From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu  Sun Jan  4 16:37:06 1998
Return-Path: <owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu>
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id QAA22213; Sun, 4 Jan 1998 16:37:05 -0500
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19980104214700.0069225c@sd.znet.com>
X-Sender: gipe@sd.znet.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sun, 04 Jan 1998 13:47:00 -0800
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
From: Mark Gipe <gipe@znet.com>
Subject: tc-list Zech 12:10
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
content-length: 683


Zechariah 12:10 and John 19:37

Here is a question for you

In Zechariah 12:10 it says "And they will look to me whom they have
pierced". My question is on the word "to me" ( 'eli   in the MT ) . The
master text by C.D Ginsburg has a foot note on this verse which says some
eastern manuscripts read ( 'elayv  / 'elayw  ) "to him".  All Hebrew
versions of John that I have ( and I have 8 of them ) read "to him" ( 'elayv
) and the Syriac Peshitta reads "in who". 

Anyway to make a long story short my question is this:

"DOES ANYONE KNOW WHICH MANUSCRIPTS GINSBERG WAS QUOTING?" 

and 

"DOES ANYONE KNOW OF A DEAD SEA SCROLL COPY OF ZECHARIAH 12:10?

Thanks again


Mark Gipe
   


From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu  Sun Jan  4 19:54:27 1998
Return-Path: <owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu>
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id TAA22649; Sun, 4 Jan 1998 19:54:27 -0500
Message-Id: <199801050044.BAA09332@mail1.arcadis.be>
Subject: Re: tc-list Zech 12:10
Date: Lun, 5 Jan 98 02:06:02 +0100
x-sender: vale5655@mail.arcadis.be
x-mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1
From: Jean VALENTIN <jgvalentin@arcadis.be>
To: <tc-list@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: 850

>"DOES ANYONE KNOW WHICH MANUSCRIPTS GINSBERG WAS QUOTING?" 
>
He was not quoting manuscripts, but traditional lists of "variants" 
between Ma'arbaye (scholars of the palestinian schools) and Madinhaye 
(sholars of the babylonian schools).
On this, see I. Yeivin, Introduction to the Tiberian masorah, translated 
and edited by E.J. Revell. Masoretic Studies 5, Scholars Press 1980, 
paragraphs 153 and 154.

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  Mon Jan  5 09:10:47 1998
Return-Path: <owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu>
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id JAA24930; Mon, 5 Jan 1998 09:10:47 -0500
Message-ID: <91B64315334FD11195CC0000F803CA9F0544F8@esusa.esusa.org>
From: Curt Niccum <curt.niccum@oc.edu>
To: "'tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu'"
	 <tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu>
Subject: RE: tc-list Micah 5:1 in 4QXII(f)
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 1998 08:18:51 -0600
X-Priority: 3
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1458.49)
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
content-length: 2371

	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:
	<heb>"w'eth beth lehem 'ephratha ts'ir lehayoth be'alphey yehuda
mimmek li
	LO yatsa"</heb> ...  etc.  

	The transcription offered here is misleading on two accounts.
First, the variant you are concerned with is written lamed-aleph, which
may or may not have been pronounced "lo" (see below). Second, you have
not indicated where actual text is or is not preserved. The reading "li"
is not extant but supplied by the editor. This is almost surely an
error.

	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 <gk>ek sou</gk>
may derive
	from <gk>ex ou</gk>.

	The Hebrew and Greek variants are not related. The versional
evidence reflects an inner Greek problem with the phrase translating
mmk. "Ou" is a personal pronoun, not a negative.

	Considering the fluid state of Hebrew orthography during the
time this scroll was written, one should not assume too quickly that the
scribe of this small fragment was using biblical (Masoretic) Hebrew,
i.e. "l)" equals "not.". The use of metathetic aleph and matres
lectionis was common. Both were also seemingly optional. For example,
the common word "ky" is found also as "ky)" and "k)" at Qumran. The
variations on "l)" also include "lw" and "lw)." Thus, the extant "l)"
could have been pronounced "li" or "lo." If the former, it is not a
textually significant variant. If the latter, it could be due to a
waw/yod interchange at some point in the history of transmission, an
easy mistake. Even then the word could still be understood by the scribe
or any contemporary reader as "to him," "indeed," or "not." 

	It is impossible to tell which the scribe understood. (Remember,
frg. 5 does not actually belong to 4QXII-f and contains only ten extant
letters, thus we have no comparative data for this scribe's
orthography). Since a negative is found nowhere else (as far as I know)
in the manuscript tradition or in the history of Jewish or Christian
exegesis of this passage (again, as far as I know - and here my
knowledge is even more limited), concluding that "l)" must be read as a
negative here is certainly precarious.

	Curt Niccum


From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu  Mon Jan  5 11:26:01 1998
Return-Path: <owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu>
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id LAA26744; Mon, 5 Jan 1998 11:26:00 -0500
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 1998 02:39:20 -0800
Subject: Re: tc-list-digest V3 #1
Message-ID: <19980105.083025.13198.1.HILKAP@juno.com>
References: <199801050730.CAA23515@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu>
X-Mailer: Juno 1.49
X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-10,12-21,23-25,27-28,30-31,33-48,50-67,69-73
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: 2173


>From: Mark Gipe <gipe@znet.com>
>Date: Sun, 04 Jan 1998 13:47:00 -0800
>Subject: tc-list Zech 12:10
>
>Zechariah 12:10 and John 19:37
>
>Here is a question for you
>
>In Zechariah 12:10 it says "And they will look to me whom they have
>pierced". My question is on the word "to me" ( 'eli   in the MT ) . 
>The master text by C.D Ginsburg has a foot note on this verse which says

>some eastern manuscripts read ( 'elayv  / 'elayw  ) "to him". 

The Master Text is BIBLIA HEBRAICA STUTTGARTENSIA.

It is based on the Codex Lenigradensis, the oldest extant complete 
text of the Hebrew Bible.  Approximately 250 other manuscripts have been
compared against this Ben Asher text dating from ca 1005 CE. 
Differences from the master are noted as footnotes.

This variation is noted.  I have not yet learned what all the
abbreviations
mean so I will give it to you as it is presented.

   var lect; 	     (small L)   ALEPH  (+vowel eh) LAMED ( +DASH)  
  vel
                  		     (RIGHT TO LEFT)
                  		      pronounced     EL*               
                                              

                         (vel)           ALE PH (_eh) lamed (aye) Yule
(+DASH)
                                           EL-aye *

It probably occurs both ways since the source is not  specific.




> All Hebrew versions of John that I have ( and I have 8 of them ) 
>read "to him" ( >'eland
>) and the Syrian Permitted reads "in who". 
>

Exactly where did you find a Hebrew version of John that is not a 
relatively recent back translation ?

Did the editor tell you which version of Greek/Latin/Syrian he used for a

Template ?


>
>"DOES ANYONE KNOW OF A DEAD SEA SCROLL COPY OF ZECHARIAH 12:10?
>

I am certain they found some HEBREW fragments of Zechariah.
Burrows , MORE LIGHT ON THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS
doesn't tell me which verses were recovered.  

Neither does Vermes (DEAD SEA SCROLLS IN ENGLISH (3RD ED)
Btw.The fourth edition is now out.

I know that they did find a "SCROLL OF THE LESSER (12) PROPHETS, but in
GREEK.  But it only contained 11 of the 12.

This would probably be your best bet,  Greek is a bit more definite in
their
inflections.

HILLEL
  

From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu  Mon Jan  5 12:43:12 1998
Return-Path: <owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu>
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id MAA27506; Mon, 5 Jan 1998 12:43:12 -0500
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 1998 12:48:37 -0500
From: Sarah Lind <sarahlind@compuserve.com>
Subject: tc-list Zechariah at Qumran
To: "INTERNET:tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu" <tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu>
Message-ID: <199801051249_MC2-2E1B-67F3@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: 334

>>DOES ANYONE KNOW OF A DEAD SEA SCROLL COPY OF ZECHARIAH 12:10?

Scanlin (The Dead Sea Scrolls and Modern Translations of the OT, Tyndale
House, 1993) does not list this passage in his comprehensive listing of
biblical passages in Qumran mss (incl the Nahal Hever Greek Minor Prophet=
s
scroll).

Sarah Lind
sarahlind@compuserve.com

From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu  Mon Jan  5 15:06:43 1998
Return-Path: <owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu>
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id PAA28939; Mon, 5 Jan 1998 15:06:42 -0500
Message-ID: <91B64315334FD11195CC0000F803CA9F0544FB@esusa.esusa.org>
From: Curt Niccum <curt.niccum@oc.edu>
To: "'tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu'"
	 <tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu>
Subject: RE: tc-list Zechariah at Qumran
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 1998 14:14:45 -0600
X-Priority: 3
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1458.49)
Content-Type: text/plain
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
content-length: 629

4QXII-g contains portions of the verse, but not the text in question.

Curt Niccum

	-----Original Message-----
	From:	Sarah Lind [SMTP:sarahlind@compuserve.com]
	Sent:	Monday, January 05, 1998 11:49 AM
	To:	INTERNET:tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
	Subject:	tc-list Zechariah at Qumran

	>>DOES ANYONE KNOW OF A DEAD SEA SCROLL COPY OF ZECHARIAH 12:10?

	Scanlin (The Dead Sea Scrolls and Modern Translations of the OT,
Tyndale
	House, 1993) does not list this passage in his comprehensive
listing of
	biblical passages in Qumran mss (incl the Nahal Hever Greek
Minor Prophets
	scroll).

	Sarah Lind
	sarahlind@compuserve.com

From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu  Mon Jan  5 15:51:54 1998
Return-Path: <owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu>
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id PAA29371; Mon, 5 Jan 1998 15:51:54 -0500
Date: Mon, 05 Jan 1998 15:57:37 -0500
From: Jim West <jwest@Highland.Net>
Subject: RE: tc-list Zechariah at Qumran
X-Sender: jwest@highland.net
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Message-id: <1.5.4.32.19980105205737.0066ccc8@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: 325

At 02:14 PM 1/5/98 -0600, you wrote:
>4QXII-g contains portions of the verse, but not the text in question.

Indeed, there are several fragments of Zech among the DSS- but, as Curt
pointed out, there are none for this particular verse (12:10).

Jim

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Jim West

jwest@highland.net


From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu  Mon Jan  5 15:53:26 1998
Return-Path: <owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu>
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id PAA29407; Mon, 5 Jan 1998 15:53:25 -0500
Date: Mon, 05 Jan 1998 15:59:07 -0500
From: Jim West <jwest@Highland.Net>
Subject: RE: tc-list Zechariah at Qumran
X-Sender: jwest@highland.net
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Message-id: <1.5.4.32.19980105205907.00667e08@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: 297

At 02:14 PM 1/5/98 -0600, you wrote:

Sorry- I pushed send before my message was complete.  Anyway, I checked J.
Maier's book on Qumran and he does not list Zech 12:10 as a quotation in any
of the texts from Qumran.

Jim

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Jim West

jwest@highland.net


From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu  Mon Jan  5 16:05:55 1998
Return-Path: <owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu>
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id QAA29546; Mon, 5 Jan 1998 16:05:55 -0500
Message-ID: <91B64315334FD11195CC0000F803CA9F0544FD@esusa.esusa.org>
From: Curt Niccum <curt.niccum@oc.edu>
To: "'tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu'"
	 <tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu>
Subject: RE: tc-list Zechariah at Qumran
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 1998 15:13:58 -0600
X-Priority: 3
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1458.49)
Content-Type: text/plain
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
content-length: 844

Most published lists of biblical passages found in the Dead Sea Scrolls
are based on preliminary investigations. There are, therefore, numerous
errors, mostly on the side of omission. One should always consult the
critical editions. For the Prophets, consult DJD XV; Qumran Cave 4 - X,
ed. E. Ulrich (Oxford: University Press, 1997).

Curt Niccum

	-----Original Message-----
	From:	Jim West [SMTP:jwest@Highland.Net]
	Sent:	Monday, January 05, 1998 2:59 PM
	To:	tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
	Subject:	RE: tc-list Zechariah at Qumran

	At 02:14 PM 1/5/98 -0600, you wrote:

	Sorry- I pushed send before my message was complete.  Anyway, I
checked J.
	Maier's book on Qumran and he does not list Zech 12:10 as a
quotation in any
	of the texts from Qumran.

	Jim

	++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
	Jim West

	jwest@highland.net

From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu  Mon Jan  5 16:20:16 1998
Return-Path: <owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu>
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id QAA29804; Mon, 5 Jan 1998 16:20:15 -0500
Date: Mon, 05 Jan 1998 16:25:55 -0500
From: Jim West <jwest@Highland.Net>
Subject: RE: tc-list Zechariah at Qumran
X-Sender: jwest@highland.net
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Message-id: <1.5.4.32.19980105212555.006650b8@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: 1083

At 03:13 PM 1/5/98 -0600, you wrote:
>Most published lists of biblical passages found in the Dead Sea Scrolls
>are based on preliminary investigations. There are, therefore, numerous
>errors, mostly on the side of omission. One should always consult the
>critical editions. For the Prophets, consult DJD XV; Qumran Cave 4 - X,
>ed. E. Ulrich (Oxford: University Press, 1997).
>
>Curt Niccum
>
>	

I am well aware of DJD.  My attempt to answer the question went a little
further than simply looking in the Prophets volume.  Rather, believeing the
interested party would like to know if the text were anywhere preserved in
the DSS it seemed reasonable to look to see if the passage in question were
quoted in any of the manuscripts.  As the DJD volumes do not do this, I
turned to Maier, who kindly lists all quotations of Biblical texts in the
DSS.  Unless you are suggesting that the DJD volumes list every occurance of
the Biblical texts in the sectarian materials.  If they do, I have
overlooked it.

Jim

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Jim West

jwest@highland.net


From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu  Mon Jan  5 21:26:13 1998
Return-Path: <owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu>
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id VAA01326; Mon, 5 Jan 1998 21:26:12 -0500
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19980106023606.0069a68c@sd.znet.com>
X-Sender: gipe@sd.znet.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 05 Jan 1998 18:36:06 -0800
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
From: Mark Gipe <gipe@znet.com>
Subject: tc-list Ginsburgs MT is not BHS
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
content-length: 3752

Dear Hillel

Thank you very much for your reply to question on Zech 12:10

If I am not mistaken the Biblia Hebraica ( later known as the Heblia
Hebraica Stuttgartensia ) was first printed sometime in the 1940s. The
Master Text that I was refering to was printed by the British and Foreign
Bible Society in 1908 and later in 1926. It was done by a great scholar of
his day by the name of Christian David Ginsburg. It is known in short as
Ginsburg's master text.
I would recommend that you get a copy as it has many footnotes that are not
in the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. You can get a copy of it from "The
Society for Distributing Hebrew Scriptures" out of England ( Sorry don't
have ph # in England ). I got a copy at the Israeli Bible Society 17 Yafo Rd
in Yerushalayim( ph # 972-2-251849), You can also get one from a branch of
the "The Society for Distributing Hebrew Scriptures" in Ohio USA ( ph# (216)
459-8775 ).They are under $15.00 US money.

On your note "I have not yet learned what all the abbreviations mean.

See the book "The Text of the Old Testament" by Ernst Weurthwein Translated
in English by Erroll F. Rhodes, Published by William B Eerdmans Publishing
Co Grand Rapids Michagan ISBN 0-8028-1817-X  1979 ( I have seen an updated
edtion but do not know it's ISBN # ) This book sells for about $15.00 and it
will tell you all about how to read the footnotes in the Heblia Hebraica
Stuttgartensia and much more.

Shalom alecha

Mark Gipe 
 
At 02:39 AM 1/5/98 -0800, you wrote:
>
>>From: Mark Gipe <gipe@znet.com>
>>Date: Sun, 04 Jan 1998 13:47:00 -0800
>>Subject: tc-list Zech 12:10
>>
>>Zechariah 12:10 and John 19:37
>>
>>Here is a question for you
>>
>>In Zechariah 12:10 it says "And they will look to me whom they have
>>pierced". My question is on the word "to me" ( 'eli   in the MT ) . 
>>The master text by C.D Ginsburg has a foot note on this verse which says
>
>>some eastern manuscripts read ( 'elayv  / 'elayw  ) "to him". 
>
>The Master Text is BIBLIA HEBRAICA STUTTGARTENSIA.
>
>It is based on the Codex Lenigradensis, the oldest extant complete 
>text of the Hebrew Bible.  Approximately 250 other manuscripts have been
>compared against this Ben Asher text dating from ca 1005 CE. 
>Differences from the master are noted as footnotes.
>
>This variation is noted.  I have not yet learned what all the
>abbreviations
>mean so I will give it to you as it is presented.
>
>   var lect; 	     (small L)   ALEPH  (+vowel eh) LAMED ( +DASH)  
>  vel
>                  		     (RIGHT TO LEFT)
>                  		      pronounced     EL*               
>                                              
>
>                         (vel)           ALE PH (_eh) lamed (aye) Yule
>(+DASH)
>                                           EL-aye *
>
>It probably occurs both ways since the source is not  specific.
>
>
>
>
>> All Hebrew versions of John that I have ( and I have 8 of them ) 
>>read "to him" ( >'eland
>>) and the Syrian Permitted reads "in who". 
>>
>
>Exactly where did you find a Hebrew version of John that is not a 
>relatively recent back translation ?
>
>Did the editor tell you which version of Greek/Latin/Syrian he used for a
>
>Template ?
>
>
>>
>>"DOES ANYONE KNOW OF A DEAD SEA SCROLL COPY OF ZECHARIAH 12:10?
>>
>
>I am certain they found some HEBREW fragments of Zechariah.
>Burrows , MORE LIGHT ON THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS
>doesn't tell me which verses were recovered.  
>
>Neither does Vermes (DEAD SEA SCROLLS IN ENGLISH (3RD ED)
>Btw.The fourth edition is now out.
>
>I know that they did find a "SCROLL OF THE LESSER (12) PROPHETS, but in
>GREEK.  But it only contained 11 of the 12.
>
>This would probably be your best bet,  Greek is a bit more definite in
>their
>inflections.
>
>HILLEL
>  
>
>


From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu  Mon Jan  5 21:39:19 1998
Return-Path: <owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu>
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id VAA01360; Mon, 5 Jan 1998 21:39:18 -0500
Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19980106024914.00694bd0@sd.znet.com>
X-Sender: gipe@sd.znet.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 05 Jan 1998 18:49:14 -0800
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
From: Mark Gipe <gipe@znet.com>
Subject: Re: tc-list Zech 12:10
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
content-length: 1353

Thanks very much Jim and Curt and Jean for replying to my post on Zech 12:10

Jean noted that Ginsburg was refering to variants as we know from the way
Ginsburg said "ketiv" and "Qeri". My question is does anyone know which
manscripts have these variants that is "Qeri" written in their margins?


Thanks you very much once again

Shalom alechem, kol shel etchem


Mark Gipe

P.S. I will check out the book you spoke about Jean Thanks!!!


 At 02:06 AM 1/5/98 +0100, you wrote:
>>"DOES ANYONE KNOW WHICH MANUSCRIPTS GINSBERG WAS QUOTING?" 
>>
>He was not quoting manuscripts, but traditional lists of "variants" 
>between Ma'arbaye (scholars of the palestinian schools) and Madinhaye 
>(sholars of the babylonian schools).
>On this, see I. Yeivin, Introduction to the Tiberian masorah, translated 
>and edited by E.J. Revell. Masoretic Studies 5, Scholars Press 1980, 
>paragraphs 153 and 154.
>
>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 Jan  6 17:10:47 1998
Return-Path: <owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu>
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id RAA08203; Tue, 6 Jan 1998 17:10:46 -0500
From: DSMynatt <DSMynatt@aol.com>
Message-ID: <fe0de986.34b2ad5e@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 17:17:01 EST
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Subject: Re: tc-list Ginsburgs MT is not BHS
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: 776

In a message dated 98-01-05 21:35:51 EST, you write:

<< The
 Master Text that I was refering to was printed by the British and Foreign
 Bible Society in 1908 and later in 1926. It was done by a great scholar of
 his day by the name of Christian David Ginsburg. It is known in short as
 Ginsburg's master text.
 I would recommend that you get a copy as it has many footnotes that are not
 in the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia.  >>


Note, however, that Wurthwein, on p. 42 of the 1995  edition of The Text of
The Old Testament says of the Ginsburg editions, "By far, the majority of the
variants are trivial..."  Nevertheless, I have found the Ginsburg editions
valuable if for nothing else than to show the variety that exists within the
MT.

Daniel Mynatt
Anderson College

From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu  Wed Jan  7 18:53:42 1998
Return-Path: <owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu>
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id SAA14185; Wed, 7 Jan 1998 18:53:42 -0500
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1998 18:59:44 -0500
From: "Harold P. Scanlin" <scanlin@compuserve.com>
Subject: tc-list Ginsburg edition
To: TC-List <tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu>
Message-ID: <199801071900_MC2-2E70-B022@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: 1128

The Ginsburg edition which contains the fullest set of textual notes is t=
he
1908-1926 edition in four volumes.  However there are several other
editions, including a "student" edition.  I think that the reprints
available from the Society for Distributing Hebrew Scriptures and the Bib=
le
Society in Israel are from one of the smaller editions.  Makor (Jerusalem=
)
reprinted the four volume edition (in 5 volumes), but I do not know if it=

is still available.  If someone is actually selling the four volume major=

edition for US $15, it's a real bargain!

Although Ginsburg is still useful for his collations of many later
manuscripts, the best place to check on this is in Kennicott or de Rossi
(see Wurhtwein for full bibliographic information.  De Rossi discusses th=
e
Zech 12:10 reading in question in vol. 3, pp. 217-220, a problem which
generated a great deal of interest in medieval manuscripts and medieval
exegesis, but the cumulated evidence offers little help in establishing t=
he
early form of the text.  =


Harold P. Scanlin
United Bible Societies
1865 Broadway
New York, NY  10023
scanlin@compuserve.com

From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu  Thu Jan  8 20:50:26 1998
Return-Path: <owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu>
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id UAA20314; Thu, 8 Jan 1998 20:50:26 -0500
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 20:50:25 -0500 (EST)
From: "James R. Adair" <jadair@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu>
To: TC List <tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu>
Subject: tc-list J. K. Elliott review of ECM
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.95.980108203557.20262A-100000@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: 1190

J. K. Elliott has written a review of the _Novum Testamentum Graecum
Editio Critica Maior_, vol. IV, installment 1: _James_, edited by Barbara
Aland, Kurt Aland, Klaus Wachtel, and Gerd Mink, the first review to
appear in TC 3 (1998).  For those who don't know, Elliott is the leading
proponent of the school of New Testament textual criticism known variously
as rigorous or thoroughgoing eclecticism, so his comments on the volume
(produced by reasoned eclectics) should provoke some comment on this list. 

