From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Dec 1 12:19:11 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA16960; Mon, 1 Dec 1997 12:19:10 -0500 Date: 1 Dec 1997 17:24:51 -0000 Message-ID: <19971201172451.6809.qmail@np.nosc.mil> To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu In-reply-to: <199711292312.AAA19934@mail1.arcadis.be> (message from Jean VALENTIN on Dim, 30 Nov 97 00:25:53 +0100) Subject: Re: tc-list ENTMP transcription of Freer Gospels Matthew From: Vincent Broman Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1582 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > I don't know what this SGML/TEI norm is. Are such documents readable on a > Macintosh and how? I was referring to the Standard Generalized Markup Language with the Document Type Definition from the Text Encoding Initiative. Good starting points for learning about SGML and TEI would be these URLs. http://www.sil.org/sgml/sgml.html http://www.sil.org/sgml/acadapps.html#tei (HTML is another SGML DTD.) One of the important application areas supported by the TEI is manuscript transcription and apparatus encoding. Fancy GUI interfaces for SGML are widely available but pricey. I'm not sure style sheets for TEI in particular are easy to find. Robinson's Collate program is Mac-only and is supposed to do wonders with TEI texts. I just use Emacs with PSGML mode to look at the ASCII codes. Any ASCII file editor/viewer will display the marked up text in ugly fashion, but you'd want to learn a bit of SGML to make sense of it. 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 iQCVAwUBNILyYWCU4mTNq7IdAQEssAP/Qe9TRhNYF/tU7FzIB1CqPVS936N24MNw fA5thSAsDIsu981XxE+uyAzDQDH//DZFdat3dedQm9gLOvUsddRSUVqj29s7xuYE +5cPQ2DXI9M3rgMydkYyN4Sy1mzHH1DSH5i1GtfWbizrD9uS5zqRICAq1yqt0S1S qy7NxJFRgmg= =D3N6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Dec 1 12:22:41 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA17008; Mon, 1 Dec 1997 12:22:41 -0500 Date: 1 Dec 1997 17:28:23 -0000 Message-ID: <19971201172823.6813.qmail@np.nosc.mil> To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu In-reply-to: <3.0.1.16.19971127000214.34cfe2ca@pop.mindspring.com> (scarlson@mindspring.com) Subject: Re: tc-list Latin Vulgate Bible From: Vincent Broman Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 570 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Thanks, Stephen Carlson, for the fine summary. I could partially answer my own question this weekend when I found sample plates from Brixianus and Fuldensis and I could not see any difference between I and J nor between U and V. Vincent Broman -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBNILzo2CU4mTNq7IdAQFKtgQApHN00Qmhz7Cqg1EpqXpzfrAWwqAf3UEu koho6+XHZMn/vH3U0EsrgcKj8o3UFhZBM0m0AcMIHOxdajPsE93KA9+b0gSRJBf+ S7Cc+5coB8s2tr7k+k9DPlCLlVUxvx8R9bPjz9ugqDi5jYjcJ5OxcQ6Rb2uy31eO O/RSQhPmsBo= =Nm9X -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Dec 1 21:59:43 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA21626; Mon, 1 Dec 1997 21:59:43 -0500 Date: Mon, 01 Dec 1997 22:03:01 -0500 From: Jim West Subject: tc-list Sam. pent. X-Sender: jwest@highland.net (Unverified) To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.32.19971202030301.0066e440@highland.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) 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: 220 Does anyone know if the Samaritan pentateuch is in print and available? Thanks, Jim ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West Adjunct Professor of Bible Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@highland.net From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Dec 1 22:34:18 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA21852; Mon, 1 Dec 1997 22:34:17 -0500 Date: Mon, 01 Dec 1997 22:37:35 -0500 From: Jim West Subject: tc-list re: sam. pent. X-Sender: jwest@highland.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.32.19971202033735.006766ec@highland.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) 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: 598 Thanks to the kind soul who provided the following information so swiftly: Der hebr=E4ische Pentateuch der Samaritaner I. Teil: Prolegomena und Genesis. Mit 4 Taf. - II. Teil: Exodus. - III. Teil: Leviticus. - IV. Teil: Numeri. - V. Teil: Deuteronomium nebst Nachtr=E4gen und Verbesserungen Hrsg. v. Gall, August von de Gruyter,= (Nachdr. d. Ausg. 1914 - 1918) 1966 5 Tle. - XVI,XCIV,440 S.. - Gebunden ISBN 3-11-009258-1 260,- DM (231,- SFr, 1898,- =D6S) Jim ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West Adjunct Professor of Bible Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@highland.net From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Dec 2 15:13:43 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA28309; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 15:13:42 -0500 Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 15:13:41 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Adair" To: TC List Subject: Re: tc-list ENTMP transcription of Freer Gospels Matthew 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: 768 On 1 Dec 1997, Vincent Broman wrote: > Robinson's > Collate program is Mac-only and is supposed to do wonders with TEI texts. Peter Robinson showed a demo of his Collage program at one of the meetings of the Electronic Standards for Biblical Languages Texts seminar at the recent SBL meeting in San Francisco, and it was very impressive. The good news for non-Mac users is that a Windows 95 version is supposed to be ready by now (the target date was late 1997). Go to http://slate.blue.dmu.ac.uk/projects/Collate/order_collate.html for more information. Jimmy Adair Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press and Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site -------------> http://shemesh.scholar.emory.edu <-------------- From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Dec 2 18:53:29 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA00310; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 18:53:29 -0500 Date: 2 Dec 1997 23:59:05 -0000 Message-ID: <19971202235905.7101.qmail@np.nosc.mil> To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu In-reply-to: (jadair@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu) Subject: tc-list Collate From: Vincent Broman Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1545 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Adair mentioned: > http://slate.blue.dmu.ac.uk/projects/Collate ... for more information. Thanks kindly for the URL. Unfortunately, the blurbs there are rather uninformative about what the program's capabilities are (or else they are informative but it is not very capable). One is left entirely in the dark about what the inputs to the program are, aside from scholarly keystrokes. Input of Texts? Collations? how many at a time? in what formats? the same formats as supported for output? In what alphabets and with what lexical analysis rules? With markup or only bare text? Does the program filter or edit collations? separate or merge points of variation? output subset collations? support a turing-complete scripting language? run in batch mode? perform regularizations by rule? classify variants as significant/insignificant? organize variants with sub-variants, sub-sub-variants? etc. 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 iQCVAwUBNISgMmCU4mTNq7IdAQHITQQAqb/MVOyx1oFPtqCKJBv1Y8DcDo5kpM8t K9lN1li+w7zz6QnS2nePBggi7cb/iRg5BOwXFpI43Qt8PHdWnHvCoyRWraRvw1Gv M3/RYXAnVfB2F/xwRg4IEh0SftuWcb6EN/8Hs1LXEzskmePMzt22tIuYvGznY63l qdtInJYMOzc= =v569 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Dec 2 21:26:52 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA01034; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 21:26:51 -0500 Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 20:32:21 -0600 (CST) From: "Ronald L. Minton" X-Sender: rminton@orionc0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: tc-list early church fathers In-Reply-To: <19943672.886214@relay.comanche.denmark.eu> Tuesday, December 2nd, 1997 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: 414 I need to locate two or three books or Journal articles that discuss the early church fathers' use and citation of biblical texts. If you have found any to be particularly useful for the non-specialists, but informed reader, I would appreciate information on them. -- Prof. Ron Minton: rminton@mail.orion.org W (417)268-6053 H 833-9581 Baptist Bible Graduate School 628 E. Kearney St. Springfield, MO 65803 From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Dec 3 02:49:59 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id CAA01983; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 02:49:58 -0500 Message-Id: <199712030749.CAA01978@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> From: "Steve Carson-Rowland" To: Subject: Re: tc-list early church fathers Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 18:00:12 +1100 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: 672 From: Ronald L. Minton I need to locate two or three books or Journal articles that discuss the early church fathers' use and citation of biblical texts. If you have found any to be particularly useful for the non-specialists, but informed reader, I would appreciate information on them. STEVE CR I'm definitely a non-specialist, but I found these books to be good: Bellinzoni, A.J. The sayings of Jesus in Justin Martyr Leiden 1967 Hagner, Donald A. The Use of Old and New Testament in Clement of Rome Leiden 1973 Donfried, Karl Paul The Setting of Second Clement in early Christianity 1974 Steve Carson-Rowland Brisbane, Australia From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Dec 3 02:51:40 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id CAA02000; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 02:51:40 -0500 Message-Id: <199712030751.CAA01995@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> From: "Steve Carson-Rowland" To: "Textual List" Subject: tc-list Irenaeus use of the NT Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 18:02:18 +1100 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: 180 Can anyone recommend a decent work on Irenaeus' use of the NT - both his view of canonical scripture and the text types he quotes. Thanks Steve Carson-Rowland Brisbane, Australia From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Dec 3 09:40:46 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA03429; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 09:40:46 -0500 Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 09:40:45 -0500 Message-Id: <199712031440.JAA03424@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> >Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 10:43:00 +000 From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list early church fathers Content-Type: text Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 393 On method in using patristic evidence for TC, see esp. G. D. Fee, "The Use of Greek Patristic Citations in NT Textual Criticism," in E. J. Epp, G. D. Fee, _Studies in the Theory & Method of NT Textual Criticism_ Eerdmans, 1993. L. W. Hurtado University of Edinburgh, New College Mound Place Edinburgh, Scotland EH1 2LX Phone: 0131-650-8920 Fax: 0131-650-6579 E-mail: L.Hurtado@ed.ac.uk From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Dec 3 10:19:50 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA03814; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 10:19:50 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971203072727.006aed64@mail.teleport.com> X-Sender: dalemw@mail.teleport.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 03 Dec 1997 07:27:27 -0800 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Dale M. Wheeler" Subject: tc-list Re: Sam. pent. Cc: RoyBBrown@AOL.COM, rexk@teleport.com, pmiller@gramcord.org In-Reply-To: <199712030730.CAA01894@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 683 Jim West asked the TC-List: >Does anyone know if the Samaritan pentateuch is in print and available? The Samaritan Pentateuch is also available as a text module in Accordance for the Mac from the GRAMCORD Institute (www.GRAMCORD.org), if you want to work with it in computer form. XAIREIN... *********************************************************************** Dale M. Wheeler, Ph.D. Research Professor in Biblical Languages Multnomah Bible College 8435 NE Glisan Street Portland, OR 97220 Voice: 503-251-6416 FAX:503-254-1268 E-Mail: dalemw@teleport.com *********************************************************************** From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Dec 3 11:17:06 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA05074; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 11:17:06 -0500 Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 11:22:35 -0500 From: "Harold P. Scanlin" Subject: tc-list RE: Sam Pent To: TC-List Message-ID: <199712031122_MC2-2A81-8C70@compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 827 Von Gall is the only critical edition with apparatus of SP and it is good= that it remains in print. However. A. Tal, a recognized expert in the filed of SP, says ". . . The extant edition [von Gall] does not fulfill t= he requirements of modern philology. Not only is the text he created an eclectic composition, but von Gall even altered the character of Samarita= n Hebrew by giving priority to what he called 'the rules of Hebrew Grammar.= " = An alternative, or at least a supplement to von Gall is Tal's _The Samaritan Pentateuch edited according to MS 6(C) of the Shekhem Synagogue= _ (Tel-Aviv University, 1994). Tal also published a critical edition of th= e Samaritan Targum in three volumes (Tel-Aviv, 1980-83). Harold P. Scanlin United Bible Societies 1865 Broadway New York, NY 10023 scanlin@compuserve.com From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Dec 3 13:04:42 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA06313; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 13:04:41 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19971203180627.007c4100@gpo.iol.ie> X-Sender: mauros@gpo.iol.ie X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Wed, 03 Dec 1997 18:06:27 +0000 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Maurice A. O'Sullivan" Subject: Re: tc-list early church fathers In-Reply-To: References: <19943672.886214@relay.comanche.denmark.eu> 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: 658 At 20:32 02/12/97 -0600, you wrote: >I need to locate two or three books or Journal articles that discuss the >early church fathers' use and citation of biblical texts. If you have >found any to be particularly useful for the non-specialists, but informed >reader, I would appreciate information on them. A good introduction is: Simonetti,Manlio: Biblical Interpretation in the Early Church: an Historical Introduction to Patristic Exegesis ( T. & T. Clarke, Edinburg 1994 ISBN 0 567 09557 6 (HB_ 29249 5 (PB) Regards, Maurice Maurice A. O'Sullivan [ Bray, Ireland ] mauros@iol.ie [using Eudora Pro 3 and Trumpet Winsock 3.0d ] From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Dec 3 13:41:26 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA06827; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 13:41:25 -0500 Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 13:41:25 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Adair" To: TC List Subject: Re: tc-list Collate 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: 1825 Vincent Broman said: >Thanks kindly for the URL. Unfortunately, the blurbs there are rather >uninformative about what the program's capabilities are (or else they are >informative but it is not very capable). > >One is left entirely in the dark about what the inputs to the program >are, aside from scholarly keystrokes. Input of Texts? Collations? how >many at a time? in what formats? the same formats as supported for output? >In what alphabets and with what lexical analysis rules? With markup or >only bare text? >Does the program filter or edit collations? separate or merge points of >variation? output subset collations? support a turing-complete scripting >language? run in batch mode? perform regularizations by rule? >classify variants as significant/insignificant? organize variants with >sub-variants, sub-sub-variants? etc. Here's a more informative URL: http://slate.blue.dmu.ac.uk/projects/Collate. From this page you can get quite a bit more information about the program. Peter Robinson is the head of the Textual Criticism work group of the Text Encoding Initiative, and his text of the Canterbury Tales, for which he wrote Collate, is tagged in TEI. For the really gory details, you might want to look at his book _The Transcription of Primary Textual Sources Using SGML_, Office for Humanities Communication Publications, no. 6 (Oxford: Oxford University Computing Services, 1994). I've just run across a Perl script called tdiff that does some simple collations, too, that some might be interested in. For more information, see http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/users/etg10/tdiff.html. Jimmy Adair Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press and Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site -------------> http://shemesh.scholar.emory.edu <-------------- From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Dec 3 14:53:03 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA07679; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 14:53:02 -0500 Date: 3 Dec 1997 19:58:36 -0000 Message-ID: <19971203195836.7669.qmail@np.nosc.mil> To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu In-reply-to: (jadair@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu) Subject: Re: tc-list Collate From: Vincent Broman Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1228 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Here's a more informative URL: Thanks, but I had already found my way to that. The published stuff you mentioned might be worth my hunting up. The tdiff description looks interestingly similar to wdiff, which is another wrapper on diff. Of course, the hard part which it (and wdiff and diff) doesn't do is collate a third text against the first two. Since I don't run any Microsoft or Apple operating systems, I am starting to think again of embedding the guts of diff into Python and making a general collating tool with scripting capability. Someone send me a round tuit. 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 iQCVAwUBNIW5jGCU4mTNq7IdAQF5jwP+LTj/4BWPHpK9fy4Of3sbMrYa3NFMzjs/ gUBOKVtiWtlModwdGx17mNPKW6cn1GrBTdVNSyMUrBPRoTkVpLPQ2qRqSzZxriTt sxBLYMp2THH7trKty9KkK297VU9ahxJwwWvJaCYcdUEtf1yw48ZmdtSRgW5pr4yR qlxpK2dg8Tw= =I04K -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Dec 3 17:48:21 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA09582; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 17:48:21 -0500 To: rminton@mail.orion.org Cc: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 14:47:02 -0500 Subject: Re: tc-list early church fathers Message-ID: <19971203.144707.3270.3.johnrrus@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.38 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-3,5-6,10-11,13-17 From: johnrrus@juno.com (John R Russell) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 635 Ron, Bruce Metzger has written two articles on Patristic Evidence and TC. Bruce Metzger. "Patristic Evidence and the Textual Criticism of the New Testament." _New Testament Studeis_ 18, pp. 379-400. Bruce Metzger. "Explicit References in the Works of Origen to Variant Readings in New Testament Manuscripts," in _Historical and Literary Studies: Pagan, Jewish and Christian_. New Testament Tools and Studies, Vol. VIII, ed. B.M. Metzger. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1968. The second article deals with variant readings that Origen mentions in his writings that no longer exist. John Russell ThM Student Baptist Bible College, PA From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Dec 3 18:47:07 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA09801; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 18:47:06 -0500 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 17:59:48 +0400 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net (Carlton Winbery) Subject: Re: tc-list early church fathers Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 563 At 20:32 02/12/97 -0600, you wrote: >I need to locate two or three books or Journal articles that discuss the >early church fathers' use and citation of biblical texts. If you have >found any to be particularly useful for the non-specialists, but informed >reader, I would appreciate information on them. A very good study is the Oxford study "The NT in the Apostolic Fathers." It is out of print, but I got hold of a copy via inter-library loan from Princeton Theological Seminary library. It is done by a committee, none of whom are named in the book. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Dec 3 21:15:12 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA10140; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 21:15:12 -0500 Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 21:17:59 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199712040217.VAA06381@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 J.A. Spranger's Collation of 565 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1270 In a one-page article ["Codex 565 of the Gospels," Theologische Zeitschrift 25 (1969): 130], the late George D. Kilpatrick alludes to "a recent collation of Cod. 565 by J. A. Spranger". Since Kilpatrick does not add a bibliographical footnote to this allusion I wonder whether such a collation has ever been published. J.K. Elliott mentions Kilpatrick's article in his _Bibliography of Greek New Testament Manuscripts_ (Cambridge UP, 1989) 144, but does not mention Spranger's collation. I have found no mention of it in bibliographical publications such as Biblical Studies [CD-Rom], NTA, Elenchus, Bibliographie biblique, Annee philologique (a few years prior to 1969) nor in the bibliographies of several works of NT Textual Criticism. Has anyone on this list ever seen or heard of Spranger's collation of MS 565? Jean-Francois Racine Lecturer Universite du Quebec a Chicoutimi ______________________________________________________________ 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 Wed Dec 3 22:00:24 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA10451; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 22:00:24 -0500 Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 21:05:58 -0600 (CST) From: "Ronald L. Minton" X-Sender: rminton@orionc0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list early church fathers In-Reply-To: <199712031440.JAA03424@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: 219 A thank you for all the info on the church fathers. It was great help. -- Prof. Ron Minton: rminton@mail.orion.org W (417)268-6053 H 833-9581 Baptist Bible Graduate School 628 E. Kearney St. Springfield, MO 65803 From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Dec 3 22:37:26 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA10538; Wed, 3 Dec 1997 22:37:26 -0500 Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 11:43:07 +0800 (WST) From: Timothy John Finney X-Sender: finney@central To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: tc-list What Collate can do In-Reply-To: <199712030730.CAA01894@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: 3601 Vincent Broman asked about Collate. I have used Dr Robinson's Collate program, so I can answer some of his questions. How well is another matter... Input of Texts? The program is SGML aware, but mostly in the output stages. I heard Peter Robinson say (facetiously) that he thought it was the most prolific SGML generator anywhere, although I suppose that the US military beats him on this point. I am not sure how well it translates SGML input. Robinson was an early convert to SGML and no one is keener than him to make a collation program that accepts SGML. It would be good to find out whether he has managed to do it and tell the list. Collations? I am not sure whether it accepts collations. You are not the only one who has asked this question. How many at a time? 100 max. In what formats? You must specify what delimits textual divisions, what is punctuation, tag marker characters, gloss markers, milestone markers, and so on. The native format is that used in the Oxford Text Archive: e.g., Yesterday, I went [ul]swimming[/ul]. The end. Things in <> are division markers (Robinson calls them blocks), Things in [] are tags, with[/] specifying the end (ul means underline here). As you can see, it is SGML-ish. The same formats as supported for output? Don't know. In what alphabets. Whatever you like, although if you want anyone else to be able to use your transcriptions you should stick to a convention. The program compares words (i.e. things between white space) division by division, and relies on the specification of some standard text as a collation base. With markup or only bare text? With mark-up, but it will regard the mark-up as part of the word. For example, [ul]blah[/ul] will NOT be equal to blah, but the 'fuzzy match' capability will recognise these as close to each other. Does the program filter or edit collations? The program works by taking a set of manuscript transcriptions then collating them against a reference text in the classical manner. It allows you to regularise spelling variations and to specify how you want a variation unit to look. In this sense, it allows you to filter and edit collations. Support a turing-complete scripting language? Sorry, I don't know what this means. I do not think the program supports scripting languages, although the last time I spoke to him, Dr Robinson was talking about changing to programming in Java rather than C. Run in batch mode? perform regularizations by rule? I don't think so. It performs regularisations individually on a local or global basis according to your specification (a very important capability -- global regularisation can be RISKY). Classify variants as significant/insignificant? organize variants with sub-variants, sub-sub-variants? etc. Don't know. All in all, my impression of Robinson's program is good. It has output formats for consequent use in database, cladistic analysis and multivariate analysis software. It can produce HTML output automagically. That means you can produce a web-oriented collation output as easily as a print-oriented one. It is SGML savvy, which is more than can be said for any other collation program (is TUSTEP? -- if there was an English operator's manual we would know). It has a long history in computer terms, is written by someone who cut his teeth on manuscripts, and is still being supported. I do not recommend writing your own collation program when you can get this one, unless you have a very good reason for doing so. (I'm speaking from experience here). Best regards, Tim Finney. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Dec 4 02:53:53 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id CAA11228; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 02:53:53 -0500 From: "Dr Johann Cook" Organization: University of Stellenbosch To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 09:57:26 GMT+0200 Subject: Re: tc-list RE: Sam Pent X-Confirm-Reading-To: "Dr Johann Cook" X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.40) Message-ID: <41B74FC31BA@SEMT.sun.ac.za> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1506 > Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 11:22:35 -0500 > From: "Harold P. Scanlin" > Subject: tc-list RE: Sam Pent > To: TC-List > Reply-to: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu > Von Gall is the only critical edition with apparatus of SP and it is good > that it remains in print. However. A. Tal, a recognized expert in the > filed of SP, says ". . . The extant edition [von Gall] does not fulfill the > requirements of modern philology. Not only is the text he created an > eclectic composition, but von Gall even altered the character of Samaritan > Hebrew by giving priority to what he called 'the rules of Hebrew Grammar." > An alternative, or at least a supplement to von Gall is Tal's _The > Samaritan Pentateuch edited according to MS 6(C) of the Shekhem Synagogue_ > (Tel-Aviv University, 1994). Tal also published a critical edition of the > Samaritan Targum in three volumes (Tel-Aviv, 1980-83). > > Harold P. Scanlin > United Bible Societies > 1865 Broadway > New York, NY 10023 > scanlin@compuserve.com Another useful publication is Pentateuco Hebreo-Samaritano Genesis by Luis Fernando Giron Blanc, in the series Textos y Estudios "Cardenal Cisneros"de la BIBLIA POLIGLOTA MATRITENSE Instituto "ARIAS MONTANO". C.S.I.C. Madrid 1976. > Prof. Johann Cook Department of Ancient Near Eastern Studies University of Stellenbosch 7600 Stellenbosch SOUTH AFRICA tel 22-21-8083207 fax: 22-21-8083480 From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Dec 4 12:38:51 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA14099; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 12:38:51 -0500 Date: 4 Dec 1997 17:44:32 -0000 Message-ID: <19971204174432.9682.qmail@np.nosc.mil> To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu In-reply-to: (message from Timothy John Finney on Thu, 4 Dec 1997 11:43:07 +0800 (WST)) Subject: Re: tc-list What Collate can do From: Vincent Broman Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2769 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > no one is keener than him to make a collation > program that accepts SGML. It would be good to find out whether he has The product blurbs suggest that Collate2-Project has some capability to input TEI, but that more general SGML was still in the blue-sky stage. I would conjecture that only a very limited subset of TEI is expected for this input option; full TEI would be almost as hard as full SGML. > I am not sure whether it accepts collations. The question is whether the basic function of the program is to start with a reference text and a set of 1-100 transcribed texts and output an apparatus of collations, or whether it is to start with an apparatus of a reference text with zero or more collations, and to add one more collation to it by processing one new transcribed text. The interactive approach described makes the second case seem most likely (assuming you are not required to keep your computer turned on {and never crash} until your set of collations is complete.) >>Support a turing-complete scripting language? >Sorry, I don't know what this means. A scripting language, or an extension language, is what allows the user to do things with the program that weren't foreseen in detail by the vendor (always my case). An extension language is Turing-complete if it has enough features to perform any computation that a Turing machine can (i.e. anything that any computer can), which means that you need functions, variable names, loops or recursion, if-tests, and some useful data type[s]. Writing in Java may or may not support user-extensions, depending on how you export the capabilities in the program. > I do not recommend writing your own collation program when you > can get this one, Buying and installing Windoze for my home computer, just to be able to eventually buy the non-cheap Collate2, which does some of the things I want to do, is not all that attractive to me. I'll still end up programming the other functions that I want. Besides, I'm not interested in time-wasting GUIs, let me bang on bare metal with Unix power tools. I'm still mulling over what my real needs are. 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 iQCVAwUBNIbrWGCU4mTNq7IdAQEdWAP/YHeIfOYnsT2eLhpw4b8dg48p+YXhA0X5 +ER7BkneWlWe5sbDvFIc2GExoHbrGTAdlFevky+C7vFNUuM+oNH99lCweVU0z72X lq8XHf9d0ryNIGMh39BnFBKgxeJYZ+Ophzuj22zw357ePYvXCSViqmQjer/GJKxk tzhEwWWDhQs= =Drw8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Dec 5 03:10:31 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id DAA17505; Fri, 5 Dec 1997 03:10:31 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971205001822.006a1d1c@mail.teleport.com> X-Sender: dalemw@mail.teleport.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 05 Dec 1997 00:18:22 -0800 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Dale M. Wheeler" Subject: tc-list RE: Sam Pent In-Reply-To: <199712050730.CAA17368@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 461 BTW, the edition of the SP to be found in Accordance is that of Prof Tal. *********************************************************************** Dale M. Wheeler, Ph.D. Research Professor in Biblical Languages Multnomah Bible College 8435 NE Glisan Street Portland, OR 97220 Voice: 503-251-6416 FAX:503-254-1268 E-Mail: dalemw@teleport.com *********************************************************************** From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Dec 5 14:26:04 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA21539; Fri, 5 Dec 1997 14:26:03 -0500 Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 14:26:03 -0500 From: HPS.Bakker@nias.knaw.nl Message-Id: <199712051926.OAA21534@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> >Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 12:09:04 +0100 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list What Collate can do Content-Type: text Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1383 A quick note regarding Collate: It is an excellent collation program for the Mac, which I have been using for several years. Until now I have been collating primarily Old Slavic and Greek NT MSS. It also handles Latin and Middle Dutch and provides good services in comparing the disparate Diatessaron witnesses. To my surprise and that of the developer of Collate, we even manage to collate Syriac and Arabic MSS. With a colleague from Germany I made a small comparison with TUSTEP: what took him three months te learn, took me about one hour with Collate. I think that says enough. Collate has a very handy feature called 'Regularisation', which enables you to handle interactively orthographic variation (extremely useful for dealing with versions). It will probably take quite a lot of time and energy to provide a similar implementation on other platforms. Computer collation in general enables you to work in a heuristic and transparent fashion. Cf. the review by Dr. Parker of my dissertation (http://shemesh.scholar.emory.edu/scripts/TC/vol02/Bakker1997rev.html), for which Collate served as an indispensible tool. Cheers! -- 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 Sat Dec 6 22:07:49 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA25845; Sat, 6 Dec 1997 22:07:49 -0500 Message-Id: <199712070302.EAA08657@mail1.arcadis.be> Subject: tc-list Mt 27.53 Jerusalem vs. Holy City in Arabic Date: Dim, 7 Dc 97 04:17:51 +0100 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: 2913 Just a few lines about what I find while typing the text of Sinai Arabic 69, one of the oldest mss of the Melkite Arabic version of the XIth century. As you know, most texts are reading here "the holy city" (thn agian polin), while several diatessaronic witnesses have "Jerusalem". My Arabic ms has a peculiar text, I would like to know if it's possible to interpret it - I mean, if it's possible to detemine which of both texts it follows. Sinai Arabic 69 reads (in Arabic): Bayt al-Maqdis, which is to be translated "the House of the Sanctuary". To which of both texts does it correspond? Arguments in favor of the "canonical" variant: - Both have the notion of holiness, and this Arabic name, though not closely, seems to follow the usual text (can have been "suggested" by it to the translator). - Jerusalem is usually translated "Urushalim" in this ms. It is the first time I meet "Bayt al-Maqdis" in this ms. Arguments in favor of the diatessaronic text: - Bayt al-Maqdis is the usual designation of Jerusalem in Christian Arabic texts from Palestine, probably derived from hebr. Beyt ha-Miqdash or Beyt ha-Qodesh (the Temple) via the Aramaic Beyt Maqdesha. - Bayt al-Maqdis is used in Ms Sinai Arabic 151, one of the oldest Arabic translations of the Acts. There (in Acts 1.4 for example) it translates "Jerusalem". But in this ms, the translation "Urushalim" appears also (e.g. in Acts 1.8), so the situation is not very different except for the Vorlage that is always Ierosolyma in Ms 151. Another argument in favor of the canonical variant, is that, given the wide dissemination of this version, it is probably the version of Ibn-al-Fadl, known to us as having produced an Arabic version of the Gospels that became the official one in the melkite church. Ibn-al-Fadl was not a Palestinian, he was from Antioch, so probably he would have been less prone to use this typically Palestinian expression for Jerusalem. On the other hand, even if it's his version, the influence of earlier vocabulary can never be totally excluded. I think in such a case I should suppose that ms 69 follows the usual Greek text, but I would reserve a small possibility for the diatessaronic variant, because I've already met with many variants coming from very different traditions. And I would wait to see if I meet more examples of Bayt al-Maqdis in this Arabic version. Would you agree with this choice? Thank you for your advice and suggestions, 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 Sat Dec 6 23:26:34 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id XAA25971; Sat, 6 Dec 1997 23:26:34 -0500 Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 23:32:46 -0500 Message-Id: <199712070432.XAA09120@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: Re: tc-list Mt 27.53 Jerusalem vs. Holy City in Arabic Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 3535 For what it's worth, some members of the Samaritan community in Nablus refer to the site of their former temple on Mount Gerezim as "Beyt Miqdash," so at least in that case of present usage it doesn't mean Jerusalem. I think your point that Arabic Ms. 69 usually uses "Urusalayim" to translate Jerusalem is a powerful internal argument in favor of "bayt al-miqdas" representing the canonical text. A full study of the text would, as you suggest, give greater certainty on this point. Of course, that's just my own opinion. --Rod Mullen At , you wrote: >Just a few lines about what I find while typing the text of Sinai Arabic >69, one of the oldest mss of the Melkite Arabic version of the XIth >century. > >As you know, most texts are reading here "the holy city" (thn agian >polin), while several diatessaronic witnesses have "Jerusalem". > >My Arabic ms has a peculiar text, I would like to know if it's possible >to interpret it - I mean, if it's possible to detemine which of both >texts it follows. > >Sinai Arabic 69 reads (in Arabic): Bayt al-Maqdis, which is to be >translated "the House of the Sanctuary". To which of both texts does it >correspond? > >Arguments in favor of the "canonical" variant: >- Both have the notion of holiness, and this Arabic name, though not >closely, seems to follow the usual text (can have been "suggested" by it >to the translator). >- Jerusalem is usually translated "Urushalim" in this ms. It is the first >time I meet "Bayt al-Maqdis" in this ms. > >Arguments in favor of the diatessaronic text: >- Bayt al-Maqdis is the usual designation of Jerusalem in Christian >Arabic texts from Palestine, probably derived from hebr. Beyt ha-Miqdash >or Beyt ha-Qodesh (the Temple) via the Aramaic Beyt Maqdesha. >- Bayt al-Maqdis is used in Ms Sinai Arabic 151, one of the oldest Arabic >translations of the Acts. There (in Acts 1.4 for example) it translates >"Jerusalem". But in this ms, the translation "Urushalim" appears also >(e.g. in Acts 1.8), so the situation is not very different except for the >Vorlage that is always Ierosolyma in Ms 151. > >Another argument in favor of the canonical variant, is that, given the >wide dissemination of this version, it is probably the version of >Ibn-al-Fadl, known to us as having produced an Arabic version of the >Gospels that became the official one in the melkite church. Ibn-al-Fadl >was not a Palestinian, he was from Antioch, so probably he would have >been less prone to use this typically Palestinian expression for >Jerusalem. On the other hand, even if it's his version, the influence of >earlier vocabulary can never be totally excluded. > >I think in such a case I should suppose that ms 69 follows the usual >Greek text, but I would reserve a small possibility for the diatessaronic >variant, because I've already met with many variants coming from very >different traditions. And I would wait to see if I meet more examples of >Bayt al-Maqdis in this Arabic version. Would you agree with this choice? > >Thank you for your advice and suggestions, > >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 Sun Dec 7 12:24:25 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA27013; Sun, 7 Dec 1997 12:24:25 -0500 Date: Sun, 07 Dec 1997 12:27:30 -0500 From: Jim West Subject: tc-list priority X-Sender: jwest@highland.net (Unverified) To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.32.19971207172730.0066d948@highland.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) 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: 393 Colleagues, mine is an historical question. In the history of TC scholarship has anyone ever argued the thesis that the Greek version of the OT is actually the older and that the Hebrew version was only later translated for Jews in Palestine? Thanks, Jim ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West Adjunct Professor of Bible Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@highland.net From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Dec 7 19:21:19 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA27776; Sun, 7 Dec 1997 19:21:19 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.32.19971208112323.0068b000@ariel.unimelb.edu.au> X-Sender: jhill@ariel.unimelb.edu.au (Unverified) X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Mon, 08 Dec 1997 11:25:41 +1100 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: John Hill Subject: Re: tc-list priority 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: 1004 At 12:27 07-12-97 -0500, Jim West wrote: >Colleagues, > >mine is an historical question. In the history of TC scholarship has anyone >ever argued the thesis that the Greek version of the OT is actually the >older and that the Hebrew version was only later translated for Jews in >Palestine? Jim, I'm not aware of a current scholarly debate over the whole of the MT and LXX. I can only think of the well-known issue that is alive and kicking in Jeremiah scholarship about the relationship between the MT and LXX textual traditions, where there is a school of thought that maintains a priority of the LXX over our MT. The thesis is that our LXX is closer to the earliest Hebrew Vorlage of the book than our present MT. I'm not aware of a similar debate over the relationship between LXX Samuel and MT Samuel. I mention Samuel together with Jeremiah because the differences between the MT and LXX traditions is quite extensive - in Jeremiah the MT is about one-eight longer and has a different order. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Dec 7 19:57:11 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA27858; Sun, 7 Dec 1997 19:57:11 -0500 Message-ID: <348B497B.646D27C6@accesscomm.net> Date: Sun, 07 Dec 1997 19:12:27 -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 priority X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <1.5.4.32.19971207172730.0066d948@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 TAA19849 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 599 Jim West wrote: > Colleagues, > > mine is an historical question. In the history of TC scholarship has > anyone > ever argued the thesis that the Greek version of the OT is actually > the > older and that the Hebrew version was only later translated for Jews > in > Palestine? Sounds like an argument that would come from Copenhagen (g). I would think that the obviousness of translational over compositional Greek would make that position very difficult. Jack -- D=92man dith laych idneh d=92nishMA nishMA Jack Kilmon (jpman@accesscomm.net) http://users.accesscomm.net/scriptorium From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Dec 8 01:54:17 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id BAA28794; Mon, 8 Dec 1997 01:54:17 -0500 From: "Dr Johann Cook" Organization: University of Stellenbosch To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Mon, 8 Dec 1997 08:59:31 GMT+0200 Subject: Re: tc-list priority X-Confirm-Reading-To: "Dr Johann Cook" X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.40) Message-ID: <47A80F64B30@SEMT.sun.ac.za> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2425 > Date: Mon, 08 Dec 1997 11:25:41 +1100 > To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu > From: John Hill > Subject: Re: tc-list priority > Reply-to: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu > At 12:27 07-12-97 -0500, Jim West wrote: > >Colleagues, > > > >mine is an historical question. In the history of TC scholarship has anyone > >ever argued the thesis that the Greek version of the OT is actually the > >older and that the Hebrew version was only later translated for Jews in > >Palestine? > > Jim, > I'm not aware of a current scholarly debate over the whole of the MT and > LXX. I can only think of the well-known issue that is alive and kicking in > Jeremiah scholarship about the relationship between the MT and LXX textual > traditions, where there is a school of thought that maintains a priority of > the LXX over our MT. The thesis is that our LXX is closer to the earliest > Hebrew Vorlage of the book than our present MT. I'm not aware of a similar > debate over the relationship between LXX Samuel and MT Samuel. I mention > Samuel together with Jeremiah because the differences between the MT and > LXX traditions is quite extensive - in Jeremiah the MT is about one-eight > longer and has a different order. In respect of Samuel there are indeed scholars who argue that the Vorlage of LXX is closer to some Qumran fragments and that it represents older Hebrew Vorlagen. This is obviously a difficult issue. The text-critical value of any given version must naturally first of all be determined before an answer of some value may be suggested. It does also pay to hold on to the given that individual translation units should be treated separately. What would hold for LXX Jeremiah needs not automatically be true of Samuel. I have just published a book in the series VTS no 69 at Brill concerning LXX Proverbs where I argue that the difference in the order of some of the final chapters in LXX compared to MT is the result of the translator and not of a deviating Hebrew parent text. I do, nevertheless, suspect that in LXX Jeremiah, where a more literal translation technique was followed by the translator, different Hebrew Vorlagen are possible. Johann Cook > 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 Dec 8 09:34:02 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA00136; Mon, 8 Dec 1997 09:34:02 -0500 Date: Mon, 8 Dec 1997 09:34:01 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Adair" To: TC List Subject: tc-list new book review on TC 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: 408 A review of Charles Landon's _A Text-Critical Study of the Epistle of Jude_ is now available in TC, vol. 2. To see it, go to the volume 2 Table of Contents page at http://purl.org/TC/vol02/vol02-toc.html. Comments on the book (or the review) are welcome on the list. 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 Dec 8 10:48:05 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA00681; Mon, 8 Dec 1997 10:48:04 -0500 X-Sender: schmid@ns1.nias.knaw.nl Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 8 Dec 1997 17:53:29 +0100 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: schmiul@nias.knaw.nl (U. Schmid) Subject: Re: tc-list Mt 27.53 Jerusalem vs. Holy City in Arabic Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2532 On Sun, 7 Dec 1997, Jean Valentin wrote: >Just a few lines about what I find while typing the text of Sinai Arabic >69, one of the oldest mss of the Melkite Arabic version of the XIth >century. > >As you know, most texts are reading here "the holy city" (thn agian >polin), while several diatessaronic witnesses have "Jerusalem". As far as I know only two western diatessaronic witnesses have "Jerusalem": The 13th century Middle Dutch "Liege Harmony" and the 13th century Middle High German "Himmelgarten Fragments". No witness of the eastern branch has been brought forth so far. According to Bill Petersen's recent discussion of the general problem (see his _Tatian's Diatessaron_. Leiden 1994, esp. chapter 7: Using the Diatessaron, pp. 357-425) the mentioned reading would not count under the (reasonably) secure diatessaronic readings because it lacks eastern support. >My Arabic ms has a peculiar text, I would like to know if it's possible >to interpret it - I mean, if it's possible to detemine which of both >texts it follows. > >Sinai Arabic 69 reads (in Arabic): Bayt al-Maqdis, which is to be >translated "the House of the Sanctuary". To which of both texts does it >correspond? > >Arguments in favor of the "canonical" variant: >- Both have the notion of holiness, and this Arabic name, though not >closely, seems to follow the usual text (can have been "suggested" by it >to the translator). >- Jerusalem is usually translated "Urushalim" in this ms. It is the first >time I meet "Bayt al-Maqdis" in this ms. This, I consider a very strong argument. It makes me wonder what your ms reads in Mt 4.5 (in case it is extant)? Note, the Greek Ms 566 states in a marginal gloss to Mt 4.5 that TO IOUDAIKON (a Judaic-Christian Gospel) reads EN IEROUSALHM (cf. Aland's Synopsis ad locum). The above mentioned "Liege Harmony" also reads "Jerusalem" in this case (the "Himmelgarten Fragments" are not extant), but cf. Lk 4.9! [snip] >I think in such a case I should suppose that ms 69 follows the usual >Greek text, but I would reserve a small possibility for the diatessaronic >variant, because I've already met with many variants coming from very >different traditions. And I would wait to see if I meet more examples of >Bayt al-Maqdis in this Arabic version. Would you agree with this choice? Your "very different traditions" would be interesting to know in some more detail. Are there more readings that could be paralleled with diatessaronic witnesses? Ulrich Schmid, Netherlands Institute for Advanced Studies From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Dec 8 14:46:18 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA02770; Mon, 8 Dec 1997 14:46:17 -0500 Message-Id: <199712081954.UAA12473@dom.vr.pl> From: "Grzegorz P. Turkanik" To: "TC List" , "B-Greek" , "BIBLESTUDY-L" Subject: tc-list History of exegesis on-line? Date: Mon, 8 Dec 1997 20:48:02 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0000_01BD041A.93A3FAA0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1008.3 X-MimeOle: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE Engine V4.71.1008.3 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1989 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01BD041A.93A3FAA0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-2" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I am writing papers on brief history of exegesis and am looking for = some more materials how the methods of exegesis (including coming back = to original text) developed. Is there anything on-line available on this = subject? You can address me off-list.=20 Any help is appreciated.=20 Thanks Gregor P. Turkanik ______________________________ student of Biblical studies at Christian Academy of Theology=20 in Warsaw, Poland E-mail: gat@dom.vr.pl ______________________________ ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01BD041A.93A3FAA0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-2" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

 I am=20 writing papers on brief history of exegesis and am looking for some more = materials how the methods of exegesis (including coming back to original = text)=20 developed. Is there anything on-line available on this subject? You can = address=20 me off-list. 

Any help is=20 appreciated. 

Thanks

Gregor P.=20 Turkanik
______________________________

student of Biblical=20 studies
at Christian Academy of Theology
in Warsaw, = Poland

E-mail:=20 gat@dom.vr.pl
______________________= ________ ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01BD041A.93A3FAA0-- From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Dec 8 15:09:17 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA02963; Mon, 8 Dec 1997 15:09:17 -0500 X-Sender: schmid@ns1.nias.knaw.nl Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 8 Dec 1997 22:14:45 +0100 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: schmiul@nias.knaw.nl (U. Schmid) Subject: Re: tc-list new book review on TC Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1072 On Mon, 8 Dec 1997, Jimmy Adair wrote: >A review of Charles Landon's _A Text-Critical Study of the Epistle of >Jude_ is now available in TC, vol. 2. To see it, go to the volume 2 Table >of Contents page at http://purl.org/TC/vol02/vol02-toc.html. Comments on >the book (or the review) are welcome on the list. > Under point 4. of your review, Jimmy, I read: "...Landon offers a set of distinctive characteristics of Jude's style: the frequent use of [italics]hapax legomena[/italics]...". Do you (or Landon) really consider the "_use_ of hapax legomena" (Of what? The NT? The Biblical Greek? The Koine Greek? The...???) to be characteristic of someone's "_style_"? If so, this amazing phenomenon should be treated under the heading "providential anticipation of a NT author's vocabulary choices when compared to the rest of his fellow collegues" (filling in just the first reference at hand for "hapax legomena"). Or is there a different way to understand your text, overlooked by the non-native speaker? Ulrich Schmid, Netherlands Institute for Advanced Studies From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Dec 8 16:37:31 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA03457; Mon, 8 Dec 1997 16:37:30 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 8 Dec 1997 15:44:28 -0600 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: tc-list new book review on TC Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1832 On Mon, 8 Dec 1997, schmiul@nias.knaw.nl (U. Schmid) wrote: >Under point 4. of your review, Jimmy, I read: "...Landon offers a set of >distinctive characteristics of Jude's style: the frequent use of >[italics]hapax legomena[/italics]...". > >Do you (or Landon) really consider the "_use_ of hapax legomena" (Of what? >The NT? The Biblical Greek? The Koine Greek? The...???) to be >characteristic of someone's "_style_"? If so, this amazing phenomenon >should be treated under the heading "providential anticipation of a NT >author's vocabulary choices when compared to the rest of his fellow >collegues" (filling in just the first reference at hand for "hapax >legomena"). >Or is there a different way to understand your text, overlooked by the >non-native speaker? I haven't read the book, so I can't comment on what is said, but I think this is a meaningful statement. A quick glance at my specially-marked-up Bible shows 14 unique words in Jude -- a very high rate. (Though it's not as high as the 51 in 2 Peter.) To me, this means that the author of Jude liked to use unusual and hard-to-understand words. He is, in other words, pretentious. This may not be the point of the original observation -- but it is how I think that data can be used. (Of course, the large number of _hapax_ also implies an author who doesn't have many other writings in the NT -- as, e.g., the large number of unique words in Ephesians implies that it is not by Paul. But the number in 2 Peter and Jude is too high for that.) -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Dec 8 21:05:32 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA03963; Mon, 8 Dec 1997 21:05:31 -0500 Date: Mon, 8 Dec 1997 21:05:30 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Adair" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list new book review on TC 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: 1496 On Mon, 8 Dec 1997, U. Schmid wrote: > Do you (or Landon) really consider the "_use_ of hapax legomena" (Of what? > The NT? The Biblical Greek? The Koine Greek? The...???) to be > characteristic of someone's "_style_"? Landon's point is that Jude has 14 hapax legomena with relation to the NT (22 if Jude and 2 Peter are considered together). (Although not explicitly stated, the term "hapax legomena" is commonly used in both OT and NT discussions to refer to words unique _to the corpus under discussion_, and I think most people seeing the phrase without further qualification would interpret it that way.) He says, "The presence of so many hapax legomena in such a short text has implications for my handling of transcriptional evidence at some points of variation in Jude: scribes habitually substituted unfamiliar words with familiar words, and the possibility of such substitution having been effected must always be considered whenever a hapax legomenon is not firm in the text of Jude." True, hapax legomena are not independent stylistic criteria like triadic illustration or synonymous parallelism, but they do serve as a measure of Jude's vocabulary in comparison with the rest of the NT (in a manner similar to Jude's use of set expressions found elsewhere in the NT). Jimmy Adair Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press and Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site -------------> http://shemesh.scholar.emory.edu <-------------- From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Dec 9 05:08:38 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id FAA05040; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 05:08:37 -0500 X-Sender: schmid@ns1.nias.knaw.nl Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 12:14:06 +0100 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: schmiul@nias.knaw.nl (U. Schmid) Subject: Re: tc-list new book review on TC Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1122 On Mon, 8 Dec 1997, Jimmy Adair wrote in part: [quoting Landon] > He says, "The presence of so >many hapax legomena in such a short text has implications for my handling >of transcriptional evidence at some points of variation in Jude: scribes >habitually substituted unfamiliar words with familiar words, and the >possibility of such substitution having been effected must always be >considered whenever a hapax legomenon is not firm in the text of Jude." >True, hapax legomena are not independent stylistic criteria like triadic >illustration or synonymous parallelism, but they do serve as a measure of >Jude's vocabulary in comparison with the rest of the NT (in a manner >similar to Jude's use of set expressions found elsewhere in the NT). That's all I wanted to emphasize. Hapax legomena are NOT stylistic features of a text as, e.g., some features of word order, parallelisms, position of the adjective, etc. I do not question the (limited) use of hapax legomena when considering transcriptional evidence of a larger body of texts as outlined above. Ulrich Schmid, Netherlands Institute for Advanced Studies From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Dec 9 12:00:05 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA06491; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 12:00:05 -0500 Message-Id: <199712091654.RAA23078@mail1.arcadis.be> Subject: Re: tc-list new book review on TC Date: Mar, 9 Dc 97 18:10:08 +0100 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: 650 >unusual and hard-to-understand words. He is, in other words, >pretentious. Or, more sumply, his vocabulary is different because the issues he addresses are different, or because his thinking is original... 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 Tue Dec 9 12:44:18 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA06856; Tue, 9 Dec 1997 12:44:18 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199712091654.RAA23078@mail1.arcadis.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 11:50:42 -0600 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: tc-list new book review on TC Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1690 On 9 Dc 97, Jean VALENTIN >>unusual and hard-to-understand words. He is, in other words, >>pretentious. >Or, more sumply, his vocabulary is different because the issues he >addresses are different, or because his thinking is original... Possibly true -- but this doesn't match experience. (Remember, I am an editor, and I have to deal with a lot of really bad writing. :-) Usually, the people who use long, unusual words are not people who are original or highly intelligent. Rather, they are people who are trying to use long words to hide their lack of intelligence. Great writers -- from Julius Caesar to the author of the Gospel of John to Winston Churchill -- could convey their meanings in simple words that everyone could understand. In general, if you cannot state your opinions at the eighth grade reading level, then either the subject is mathematical or you don't know how to write. :-) I realize that I am projecting a modern viewpoint onto ancient authors -- but I don't see anything in the letter of Jude that couldn't have been said with ordinary words. Jude used big words because he liked them. And this does have a textual application. A canon of criticism that we don't hear much is that the less familiar reading is more likely to be original. (This follows from the fact that scribes tended to conform readings to the familiar.) So, since Jude preferred unusual words, we should tend to prefer unusual words when dealing with his writings. (This applies equally strongly to 2 Peter, but much less so to other books.) 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 Dec 10 07:00:13 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id HAA11447; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 07:00:13 -0500 Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 04:06:03 -0800 (PST) From: Matthew Johnson Subject: Re: tc-list new book review on TC 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: 6068 On Mon, 8 Dec 1997, schmiul@nias.knaw.nl (U. Schmid) wrote: >Under point 4. of your review, Jimmy, I read: "...Landon offers a set of >distinctive characteristics of Jude's style: the frequent use of >[italics]hapax legomena[/italics]...". > >Do you (or Landon) really consider the "_use_ of hapax legomena" (Of what? >The NT? The Biblical Greek? The Koine Greek? The...???) to be >characteristic of someone's "_style_"? If so, this amazing phenomenon >should be treated under the heading "providential anticipation of a NT >author's vocabulary choices when compared to the rest of his fellow >collegues" (filling in just the first reference at hand for "hapax >legomena"). To which I respond: I have to agree with Schmid's implication that the use of hapax legomena does not tell us much about Jude's style, especially when "hapax legomena" is defined as "a word that occurs only once in the NT". A much more useful category, one that tells us more about Jude's style, is that of rare words. Yet more useful is to break them down into: 1) Rare word likely to stump Jude's contemporaries 2) Rare words likely to be recognized despite their rarity. The number of words in category 2) is surprisingly high, higher than one might expect if reacting to the shockingly high number of "hapax legomena" (in the NT scholar's sense) in Jude. In fact, I claim that a more representative number would be: #hapax legomena - #words in 2). But even this is not as informative as: #words in 1) Also, since it has been pointed out that hapax legomena are significant for TC, I should like to point out that the copyist is just as likely to be stumped by a word that occurs only twice in the NT as he is by a word occuring only once (all other things being equal). As it turns out, there are enough examples of both in Jude. Now on Mon, 8 Dec 1997 waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com wrote: >A quick glance at my specially-marked-up Bible shows 14 unique words in >Jude -- a very high rate. (Though it's not as high as the 51 in 2 >Peter.) To me, this means that the author of Jude liked to use unusual >and hard-to-understand words. He is, in other words, pretentious. This is not fair at all. To demonstrate why, I will look at several of the rare words used and show that Jude _does_ accomplish something with these choices of words, even though these choices of expression are still probably not the best (from the viewpoint of epistolary style). Rare words of category 2): GOGGUSTE^S - grumbler. This word occurs once in the NT, but is a common suffix on a common verb in the LXX and Gospels. Surely this is not a problem for most of Jude's audience. Haplax legomenon in the NT sense. MEMPSIMOIRIOS - a complainer, esp. one who complains about his lot. This too is compounded from common words, although not quite as likely to be familiar to the reader, only a few would not recognize MOIRA and MEMPSI as comming from MEMPHO^. A reader would pause, but after a moment recognize it, especially when helped by the context. Haplax legomenon in the NT sense. HYPEROGKOS - Certainly not the usual word for "proud", but both the prefix HYPER and the root OGKOS (=arrogance) would be readily recognized. This is more emphatic than simply using OGKOS. A "diplex legomenon"! ENYPNIAZOMAI - dreamer; again, all common roots although the word occurs in only one other place in the NT. Another "diplex legomenon". EMPAIKTE^S - A scoffer. Again, a common suffix -TE^S on the very common verb EMPAIZO^. A native speaker would NOT be confused by the consonant mutation Z to K. Another "diplex legomenon". SYNEUO^CHEOMAI - to feast together. Again, this is a compound of a common prefix with a fairly common verb, EUO^CHEOMAI. So just with these examples we have a substantial reduction in the number of rare words likely to cause the copyist difficulty. It is also interesting to note that many of the "diplex legomena" occur (outside of Jude) only in 2 Peter. Did they use the same amanuensis? Now for words rather more likely to have stumped the readers: SPILAS - cave or rock (esp. over which sea dashes). The Vulgate translates it as cave, the KVJ as spot, which seems to be a misreading (no variant for this word is listed in NA26). This is common in Greek, esp. Homer, but a haplax legomenon in the NT sense. PAREISDYNO^ - to infiltrate, slip in stealthily. This is also used in medicine to describe the action of a poison or a leech's byte, and in law courts to describe a loophole. It is a rather negative word! Haplax legomenon in the NT sense. A this point, two patterns have emerged, the first more clearly than the second. They are 1) many uncommon words have common roots so are recognizable 2) both the words of 1) and _some_ of the words of 2) seem to be deliberately chosen to have a Classical or oratorical flavor. PAREISDYNO^, for example, is an excellent word for a fiery denunciation. KYMATA AGRIA EPAPHRIZONTA TAS hEAUTO^N AISCHYNAS, is almost as good. Would _you_ follow a false teacher described with such scathing words? In fact, although the author uses a few words in a clearly non-Attic, Hellenistic sense, (such as hAPAX meaning "formerly"), he knows how to use the Greek particle quite well, avoiding the heavy parataxis so noticeable elsewhere in the NT. So by combining this not entirely unsuccessful attempt at Greek rhetorical style with the frequent quotes from Enoch and other Jewish Apocrypha, he has created an energetic appeal to avoid the false teachers, an appeal that will strike a resonant chord in the hearts of both Jewish Christian and Greek. This makes the epistle a truly catholic epistle. PS: I would continue looking for evidence of my second pattern, but it is time for me to become an ENYPNIAZOMENOS for the night! 