From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Nov 1 00:58:14 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id AAA01995; Sun, 1 Nov 1998 00:58:13 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list Mk 16:19-20 redux Message-ID: <19981101.005931.4519.1.seventh.guardian@juno.com> References: <19981030.210807.4519.4.seventh.guardian@juno.com> <19981031.014745.3222.2.jeffcate@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.49 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-4,6-9,15-26,30-34,38-42,47-48,58-65,69-73,76-77, 79-81,83-89,94-95,105-106,111-117,123-128,136-140,144-152, 157-158,169-170,179-180,182-189,208-212,216-226,228,230,236-237, 242-243,248-252,255-261 From: seventh.guardian@juno.com (M A Robinson) Date: Sun, 01 Nov 1998 01:00:00 EST Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 13552 On Sat, 31 Oct 1998 01:43:02 -0800 jeffcate@juno.com (Jeff Cate) writes: I raised the issue: >> my one real question still is whether anyone ever bothers to consult a textual >>apparatus before drawing conclusions. >Yes, we do consult the textual apparatus. Well and good. My surprise is that not one other person during the course of the discussion bothered to raise the issue while both Jeff and I were going on regarding Markan versus Lukan style when the variant unit could have affected the entire situation. I already stated why I was not raising that issue, but did no one else out there take notice that apples and oranges were perhaps being discussed? > I had suspected variant readings in the mss because (1) refs >to Jesus are notorious for slight alterations by adding/omitting words >such as Lord and Christ; Some, but hardly all, and especially infrequently in the Gospels. >2) the refs to "Lord" and "Lord Jesus" >are so out of character for Mk 1:1-16:8 I suspected that some scribe >might have attempted to alter them "Lord" (as I mentioned), with the article as in Mk 16:19 does have parallels within the main body of Mark, so I would not call that reading "out of character". Also, "the Lord" occurs in 16:20 without modification. >Even though you erroneously assumed I >had no awareness of the variation unit, in fact, I was fully aware of it Actually I didn't know, so I couldn't "assume," but I normally would "assume" at least the Nestle27 text to be in front of most people on this list. I did assume that you were totally convinced of the originality of KURIOS IHSOUS :-) >I knew you might, and you did (although >in a derogatory manner I wasn't expecting). I intended no derogation (and I'm not sure my words indicate that; if so, apologies); only a wake-up call regarding the fact that those who would defend the long ending as authentic would find the whole line of argument irrelevant, since it concerned a reading which would not occur in their preferred form of the text. As mentioned, the line of argument might make sense IF the premise is granted regarding the N27 reading as authentic, but I know of no long ending supporter who would accept that variant reading (possibly Farmer, but I haven't read him in over 20 years -- anyone want to check?). For those who see the KURIOS IHSOUS reading as "original" to the long ending, and who also consider the long ending inauthentic, then of course, feel free to proceed with the previous line of argument. I joined that fray solely to show that in my opinion that that line of argument did *not* prove either authenticity or inauthenticity, and thus even within that context the premise for establishing inauthenticity was faulty. >BTW, there are quite a few >other lines of thought on this entire issue that I haven't mentioned >that I was expecting you to mention, but that does *not* mean that I >am not aware of those. I'll let you bring those up instead of arguing >your case against myself for you. If referring only to the textual questions, no problem. The other arguments probably will show up in due course. If you mean further stylistic and related criteria, I would prefer to keep that part off the list as less pertinent to textual criticism. >Au contraire. You assume wrongly. Just because one feels 16:9-20 is >not authentic, does *not* mean that 16:9-20 is not *early.* Of course not. Can't be if Irenaeus testifies to it and if Irenaeus is not "interpolated" at that point. Can't be if sy-c has it.... Never claimed anything different. > It's appearance in the church fathers alone indicates an early date and a >*pre-Byzantine* date, I might add. At least in a "patristic" state (which often says nothing about "Byzantine"). >Therefore, the NA27 presentation of >the 16:9-20 should *not* be based on the Byzantine majority reading >alone because that is not necessarily the "weightiest" evidence for >the original form of the longer reading. Here is where I demur. At the point of the variant reading in question I already stated highly valid internal reasons for rejecting the KURIOS IHSOUS reading as belonging to the "original form" of the long ending -- even if the long ending is presumed to be inauthentic, as you and many others hold. Not only is the Byz reading shorter, but it is the "more difficult" reading (given the tendency for pious