At a meeting of the New Testament Textual Criticism section of the Society
of Biblical Literature at the recent annual meeting in San Francisco, this
critical edition of James was officially presented by the editors, and
several critiques/responses to the volume were offered.  Both the
presentations by the editors and the critiques offered in response to the
volume will appear shortly in TC 3. 

As always, members of this list, and others interested in textual
criticism, are invited to submit articles to me for possible inclusion in
TC.

Jimmy Adair
General Editor of TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism
-------------------> http://purl.org/TC <--------------------


From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu  Fri Jan  9 09:24:33 1998
Return-Path: <owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu>
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id JAA22376; Fri, 9 Jan 1998 09:24:33 -0500
X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com
Message-Id: <v03007802b0dbe06eeae4@[199.86.33.84]>
In-Reply-To: 
 <Pine.GSO.3.95.980108203557.20262A-100000@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 08:32:50 -0600
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
From: "Robert B. Waltz" <waltzmn@skypoint.com>
Subject: Re: tc-list J. K. Elliott review of ECM
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
content-length: 3769

On Thu, 8 Jan 199, "James R. Adair" <jadair@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu>
wrote:

>J. K. Elliott has written a review of the _Novum Testamentum Graecum
>Editio Critica Maior_, vol. IV, installment 1: _James_, edited by Barbara
>Aland, Kurt Aland, Klaus Wachtel, and Gerd Mink, the first review to
>appear in TC 3 (1998).  For those who don't know, Elliott is the leading
>proponent of the school of New Testament textual criticism known variously
>as rigorous or thoroughgoing eclecticism, so his comments on the volume
>(produced by reasoned eclectics) should provoke some comment on this list. 

A good prediction. :-)

I'm going to comment on some of Elliot's main points.

1. Elliot observes that there is no introduction to explain the
principles on which the text was determined. This is a fair criticism,
although the nature of the text and its editors allow us to make a
fair guess.

It should be remembered, though, that this is only the first volume.
One may hope we will see a better introduction once the volumes on
the Catholic Epistles are finished.

2. Elliot also observes that this supposedly new text is in fact
almost identical to the UBS/GNT/NA text. This, again, is a fair
criticism; for a text that is allegedly of high value, I would
like to see more differences from UBS. (At least the changes are
reasonable; I think ECM is correct in James 2:3, and a good case
can be made for the reading in 1:22.)

On the other hand, how important is the *text* of ECM? Does anyone
still consult the text of Tishchendorf or von Soden? For a volume
that is primarily a collection of variants, a critical text almost
does more harm than good; it can bias the reader. I think the IGNTP
policy of printing a non-critical text has merit (though I might
be tempted to print the reading found in the majority of manuscripts
cited, so as to reduce the size of the apparatus).

I am more concerned that Elliot goes off on a "tangent" to criticise
the letter ratings ({A}, {B}, {C}, {D}) used in the UBS edition. While
I agree with his thesis that these are not actual indicators of the
certainty of the text (in at least one case -- Jude 1 -- I personally
have adopted a reading the UBS committee rated {A}), they *are* useful
as an insight into the minds of the committee. This can be helpful
to us in making our own critical decisions. In any case, how is the
apparatus of UBS4 relevant to the ECM?

At the same time, Elliot praises the elimination of the square brackets
around doubtful readings. With this I generally agree; I think the
brackets are a bad way to indicate doubt. However, I think something
should be done to indicate where the editors think a variant has
equal or significant value. WH did this in the margin; ECM marks
such readings with a bullet. Despite what Elliot seems to think,
I consider this a valuable notation. (In fact, in my own work I go
even farther: One bullet indicates a variant with a significant
likelihood of being original; two bullets indicates a reading where
text and margin have effectively equal value.)

3. At no point does Elliot tell us anything about the apparatus
of the edition. His entire attention is devoted to the text. But
the text is the *least* important part of this edition to scholars.
What I want to know is, How useful is the apparatus? What manuscripts
are cited? What versions? What fathers, and with how much detail?
How easy is it to use the apparatus?

Sigh... Gripe mode off. :-)

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

                        Robert B. Waltz
                     waltzmn@skypoint.com

Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism?
Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn
(A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism)



From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu  Sun Jan 11 01:39:11 1998
Return-Path: <owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu>
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id BAA01024; Sun, 11 Jan 1998 01:39:11 -0500
Message-ID: <34B8F753.6B682287@beitberl.beitberl.ac.il>
Date: Sun, 11 Jan 1998 08:46:11 -0800
From: "Jonathan D. Safren" <yonsaf@beitberl.beitberl.ac.il>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win16; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ancient Near East Discussion Forum <ane@oi.uchicago.edu>,
        First Century Judaism Discussion Forum <ioudaios-l@Lehigh.EDU>,
        H-NET Jewish Studies List <H-JUDAIC@h-net.msu.edu>,
        History of the Ancient Mediterranean <ANCIEN-L@ULKYVM.LOUISVILLE.EDU>,
        Judaic Seminar <j-seminar@shamash.org>,
        "orion@mscc.huji.ac.il" <orion@mscc.huji.ac.il>,
        Textual Criticism Discussion Group <tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu>,
        b-hebrew@virginia.edu, miqra@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Subject: tc-list Mehqere Hag - Holiday Studies
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: 2193



In response to inquiries I have received about Mehqere Hag - Holiday
Studies, I would like to supply the following information for potential
contributors:

Mehqere Hag is devoted to all aspects of study of the Jewish Holidays.
Following are some, but not all of those fields in which articles have
been published:

1. Holidays and Festivals in the Biblical Period
2. Holidays and Festivals During Second Temple Times
3. Holidays and Festivals During the Period of the Mishna and
Talmud
4. Holidays and Festivals from the Middle Ages through the
Renaissance
5. Holidays and Festivals in Modern Times
6. Holidays During the Holocaust
7. Holiday Folklore and Folk Customs
8. Holidays in Literature, Drama, and Art
9. Holiday and Festival Liturgy
10. Jewish Holidays and Festivals in the Church

Articles are to be submitted to:

Dr. Yosef Roth-Rotem, Chief Editor
Mehqere Hag - holiday Studies
Center for Jewish Holiday Research
Beit Berl College
44905 Beit Berl Post Office
Israel
e-mail: intmoed@beitberl.ac.il

or to:

Dr. Shlomo Weissblueth, Editor
at the above address

or to me, at the address appearing below..

Articles may be submitted in either Hebrew or English,
but those written in Hebrew should include an English-language
 summary of not more than 200 words.
Articles should be typed in Word for Windows (PC) or other
PC-Word-compatible
word processor. In addition to two (2) copies of the typescript, please
include a 144 MB (3.5=94) diskette containing the text.

Articles submitted for publication are given to at least two readers for

evaluation, and authors receive
written notification of acceptance or rejection.
The editors reserve the right to make minor changes ( e. g., spelling,
grammar). In the case of major changes (content, etc.), the article is
returned to the author for corrections.
Authors of articles accepted for publication receive 3 copies of the
issue in which their article appears.

Last date for submission of articles to Vol. 10 is 30 April 1998.

Sincerely,
Jonathan D. Safren, English Editor
Mehqere Hag - Holiday Studies
Center for Jewish Holiday Studies
Beit Berl College
44905 Berl Post Office
Israel
e-mail: yonsaf@beitberl.beitberl.ac.il





From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu  Mon Jan 12 19:46:13 1998
Return-Path: <owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu>
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id TAA09078; Mon, 12 Jan 1998 19:46:13 -0500
From: "Vinton A. Dearing" <dearing@humnet.ucla.edu>
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 1998 16:53:49 PST
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: tc-list text criticism of Mark
X-Confirm-Reading-To: "Vinton A. Dearing" <dearing@humnet.ucla.edu>
X-pmrqc: 1
Priority: normal
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31)
Message-ID: <3177B182681@113hum4.humnet.ucla.edu>
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
content-length: 776

The November issue of Literary and Linguistic Computing (vol. 12, no. 
4) has two items of interest.
  1. "Measuring Genre Differences in Mark with Correspondence 
Analysis," by David Mealand. This seems mostly an exellent 
example of statistical analysis--all the data are given and the 
results are fully diagrammed--but I wonder whether it is enough to 
decide that a sample size which has "worked" for others is 
satisfactory for one's own work. Also, the statistical methods are 
simply named, never explained. 
  2. A review of Richard J. Finneran, ed., The Literary Text in the 
Digital Age, University of Michigan Press, 1996.
  If any listers or lurkers have explored the question of sample size 
I should be interested to know their opinions.
     Vinton A. Dearing

From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu  Mon Jan 12 19:55:25 1998
Return-Path: <owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu>
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id TAA09120; Mon, 12 Jan 1998 19:55:25 -0500
X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com
Message-Id: <v03007801b0e06ca4f876@[199.86.33.64]>
In-Reply-To: <3177B182681@113hum4.humnet.ucla.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 1998 19:04:29 -0600
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
From: "Robert B. Waltz" <waltzmn@skypoint.com>
Subject: Re: tc-list text criticism of Mark
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
content-length: 2277

On Mon, 12 Jan 1998, "Vinton A. Dearing" <dearing@humnet.ucla.edu> wrote:

>The November issue of Literary and Linguistic Computing (vol. 12, no. 
>4) has two items of interest.
>  1. "Measuring Genre Differences in Mark with Correspondence 
>Analysis," by David Mealand. This seems mostly an exellent 
>example of statistical analysis--all the data are given and the 
>results are fully diagrammed--but I wonder whether it is enough to 
>decide that a sample size which has "worked" for others is 
>satisfactory for one's own work. Also, the statistical methods are 
>simply named, never explained. 
>  2. A review of Richard J. Finneran, ed., The Literary Text in the 
>Digital Age, University of Michigan Press, 1996.
>  If any listers or lurkers have explored the question of sample size 
>I should be interested to know their opinions.

I can't say anything about the articles cited, since I haven't seen
them and don't recall ever seeing the journal.

But I have noticed a terrible tendency among TC professionals to use
inadequate sample sizes. (E.g. the Alands' "Thousand Readings" use
only three or four readings in some of the shorter Pauline Epistles.)

The sample size one needs depends on the nature of the data one
is trying to extract. But the Central Limit Theorem -- one of
the basic rules of statistics -- only applies when one uses "large"
numbers, which in practice means a minimum of thirty to fifty
meaningful points of data.

What this means for TCers is that if they want to determine the
affinities of two mixed manuscripts, they need to find at least
30 to 50 readings for which both manuscripts are unmixed (non-Byzantine).
Even for overall affinities, they need 30-50 readings. This
can render many results (e.g. the Alands' for the shorter books,
but also some methods such as the Claremont Profile Method)
invalid if they don't use enough text.

I hope I will be able to offer more information on this subject
at a future time.

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

                        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 Jan 16 10:51:15 1998
Return-Path: <owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu>
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id KAA28578; Fri, 16 Jan 1998 10:51:14 -0500
Message-ID: <34BF8402.7211B7F4@emory.edu>
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 11:00:02 -0500
From: Patrick Durusau <pdurusau@emory.edu>
Organization: Scholars Press
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Subject: tc-list Seminar on Biblical Language Texts
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
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: 3964

Greetings,

Please note that a mailing list has been formed for the SBL Seminar on
Electronic Standards for Biblical Language Texts. The creation of
critical texts from primary materials and the issues surrounding such
efforts are among those to be addressed by this seminar. The needs and
preferences of text critics in working with actual texts are important
to the creation of a usable end product by the seminar. Your comments,
interest and support are greatly appreciated.

Patrick
--
Patrick Durusau
Information Technology Services
Scholars Press
pdurusau@emory.edu
Co-Chair, SBL Seminar on Electronic Standards for Biblical Language
Texts

**********Biblical Language Standards Mailing List************

Announcing the Biblical Language Standards mailing list!

The Biblical Language Standards mailing list is a forum for discussion
of and announcements concerning the ongoing work of the SBL Seminar on
Electronic Standards for Biblical Language Texts. Biblical scholars,
publishers, librarians, archivists, researchers and software designers
need good computer tools for working with biblical langauges and texts.
This seminar is dedicated to solving problems such as interchange and
publication of materials containing biblical languages, creation of
electronic texts for analysis and archiving, and other problems
routinely faced by those working with biblical materials. The goals of
the seminar are to:

(1)  Create standards for electronic representation and interchange of
all types of documents in biblical and related studies. These standards
will include naming, description, and analysis.

(2)  Encourage the development of software implementing these standards.

(3)  Produce a set of sample documents and software developed as models
which are consistent with these standards.

(4)  Build a consensus for adoption of these standards.

(5)  Provide training in their use.

The Seminar is using the TEI Guidelines as the starting point for its
discussion of encoding biblical language texts with a view of modifying
or extending those guidelines as necessary.

Current Working Groups of the Seminar and their members include:

Critical apparatus: Jimmy Adair, jadair@emory.edu (chair), Winfried
Bader, bader@dbg.de, Lewis Barth, lbarth@mizar.usc.edu, Michael Bakker,
mbakker@let.uva.nl, Bruce Morrill, bruce@math.ksu.edu, Bernard Taylor,
taylorb@earthlink.net.

Dictionaries: Stephen Kaufman, skaufman@cn.huc.edu (Chair), Erik
Eynikel, e.eynikel@theo.kun.nl, Peter Burton,
burto009@maroon.tc.umn.edu, Dale Wheeler, dalemw@teleport.com, Richard
Whitaker, Richard.Whitaker@ptsem.edu.

Entity Sets and Writing System Declarations: Patrick Durusau,
pdurusau@emory.edu, Kirk Lowery, KirkLowery@xc.org.

Hebrew Syntax: Kirk Lowery, KirkLowery@xc.org, Dale Wheeler,
dalemw@teleport.com.

Imaging: Robert Kraft, kraft@ccat.sas.upenn.edu.

Practical Applications: Proposed group for short-term projects and
testing of proposed solutions from other working groups.

Participation in the work of the Seminar and its groups is open to
biblical scholars of all viewpoints, publishers and software developers.

New working groups will be formed to address additional issues as the
work of the Seminar progresses. Please contact either Patrick Durusau,
pdurusau@emory.edu, or Susan Hockey, Susan.Hockey@UAlberta.ca,
the co-chairs of the Seminar if you would like to formally participate
in the work of the Seminar.

Subscription to the list is open to any interested party but the list is

moderated. To subscribe send the following command to
majordomo@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu:

subscribe bls

The Seminar hopes to result in standards that will assist scholars,
publishers, librarians and archivists, software developers and anyone
else involved in biblical studies. Your support is appreciated.

Patrick

Patrick Durusau
Information Technology
Scholars Press
pdurusau@emory.edu
Co-Chair, SBL Seminar on Electronic Standards for Biblical Language
Texts





From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu  Tue Jan 20 16:52:50 1998
Return-Path: <owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu>
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id QAA18170; Tue, 20 Jan 1998 16:52:50 -0500
Message-Id: <199801202154.OAA24016@rtn>
From: "Francisco Orozco" <fran4@rtn.uson.mx>
To: "TC-List" <tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu>
Subject: tc-list TC-List - Phi 3.3
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 15:02:51 -0700
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: 1646

Hello,

In his comments on the variant found at Phi 3.3, Metzger notes that:
(1) The committee gave it a "C" rating.
(2) The translators of the NEB prefer the omission of QEOU and simply read
PNEUMATI (p46).
(3) The committee preferred the longer reading (with ample support from
all quarters).
(4) They explained the reading of p46 as accidental oversight.
(5) They explained the PNEUMATI QEWi of the corrector of Aleph, the
original hand of D, P, Psi, 88, et al) as an apparent "emendation
introduced in order to provide an object for LATREUOVTES (as in Rom 1.9
and 2 Tm 1.3)".

Questions:
(1) With such ample support, why a "C" rating?
(2) Is there any clear rational for the NEB preferred reading? Is it
because p46 is the only papyrus witnessing to this variant, and being the
chronological oldest witness deserves preference?
(3) What error (sight, hearing, etc) could explain p46's reading?
(4) The reading of the corrector of Aleph, the original of D, et al, is
explained as the result of wanting to supply an object to the participle,
the references noted do not seem to be *that* parallel, other than
"worship" and "God". The three participles strung along by Paul in Phi 3.3
(LATREUOVTES... KAUXWMEVOI... PEPOIQOTES) also have dative phrases (though
with the EV preposition). Is there another reason(s) apparent for the
reading QEWi?
(5) The phrase PNEUMATI QEOU also appears in Matt. 12:28; Rom. 8:14; 1 Co.
12:3 & 2 Co. 3:3. (true, PNEUMATI also appears 80+ times).

I would think that, with such strong external evidence, and internal too,
the rating should be an "A" or at least a "B".

Thanks,
Francisco Orozco
fran4@rtn.uson.mx


From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu  Tue Jan 20 17:37:45 1998
Return-Path: <owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu>
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id RAA18427; Tue, 20 Jan 1998 17:37:45 -0500
X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com
Message-Id: <v03007800b0ead68e937e@[199.86.33.104]>
In-Reply-To: <199801202154.OAA24016@rtn>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 16:43:46 -0600
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
From: "Robert B. Waltz" <waltzmn@skypoint.com>
Subject: Re: tc-list TC-List - Phi 3.3
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
content-length: 1925

On Tue, 20 Jan 1998, "Francisco Orozco" <fran4@rtn.uson.mx> wrote:

>Questions:
>(1) With such ample support, why a "C" rating?

I'm tempted to say, "How are *we* supposed to know why the UBS committee
made all the strange decisions they did. :-)

But I would note that the reading is a "B" in UBS4.

>(2) Is there any clear rational for the NEB preferred reading? Is it
>because p46 is the only papyrus witnessing to this variant, and being the
>chronological oldest witness deserves preference?

The explanation offered by Tasker (for the NEB committee) reads:

"pneumati, the reading of P46, was regarded as original on the
ground that it best explains the existence of the variants
pneumati Qew, cound in Aleph-corr D* P, the Latin versions, and Syr.
pesh. and hkl., and Pneumati Qeou, found in Aleph* A B C Dcorr G,
and Syr. hkl. (margin). Patristic evidence varies between Qew and
Qeou."

>(3) What error (sight, hearing, etc) could explain p46's reading?

There is no obvious explanation -- but there are many instances
of single words being dropped here and there in manuscripts. Many
would regard P46, with its unusual text, as particularly subject
to these sorts of errors.

[ ... ]

>I would think that, with such strong external evidence, and internal too,
>the rating should be an "A" or at least a "B".

I can't regard it as an "A." The reading "QEW" has the support of most
of the "Western" text (D a b d f vg Ambst; QEOU only F G g) and the
bulk of the late Alexandrian witnesses (P 075 1175 family 2127). I
consider QEW inferior, but not strongly inferior.

Of course, that's just me. :-)

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

                        Robert B. Waltz
                     waltzmn@skypoint.com

Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism?
Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn
(A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism)



From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu  Wed Jan 21 03:47:19 1998
Return-Path: <owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu>
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id DAA19709; Wed, 21 Jan 1998 03:47:18 -0500
Message-Id: <199801210849.BAA02355@rtn>
From: "Francisco Orozco" <fran4@rtn.uson.mx>
To: <tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu>
Subject: RE: tc-list TC-List - Phi 3.3
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 01:57:09 -0700
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: 812

Thanks Robert B. Waltz for replying to my queries,
	I was wondering if the TC-List was still alive. I would appreciate the
biblio for your source of Tasker's explanation as to the NEB reading(s).
Do you agree with their (committee's) explanation for the reading "QEW" ?
Since they clearly did not accept the p46 reading (though it is the
shorter, and maybe might give some better reasons for the rise of the
other readings, acc. to Tasker; it clearly has the weakest external
support), plus they also rejected the QEW reading (in spite of some of the
Western text, and late Alexandrian) it seemed to me that a "A" was
deserved (I confess that my allegiance has shifted from a
reasoned-eclecticism to the Byzantine camp).
But I would like to understand the possible reasons for the QEW reading.

Francisco Orozco

From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu  Wed Jan 21 09:57:39 1998
Return-Path: <owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu>
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id JAA21160; Wed, 21 Jan 1998 09:57:38 -0500
X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com
Message-Id: <v03007800b0ebb44c8717@[199.86.33.46]>
In-Reply-To: <199801210849.BAA02355@rtn>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 08:26:13 -0600
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
From: "Robert B. Waltz" <waltzmn@skypoint.com>
Subject: RE: tc-list TC-List - Phi 3.3
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
content-length: 2205

On Wed, 21 Jan 1998, "Francisco Orozco" <fran4@rtn.uson.mx> wrote:

>Thanks Robert B. Waltz for replying to my queries,
>	I was wondering if the TC-List was still alive. I would appreciate the
>biblio for your source of Tasker's explanation as to the NEB reading(s).
>Do you agree with their (committee's) explanation for the reading "QEW" ?
>Since they clearly did not accept the p46 reading (though it is the
>shorter, and maybe might give some better reasons for the rise of the
>other readings, acc. to Tasker; it clearly has the weakest external
>support), plus they also rejected the QEW reading (in spite of some of the
>Western text, and late Alexandrian) it seemed to me that a "A" was
>deserved (I confess that my allegiance has shifted from a
>reasoned-eclecticism to the Byzantine camp).
>But I would like to understand the possible reasons for the QEW reading.

I don't do internal evidence :-); I can't really answer that.

But it would do to remember that these two readings differ by *only
one letter* (recall that QEOS is one of the nomina sacra). Chances
are that the change (whatever its direction) was accidental, and then
the altered reading was perpetuated by scribes. Even the reading of
P46 might arisen when the scribe misread a correction as an erasure.
(This is purely speculation, and is only a faint possibility.)

As for this "clearly the weakest support" business, while we can
say that QEOU has the strongest support (I think everyone would agree
on that), we cannot really say whether QEW or omit is in second place.
QEW has many more supporting witnesses, but their character is far
poorer than P46.

