadiqe (would be "ws dikaioi" in Gr.) with sys 28 upokrisews kai anomias: invert the two with syp (though with different vocabulary) 35 dikaion: d-zadiqe, genitive plural with sys (= Gr dikaiwn ? an possible phonetic confusion in Greek) All these variants in (1) and (2) above show one thing: there are MANY instances where the peshitto is not byzantine. So much in one chapter that I can't call the peshitto "byzantine" without any other nuance. You'll notice that variants seem to come from all the text-types (except D when it's really isolated, I mean by this: when even theta doesn't follow it). The most constant mss agreeing with syp are... sys and syc, so probably they are the primary source. So Bill Petersen, I believe, is _right_ a thousand times when he says that syp is primarily old syriac. ________________________ (3) Variants where syp eliminates the vetus syra non-greek variant without following Byz (in other words, variants which are nither old syriac, neither byzantine - these are the crucial ones!) 2 legwn: + le-hun (to them) This is probably just a translational technique, as syp often adds an indirect object after a declarative verb. 5 platunousin _gar_ : with Aleph B D L f1 f13 33 etc... 7 rabbi (just once) with Aleph B L Delta Theta f1 33 892 1241 etc... 8 didaskalos AND om o Christos with Aleph B 33 892 etc... These last variants are probably crucial. It is usually believed that the peshitto is a revision of the vetus syra, the goal of the revisor(s) being to bring it in agreement with the Byzantine text. (a) I agree with the first statement: the source of syp is the vetus syra. (b) I have counted 25 variants attested by at least one of the two vetus syra manuscripts, which find no support whatsoever in Greek mss. (b.a) The peshitto keeps eight of them. The revision was not a systematic one, whatever be the reason (carelessness? unsystematic method? conscious production of a consensual greco-syriac text? respect for the old type? need of not shocking the public?). (b.b) The other ones are eliminated by variants present in Greek texts. Many of them are present in Byz (but not only in Byz), but there are those above... They show that the Greek manuscript(s) used by the revisor(s) were not purely Byzantine, far from it. In this chapter, there are only three and it is not enough to say anything about which kind of text it was, though you'll notice that B and 33 are present in all three. We need much more of these variants before anything certain can be said. As I already said, this is only one chapter and we should refrain from drawing general conclusions from such a restricted sample. But at least, it gives me a first impression, and this impression is: (1) the mss that come most often in agreement with the peshitto are sys and syc. (2) the peshitto is a revision attempting to bring the vetus syra closer to a Greek text, especially by eliminating many (but not all) variants of sys/syc which are not attested in Greek. (3) the Greek base used in order to produce this revision, though I cannot identify it as I need to study more text to gather more non-sys.c, non-Byz variants, is clearly not a pure Byzantine text, as the revisors introduce variants which are _not_ byzantine. As to the date of the text, just one remark. I've always read that it must have been produced before the Syrian church split between Nestorians and Monophysites in 431. Several facts are overlooked in this too simple declaration: (1) The Melkites were also using Syriac! If the peshitto was produced by Melkites, it would have been more acceptable to the two other churches, as the Melkites had a christology that placed them in the center, halfway between the two other churches. But of course, I have not one milligramm of evidence that the peshitto comes from the Melkites. So this is just a remark. (2) The real constitution of the nestorian church is not directly in 431 at the Council of Ephesus, but only in 484, when the nestorian church declared its autocephaly at the synod of Beth-Laphat. One cannot really speak of the nestorian church before that. (3) It's wrong to see Nestorians and Monophysites as obscurantists that would never accept a biblical version produced by "the other side". Though, of course, there's been a lot of theological controverse, both churches lived together in the same areas and there have been numerous positive contacts, mutual help in times of distress, liturgical influences, and conversations in a spirit of mutual respect. Also with the Melkites of course. But of course, what is decisive as to the date of the peshitto is _evidence_: manuscripts and citations. As Bill Petersen already mentioned, the studies of Voeoebus about this problem are fundamental. And Voeoebus in his studies generally put the emphasis on "the first commandment of resarch", which is "Thou shalt work at the sources". This is why I chose to send you some variants in order to advance the discussion. And now, I go back to my manuscripts... Shlomo to all, 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" "Wat te eenvoudig is, is verkeerd; wat te ingewikkeld is, is onbruikbaar" _________________________________________________ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Oct 23 16:55:33 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA24816; Thu, 23 Oct 1997 16:55:32 -0400 Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 16:00:19 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: tc-list Peshitta data Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 6377 I know I said I would stay out of this discussion -- but if we're offering actual data about the Peshitta, I thought I should argue mine. The following is the raw data I have about the Peshitta, straight out of the Pascal program. I haven't even calculated percentages on it.... ***************************************************************************** Statistics for MS pesh Total readings: 812 Byzantine readings: 558 Total Agreements: 19988 Near Singular Readings: 58 ***Level of support for readings *** Readings with: 0 Supporters: 0 1 Supporters: 6 2 Supporters: 3 3 