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 Dec 10 09:13:57 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA12028; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 09:13:57 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 08:20:48 -0600 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: tc-list new book review on TC Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2668 On Wed, 10 Dec 1997, Matthew Johnson wrote, in part: [ ... ] >I have to agree with Schmid's implication that the use of hapax legomena >does not tell us much about Jude's style, especially when "hapax legomena" >is defined as "a word that occurs only once in the NT". > >A much more useful category, one that tells us more about Jude's style, is >that of rare words. Yet more useful is to break them down into: > 1) Rare word likely to stump Jude's contemporaries > 2) Rare words likely to be recognized despite their rarity. > >The number of words in category 2) is surprisingly high, higher than one >might expect if reacting to the shockingly high number of "hapax legomena" >(in the NT scholar's sense) in Jude. > >In fact, I claim that a more representative number would be: > #hapax legomena - #words in 2). > >But even this is not as informative as: > #words in 1) > >Also, since it has been pointed out that hapax legomena are significant >for TC, I should like to point out that the copyist is just as likely to >be stumped by a word that occurs only twice in the NT as he is by a word >occuring only once (all other things being equal). I think these are all good points. On the other hand, I think it somewhat dangerous to make assumptions about this. I think the assumption is that compound words based on common roots will generally belong in category 2, and that words from odd roots will belong in Category 1. I think that's true in general -- but let's take a case in English. The word is "understand." (The identical argument applies with German "verstehen.") Analysed by its roots under- and -stand, it means "to have someone walking on your shoulders" (all right, that's an amplified definition, but it gets its point across :-). But the word really means "to make sense of." If word is truly unusual, how can either we or a scribe be sure that it means what it appears to mean, no matter how clear the roots are? Chances are, in any sample, there will be rare words that are easily understood and rare words that are not easily understood -- and the ratio probably will not change all that much. (This could be probably be verified with a little work, but I doubt it's worth it.) So, as a measure of style, it's probably just as useful to measure *total* hapax legomena (or, perhaps, total rare words -- the marked-up NT I mentioned shows words occurring once in green and those occurring two to four times in pink) as it is to measure "difficult" hapax legomena. And much easier.... 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 Dec 10 11:14:30 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA12909; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 11:14:29 -0500 Message-Id: <199712101608.RAA01204@mail1.arcadis.be> Subject: Re: tc-list Mt 27.53 Jerusalem vs. Holy City in Arabic Date: Mer, 10 Dc 97 17:24:41 +0100 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: 713 >Your "very different traditions" would be interesting to know in some more >detail. Are there more readings that could be paralleled with diatessaronic >witnesses? > Ulrich, I'm very busy this week so I ask you to wait until next week for a few examples. Greetings, 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 Dec 10 22:01:06 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA15757; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 22:01:05 -0500 Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 19:06:58 -0800 (PST) From: Matthew Johnson Subject: Re: tc-list new book review on TC 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: 4628 On Wed, 10 Dec 1997, Robert B. Waltz wrote: > On Wed, 10 Dec 1997, Matthew Johnson wrote, in > part: > > [ ... ] > > >I have to agree with Schmid's implication that the use of hapax legomena > >does not tell us much about Jude's style, especially when "hapax legomena" > >is defined as "a word that occurs only once in the NT". > > > >A much more useful category, one that tells us more about Jude's style, is > >that of rare words. Yet more useful is to break them down into: > > 1) Rare word likely to stump Jude's contemporaries > > 2) Rare words likely to be recognized despite their rarity. > > > >The number of words in category 2) is surprisingly high, higher than one > >might expect if reacting to the shockingly high number of "hapax legomena" > >(in the NT scholar's sense) in Jude. [snip] > > I think these are all good points. On the other hand, I think it > somewhat dangerous to make assumptions about this. I think True. This is why I did not stop with the assumption, but detailed several of the rare words in Jude to verify the assumption. > the assumption is > is that compound words based on common roots will generally belong in > category 2, and that words from odd roots will belong in Category 1. The assumption is based on experience; when traveling in Russia, I heard or read new words (new for me) all the time, yet often I could recognize the meanings immediately (if the speaker is not too fast). This works in Russian because the language has a _habit_ of building new words on its own roots instead of relying on other languages (as English does). But Greek is very similar to Russian in this respect. So if I can do this for a second language, then a native speaker should be able to do this even more frequently. In fact, I have met native speakers of Russian who do this all the time. Nor are they all that highly educated. > > I think that's true in general -- but let's take a case in English. > The word is "understand." (The identical argument applies with > German "verstehen.") Analysed by its roots under- and -stand, it > means "to have someone walking on your shoulders" (all right, that's > an amplified definition, but it gets its point across :-). But > the word really means "to make sense of." This is an example of a compound word that takes a surprising sense of its roots to derive its meaning. These exist in Greek too, but rather more rarely. Besides, none of the words I analyzed fit this category. Jude appears not to have used any. > > If word is truly unusual, how can either we or a scribe be sure that > it means what it appears to mean, no matter how clear the roots are? We can't. But of the several words I analyzed, only one fits in that category, SPILAS. The others are all common enough in non-biblical Greek, and in the meanings that appear to be correct in Jude. SPILAS is the exception; although it _does_ occur commonly elsewhere, Jude's metaphor is so odd (remember I said his attempt at Attic oratory was not completely successful), it leaves me wondering if Jude had in mind a sense not preserved elsewhere (Sophocles does this often in even a single play). > > Chances are, in any sample, there will be rare words that are easily > understood and rare words that are not easily understood -- and the > ratio probably will not change all that much. (This could be probably > be verified with a little work, but I doubt it's worth it.) So, > as a measure of style, it's probably just as useful to measure > *total* hapax legomena (or, perhaps, total rare words -- the marked-up > NT I mentioned shows words occurring once in green and those occurring > two to four times in pink) as it is to measure "difficult" hapax > legomena. And much easier.... Much easier, yes. But the whole point of my example was to show that it is also much less informative. After all, of the several examples I treated all but two had meanings given by straightforward combinations of common roots, even though they were hapax (or "diplex") legomena (in the NT sense). It is a surprising amount of work, but since Jude is _so_ short, it is quite practical. Nor do I claim that my previous posting is complete, there are several other words requiring the same analysis. But I expect to find that at least a third of the hapax legomena are in fact readily understandable to Jude's audience. This means that the number of haplax legomena has about that much less significance. 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 Dec 10 22:32:06 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA15829; Wed, 10 Dec 1997 22:32:06 -0500 Message-ID: <348F6015.E5886699@concentric.net> Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 19:37:57 -0800 From: Ken Litwak X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list new book review on TC 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: 694 I can't imagine connecting hapax legomena with style, and I can't imagine trying to talk intelligibly about the style of Jude. Relying on others, oe would have to have a much larger sample than afforded by the entire NT to be able to judge one author's style, certainly more than the tiny sample from the letter of Jude. It would be difficult I think also to make textual decisions over hapax legomena. Would a hapax always be the more difficult reading and hence the one we should always choose? Or should the fact that it is a hapax argue against its originality because a hapax might seem like a mistake? I raise that as a serious question. Ken Litwak University of Bristol, Entgland From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Dec 11 09:21:25 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA17705; Thu, 11 Dec 1997 09:21:25 -0500 Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 09:21:24 -0500 Message-Id: <199712111421.JAA17700@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> >Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 09:16:51 -0500 (EST) From: Abigail Ann Young To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list new book review on TC Content-Type: text Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1296 On the question of hapax legomena in Jude, I would be more impressed if the words in question were rare in general rather than hapax just in the very limited NT corpus. After all, the readers/hearers of Jude were not restricted in their daily conversation or regular reading to the NT and its vocabulary. Many of them would have spoken Koine regularly in business or family life. Many of them would have read Greek texts not in the NT, whether letters, manuals, treatises, perhaps even works of literature (gasp!). So I am not at all sure it is fair to make the kind of assumptions that Bob did on the basis of Jude's fondness for rare words if the words in question are only rare within the NT and not generally rare in Koine and the work of popular authors. What may be more interesting is that Jude and 2Peter seem to share vocabulary not used in the rest of the NT. Bo Reicke (I believe) argued for the author of Jude having been the amanuensis of 2Peter on the basis of shared vocabulary and themes..... Dr Abigail Ann Young, Records of Early English Drama| young@chass.| Victoria College, University of Toronto | utoronto.ca | http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~reed/reed.html | REED's Home Page | http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~reed/stage.html|Our New Theatre Resource Page | From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Dec 11 14:39:15 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA19262; Thu, 11 Dec 1997 14:39:14 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 10:47:11 -0600 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: tc-list new book review on TC Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2156 On Wed, 10 Dec 1997, Matthew Johnson wrote, in part: >On Wed, 10 Dec 1997, Robert B. Waltz wrote: > >> On Wed, 10 Dec 1997, Matthew Johnson wrote, in >> part: >> >> [ ... ] >> >> >I have to agree with Schmid's implication that the use of hapax legomena >> >does not tell us much about Jude's style, especially when "hapax legomena" >> >is defined as "a word that occurs only once in the NT". >> > >> >A much more useful category, one that tells us more about Jude's style, is >> >that of rare words. Yet more useful is to break them down into: >> > 1) Rare word likely to stump Jude's contemporaries >> > 2) Rare words likely to be recognized despite their rarity. >> > >> >The number of words in category 2) is surprisingly high, higher than one >> >might expect if reacting to the shockingly high number of "hapax legomena" >> >(in the NT scholar's sense) in Jude. >[snip] >> >> I think these are all good points. On the other hand, I think it >> somewhat dangerous to make assumptions about this. I think > >True. This is why I did not stop with the assumption, but detailed >several of the rare words in Jude to verify the assumption. [ etc. ] I'm not going to carry on much about this, since we only have two of us talking. :-) But I will stand by counting all rare words. Your analysis is excellent -- but it is also subjective. The list of rare words is relatively objective (I say "relatively" because, of course, there is textual variation :-). I'm trained as a scientist, I am, and I can't help but prefer the most objective method possible. While I probably agree with every one of your examples, they are still based on somewhat subjective analysis. Given that I think both methods are equally effective, I'll prefer the one I can reduce to an algorithm. :-) -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Dec 11 14:39:17 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA19273; Thu, 11 Dec 1997 14:39:16 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <348F6015.E5886699@concentric.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 10:48:30 -0600 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Word Frequency as a Textual Tool: (Was: tc-list new book review on TC) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2399 On Wed, 10 Dec 1997, kdlitwak@concentric.net wrote: >I can't imagine connecting hapax legomena with style, and I can't >imagine trying to talk intelligibly about the style of Jude. Relying on >others, oe would have to have a much larger sample than afforded by the >entire NT to be able to judge one author's style, certainly more than >the tiny sample from the letter of Jude. This is true in part, but not entirely. Consider these examples: "I delight to employ a vocabulary of prodigious obscurity" versus "I like to use big fancy words." They both say the same thing. But I suspect you can tell quite a bit about style from either one. :-) It's true that short samples are not as reliable as long samples. It's even more true that an author's style can vary. (Witness the above. :-) But there's a good chance that something an author releases for public consumption (e.g. a letter to a church) will be typical of his style. So we are justified in making assumptions based on even short selections such as Jude. >It would be difficult I think >also to make textual decisions over hapax legomena. Would a hapax >always be the more difficult reading and hence the one we should always >choose? Or should the fact that it is a hapax argue against its >originality because a hapax might seem like a mistake? I raise that as >a serious question. It's a good question, too. But I would argue that there are two sorts of writers in the world: Those who never use a simple word when a complex one is available, and those who never use a big word when a small one will do. This *is* relevant. Take, as extreme examples, the authors of John and 2 Peter. John very much prefers simple words; 2 Peter likes the complex sort. So if we see a variant in John between a simple word and a complex one, all else being equal (e.g. the two words mean the same), we should prefer the simpler. In 2 Peter, by contrast, we should prefer the harder. Now I would consider this a "weak" canon -- that is, one we should only apply if most of the others fail. But it is a legitimate rule. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Dec 11 16:05:33 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA19999; Thu, 11 Dec 1997 16:05:32 -0500 From: "Vinton A. Dearing" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 13:14:51 PST MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: tc-list a method of textual criticism X-Confirm-Reading-To: "Vinton A. Dearing" X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) Message-ID: <13BE91376C@113hum4.humnet.ucla.edu> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 789 Dear listers and lurkers, I am at work on a revised edition of my Manual of Textual Analysis and have prepared a 16-page summary of the text-critical method I espouse. I shall be happy to send a copy on request PROVIDED the requester undertakes to review the summary carefully and send me (a) the solution to the test problem posed at its end or (b) notes of errors of any kind, from unsatisfactory axioms to typos, or (c) both. All responses will be acknowledged in print. The test problem can be solved with pencil and paper. Application of the method to the biblical texts requires a computer. Even so, my own project limits itself to the Greek text of the New Testament before the tenth century. Please e-mail me direct: dearing@humnet.ucla.edu. Vinton A. Dearing From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Dec 12 02:20:57 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id CAA21916; Fri, 12 Dec 1997 02:20:57 -0500 Message-Id: <199712120727.AAA12316@cheetah.spots.ab.ca> From: "Robert Lagore" To: Subject: Re: tc-list a method of textual criticism Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 00:29:07 -0700 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: 1262 Dear Vinton Dearing, I would be very interested in examining the summary of your revised Manual of Textual Analysis. I would be happy to commit myself fulfilling one or both of the provisos you included in your request. R.D. Lagore University of Calgary ---------- > From: Vinton A. Dearing > To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu > Subject: tc-list a method of textual criticism > Date: December 11, 1997 2:14 PM > > Dear listers and lurkers, > I am at work on a revised edition of my Manual of Textual > Analysis and have prepared a 16-page summary of the text-critical > method I espouse. I shall be happy to send a copy on request PROVIDED > the requester undertakes to review the summary carefully and send me > (a) the solution to the test problem posed at its end or (b) notes of > errors of any kind, from unsatisfactory axioms to typos, or (c) both. > All responses will be acknowledged in print. The test problem can be > solved with pencil and paper. Application of the method to the > biblical texts requires a computer. Even so, my own project limits > itself to the Greek text of the New Testament before the tenth > century. Please e-mail me direct: dearing@humnet.ucla.edu. > Vinton A. Dearing From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Dec 12 03:45:33 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id DAA22131; Fri, 12 Dec 1997 03:45:32 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.1.16.19971212165322.20af1936@upnaway.com> X-Sender: markus@upnaway.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (16) Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 16:53:22 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Mark O'Brien" Subject: Re: tc-list a method of textual criticism In-Reply-To: <13BE91376C@113hum4.humnet.ucla.