Given that all of us use slightly different methods of criticism,
we will never reach absolute consensus on which readings are most
or least probable. But by the same token, don't expect the UBS
committee to accept your method of rating variants. :-)

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

                        Robert B. Waltz
                     waltzmn@skypoint.com

Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism?
Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn
(A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism)



From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu  Wed Jan 21 14:34:45 1998
Return-Path: <owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu>
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id OAA22910; Wed, 21 Jan 1998 14:34:44 -0500
Message-ID: <34C651D0.E73BB93E@ici.net>
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 14:51:45 -0500
From: "Michael S. Olszta" <msolszta@ici.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: textcritic <tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu>
Subject: tc-list Herman Hoskier
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: 1252

Hello,

I was wondering if anything like Herman Hoskier's work on the book of
Revelation has been done.  Hoskier collated every known Greek manuscript
of the Apocalypse up to 1918? (I think that's about right).  This to me
seems the correct approach to textual criticism, i.e., the collation of
all extant documents including manuscripts, versions, patristic
quotations, and lectionaries.  Why someone as intelligent as Kurt Aland
would simply discard thousands of manuscripts because they originate
later than 900A.D. seems absolutely ludicrous.  To simply throw out
9/10ths of the evidence as being worthless because it doesn't fit in
with what John William Burgon calls "the dream" of Westcott and Hort is
absurd.  The recension theory(ies) need to be proven if they are to be
accepted and if they are going to be proven, then the scholars ought to
put their money where their mouths are and do to all the books of the
New Testament what Hoskier did for the Apocalypse.  Perhaps I am wrong
and there are some scholars out there who in fact are doing what Hoskier
did, but I have to doubt it.  If complete collations have been done on
any book of the New Testament, I would be interested in knowing where
the results might be found.

Michael Olszta


From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu  Wed Jan 21 15:16:28 1998
Return-Path: <owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu>
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id PAA23257; Wed, 21 Jan 1998 15:16:28 -0500
X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com
Message-Id: <v03007800b0ec0659ba27@[199.86.33.72]>
In-Reply-To: <34C651D0.E73BB93E@ici.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 14:22:21 -0600
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
From: "Robert B. Waltz" <waltzmn@skypoint.com>
Subject: Re: tc-list Herman Hoskier
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
content-length: 3659

On Wed, 21 Jan 1998, "Michael S. Olszta" <msolszta@ici.net> wrote:

>Hello,
>
>I was wondering if anything like Herman Hoskier's work on the book of
>Revelation has been done.  Hoskier collated every known Greek manuscript
>of the Apocalypse up to 1918? (I think that's about right).  This to me
>seems the correct approach to textual criticism, i.e., the collation of
>all extant documents including manuscripts, versions, patristic
>quotations, and lectionaries.  Why someone as intelligent as Kurt Aland
>would simply discard thousands of manuscripts because they originate
>later than 900A.D. seems absolutely ludicrous.  To simply throw out
>9/10ths of the evidence as being worthless because it doesn't fit in
>with what John William Burgon calls "the dream" of Westcott and Hort is
>absurd.  The recension theory(ies) need to be proven if they are to be
>accepted and if they are going to be proven, then the scholars ought to
>put their money where their mouths are and do to all the books of the
>New Testament what Hoskier did for the Apocalypse.  Perhaps I am wrong
>and there are some scholars out there who in fact are doing what Hoskier
>did, but I have to doubt it.  If complete collations have been done on
>any book of the New Testament, I would be interested in knowing where
>the results might be found.

There are two very practical problems with this:

1. Doing the collations
2. Publishing the collations

Although #1 is now theoretically possible, due to the collections
at Munster, it is a very time-consuming process (to properly collate
even one manuscript takes dozens or hundreds of hours). The people
aren't available.

#2 is even worse. Can you imagine trying to publish the information
on 4000 gospel manuscripts and lectionaries in one volume? The sheer
bulk of the IGNTP volumes on Luke (which contain much less than 1/10 of
that amount of data) should demonstrate the near-impossibility of
the concept. Remember that to make this data available in one place
requires that it be collated, edited, typeset, proofread, etc. It's
all very well to say "Hoskier did it" -- but he did it for the
shortest of the four major sections of the NT, and the one with
the fewest manuscripts and versions -- and he did it many decades
ago, when the number of manuscripts was smaller.

The approach taken by most modern editions -- of taking representative
manuscripts and collating them in detail -- is much better, as long
as we know which manuscripts to choose. And here there are at least
two important tools: The Thousand Readings (Text und Textwert) of
Kurt Aland and the work of Wisse et al on the Claremont Profile
Method. I have severe reservations about both methods -- but both
are adequate to identify Byzantine manuscripts, and (in the case of
the CPM) even to find subgroups within the Byzantine tradition.
But at least both are (nearly) comprehensive; they survey in excess
of 80% of the known manuscripts. These (very different) sampling
methods make it possible to represent (almost) the whole tradition
with a much smaller and more manageable set of manuscripts. This
is the approach followed by the IGNTP, and I believe also in the
Munster edition of the Catholic Epistles.

Compromise is never fun. But it's better to go with a representative
set of manuscripts than not to publish anything at all. :-)

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

                        Robert B. Waltz
                     waltzmn@skypoint.com

Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism?
Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn
(A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism)



From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu  Wed Jan 21 15:17:39 1998
Return-Path: <owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu>
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id PAA23283; Wed, 21 Jan 1998 15:17:39 -0500
X-Sender: schmid@ns1.nias.knaw.nl
Message-Id: <v01510100b0ec14061ace@[192.87.136.214]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 22:24:27 +0100
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
From: schmiul@nias.knaw.nl (U. Schmid)
Subject: Re: tc-list Herman Hoskier
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
content-length: 1518

On Wed, 21 Jan 1998, Michael Olszta wrote in part:

>Hello,
>
>I was wondering if anything like Herman Hoskier's work on the book of
>Revelation has been done.  Hoskier collated every known Greek manuscript
>of the Apocalypse up to 1918? (I think that's about right).  This to me
>seems the correct approach to textual criticism, i.e., the collation of
>all extant documents including manuscripts, versions, patristic
>quotations, and lectionaries.  Why someone as intelligent as Kurt Aland
>would simply discard thousands of manuscripts because they originate
>later than 900A.D. seems absolutely ludicrous.  To simply throw out
>9/10ths of the evidence as being worthless because it doesn't fit in
>with what John William Burgon calls "the dream" of Westcott and Hort is
>absurd.
[snip]

To me it is really hilarious to charge Kurt Aland of discarding "thousands
of manuscripts". He is in fact the only scholar of the second half of the
20th century (do not forget von Soden for the beginning of the century) to
*collect* (microfilms of) thousands of manuscripts. At the Muenster
Institute there is practically 95% of the known Greek manuscript evidence
available. Again, more than 90% of it originated later than 900 AD. Why for
heaven's sake can someone even think Aland would simply discard them? Why
should he have made all the efforts to collect them?

Ulrich Schmid

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Netherlands Institute for Advanced Study
schmiul@nias.knaw.nl



From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu  Wed Jan 21 15:40:37 1998
Return-Path: <owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu>
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id PAA23559; Wed, 21 Jan 1998 15:40:37 -0500
From: dwashbur@nyx.net
Message-Id: <199801212047.NAA04261@smtp.northlink.com>
Comments: Authenticated sender is <dwashbur@pop.nyx.net>
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 13:45:13 -7000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: Re: tc-list Herman Hoskier
Priority: normal
In-reply-to: <v01510100b0ec14061ace@[192.87.136.214]>
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.54)
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
content-length: 2116

Ulrich wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Jan 1998, Michael Olszta wrote in part:
> 
> >Hello,
> >
> >I was wondering if anything like Herman Hoskier's work on the book of
> >Revelation has been done.  Hoskier collated every known Greek manuscript
> >of the Apocalypse up to 1918? (I think that's about right).  This to me
> >seems the correct approach to textual criticism, i.e., the collation of
> >all extant documents including manuscripts, versions, patristic
> >quotations, and lectionaries.  Why someone as intelligent as Kurt Aland
> >would simply discard thousands of manuscripts because they originate
> >later than 900A.D. seems absolutely ludicrous.  To simply throw out
> >9/10ths of the evidence as being worthless because it doesn't fit in
> >with what John William Burgon calls "the dream" of Westcott and Hort is
> >absurd.
> [snip]
> 
> To me it is really hilarious to charge Kurt Aland of discarding "thousands
> of manuscripts". He is in fact the only scholar of the second half of the
> 20th century (do not forget von Soden for the beginning of the century) to
> *collect* (microfilms of) thousands of manuscripts. At the Muenster
> Institute there is practically 95% of the known Greek manuscript evidence
> available. Again, more than 90% of it originated later than 900 AD. Why for
> heaven's sake can someone even think Aland would simply discard them? Why
> should he have made all the efforts to collect them?

While I also disagree with Mr. Olszta's evaluation of what is going 
on (especially the Westcott-Hort part), I don't think that by 
"discard" he meant to suggest that Aland was literally throwing them 
in the trash.  I am virtually certain that he meant Aland simply 
ignored these mss. for purposes of TC.  Aland's work of collecting 
them for the Institut actually had little or nothing to do with 
efforts to reconstruct the earliest form of the NT text, as he 
dismissed the Byzantines as insignificant for the task.  I don't 
doubt that this is what Mr. O meant by "discard."
Dave Washburn
dwashbur@nyx.net
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur/
If you don't know where you're going, don't lead.

From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu  Wed Jan 21 16:45:24 1998
Return-Path: <owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu>
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id QAA23973; Wed, 21 Jan 1998 16:45:24 -0500
Message-ID: <34C67073.3FAED5CC@ici.net>
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 17:02:27 -0500
From: "Michael S. Olszta" <msolszta@ici.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Subject: Re: tc-list Herman Hoskier
References: <199801212047.NAA04261@smtp.northlink.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
content-length: 4253



dwashbur@nyx.net wrote:

> Ulrich wrote:
> > On Wed, 21 Jan 1998, Michael Olszta wrote in part:
> >
> > >Hello,
> > >
> > >I was wondering if anything like Herman Hoskier's work on the book of
> > >Revelation has been done.  Hoskier collated every known Greek manuscript
> > >of the Apocalypse up to 1918? (I think that's about right).  This to me
> > >seems the correct approach to textual criticism, i.e., the collation of
> > >all extant documents including manuscripts, versions, patristic
> > >quotations, and lectionaries.  Why someone as intelligent as Kurt Aland
> > >would simply discard thousands of manuscripts because they originate
> > >later than 900A.D. seems absolutely ludicrous.  To simply throw out
> > >9/10ths of the evidence as being worthless because it doesn't fit in
> > >with what John William Burgon calls "the dream" of Westcott and Hort is
> > >absurd.
> > [snip]
> >
> > To me it is really hilarious to charge Kurt Aland of discarding "thousands
> > of manuscripts". He is in fact the only scholar of the second half of the
> > 20th century (do not forget von Soden for the beginning of the century) to
> > *collect* (microfilms of) thousands of manuscripts. At the Muenster
> > Institute there is practically 95% of the known Greek manuscript evidence
> > available. Again, more than 90% of it originated later than 900 AD. Why for
> > heaven's sake can someone even think Aland would simply discard them? Why
> > should he have made all the efforts to collect them?
>
> While I also disagree with Mr. Olszta's evaluation of what is going
> on (especially the Westcott-Hort part), I don't think that by
> "discard" he meant to suggest that Aland was literally throwing them
> in the trash.  I am virtually certain that he meant Aland simply
> ignored these mss. for purposes of TC.  Aland's work of collecting
> them for the Institut actually had little or nothing to do with
> efforts to reconstruct the earliest form of the NT text, as he
> dismissed the Byzantines as insignificant for the task.  I don't
> doubt that this is what Mr. O meant by "discard."
> Dave Washburn
>

Hello again,

Thank you David for clarifying my ambiguity.  Aland writes regarding the
miniscules exhibiting a purely or predominantly Byzantine text:

"They are irrelevant for textual criticicism, at least for establishing the
original form of the text and its development in the early centuries.  Admittedly
no adequate history has yet been written of the Byzantine text - a text which is
in no sense a monolithic mass because its manuscripts share the same range of
variation characteristic of all Greek New Testament manuscripts.  But this is a
task we may well leave to a future generation ... and consider our own generation
fortunate if we can succeed in tracing the history of manuscripts with
non-Byzantine texts ... Once this has been done the way will be clear for a
better appreciation of the Byzantine text, for from the fourth century it began
to exercise its influence on the other text types.  In fact, the "Majority text"
... may yet prove to hold a multiple significance for the history of the text."
The Text of the New Testament, Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, Page 155.

Aland says:

"They are irrelevant for textual criticism..."

 Then he says:

"Admittedly no adequate history has yet been written of the Byzantine text ..."

He then goes on to say:

"from the fourth century it began to exercise its influence on the other text
types."

Hmm.  They're irrelevent, but we don't know their history .  But we do know that
their influence on the other text types from the 4th century downward is quite
dominating.  Just based on these statements, I would think that such a text form
would gain the confidence of those studying the subject.  In fact, readings from
the so called "Byzantine" text type find themselves in documents (manuscripts,
patristic citations, versions) of the 4th, 3rd, and 2nd centuries, do they not?
If that's the case, is it not possible that complete "Byzantine" manuscripts were
being used during those centuries but, because of persecution and/or the scribe
destroying the manuscript he was copying from, we have no complete
representations of this text extant from that time?

Michael Olszta



From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu  Wed Jan 21 16:57:31 1998
Return-Path: <owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu>
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id QAA24080; Wed, 21 Jan 1998 16:57:30 -0500
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 13:56:41 -0600
Subject: Re: tc-list Herman Hoskier
Message-ID: <19980121.135654.8974.1.jeffcate@juno.com>
References: <34C651D0.E73BB93E@ici.net>
X-Mailer: Juno 1.38
X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-31,40-45
From: jeffcate@juno.com (James J. Cate)
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
content-length: 1997

>Hello,
>
>I was wondering if anything like Herman Hoskier's work on the book of
>Revelation has been done.  Hoskier collated every known Greek 
>manuscript
>of the Apocalypse up to 1918? (I think that's about right).  This to 
>me
>seems the correct approach to textual criticism, i.e., the collation 
>of
>all extant documents including manuscripts, versions, patristic
>quotations, and lectionaries.  Why someone as intelligent as Kurt 
>Aland
>would simply discard thousands of manuscripts because they originate
>later than 900A.D. seems absolutely ludicrous.  To simply throw out
>9/10ths of the evidence as being worthless because it doesn't fit in
>with what John William Burgon calls "the dream" of Westcott and Hort 
>is
>absurd.  The recension theory(ies) need to be proven if they are to be
>accepted and if they are going to be proven, then the scholars ought 
>to
>put their money where their mouths are and do to all the books of the
>New Testament what Hoskier did for the Apocalypse.  Perhaps I am wrong
>and there are some scholars out there who in fact are doing what 
>Hoskier
>did, but I have to doubt it.  If complete collations have been done on
>any book of the New Testament, I would be interested in knowing where
>the results might be found.
>
>Michael Olszta
>
>

Hoskier *only* had to work through 260 mss (usually with about 10
lacunose) in 404 verses of text and still wound up with 600+ pages of
work (not to mention the first volume of the work which commented on the
findings according to mss groupings). BTW, it was 1929 when his work was
published. In light of the embarrassment of riches of having 5400+ Greek
NT mss, working with the earlier mss seems to be the only logistical
option for the time being. How can someone such as Aland who devoted an
entire life to the meticulous, laborious analysis of hundreds and
hundreds of mss be ridiculed for emphasizing the earlier ones?

Jeff Cate, Ph.D.
Assoc. Prof. of Christian Studies
California Baptist College


From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu  Wed Jan 21 17:22:11 1998
Return-Path: <owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu>
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id RAA24262; Wed, 21 Jan 1998 17:22:11 -0500
From: "Mark and Wendy Proctor" <proctor@icct.net>
To: "Textual Criticism Discussion Group" <tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu>
Subject: tc-list Lectionary 866
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 16:23:40 -0600
Message-ID: <01bd26bb$3c108f60$ea72ebcf@wendy-proctor>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0016_01BD2688.F1761F60"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
content-length: 1899

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0016_01BD2688.F1761F60
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I need a little help locating a critical edition of lectionary 866.  =
Does anyone know if there is a critical edition of this lectionary =
available?  In particular, I'm looking for this lectionary's readings =
for Mark 1:40-45; Matt 8:1-4; and Luke 5:12-16.  I would greatly =
appreciate any help any of you could provide me with.  If you know of an =
edition of this text, please include as much bibliographical data as =
possible so as to assist me in locating it.

Sincerely,

Mark Proctor

------=_NextPart_000_0016_01BD2688.F1761F60
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>

<META content=3Dtext/html;charset=3Diso-8859-1 =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D'"MSHTML 4.71.1712.3"' name=3DGENERATOR>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>I need a little help locating a =
critical edition=20
of lectionary 866.&nbsp; Does anyone know if there is a critical edition =
of this=20
lectionary available?&nbsp; In particular, I'm looking for this =
lectionary's=20
readings for Mark 1:40-45; Matt 8:1-4; and Luke 5:12-16.&nbsp; I would =
greatly=20
appreciate any help any of you could provide me with.&nbsp; If you know =
of an=20
edition of this text, please include as much bibliographical data as =
possible so=20
as to assist me in locating it.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>Sincerely,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>Mark =
Proctor</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_0016_01BD2688.F1761F60--


From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu  Wed Jan 21 17:54:08 1998
Return-Path: <owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu>
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id RAA24548; Wed, 21 Jan 1998 17:54:08 -0500
X-Sender: schmid@ns1.nias.knaw.nl
Message-Id: <v01510101b0ec2420e34b@[192.87.136.214]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 01:00:55 +0100
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
From: schmiul@nias.knaw.nl (U. Schmid)
Subject: Re: tc-list Herman Hoskier
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
content-length: 4229

On Wed, 21 Jan 1998, Dave Washburn wrote:

>Ulrich wrote:
>> On Wed, 21 Jan 1998, Michael Olszta wrote in part:
>>
>> >Hello,
>> >
>> >I was wondering if anything like Herman Hoskier's work on the book of
>> >Revelation has been done.  Hoskier collated every known Greek manuscript
>> >of the Apocalypse up to 1918? (I think that's about right).  This to me
>> >seems the correct approach to textual criticism, i.e., the collation of
>> >all extant documents including manuscripts, versions, patristic
>> >quotations, and lectionaries.  Why someone as intelligent as Kurt Aland
>> >would simply discard thousands of manuscripts because they originate
>> >later than 900A.D. seems absolutely ludicrous.  To simply throw out
>> >9/10ths of the evidence as being worthless because it doesn't fit in
>> >with what John William Burgon calls "the dream" of Westcott and Hort is
>> >absurd.
>> [snip]
>>
>> To me it is really hilarious to charge Kurt Aland of discarding "thousands
>> of manuscripts". He is in fact the only scholar of the second half of the
>> 20th century (do not forget von Soden for the beginning of the century) to
>> *collect* (microfilms of) thousands of manuscripts. At the Muenster
>> Institute there is practically 95% of the known Greek manuscript evidence
>> available. Again, more than 90% of it originated later than 900 AD. Why for
>> heaven's sake can someone even think Aland would simply discard them? Why
>> should he have made all the efforts to collect them?
>
>While I also disagree with Mr. Olszta's evaluation of what is going
>on (especially the Westcott-Hort part), I don't think that by
>"discard" he meant to suggest that Aland was literally throwing them
>in the trash.  I am virtually certain that he meant Aland simply
>ignored these mss. for purposes of TC.  Aland's work of collecting
>them for the Institut actually had little or nothing to do with
>efforts to reconstruct the earliest form of the NT text, as he
>dismissed the Byzantines as insignificant for the task.  I don't
>doubt that this is what Mr. O meant by "discard."

Dave, I think you are tackling a different issue. My understanding of Mr.
O's argument is whether someone (e.g. Aland) is willing to *gather*, *look
at*, and *present _all_ the evidence* available or not (see the example of
Hoskier). This is exactly what Aland planned to do. As Bob Waltz already
pointed out, there is a huge amount of data involved - even when only
dealing with test passages - which is very time consuming to collate,
check, etc. Moreover, one may, of course, dislike the samples chosen. But
Aland, at least, tried to have spot collations done from every Ms available
(see Text und Textwert). Whether the gathered information weakened or
reinforced his initial presuppositions is not at stake.
BTW- The *editio critica maior* for James (respectively the Catholic
Epistles) gives full collation of 181 Greek continuous text MSS out of a
total of 552 MSS available (all spot checked) plus 20 lectionary MSS out of
a total of some 400 MSS (all checked at 20 verses of James) including the
state of the art for the Latin, Coptic, and Syriac versions as well as the
Patristic testimonies. Moreover, scholars can easily and rightly disagree
on the reconstructed text, but this is a matter of theory and different
weighing of the evidence. However, never there has been so much evidence
(full collations!) available for James. Since the remaining continuous text
and lectionary MSS - not included, but all checked - agree more than 90% of
the times with the majority of all MSS at the test passages, it is hard to
imagine what they might contribute in essence to our knowledge of the
earlier history of the text. If someone prefers the Byzantine text, well
it's present in the edition with 97 more or less Byzantine Mss, among them,
of course, the oldest ones. Noone is forced to accept Aland's theoretical
views and noone must worship a reconstructed text, but, on the other hand,
noone should ignore the material Aland and the Institut gathered for all
sorts of dissenting views.

Ulrich Schmid


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Netherlands Institute for Advanced Study
schmiul@nias.knaw.nl



From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu  Wed Jan 21 18:02:50 1998
Return-Path: <owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu>
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id SAA24627; Wed, 21 Jan 1998 18:02:50 -0500
X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com
Message-Id: <v03007800b0ec2c24253c@[199.86.40.85]>
In-Reply-To: <34C67073.3FAED5CC@ici.net>
References: <199801212047.NAA04261@smtp.northlink.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 17:08:36 -0600
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
From: "Robert B. Waltz" <waltzmn@skypoint.com>
Subject: Re: tc-list Herman Hoskier
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
content-length: 4024

At this point, I think it fair to ask Dr./Mr. Olszta to clarify
his position. Is he a supporter of the Byzantine/Majority text?
Or an enquirer? It makes a difference in how we answer.

But let's continue with the response.

On Wed, 21 Jan 1998, "Michael S. Olszta" <msolszta@ici.net> wrote:

>Aland says:
>
>"They [the Byzantine minuscules] are irrelevant for textual criticism..."
>
> Then he says:
>
>"Admittedly no adequate history has yet been written of the Byzantine text ..."

Let me state firmly that I believe in the importance of the Byzantine text.
It is my opinion that the greatest single need of current NT criticism is
a good critical edition of the Byzantine text. This would go far toward
writing the history of the text as well.