Supporters: 7 4 Supporters: 12 5 Supporters: 15 6 Supporters: 15 7-10 Supporters: 56 11-20 Supporters: 141 21-30 Supporters: 278 31-50 Supporters: 279 ******************** Agreements with Various Manuscripts ******************** Total No Byz Rdg Non-Byz Near-Singular Weighted Agreements Agreements Agreements Agreements Agreements p45 38 of 97 4 of 7 5 of 13 0 of 1 1.61 p66 78 of 169 4 of 6 21 of 30 2 of 8 1.95 p75 93 of 262 3 of 10 23 of 42 1 of 15 1.40 Aleph 327 of 811 15 of 36 99 of 155 13 of 58 1.99 A 407 of 596 14 of 30 20 of 29 1 of 42 2.53 B 294 of 811 16 of 36 94 of 156 8 of 58 1.80 C 302 of 517 11 of 21 32 of 58 3 of 37 2.22 D 320 of 762 16 of 35 81 of 144 9 of 54 2.04 E 562 of 802 15 of 36 3 of 4 0 of 56 2.47 G 498 of 720 17 of 35 2 of 10 1 of 51 2.42 K 567 of 810 17 of 35 19 of 29 2 of 58 2.55 L 405 of 798 19 of 36 80 of 120 4 of 55 2.11 N 265 of 382 6 of 9 14 of 24 2 of 35 2.51 W 450 of 799 19 of 34 62 of 99 9 of 57 2.33 Gamma 522 of 764 13 of 33 6 of 9 1 of 54 2.42 Delta 531 of 809 22 of 36 17 of 37 1 of 58 2.33 Theta 461 of 803 18 of 36 57 of 93 5 of 57 2.27 Psi 305 of 494 6 of 16 36 of 47 3 of 38 2.32 Omega 558 of 805 13 of 36 7 of 7 0 of 58 2.47 f1 454 of 808 15 of 36 60 of 88 2 of 58 2.18 f13 506 of 811 20 of 36 39 of 73 2 of 57 2.31 28 475 of 732 14 of 34 11 of 23 1 of 48 2.28 33 424 of 711 16 of 34 62 of 90 1 of 46 2.29 565 494 of 798 17 of 36 34 of 59 1 of 57 2.22 579 486 of 802 15 of 35 54 of 83 1 of 56 2.27 700 506 of 812 17 of 36 29 of 49 2 of 58 2.29 892 501 of 811 26 of 36 58 of 89 3 of 58 2.40 1006 575 of 811 18 of 36 14 of 18 0 of 58 2.53 1010 551 of 809 16 of 36 15 of 24 0 of 58 2.42 1071 549 of 804 19 of 35 43 of 64 4 of 57 2.59 1241 481 of 767 19 of 35 44 of 67 4 of 54 2.38 1342 515 of 794 18 of 36 21 of 32 0 of 56 2.30 1424 553 of 811 22 of 36 23 of 40 1 of 58 2.49 1506 516 of 734 18 of 34 7 of 14 0 of 49 2.45 a 390 of 750 19 of 34 100 of 150 7 of 50 2.47 b 378 of 732 18 of 34 89 of 132 6 of 47 2.38 e 245 of 516 12 of 23 76 of 113 4 of 36 2.32 f 514 of 752 24 of 32 70 of 95 7 of 50 2.81 ff2 373 of 691 18 of 32 83 of 124 7 of 48 2.45 k 97 of 238 2 of 7 19 of 34 5 of 16 1.97 vg(ww) 505 of 784 22 of 34 78 of 108 3 of 52 2.57 sin 383 of 691 12 of 30 122 of 153 22 of 45 3.13 cur 227 of 372 9 of 12 60 of 76 15 of 26 3.35 sa 341 of 711 11 of 27 86 of 124 5 of 45 2.13 bo 371 of 698 14 of 27 90 of 127 4 of 44 2.28 arm 405 of 723 12 of 29 78 of 112 9 of 48 2.34 geo1 378 of 680 9 of 26 73 of 115 7 of 48 2.34 To analyse very briefly, there are five sets of numbers here. The first column is overall agreements. Here is appears that the Peshitta goes with the Byzantine text; its highest rates of agreement are with heavily Byzantine manuscripts such as K and Omega. The next column represents agreements where the Byzantine text divies. There is nothing conclusive here. The third column represents the readings of Pesh *which do not agree with the Byzantine text.* There aren't all that many of these. But the agreement with the OS here is extraordinarily high. Thus where Pesh is non-Byzantine, it clearly agrees with the Old Syriac. The next column, near-singular readings (readings with no more than six supporters) bolsters this conclusion. Clearly Pesh is closest to the OS here. The final column, weighted agreements, also support this point. Thus I would say that both sides in the argument are right: The underlying element in Pesh is the Old Syriac. But it seems to me quite clear that it has been influenced by the Byzantine text. For those who want to know (if there are any) -- yes, I am getting both data and software into publishable shape, and will do my best to make them available (along with a much fuller analysis of what each part means :-). If anyone wishes a list of the readings tested, I will answer off-list (as time permits). But I will not burden the list with this, so don't ask unless you want a private reply. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Oct 23 17:57:28 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA24984; Thu, 23 Oct 1997 17:57:27 -0400 Message-Id: <199710232201.AAA27254@mail1.arcadis.be> Subject: Re: tc-list Peshitta data Date: Ven, 24 Oct 97 00:04:09 +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: 876 >If anyone wishes a list of the readings tested, I will answer off-list >(as time permits). But I will not burden the list with this, so don't >ask unless you want a private reply. > Yes Bob, I would like to now more about your sample readings. As you see from my post on Mt 23, I have quite a different idea of the peshitto. So, not only do I ask for the readings, but also: what were the criteria for selecting them ??? Thanks, 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" "Wat te eenvoudig is, is verkeerd; wat te ingewikkeld is, is onbruikbaar" _________________________________________________ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Oct 23 18:41:03 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA25152; Thu, 23 Oct 1997 18:41:02 -0400 Date: 23 Oct 1997 22:45:30 -0000 Message-ID: <19971023224530.10111.qmail@np.nosc.mil> To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: tc-list Papyri of John From: Vincent Broman Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1037 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- I understand that the IGNTP John on Papyrus publication (for which I am saving up my pennies to purchase someday) documents the text of 23 papyri which contained the Gospel of John. My sources only name 22 papyri available, viz. p2 p5 p6 p22 p28 p36 p39 p44 p45 p52 p55 p59 p60 p63 p66 p75 p76 p80 p84 p90 p93 p95 What is the 23rd papyrus MS, and what are its location and contents? Vincent Broman San Diego, California, USA Email: broman at sd.znet.com (home) or spawar.navy.mil or nosc.mil (work) Phone: +1 619 284 3775 Starship: 32d42m22s N 117d14m13s W === PGP protected mail preferred. For public key finger me at np.nosc.mil === -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBNE/TgmCU4mTNq7IdAQG6rQQAsMEc0uqlBvBhn6qniRyOxA/tqoJs4BfM AzN7pKyxlZJk4nuIZcrRy50Sj/nL699laVnZlNL8bI2ntc4BIjM4GhSY3G/zZ94n