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1216 At 01:14 PM 12/11/97 PST, you wrote: >Dear listers and lurkers, > I am at work on a revised edition of my Manual of Textual >Analysis and have prepared a 16-page summary of the text-critical >method I espouse. I shall be happy to send a copy on request PROVIDED >the requester undertakes to review the summary carefully and send me >(a) the solution to the test problem posed at its end or (b) notes of >errors of any kind, from unsatisfactory axioms to typos, or (c) both. >All responses will be acknowledged in print. The test problem can be >solved with pencil and paper. Application of the method to the >biblical texts requires a computer. Even so, my own project limits >itself to the Greek text of the New Testament before the tenth >century. Please e-mail me direct: dearing@humnet.ucla.edu. I would be interested in reviewing your summary. I'm happy to undertake the conditions you note. I studied TC at Dallas Seminary under Dan Wallace, so hopefully I can make some positive contribution. Regards, M. ----- Rev. Mark B. O'Brien Subiaco Church of Christ 260 Bagot Rd Subiaco, WA 6008 Australia (Hm) 08-9344-3327 (Fx) 08-9388-1042 (Wk) 08-9388-1030 Email: markus@upnaway.com From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Dec 12 05:30:26 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id FAA22464; Fri, 12 Dec 1997 05:30:25 -0500 X-Sender: schmid@ns1.nias.knaw.nl Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 12:35:34 +0100 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: schmiul@nias.knaw.nl (U. Schmid) Subject: Re: Word Frequency as a Textual Tool: (Was: tc-list new book review on TC) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 4567 On Thu, 11 Dec 1997, Bob Waltz wrote in part: >On Wed, 10 Dec 1997, kdlitwak@concentric.net wrote: [...] >>It would be difficult I think >>also to make textual decisions over hapax legomena. Would a hapax >>always be the more difficult reading and hence the one we should always >>choose? Or should the fact that it is a hapax argue against its >>originality because a hapax might seem like a mistake? I raise that as >>a serious question. > >It's a good question, too. But I would argue that there are two sorts >of writers in the world: Those who never use a simple word when a >complex one is available, and those who never use a big word when >a small one will do. To my way of thinking this is a dangerous oversimplification of the complex evidence involved. Consider this: a) It is not unusual that writers use different vocabulary when addressing different audiences and/or using different literary genres. b) A given text usually is part of a communication process that involves a lot of different parameters such as shared other texts commonly referred to within the communication process (e.g., the LXX or other translations of the OT), thus involving citations or allusions and/or catch words intended to be identified by the audience and not necessarily consistent with the writers own terminology. c) A given text is also part of the morphological (and stylistic) fashions of its times and ambitions, thus resulting in much more seemingly contingent or inconsistent word choices than one might expect. The Greek language of NT times already had a long and vivid past as well as further developpments still to come. It is anachronistic and dangerous to look at it (morpholocically and stylistically) as the *dead* and shut language as it now appears. >This *is* relevant. Take, as extreme examples, the authors of John and >2 Peter. John very much prefers simple words; 2 Peter likes the complex >sort. So if we see a variant in John between a simple word and a complex >one, all else being equal (e.g. the two words mean the same), we should >prefer the simpler. In 2 Peter, by contrast, we should prefer the harder. Given this overall characteristics for the sake of the argument, one might also argue quite to the contrary: Every "complex word" in John (as well as the reverse in Jude) deserves special attention, for too much conformity might as well be indicative of secondary developpments as of the reverse. Is there one good reason to suppose that we modern critics are the only ones to assume a writer being consistent in choosing "complex words" instead of simple words (or the reverse)? Later copyists might as well have fealt the same, thus "making" a text much more consistent as it "originally" was. A fine illustration of this problem can be found in Vincent Broman's analysis of "The support of internal text critical evidence for the Alexandrian and Byzantine text types in Luke" (see the link on the TC-web site under "Links to other sites..."). It is more or less generally agreed that Luke partly tries to immitate LXX style. Vincent Broman uses this feature as a text critical rule to decide on competing readings mostly favouring textual decisions contra the "Alexandrinian text" (Example: "variant number 1...The extra LEGONTES after EPHRWTWN [sc. in Lk 8.9] is superfluous, a semitism/LXXism, and so is Lukan."). In the end it turns out that partly on the basis of this argument the "Byzantine text" of Luke is more lukan in style the the "Alexandrinian text". BTW-- A similar line of argument based on lukan style can be found in the discussion of the "Western text" of Acts (cf., Blass, Boismard/Lamouille, Strange) resulting in the theory that the "Western text" of Acts, partly being even more lukan in style than the "Alexandrian/Byzantine texts", was the work of Luke himself. Others, of course, have argued that someone rewriting a text quite naturally tries to immitate his model. To sum up: Stylistic arguments in textual decisions are notoriously circular. In itself this is not so much of a problem, since most arguments in this business are more or less circular. My own scepticism towards stylistic arguments usually hints on isolated hard and fast rules such as presented by Bob (and Vincent) and on overall results drawing a much more coherent stylistic picture than competing textual traditions. In that case usually another valid canon, the "lectio difficilior potior", comes into play and urges us to have a closer look at the data involved. Ulrich Schmid, Netherlands Institute for Advanced Studies From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Dec 12 09:40:07 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA23461; Fri, 12 Dec 1997 09:40:06 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 08:46:55 -0600 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Word Frequency as a Textual Tool: (Was: tc-list new book review on TC) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2580 On Fri, 12 Dec 1997, schmiul@nias.knaw.nl (U. Schmid) wrote, in part: >On Thu, 11 Dec 1997, Bob Waltz wrote in part: [ ... ] >>It's a good question, too. But I would argue that there are two sorts >>of writers in the world: Those who never use a simple word when a >>complex one is available, and those who never use a big word when >>a small one will do. > >To my way of thinking this is a dangerous oversimplification of the complex >evidence involved. Consider this: >a) It is not unusual that writers use different vocabulary when addressing >different audiences and/or using different literary genres. This is, of course, true, and there are writers such as Luke who can practice multiple styles. But experience (and remember, I am an editor) shows that most people can manage only one style, and cannot disguise it no matter how hard they try. I would have to suspect that this was even more true in antiquity, when there were few literate people and no creative writing classes. :-) Even in the case of Luke, when his "style" changes, is changing mostly his sentence formation and the way in which he uses certain special words (or so it seems to me). There doesn't seem to be much variation in his use of special words. [ ... ] >To sum up: Stylistic arguments in textual decisions are notoriously >circular. In itself this is not so much of a problem, since most arguments >in this business are more or less circular. My own scepticism towards >stylistic arguments usually hints on isolated hard and fast rules such as >presented by Bob (and Vincent) and on overall results drawing a much more >coherent stylistic picture than competing textual traditions. In that case >usually another valid canon, the "lectio difficilior potior", comes into >play and urges us to have a closer look at the data involved. With the above I have no argument (except that I consider the canon "that reading is best which best explains the others" to be much more basic). You'll note that I offered my stylistic rule as a "weak" canon -- one to be used only when the stronger rules fail. Still, I think it is a useful rule to have -- if we use it with great caution. Of course, given the way *I* practice textual criticism, I may never apply it in my life. :-) -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Dec 12 09:47:28 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA23569; Fri, 12 Dec 1997 09:47:28 -0500 Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 09:47:27 -0500 Message-Id: <199712121447.JAA23564@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> >Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 03:40:58 -0500 From: Mike Bossingham To: tc list Subject: tc-list Vocabulary Content-Type: text Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1025 Hi, As a computer scientist I too am drawn to algorithems. However, even as a undergraduate, I quickly came to realise that analysing vocabulary is not a good way of establishing style and authorship. It is so context sensitive. If vocabulary, in general, is a poor way, then within that looking at hapaxes is a really naf way, (sorry not an academic word there, buts that how a feel) For example, looking at Acts, a blind algorithem looking at hapaxes would throw up Acts 27 as suspect. However even a cursory glance would reveal that the action takes place on a ship and the hapaxes are nautical terms. If you want to work with algorithems, and I do, Bob, then look at word order and construction of sentances. In ancient languages authors had greater freedom to change word order and they certainly used that facility. I did some work 5 years ago that produced interesting results. Sorry about language and spellings, I dashed this off before rushing off to do my 10th Christmas Assembly. Regards Mike Bossingham From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Dec 12 09:55:33 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA23627; Fri, 12 Dec 1997 09:55:32 -0500 Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 09:55:32 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Adair" To: TC List Subject: tc-list note from the listowner 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: 1277 In order to avoid unwanted spam to the list, I recently tightened the security mechanism to ensure that only list members can post to the list. The e-mail addresses of many of you have changed since you subscribed, and although you have continued to receive messages (because your Internet service provider set up an alias from your old address), you can no longer post to the list. From time to time I get a message indicating that a non-member is trying to post to the list. If I suspect that someone's e-mail address has changed and I can determine what the old one was, I simply unsubscribe the old address and re-subscribe the new one. One result of doing this is that you will receive another welcome message from the list. If you know that your e-mail address has changed since you subscribed to the list, please send me a note containing your old address and your new one, and I will take care of resubscribing you (you probably won't be able to unsubscribe your old address, since that's no longer the address you're sending from). 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://shemesh.scholar.emory.edu <-------------- From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Dec 12 16:07:52 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA28267; Fri, 12 Dec 1997 16:07:52 -0500 Date: 12 Dec 1997 21:13:39 -0000 Message-ID: <19971212211339.12137.qmail@np.nosc.mil> To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu In-reply-to: (schmiul@nias.knaw.nl) Subject: tc-list Re: Word Frequency as a Textual Tool From: Vincent Broman Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 4093 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- schmiul@nias.knaw.nl wrote: > Is there one good reason to suppose that > we modern critics are the only ones to assume a writer being consistent in > choosing "complex words" instead of simple words (or the reverse)? Later > copyists might as well have fealt the same, thus "making" a text much more > consistent as it "originally" was. ... > ... Others, of course, have argued that someone > rewriting a text quite naturally tries to immitate his model. > To sum up: Stylistic arguments in textual decisions are notoriously > circular. Let's try to keep straight how style can be used in text criticism. If, say, you show me two sentences differing only in that one contains "KAI LEGEI TW ..." and the other "EIPEN DE PROS TON ...", and you tell me one was written by Matthew, one by Luke, and you ask: which is by Luke? Then, knowing something of the evangelists' preferences, I can predict that the latter was Luke's with confidence 'way above 50%. Not with certainty, but the odds will favor me heavily. Now, if you told me one was Luke and the other was an anonymous Hellenist, then my confidence would diminish, but I would make the same choice, since I _have_ looked at a small sample of 1st century greek writers (the NT). But, if you told me that one was by Luke and the other was written by a copyist who had the Lukan text in his exemplar, then I have a different kind of problem identifying which is which. Remember, the question is not just: which text is Luke more likely to have written? (the easier part), but also: which direction of change would be more attractive to the copyist? The given variant doesn't look like a blunder or a tendentious change, just a stylistic choice, so the possibilities for what the copyist was doing seem to be four: 1. He "improved" the style fitting it to his own preferences, and those preferences were not unusual. 2. He conformed the text to his own preferences, but his preferences happened to be more Lukan than Luke, i.e. a concentrated, caricatured elixir of Luke. 3. He was an eagle-eyed text critic, and knowing what we now know about style, vocabulary, etc, without the benefit of our exhaustive concordances, our doctorates in source criticism, etc, he either fixed a suspected corruption, or he improved the evangelist's consistency. 4. He harmonized this text to its context, accidentally making it conform better to the author's style. Case 1 is the normal case. Case 2 is possible but unlikely; if it were _likely_, the features involved could not be called Lukan. Case 3 is also possible, but unlikely. Origens and Jeromes were scarce enough in the early church. I am surrounded by devout people who read the Bible all their life and to whom it never occurred (nie in den Kopf eingefallen) that the four Gospel writers _write_ differently (except perhaps for noticing that John is more "spiritual"). Case 4 _is_ likely but it can be checked for separately, and the amount of context relevant to the check would be small. (BTW, Cadbury wrote about Luke's preference for _varying_ his choice of words, so 4 might not apply here anyway!) It's not fair at all to call a stylistic argument circular, just because Cases 2,3,4 exist. We're dealing with probabilities in any case, and some bets are better bets than others. Other considerations being equal, I'll bet on 1 and 4. 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 iQCVAwUBNJGnYmCU4mTNq7IdAQHIEAQApOeZFt5jL5cBE1p4KaGMlsz3gTEJleGd olxPcCwBMeYG7lGqKu38vovmJ+eF+pjoGgm4AO7zAq/SFCf3x39Zj7QDgE2pDis5 4LfZhKU6GTGfIkuiyYKMWwegWxtvCbWyefmTqJl7eSkiabfNzw0vsKvrm9KI73rI onMJbuVJCK8= =8yJx -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Dec 12 16:20:56 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA28307; Fri, 12 Dec 1997 16:20:55 -0500 Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 16:20:54 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Adair" To: TC List Subject: tc-list new Hebrew Bible list 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: 1319 Some on this list might be interested to know about the creation of a new e-mail discussion list devoted to the academic study of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament. The list is called Miqra, and it is sponsored by the Society of Biblical Literature. Listowners are Michael V. Fox and Ronald L. Troxel. The list is closed, but all members of the SBL and the AAR may join automatically. Others may apply to Ron Troxel (rltroxel@facstaff.wisc.edu) for membership. To join, go to the Web page at http://shemesh.scholar.emory.edu/cgi-bin/miqra-app.pl and enter your e-mail address and AAR/SBL Member ID number (it's on all the mail you get from the AAR/SBL or Scholars Press, as well as on many catalogs and mailers from booksellers). If you don't know your member ID number, you can send a message to Ron Troxel and ask him to add you (for the sake of his sanity, though, please make an effort to find your member ID number first!). All topics related to the _scholarly_ discussion of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament are fair game. Please respond off-list if you have any questions or comments about Miqra. Jimmy Adair Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press and Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site -------------> http://shemesh.scholar.emory.edu <-------------- From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Dec 12 18:31:09 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA28991; Fri, 12 Dec 1997 18:31:08 -0500 From: "Vinton A. Dearing" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 15:40:15 PST MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: tc-list a method of textual criticism X-Confirm-Reading-To: "Vinton A. Dearing" X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) Message-ID: <2E2BDB57EE@113hum4.humnet.ucla.edu> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 423 Dear listers and lurkers, I see that I ought to have said that I need your snail mail address to send you the summary of my text-critical method. I shall reply individually to those who have already requested a copy without giving me a non-electronic address. By the way, the method is language-indifferent; none of the discussion requires a knowledge of any language except English. Vinton A. Dearing From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Dec 12 21:13:09 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA29431; Fri, 12 Dec 1997 21:13:09 -0500 From: PastorCHBC Message-ID: Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 21:08:57 EST To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list a method of textual criticism Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) X-Mailer: Inet_Mail_Out (IMOv11) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 77 Vinton. I would like a copy of your summary. Gene Hughes PastorCHBC@aol.com From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Dec 13 03:07:19 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id DAA29963; Sat, 13 Dec 1997 03:07:18 -0500 Message-Id: <199712130813.BAA01456@cheetah.spots.ab.ca> From: "Robert Lagore" To: Subject: Re: tc-list a method of textual criticism Date: Sat, 13 Dec 1997 01:15:58 -0700 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: 877 Dear Vinton Dearing, I am sorry to have misunderstood your post. My home address is: 112 Woodside Circle Airdrie, AB Canada T4B 2J8 Would you like me to pay the postage for this? If so, please let me know. Thank you very much. R.D. Lagore ---------- > From: Vinton A. Dearing > To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu > Subject: tc-list a method of textual criticism > Date: December 12, 1997 4:40 PM > > Dear listers and lurkers, > I see that I ought to have said that I need your snail mail > address to send you the summary of my text-critical method. I shall > reply individually to those who have already requested a copy without > giving me a non-electronic address. > By the way, the method is language-indifferent; none of the > discussion requires a knowledge of any language except English. > Vinton A. Dearing From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Dec 13 09:21:13 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA00769; Sat, 13 Dec 1997 09:21:13 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199712130813.BAA01456@cheetah.spots.ab.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 13 Dec 1997 08:13:14 -0600 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Deering's Method (Was: Re: tc-list a method of textual criticism) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1128 TCers -- Interesting, isn't it, how the lurkers come out when someone offers to give something away? :-) Seriously, there seems to be significant demand for information on Vinton Deering's method. (I know I'm interested, though I'm not sure I have the time to react to it meaningfully.) And it's not at all easy to find his books. Sounds to me like it's time for a web page. But that's just my suggestion. What do others think? BTW -- if anyone has been trying to contact me in the last week or so, my ISP has been having some trouble. I think I lost a few e-mail messages somewhere in there (though I can't be sure, since I never saw them :-). If by some chance someone tried to contact me and didn't get a response, write to me again. Things seem to have straightened themselves out by now. I hope.... -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Dec 13 17:58:13 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA02348; Sat, 13 Dec 1997 17:58:12 -0500 From: "Vinton A. Dearing" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Sat, 13 Dec 1997 15:07:23 PST MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: tc-list collating programs X-Confirm-Reading-To: "Vinton A. Dearing" X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) Message-ID: <45A048523E@113hum4.humnet.ucla.edu> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 431 If you are interested in collating programs, you may wish to examine those on my web page, http://englishwww.humnet.ucla.edu/individuals/dearing They are written in oldfashioned QBASIC, but can be changed over to VisualBasic without too much trouble. Vinton A. Dearing Warning: I am at work on revising other programs on the page; if you wish to use them, test them first very carefully, as some contain errors in logic. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Dec 17 03:16:01 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id DAA16570; Wed, 17 Dec 1997 03:16:00 -0500 Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 00:21:47 -0800 (PST) From: Matthew Johnson Subject: Re: tc-list new book review on TC 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: 2667 On Thu, 11 Dec 1997, Robert B. Waltz wrote: > On Wed, 10 Dec 1997, Matthew Johnson wrote, > in part: > > >On Wed, 10 Dec 1997, Robert B. Waltz wrote: > > > >> On Wed, 10 Dec 1997, Matthew Johnson wrote, in > >> part: > >> > >> [ ... ] > >> > >> >A much more useful category, one that tells us more about Jude's style, is > >> >that of rare words. Yet more useful is to break them down into: > >> > 1) Rare word likely to stump Jude's contemporaries > >> > 2) Rare words likely to be recognized despite their rarity. > >[snip] > > I'm not going to carry on much about this, since we only have two > of us talking. :-) > I too will be brief, since if we keep going on, we will no doubt wander further and further away from topics of genuine interest to the list. > But I will stand by counting all rare words. Even this represents of convergence of our opinions. After all, your original proposition was to count only "hapax legomena" (in the NT sense). My point was to a) count other rare words too and b) do more than _just_ counting, especially in such a short example as the letter of Jude. > Your analysis is > excellent -- but it is also subjective. Ah, yes. I have noticed that other members of the list have a prejudice against subjectivity as well. But what is wrong with subjectivity? After all, TC is no less a science because it is a humanities topic, and humanities topics always involve subjectivity. Even the physical sciences involve substantially more subjectivity than is commonly recognized. To quote an example you would certainly be familiar with, Dirac said that in order for an equation (of physics) to be correct, it must have beauty. His own conjectures of the wave equation and the existence of the positron are examples of this. Surely beauty, being in the "eye of the beholder", must be subjective. [snip] > I'm trained as a scientist, I am, and I can't help but prefer > the most objective method possible. While I probably agree with > every one of your examples, they are still based on somewhat > subjective analysis. > > Given that I think both methods are equally effective, I'll > prefer the one I can reduce to an algorithm. :-) > But then how do you decide when two methods are equally effective? Do you have an algorithm for that, even when one of the methods is clearly not algorithmic? Does not even this question make it clear that subjectivity is necessary for TC, as well as many other fields, even physics? 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 Dec 17 09:40:08 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA17782; Wed, 17 Dec 1997 09:40:07 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 08:45:13 -0600 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: tc-list new book review on TC Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 3928 On Wed, 17 Dec 1997, Matthew Johnson wrote, in part: [ ... ] >> But I will stand by counting all rare words. > >Even this represents of convergence of our opinions. After all, your >original proposition was to count only "hapax legomena" (in the NT sense). >My point was to a) count other rare words too and b) do more than _just_ >counting, especially in such a short example as the letter of Jude. I'll agree with (a). Better to count unusual words than just hapax legomena. I'm also willing to analyse the use of the words in other sources. Beyond that I will not go. >> Your analysis is >> excellent -- but it is also subjective. > >Ah, yes. I have noticed that other members of the list have a prejudice >against subjectivity as well. Not enough of them. :-) >But what is wrong with subjectivity? After >all, TC is no less a science because it is a humanities topic, and >humanities topics always involve subjectivity. I can't agree with that. I will agree that humanities topics involve subjectivity. And I assuredly agree that most religious studies are subjective. But TC, unlike other areas of the humanities, involves controllable data (manuscripts and their readings). It is therefore at least *capable* of scientific, mathematically-based methods. >Even the physical sciences involve substantially more subjectivity than is >commonly recognized. To quote an example you would certainly be familiar >with, Dirac said that in order for an equation (of physics) to be correct, >it must have beauty. His own conjectures of the wave equation and the >existence of the positron are examples of this. > >Surely beauty, being in the "eye of the beholder", must be subjective. Your examples are correct, but hardly relevant. Surely no sane person would regard modern subatomic physics (quark theory) as attractive! It's also worth noting that Albert Einstein ceased to be a practicing physicist because he didn't like the aesthetic (religious) implications of the Uncertainty Principle. But the Uncertainty Principle has passed every challenge it has faced; if it is not fact, then it is a good approximation of fact. In other words, scientists like "beautiful" theory in the same way that mathematicians prefer "elegant" demonstrations. But an honest scientist will not *demand* such beauty. >[snip] >> I'm trained as a scientist, I am, and I can't help but prefer >> the most objective method possible. While I probably agree with >> every one of your examples, they are still based on somewhat >> subjective analysis. >> >> Given that I think both methods are equally effective, I'll >> prefer the one I can reduce to an algorithm. :-) >> > >But then how do you decide when two methods are equally effective? Do you >have an algorithm for that, even when one of the methods is clearly not >algorithmic? If a method is not algorithmic, I won't call it a scientific method. :-) As for deciding between scientific models that both fit, I concede there is no simple method. Often Occam's Razor is applied. (For example, at the time of Kepler, the Ptolemaic and Copernican systems of planetary motion were equally accurate. Kepler and Galileo preferred the Copernican because it was simpler.) However, the key test of a theory is not how it fits known facts, but how well it predicts the *unknown*. If a theory has an implication, not previously tested, and that implication proves to fit the fact, *that* is the strongest evidence for a theory. >Does not even this question make it clear that subjectivity is necessary >for TC, as well as many other fields, even physics? This, I think, gets to the heart of the difference between us. Subjectivity may be "necessary" (though I question even that). But it is certainly not *desirable*. At least to me. Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com "The one thing we learn from history -- is that no one ever learns from history." From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Dec 17 22:48:35 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA21247; Wed, 17 Dec 1997 22:48:34 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.1.16.19971218114351.2bffd4f0@upnaway.com> X-Sender: markus@upnaway.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (16) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 1997 11:43:51 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Mark O'Brien" Subject: Re: tc-list new book review on TC 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: 1029 Bob-- At 08:45 AM 12/17/97 -0600, you wrote: >I can't agree with that. I will agree that humanities topics involve >subjectivity. And I assuredly agree that most religious studies are >subjective. But TC, unlike other areas of the humanities, involves >controllable data (manuscripts and their readings). It is therefore >at least *capable* of scientific, mathematically-based methods. However, the very fact that we have massive gaps in our knowledge about the history and transmission of the text must surely mean that whatever "scientific, mathematically-based methods" you come up with must necessarily be founded upon presuppositions at certain points. I agree with your point that we ought to have consistent and accurate approaches to the manner in which we deal with the available data, but the unavailable data is what makes TC both a science and an art, as most introductory textbooks are quick to point out. I'm not going against your point, but am saying that I can see Matthew's (?) point. Regards, M. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Dec 18 09:10:18 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA22301; Thu, 18 Dec 1997 09:10:18 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.16.19971218114351.2bffd4f0@upnaway.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 18 Dec 1997 08:02:00 -0600 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: tc-list new book review on TC Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 3132 On Thu, 18 Dec 1997, "Mark O'Brien" wrote: >However, the very fact that we have massive gaps in our knowledge about the >history and transmission of the text must surely mean that whatever >"scientific, mathematically-based methods" you come up with must >necessarily be founded upon presuppositions at certain points. Of course -- but this is true of almost every science. Astronomy jas to assume that the universe is uniform -- that is, that the universal constants are in fact universal (no evidence at all to support that theory!) and that stars take the same form everywhere. Biology, particularly evolutionary biology, has to assume that ancient life for the most part used the same energy processes as modern life. Cosmology has to make assumptions about the history of the universe when it can only examine the *present* universe. I could go on (though I can't think of a science that begins with "D" :-). *All* sciences make assumptions. The goal is simply to reduce the assumptions, and test all things possible. I would argue that, as compared to the other evolutionary sciences (e.g. biology, cosmology), Biblical Textual Criticism is in relatively good shape; it has an appreciable fraction of the total evidence at its disposal. Compare this to cosmology: The universe is believed to be 18 billion years old. We have recorded observations for only the last 2500 years, telescopic observations for only the last 400, photographic for only the last 150 or so, and only 50 years of observations outside the visible spectrum. In other words, cosmologists have, for all intents and purposes, *no* data. Which may explain why they have so many goofy theories. :-) >I agree with your point that we ought to have consistent and accurate >approaches to the manner in which we deal with the available data, but the >unavailable data is what makes TC both a science and an art, as most >introductory textbooks are quick to point out. I'm not going against your >point, but am saying that I can see Matthew's (?) point. Oh, I can too. And I do not deny the value of intuition. For that matter, it takes intuition to create a method. I am simply saying that a method that cannot be reduced to an algorithm will *always* be subject to argument, and *cannot* be proved. Indeed, you can't even offer evidence of its accuracy. A truly brilliant scholar without an algorithm could probably produce a better NT text than I can with my various calculations. But turn that genius's rules over to an idiot and you'll get garbage. Turn my algorithm over to the same idiot and you'll get a text which is at least reasonably good. :-) And, let's face it, most of us (I include myself) are idiots. If you don't believe it, look at the people we keep electing to our respective governments. :-) -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Dec 18 09:32:20 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA22495; Thu, 18 Dec 1997 09:32:19 -0500 Date: Thu, 18 Dec 1997 09:32:19 -0500 Message-Id: <199712181432.JAA22490@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> >Date: Thu, 18 Dec 1997 11:54:20 +0100 From: "William L. Petersen" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: tc-list Formulae and textual criticism Content-Type: text Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1109 Re the discussion of logic & textual criticism: I would recommend that *anyone* interested in textual criticism read the lecture given by A.E. Housman in Cambridge, in 1921, titled "The Application of Thought to Textual Criticism." It was published in the *Proceedings of the Classical Association in the same year (Vol. 18, pp. 67-84). Two quotations from this lecture: "Textual criticism is a science, and, since it comprises recension and emendation, it is also an art" (p. 68). "Of course you can have hard-and-fast rules if you like, but then you will have false rules, and they will lead you wrong; because their simplicity will render them inapplicable to problems which are not simple, but complicated by the play of personality" (p. 68). For those who do not know who Housman was, I recommend you check the "old" (pre-Macro- Micro-padeia) *Encyclopaedia Britannica*. An excellent biography of Housman is also available: *A.E. Housman, The Scholar-Poet*, by R.P. Graves (London: Routledge Kegan Paul, 1979). --Petersen, Penn State University, Netherlands Institute for Advanced Studies. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Dec 18 10:20:57 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA22822; Thu, 18 Dec 1997 10:20:57 -0500 Date: Thu, 18 Dec 1997 09:26:52 -0600 (CST) From: Bruce Morrill To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list Formulae and textual criticism In-Reply-To: <199712181432.JAA22490@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: 217 Thanks, Bill. I also remember a statement attributed to Housman, though I don't know the source, that textual criticism is "the science of finding and the art of removing error." Bruce Morrill bruce@math.ksu.edu From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Dec 18 10:32:24 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA22910; Thu, 18 Dec 1997 10:32:24 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199712181432.JAA22490@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 18 Dec 1997 09:39:56 -0600 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: tc-list Formulae and textual criticism Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 3300 On Thu, 18 Dec 1997, "William L. Petersen" wrote: >Re the discussion of logic & textual criticism: > >I would recommend that *anyone* interested in textual criticism read the >lecture given by A.E. Housman in Cambridge, in 1921, titled "The >Application of Thought to Textual Criticism." It was published in the >*Proceedings of the Classical Association in the same year (Vol. 18, pp. >67-84). Two quotations from this lecture: [ ... ] >"Of course you can have hard-and-fast rules if you like, but then you will >have false rules, and they will lead you wrong; because their simplicity >will render them inapplicable to problems which are not simple, but >complicated by the play of personality" (p. 68). It is obvious that what we have here is an irreconcileable argument. Those who *want* TC to be an art will make it an art; those who want it to be a science will attempt to make it a science. (I say "attempt to" because, of course, any attempt at rigour may fail. Whereas one can always create "art" -- at least in one's own mind. The question of whether it is any good is irrelevant.) To me, it is obvious which is the preferable form -- but then, again, I'm biased by being scientifically trained. I could also claim to be an artist (since I'm a folk musician) -- but I wasn't trained in that.... :-) But I must also enter an objection. Housman is speaking of *classical* textual criticism. In one sense at least, this differs from NTTC. In classical TC (with some exceptions such as Homer) we are dealing with relatively few manuscripts. Housman's career, for instance, was devoted to Manilius. I don't know how many manuscripts there are of Manilius, but I doubt it's more than a dozen. Tacitus exists in two, which have no overlap. Beowulf exists in one (and that one now badly damaged). In cases such as this, I readily concede that TC must proceed artistically. That's not the case for NTTC, where we have more manuscripts than we know what to do with.... I really don't see any point in continuing this discussion, as I doubt we will change anyone's opionions. But if someone *really* wants to argue that scientific rigour is bad -- well, I invite that person to go live in a log cabin for a year, with no electricity or tools made out of any material more advanced than cast iron, and *then* come back and tell me scientific rigour is to be avoided. :-) >For those who do not know who Housman was, I recommend you check the "old" >(pre-Macro- Micro-padeia) *Encyclopaedia Britannica*. An excellent >biography of Housman is also available: *A.E. Housman, The Scholar-Poet*, >by R.P. Graves (London: Routledge Kegan Paul, 1979). Of course, Housman is also noteworthy as one of the few relatively modern poets who actually understood the value of *simplicity* in poetry. _A_Shropshire_Lad_ won't teach you a thing about TC -- but it might demonstrate what's wrong with English poetry today. (My turn to play the curmudgeon. :-) -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Dec 18 14:48:59 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA25066; Thu, 18 Dec 1997 14:48:58 -0500 Message-Id: <199712181955.MAA29201@cheetah.spots.ab.ca> From: "Robert Lagore" To: Subject: Re: tc-list new book review on TC Date: Thu, 18 Dec 1997 12:56:16 -0700 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: 5117 On December 18, 1997, Robert B. Waltz wrote: > Of course -- but this is true of almost every science. Astronomy > jas to assume that the universe is uniform -- that is, that > the universal constants are in fact universal (no evidence at all > to support that theory!) and that stars take the same form everywhere. > Biology, particularly evolutionary biology, has to assume that ancient > life for the most part used the same energy processes as modern life. > Cosmology has to make assumptions about the history of the universe > when it can only examine the *present* universe. > > I could go on (though I can't think of a science that begins with > "D" :-). *All* sciences make assumptions. The goal is simply to > reduce the assumptions, and test all things possible. > And, let's face it, most of us (I include myself) are idiots. If you > don't believe it, look at the people we keep electing to our respective > governments. :-) I agree with you completely on one point... that we are all idiots..., but grant me the opportunity to be picky on one or two points and I hope that I do not completely demonstrate the fact that I am fully capable of being just as much an idiot as most others. I would take issue with your claim that "universal constances" being "in fact universal" is not supported by any evidence at all. In case you were not over generalizing for effect, might I point out that enumerative induction is one of the most common forms of evidence we appeal to. I would grant you that as evidence it is not always conclusive, but in the absence of such conclusive evidence, we appeal to "universal" (that is in all of our known experience) constants. I hope that those who use the phrase "universal constant" are not implying their own deity, which is of course what such an absolutely literal interpretation of the phrase would require. It is my understanding that when we refer to "universal constants", we are referring to that which is the case for all (or most) of human experience. David Hume used the phrase "a firm and unalterable experience", and while this has been interpreted literally as well, I wonder if we might be more realistic with such phrases and admit both our finitude and the "apparent" universality of human experience with regards to certain phenomena. Secondly, the fact that "all sciences make assumptions" would seem to be a "no brainer" in that I cannot conceive of too much that does not require certain assumptions. As one logician stated, "There are some forms of circular reasoning that are more vicious than others, and some forms that are necessary for reasoning to take place at all!" The destructive nature of circularity would seem to be most dangerous when assumptions are ignored or denied in the attempt to capture that elusive creature - "total objectivity". I for one, believe that "total objectivity" should be considered as part of the same category of things as unicorns and "The Great Pumpkin" since we always seem to include a bit of ourselves in our interpretation. That being said, I do not think that necessitates a completely relativistic approach. While "total objectivity" would seem to be out of reach, this does not mean that "objectivity" is out of reach. And I wonder if "objectivity" is not the responsibility of, not merely individuals who strive to be objective, but of the academic community that realizes its role as providing the means to greater objectivity. The greatest problem for the community in this instance is of course being caught up in our own "zeitgeist", thinking that we have evolved to the point of not needing to learn from the past. I suggest that as an academic community, we must seriously return to the past so as to fulfill our responsibility as a community striving for objectivity. Bernard of Chartes wisely said, "We are as dwarves sitting on the shoulders of giants; and if we can see any further than our own noses, it is because they have lent us their stature." What does this mean for the "science of interpretation"? First, I suggest that your advice to minimize our assumptions be followed. The principle of parsimony in the area of presuppositions would seem to require no evidential support because it seems to me to be an obvious advantage in our theorizing. Second, at the same time, we must be honest enough (and courageous enough) to face and clearly state the presuppositions that we believe we reason and theorize upon. Hopefully this means that our interactions (or disagreements) with others will centered on the most critical points of our interpretations. It hardly seems advantageous to debate peripheral points when there are such foundational differences in how and what evidence we consider relevant. Third, in clearly stating our presuppositions, I hope that as an academic community, we might better serve each other by providing critical evaluations that really address the pertinent issues. Well that was longer than I intended. It must be obvious that while I talk about Occam's Razor, I am not always consistent in using it. R.D. Lagore From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Dec 18 14:49:23 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA25084; Thu, 18 Dec 1997 14:49:23 -0500 Date: Thu, 18 Dec 1997 11:55:22 -0800 (PST) From: Matthew Johnson Subject: Re: tc-list Formulae and textual criticism To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 4085 On Thu, 18 Dec 1997, Robert B. Waltz wrote: > On Thu, 18 Dec 1997, "William L. Petersen" > wrote: > > >Re the discussion of logic & textual criticism: > > > [ ... ] > >"Of course you can have hard-and-fast rules if you like, but then you will > >have false rules, and they will lead you wrong; because their simplicity > >will render them inapplicable to problems which are not simple, but > >complicated