But even so, I agree (by and large) with Aland. The late Byzantine minuscules,
as opposed to the Byzantine text, have *no importance.* There are, I believe,
in excess of 2,000 Byzantine minuscules of the Gospels. We don't need that
many. A representative set will suffice. Trying to slog through all that
data, with all the trivial variations it contains, can have only one effect:
To prevent us from engaging in real work.

A good critical edition will include a large number of Byzantine manuscripts
(more, e.g., than are found in the NA or UBS editions). But to include them
in proportion to their numbers is silly.

>He then goes on to say:
>
>"from the fourth century it began to exercise its influence on the other text
>types."
>
>Hmm.  They're irrelevent, but we don't know their history .  But we do know that
>their influence on the other text types from the 4th century downward is quite
>dominating.

This is true enough, but I don't see that it's relevant. If they have no influence
prior to that time, they *are* irrelevant prior to that time.

>Just based on these statements, I would think that such a text form
>would gain the confidence of those studying the subject.

This is false logic. Consider a historical analogy: In the twentieth century,
the Democratic party has generally been the majority party in America. Does
this mean that it has always been the majority party, or was the original
party in America? Hardly! The Democratic party was not even founded until
the time of Andrew Jackson, more than fifty years after the American War of
Independence.

Or consider that, in 1600, the vast majority of the world's population regarded
the sun as going around the earth. Does that mean they were right?

The fact that the Majority Text is the majority says nothing about its originality.
It may be original; it may not. But the mere fact that it is the majority text-type
is completely irrelevant.

>In fact, readings from
>the so called "Byzantine" text type find themselves in documents (manuscripts,
>patristic citations, versions) of the 4th, 3rd, and 2nd centuries, do they not?
>If that's the case, is it not possible that complete "Byzantine" manuscripts were
>being used during those centuries but, because of persecution and/or the scribe
>destroying the manuscript he was copying from, we have no complete
>representations of this text extant from that time?

Of course it is possible. So what?

The arguments you are using have been used before (particularly by Sturz).
But the existence of Byzantine readings is not evidence. In more instances
than not, if you count all variants in the NT tradition, the Byzantine
reading is original. We should expect it to be found in other types.

Thus to claim that the Byzantine text is older than its earliest commonly
accepted witnesses, you must find a text which consistently displays the
readings of the type. So far, none have been presented which predate the
fourth century.

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

                        Robert B. Waltz
                     waltzmn@skypoint.com

Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism?
Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn
(A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism)



From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu  Wed Jan 21 18:42:45 1998
Return-Path: <owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu>
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id SAA24776; Wed, 21 Jan 1998 18:42:45 -0500
Date: 	Wed, 21 Jan 1998 15:47:29 -0500 (EST)
From: Bart Ehrman <behrman@email.unc.edu>
X-Sender: behrman@login4.isis.unc.edu
To: textcritic <tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu>
Subject: Re: tc-list Herman Hoskier
In-Reply-To: <34C651D0.E73BB93E@ici.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.A41.3.95L.980121154221.108454J-100000@login4.isis.unc.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: 2324

   I should point out that Aland did not simply discard all manuscripts
that dated after the year 900 CE.  The methods used by the Institut for
determining which manuscripts are the most useful can be found in the
intro by Aland and Aland, _Text of the NT_, and in the article by Barbara
Aland and Klaus Wachtel on the "Greek Minuscule MSS of the NT" in the
volume Mike Holmes and I edited, _The NT in Contemporary Research: Essays
on the Status Quaestionis" (and in several other publications from the
Institut).

   I myself am not completely comfortable with the methods used by the
Institut (for reasons I spell out in an article called "A Case of Textual
Circularity: The Alands on the Classification of NT MSS" _Biblical_ 70
[1989] 377-88); but I think it goes much too far to say that they simply
discard late manuscripts without bothering to consider them (since in fact
they don't do this at all!). 

-- Bart D. Ehrman, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill


On Wed, 21 Jan 1998, Michael S. Olszta wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> I was wondering if anything like Herman Hoskier's work on the book of
> Revelation has been done.  Hoskier collated every known Greek manuscript
> of the Apocalypse up to 1918? (I think that's about right).  This to me
> seems the correct approach to textual criticism, i.e., the collation of
> all extant documents including manuscripts, versions, patristic
> quotations, and lectionaries.  Why someone as intelligent as Kurt Aland
> would simply discard thousands of manuscripts because they originate
> later than 900A.D. seems absolutely ludicrous.  To simply throw out
> 9/10ths of the evidence as being worthless because it doesn't fit in
> with what John William Burgon calls "the dream" of Westcott and Hort is
> absurd.  The recension theory(ies) need to be proven if they are to be
> accepted and if they are going to be proven, then the scholars ought to
> put their money where their mouths are and do to all the books of the
> New Testament what Hoskier did for the Apocalypse.  Perhaps I am wrong
> and there are some scholars out there who in fact are doing what Hoskier
> did, but I have to doubt it.  If complete collations have been done on
> any book of the New Testament, I would be interested in knowing where
> the results might be found.
> 
> Michael Olszta
> 
> 


From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu  Wed Jan 21 20:21:59 1998
Return-Path: <owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu>
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id UAA24996; Wed, 21 Jan 1998 20:21:59 -0500
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 20:26:20 -0500
From: Jim West <jwest@Highland.Net>
Subject: Re: tc-list Lectionary 866
X-Sender: jwest@highland.net (Unverified)
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Message-id: <1.5.4.32.19980122012620.0066fbcc@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: 918

At 04:23 PM 1/21/98 -0600, you wrote:
>I need a little help locating a critical edition of lectionary 866.  Does
anyone know if there is a critical edition of this lectionary available?  In
particular, I'm looking for this lectionary's readings for Mark 1:40-45;
Matt 8:1-4; and Luke 5:12-16.  I would greatly appreciate any help any of
you could provide me with.  If you know of an edition of this text, please
include as much bibliographical data as possible so as to assist me in
locating it.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Mark Proctor
>

I think your best bet would be to contact the Ancient Biblical Manuscript
Center in Claremont, CA.  I am away from my office and cannot give the email
address now- but someone surely has it.  If not, I will send it along in the
morning.


Best,

Jim

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Jim West, ThD
Adjunct Professor of Bible
Quartz Hill School of Theology

jwest@highland.net


From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu  Wed Jan 21 20:26:19 1998
Return-Path: <owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu>
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id UAA25043; Wed, 21 Jan 1998 20:26:18 -0500
X-Authentication-Warning: klingon.upnaway.com: dials033.upnaway.com [202.61.255.100] didn't use HELO protocol
Message-ID: <34C7843B.1A49@upnaway.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 09:39:08 -0800
From: "Mark O'Brien" <markus@upnaway.com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Subject: Re: tc-list Herman Hoskier
References: <199801212047.NAA04261@smtp.northlink.com> <v03007800b0ec2c24253c@[199.86.40.85]>
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: 707

Robert B. Waltz wrote:
> 
> At this point, I think it fair to ask Dr./Mr. Olszta to clarify
> his position. Is he a supporter of the Byzantine/Majority text?
> Or an enquirer? It makes a difference in how we answer.

Why does this make a difference?  Surely there is a good reply to his
question (or a bad one, I guess!), irrespective of Mr. Olszta's
position?  I think he raises some good questions regarding the Alands'
treatment of the Byzantine tradition, regardless of whatever position
you take at all.

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  Wed Jan 21 20:38:59 1998
Return-Path: <owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu>
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id UAA25109; Wed, 21 Jan 1998 20:38:59 -0500
X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com
Message-Id: <v03007800b0ec542d593f@[199.86.40.75]>
In-Reply-To: <34C7843B.1A49@upnaway.com>
References: <199801212047.NAA04261@smtp.northlink.com>
 <v03007800b0ec2c24253c@[199.86.40.85]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 19:45:27 -0600
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
From: "Robert B. Waltz" <waltzmn@skypoint.com>
Subject: Re: tc-list Herman Hoskier
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
content-length: 1382

On Thu, 22 Jan 1998, "Mark O'Brien" <markus@upnaway.com> wrote:

>Robert B. Waltz wrote:
>> 
>> At this point, I think it fair to ask Dr./Mr. Olszta to clarify
>> his position. Is he a supporter of the Byzantine/Majority text?
>> Or an enquirer? It makes a difference in how we answer.
>
>Why does this make a difference?  Surely there is a good reply to his
>question (or a bad one, I guess!), irrespective of Mr. Olszta's
>position?  I think he raises some good questions regarding the Alands'
>treatment of the Byzantine tradition, regardless of whatever position
>you take at all.

It makes an answer in the sense that it decides whether there is any
point in arguing. :-) If this is a faith issue, or raised just to trouble
the list (which is possible), then I don't want to fan the flames.

The answer to the question, of course, has already been given: No
matter what one's opinion of the Byzantine tradition (and many are
possible), the bulk of the Byzantine manuscripts is too large for
anyone to deal with in its entirety. We have to deal with samples.

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

                        Robert B. Waltz
                     waltzmn@skypoint.com

Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism?
Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn
(A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism)



From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu  Wed Jan 21 21:00:15 1998
Return-Path: <owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu>
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id VAA25203; Wed, 21 Jan 1998 21:00:14 -0500
Message-Id: <3.0.1.16.19980122101302.3e072632@upnaway.com>
X-Sender: markus@upnaway.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (16)
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 10:13:02
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
From: "Mark O'Brien" <markus@upnaway.com>
Subject: Re: tc-list Herman Hoskier
In-Reply-To: <v03007800b0ec542d593f@[199.86.40.75]>
References: <34C7843B.1A49@upnaway.com>
 <199801212047.NAA04261@smtp.northlink.com>
 <v03007800b0ec2c24253c@[199.86.40.85]>
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: 1599

At 07:45 PM 1/21/98 -0600, you wrote:
>On Thu, 22 Jan 1998, "Mark O'Brien" <markus@upnaway.com> wrote:
>
>>Robert B. Waltz wrote:
>>> 
>>> At this point, I think it fair to ask Dr./Mr. Olszta to clarify
>>> his position. Is he a supporter of the Byzantine/Majority text?
>>> Or an enquirer? It makes a difference in how we answer.
>>
>>Why does this make a difference?  Surely there is a good reply to his
>>question (or a bad one, I guess!), irrespective of Mr. Olszta's
>>position?  I think he raises some good questions regarding the Alands'
>>treatment of the Byzantine tradition, regardless of whatever position
>>you take at all.
>
>It makes an answer in the sense that it decides whether there is any
>point in arguing. :-) If this is a faith issue, or raised just to trouble
>the list (which is possible), then I don't want to fan the flames.
>
>The answer to the question, of course, has already been given: No
>matter what one's opinion of the Byzantine tradition (and many are
>possible), the bulk of the Byzantine manuscripts is too large for
>anyone to deal with in its entirety. We have to deal with samples.

Agreed.  And, of course, the Byzantine tradition is basically irrelevant,
so waste your time, eh?  <G>

M.

-----
"When we consider a book, we mustn't ask ourselves what it says but what it
means."
                -- Brother William of Baskerville
                        (Umberto Eco, "The Name of the Rose")
-----
Rev. Mark B. O'Brien
Assoc. Pastor, Subiaco Church of Christ, Western Australia
Lecturer, South Perth Christian College, Western Australia

markus@upnaway.com

From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu  Wed Jan 21 21:30:28 1998
Return-Path: <owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu>
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id VAA25303; Wed, 21 Jan 1998 21:30:28 -0500
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 21:33:29 -0500
From: Jim West <jwest@Highland.Net>
Subject: tc-list lectionary ms
X-Sender: jwest@highland.net (Unverified)
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Message-id: <1.5.4.32.19980122023329.00663148@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: 428

The email address of the ABMC is ABMC@cgs.edu.  Their catalogue does not
list the lectionary you want- but they are constantly adding material and
may have it.

You may also contact them at:

Ancient Biblical Manuscript Center
1325 N. College Ave
PO Box 670
Claremont CA 91711

best,

Jim

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Jim West, ThD
Adjunct Professor of Bible
Quartz Hill School of Theology

jwest@highland.net


From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu  Wed Jan 21 21:32:22 1998
Return-Path: <owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu>
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id VAA25330; Wed, 21 Jan 1998 21:32:22 -0500
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 21:35:15 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199801220235.VAA00040@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: Re: tc-list Lectionary 866
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
content-length: 933


>I think your best bet would be to contact the Ancient Biblical Manuscript
>Center in Claremont, CA.  I am away from my office and cannot give the email
>address now- but someone surely has it.  If not, I will send it along in the
>morning.
>
>
>Best,
>
>Jim
>
>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>Jim West, ThD
>Adjunct Professor of Bible
>Quartz Hill School of Theology
>
>jwest@highland.net
>
Lectionary 866 is listed in the 1992 edition of the 2.0 edition of the
_Ancient Biblical Manuscript Center_ in Claremont. email: abmc@cgs.edu.


______________________________________________________________

  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 Jan 21 21:40:04 1998
Return-Path: <owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu>
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id VAA25415; Wed, 21 Jan 1998 21:40:03 -0500
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 21:42:25 -0500
From: Jim West <jwest@Highland.Net>
Subject: Re: tc-list Lectionary 866
X-Sender: jwest@highland.net
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Message-id: <1.5.4.32.19980122024225.006780ec@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: 478

At 09:35 PM 1/21/98 -0500, you wrote:

>Lectionary 866 is listed in the 1992 edition of the 2.0 edition of the
>_Ancient Biblical Manuscript Center_ in Claremont. email: abmc@cgs.edu.
>
>

I have that edition, am looking at p. 66 (where the lectionaries are listed)
and do not see it.  Could you please give the page number?

Thanks.

Jim

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Jim West, ThD
Adjunct Professor of Bible
Quartz Hill School of Theology

jwest@highland.net


From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu  Wed Jan 21 22:00:36 1998
Return-Path: <owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu>
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id WAA25563; Wed, 21 Jan 1998 22:00:36 -0500
X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com
Message-Id: <v03007800b0ec6795bd99@[199.86.33.61]>
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.16.19980122101302.3e072632@upnaway.com>
References: <v03007800b0ec542d593f@[199.86.40.75]>
 <34C7843B.1A49@upnaway.com> <199801212047.NAA04261@smtp.northlink.com>
 <v03007800b0ec2c24253c@[199.86.40.85]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 21:06:39 -0600
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
From: "Robert B. Waltz" <waltzmn@skypoint.com>
Subject: Re: tc-list Herman Hoskier
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
content-length: 932

On Thu, 22 Jan 1998, "Mark O'Brien" <markus@upnaway.com> wrote:

>Agreed.  And, of course, the Byzantine tradition is basically irrelevant,
>so waste your time, eh?  <G>

Actually, I *don't* agree with that. While I agree, tentatively, with
Hort's conclusion that the Byzantine text is late, I think it urgently
important that we study it, simply because the type has influenced so
many mixed manuscripts.

And, for that matter, we have to revisit Hort once in a while, to see
if his results still hold in the light of modern evidence. So far, I
think they do. But who knows what the next papyrus will bring? :-)

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

                        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 Jan 22 00:05:43 1998
Return-Path: <owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu>
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id AAA25863; Thu, 22 Jan 1998 00:05:43 -0500
From: dwashbur@nyx.net
Message-Id: <199801220512.WAA12460@smtp.northlink.com>
Comments: Authenticated sender is <dwashbur@pop.nyx.net>
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 22:10:15 -7000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: Re: tc-list Herman Hoskier
Priority: normal
In-reply-to: <v01510101b0ec2420e34b@[192.87.136.214]>
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.54)
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
content-length: 2041

Ulrich wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Jan 1998, Dave Washburn wrote:
> 
[snip]
> >While I also disagree with Mr. Olszta's evaluation of what is going
> >on (especially the Westcott-Hort part), I don't think that by
> >"discard" he meant to suggest that Aland was literally throwing them
> >in the trash.  I am virtually certain that he meant Aland simply
> >ignored these mss. for purposes of TC.  Aland's work of collecting
> >them for the Institut actually had little or nothing to do with
> >efforts to reconstruct the earliest form of the NT text, as he
> >dismissed the Byzantines as insignificant for the task.  I don't
> >doubt that this is what Mr. O meant by "discard."
> 
> Dave, I think you are tackling a different issue. My understanding of Mr.
> O's argument is whether someone (e.g. Aland) is willing to *gather*, *look
> at*, and *present _all_ the evidence* available or not (see the example of
> Hoskier). This is exactly what Aland planned to do. 

Agreed.  My only point was to clarify what Mr. O meant by "discard."  
Yes, Aland did much to further this project, but it's also true that, 
*for purposes of recovering the original text*, he dismissed the 
entire body out of hand (see the quote that Mr. O posted).  It is in 
this very narrow sense that the term "discard" was used. 

> Noone is forced to accept Aland's theoretical
> views and noone must worship a reconstructed text, but, on the other hand,
> noone should ignore the material Aland and the Institut gathered for all
> sorts of dissenting views.

Agreed.  I can appreciate Mr. O's viewpoint WRT the 
Byzantine/Majority text thing because I've been there.  Ultimately I 
wound up as a semi-eclectic (don't ask what I mean by that term 
unless you have a LOT of time for my answer!), but I do understand 
the reasoning, the suggested evidence, and some of the puzzlement at 
the approach of certain eclectics, having seen these things from the 
"inside."
Dave Washburn
dwashbur@nyx.net
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur/
If you don't know where you're going, don't lead.

From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu  Thu Jan 22 07:25:59 1998
Return-Path: <owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu>
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id HAA26754; Thu, 22 Jan 1998 07:25:58 -0500
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 07:28:51 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199801221228.HAA12889@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: Re: tc-list Lectionary 866
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
content-length: 886

>At 09:35 PM 1/21/98 -0500, you wrote:
>
>>Lectionary 866 is listed in the 1992 edition of the 2.0 edition of the
>>_Ancient Biblical Manuscript Center_ in Claremont. email: abmc@cgs.edu.
>>
>>
>
>I have that edition, am looking at p. 66 (where the lectionaries are listed)
>and do not see it.  Could you please give the page number?
>
>Thanks.
>
>Jim
>
Listed in Section II: Holdings On Indefinite Loan to the Center, pp. 45-46.
These microfilms nevertheless belong to IGNTP and may be incomplete.

JFR

______________________________________________________________

  Jean-Francois Racine    |      Tel: (418) 626-4583          
  265, 65e rue Ouest      |      FAX: (418) 626-8271          
  Charlesbourg, QC        |      internet: jracine@riq.qc.ca  
  G1H 4Y5                 |                                    
  CANADA                  |                                   


From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu  Thu Jan 22 08:09:01 1998
Return-Path: <owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu>
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id IAA26875; Thu, 22 Jan 1998 08:09:01 -0500
Message-ID: <34C7490B.4DC739D7@ici.net>
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 08:26:36 -0500
From: "Michael S. Olszta" <msolszta@ici.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Subject: Re: tc-list Herman Hoskier
References: <199801220512.WAA12460@smtp.northlink.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
content-length: 4851

Dear Gentlemen,

It was not my intention to "trouble the list" as one responder put it.  The same
writer mentioned it possibly being a "faith issue".  Somehow I think any
settling of the text, whatever method one uses to reach conclusions, is a "faith
issue".  Obviously the text you "believe" (pisteuw) is a "faith" (pistis) issue
because of the fact that you BELIEVE it.  I think the question would be: "Why do
you believe it?"

The writings that have greatly influenced me were authored by Scrivener, Miller,
Burgon, Cook, Hoskier, Hills, Pickering, et al.  I simply feel that Burgon
delivered enough punch to blow away the theories of Westcott & Hort in his The
Revision Revised and other writings, and that Hoskier finished him off with
Codex Vaticanus and Its Allies.  From Aland's own comments, although he
obviously doesn't agree with the "textus receptus crew", he speaks differently
than he acts:

"I, too, have spoken of mixed texts, in connection with the form of the NT text
in the second and third centuries, but I have always doen so with a GUILTY
CONCIENCE (emphasis mine).  For according to the rules of linguistic philology,
it is impossible to speak of mixed texts before recensions have been made (they
only can follow them), whereas, the NT manuscripts of the second and third
centuries which have a "mixed text" clearly existed before recensions were made
... We still live in the world of Westcott and Hort with OUR CONCEPTION
(emphasis mine) of different recensions and text-types, although this conception
has lost its raison detre, or it needs at least to be newly and convincingly
demonstrated.  For, the increase of the documentary evidence and the entirely
new areas of research whcih were opened to us on the discovery of the papryi,
MEAN THE END (emphasis mine) of Westcott and Hort's conception." Pickering
citing Aland in True or False, page 233, edited by David Otis Fuller.

Yes, it is a "faith issue".  It appears that the textus receptus camp has more
faith than the recension theory crew.  They at least believe the words they have
in the text before them.  Kurt Aland, with all his learning and skill, still
can't make up his mind and I suspect the same condition is to be found among
those who follow him.

If the above is considered to be "troubl(ing) the list", then I will remove
myself accordingly.  If, however, you would like to glean a bit of the knowledge
I have gained in reading thousands of pages regarding this subject, time
permitting, I will continue to give my opinions and will always cite my
references.

By the way, I am not a Doctor in this field.  I just find it very interesting
and could only wish that I had time to pursue it more fully.

Michael Olszta

dwashbur@nyx.net wrote:

> Ulrich wrote:
> > On Wed, 21 Jan 1998, Dave Washburn wrote:
> >
> [snip]
> > >While I also disagree with Mr. Olszta's evaluation of what is going
> > >on (especially the Westcott-Hort part), I don't think that by
> > >"discard" he meant to suggest that Aland was literally throwing them
> > >in the trash.  I am virtually certain that he meant Aland simply
> > >ignored these mss. for purposes of TC.  Aland's work of collecting
> > >them for the Institut actually had little or nothing to do with
> > >efforts to reconstruct the earliest form of the NT text, as he
> > >dismissed the Byzantines as insignificant for the task.  I don't
> > >doubt that this is what Mr. O meant by "discard."
> >
> > Dave, I think you are tackling a different issue. My understanding of Mr.
> > O's argument is whether someone (e.g. Aland) is willing to *gather*, *look
> > at*, and *present _all_ the evidence* available or not (see the example of
> > Hoskier). This is exactly what Aland planned to do.
>
> Agreed.  My only point was to clarify what Mr. O meant by "discard."
> Yes, Aland did much to further this project, but it's also true that,
> *for purposes of recovering the original text*, he dismissed the
> entire body out of hand (see the quote that Mr. O posted).  It is in
> this very narrow sense that the term "discard" was used.
>
> > Noone is forced to accept Aland's theoretical
> > views and noone must worship a reconstructed text, but, on the other hand,
> > noone should ignore the material Aland and the Institut gathered for all
> > sorts of dissenting views.
>
> Agreed.  I can appreciate Mr. O's viewpoint WRT the
> Byzantine/Majority text thing because I've been there.  Ultimately I
> wound up as a semi-eclectic (don't ask what I mean by that term
> unless you have a LOT of time for my answer!), but I do understand
> the reasoning, the suggested evidence, and some of the puzzlement at
> the approach of certain eclectics, having seen these things from the
> "inside."
> Dave Washburn
> dwashbur@nyx.net
> http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur/
> If you don't know where you're going, don't lead.