ylxxvB8fl4x8M7p38oaAtvL6KZEHgFeWGqus9mtnzQUl4wHIv/OLHKk/mcTLpZNw 2kReM6Rl4w4= =SS8s -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Oct 23 19:06:02 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA25238; Thu, 23 Oct 1997 19:06:00 -0400 Message-ID: <344FDBE3.48E470EE@accesscomm.net> Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 18:21:07 -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: tc-list P9 at 1 Jn 4:11 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <1.5.4.16.19971023103125.0ca7bdcc@mail.highland.net> 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 SAA13944 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 733 Jim West wrote: > At 03:28 PM 10/23/97 +0000, you wrote: > >There was a query about a reading in P9. There is no such word as > >trapizo so far as I know. As Grenfell & Hunt noted, it's corrupt for > egapesen. > > > > David, > Thanks. But that would be quite a corruption! What would cause such > an > error or problem? I tried to find the word (TARPIZO) in Bauer, but it > is > not there; nor is it in Liddell-Scott. The only thing that comes close, in my head anyway, is TRAPEZITHS, "money changer" and TRAPEZA "Table" (Mt 15:27; Mk 7:28; Lk 16:21) probably etymologically related. 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 Thu Oct 23 22:10:35 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA25668; Thu, 23 Oct 1997 22:10:35 -0400 Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 22:13:26 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199710240213.WAA10663@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: tc-list Collation of MS 33 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 921 I am looking for a collation of MS 33 to check the accuracy of the data I collected from Reuben Swanson's volume NT Greek MSS in Matthew. In his work on the Greek New Testament MSS (Cambridge UP, 1998), J. K. Elliott mentions a collation made by S. P. Tregelles. Does someone know something about this collation (i.e. reference, including page numbers) and would be kind enough to communicate these information to me? You can reply off list. Jean-Francois Racine Ph.D. Candidate U. 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 Thu Oct 23 22:13:51 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA25691; Thu, 23 Oct 1997 22:13:51 -0400 Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 22:18:01 -0400 Message-Id: <199710240218.WAA13271@server1.netpath.net> X-Sender: rlmullen@server1.netpath.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Roderic L. Mullen" Subject: tc-list waltzing peshitta Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 117 I too would like to see Robert Waltz's list of readings and criteria for his analysis of the Peshitta. --Rod Mullen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Oct 24 05:30:09 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id FAA26508; Fri, 24 Oct 1997 05:30:08 -0400 Message-ID: From: "DC PARKER" Organization: Fac of Arts:The Univ. of Birmingham To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 10:16:36 GMT Subject: Re: tc-list Papyri of John 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: 305 We concluded that the material hitherto known as P44 is the work of two different hands, and called the two parts P44A (Jn 10.8-14) and P44B (the rest). Hence the total of 23. 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 Fri Oct 24 05:30:12 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id FAA26522; Fri, 24 Oct 1997 05:30:11 -0400 Message-ID: From: "DC PARKER" Organization: Fac of Arts:The Univ. of Birmingham To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 10:29:21 GMT Subject: Re: tc-list P9 at 1 Jn 4:11 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: 582 Jim West wrote > Thanks. But that would be quite a corruption! What would cause such an > error or problem? I tried to find the word (TARPIZO) in Bauer, but it is > not there; nor is it in Liddell-Scott. > It looks slightly less bizarre in majuscule script. But scribes do sometimes produce something completely nonsensical. I've looked at the plate in Hirunuma, and there's no doubt of the reading, particularly of the first five letters. 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 Fri Oct 24 10:56:03 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA27673; Fri, 24 Oct 1997 10:56:02 -0400 Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 10:00:43 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <199710241500.KAA27319@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: tc-list Collation of MS 33 Cc: jracine@riq.qc.ca Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 576 At 10:13 PM 10/23/97 -0400, Jean-Francois Racine wrote: >I am looking for a collation of MS 33 to check the accuracy of the data I >collected from Reuben Swanson's volume NT Greek MSS in Matthew. > >In his work on the Greek New Testament MSS (Cambridge UP, 1998), J. K. >Elliott mentions a collation made by S. P. Tregelles. > The volume in question is: S. P. Tregelles, _The Greek New Testament. Edited from Ancient Authorities, with Their Various Readings in Full, and the Latin Version of Jerome._ London: Samuel Bagster and Sons, 1857-1879. Mike Holmes Bethel College From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Oct 24 11:39:11 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA27958; Fri, 24 Oct 1997 11:39:10 -0400 Message-ID: From: Curt Niccum To: "'tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu'" Subject: tc-list FW: RE: p44 in John Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 10:45:50 -0500 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: 2053 Dear TC-list, The following is a brief correspondence between myself and D.C. Parker which we both agreed might be of some benefit to the list as a whole. Professor Parker, Sorry to bother you, but I would appreciate a very quick clarification concerning the information you offered the tc-list about p44 in John (which also remains ambiguous in the INTGP John volume). Clearly there are two different "hands." Are these two different manuscripts? Common sense