expansion in a minority of MSS at any given point), it concurs with "Markan style" (even if restricted to 16:20 immediately following); it cannot easily be explained as mere error due to homoioteleuton during the transmissional history of the MS tradition (comments on which below), and also the scattered minority of witnesses from a number of texttypes, most of which do not reflect the dominant reading of their type (the Alexandrian witnesses come closest, but not even all of them, and their leading representatives Aleph and B are omitting the passage at this point). Had precisely the same evidence been in place but with _Byz_ supporting KURIOS IHSOUS instead of KURIOS, I suspect most eclectics would be strongly arguing _against_ that reading -- even against its limited Alexandrian support -- and that on the same grounds stated above. So why is such not a valid line of argument in the present instance? >Mk 16:9-20 is not a Byzantine >addition, it occurred at an early stage and therefore, the evidence for >the original form of the longer ending must be based on the >"weightiest" evidence. And what among the evidence is "weighty" in your opinion? You seem to discount totally the internal arguments provided. Are you arguing wholly from external data? If not, what internal and external data seem convincing to you regarding the longer reading, and why are such data compelling in the light of strong internal and external arguments to the contrary? >>Rather, the addition of IHSOUS in less than two dozen Greek MSS and >>some versional witnesses reflecting Byzantine, Alexandrian, >>"Caesarean" and Western diversity I wrote that, based upon the data in Nestle27. Ulrich Schmid has informed me that _Text und Textwert_ on Mark, vol.2, (which our library does not yet have) says there are 85 MSS which read KURIOS IHSOUS (out of however many -- I have asked Ulrich to post details to the list). The quantity changes, not appreciably, and the MSS supporting the longer reading now probably include more Byzantine minuscules, which, if so, further demonstrates the point of limited pious expansion, since these MSS would not be genealogically connected to those from other texttypes. >If the external evidence was evenly divided, your internal arguments >would make more sense: I thought I pointed out the near-even division of the external evidence. All texttypes represented; none in a majority save perhaps the remaining Alexandrian witnesses, and these lacking their two chief representatives. On what basis are you suggesting the division is not nearly even? >But that certainly is not a >hard and fast rule, especially when it comes to variants in names >since there are other factors at work that take precedence over the >one reading being longer and another being shorter (cf. IHSOUS TON >BARABBAN in Mt 27:16-17 where the preferred reading of NA27 is the >longer). Just as is KURIOS IHSOUS here, but the Mt. 27:16-17 reading is hardly in the same category, since IHSOUS not only is bracketed in N27, but the supporting evidence is virtually non-extant for that reading (Theta f1 700* pc sy-s in the first case; B Theta 700* f1 pc sy-s Or-mss Or-lat in the second case). Were it not for the presence of B in the second case as well as the exegetical interpretation held by some that possible confusion could arise between Jesus Barabbas and Jesus who is called Christ, causing the crowd to clamor for the wrong one to be released, I doubt whether either reading would be in the text at all, brackets notwithstanding. Of course even in that instance homoioteleuton could be invoked as a cause of the majority reading, but once more it falls under the same condemnation as in Mk 16:19 -- you can claim homoioteleuton as a primary cause of a variant when the number of MSS containing such is small, but it is transmissionally well-nigh impossible for such to occur on the grand scale without correction at an early stage creeping in. It certainly is more likely (at least in Mt 26:17) that dittography occurred in the extremely small number of witnesses supporting IHSOUS BARABBAS (UMININ TON BARABBAN or UMININ BARABBAN), which, once in place, could lead a corrector to insert IN in the corresponding parallel in v.16 (-MENON IN BARABBAN). A later MS would then incorporate the dittography and/or the correction into their text (on a very limited scale). This would be unsurprising. It would have been more surprising had such a dittography/addition permeated a significant portion of the MS tradition, which it of course did not, following "normal" transmissional processes. I would not claim the Matthean passage as a parallel to or refutation of the pious expansion hypothesis. >Homoioteleuton is certainly possible as you mentioned, but >you dismissed it to quickly. If such an unintentional error (KSIS to >KS) occurred early enough, there would not seem grounds for later >scribes to intentionally correct the text, especially since it would >have *entered* the Byzantine stream in the form of KS not KSIS. This raises the interesting spectre of transmissional history and the question whether early errors were simply never caught and corrected. It takes far