From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu  Thu Jan 22 09:54:47 1998
Return-Path: <owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu>
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id JAA27371; Thu, 22 Jan 1998 09:54:46 -0500
X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com
Message-Id: <v03007800b0ed03b6bd18@[199.86.33.100]>
In-Reply-To: <34C7490B.4DC739D7@ici.net>
References: <199801220512.WAA12460@smtp.northlink.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 08:34:44 -0600
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
From: "Robert B. Waltz" <waltzmn@skypoint.com>
Subject: Re: tc-list Herman Hoskier
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
content-length: 5016

On Thu, 22 Jan 1998, "Michael S. Olszta" <msolszta@ici.net> wrote:

>Dear Gentlemen,
>
>It was not my intention to "trouble the list" as one responder put it.

As the aforesaid responder, I suppose I should clarify as best I can.
I'll try not to get too out of control -- though I will likely fail
as this whole subject really bothers me.

>The same
>writer mentioned it possibly being a "faith issue".  Somehow I think any
>settling of the text, whatever method one uses to reach conclusions, is a "faith
>issue".  Obviously the text you "believe" (pisteuw) is a "faith" (pistis) issue
>because of the fact that you BELIEVE it.  I think the question would be: "Why do
>you believe it?"

I've seen statements to this effect before, and they always trouble me. Textual
criticism should be done without faith assumptions. Obviously one should believe
in one's methods. But there is no theoretical reason why NT TC should be different
from TC applied to the classics. (There are practical reasons, having to do with
the number of manuscripts, but that's beside the point.) Faith should not play
any part in one's reconstruction of the text. 

>The writings that have greatly influenced me were authored by Scrivener, Miller,
>Burgon, Cook, Hoskier, Hills, Pickering, et al.

Surely you are not of the opinion that all of the above authors hold the same
views! Scrivener generally preferred the Byzantine text, but he was eclectic
and had great respect for the old manuscripts. Burgon (apart from his more than
slightly uncivil writing style) believed entirely in the Majority Text -- but
believed in reconstructing it, and did good work in examining manuscripts.
Hills, by contrast, believes only in the King James version and the Textus
Receptus (which is by no means the same as the Majority Text). Pickering is
not even a textual critic (and, speaking as one trained in mathematics, his
book is a bunch of hogwash).

It is possible to hold that the Byzantine text is the original or a very early
text form. Most of us will disagree with you, but it is a valid position. But
to hold, with Hills and Pickering, that the Textus Receptus has any authority
whatsoever -- is to declare that you are unwilling to practice textual criticism.

[ ... ]

>Yes, it is a "faith issue".  It appears that the textus receptus camp has more
>faith than the recension theory crew.  They at least believe the words they have
>in the text before them.

I'm not going to get into the question of "more faith" or "better faith." It is
irrelevant.

But I will say this: Textual criticism must be approached as a science. We must
look for rules and apply them consistently. Rigour is the key here -- and a faith
approach denies rigour.

You are welcome to ignore science. But if you wish to do so, should you not
also be avoiding computers and electric lights and all the other things that
science discovered and faith did not?

(For the record: I freely admit that I have no use whatsoever for those who
take Genesis literally or the like.)

>Kurt Aland, with all his learning and skill, still
>can't make up his mind and I suspect the same condition is to be found among
>those who follow him.

Not many of us follow Kurt Aland -- as will be seen by the discussions on this
list. It may appear from the outside that we do so -- our texts are more like
his than they are like the KJV. But believe me, our approaches are different.

>If the above is considered to be "troubl(ing) the list", then I will remove
>myself accordingly.  If, however, you would like to glean a bit of the knowledge
>I have gained in reading thousands of pages regarding this subject, time
>permitting, I will continue to give my opinions and will always cite my
>references.

This list is devoted to textual criticism. If you are willing to discuss
criticism, then you are welcome. We need people to shake us up. But you must
be willing to be critical. :-)

As a rule of thumb, I would consider it reasonable to cite Scrivener or
Hoskier. Burgon is may be cited when he talks about manuscripts (but not
when he is calling B "scandalously corrupt" or the like, and not when
he is spewing vitriol). Hills or Pickering are out. Also, if you want
to cite Aland, try to cite Aland from his own writings, not out-of-
context quotations.

And -- to return to the original point -- while it is reasonable to
support the Byzantine text as original (dead wrong, but reasonable :-),
it is still impossible to collate every manuscript.

>By the way, I am not a Doctor in this field.  I just find it very interesting
>and could only wish that I had time to pursue it more fully.

With that I have no argument. I'm not a doctor in this or any field, 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 Jan 22 10:36:51 1998
Return-Path: <owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu>
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id KAA27587; Thu, 22 Jan 1998 10:36:50 -0500
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 10:36:50 -0500
Message-Id: <199801221536.KAA27582@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu>
>Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 09:29:55 GMT
From: DC PARKER <PARKERDC@m4-arts.bham.ac.uk>
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Subject: Re: tc-list Lectionary 866
Content-Type: text
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
content-length: 461

So far as I know, there is no collation of this MS (Sinai Gr 232, 
dated 1174).  Elliott, Bibliography of Gr NT MSS is the source for 
information on these things - he cites Plates 128-31 of Harlfinger, 
Reinsch and Sonderkamp, Specimina Sinaitica (Berlin, 1983).  I expect 
you will have to get a microfilm and collate it yourself.


DC PARKER
DEPT OF THEOLOGY
UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM
TEL. 0121-414 3613
FAX  0121-414 6866
E-MAIL PARKERDC@M4-ARTS.BHAM.AC.UK


From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu  Thu Jan 22 11:19:37 1998
Return-Path: <owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu>
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id LAA27855; Thu, 22 Jan 1998 11:19:36 -0500
Message-ID: <33F67AFB1744D11183F70060B0679B3D6B48F9@az190-nt-msx1.avnet.com>
From: "Kennedy, Michael" <Michael.Kennedy@avnet.com>
To: "'tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu'"
	 <tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu>
Subject: RE: tc-list Herman Hoskier
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 09:27:55 -0700
X-Priority: 3
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1458.49)
Content-Type: text/plain
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
content-length: 1104



Michael Olszta said:

"...Yes, it is a "faith issue".  It appears that the textus receptus
camp has more faith than the recension theory crew.  They at least
believe the words they have in the text before them.  Kurt Aland, with
all his learning and skill, still can't make up his mind and I suspect
the same condition is to be found among those who follow him."


And in response:

It is not about faith -- but the work of the text critic can inform the
faithful.

Westcott and Hort's theories of TC are open to debate. Aland was not
speaking about abandoning these theories. On the contrary, further work
has largely confirmed the pioneering work of Westcott and Hort.
Modification of these theories continue as new evidence points to new
ideas. But the general theory is still regarded as trustworthy. This is
not to say the Westcott and Hort, Aland, et al., were right on all
points. And sometimes their polemical arguments makes them quotable to
their pundits! 

But by and large, this list follows the tradition of reasoned
ecclecticism. And exceptions abound. 


Michael L. Kennedy
Phoenix, AZ


From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu  Thu Jan 22 13:45:24 1998
Return-Path: <owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu>
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id NAA28705; Thu, 22 Jan 1998 13:45:23 -0500
Message-ID: <34C7BF4C.7B7F@total.net>
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 13:51:08 -0800
From: Mike and Jeanne Arcieri <studium@total.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02E-KIT  (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: TC-LIST@SHEMESH.scholar.emory.edu
CC: mrobinsn@mercury.interpath.com
Subject: Re: tc-list Herman Hoskier
References: <199801220512.WAA12460@smtp.northlink.com> <34C7490B.4DC739D7@ici.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
content-length: 2038

Michael S. Olszta wrote:
> 
> Dear Gentlemen,
> 
> 
> The writings that have greatly influenced me were authored by Scrivener, Miller,
> Burgon, Cook, Hoskier, Hills, Pickering, et al.  I simply feel that Burgon
> delivered enough punch to blow away the theories of Westcott & Hort in his The
> Revision Revised and other writings, and that Hoskier finished him off with
> Codex Vaticanus and Its Allies.  

> Yes, it is a "faith issue".  It appears that the textus receptus camp has more
> faith than the recension theory crew.  They at least believe the words they have
> in the text before them.  Kurt Aland, with all his learning and skill, still
> can't make up his mind and I suspect the same condition is to be found among
> those who follow him.
> 

Michael,

May I make a small suggestion? In your discussion of the Byz text, the TR and W&H, you should disassociate 
Burgon-Miller-Scrivener-Hoskier from the TR camp, since Burgon et al. were _Textual Critics_ who collated 
many MSS, systematically applied TC Canons to determine the 'original text', and based "all" their 
decisions on the MSS evidence.

This is something Hills, Fuller, Waite and the rest of the TR boys have never done, and will never do. It 
is the TR people who first make an assumption and them force the evidence to fit the assumption (ie. the 
TR is the Word of God, so lets find the evidence to 'prove' it). The TR camp is not really using the MSS 
evidence to determine the 'original text'--they have already made up their minds that the KJV is the 
autograph in English. They are not intellectually honest and have no scholarly intergrity (my opinion). It 
is the TR people who use 'faith' arguments more than everyone else combined, simply because their position 
is so untenable that they must use meaningless claims--claims which cannot be proven/disproven.

Burgon-Miller-Scrivener-Hoskier and modern advocates of the Byz text (Hodges, Robinson/Pierpont, van 
Bruggen, etc) have nothing in common with the TR people, and thank God for it.


Mike


From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu  Thu Jan 22 19:56:55 1998
Return-Path: <owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu>
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id TAA00693; Thu, 22 Jan 1998 19:56:55 -0500
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 19:03:01 -0600 (Central Standard Time)
From: Ronald Minton <rminton@mail.orion.org>
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Subject: Re: tc-list Herman Hoskier
In-Reply-To: <v03007800b0ed03b6bd18@[199.86.33.100]>
Message-ID: <Pine.WNT.3.96.980122185403.-1021417A-100000@mintons>
X-X-Sender: rminton@orions0.orion.org
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: 618

On Thu, 22 Jan 1998, Robert B. Waltz wrote:
> ... Burgon ... believed entirely in the Majority Text -- but
> believed in reconstructing it, and did good work in examining
manuscripts....

Robert, thanks for your many contributions and this note.  Some KJV
defenders claim Burgon was KJVO or that he was TR only.  Yet Burgon
believed that both the TR and the KJV needed revision.  His "traditional
text" was basically the Byzantine or majority, NOT THE TR as some claim!

--
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  Thu Jan 22 21:02:18 1998
Return-Path: <owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu>
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id VAA00863; Thu, 22 Jan 1998 21:02:18 -0500
X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com
Message-Id: <v03007800b0edab29491f@[199.86.40.25]>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.WNT.3.96.980122185403.-1021417A-100000@mintons>
References: <v03007800b0ed03b6bd18@[199.86.33.100]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 20:08:53 -0600
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
From: "Robert B. Waltz" <waltzmn@skypoint.com>
Subject: Re: tc-list Herman Hoskier
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
content-length: 1546

On Thu, 22 Jan 1998, Ronald Minton <rminton@mail.orion.org> wrote:

>On Thu, 22 Jan 1998, Robert B. Waltz wrote:
>> ... Burgon ... believed entirely in the Majority Text -- but
>> believed in reconstructing it, and did good work in examining
>manuscripts....
>
>Robert, thanks for your many contributions and this note.  Some KJV
>defenders claim Burgon was KJVO or that he was TR only.  Yet Burgon
>believed that both the TR and the KJV needed revision.  His "traditional
>text" was basically the Byzantine or majority, NOT THE TR as some claim!

It's worth noting that moderns such as Maurice Robinson, who edited
a modern edition of the Majority Text, are followers primarily of
Burgon.

I think Burgon believed that the Majority Text would prove closer
to the TR than in fact it did. But I think he had enough intellectual
honesty that he would have adopted a text such as Hodges & Farstad
or Pierpont & Robinson had it been available.

Burgon really did do good work. The problem is, his writings were so
incredibly inflammatory that he simultaneously made himself almost
unreadable AND masked his contributions.

Which should, perhaps, be a warning to all of us on this list
(and I include myself) who are too touchy....

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

                        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 Jan 22 21:02:32 1998
Return-Path: <owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu>
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id VAA00878; Thu, 22 Jan 1998 21:02:31 -0500
Message-ID: <34C7FE71.A746AEA5@ici.net>
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 21:20:34 -0500
From: "Michael S. Olszta" <msolszta@ici.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Subject: Re: tc-list Herman Hoskier
References: <199801220512.WAA12460@smtp.northlink.com> <34C7490B.4DC739D7@ici.net> <34C7BF4C.7B7F@total.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
content-length: 6354



Mike and Jeanne Arcieri wrote:

> Michael,
>
> May I make a small suggestion? In your discussion of the Byz text, the TR and W&H, you should disassociate
> Burgon-Miller-Scrivener-Hoskier from the TR camp, since Burgon et al. were _Textual Critics_ who collated
> many MSS, systematically applied TC Canons to determine the 'original text', and based "all" their
> decisions on the MSS evidence.
>
> This is something Hills, Fuller, Waite and the rest of the TR boys have never done, and will never do. It
> is the TR people who first make an assumption and them force the evidence to fit the assumption (ie. the
> TR is the Word of God, so lets find the evidence to 'prove' it). The TR camp is not really using the MSS
> evidence to determine the 'original text'--they have already made up their minds that the KJV is the
> autograph in English. They are not intellectually honest and have no scholarly intergrity (my opinion). It
> is the TR people who use 'faith' arguments more than everyone else combined, simply because their position
> is so untenable that they must use meaningless claims--claims which cannot be proven/disproven.
>
> Burgon-Miller-Scrivener-Hoskier and modern advocates of the Byz text (Hodges, Robinson/Pierpont, van
> Bruggen, etc) have nothing in common with the TR people, and thank God for it.
>
> Mike

Hello Mike,

I don't disagree with you that the "TR Crew" believes that the TR is the correct text and that they look for
evidence to support this belief.  However, on the other side of the coin are the likes of Aland, Metzger, and
the many others who subscribe to the hypothesis of Westcott & Hort.  There objectivity ceases or is confined
to the manuscripts which only produce the type of text that is "somewhat" consistent with the hypothesis they
subscribe to.  Once again, read the words of Kurt Aland regarding the Byzantine text::


"They are irrelevant for textual criticicism, at least for establishing the
original form of the text and its development in the early centuries.  Admittedly
no adequate history has yet been written of the Byzantine text - a text which is
in no sense a monolithic mass because its manuscripts share the same range of
variation characteristic of all Greek New Testament manuscripts.  But this is a
task we may well leave to a future generation ... and consider our own generation
fortunate if we can succeed in tracing the history of manuscripts with
non-Byzantine texts ... Once this has been done the way will be clear for a
better appreciation of the Byzantine text, for from the fourth century it began
to exercise its influence on the other text types.  In fact, the "Majority text"
... may yet prove to hold a multiple significance for the history of the text."
The Text of the New Testament, Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, Page 155.

You see Mike, what you state about the TR crew is just as true with the "Critical Text" crew, except on the
opposite side.  And that was the purpose of my first post, namely to find out if anyone was doing collation
work such as Hoskier did with the Apocalypse.  Until the "ditch is dug, the pipes can't be layed."  But
digging ditches is not easy nor "fun" work, i.e., collating manuscripts.  Listen to Hoskier quoting Souter as
the latter challenged Hoskier:

"He ended by expressing gratitude for my collations of manuscripts as such, but added some very strong advice
to hold my tongue as regarded commenting on the evidence so painfully asccumulated, which he and others would
use - but which I must not use or discuss."  Which Bible, page 134, citing Hoskier's Codex B And Its Allies.

I freely admit that I am not qualified to do such collating because of the lack of linguistic training to do
such.  However, men such as Kurt Aland have that training and ability to do such and it seems to me a travesty
when the "unproven" hypothesis of Westcott and Hort guides their thinking in the way they classify
manuscripts.  They have a preset standard on what is to be accepted as the true NT text just as the TR folks
have theirs.  What's good for the goose is good for the gander, Mike.

Burgon established 7 notes of truth which, if you have read them, make a lot of sense.  However, for these 7
notes of truth to work, exact information is needed from extant manuscripts to use these notes of truth for
determining the true text of scripture.

That's all I wanted to say in the first place and I really think it is time for me to shut my mouth also.
Perhaps if all the time spent theorizing was spent in the collation of manuscripts, we might have a much
better base of information to work from.  Since very few, if any, are making a concentrated effort in the
exact collation of the manuscripts that are extant, then I suppose it will be the TR crew against the Critical
Text crew for years and years to come.  Judging by the evidence that has been gathered along with the fact
that when the textus receptus was formed and translated into the languages of the common people, the yoke of
bondage placed upon men's souls by the Roman catholic church began to be systematically taken apart, I will
stay on the side of the TR advocates.  Not only are the bulk of manuscripts on their side, but history and
correct theology  is as well.  I realize that this position will not sit well with those participating on this
list, so I am promptly removing myself after this posting.  Further discussion on the subject from my point of
view is futile seeing it is based mainly on the labours of those who hold to the Traditional Text belief (yes,
it has to do with faith no matter how much you want to minimize such an argument!), and as far as I am
concerned, those who argue with recension theories as their basis are in reality in a worse place than I am.

I am willing to subject the textus receptus to a scrutiny after a fair sampling of the evidence has been
presented.  Unfortunately, those who agree with Aland regarding the Byzantine tradition, have shown themselves
to be completely close minded to any kind of scrutiny since they have pretty much obliterated 80% of the
evidence to start with and this, based upon some theory (Burgon calls it a dream!) which has never, ever been
proven.  Even Aland speaks of it as being against the rules of linguistics.

Thank you for your time and your responses to my postings.

Michael Olszta


From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu  Thu Jan 22 21:53:11 1998
Return-Path: <owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu>
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id VAA01068; Thu, 22 Jan 1998 21:53:11 -0500
X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com
Message-Id: <v03007800b0edaf0a329b@[199.86.33.102]>
In-Reply-To: <34C7FE71.A746AEA5@ici.net>
References: <199801220512.WAA12460@smtp.northlink.com>
 <34C7490B.4DC739D7@ici.net> <34C7BF4C.7B7F@total.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 20:59:09 -0600
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
From: "Robert B. Waltz" <waltzmn@skypoint.com>
Subject: Re: tc-list Herman Hoskier
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
content-length: 7300

On Thu, 22 Jan 1998, "Michael S. Olszta" <msolszta@ici.net> wrote:

>Hello Mike,
>
>I don't disagree with you that the "TR Crew" believes that the TR is the correct text and that they look for
>evidence to support this belief.  However, on the other side of the coin are the likes of Aland, Metzger, and
>the many others who subscribe to the hypothesis of Westcott & Hort.  There objectivity ceases or is confined
>to the manuscripts which only produce the type of text that is "somewhat" consistent with the hypothesis they
>subscribe to.  Once again, read the words of Kurt Aland regarding the Byzantine text::

This is not the point that Mike Arcieri was making (and which I made earlier).
The point is that there are *two* groups who oppose the modern eclectic
school (which, BTW, is not the same as the Westcott & Hort school). One
group consists of legitimate textual critics such as Scrivener, Hoskier,
Robinson, Sturz, Wisselink, and Burgon. The members of this group believe,
to a greater or lesser extent, in the originality of the Byzantine text.
(Though it might be noted that they all offer different reasons for adhering
to this text-type.)

On the other hand there are people (I cannot call them scholars) such as
Hills and Letis who believe in the Textus Receptus and the King James
Version. Their discussions are based on meaningless arguments such as
"providential preservation," and do not lead to any useful results. Moreover,
to associate such people with noble and honest scholars such as Scrivener
is to insult the names of the scholars mentioned in the first paragraph.

[ ... ]

>You see Mike, what you state about the TR crew is just as true with the "Critical Text" crew, except on the
>opposite side.

Nonsense. The TR defenders refuse to examine the manuscripts. Whatever else
one says, Aland has encouraged more study of the manuscripts than anyone since
Tischendorf.

[ ... ]

>I freely admit that I am not qualified to do such collating because of the lack of linguistic training to do
>such.  However, men such as Kurt Aland have that training and ability to do such and it seems to me a travesty
>when the "unproven" hypothesis of Westcott and Hort guides their thinking in the way they classify
>manuscripts.  They have a preset standard on what is to be accepted as the true NT text just as the TR folks
>have theirs.  What's good for the goose is good for the gander, Mike.

Again, this is unfair. It is true that the texts published by Aland follow
his theories (what, you expected him to follow yours?). But he and his
colleagues *examined* almost every manuscript. For this he deserved immense
gratitude. If he examines a manuscript and dismisses it as Byzantine, it
is only because of him that you know with certainty that it is Byzantine.

You have every right to say that Aland is wrong and that the Byzantine text
is original. You cannot say he has not examined those manuscripts.

>Burgon established 7 notes of truth which, if you have read them, make a lot of sense.  However, for these 7
>notes of truth to work, exact information is needed from extant manuscripts to use these notes of truth for
>determining the true text of scripture.