by the play of personality" (p. 68). > > It is obvious that what we have here is an irreconcileable argument. Irreconcilable? How so? The history of TC, and NT TC in particular, is littered with attempts to formulate these hard-and-fast rules. Each attempt has been proven a failure. And it was proven a failure by methods other than the "rigorous" methods you propose. But since you mentioned that one of the tests for a good theory is the ability to predict new discoveries, it is good to point out that Westcott and Hort made several conjectures about which variant was the earlier reading, conjectures which were then proved correct with the discovery of earlier papyri. They made these conjectures by relying on the methods you condemn as non-scientific and non-rigorous. [snip] > But I must also enter an objection. Housman is speaking of *classical* > textual criticism. In one sense at least, this differs from NTTC. > In classical TC (with some exceptions such as Homer) we are dealing > with relatively few manuscripts. Housman's career, for instance, was > devoted to Manilius. I don't know how many manuscripts there are > of Manilius, but I doubt it's more than a dozen. Tacitus exists in > two, which have no overlap. Beowulf exists in one (and that one now > badly damaged). In cases such as this, I readily concede that TC > must proceed artistically. > > That's not the case for NTTC, where we have more manuscripts than > we know what to do with.... > It is true that we have many more manuscripts than for any of the Classical authors. It is also true that this opens the door for the application of some statistical methods, methods that are entirely useless for the TC of Classical authors. But it does NOT imply that these statistical methods can REPLACE the methods Housman is speaking of. At best, it can supplement and extend them. After all, with the many more manuscripts, we have many more variations. The reasons for these variations are often not obvious. At times, the variations have theological motiviations that were obvious only to a few even at the time they were made! > I really don't see any point in continuing this discussion, as I > doubt we will change anyone's opionions. But if someone *really* > wants to argue that scientific rigour is bad -- well, I invite > that person to go live in a log cabin for a year, with no electricity > or tools made out of any material more advanced than cast iron, > and *then* come back and tell me scientific rigour is to be > avoided. :-) Isn't this what Ted Kaczynski did? But seriously now, nobody is claiming that "scientific rigour is to be avoided". What I am saying (and I think this is not too far from what the others are saying as well), is that what you call "scientific rigour" is too narrowly defined. Your notion of "scientific rigour" is really "the experimental method", which method has produced excellent results in the last 500 years in the physical sciences. It has also yielded fruit in psychology, sociology, history and a few others of the humanities in the last 150 years or so, but it has never been able to replace the other scientific methods of these fields, as it did in the physical sciences. > > >For those who do not know who Housman was, I recommend you check the "old" > >(pre-Macro- Micro-padeia) *Encyclopaedia Britannica*. An excellent > >biography of Housman is also available: *A.E. Housman, The Scholar-Poet*, > >by R.P. Graves (London: Routledge Kegan Paul, 1979). 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 Thu Dec 18 16:48:04 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA25861; Thu, 18 Dec 1997 16:48:04 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 18 Dec 1997 15:47:59 -0600 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: tc-list Formulae and textual criticism Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 4644 On Thu, 18 Dec 1997, Matthew Johnson wrote: >> It is obvious that what we have here is an irreconcileable argument. > >Irreconcilable? How so? I meant that we will never reach agreement. A few people -- of whom I seem to be the only vocal one :-) -- will never accept that subjectivity is desirable. The rest of the people on this list will never accept that subjectivity is not desirable. It is, as best I can tell, a fundamental difference in the way we view the universe. >The history of TC, and NT TC in particular, is >littered with attempts to formulate these hard-and-fast rules. Each >attempt has been proven a failure. And it was proven a failure by methods >other than the "rigorous" methods you propose. If a proof isn't rigorous, it isn't a proof. :-) >But since you mentioned that one of the tests for a good theory is the >ability to predict new discoveries, it is good to point out that Westcott >and Hort made several conjectures about which variant was the earlier >reading, conjectures which were then proved correct with the discovery of >earlier papyri. They made these conjectures by relying on the methods you >condemn as non-scientific and non-rigorous. Not quite -- since W&H were being as rigorous as was possible in their day (the fact that they were geniuses of internal criteria does not mask the fact that they relied primarily on external criteria). If the evidence were still as it was in Hort's day -- if there were no P46, no 1739, no P72, no minuscules of Family 2138 -- then I would probably accept Hort's theory (with computer controls on the evidence) as being the best possible in its time. > It is true that we have >many more manuscripts than for any of the Classical authors. It is also >true that this opens the door for the application of some statistical >methods, methods that are entirely useless for the TC of Classical >authors. But it does NOT imply that these statistical methods can REPLACE >the methods Housman is speaking of. At best, it can supplement and extend >them. An entirely serious question: How do you know? [ ... ] >> I really don't see any point in continuing this discussion, as I >> doubt we will change anyone's opionions. But if someone *really* >> wants to argue that scientific rigour is bad -- well, I invite >> that person to go live in a log cabin for a year, with no electricity >> or tools made out of any material more advanced than cast iron, >> and *then* come back and tell me scientific rigour is to be >> avoided. :-) > >Isn't this what Ted Kaczynski did? So? It would seem to me that that is an argument for scientific rigour, if it is an argument for anything at all. (Which it probably isn't. :-) >But seriously now, nobody is claiming that "scientific rigour is to be >avoided". What I am saying (and I think this is not too far from what the >others are saying as well), is that what you call "scientific rigour" is >too narrowly defined. Your notion of "scientific rigour" is really "the >experimental method", which method has produced excellent results in the >last 500 years in the physical sciences. It has also yielded fruit in >psychology, sociology, history and a few others of the humanities in the >last 150 years or so, but it has never been able to replace the other >scientific methods of these fields, as it did in the physical sciences. But there is a difference. In NTTC, we have a defined objective: Recovery of the original text. What is the "objective" of, say, history? If we had a precise objective, perhaps we could invent a scientific method. I will concede that I can't offer true "proof" that my methods are better than others'; the only way we can have true proof is to have the autographs. But in the meantime I am at least offering a method that is relatively repeatable. :-) *** Folks, I see little point in continuing this discussion. What we see here is a difference in belief systems. As I already stated, there is *no reconciling such differences.* But since I am one of the few defenders of rigorous methods, I must keep answering, if for no other reason than to show that the answers exist. If you, like me, wish we could drop this pointless thread, then just don't answer. I know I haven't convinced you. But you haven't convinced me, either. :-) -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Dec 18 16:48:06 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA25874; Thu, 18 Dec 1997 16:48:06 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199712181955.MAA29201@cheetah.spots.ab.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 18 Dec 1997 15:55:38 -0600 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: tc-list new book review on TC Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2277 On Thu, 18 Dec 1997, "Robert Lagore" wrote: >On December 18, 1997, Robert B. Waltz wrote: > >> Of course -- but this is true of almost every science. Astronomy >> jas to assume that the universe is uniform -- that is, that >> the universal constants are in fact universal (no evidence at all >> to support that theory!) and that stars take the same form everywhere. >> Biology, particularly evolutionary biology, has to assume that ancient >> life for the most part used the same energy processes as modern life. >> Cosmology has to make assumptions about the history of the universe >> when it can only examine the *present* universe. [ ... ] >I would take issue with your claim that "universal constances" being "in >fact universal" is not supported by any evidence at all. As your following sentences prove, we do not mean the same thing by "universal constants." I was not speaking of the rules of mathematics and logic. Such laws are not part of reality, and would exist even if the universe didn't. They are simply *methods.* When I referred to "universal constants," I was referring to such things as the speed of light in a vacuum or the gravitational constant. Physical scientists universally treat these as constant -- but while we have never seen any variation in them on earth, we don't *know* what they are in intergalactic space. And any change in the values of either of those constants, be it noted, would completely understand our understanding of (for instance) the red shift, in turn affecting the age of the universe, etc. Thus, astronomy as we now know it is reduced to a "faith assumption" (admittedly backed by every bit of evidence available) that certain physical properties of the universe are the same throughout the universe. Since we were talking about different things, I think I can skip over replying to the rest. We were in closer agreement than you thought. (I think. :-) -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Dec 18 20:18:58 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA26657; Thu, 18 Dec 1997 20:18:58 -0500 Message-Id: <199712190125.SAA05572@cheetah.spots.ab.ca> From: "Robert Lagore" To: Subject: Re: tc-list new book review on TC Date: Thu, 18 Dec 1997 18:27:02 -0700 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: 4181 > On December 18, 1997, Robert B. Waltz wrote: > > As your following sentences prove, we do not mean the same thing by > "universal constants." I was not speaking of the rules of mathematics > and logic. Such laws are not part of reality, and would exist even > if the universe didn't. They are simply *methods.* > > When I referred to "universal constants," I was referring to such > things as the speed of light in a vacuum or the gravitational > constant. Physical scientists universally treat these as constant -- > but while we have never seen any variation in them on earth, > we don't *know* what they are in intergalactic space. And any change > in the values of either of those constants, be it noted, would > completely understand our understanding of (for instance) the > red shift, in turn affecting the age of the universe, etc. > > Thus, astronomy as we now know it is reduced to a "faith assumption" > (admittedly backed by every bit of evidence available) that certain > physical properties of the universe are the same throughout the > universe. I have no doubt that we are in relative agreement and if either my tone or subject matter implied otherwise, I apologize. And because you have brought up the possibility of my concerns being minor linguistic problems, I will phrase this post as a request for clarification rather than a critique. My use of the phrase "universal constant" was surely not limited to the areas of mathematics and logic, as the problem of subjectivity must have implied. There can hardly be any subjective value of my negative or positive feelings toward the law of non-contradiction. Subjectivity, as I understand it in this context, of necessity deals with things in the real world (though I think the more precise philosophic term is "synthetic" of the analytic-synthetic distinction). The necessity of treating such "constants" as "universal" is, as I see it, is a pragmatic consideration based upon our "experience" of the universe, or at least that little bit of the universe that we have had contact with. I would still assert that enumerative induction is the basis for such an extrapolation, and the benefit of such a "leap" would be that we are able to construct reasonable hypotheses about how the universe works. You are certainly correct to point out that if our presuppositional views of the speed of light, etc. were to be incorrect, then we would suffer the consequences of that error. However, since the Logical Positivist problem (I hope I am not over-generalizing here), we have moved away from a Verificationist approach to science, to a view that is more indicative of Popper's Falsification approach. That is, that we realize the problems with verifying any claim because of the limited nature of our position, and so we opt for a view that tries to create the best hypothesis given the available evidence, test it against the data, and where that hypothesis is not falsified, we tentatively hold to it as "true" until either more evidence is forthcoming or we find a flaw in our hypothesis. I guess the bottom line is that when you say that "astronomy as we now know it is reduced to a faith assumption", it seems to be critiquing science in the basis of what is true of all things in reality. It is possible that I am reacting to the phrase "faith assumption". which in these discussions is often used pejoritively. While we might think that such hypothetical presuppositions are indicative of "faith assumptions", do you not think that this is going too far? After all, we are not going to put our "hypothesis" of light's speed being a constant 186,000 miles per second, alongside other "faith assumptions" are we? The category of "faith assumptions" seems to have quickely become too large and to ambiguous for any real benefit, especially if such diverse items are both placed under the heading of "faith". Upon reading your last post, I am quite sure that I have jumped into your discussion midstream, and so I wish to apologize if I have missed your point or grabbed on to a point that really was not central to your primary concern. Thanks for your time....:) R.D. Lagore From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Dec 18 21:03:45 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA26823; Thu, 18 Dec 1997 21:03:45 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199712190125.SAA05572@cheetah.spots.ab.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 18 Dec 1997 20:10:28 -0600 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: tc-list new book review on TC Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 5015 On Thu, 18 Dec 1997, Thu, 18 Dec 1997 wrote: [ ... ] > >I have no doubt that we are in relative agreement and if either my tone or >subject matter implied otherwise, I apologize. Since I knew we were talking about different things, I took no offense. It's not as if you accused me of being a fundamentalist or the like. I just hope what follows does not prove too utterly irrelevant. :-) And because you have brought >up the possibility of my concerns being minor linguistic problems, I will >phrase this post as a request for clarification rather than a critique. > >My use of the phrase "universal constant" was surely not limited to the >areas of mathematics and logic, as the problem of subjectivity must have >implied. There can hardly be any subjective value of my negative or >positive feelings toward the law of non-contradiction. Actually, there *is* some controversy over this (if I understand you correctly). There is a mathematical method known as proof by contradiction. And there is a school of mathematicians which does not accept this method. They are trying to recreate mathematics solely by direct proofs. I must admit I don't understand their problem with it. And, BTW, this *is* relevant to TC. The Colwell 70% "definition" of a text-type can be shown to be inadequate because it leads to contradictions. >Subjectivity, as I >understand it in this context, of necessity deals with things in the real >world (though I think the more precise philosophic term is "synthetic" of >the analytic-synthetic distinction). The necessity of treating such >"constants" as "universal" is, as I see it, is a pragmatic consideration >based upon our "experience" of the universe, or at least that little bit of >the universe that we have had contact with. I won't argue with that. >I would still assert that >enumerative induction is the basis for such an extrapolation, and the >benefit of such a "leap" would be that we are able to construct reasonable >hypotheses about how the universe works. But induction is a techique which applies only if you can assign a discrete positive integral value to each possible "instance." It applies only to discrete, not continuous, phenomena. Thus it cannot tell us anything about the (analog) universe. I concede this is a nitpick. :-) >You are certainly correct to point >out that if our presuppositional views of the speed of light, etc. were to >be incorrect, then we would suffer the consequences of that error. However, >since the Logical Positivist problem (I hope I am not over-generalizing >here), we have moved away from a Verificationist approach to science, to a >view that is more indicative of Popper's Falsification approach. That is, >that we realize the problems with verifying any claim because of the >limited nature of our position, and so we opt for a view that tries to >create the best hypothesis given the available evidence, test it against >the data, and where that hypothesis is not falsified, we tentatively hold >to it as "true" until either more evidence is forthcoming or we find a flaw >in our hypothesis. I'm perfectly willing to do so. I'm *not* trying to argue that, say, the speed of light is something different in the Andromeda Galaxy. I made them "by way of concession," not because I think these claims are true. >I guess the bottom line is that when you say that "astronomy as we now know >it is reduced to a faith assumption", it seems to be critiquing science in >the basis of what is true of all things in reality. It is possible that I >am reacting to the phrase "faith assumption". which in these discussions is >often used pejoritively. And which I'm perfectly capable of using pejoratively. In all honesty, I usually *do* use it in such a manner. But in this case, where the sciences have no other choice, it was not meant so. >While we might think that such hypothetical >presuppositions are indicative of "faith assumptions", do you not think >that this is going too far? After all, we are not going to put our >"hypothesis" of light's speed being a constant 186,000 miles per second, >alongside other "faith assumptions" are we? The category of "faith >assumptions" seems to have quickely become too large and to ambiguous for >any real benefit, especially if such diverse items are both placed under >the heading of "faith". Agreed. >Upon reading your last post, I am quite sure that I have jumped into your >discussion midstream, and so I wish to apologize if I have missed your >point or grabbed on to a point that really was not central to your primary >concern. Thanks for your time....:) It wasn't central to my primary concern. But I suppose it's best to clear the air. :-) -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Dec 20 13:45:04 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA03796; Sat, 20 Dec 1997 13:45:03 -0500 Date: Sat, 20 Dec 1997 13:49:08 -0500 From: Jim West Subject: tc-list Micah 5:1 in 4QXII(f) X-Sender: jwest@highland.net (Unverified) To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.32.19971220184908.0066cee0@highland.