and the designation of "twnety-three papyri" in the introduction (along with a quick perusal of the plates) would suggest that that is the case, although I have run across a couple of manuscripts (admittedly Ethiopic ones) that have had small sections of text entered by a different hand. Is there any codicological evidence suggesting two separate manuscripts or was the term "hands" used to be purposefully ambiguous? Respectfully yours, Curt Niccum Dear Dr Niccum Thank you for asking. It's an interesting point, and one which occurred to me again this morning. Since P44A has a bit of text in between the two parts of P44B, it seems unlikely that they could be from the same MS. I don't recall whether we used the language we did intentionally, except that the evidence is palaeographical and not codicological. There just is no evidence about the MS(S) from which these tiny fragments come. But it's worth adding that the Inventory Number of P44 also includes yet a third piece, an unidentified text, which as I recall thinking is in a third hand again. This suggests that a handful of bits were put together . Aland in the Repertorium calls it '2 foll einer Lektionarkodex', but I don't know why. That really is all that I can recall about it. I'd be glad to know of any further thoughts that you may have. Do you have a particular interest in these papyri? Perhaps we should forward these letters to the tc-list? With best wishes David Parker 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 Oct 25 01:47:43 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id BAA00353; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 01:47:42 -0400 Date: 25 Oct 1997 05:52:12 -0000 Message-ID: <19971025055212.10286.qmail@np.nosc.mil> To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: tc-list NT MSS listing from the ENTMP From: Vincent Broman Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1050 I've expanded, improved, corrected, sliced, diced, etc. the data on NT MSS that Tauber and others put together for the ENTMP. There is now Siglum, Name, Date, Location, Equivalences, and Contents information for 99 papyri, 284 parchment uncials, 407 miniscules, and 49 lectionaries. Some of the fields are missing because of my source lacking them, e.g. locations from UBS3. The contents of each papyrus and parchment uncial are detailed by chapter and verse more explicitly than you will find elsewhere. My primary source is NA27, secondarily Aland-tTotNT, tertiarily UBS3, and then everything else I could grab. This is available as http://www.znet.com/~broman/gmssinfo.zip referred to in http://www.znet.com/~broman/manuscripts.html . Corrections welcome. Vincent Broman San Diego, California, USA Email: broman at sd.znet.com (home) or spawar.navy.mil or nosc.mil (work) Phone: +1 619 284 3775 Starship: 32d42m22s N 117d14m13s W (no sig because I'm dialed in from home.) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Oct 25 05:13:46 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id FAA00728; Sat, 25 Oct 1997 05:13:45 -0400 Message-Id: <199710250913.FAA00723@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> From: "Steve Carson-Rowland" To: Subject: tc-list Thanks (was: Majority text -question from a beginner) Date: Sat, 25 Oct 1997 19:22:53 +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: 157 A few days ago I asked a question about the majority text. Thanks to everyone who responded. It was very helpful. Steve Carson-Rowland Brisbane, Australia From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Oct 27 13:39:31 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA07803; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 13:39:31 -0500 Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 12:44:11 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199710271844.MAA09122@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: tc-list Mailing list for ENTTC? Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1409 Robert, If & when you do create a mailing list for the ENTTC, please include me on it? Thanks, Mike Holmes At 10:21 AM 10/17/97 -0500, you wrote: >TCers -- > >Believe it or not, I do *not* like being the source of controversy. >But some of us have controversy "thrust upon us" (as, e.g., when >we pervert quotations such as that one :-). > >But I am managing the site for the Encyclopedia of NT TC until >such time as Rich Elliot can turn it into a real book. And that >means that I sometimes need to ask for opinions and make >announcements. (I need an opinion right now, in fact.) > >Rather than burden the TC list with these, it seems to me that >I should start a mailing list devoted to the ENTTC. It won't >be a "real" mailing list -- I don't want to set up a LISTSERV -- >but if you want to send me your e-mail addresses, I will add >your name to the list I am compiling for release information >and announcements. > >And then the list won't have to hear any more of my silly >announcements. Thereafter I will be able to confine myself >to silly PROnouncements. :-) > >-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- > > 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 Oct 27 16:47:12 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA08499; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 16:47:11 -0500 Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 16:47:11 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Adair" To: TC List Subject: tc-list new SBL book series 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: 805 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 owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Oct 27 19:45:42 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA09003; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 19:45:42 -0500 From: "Vinton A. Dearing" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 18:00:47 PST MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: tc-list Matthew in Ms 33 X-Confirm-Reading-To: "Vinton A. Dearing" X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) Message-ID: <2739DA56BB0@113hum4.humnet.ucla.edu> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 