Let's examine those notes of truth. (I'm using Pickering's version, from _The
Identity of the New Testament Text_, pp. 129-138; I don't have Burgon's version
to hand):

1. Antiquity. A reading must be old.
   Universally accepted. In fact, modern eclectics accept this more than
   did Burgon. Burgon would accept a reading attested only in manuscripts
   of the ninth century as old. Scrivener preferred the sixth. Westcott and
   Hort, on the other hand, usually demanded fourth century attestation,
   and Aland looks for attestation from the third and second centuries.
2. Consent of witnesses, or number.
   Easily refuted. What constitutes a majority? Consider that Vulgate
   manuscripts outnumber continuous Greek witnesses by three or four to
   one. Does this mean we should accept only readings found in the Vulgate
   witnesses? Even if one has some silly democratic notion that the
   majority is always right, that is the logical conclusion of your argument.
3. Variety of witnesses.
   This rule is followed far more by eclectics than by Burgon. Steeter,
   for example, argued for the reading supported by the most geographically
   widespread witnesses. I argue for the reading supported by the greatest
   number of text-types.
4. Continuity, or unbroken tradition: A reading should be attested over a
   long period of time.
   Why? Even if one accepts the account in Genesis, the truth about
   Jesus and the Trinity has only been known for one-third of history.
   Why should the New Testament text be any different? In any case,
   Burgon would accept a reading attested only from the ninth through
   fifteenth centuries. How is this different from accepting one
   attested from the fourth through tenth?
5. Respectability of witnesses
   Also universally accepted. The only difference is that not all of
   us agree with Burgon as to what is "respectable." But until proof
   of respectability is offered, you have to allow us our right to
   figure that out for ourselves.
6. Context
   Essentially the same as the preceding, and subject to the same
   objections
7. Reasonableness
   Pickering refers this to such things as "scientific impossibility."
   (What? Science is allowed? Since when?) This is accepted by
   every scholar I know of; at least, I know of no instance where
   scholars accepted nonsense readings when a sensible alternative
   was at hand.

Thus you will see that modern eclectics agree with the majority of
Burgon's notes. The difference is not in the rules, but in
their application. 

[ ... ]

>I am willing to subject the textus receptus to a scrutiny after a fair sampling of the evidence has been
>presented.  Unfortunately, those who agree with Aland regarding the Byzantine tradition, have shown themselves
>to be completely close minded to any kind of scrutiny since they have pretty much obliterated 80% of the
>evidence to start with and this, based upon some theory (Burgon calls it a dream!) which has never, ever been
>proven.

This is another exaggeration. The Alands have not obliterated the evidence; they
have simply selected a subset.

Compare it to political polling. Suppose a political leader wants to
consult the opinion of the population. He/she cannot hold an election
every day and ask dozens of questions along the lines of "Do you
think egg inspectors should examine every sixth or every tenth egg?"
Instead, they take polls to get the sense of the popular opinion.

The Byzantine tradition is represented in modern critical apparati,
and the Byzantine witnesses are consulted (not enough, perhaps,
but consulted). Checking a thousand more Byzantine manuscripts
is not going to change the fact that certain readings are Byzantine
and some are not.

Enough of this. I can't argue with someone's faith, after all....

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

                        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 Jan 23 09:46:07 1998
Return-Path: <owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu>
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id JAA03169; Fri, 23 Jan 1998 09:46:06 -0500
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 09:46:05 -0500 (EST)
From: "James R. Adair" <jadair@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu>
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Subject: Re: tc-list Herman Hoskier
In-Reply-To: <v03007800b0edaf0a329b@[199.86.33.102]>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.95.980123094252.2995A-100000@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: 649

In light of the fact that Michael Olszta has already unsubscribed himself
from the list (and saved me the trouble of threatening to do it for him),
let me remind those still on the list that TR-KJV advocacy is _not_ an
acceptable scholarly position and is therefore not appropriate for debate
on this list.  Neither, by the way, is this a forum for promoting one's
theological positions or, worse, denigrating others'.

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 Jan 23 13:59:08 1998
Return-Path: <owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu>
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id NAA04610; Fri, 23 Jan 1998 13:59:07 -0500
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 13:05:12 -0600 (CST)
From: Bruce Morrill <bruce@math.ksu.edu>
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Subject: tc-list Collation efforts (formerly Herman Hoskier)
In-Reply-To: <34C7FE71.A746AEA5@ici.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96.980123122551.12099G-100000@euler.math.ksu.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: 831

On Thu, 22 Jan 1998, Michael S. Olszta wrote:
> That's all I wanted to say in the first place and I really think it is time for me to shut my mouth also.
> Perhaps if all the time spent theorizing was spent in the collation of manuscripts, we might have a much
> better base of information to work from.  Since very few, if any, are making a concentrated effort in the
> exact collation of the manuscripts that are extant, then I suppose it will be the TR crew against the Critical
> Text crew for years and years to come. 

The INTF's collation contributions need no defense to anyone knowledgable
of the field.  Allow me to repeat the appeal for volunteers for the
IGNTP's work on the gospel of John -- no theoretical or faith
presuppositions required!  Qualified collators only, please.

Bruce Morrill   bruce@math.ksu.edu






From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu  Fri Jan 23 20:16:41 1998
Return-Path: <owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu>
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id UAA06375; Fri, 23 Jan 1998 20:16:41 -0500
Message-Id: <199801240123.BAA98176@out5.ibm.net>
From: "Huey Bahr" <hbahr3@ibm.net>
To: <tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu>
Subject: tc-list History of transmission
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 19:23:08 -0600
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: 891

In my humble view, there is more than one objective for Biblical Textual
Criticism. 
The primary one is to recover the earliest recoverable text.  Another is to
reconstruct 
the history of the transmission of the text.There is a lot to be learned
from the Byzantine 
Manuscripts, information that would be valuable to church historians, and
theologians.  
Though this text was the dominant text type for much of church history, it
continued to 
change.  Why? perhaps if we can gather and sort out the changes, and hazard
a guess as 
to when each change began to appear, we will have something of real value
to other disciplines.  
Every variation that is not purely accidental, bears witness to a
particular understanding
of the Biblical text.  Collation is important.  We have so much raw data.
If only we can 
manage to sort through and gather the information.

Huey Bahr (hbahr3@ibm.net)

From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu  Fri Jan 23 22:50:34 1998
Return-Path: <owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu>
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id WAA06627; Fri, 23 Jan 1998 22:50:33 -0500
From: dwashbur@nyx.net
Message-Id: <199801240357.UAA02574@smtp.northlink.com>
Comments: Authenticated sender is <dwashbur@pop.nyx.net>
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 20:55:07 -7000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: Re: tc-list History of transmission
Priority: normal
In-reply-to: <199801240123.BAA98176@out5.ibm.net>
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.54)
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
content-length: 1612

> In my humble view, there is more than one objective for Biblical Textual
> Criticism. 
> The primary one is to recover the earliest recoverable text.  

I would call this the ultimate objective, the one toward which the 
other objectives lead.

> Another is to reconstruct 
> the history of the transmission of the text.

As an end in itself, I sometimes wonder how much real value there is 
in this.  As a way to understand scribal habits and gain a better 
understanding of how to go about recovering the earliest possible 
text (the "original" however one conceives it), agreed.

> There is a lot to be learned from the Byzantine 
> Manuscripts, information that would be valuable to church historians, and
> theologians.  
> Though this text was the dominant text type for much of church history, it
> continued to 
> change.  Why? perhaps if we can gather and sort out the changes, and hazard
> a guess as 
> to when each change began to appear, we will have something of real value
> to other disciplines.  

Not just to other disciplines, I suspect.  I do wonder how much the 
history of change within the Byz tradition can tell us about scribal 
habits, and how much we can extrapolate those habits back to the 
pre-Byz traditions.  I'm just raising questions here, I would hardly 
consider myself qualified to answer them.

> Every variation that is not purely accidental, bears witness to a
> particular understanding of the Biblical text.  

Could you elaborate on this idea a little?

 
Dave Washburn
dwashbur@nyx.net
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur/
If you don't know where you're going, don't lead.

From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu  Sat Jan 24 05:36:53 1998
Return-Path: <owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu>
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id FAA07390; Sat, 24 Jan 1998 05:36:52 -0500
Message-ID: <34C9C4CA.190553A9@beitberl.beitberl.ac.il>
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 12:39:07 +0200
From: "Jonathan D. Safren" <yonsaf@beitberl.beitberl.ac.il>
Organization: Dept. of Biblical Studies, Beit Berl College
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Subject: Re: tc-list History of transmission
References: <199801240357.UAA02574@smtp.northlink.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
content-length: 253

I find the exchange of viewpoints on the goals of tectual criticism to
be both enlightening and useful, and I'm going to make use of it in my
Intro to Bible course.
Thanks to both of you,
jonathan d. Safren
Dept. of Biblical studies
Beit Berl College



From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu  Sat Jan 24 09:27:37 1998
Return-Path: <owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu>
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id JAA07585; Sat, 24 Jan 1998 09:27:36 -0500
X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com
Message-Id: <v03007800b0efa813b175@[199.86.33.31]>
In-Reply-To: <199801240357.UAA02574@smtp.northlink.com>
References: <199801240123.BAA98176@out5.ibm.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 08:33:08 -0600
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
From: "Robert B. Waltz" <waltzmn@skypoint.com>
Subject: Re: tc-list History of transmission
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
content-length: 3651

On Fri, 23 Jan 1998, dwashbur@nyx.net wrote:

>> In my humble view, there is more than one objective for Biblical Textual
>> Criticism. 
>> The primary one is to recover the earliest recoverable text.  
>
>I would call this the ultimate objective, the one toward which the 
>other objectives lead.

Depends on what one's interests are. If one is a textual critic, this
is of course true. But a history of the Byzantine text might be more
interesting to one writing the history of the Orthodox church. :-)

>> Another is to reconstruct 
>> the history of the transmission of the text.
>
>As an end in itself, I sometimes wonder how much real value there is 
>in this.

Again, it depends on one's interests. OTOH, I would argue that our
opinion of the history of the text is one of the most important
elements (in my case, *the* most important element) in determining
how we practice textual criticism. (This was pointed out by
Michael Holmes. It's amazing how a single chance comment can
affect one's viewpoint. :-)

[ ... ]

>> There is a lot to be learned from the Byzantine 
>> Manuscripts, information that would be valuable to church historians, and
>> theologians.  
>> Though this text was the dominant text type for much of church history, it
>> continued to 
>> change.  Why? perhaps if we can gather and sort out the changes, and hazard
>> a guess as 
>> to when each change began to appear, we will have something of real value
>> to other disciplines.  
>
>Not just to other disciplines, I suspect.  I do wonder how much the 
>history of change within the Byz tradition can tell us about scribal 
>habits, and how much we can extrapolate those habits back to the 
>pre-Byz traditions.  I'm just raising questions here, I would hardly 
>consider myself qualified to answer them.

One might actually be surprised at the applications of this sort of
knowledge. For example, a biologist and I once discussed the relationship
between TC and biology. She understood it in terms of genetics, and
found deep similarities in the fields. I am not saying that the two
are directly analogous, and any suggestions from one discipline must
be tested in the other. But it is possible that they might offer
hypotheses to test.

Perhaps closer to home, there are analogies here to the transmission
of folklore and folk music, and any other traditional art forms
(pottery styles, perhaps, and hence to archaeology?).

Most things in the universe evolve in one way or another. Thus they
all show a certain sort of kinship with TC.

>> Every variation that is not purely accidental, bears witness to a
>> particular understanding of the Biblical text.  
>
>Could you elaborate on this idea a little?

I'm not sure what the original author meant, but I concur with the
idea.

Put it this way: Scribes would naturally tend to make the text
conform with their prejudices -- which in turn reflect their
theology. An obvious example is John 7:8. The original text surely
quotes Jesus as saying that he "would not" go up to the feast.
But he *did* go to the feast. So scribes, who could not bear
the idea that Jesus would lie, change his mind, or be wrong,
corrected this to would not yet" go to the feast.

I'm not sure if there are enough variants of this type to reveal
anything about scribes' thought patterns -- but I suppose there
might be.

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

                        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 Jan 24 09:43:25 1998
Return-Path: <owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu>
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id JAA07684; Sat, 24 Jan 1998 09:43:24 -0500
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 09:48:26 -0500
From: Jim West <jwest@Highland.Net>
Subject: Re: tc-list History of transmission
X-Sender: jwest@highland.net
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Message-id: <1.5.4.32.19980124144826.00678b40@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: 916

At 08:33 AM 1/24/98 -0600, you wrote:

>Put it this way: Scribes would naturally tend to make the text
>conform with their prejudices -- which in turn reflect their
>theology. An obvious example is John 7:8. The original text surely
>quotes Jesus as saying that he "would not" go up to the feast.
>But he *did* go to the feast. So scribes, who could not bear
>the idea that Jesus would lie, change his mind, or be wrong,
>corrected this to would not yet" go to the feast.
>
>I'm not sure if there are enough variants of this type to reveal
>anything about scribes' thought patterns -- but I suppose there
>might be.

On this one would do well to turn to Bart Ehrman's "Orthodox Corruption of
Scripture"- an excellent book for anyone even remotely interested in things TC.

Jim

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Jim West, ThD
Adjunct Professor of Bible
Quartz Hill School of Theology

jwest@highland.net


From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu  Sat Jan 24 10:26:33 1998
Return-Path: <owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu>
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id KAA07800; Sat, 24 Jan 1998 10:26:32 -0500
Message-ID: <34CA0C4E.57A507CA@accesscomm.net>
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 09:44:15 -0600
From: Jack Kilmon <jpman@accesscomm.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Subject: Re: tc-list History of transmission
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
References: <199801240123.BAA98176@out5.ibm.net> <v03007800b0efa813b175@[199.86.33.31]>
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 JAA09732
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
content-length: 1141

Robert B. Waltz wrote:

> One might actually be surprised at the applications of this sort of
> knowledge. For example, a biologist and I once discussed the
> relationship
> between TC and biology. She understood it in terms of genetics, and
> found deep similarities in the fields. I am not saying that the two
> are directly analogous, and any suggestions from one discipline must
> be tested in the other. But it is possible that they might offer
> hypotheses to test.

    As a biologist who dabbles in TC for fun, I have always seen
the same comparison.  The extant mss are our "fossils" which we
divide into phyla (Byzantine, Alexandrian, etc) and further into
"families such as 1739, 2138 and through "comparative anatomy"
into Genera.  P52 is "Lucy" at the present time (g).  Through form
criticism we can even speculate about the "primordial soup"
(Aramaic sources/NT) for which we, unfortunately, have no fossil
record but for a probable "relic species" (Syriac).  TC sure is
fun for a biologist! (g)

Jack

--
D=92man dith laych idneh d=92nishMA nishMA
   Jack Kilmon (jpman@accesscomm.net)


 http://scriptorium.accesscomm.net



From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu  Sat Jan 24 10:50:28 1998
Return-Path: <owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu>
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id KAA07872; Sat, 24 Jan 1998 10:50:28 -0500
X-Sender: winbery@andria.lacollege.edu
Message-Id: <l03102805b0ef32f8ac0a@[206.103.76.177]>
In-Reply-To: <v03007800b0efa813b175@[199.86.33.31]>
References: <199801240357.UAA02574@smtp.northlink.com>
 <199801240123.BAA98176@out5.ibm.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 10:04:59 +0400
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
From: Carlton Winbery <winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net>
Subject: Re: tc-list History of transmission
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
content-length: 1837

>From the discussion of history of text;

>>> Every variation that is not purely accidental, bears witness to a
>>> particular understanding of the Biblical text.
>>
>>Could you elaborate on this idea a little?
>
>I'm not sure what the original author meant, but I concur with the
>idea.
>
>Put it this way: Scribes would naturally tend to make the text
>conform with their prejudices -- which in turn reflect their
>theology. An obvious example is John 7:8. The original text surely
>quotes Jesus as saying that he "would not" go up to the feast.
>But he *did* go to the feast. So scribes, who could not bear
>the idea that Jesus would lie, change his mind, or be wrong,
>corrected this to would not yet" go to the feast.
>
>I'm not sure if there are enough variants of this type to reveal
>anything about scribes' thought patterns -- but I suppose there
>might be.
>
One interesting development is the application of the rule, when to use the
"movable nu" (or I prefer the way Ward Powers says it - the omission of nu
in certain situations.

When 1346 was penned, the scribe seems not to know the rule and uses the nu
almost wherever he can (after SI, SE, etc) very much like it is in the
UBS/N-A.  A corrector (probably sometime after the 13th century) erases
most of the nu's before consonants (hundreds of erasures), making the use
conform to the rule as it generally does in the various editions of the TR.
I hope that collators will make a practice of taking note of such
variations (not many do).  They can help us see that the later Byzantine
scribes did update the texts at least in this area.  It is also interesting
to those of us who like to do a history of the language.



Carlton L. Winbery
Fogleman Professor of Religion
Louisiana College
Pineville, LA 71359
winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net
winbery@andria.lacollege.edu




From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu  Sat Jan 24 16:20:20 1998
Return-Path: <owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu>
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id QAA08830; Sat, 24 Jan 1998 16:20:20 -0500
Message-ID: <34CA5C81.1D65@earthlink.net>
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 13:26:25 -0800
From: "Bernard A. Taylor" <taylorb@earthlink.net>
Organization: At Home
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.03Gold (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Subject: Re: tc-list History of transmission
References: <1.5.4.32.19980124144826.00678b40@highland.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
content-length: 283

Jim West wrote:

> On this one would do well to turn to Bart Ehrman's "Orthodox Corruption of
> Scripture"- an excellent book for anyone even remotely interested in things TC.

Jim,

Could you give bibliographical information on this? It sounds
intriguing.

Regards,

Bernard Taylor

From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu  Sat Jan 24 16:50:19 1998
Return-Path: <owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu>
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id QAA08928; Sat, 24 Jan 1998 16:50:19 -0500
Message-Id: <199801242156.VAA76590@out4.ibm.net>
From: "Huey Bahr" <hbahr3@ibm.net>
To: <tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu>
Subject: Re: tc-list History of transmission
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 15:56:06 -0600
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: 1465

>On this one would do well to turn to Bart Ehrman's "Orthodox Corruption of
>Scripture"- an excellent book for anyone even remotely interested in
things TC.

I have to admit Ehrman's influance on my thoughts.  

My premise is this: scribes did not intentionally corrupt the text.  They
either "corrected" it or "supplemented" it.  I think that what was changed
and when is valuable information that we should preserve and pass on to the
other fields of study.  From the other fields we can learn why the change
was considered to be an improvement. These insights in turn may help us
recognize other passages that may have been altered for simular reasons.

For example, some scribes added the story of the woman caught in adultery
to John's Gospel.  We know the aproximate age of the oldest manuscripts to
contain it.  We know from patristic evidence that the story circulated in
slightly different forms before landing between chapters seven and eight of
John.  Now we can provide that information to church historians and
theologians.  Perhaps they can provide us with insights as to why it may
have been added. 

Studying the changes in the Vulgate Manuscripts potentially yields a
harvest of information on the Western Church and the Latin language, The
Byzantine Manuscripts the same for the Eastern Church and Greek.  Neither
the Vulgate or the Byzantine text is likely to lead us to the original
text, but they are both worth studying for their own merits.


From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu  Sat Jan 24 17:32:38 1998
Return-Path: <owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu>
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id RAA09014; Sat, 24 Jan 1998 17:32:37 -0500
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 17:37:34 -0500
From: Jim West <jwest@Highland.Net>
Subject: Re: tc-list History of transmission
X-Sender: jwest@highland.net
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Message-id: <1.5.4.32.19980124223734.00666fd8@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: 564

At 01:26 PM 1/24/98 -0800, you wrote:
>Jim West wrote:
>
>> On this one would do well to turn to Bart Ehrman's "Orthodox Corruption of
>> Scripture"- an excellent book for anyone even remotely interested in
things TC.
>
>Jim,
>
>Could you give bibliographical information on this? It sounds
>intriguing.
>

Bart Ehrman- "The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture", Oxford University
Press, 1996 (?).

>Regards,
>
>Bernard Taylor
>
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Jim West, ThD
Adjunct Professor of Bible
Quartz Hill School of Theology

jwest@highland.net


From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu  Sat Jan 24 17:44:10 1998
Return-Path: <owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu>
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id RAA09056; Sat, 24 Jan 1998 17:44:09 -0500
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 17:51:07 -0500
Message-Id: <199801242251.RAA20649@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" <rlmullen@netpath.net>
Subject: Re: tc-list History of transmission
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
content-length: 1803

In re the pericope of the woman caught in adultery, I've been reading a copy
of D. C. Parker's *LIVING TEXT OF THE GOSPELS* (just out with Cambridge
U.PR.) for a review.  Parker devotes a very interesting chapter to the
textual ins and outs of the passage.  --Rod Mullen

At 03:56 PM 1/24/98 -0600, you wrote:
>>On this one would do well to turn to Bart Ehrman's "Orthodox Corruption of
>>Scripture"- an excellent book for anyone even remotely interested in
>things TC.
>
>I have to admit Ehrman's influance on my thoughts.  
>
>My premise is this: scribes did not intentionally corrupt the text.  They
>either "corrected" it or "supplemented" it.  I think that what was changed
>and when is valuable information that we should preserve and pass on to the
>other fields of study.  From the other fields we can learn why the change
>was considered to be an improvement. These insights in turn may help us
>recognize other passages that may have been altered for simular reasons.
>
>For example, some scribes added the story of the woman caught in adultery
>to John's Gospel.  We know the aproximate age of the oldest manuscripts to
>contain it.  We know from patristic evidence that the story circulated in
>slightly different forms before landing between chapters seven and eight of
>John.  Now we can provide that information to church historians and
>theologians.  Perhaps they can provide us with insights as to why it may
>have been added. 
>
>Studying the changes in the Vulgate Manuscripts potentially yields a
>harvest of information on the Western Church and the Latin language, The
>Byzantine Manuscripts the same for the Eastern Church and Greek.  Neither
>the Vulgate or the Byzantine text is likely to lead us to the original
>text, but they are both worth studying for their own merits.
>


From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu  Sat Jan 24 18:03:33 1998
Return-Path: <owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu>
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id SAA09131; Sat, 24 Jan 1998 18:03:33 -0500
From: dwashbur@nyx.net
Message-Id: <199801242310.QAA23074@smtp.northlink.com>
Comments: Authenticated sender is <dwashbur@pop.nyx.net>
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 16:08:11 -7000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: tc-list Byzantine font?
Priority: normal
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.54)
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
content-length: 282

Friends,
I've had a request for a TrueType font of the following style:
Byzantine Greek (Romaic)

I'm not familiar with any.  Does anybody on TC-List know of one?
Thanks,
Dave Washburn
dwashbur@nyx.net
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur/
If you don't know where you're going, don't lead.