more credulity in my opinion to believe in light of the quantity of material preserved to us in MSS, Versions, and Fathers, that a primitive error would so totally escape notice and correction as to overwhelm the entire manuscript tradition. "Normal" transmission would expect errors to have a short half-life, and this is evidenced by the thousands of "singular" readings found among our extant MSS -- they simply were not perpetuated,else they would not be singular. The same would apply to dual readings found in only two extant MSS -- accidental coincidence or direct dependence could be the cause, but the perpetuation simply did not occur. This can continue to creep upward with virtually the same results, simply based on known data from the MS tradition. Why then should it be logical or reasonable to presuppose early error which, contrary to "normal" transmission, would permeate virtually all known witnesses, especially given the *general* overall accuracy and fidelity of scribes. They make errors, but few of these perpetuate, and most of those for only a brief time. I have faith, but not enough to believe the historically unlikely regarding the transmission of individual variants.. >I don't think the internal evidence for opting for KURIOS over KURIOS >IHSOUS in Mk 16:19 is conclusive in either direction. Please feel free to provide what internal evidence is significant in favor of the longer reading. All I have heard so far is the (highly unlikely) possibility of homoioteleuton affecting the near-totality of the MS tradition. > What seems to >indicate the choice for KURIOS IHSOUS over IHSOUS is the *external* >evidence which you too quickly dismissed. The combined witness of K >Delta f1 f13 33 565 579 892c 1241 1424 2427 L-2211 al it vg-cl sy cop >Ir-lat is pretty substantial and early support for KURIOS IHSOUS, >especially when you realize that Sinaiticus and Vaticanus render no >evidence for this variation unit since they omit the entirety of >16:9-20. Actually the "combined evidence" is even stronger (if you choose to call it such): add to K Delta f1 f13 33 565 579 892c 1241 1424 2427 L-2211 al it vg-cl sy cop Ir-lat. the witnesses supporting Variant1 (omitting OUN but retaining KURIOS IHSOUS) -- C* L (W) L-844 pc (not sure whether to count W among this crowd, since it reads KURIOS IHSOUS CRISTOS). "Early" is somewhat relative: it sy cop Ir-lat and C* are "early", but the remaining witnesses are not so, though they coincidentally or transmissionally happen to concur with the expansion. But _why_ is this external evidence so "compelling" in light of the strong case for its secondary nature on internal grounds? The Alexandrian addition at Mt 27:49 is "strong" (Aleph B C L Gamma pc vg-mss mae) but hardly "compelling," and this on internal contextual, contradictory and harmonization grounds. But I hardly "dismissed" the external evidence; indeed that was my main point when discussing the homoioteleuton argument. The external as well as internal evidence is indeed quite compelling in favor of KURIOS alone as the original reading of the long ending (regardless of whether one favors authenticity of inauthenticity). >Therefore, I feel that there are reasonable grounds to argue for the >stylistic evidence of "Lord Jesus" pertaining to Mk 16:9-20. You and the Nestle/UBS committee obviously do; my question remains, "on what good grounds" as opposed to the arguments in favor of the other alternative. ============================================================== Maurice A. Robinson, Ph. D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina, USA ___________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Nov 1 09:03:17 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA03488; Sun, 1 Nov 1998 09:03:17 -0500 Message-Id: <199811011405.JAA28681@pike.sover.net> X-Sender: nichael@sover.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0.2 Date: Sun, 01 Nov 1998 09:04:53 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: Nichael Lynn Cramer Subject: Re: tc-list Mark 16:9-20 Style In-Reply-To: <363A90BC.ABEEFDE5@concentric.net> References: <0F1K00A33U2PX7@pobox1.oit.umass.edu> <3.0.2.32.19981030210109.0076dd8c@pop.flash.net> 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: 1378 Ken Litwak wrote: > [...] My point is that, if so many scholars think that Luke and >Acts had the same author, yet Dawsey and others can argue against common >authorship on stylistic grounds, then "style" must be so slippery a term >that it may be inherently unhelpful. However --your repeated objections not withstanding-- the simple fact that someone can "argue against" a "common" theory doesn't, of necessity and by itself, render that theory useless or obsolete. Thiede has argued for the early dating of the Magdalene fragments. O'Callaghan has argued for NT texts at Qumran. In other fields I can show you any number of books and papers that argue against, say, relativity or Darwinian evolution or for a rational values for Pi. Yet no one would suggest that any of these objections have turned these respective debates into slippery slopes. Any objection should of course be examined. But we need to be wary of the