291 I erased the correspondence on what I believe was this subject, so may have misremembered the problem. If you wish to collate 33 why not ask for a film of it from the Bibliotheque Nationale? or ask to borrow a film from the Ancient Biblical Manuscript Center? Vinton A. Dearing From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Oct 28 00:00:40 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id AAA09658; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 00:00:39 -0500 Message-ID: <345572BE.397A@earthlink.net> Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 21:06:06 -0800 From: "Bernard A. Taylor" Organization: At Home X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.03Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list new SBL book series 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: 765 James R. Adair wrote: > > 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. 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 owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Oct 28 07:16:07 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id HAA10373; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 07:16:06 -0500 Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 07:20:44 -0500 (EST) From: Bart Ehrman X-Sender: behrman@login4.isis.unc.edu To: TC List Subject: Re: tc-list new SBL book series 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: 955 Jimmy, Do you know who the editor of the new series is? -- Bart On Mon, 27 Oct 1997, James R. Adair wrote: > 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 owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Oct 28 15:38:46 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA12709; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 15:38:46 -0500 Message-ID: <34564E68.91DD5E3@concentric.net> Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 12:43:20 -0800 From: Ken Litwak X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: tc-list Questions on Luke X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1554 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 owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Oct 28 16:01:44 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA12832; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 16:01:43 -0500 Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 15:05:20 -0600 (CST) X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <34564E68.91DD5E3@concentric.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: tc-list Questions on Luke Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2932 On Tue, 28 Oct 1997, Tue, 28 Oct 1997 wrote" >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). 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. > > I guess I'm looking for some way to understand the inclusion or >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 >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. 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 >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. 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 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 Oct 29 09:17:46 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA15297; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 09:17:45 -0500 From: WFWarren@aol.com Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 09:22:48 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <971029092000_74668066@emout05.mail.aol.com> To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list Questions on Luke Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1417 In a message dated 28-10-97 8:47:45 PM, Ken Litwak wrote: > 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. The work by Carlo Martini would be among the best on P75 in Luke: Carlo Martini, Il Problema della Recensionalita del Codice B alla Luce del Papiro Bodmer XIV. (in Analecta Biblica, vol. 26, Rome, Pontificio Instituto Biblico, 1966). You may also want to look at the following: J. Neville Birdsall's article in Studies in the New Testament Language and Text, edited by Keith Elliott, vol. 44 of Supplements to Novum Testamentum, Leiden, E. J. Brill, 1976. J. Duplacy, P75 (Pap. Bodmer XIV-XV) et les formes les plus anciennes du texte de Luc, in L'Evangile de Luc: Probleme litteraires et theologiques, Belgium, J. Duculot, 1973. Sarah A. Edwards, P75 under the Magnifying Glass, in Novum Testamentum, 18 (July 1976): 190-212. I could list some others, but these should get you started towards understanding P75 better. Having collated P75 in Luke some time ago, I can vouch that it is extremely close to B (as well as to P4 where those two overlap, but allowance should be made for limited text overlap). I hope this helps. Paz, Bill Warren Professor of New Testament and Greek New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Oct 29 11:00:05 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA15854; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 11:00:04 -0500 Message-ID: <345760B3.35ACAE98@accesscomm.net> Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 10:13:39 -0600 From: Jack Kilmon X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: tc-list Re: P52 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <971029092000_74668066@emout05.mail.aol.com> 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 KAA10298 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 496 List: Are any of the earliest NT papyri opisthographs? P52 appears to be the oldest example of a codex fragment, therefore it's a quo date of 113 CE is the earliest date I can assign for the practice (unless anyone knows of an earlier example). I would be interested in some examples of the ad quo dates for both Hebrew and Greek opisthographic papyri. 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 Wed Oct 29 11:23:06 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA15920; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 11:23:05 -0500 Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 10:28:07 -0600 (CST) X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <345760B3.35ACAE98@accesscomm.net> References: <971029092000_74668066@emout05.mail.aol.