From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu  Sun Jan 25 07:19:45 1998
Return-Path: <owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu>
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id HAA10182; Sun, 25 Jan 1998 07:19:45 -0500
Message-Id: <199801251209.NAA03875@mail1.arcadis.be>
Subject: tc-list Long variant in Mk 11.26 and Arabic
Date: Dim, 25 Jan 98 13:27:06 +0100
x-sender: vale5655@mail.arcadis.be
x-mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1
From: Jean VALENTIN <jgvalentin@arcadis.be>
To: "Liste TC-List" <tc-list@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: 3337

I have a few questions about the text of Mk 11.26. This because my work 
on Arabic manuscripts led me to find the long variant, not attested in 
NA27.

There are three main texts for this verse:

(1) NA doesn't print this verse, but puts it in the apparatus. Mss 
supporting the omission are: Aleph, B, L, W, Delta, Psi, 565, 700, k, l, 
sys.s sa and (as I'm working on the Arabic versions) Sinai Arabic 71, 
which has one of the oldest Arabic versions. This ms usually is close to 
Theta, but this is a case where it doesn't follow it.

(2) The verse as it is printed in the apparatus of NA. Mss supporting it: 
A, D, Theta, f1, f13, the Byzantine text, most latin witnesses, syp.h. In 
Arabic, the "alexandrian vulgate", a version produced in Egypt in the 
XIIIth century that eliminated the earlier versions and became the common 
text of all Arabic-speaking churches.

(3) Legg mentions a third variant: it is the verse as printed in the 
apparatus of NA, with the addition of Lk 11.9-10. According to Legg, this 
longer text is supported by a handful of Byzantine mss (and he doesn't 
mention any versional evidence). These mss are: M 346. 11. 46. 52. 54. 
76. 80. 88. 108. 125. 219. 238. 247. 274mg. 579. lect24. lect31. 
lect32bis (what is this?). lect33. lect46. I add to this that this text 
is supported by the oldest mss of the (arabic) melkite version of the 
XIth century, the one I am working on for my doctoral thesis, and this is 
why it interests me so much.

Now I have a few questions about this last variant.

(1) Legg puts the minuscule mss in numerical order, except for one: ms 
346, which he puts at the beginning of the series. Can anybody tell me 
why this exception?

(2) Is there information available as to the geographical provenance of 
these mss? My Arabic version is probably the one made by Abdallah 
Ibn-al-Fadl of Antioch, I wonder if some of those Greek mss can be 
demonstrated to come from the same area (or from some area where the 
melkite church was dominant, such as Palestine, Sinai, Western Syria or 
Jordan). As to geographical provenance, I wonder if there are any 
informations at all about Greek mss that can help me on my work on Arabic 
mss, or if, on the contrary, the existence of this variant in a quite 
precisely (?) localized Arabic version can bring new insights to those 
working on the Greek mss. Generally speaking, what resources do we have 
in order to determine the geographical provenance of Greek mss?

(3) Is the group of mss mentioned above a recongnized group of the 
Byzantine text, or is their conjunction in support of this variant an 
isolated fact?

(4) This variant, though a harmonization, doesn't seem to take its roots 
is the Diatessaron. The grouping together of Mk 11.26 and Lk 11.9-10 
seems to come from the common theme of prayer. Would anybody on the list 
have remarks, other examples of such big, non-diatessaronic 
harmonizations?

Any information about this variant and the mss supporting it would be 
welcome. Thank you for your help.

Jean V.


_________________________________________________
Jean Valentin - Bruxelles - Belgique
e-mail: jgvalentin@arcadis.be
_________________________________________________
"Als liefde het antwoord is, kunt U dan misschien de vraag nog een keer 
stellen?"
_________________________________________________


From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu  Sun Jan 25 08:49:11 1998
Return-Path: <owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu>
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id IAA10309; Sun, 25 Jan 1998 08:49:10 -0500
X-Sender: schmid@ns1.nias.knaw.nl
Message-Id: <v01510100b0f0f25b144f@[192.87.136.214]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 15:56:06 +0100
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
From: schmiul@nias.knaw.nl (U. Schmid)
Subject: Re: tc-list Long variant in Mk 11.26 and Arabic
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
content-length: 3954

On Sun, 25 Jan 1998, Jean Valentin wrote in part:

>I have a few questions about the text of Mk 11.26. This because my work
>on Arabic manuscripts led me to find the long variant, not attested in
>NA27.
>
[snip]
>(3) Legg mentions a third variant: it is the verse as printed in the
>apparatus of NA, with the addition of Lk 11.9-10. According to Legg, this
>longer text is supported by a handful of Byzantine mss (and he doesn't
>mention any versional evidence). These mss are: M 346. 11. 46. 52. 54.
>76. 80. 88. 108. 125. 219. 238. 247. 274mg. 579. lect24. lect31.
>lect32bis (what is this?). lect33. lect46. I add to this that this text
>is supported by the oldest mss of the (arabic) melkite version of the
>XIth century, the one I am working on for my doctoral thesis, and this is
>why it interests me so much.
>
>Now I have a few questions about this last variant.
>
>(1) Legg puts the minuscule mss in numerical order, except for one: ms
>346, which he puts at the beginning of the series. Can anybody tell me
>why this exception?

Since I am away from my beloved sources at the Muenster Institut, I can
only offer some tentative speculations. One explanation might be that 346
is considered to belong to family 13.

>(2) Is there information available as to the geographical provenance of
>these mss? My Arabic version is probably the one made by Abdallah
>Ibn-al-Fadl of Antioch, I wonder if some of those Greek mss can be
>demonstrated to come from the same area (or from some area where the
>melkite church was dominant, such as Palestine, Sinai, Western Syria or
>Jordan). As to geographical provenance, I wonder if there are any
>informations at all about Greek mss that can help me on my work on Arabic
>mss, or if, on the contrary, the existence of this variant in a quite
>precisely (?) localized Arabic version can bring new insights to those
>working on the Greek mss. Generally speaking, what resources do we have
>in order to determine the geographical provenance of Greek mss?
>
>(3) Is the group of mss mentioned above a recongnized group of the
>Byzantine text, or is their conjunction in support of this variant an
>isolated fact?
>
>(4) This variant, though a harmonization, doesn't seem to take its roots
>is the Diatessaron. The grouping together of Mk 11.26 and Lk 11.9-10
>seems to come from the common theme of prayer. Would anybody on the list
>have remarks, other examples of such big, non-diatessaronic
>harmonizations?
>
>Any information about this variant and the mss supporting it would be
>welcome. Thank you for your help.

More MS evidence on this variant reading is given in *Lake, Blake, and New,
The Caesarean text of the Gospel of Mark, Harward Theological Review
1923(or 1927?)* (I give the reference from memory, but you should be able
to check it from Metzger's Text of the New Testament). In this publication
a full collation of Mk 11 of more than 100 12th-14th(?) centuries MSS from
three different monasteries (Patmos, Jerusalem, Sinai) is given. As far as
I recall some 16 to 18 of those from all three monastary libraries give
this additional reading and the editors give no grouping of those MSS on
the basis of this addition.

Lake, Blake, and New deliberately sought to gather information from three
reasonably distant and distinct libraries in order to account in historical
perspective for the most widely disseminated Byzantine text(s) of the
Middle ages. I once had a closer look at their collations and found out
that even rarely attested readings (found in only 5-10% of the MSS
examined) are present in all three monasteries. In other words, no locally
determined textform could be established on the basis of their evidence.

When it comes to MS datings, M (= 021, IXth century) definitely is the
oldest testimony to the addition.


Ulrich Schmid


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Netherlands Institute for Advanced Study
schmiul@nias.knaw.nl



From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu  Sun Jan 25 23:39:25 1998
Return-Path: <owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu>
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id XAA11447; Sun, 25 Jan 1998 23:39:25 -0500
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 23:39:24 -0500
Message-Id: <199801260439.XAA11442@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu>
>Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 12:20:01 +0200
From: "William L. Petersen" <WLPetersen@nias.knaw.nl>
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Subject: tc-list Literature on the *Pericope adulterae*
Content-Type: text
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
content-length: 1251

Rod Mullen remarked:

>In re the pericope of the woman caught in adultery, I've been reading a copy
>of D. C. Parker's *LIVING TEXT OF THE GOSPELS* (just out with Cambridge
>U.PR.) for a review.  Parker devotes a very interesting chapter to the
>textual ins and outs of the passage.  --Rod Mullen

Might I also draw attention to a chapter I contributed to the Baarda FS,
which adduces textual evidence that the *pericope adulterae* circulated in
the 2nd century, in a form similar to that which it now has in the Gospel
of John (and not in the form found in the *Didascalia* nor, presumably, in
Eusebius' report concerning Papias).  The evidence also suggests that it
*might* have been part of John in the second half of the second century
(but then again, it might not have, for there is significant evidence
against it--all presented and examined  in the article).

The reference is:

"OUDE EGW SE [KATA]KRINW. John 8:11, the *Protevangelium Iacobi,* and the
History of the *Pericope adulterae,* in *Sayings of Jesus: Canonical and
Non-canonical,* edd. W.L. Petersen, J.S. Vos, H.J. de Jonge, Supplements to
Novum Testamentum 89 (Leiden: Brill, 1997), pp. 191-221.


--Petersen, Penn State University,
Netherlands Institute for Advanced Studies.




From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu  Mon Jan 26 22:46:37 1998
Return-Path: <owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu>
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id WAA17094; Mon, 26 Jan 1998 22:46:36 -0500
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 11:53:13 +0800 (WST)
From: Timothy John Finney <finney@central.murdoch.edu.au>
X-Sender: finney@central
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Subject: tc-list Darwin's theory
In-Reply-To: <199801260730.CAA11923@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.94.980127104418.16437C-100000@central>
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: 3167

On ms manuscript transmission, scribal habits, and similarities with
genetics, it struck me some months ago that textual variation can be
understood in Darwinian terms. Darwin originally noted that just as people
selectively breed for certain traits (e.g. great danes or chihuahuas), so
the natural environment could select certain traits.

Now to manuscripts and natural selection. (Actually, we are back into the
realm of human selection, as opposed to natural selection. Only not all of
the selection is conscious.) A Darwinian statement would be, 'the
variation which is better suited to its environment (or conditions) is
more likely to survive.' Both conscious and unconscious change is
accounted for. Conscious being what the orthodox scribe would be more
likely to select (cf. Ehrman); subconscious being the more probable errors
of eye, ear, or mind.

A philosophical weakness of this approach is its tautological nature: 'the
fittest survives because the fittest survives.' What survives? The fittest
reading. Which is the fittest reading? The one that survives. To get
around this we need to break the circle and insert some field data. Test
1000 cheating student's assignments (i.e., ones copied from others). 
Which errors and changes are more likely? Construct textual tests based on
the results and apply them to mss. 

Another question which must be asked is whether this approach provides a
testable theory. If you can think of an experiment based upon this theory
which would provide verifiable results, do it.

I like a probabilistic approach to textual criticism. We use a set of
criteria of the best reading: that which conforms to the author's
practice, that which best explains the others; etc. If a criterion is any
good it will have a reliability (i.e., probability of being correct) which
is greater than 0.5. That is, it will be right more often than it is
wrong. With a probabilistic approach the clash of criteria disappears: we
expect there to be occasional disagreement because the criteria are not
guaranteed correct, only probably correct. Two criteria (judges) with
reliabilities of 0.9 each, say, will sometimes disagree. (Actually, I
doubt that any of the criteria we use have such high reliabilities. How do
we measure reliability of a criterion, anyway?) 

All this leads me to pose a question for a statistician to answer:

If we have n judges with reliabilities r(n), what is the reliability of a
majority decision? Please give an answer for (a) independent judges,
and (b) judges which are not independent. (Many of the criteria tcers
use are not independent: they correlate.) Assume that the judges are only
judging between two possible states (although they are often judging
between more than two in real situations).

Or, to take a different approach, what are the conditions under which we
obtain a decision with confidence limits of, say, (a) > 95% and (b) > 50%.
(The A B C reliability ratings of the UBS GNT might one day take on a
rigorous meaning.)

My suspicion is that we will hardly ever reach decisions with 95%
confidence when we use real criteria.

Best regards with apologies for the long post,

Tim Finney.


From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu  Tue Jan 27 09:43:18 1998
Return-Path: <owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu>
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id JAA18617; Tue, 27 Jan 1998 09:43:18 -0500
X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com
Message-Id: <v03007800b0f3a169f9ed@[199.86.40.67]>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.3.94.980127104418.16437C-100000@central>
References: <199801260730.CAA11923@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 08:47:54 -0600
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
From: "Robert B. Waltz" <waltzmn@skypoint.com>
Subject: Re: tc-list Darwin's theory
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
content-length: 3322

On Tue, 27 Jan 1998, Timothy John Finney <finney@central.murdoch.edu.au>
wrote, in part (I'll only address areas where we have something to say):

[ ... ]

>A philosophical weakness of this approach is its tautological nature: 'the
>fittest survives because the fittest survives.' What survives? The fittest
>reading. Which is the fittest reading? The one that survives.

The difficulty with this, as I see it, is that many readings survive.
Yes, the Byzantine reading in all cases dominates -- but not to the
exclusion of others. Most of the manuscripts of Family 2138 are from
the fourteenth/fifteenth century. 2427 has a text largely identical
to B's -- yet it was written in the fourteenth century. Etc.

Thus this rule would seem to have its strongest application in the
very earliest centuries -- in the time when we have no data.

>To get
>around this we need to break the circle and insert some field data. Test
>1000 cheating student's assignments (i.e., ones copied from others). 
>Which errors and changes are more likely? Construct textual tests based on
>the results and apply them to mss. 
>
>Another question which must be asked is whether this approach provides a
>testable theory. If you can think of an experiment based upon this theory
>which would provide verifiable results, do it.

We couldn't very well test it in New Testament areas, but we could
test it on medaieval texts and the like. Choose some renaissance text
for which we have the autograph, and see what scribes and printers
did with it.

Or, for that matter, one might even try comparing the various editions
of the Textus Receptus with those of Erasmus and Stephanus.

[ ... ]

>All this leads me to pose a question for a statistician to answer:
>
>If we have n judges with reliabilities r(n), what is the reliability of a
>majority decision? Please give an answer for (a) independent judges,
>and (b) judges which are not independent. (Many of the criteria tcers
>use are not independent: they correlate.) Assume that the judges are only
>judging between two possible states (although they are often judging
>between more than two in real situations).

This needs to be clarified. How independent are the judges in case (b)?
Also, what constitutes reliability? Accuracy in guessing the original
reading? Or consistency in applying some set of rules?

>Or, to take a different approach, what are the conditions under which we
>obtain a decision with confidence limits of, say, (a) > 95% and (b) > 50%.
>(The A B C reliability ratings of the UBS GNT might one day take on a
>rigorous meaning.)
>
>My suspicion is that we will hardly ever reach decisions with 95%
>confidence when we use real criteria.

I am quite certain you are correct. And yet, there are readings about
which we are in almost universal agreement. To me, this indicates a
problem with the approach. Sounds like we need to tighten some of
our definitions somewhere. (And no, I don't have suggestions; this
is too "internal" for my habits of thought.)

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

                        Robert B. Waltz
                     waltzmn@skypoint.com

Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism?
Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn
(A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism)



From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu  Tue Jan 27 14:04:08 1998
Return-Path: <owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu>
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id OAA20696; Tue, 27 Jan 1998 14:04:07 -0500
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 14:04:06 -0500 (EST)
From: "James R. Adair" <jadair@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu>
To: TC List <tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu>
Subject: tc-list Graphai, a New Testament discussion list
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.95.980127140225.18298M-100000@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: 944

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 New
Testament. The list is called Graphai, and it is sponsored by the Society
of Biblical Literature. Its purpose is to help scholars of the New
Testament help one another in their professional tasks. The framework for
discussion is academic, secular, and non-political. The listowner is
Jay C. Treat.

The list is closed, but all members of the SBL and the AAR may join
automatically. Other scholars may apply for membership.  To find out more
or to join, go to the Web site at:
        http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/graphai/
SBL/AAR members will need their AAR/SBL Member ID number.

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  Wed Jan 28 22:06:02 1998
Return-Path: <owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu>
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id WAA29681; Wed, 28 Jan 1998 22:06:01 -0500
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 11:09:38 +0800 (WST)
From: Timothy John Finney <finney@central.murdoch.edu.au>
X-Sender: finney@central
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Subject: tc-list Clarification
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.3.94.980129095539.28556C-100000@central>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.94.980129095903.28556E-100000@central>
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: 3339

I said the following. (By the way, sorry for the grammatical error in that
post. It should have been students', not student's): 

> >All this leads me to pose a question for a statistician to answer:
> >
> >If we have n judges with reliabilities r(n), what is the reliability of a
> >majority decision? Please give an answer for (a) independent judges,
> >and (b) judges which are not independent. (Many of the criteria tcers
> >use are not independent: they correlate.) Assume that the judges are only
> >judging between two possible states (although they are often judging
> >between more than two in real situations).

To which Bob Waltz replied,

> This needs to be clarified. How independent are the judges in case (b)?
> Also, what constitutes reliability? Accuracy in guessing the original
> reading? Or consistency in applying some set of rules?

For the general case, say that each judge may be correlated with each
other (i.e. the correlation coefficients for all cross combinations are
somewhere in the range of 0.0 to 1.0.) Reliability is accuracy in choosing
the original reading. There is no way to measure it directly -- we would
need the original Greek for that. Of Course! Use Westcott and Hort!  (Only
joking.) Otherwise we could estimate the reliability of a criterion by
seeing how often it selects the readings chosen by the majority vote of a
group of textual experts using diverse approaches. 

Bob also pointed out that old and new readings can coexist. I think that
Kurt Aland was recht when he said that NT readings are tenacious and that
the original readings are still there among the variant readings (my
paraphrase). What is interesting is when the relative frequency of
readings changes with time. This has happened with Heb 2.9. Now CARIS (C =
chi) is most frequent (among manuscripts), but in Origen's day CWRIS was
(according to Origen). So we see one reading being displaced by a more
'suitable' one. Now here's the rub. Was the trend caused by a corrupting
or restorative force? If corrupting, extrapolate backwards along the trend
line to get the originally more frequent reading and, consequently, the
reading with a higher probability of being original. The problem is that
uncertainties become very large in the earliest times because of the very
small sample size of extant manuscripts -- there are big error bars on
early relative frequencies. 

On the question of judges, I received this message from Steven Reed in
Japan:

> First, I know there are mathematical proofs in voting theory along the
> lines of if every voter has a greater than 0.5 probability of being
> correct on some issue, the majority will be more often right than any
> single individual.

If this is true, it means that we can be more confident of majority votes
than I thought. I think that the independence of voters would be a major
factor in the outcome. That is, I think that votes should be conducted by
secret ballot without comparing notes beforehand. Also, I suspect that the
foregoing result would rely on there being a large number of voters.  Many
textual experts with diverse approaches could participate in secret
ballots via the internet, providing a more reliable means of selecting the
most likely original reading (or the fittest reading for the present
paradigms). 

Yours megalomaniacally,

Tim Finney.


From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu  Thu Jan 29 09:32:40 1998
Return-Path: <owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu>
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id JAA01399; Thu, 29 Jan 1998 09:32:40 -0500
X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com
Message-Id: <v03007801b0f6415dedf1@[199.86.33.61]>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.3.94.980129095903.28556E-100000@central>
References: <Pine.GSO.3.94.980129095539.28556C-100000@central>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 08:38:13 -0600
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
From: "Robert B. Waltz" <waltzmn@skypoint.com>
Subject: Re: tc-list Clarification
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
content-length: 4300

On Thu, 29 Jan 1998, Timothy John Finney <finney@central.murdoch.edu.au>
wrote:

(I'm only going to reply to a few parts of this; I haven't had time
to think through the theory, so I'm just making obvious mathematical
points.)

>To which Bob Waltz replied,
>
>> This needs to be clarified. How independent are the judges in case (b)?
>> Also, what constitutes reliability? Accuracy in guessing the original
>> reading? Or consistency in applying some set of rules?
>
>For the general case, say that each judge may be correlated with each
>other (i.e. the correlation coefficients for all cross combinations are
>somewhere in the range of 0.0 to 1.0.)

I'm afraid this won't work. Correlation is not dependence. Correlation
can explain how *connected* things are, but not how. In other words,
it cannot explain; it's only an observation.

To give a comparison: Take two voters belonging to the same political
party, but in different cities. They have never met, and do not read
the same newspapers or watch the same news programs. Yet the correlation
between their voting records in national races will probably be in
excess of 80%. Correlated, but not dependent.

(Statisticians out there, *don't* give me grief about how party
affiliation is dependence. I'm trying to give a simple example,
even if it's imperfect. :-)

Given that we have arbitrarily (and falsely) said that all variants
are binary, chances are that all critics will show high correlations.
That does not mean we can in any way predict when they agree. So
I think we still need some clarification.

>Reliability is accuracy in choosing
>the original reading. There is no way to measure it directly -- we would
>need the original Greek for that. Of Course! Use Westcott and Hort!  (Only
>joking.) Otherwise we could estimate the reliability of a criterion by
>seeing how often it selects the readings chosen by the majority vote of a
>group of textual experts using diverse approaches. 

Alternately, I suppose, we could simply take a section of the Bible
and list all readings supported by two or more "major" manuscripts
(define that as you will), and then see how the various editors
have felt at each point.

[ ... ]

>> First, I know there are mathematical proofs in voting theory along the
>> lines of if every voter has a greater than 0.5 probability of being
>> correct on some issue, the majority will be more often right than any
>> single individual.
>
>If this is true, it means that we can be more confident of majority votes
>than I thought. I think that the independence of voters would be a major
>factor in the outcome. That is, I think that votes should be conducted by
>secret ballot without comparing notes beforehand. Also, I suspect that the
>foregoing result would rely on there being a large number of voters.  Many
>textual experts with diverse approaches could participate in secret
>ballots via the internet, providing a more reliable means of selecting the
>most likely original reading (or the fittest reading for the present
>paradigms). 

I believe the thesis is stated incorrectly. I believe it should
read

>> there are mathematical proofs in voting theory along the
>> lines of if every voter has a greater than 0.5 probability of being
>> correct on some issue, the majority will be more often right than THE
>> TYPICAL INDIVIDUAL [NOT, I repeat, NOT "any single individual."
One particular individual may very well "guess" the majority opinion
perfectly. (I can offer a sort of inverted proof of this, since I
have roughly an 80% record of disagreeing with the majority on
major issues, and close to a 100% record on issues involving the
long-term survival of the human race -- I tend to support it; the
rest of the population prefers short-term comfort.)