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) 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: 728 Colleagues, I am working on a course on Micah and have come across an interesting text in one of the Qumran mss. In 4QXII(f), Micah 5:1 reads: "w'eth beth lehem 'ephratha ts'ir lehayoth be'alphey yehuda mimmek li LO yatsa" ... etc. It is this LO which strikes me as really remarkable. This LO is, of course, absent from the MT, though it is present in a couple of Greek mss (B*, C). The editor of the scroll fragment suggests that ek sou may derive from ex ou. Nevertheless, this reading, more ancient than MT, would hardly be left out by post Christian scribes, would it? Any comments would be very helpful. Jim ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West jwest@highland.net From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Dec 21 13:25:31 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA05791; Sun, 21 Dec 1997 13:25:31 -0500 From: STORYBROWN Message-ID: <19ad7d50.349d5e77@aol.com> Date: Sun, 21 Dec 1997 13:22:45 EST To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list new book review on TC Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) X-Mailer: Inet_Mail_Out (IMOv11) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 917 In a message dated 97-12-18 12:37:08 EST, waltzmn@skypoint.com writes: << *All* sciences make assumptions. The goal is simply to reduce the assumptions, and test all things possible. >> I would just step out of lurkerdom to note in passing that this view is fairly garden variety Kantianism and subject to all the objections to which Kantianism is open. The doctrine that knowledge begins with its own criticism, or that nothing can be known unless first critically proven, in fact presumes this proven knowledge without first critically proving it. There is no algorithmical formula or demonstration that would cope with the relation between the knower and the external objective world known by him. (Consider Thomas, *Quaestiones disputata de anima* I, art. 5, ad resp.) Maybe some of your other comments begin to come around to this. Merry Christmas, Guy Story Brown, Dallas & LA storybrown@aol.com From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Dec 21 14:38:11 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA05919; Sun, 21 Dec 1997 14:38:11 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <19ad7d50.349d5e77@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 21 Dec 1997 13:46:36 -0600 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Straying far afield (Was: Re: tc-list new book review on TC) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2571 FAIR WARNING: This has *nothing* to do with textual criticism, and probably will never return to the subject. But I'm confused, and I'll ask the question on-list in case others are, too. On Sun, 21 Dec 1997, STORYBROWN wrote: >In a message dated 97-12-18 12:37:08 EST, waltzmn@skypoint.com writes: > ><< *All* sciences make assumptions. The goal is simply to reduce the >assumptions, and test all things possible. >> > > I would just step out of lurkerdom to note in passing that this view is >fairly garden variety Kantianism and subject to all the objections to which >Kantianism is open. I wouldn't know anything about that. A good scientist stays away from philosophy, lest it pollute his or her mind. :-) (And don't tell me that that's a form of Russell's Paradox, because it isn't -- quite.) >The doctrine that knowledge begins with its own >criticism, or that nothing can be known unless first critically proven, in >fact presumes this proven knowledge without first critically proving it. >There is no algorithmical formula or demonstration that would cope with the >relation between the knower and the external objective world known by him. >(Consider Thomas, *Quaestiones disputata de anima* I, art. 5, ad resp.) Maybe >some of your other comments begin to come around to this. I suppose I agree -- but I think I'm failing to understand this. The problem of interaction between the observer and the observed is well known (e.g. the Uncertainty Principle). There is also the problem of correspondence between the internal and external worlds -- but how can we solve *that* except by assuming some sort of correlation. At least science displays an ability to affect the perceived external world in a way that correlates with our internal expectations. My point was different. There are things science cannot measure -- e.g. the gravitational constant in another galaxy. We can't *get* there to conduct the measurement. In that case, one must make reasonable assumptions. They may be wrong -- but what are we supposed to do, make *unreasonable* assumptions? We always must make assumptions. The point is to know what we're assuming. One might almost call science the task of documenting our assumptions. :-) -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Dec 22 14:59:15 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA09428; Mon, 22 Dec 1997 14:59:15 -0500 Date: Mon, 22 Dec 1997 15:03:14 -0500 From: Jim West Subject: tc-list 4QXII(f) Micah 5:2 X-Sender: jwest@highland.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.32.19971222200314.006642a0@highland.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) 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: 448 I continue to wonder about the significance (or lack thereof) regarding the glaring LO found in the Qumran fragment of Micah. Is it possible that this LO was dropped because the implication is that the Davidic House will no longer provide kings for the kingdom. I.e., is Micah denouncing the royal family by saying "there will NOT come forth from you...." Thanks, Jim ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West jwest@highland.net From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Dec 22 16:19:31 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA09936; Mon, 22 Dec 1997 16:19:31 -0500 Date: Mon, 22 Dec 1997 16:25:34 -0500 Message-Id: <199712222125.QAA28705@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: Re: tc-list 4QXII(f) Micah 5:2 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1070 Two possibilities come immediately to mind: First, maybe this LO is a tendentious emendation by a Qumran scribe unhappy with the history of the Davidides rather than a word original to Micah. Second, If this LO were orignal to Micah this LO could be, as Brevard Childs suggests in his commentary on Exodus 3:3 (see p.50), following D.N. Freedman, a LO used for emphasis rather than for negation. See also Koehler Baumgartner, *Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon* (English ed., vol. 2, pp.510-511, where LE emphatic is sometimes written as LO. Just musing.-- Rod Mullen At 03:03 PM 12/22/97 -0500, you wrote: >I continue to wonder about the significance (or lack thereof) regarding the >glaring LO found in the Qumran fragment of Micah. Is it possible that this >LO was dropped because the implication is that the Davidic House will no >longer provide kings for the kingdom. I.e., is Micah denouncing the royal >family by saying "there will NOT come forth from you...." > >Thanks, > >Jim > >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >Jim West > >jwest@highland.net > From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Dec 25 08:14:35 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA17768; Thu, 25 Dec 1997 08:14:35 -0500 From: CleonLR Message-ID: <2cdf7b26.34a25da7@aol.com> Date: Thu, 25 Dec 1997 08:20:37 EST To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: tc-list Re: The Fathers' articles Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) X-Mailer: Inet_Mail_Out (IMOv11) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 5540 Dear Friends, Do you have a hurried life? We do. Four children have a way of keeping us moms and dads very busy. I feel like a taxi driver most of the time (not only for the kids, but also for my husband). My children leave for school at different times and come home at different times. For example: Hannah and Cle leave everyday at 7:l5 (school starts at 8:00). They get home at different times. Hannah gets home Mon.- Wed. at l:40 and Thurs. and Fri. at l2:50. This year Cle gets home at l:40 everyday. Nathaniel doesn't leave for school on Mon. and Wed. until 9:35 and gets home at l:30. Tues., Thurs. and Fri. he leaves at 7:40 and gets home on Tues. and Thurs. at ll:45 and Fri. at l2:45. Micah goes to kindergarten (which is really pre-school in the States). He leaves at 8:40 and gets home at l2:l5 everyday. So as you can see, trying to keep up with their schedules can be very confusing. When we first moved to Germany I was so confused and frustrated, I finally gave house keys to the kids. Also, I never know when they might come home early from school. If one of their teachers is sick, the school does not use substitute teachers. So the kids are released from school and told to go home. Hannah will be l6 the 30th of December. I find that hard to believe. It seems like yesterday that we brought her home from Baylor Univ. Hospital on New Year's Day, l982. She is in the l0th grade. Her courses in German school consists of French, Latin, math, physics, chemistry, biology, English, German, music, art and P.E. She stays extremely busy with her studies. German school is a little more difficult than American school. The math is very challenging here. There are no multiple choice or true and false tests. They are essay type tests looking for comprehension, interaction and evaluation of the material learned. On Tuesday afternoons she goes to a handbell group. It is led by an American Southern Baptist missionary. Handbells are very new to Germany. The group plays at different groups that meet all around the city. Hannah enjoys playing handbells very much and is very good at it. Cle will be l4 the end of February He is in the eighth grade. His courses at school consists of chemistry, physics, math, German, English, Latin, biology, art, music and P.E. He is very gifted intellectually. He does not have to study as much as Hannah and still makes very good grades. Hannah gets a little irritated when Cle spends so little time studying and she has to work so much harder. Cle enjoys soccer. He has been playing since he was four years old, so he is pretty good at the sport. Nathaniel is l0 years old and is in the fourth grade. His courses consist of math, German, religion, music, art, P.E. and social studies. He seems to enjoy school and works hard to do his best He also enjoys soccer and team handball. We just recently found out that Nathaniel has scoleosis of the lower back. He is undergoing physical therapy twice a week. The therapy will not make it go away but will help prevent it from getting worse. Please pray with us that in Jan. when he goes back for an x-ray, that there will be no sign of scoleosis. Micah is four years old and is now going to German kindergarten. He seems to enjoy going very much. German kindergarten is different from American kindergarten. Here no academic subjects (reading etc) are taught. It is only time for the kids to play, walk in the woods or have craft time. It is especialy good for Micah to go because he is learning German. So by the time he starts to first grade, he will have a good grasp of the German language. Buddy has an extremely busy schedule. He has just returned from Hungary teaching at the Word of Life Bible Institute. He teaches at a Russian Bible College on Tuesdays (starts at l0:00 in the morning and ends at l0:00 at night). He also teaches at a Bible College on Wednesdays called Neues Leben (New Life). The rest of his time he is doing seminars on weekends and also co-authoring a book, The New Linguistic and Exegetical Key to the Greek New Testament, with his father. It should be finished by the spring. As for me, what can I say! I recently told Buddy there would be no way for me to work outside of the home. I have to be home making sure everyone gets to where they need to be on time. With everyone coming and going at different times, there needs to be someone home to keep the schedule running smoothly. I consider it a privilege to stay at home and be here when the kids get back from school. They look forward to a hot lunch waiting on them after several hours away from home. Christmas is here once again! Can you believe it? As I shop in the German stores, I look into the faces of so many who have never really understood why Jesus came to earth to born as a baby. The German people think all they have to do is be batptized as an infant, confirmed as a teenager, then their life after death is secure with God. How sad! Pray that the people will not only know Jesus was born, but that Jesus died for them. We have two neighbors in our village who have heard the gospel but cannot accept the fact Jesus died for them and will accept them as they are. Please pray for Ella and Heike. Merry Christmas to all and yours. We love you and thank you for your prayers. I pray this holiday season will experience the real joy and true meaning of Christmas in the midst of the hustle and bussle of your life. Love, Kathy, for us all From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Dec 25 10:37:02 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA17902; Thu, 25 Dec 1997 10:37:02 -0500 Message-ID: <34A30C00.F3CF0ECF@beitberl.beitberl.ac.il> Date: Thu, 25 Dec 1997 17:44:32 -0800 From: "Jonathan D. Safren" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ancient Near East Discussion Forum , First Century Judaism Discussion Forum , History of the Ancient Mediterranean , "orion@mscc.huji.ac.il" , Textual Criticism Discussion Group , b-hebrew@virginia.edu, miqra@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu, ancien-l@ULKYVM.LOUISVILLE.EDU Subject: tc-list Greetings 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: 140 A Merry Christmas to all my Christian friends and colleagues. All the best, Jonathan D. Safren Dept. of Biblical Studies Beit Berl College From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Dec 25 11:58:15 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA18008; Thu, 25 Dec 1997 11:58:15 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Wed, 24 Dec 1997 10:13:31 -0800 Subject: Re: tc-list-digest V2 #213 Message-ID: <19971225.090125.3406.0.HILKAP@juno.com> References: <199712240730.CAA14485@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> X-Mailer: Juno 1.49 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-22,24-26,28-32,34-36,38-47,49-53,55-57,59-72 From: hilkap@juno.com (HILL R KAPLAN) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2306 In TC-213 Jim West wrote: > >From: Jim West >Date: Mon, 22 Dec 1997 15:03:14 -0500 >Subject: tc-list 4QXII(f) Micah 5:2 > >I continue to wonder about the significance (or lack thereof) >regarding the glaring LO found in the Qumran fragment of Micah. >Is it possible that this >LO was dropped because the implication is that the Davidic House will >no longer provide kings for the kingdom. I.e., is Micah denouncing the >royal family by saying "there will NOT come forth from you...." > >Thanks, > >Jim ================================================== Issue 1 So far, in this discussion, this verse has been identified as Micah 5:2, but in the Masoretic version of the text, it is the first verse of the chapter. Can anything be gleaned from the manuscript itself regarding the end of Chapter 4 ? Is there any added spaces between the letters ? Is there any punctuation whatsoever ? Perhaps a *P* (petucha) for open paragraph or a *S* (setuma) for a closed paragraph. Specht indicates that there are some punctuation marks in some Qumran texts, but that they are not yet standardized. He notes that they may even occur at different places in copies of the same book.. In the absence of clear markings, why have TC scholars followed the markings of St Cher (1263) rather than that of the Masoretes ? ==================================== ISSUE 2 I examined the various alternatives to the masoretic text listed in Biblia Hebraica Stutgartensia for MICAH 5:1. Since none of the over 250 (?) manuscripts utilized in this monumental; study include the what you have called *the problematic LO*. The Hebrew offers ** LI ** ; the consonantal letters are Lamed, Yud. When QXII offers **LO** ; the consonantal letters are Lamed,Vov There is only a slight difference between the appearance of Vows and Yurt. The downstroke of the Yule is much shorter. Cantillation marks, The Masoretic apparatus which is often used to indicate proper phrasing of the text assign **LI** to the next phrase; It carries a conjunctive. The text thus reads: He shall come to me LI YAY-TSAY BTY the Hebrew word preceding **LI** is MIM-ME-CHA and it carries a disjunctive cantillation sign. HILLEL From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Dec 27 02:37:06 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id CAA21115; Sat, 27 Dec 1997 02:37:05 -0500 Date: Fri, 26 Dec 1997 23:43:14 -0800 (PST) From: Matthew Johnson Subject: Re: tc-list Micah 5:1 in 4QXII(f) To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19971220184908.0066cee0@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: 1804 On Sat, 20 Dec 1997, Jim West wrote: > Colleagues, > > I am working on a course on Micah and have come across an interesting text > in one of the Qumran mss. In 4QXII(f), Micah 5:1 reads: > "w'eth beth lehem 'ephratha ts'ir lehayoth be'alphey yehuda mimmek li > LO yatsa" ... etc. > Both the Vulgate and the LXX number this verse as Micah 5:2. > It is this LO which strikes me as really remarkable. This LO is, of course, > absent from the MT, though it is present in a couple of Greek mss (B*, C). > The editor of the scroll fragment suggests that ek sou may derive > from ex ou. > Interestingly enough, this suggestion looks particularly likely if the scribe had been using the pre-Attic alphabet, in which modern x was written ks. But it is hard to imagine why the scribe would have done this. A more likely circumstance that would have encouraged this copying error (ek sou for ex ou) could have been oral dictation, since breathing marks were already usually not pronounced. > > Nevertheless, this reading, more ancient than MT, would hardly be left out > by post Christian scribes, would it? Are you asking about scribes copying the Hebrew version, or coyping the LXX version? In the LXX, reading ex ou in place of the usual ek sou complicates the syntax a bit, but still leaves the pronoun hOU most likely referring to the same precedent, namely the house of Bethlehem (although it could then also be read as referring to the tribe of Judah). After all, I certainly would NOT count on the LXX translators to conform to the schoolbook's rules of style for position of antecedent and relative pronoun! 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 Dec 27 03:28:38 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id DAA21215; Sat, 27 Dec 1997 03:28:38 -0500 Date: Sat, 27 Dec 1997 00:34:47 -0800 (PST) From: Matthew Johnson Subject: Re: Straying far afield (Was: Re: tc-list new book review on TC) 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: 4429 On Sun, 21 Dec 1997, Robert B. Waltz wrote: > FAIR WARNING: This has *nothing* to do with textual criticism, and > probably will never return to the subject. But I'm confused, and I'll > ask the question on-list in case others are, too. > At the risk of appearing merely contrary, I ust express my vehement disagreement. It has much to do with Textual Criticism. However, I suspect that most of the subscribers (at least those who are published professional TCers) already understand the connection well enough that this is a wast of time for them. So your "fair warning" is appreciated. > On Sun, 21 Dec 1997, STORYBROWN wrote: > > >In a message dated 97-12-18 12:37:08 EST, waltzmn@skypoint.com writes: > > > ><< *All* sciences make assumptions. The goal is simply to reduce the > >assumptions, and test all things possible. >> > > > > I would just step out of lurkerdom to note in passing that this view is > >fairly garden variety Kantianism and subject to all the objections to which > >Kantianism is open. > I thought Kant would have known better. This view does not even merit the name "Kantianism", but is just a late 20th century regurgitation of Logical Positivism. > I wouldn't know anything about that. A good scientist stays away > from philosophy, lest it pollute his or her mind. :-) > Again, I must vehemently disagree. The entire notion of "gauge theory", which you _must_ know with your physics background, is due to a stellar counterexample, Hermann Weyl, whose philosophical erudition overflows from practically every one of his sentences in his classic "Group Theory and Quantum Mechanics", which was THE book for working theoretical physicists in both non-relativistic and relativistic Quantum Mechanics from 1932 when it was published, to 1948 when Feynman's much simpler scattering wave approach finally displaced Second Quantization and Hole Theory. I'll even dare conjecture that if Weyl _had_ become interested in NT TC, he would not persist in trying to apply the methods of the experimental physical sciences to philology! Nor was Weyl alone (among great physicists) in having such a thorough classical education. Bohr and Schroedinger also had excellent humanities backgrounds before specializing in physics. A little biographical research on the other leading lights of quantum mechanics would surely show that many others had such a background, since that was the _norm_ in Europe before the War. Of course this background included philosophy. > >The doctrine that knowledge begins with its own > >criticism, or that nothing can be known unless first critically proven, in > >fact presumes this proven knowledge without first critically proving it. > >There is no algorithmical formula or demonstration that would cope with the > >relation between the knower and the external objective world known by him. > >(Consider Thomas, *Quaestiones disputata de anima* I, art. 5, ad resp.) Maybe > >some of your other comments begin to come around to this. It is refreshing to see that _someone_ else on this list appreciates Aquinas's relevance even to modern day issues! > > I suppose I agree -- but I think I'm failing to understand this. > The problem of interaction between the observer and the observed > is well known (e.g. the Uncertainty Principle). But the Uncertainty Principle seems like such a _small problem_ when compared to the problem of Quantum MEasurement! > There is also > the problem of correspondence between the internal and external > worlds -- but how can we solve *that* except by assuming some > sort of correlation. At least science displays an ability to > affect the perceived external world in a way that correlates with > our internal expectations. > Even in the Bell Experiment? > My point was different. There are things science cannot measure -- > e.g. the gravitational constant in another galaxy. We can't *get* > there to conduct the measurement. In that case, one must make > reasonable assumptions. They may be wrong -- but what are we > supposed to do, make *unreasonable* assumptions? > And this judgement, which assumptions are _reasonable_, is often highly subjective, as when Dirac assumed that all negative energy levels were occupied (La Theorie du Positron). 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 Dec 27 14:27:06 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA22248; Sat, 27 Dec 1997 14:27:05 -0500 Date: Sat, 27 Dec 1997 14:27:05 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Adair" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list Micah 5:1 in 4QXII(f) In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19971220184908.0066cee0@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: 550 One possibility that comes to mind is that LO is a variant form of LY that has worked its way into the text, perhaps from the margin. I couldn't tell from the transliteration whether LO included a final aleph, but I don't think the presence (or not) of the aleph affects the argument, since the interchange of LOW and LO) is not uncommon. Jimmy Adair Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press and Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site -------------> http://shemesh.scholar.emory.edu <--------------