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: tc-list Re: P52 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 907 On Wed, 29 Oct 1997, Jack Kilmon wrote: >List: > > Are any of the earliest NT papyri opisthographs? P52 appears >to be the oldest example of a codex fragment, therefore it's a quo >date of 113 CE is the earliest date I can assign for the practice >(unless anyone knows of an earlier example). I would be >interested in some examples of the ad quo dates for both Hebrew >and Greek opisthographic papyri. P13 -- the most substantial papyrus not in the Beatty or Bodmer collections -- is an opisthograph. Date is listed as III/IV. Text is similar to P46 and B. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Oct 29 11:25:45 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA15951; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 11:25:45 -0500 Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 11:29:52 -0500 (EST) From: Bart Ehrman X-Sender: behrman@login6.isis.unc.edu To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list Re: P52 In-Reply-To: <345760B3.35ACAE98@accesscomm.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 737 A side-question. How have you arrived at 113 CE as the terminus a q= uo?=20 -- Bart Ehrman, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill On Wed, 29 Oct 1997, Jack Kilmon wrote: > List: >=20 > Are any of the earliest NT papyri opisthographs? P52 appears > to be the oldest example of a codex fragment, therefore it's a quo > date of 113 CE is the earliest date I can assign for the practice > (unless anyone knows of an earlier example). I would be > interested in some examples of the ad quo dates for both Hebrew > and Greek opisthographic papyri. >=20 > Jack >=20 > -- > D=92man dith laych idneh d=92nishMA nishMA > Jack Kilmon (jpman@accesscomm.net) >=20 >=20 > http://users.accesscomm.net/scriptorium >=20 >=20 >=20 From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Oct 29 12:57:31 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA16442; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 12:57:30 -0500 Message-ID: <34577C35.67082BE5@accesscomm.net> Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 12:11:01 -0600 From: Jack Kilmon X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list Re: P52 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 MAA17403 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1206 Bart Ehrman wrote: > A side-question. How have you arrived at 113 CE as the terminus a > quo? > > -- Bart Ehrman, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Actually, I mistyped and it should have been 117 CE. The fragmenthas been dated to the time of Hadrian by Roberts with agreement from most of the eminent palaeographers of the time, Deissman, Kenyon, etc. Deissman actually held open the possibility for the time of Trajan (98-117 CE). Jack > On Wed, 29 Oct 1997, Jack Kilmon wrote: > > > List: > > > > Are any of the earliest NT papyri opisthographs? P52 appears > > to be the oldest example of a codex fragment, therefore it's a quo > > date of 113 CE is the earliest date I can assign for the practice > > (unless anyone knows of an earlier example). I would be > > interested in some examples of the ad quo dates for both Hebrew > > and Greek opisthographic papyri. > > > > Jack > > > > -- > > D=92man dith laych idneh d=92nishMA nishMA > > Jack Kilmon (jpman@accesscomm.net) > > > > > > http://users.accesscomm.net/scriptorium > > > > > > -- 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 Wed Oct 29 13:39:02 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA16690; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 13:39:01 -0500 Message-ID: <345785FD.FD320344@accesscomm.net> Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 12:52:45 -0600 From: Jack Kilmon X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list Re: P52 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <971029092000_74668066@emout05.mail.aol.com> 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 MAA19939 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1465 Robert B. Waltz wrote: > On Wed, 29 Oct 1997, Jack Kilmon wrote: > > >List: > > > > Are any of the earliest NT papyri opisthographs? P52 appears > >to be the oldest example of a codex fragment, therefore it's a quo > >date of 113 CE is the earliest date I can assign for the practice > >(unless anyone knows of an earlier example). I would be > >interested in some examples of the ad quo dates for both Hebrew > >and Greek opisthographic papyri. > > P13 -- the most substantial papyrus not in the Beatty or Bodmer > collections -- is an opisthograph. Date is listed as III/IV. > Text is similar to P46 and B. > Since the text on the verso of P13 is Livy, has their been an opinion offered as to how the papyrus was used? A draft preliminary to the making of a codex? A singular scroll of Hebrews, reusing a scroll of Livy? Is it a true opisthograph in that the text of Hebrews does not continue on the reverse? I am wondering if the invention of the codex is of Christian origin and may coincide with the "collation" of the Gospels and epistles of Paul, perhaps in Ephesus, around the turn of the 2nd century..... perhaps Ephesians being a "cover letter" for that work. For the life of me, I cannot find support for Thiede's claim that the Codex was in use in the mid 1st century. 