I also disagree that this increases our confidence of determining
the original reading. It merely increases the confidence we have
in getting scholars to agree on what they think is original. It's
not the same thing. :-)

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

                        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 Jan 29 19:15:19 1998
Return-Path: <owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu>
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id TAA05446; Thu, 29 Jan 1998 19:15:18 -0500
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 18:21:29 -0600 (CST)
From: "Ronald L. Minton" <rminton@mail.orion.org>
X-Sender: rminton@orionc0
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Subject: tc-list Pasor
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.3.96.980123122551.12099G-100000@euler.math.ksu.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96.980129181644.24569B-100000@orionc0>
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: 329

I am looking for information on Georg Pasor (spelling uncertain).  I saw a
note that he may have made a Greek/Latin N.T. about 1619.  Any sources or
information will be appreciated.

--
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  Thu Jan 29 22:15:46 1998
Return-Path: <owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu>
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id WAA05900; Thu, 29 Jan 1998 22:15:46 -0500
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 19:22:26 -0800 (PST)
From: Matthew Johnson <mejohnsn@netcom.com>
Subject: Re: tc-list History of transmission
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
In-Reply-To: <199801242156.VAA76590@out4.ibm.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9801291954.A22593-0100000@netcom3>
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: 1272



On Sat, 24 Jan 1998, Huey Bahr wrote:

[snip]
> 
> Studying the changes in the Vulgate Manuscripts potentially yields a
> harvest of information on the Western Church and the Latin language, The
> Byzantine Manuscripts the same for the Eastern Church and Greek.  Neither
> the Vulgate or the Byzantine text is likely to lead us to the original
> text, but they are both worth studying for their own merits.

Actually, the Vulgate has surprising links with what could be the
original text.  This is because the Vulgate didn't really take over as
the standard until several centuries after it was written.  In the
meantime, people continued to copy the Old Latin version, even mixing
it with the Vulgate.

Now the Old Latin, although it has its own text types (African,
Spanish, etc), is in turn closely related to the 'Western' text-type.
I expect there are few subscribers to this list who doubt the value of
the 'Western' type in the search for original readings.

Besides, much of the New Testament, even in Jerome's Vulgate, was
copied almost unmodified from the Old Latin.  Perhaps the Pope was
putting pressure on Jerome to finish.

Matthew Johnson
Waiting for the blessed hope and the appearance of the glory of our 
great God and Saviour Jesus Christ (Ti 2:13).


From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu  Fri Jan 30 04:51:12 1998
Return-Path: <owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu>
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id EAA06773; Fri, 30 Jan 1998 04:51:12 -0500
X-Sender: schmid@ns1.nias.knaw.nl
Message-Id: <v01510100b0f7578d7bd9@[192.87.136.214]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 11:58:15 +0100
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
From: schmiul@nias.knaw.nl (U. Schmid)
Subject: Re: tc-list History of transmission
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
content-length: 2566

On Thu, 29 Jan 1998, Matthew Johnson wrote:

>On Sat, 24 Jan 1998, Huey Bahr wrote:
>
>[snip]
>>
>> Studying the changes in the Vulgate Manuscripts potentially yields a
>> harvest of information on the Western Church and the Latin language, The
>> Byzantine Manuscripts the same for the Eastern Church and Greek.  Neither
>> the Vulgate or the Byzantine text is likely to lead us to the original
>> text, but they are both worth studying for their own merits.
>
>Actually, the Vulgate has surprising links with what could be the
>original text.  This is because the Vulgate didn't really take over as
>the standard until several centuries after it was written.  In the
>meantime, people continued to copy the Old Latin version, even mixing
>it with the Vulgate.

This goes too fast for me to make sense. Besides, what do you mean by
several centuries? When consulting _B. Fischer, Die Lateinischen Evangelien
bis zum 10. Jahrhundert (4 vols.), 1988-1991_ I find 21 Mss counted among
the Old Latin type(s), while around 430 are counted among the Vg Mss.
Though it is true that virtually every Vg Ms has some sort of Old Latin
tincture, nevertheless your statement seems to be too unsubtle. BTW-- We
know virtually nothing about the later history of the Vulgate from the 10th
to the 15th centuries.

>Now the Old Latin, although it has its own text types (African,
>Spanish, etc), is in turn closely related to the 'Western' text-type.
>I expect there are few subscribers to this list who doubt the value of
>the 'Western' type in the search for original readings.

Which witnesses belong to the *Spanish* Old Latin text type for which books?

Again, your statement concerning the Old Latin's relation to the 'Western'
text-type seems too broad in my view. The differentiation among the Old
Latin witnesses of the 'Western' text-type of the Gospels, for example, is
much greater than among the Pauline Epistles. If you take D (05) to be the
core witness of the 'Western' text-type of the Gospels, its facing Latin
column d (OL 5) is relatively isolated among its Old Latin surroundings.

>Besides, much of the New Testament, even in Jerome's Vulgate, was
>copied almost unmodified from the Old Latin.  Perhaps the Pope was
>putting pressure on Jerome to finish.

Part of the NT Vulgate, for example the Pauline Epistles, most likely
wasn't even the work of Jerome.

Again, what is the point you are making?


Ulrich Schmid


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Netherlands Institute for Advanced Study
schmiul@nias.knaw.nl



From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu  Fri Jan 30 07:31:53 1998
Return-Path: <owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu>
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id HAA07060; Fri, 30 Jan 1998 07:31:53 -0500
From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" <hurtadol@div.ed.ac.uk>
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 12:37:52 +000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: tc-list pub note
Priority: normal
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.54)
Message-ID: <1B15853393@div.ed.ac.uk>
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
content-length: 423

I draw readers' attention to a newly published essay:
E. J. Epp, "Textual Criticism in the Exegesis of the New Testament, 
with an Excursus on Canon," in _Handbook to Exegesis of the New 
Testament_, ed. S. E. Porter (NTTS 25; Leiden:  Brill, 1997), pp. 
45-97.

L. W. Hurtado
University of Edinburgh,
New College
Mound Place 
Edinburgh, Scotland EH1 2LX
Phone: 0131-650-8920
Fax: 0131-650-6579
E-mail:  L.Hurtado@ed.ac.uk

From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu  Fri Jan 30 09:10:39 1998
Return-Path: <owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu>
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id JAA07717; Fri, 30 Jan 1998 09:10:39 -0500
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 09:10:38 -0500
Message-Id: <199801301410.JAA07712@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu>
>Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 12:31:49 +0200
From: "William L. Petersen" <WLPetersen@nias.knaw.nl>
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Subject: tc-list Pasor's publications
Content-Type: text
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
content-length: 2857

Ron Minton wrote:

>I am looking for information on Georg Pasor (spelling uncertain).  I saw a
>note that he may have made a Greek/Latin N.T. about 1619.  Any sources or
>information will be appreciated.
>

I have asked over here and checked three on-line university library
catalogues.  The only thing George Pasor (this is the proper spelling;  his
name is sometimes Latinized to Georgius Pasorus, according to the
catalogues) seems to have published that the University of Leiden, the
Utrecht University, or the Free University in Amsterdam libraries have are
variuos editions (under slightly different titles) of a lexicon he did of
the LXX and NT, and some editions and lectures on Hesiod.  Because of the
date of publication, the titles are in Latin.  None of the libraries list
an edition of the NT;  the title of his best-known work is *Lexicon
Graeco-Latimum in Novum Testamentum...*  I suspect that someone confused
this with a bilingual edition of the NT...  Pasor's dates are 1570-1638,
and he was a Professor, as per the Leiden catalouge (where, it did not
stipulate;  I suspect in Leiden).  On such matters, it might be worth
checking Tregelles or Gregory for, as I recall (my books are back at Penn
State...), they have rather extensive descriptions of early editions.

>>> For the TC-list members in general:

Many major university libraries in Europe are on-line, and so their
catalogues (in some cases, complete catalogues) can be consulted by
computer.  Among those which I most often use are those of Utrecht
(Rijskuniversiteit te Utrecht:  <http://pablo.ubu.ruu.nl>;  virtually
complete), Leiden (Rijskuniversiteit Leiden:
<http://www.leidenuniv.nl/ub/bdub.htm>, and choose "Algemene Catalogus...";
some older stuff not on-line), and the Free University in Amsterdam (Vrije
Universiteit Amsterdam:  <http://www.ubvu.vu.nl/welcome.html>;  virtually
complete, but with smaller, newer holdings than the other two, although
very good in NT).  All three have more extensive holdings in NT and allied
areas than virtually any American library (e.g., the VU has 9 titles under
Pasor's name, Utrecht had 7, and Leiden 9;  at all three libraries,
virtually all of the titles were from the 17th century), and can be
accessed by the public with any web browser.  Utrecht and Leiden even let
you switch to English search screens, if you can't figure out the Dutch;
the VU may offer the same option (for Leiden and the VU, you go into a
Telnet session;  Utrecht lets you stay in a browser or do a Telnet
session--the choice is yours).  If you make use of these resources, you can
track down many bibliographic details on your own.  Leiden even gives a
"bio" page for each author (birth, death dates;  any other info).

I will see if I can track down any more info.


--Petersen, Penn State University,
Netherlands Institute for Advanced Studies.




From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu  Fri Jan 30 09:31:58 1998
Return-Path: <owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu>
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id JAA07984; Fri, 30 Jan 1998 09:31:57 -0500
X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com
Message-Id: <v03007802b0f795241db8@[199.86.33.92]>
In-Reply-To: <v01510100b0f7578d7bd9@[192.87.136.214]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 08:37:57 -0600
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
From: "Robert B. Waltz" <waltzmn@skypoint.com>
Subject: Re: tc-list History of transmission
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
content-length: 1546

On Fri, 30 Jan 1998, schmiul@nias.knaw.nl (U. Schmid) wrote,
in part (I only comment where I have something intelligent to say):

[ ... ]

>Again, your statement concerning the Old Latin's relation to the 'Western'
>text-type seems too broad in my view. The differentiation among the Old
>Latin witnesses of the 'Western' text-type of the Gospels, for example, is
>much greater than among the Pauline Epistles. If you take D (05) to be the
>core witness of the 'Western' text-type of the Gospels, its facing Latin
>column d (OL 5) is relatively isolated among its Old Latin surroundings.

I would say it's more than "relatively" isolated; it's extremely
isolated. Just as D/05 is isolated among the "Western" witnesses.

Whatever one believes about D and its history, it is not a typical
"Western" witness of the type.

Not so, however, in Paul. I agree that the Latin witnesses here
agree much more closely (except for r, which is very distinct and
in places almost Alexandrian).

Interestingly, the Latin side of Claromontanus seems to be the
typical "Western" witness to Paul. It has higher rates of agreement
with the other witnesses tested (D, F/G, a, b, d, f, vg) than they
have with each other. The Old Latin b is next.

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

                        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 Jan 30 09:53:16 1998
Return-Path: <owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu>
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id JAA08303; Fri, 30 Jan 1998 09:53:15 -0500
From: Revcraigh@aol.com
Message-ID: <74722e2e.34d1eaee@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 09:59:56 EST
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: tc-list t-c C. P. Thiede
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 84
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
content-length: 389

Sorry if this is old hash.

Just wondering how Thiede's contention that some bits of papyrus containing a
portion of Matthew's Gospel are to be dated from the mid 1st Century?

Also, are their any places on the Web where the pros and cons of this
contention are discussed/debated?

Thanks,
Rev. Craig R. Harmon, pastor
Lutheran Church of the Apostles
5100 W. 115th Street
Alsip, IL  60803

From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu  Fri Jan 30 10:00:58 1998
Return-Path: <owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu>
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id KAA08483; Fri, 30 Jan 1998 10:00:58 -0500
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 10:06:47 -0500
From: Carlton Meredith <113164.2404@compuserve.com>
Subject: tc-list Georg Pasor
To: TC-List <tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu>
Message-ID: <199801301007_MC2-313D-3D6D@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: 2044

On January 29, 1998, Ron Minton wrote: "I am looking for information on
Georg Pasor."

I have gleaned the following principally from Bayle=92s _Dictionnaire_:

Georg Pasor (b. August 1, 1570, Allar, Nassau; d. December 10, 1637,
Herborn, Nassau).  Professor of theology and Hebrew for 19 years at
Herborn; also taught at Franeker.

Author of a number of works, including:

a funeral oration for Piscator.
_Collegium Hesiodeum_ (analysis of difficult words in Hesiod).
_Lexicon Novi Testamenti_ (a small dictionary of the NT).
a NT grammar (that was well considered at the time).
a _Manuale Novi Testamenti_.

The last three of these works were revised by his son, Matthias (b. April=

12, 1599, Herborn, Nassau; d. January 28, 1653).

I have found nothing on Georg Pasor=92s edition of the NT.

His son, Matthias, taught mathematics at Heidelberg until he was "driven =
to
England by the troubles in the Palatinate" in the early 1620s (_Encycl.
Brittannica_, ninth ed., vol. 19, p. 253), where he taught mathematics,
theology and oriental languages at Oxford.  Matthias ended his days
teaching philosophy, theology and mathematics at Groningen.  Matthias kep=
t
a journal in Latin which was published posthumously (_Vita sua=85_,
Groningen, 1658).  Perhaps this journal might contain information on Geor=
g
and his edition of the NT..=85.

Pierre Bayle adds the following amusing comment in his _Dictionary_ artic=
le
on Georg=92s son, Matthias Pasor: "He (Matthias) did not publish many boo=
ks;
the two reasons he gives for this are admirable, and should serve as a ru=
le
for many people, myself included: 1) he did not wish to cause young peopl=
e
to abandon the reading of of the good books (*graviorum Authorum*) we
already have (*quos per Dei gratiam habemus*); and 2) he did not want to
endanger the money of the booksellers, who often incur great expense for
printings of books that only sell very slowly, or even stay forever in th=
e
back of the bookstore."

Carlton Meredith
Biblical Seminary of Brussels
113164.2404@compuserve.com

From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu  Fri Jan 30 10:22:14 1998
Return-Path: <owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu>
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id KAA08689; Fri, 30 Jan 1998 10:22:14 -0500
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 10:27:50 -0500
From: Jim West <jwest@Highland.Net>
Subject: Re: tc-list t-c C. P. Thiede
X-Sender: jwest@highland.net
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Message-id: <1.5.4.32.19980130152750.006694a8@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: 641

At 09:59 AM 1/30/98 -0500, you wrote:
>Sorry if this is old hash.
>
>Just wondering how Thiede's contention that some bits of papyrus containing a
>portion of Matthew's Gospel are to be dated from the mid 1st Century?

They are not.

>
>Also, are their any places on the Web where the pros and cons of this
>contention are discussed/debated?
>

Dont know about that, but see Graham Stanton's "Gospel Truth".  He
thoroughly debunks Thiede's theories.

>Thanks,
>Rev. Craig R. Harmon, pastor

Best,

Jim

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Jim West, ThD
Adjunct Professor of Bible
Quartz Hill School of Theology

jwest@highland.net


From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu  Fri Jan 30 11:45:57 1998
Return-Path: <owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu>
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id LAA09465; Fri, 30 Jan 1998 11:45:56 -0500
Message-ID: <6FB2BD3301A9B4AA@mail.lbc.edu>
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 11:48:00 -0500
From: "GLINCOLN @ LBC * GLINCOLN" <glincoln@lbc.edu>
Organization: Lancaster Bible College
To: rminton@mail.orion.org, tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Subject: RE: tc-list Pasor
Importance: Normal
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-disposition: inline
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Connect2-SMTP 4.30A MHS/SMF to SMTP Gateway
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
content-length: 2550

FORWARDED MESSAGE from Ronald L. Minton (rminton @ mail.orion.org) at
RM> 1/29/98 7:21 PM
RM> I am looking for information on Georg Pasor (spelling uncertain).  I
RM> saw a
RM> note that he may have made a Greek/Latin N.T. about 1619.  Any sources
RM> or
RM> information will be appreciated.
RM>
RM> --
RM> Prof. Ron Minton: rminton@mail.orion.org   W (417)268-6053  H 833-9581
RM> Baptist Bible Graduate School 628 E. Kearney St. Springfield, MO 65803
***** NOTES from GLINCOLN (GLINCOLN @ LBC) at 1/30/98 11:31 AM
Below are two records that are cataloged as if they include a Greek New =

Testament.  The bibliographic information is in tags 245 and 260.  The OCLC=
 =

numbers are included if you desired to have your librarians track them =

down.  =


OCLC is a much richer source to search because it includes nearly 20,000 =

libraries from every continent except Antartica.  For manuscripts and =

incunabula it may be necessary to search the European libraries =

individually as already posted becuase they are only recently adding their =

records to the OCLC database.

OCLC:  37160226 =


=9A   5  130 0   Bible. =E1p N.T. =E1l Greek. =E1f 1674. Y
=9A   6  245 10  E Kain=86e Diath=86ek=86e. Novum testamentum. Huic edition=
i omnia =

difficiliorum vocabulorum themata, quae in Georgii Pasoris Lexico =

grammati=A0ce =

resolvuntur, in margine apposuit Carolus Hoole, in eorum scilicet gratiam, =

qui =

prima graecae linguae tyrocinia faciunt... Y
=9A   7  260     Londini, =E1b Excudebat Andr. Clark, pro Sam. Mearne, Joan=
. =

Martyn, & Hen. Herringman, =E1c 1674. Y
=9A   8  300     [648] p. =E1c 15 cm. Y




OCLC:  20117685

            Rec stat:    n =

=9A   5  130 0   Bible. =E1p N.T. =E1l Greek. =E1f 1653. Y
=9A   6  245 03  H=86e Kain=86e Diath=86ek=86e. =3D Novum Testamentum. / =
=E1c Huic =

editioni =

omnia difficiliorum vocabulorum themata, qu=E6 in Georgii Pasoris lexico =

grammatic=A0e resolvuntur, in margine apposuit Carolvs Hoole. ; In eorum =

scilicet gratiam, qui prima Gr=E6c=E6 lingu=E6 tyrocinia faciunt. Y
=9A   7  260     Londini, : =E1b Excudebat R. Nortonus pro Josh. Kyrton ...=
, =E1c =


1653. Y
=9A   8  300     [324+] p. ; =E1c 15 cm. (12mo) Y
=9A   9  500     Title proper romanized from Greek. Y

Gerald E. Lincoln              *****************************
Library Director               Voice (717) 560-8250 Ext. 362
Lancaster Bible College        FAX   (717) 560-8213
901 Eden Rd.                   e-mail  glincoln@lbc.edu
Lancaster, PA 17601            *****************************


From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu  Fri Jan 30 11:59:00 1998
Return-Path: <owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu>
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id LAA09588; Fri, 30 Jan 1998 11:59:00 -0500
Message-Id: <v03010d01b0f7b8eca539@[204.71.18.82]>
In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19980130152750.006694a8@highland.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 12:09:45 -0500
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
From: Nichael Lynn Cramer <nichael@sover.net>
Subject: Re: tc-list t-c C. P. Thiede
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
content-length: 803

Jim West wrote:
>>Just wondering how Thiede's contention that some bits of papyrus containing a
>>portion of Matthew's Gospel are to be dated from the mid 1st Century?
>They are not.

>>Also, are their any places on the Web where the pros and cons of this
>>contention are discussed/debated?
>Dont know about that, but see Graham Stanton's "Gospel Truth".  He
>thoroughly debunks Thiede's theories.

I second all of Jim's message above.  In addition, an good on-line source
is Sigrid Petersen's message which was posted to the Ioudaios list:

  http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~petersig/theide2.txt

This, too, thoroughly rebutts Thiede's conjectures.

Nichael
nichael@sover.net               deep autumn   my neighbor what does she do
http://www.sover.net/~nichael/                                 --Basho



From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu  Fri Jan 30 19:01:39 1998
Return-Path: <owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu>
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id TAA12422; Fri, 30 Jan 1998 19:01:39 -0500
Message-ID: <34D26E1E.6ECFD3B0@accesscomm.net>
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 18:19:42 -0600
From: Jack Kilmon <jpman@accesscomm.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Subject: Re: tc-list t-c C. P. Thiede
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
References: <74722e2e.34d1eaee@aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by ns2.accesscomm.net id SAA20630
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
content-length: 996

Revcraigh@aol.com wrote:
>=20
> Sorry if this is old hash.
>=20
> Just wondering how Thiede's contention that some bits of papyrus contai=
ning a
> portion of Matthew's Gospel are to be dated from the mid 1st Century?
>=20
> Also, are their any places on the Web where the pros and cons of this
> contention are discussed/debated?

	Thiede has gone way out on a limb in attributing the Magdalen
Papyri to the 1st half of the 1st century.  His arguments are tenuous to
even
a layman such as myself.  The concensus of scholarly opinion on the
palaegraphy
of the fragments place them in the latter 2nd century.  Thiede claims
the use of
uncials had died out by the mid first century (not really true) and must
push
both the use of the codex as well as Nomina Sacra well into the
primitive church.

Jack

--=20
D=92man dith laych idneh d=92nishMA nishMA
   Jack Kilmon (jpman@accesscomm.net)   =20
                                      =20
                     =20
 http://scriptorium.accesscomm.net

From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu  Sat Jan 31 09:38:24 1998
Return-Path: <owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu>
Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id JAA14114; Sat, 31 Jan 1998 09:38:24 -0500
X-Sender: petersen@ns1.nias.knaw.nl
Message-Id: <v01510100b0f8d6881eb1@[192.87.136.213]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 15:44:54 +0200
To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
From: WLPetersen@nias.knaw.nl (William L. Petersen)
Subject: tc-list Pasor and NT editions
Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu
content-length: 1083

Thanks to G. Lincoln for supplying the two references from the OCLC re Pasor=
:

>Below are two records that are cataloged as if they include a Greek New
>Testament.  The bibliographic information is in tags 245 and 260.  The OCLC
>numbers are included if you desired to have your librarians track them
>down.
>
>OCLC is a much richer source to search because it includes nearly 20,000
>libraries from every continent except Antartica.  For manuscripts and
>incunabula it may be necessary to search the European libraries
>individually as already posted becuase they are only recently adding their
>records to the OCLC database.
>
>OCLC:  37160226
>
>=F6   5  130 0   Bible. =B7p N.T. =B7l Greek. =B7f 1674. Y
>=F6   6  245 10  E Kain=DCe Diath=DCek=DCe. Novum testamentum. Huic=
 editioni omnia
>difficiliorum vocabulorum themata, quae in Georgii Pasoris Lexico
>grammati=DDce
>resolvuntur, in margine apposuit Carolus Hoole, in eorum scilicet gratiam,
>qui
>prima graecae linguae tyrocinia faciunt... Y
>=F6   7  260     Londini, =B7b Excudebat Andr. Clark, pro Sam. Mearne, Joan=