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 Wed Oct 29 13:56:26 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA16790; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 13:56:25 -0500 Message-ID: <91B64315334FD11195CC0000F803CA9F0544A3@esusa.esusa.org> From: Curt Niccum To: "'tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu'" Subject: RE: tc-list Re: P52 Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 13:03:15 -0600 X-Priority: 3 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1458.49) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2197 I am not familiar with Thiede's specific claim. As for the secular use of the codex, it had apparently experienced limited use before the = first century of the common era (if we understand Martial correctly). In addition, I believe the notes of Philodemus' lectures were discovered = in codex form which would provide hard evidence of its use around the middle of the first century. If Thiede is specifically referring to Christian codices, then his argument rests on his untenable dating of p64 et al. Curt -----Original Message----- From: Jack Kilmon [SMTP:jpman@accesscomm.net] Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 1997 12:53 PM To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list Re: P52 Robert B. Waltz wrote: > On Wed, 29 Oct 1997, Jack Kilmon wrote: > > >List: > > > > Are any of the earliest NT papyri opisthographs? P52 appears > >to be the oldest example of a codex fragment, therefore it's a quo > >date of 113 CE is the earliest date I can assign for the practice > >(unless anyone knows of an earlier example). I would be > >interested in some examples of the ad quo dates for both Hebrew > >and Greek opisthographic papyri. > > P13 -- the most substantial papyrus not in the Beatty or Bodmer > collections -- is an opisthograph. Date is listed as III/IV. > Text is similar to P46 and B. > Since the text on the verso of P13 is Livy, has their been an opinion offered as to how the papyrus was used? A draft preliminary to the making of a codex? A singular scroll of Hebrews, reusing a scroll of Livy? Is it a true opisthograph in that the text of Hebrews does not continue on the reverse? I am wondering if the invention of the codex is of Christian origin and may coincide with the "collation" of the Gospels and epistles of Paul, perhaps in Ephesus, around the turn of the 2nd century..... perhaps Ephesians being a "cover letter" for that work. For the life of me, I cannot find support for Thiede's claim that the Codex was in use in the mid 1st century. 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 Wed Oct 29 15:16:26 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA17301; Wed, 29 Oct 1997 15:16:26 -0500 Message-ID: <34579CD7.A70C6E0F@accesscomm.net> Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 14:30:16 -0600 From: Jack Kilmon X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list Re: P52 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <91B64315334FD11195CC0000F803CA9F0544A3@esusa.esusa.org> 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 OAA26419 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1109 Curt Niccum wrote: > I am not familiar with Thiede's specific claim. As for the secular use > > of the codex, it had apparently experienced limited use before the > first > century of the common era (if we understand Martial correctly). In > addition, I believe the notes of Philodemus' lectures were discovered > in > codex form which would provide hard evidence of its use around the > middle of the first century. If Thiede is specifically referring to > Christian codices, then his argument rests on his untenable dating of > p64 et al. > > Curt > This is interesting. It would seem, therefore, that the codex wasdeveloped from its "pagan" invention by Christians while the Jewish format continued in scroll form...since the earliest Hebrew codex, of which I am aware, is C. Cairensis (late 9th C). The Jewish resistance of this much more convenient format must have been held on religious grounds. I wonder what format old Flavius Joe used for his autographs? 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 Thu Oct 30 05:13:22 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id FAA19497; Thu, 30 Oct 1997 05:13:22 -0500 From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" Organization: Divinity Faculty To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Thu, 30 Oct 1997 10:15:33 +000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: tc-list Re: codex Priority: normal In-reply-to: <34579CD7.A70C6E0F@accesscomm.net> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.54) Message-ID: <4B71317525@div.ed.ac.uk> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1359 To the best of my knowledge, refs. to the use of codices in the lst-2nd cents (other than the indications of Christian appropriation of the format) signal the following: --Use of the codex for non-literary purposes/writings, such as notebooks, study-copies of literary works, documentary texts, etc. --Experimentation with the codex in a few cases for liteary works, with a view toward making "pocket" editions. Martial's ref. for example seems to refer to the particular advantage of a codex for reading while en route. Thus, the Christian innovation with the codex appears as follows: --a MUCH more regularised/standardised appropriation/usage of the codex. The % figures given by Roberts & others who have worked on the question are undeniable. --a particular FAVORING of the codex for what became their "scriptures", both OT & NT writings. Christian copies of other Christian writings survive, and a number of them are NOT in codex form. The Christian favoring of the codex seems not easily accounted for merely as an act of convenience (e.g., to make "pocket editions"). It looks quite deliberate and purposeful. Problem is trying to find clear indications of the purpose! 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 Oct 30 17:32:01 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA23441; Thu, 30 Oct 1997 17:32:00 -0500 Message-ID: <01BCE552.1A36A8C0@dial16.icct.net> From: Mark and Wendy Proctor To: "'tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu'" Subject: RE: tc-list Re: codex Date: Thu, 30 Oct 1997 16:33:43 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="---- =_NextPart_000_01BCE552.1A583A80" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 6446 ------ =_NextPart_000_01BCE552.1A583A80 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I'm probably mentioning the obvious here, but it might be a good idea to = check Harry Y. Gambe's *Books and Readers in the Early Church: A History = of Early Christian Texts* (New Haven: Yale U. Press, 1995) on this = subject. Unless I'm mistaken, Gamble argues that the codex was not a = Christian "invention," but that it was used more by Christians than = others. Why? It seems that the collection of the Pauline letters and = the subsequent need for an efficient way of binding this material in a = usable format precipitated the widespread use of the codex form in early = Christian circles. If Gamble is right, this would push the appearance = of Christian codices back into the latter part of the first century. Hope this is of some assistance, Mark Proctor ---------- From: Professor L.W. Hurtado[SMTP:hurtadol@div.ed.ac.uk] Sent: Thursday, October 30, 1997 4:15 AM To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: tc-list Re: codex To the best of my knowledge, refs. to the use of=20 codices in the lst-2nd cents (other than the indications of Christian=20 appropriation of the format) signal the following: --Use of the codex for non-literary purposes/writings, such as=20 notebooks, study-copies of literary works, documentary texts, etc. --Experimentation with the codex in a few cases for liteary works,=20 with a view toward making "pocket" editions. Martial's ref. for=20 example seems to refer to the particular advantage of a codex for=20 reading while en route. Thus, the Christian innovation with the codex appears as follows: --a MUCH more regularised/standardised appropriation/usage of the=20 codex. The % figures given by Roberts & others who have worked on=20 the question are undeniable. --a particular FAVORING of the codex for what became their=20 "scriptures", both OT & NT writings. Christian copies of other=20 Christian writings survive, and a number of them are NOT in codex=20 form. The Christian favoring of the codex seems not easily accounted=20 for merely as an act of convenience (e.g., to make "pocket=20 editions"). It looks quite deliberate and purposeful. Problem is=20 trying to find clear indications of the purpose! L. W. Hurtado University of Edinburgh, New College Mound Place=20 Edinburgh, Scotland EH1 2LX Phone: 0131-650-8920 Fax: 0131-650-6579 E-mail: L.Hurtado@ed.ac.uk ------ =_NextPart_000_01BCE552.1A583A80 Content-Type: application/ms-tnef Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 eJ8+IhkWAQaQCAAEAAAAAAABAAEAAQeQBgAIAAAA5AQAAAAAAADoAAENgAQAAgAAAAIAAgABBJAG AGABAAABAAAADAAAAAMAADADAAAACwAPDgAAAAACAf8PAQAAAGEAAAAAAAAAgSsfpL6jEBmdbgDd AQ9UAgAAAAB0Yy1saXN0QHNoZW1lc2guc2Nob2xhci5lbW9yeS5lZHUAU01UUAB0Yy1saXN0QHNo ZW1lc2guc2Nob2xhci5lbW9yeS5lZHUAAAAAHgACMAEAAAAFAAAAU01UUAAAAAAeAAMwAQAAACIA AAB0Yy1saXN0QHNoZW1lc2guc2Nob2xhci5lbW9yeS5lZHUAAAADABUMAQAAAAMA/g8GAAAAHgAB MAEAAAAkAAAAJ3RjLWxpc3RAc2hlbWVzaC5zY2hvbGFyLmVtb3J5LmVkdScAAgELMAEAAAAnAAAA U01UUDpUQy1MSVNUQFNIRU1FU0guU0NIT0xBUi5FTU9SWS5FRFUAAAMAADkAAAAACwBAOgEAAAAC AfYPAQAAAAQAAAAAAAADq0wBCIAHABgAAABJUE0uTWljcm9zb2Z0IE1haWwuTm90ZQAxCAEEgAEA FgAAAFJFOiB0Yy1saXN0IFJlOiBjb2RleAD1BgEFgAMADgAAAM0HCgAeABAAIQArAAQAXAEBIIAD AA4AAADNBwoAHgAQABoAMgAEAFwBAQmAAQAhAAAAMEMzRjU5NkM0MDUxRDExMUIwQzk0NDQ1NTM1 NDAwMDAAxAYBA5AGALwIAAASAAAACwAjAAAAAAADACYAAAAAAAsAKQAAAAAAAwA2AAAAAABAADkA IOzq4IPlvAEeAHAAAQAAABYAAABSRTogdGMtbGlzdCBSZTogY29kZXgAAAACAXEAAQAAABYAAAAB vOWD4GRsWT8NUUAR0bDJREVTVAAAAAAeAB4MAQAAAAUAAABTTVRQAAAAAB4AHwwBAAAAEQAAAHBy b2N0b3JAaWNjdC5uZXQAAAAAAwAGECHrB9IDAAcQRwcAAB4ACBABAAAAZQAAAElNUFJPQkFCTFlN RU5USU9OSU5HVEhFT0JWSU9VU0hFUkUsQlVUSVRNSUdIVEJFQUdPT0RJREVBVE9DSEVDS0hBUlJZ WUdBTUJFUypCT09LU0FORFJFQURFUlNJTlRIRUVBUkwAAAAAAgEJEAEAAABDBwAAPwcAADcMAABM WkZ1hHmUbv8ACgEPAhUCqAXrAoMAUALyCQIAY2gKwHNldDI3BgAGwwKDMgPFAgBwckJxEeJzdGVt AoMztwLkBxMCgzQSzBTFfQqAiwjPCdk7F58yNTUCgAcKgQ2xC2BuZzEwMy8UUAsKFWIMAWMAQCBJ SCdtIBNQb2IBoGxseSAHgAIwaQIgC4BnoCB0aGUgHOB2HZAOdQQgHhAXoCwgYnWFBUBpBUBtaWdo BUDCYh4gYSBnbwRwH1BjDbAgIHRvIBFwBZBrFCBICsByHTBZLiAkR2EG0GUnBCAqQt0gUGsEIABw IHBSILAEgTcEIAuAHfNFCsAdIUNo+whwEXA6FLAhYAQAIOAhoXxvZiQXBRATwAcwA6BUgGV4dHMq ICgHwm0hcHYJ8CTgWQdAHiBVHSHgUBegBBAfADE5ORw1KR4wI8IEACBzdbRiagWQdCHgKEBuKCDP BBEcgh+QE8BhawnwHwB3IgIoIQrAZwpQBCAeAGEPBUAeAgWgDbB4IHdhuQQgbm8FQCAgJjgiC4Dz J7EdgiwiHxMsox9hLZLfHpAJgB1ABbAeIGImGSyDFwOgLeAewXMqQVdoeXo/KlBJBUARsBPgLIts HyggKiAdkSWSHgJQYXX+bAuAHiAoIAJAI3Ii8h4C+ynREbBxClACMC3ACeAgcM8CEAXAA5ENwWlj CJA3oestkCWDYguAZB3EKaEAwP82UQcxI6IgIB6QHQEeIDgh/zpxHLEFkAUgH2A6gTbEA/D9DbBz PDEjUDCSNSYtNDvCfyOiILAl/DjQJLAqkSpBSX8lsCvFKaEFEB+xHwApg3dVCGBsIHBwHpBoHfNh 7HBwP4EAcGM+Ez/pBHD/OMAHkRzwIUELgCDhHgILYP82QhywCsAFQDU1OLARoAVAZ0QgAjAIcHku CoUKhUjeb0PAKXQpoSWhcwNwIAHXBBArMkQRLEicTQrAIVB9KIBvKiAFsEicCvQ10DHkNDQC0Wkt TnMM0E5zeQtZMTYKoANgE9AqICC+LVEXCodPywwwUJZGA2HfJOBPr1C0DIJMkmYooQWxaEwuVyHg SAhwAZBkgG9bU01UUDokkUlW8mxAOdB2LgmALuEA0C51a11Rv1LNBmCXAjBT/1ULVCSRc2Q5QJ0f AE9M0R/wBcAzMCjTQDcgNDoxNRSwTTNY/1LNVG9bP1ULdGN2LTXQE8BAQzAT4AeQaPouBPBoBvAK wFhQMPFIcP0JgHVfP1oOKeRhX2JvJTH/IyEk4C0zTR8LKBRRC/JguK8d8x/wR+EloW0dMGst0PJ3 KCBkZx7xF6AD0CHgX0YVPfVrFUUmI7VsE8At7jIjAUgSBCAoMnMyFB4C/TmyYyzAHZFKIyY4axVD oX8DYBNQBzA06jvEKTAAkGe+bjrRdqQ0oG6AHcE6axXdURBVPg8FsS3QbmNRNlFHCsAdMEMQcnBv EbBz/C93BRAdgBqgKMEp0BFw90qxSPYt0WUG4CKxfHFIQPhkeS0FoDyAB5EloXrXz0KwTHAowVcQ Y3UdUnsiPxPQJvEfABHAWKB4t0V4/0PABRCAczTjA/AeACzpOwP/VgAH4HPQe7E4E3rSf4lrFf+D MyAgHmAH0SDgLZALIDph+msdwiJ7kCFAEcAvgAmA33wRdBEqQUxRJoFsIlFvEf8h4DgiaxUm4CIQ C1A3ATOk/yDwbxFy0kYkRvI4wDXAdWL8ZHYAcAGQbtAlkiAgefj3axU9oh3CdymQKCEJ8EHg/whg E9BIhl0RKMEeAiY4C4D/LdCN4ILvLWFDpCLRhPJ4MoZzeKggIE1VQ0gw5N8XoCxQZHEEAAmAL0sC XWD3CyCXcnWMLztRjjQeAnBY7ybgKkFdEB4gJUehLFAokX8gMFgwkKExQQgAXfFyYSb/MmWQMSDw EYAnsH+zMMEpUf9rFR4CN3EmcSlRCsBvwSMAPwnwBzAr8YGYICCNGUZBwFZPUklOR3l/kDF/LMEf 8HPQSpEeAUCQSPYiuwT0m8IiHwEycV2gVJ0R/k6m4Hv2KkFEin62cqRrFfcmOHv2KcFyHmAnsB8A IvJ9ICBugGBd8jU0HKCgIk5/ptEjsS00axU7wpsFJjhm/yegBbAdwj47M5Qt0iCwAJD/HSEA0AWg oGA8wq44HUEXoP+yMiLSslFHIwWgLvI44UQh8iiREGcuQkEg8IfhHiDniFWKt4j1IilA8gVAFzDf IrI3cHrhgCCz4Gld8TqB+yLje2VmNcAqQUyhK/E/Mf1893QhoB3DIPA4sHICKCDvCsFznYzTe3Qh SJxWcDLw/1anaxUqcJwhEaAfYCWEOdH7HyAsQGhLZgfCCFA0oW7Q90vmspEgcFALYEQhaxXCOJsG AAWgdBqBIHBFSBxg6DJMWGsVUGRQNfAk4AAwMTMxLTY1MBgtODkB0GsVRmF408gJyHA3OcUmLQDA AxD3JOBWYVbFQFhmSJxrH2wvC0j2FsEA0GAAAwAQEAAAAAADABEQAAAAAEAABzCgd17qguW8AUAA CDCgd17qguW8AR4APQABAAAABQAAAFJFOiAAAAAAXt0= ------ =_NextPart_000_01BCE552.1A583A80--