standard, letter-to-the-editor-ish cant that _any_ objection proves that "even the experts can't agree" and therefore we can't take anything about the debate seriously. In short, there is disagreement and then there is disagreement. > ... I don't have a definition of style >that would be helpful. That's the point. Perhaps the point is that there are other folks who do. -- Nichael Cramer nichael@sover.net http://www.sover.net/~nichael/ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Nov 1 13:34:03 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA04334; Sun, 1 Nov 1998 13:34:02 -0500 Message-ID: <001501be05c6$9d6a3780$b6107ec1@ju.local.lusodoc.pt> From: "Julio Anjos" To: Subject: tc-list Has anyone attended Westar Institute Fall Meeting Date: Sun, 1 Nov 1998 18:37:00 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 290 Fall 1998 October 2125, 1998 Flamingo Hotel, Santa Rosa, California Paul A. Mirecki and Charles W. Hedrick upcoming book on the recently found papiry ( a previouslly unknown dialogue-sayings gospel ) in a german Egyptian Museum was suposed to be presented there. Anyone has any info? From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Nov 1 21:43:17 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA06196; Sun, 1 Nov 1998 21:43:17 -0500 Date: Sun, 1 Nov 1998 21:47:21 -0500 Message-Id: <199811020247.VAA29683@server1.netpath.net> X-Sender: rlmullen@server1.netpath.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Roderic L. Mullen" Subject: Re: tc-list Has anyone attended Westar Institute Fall Meeting Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 671 If what you ahve heard is accurate, this must be a VERY recently discovered papyrus. For those who are interested, the most recent bibliography I know of on Christian papyri is the thorough listing by Cornelia Romer, "Christliche Texte (1989-August 1996)," in ARCHIV FUR PAPYRUSFORSCHUNG, 43.1 (1997): 107-145. --Rod Mullen. At 06:37 PM 11/1/98 -0000, you wrote: >Fall 1998 >October 2125, 1998 >Flamingo Hotel, Santa Rosa, California > >Paul A. Mirecki and Charles W. Hedrick upcoming book on the recently found >papiry ( a previouslly unknown dialogue-sayings gospel ) in a german >Egyptian Museum was suposed to be presented there. > >Anyone has any info? > > > From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Nov 2 03:00:01 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id DAA07107; Mon, 2 Nov 1998 03:00:01 -0500 Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 03:00:00 -0500 Message-Id: <199811020800.DAA07091@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> From: Jimmy Adair (tc-list-owner) Subject: tc-list Quarterly Reminder Content-Type: text Apparently-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 6863 ****************************************************************************** General Information about the List ****************************************************************************** tc-list: a discussion list of biblical textual criticism This list is loosely associated with the new electronic journal _TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism_, and it is intended for a discussion of any matters relating to biblical textual criticism, broadly defined. The rationale for the creation of the TC journal is given below. It is hoped that subscribers to the tc-list will reflect on and respond to material from articles in TC, will deal with issues that arise in the context of text-critical study in the community of biblical scholars at large, and will use the list to suggest new ideas and methodologies. Notes on any aspect of the textual criticism of the Jewish and Christian scriptures (including extracanonical and related literature) are welcome, and threads that transcend the traditional boundary between textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament and New Testament textual criticism are especially encouraged. We would also like to see threads that discuss the relationship between textual criticism and other disciplines. This list is an unmoderated list, and anyone who is a subscriber to the list may contribute. Conventional netiquette should be followed by all contributors to the list. The following points in particular should be kept in mind. (1) Discussion of topics other than textual criticism (or other topics likely to be of interest to members of the list) should be avoided. (2) Scholarly discussion can at times be somewhat heated, but civility should always prevail. (3) Contributors to the list should always sign their messages with their names (not just e-mail addresses). Additional information, such as institutional affiliation, might also be of interest to others on the list. (4) When responding to a message on the list, quote only that portion of the message that you are responding to, or enough of the message to remind readers of the context of the discussion. In many cases it is not necessary to quote the entire message. Archives of tc-list are automatically maintained, and they may be accessed by sending a message like the following to majordomo@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: get tc-list tc-list.yymm where yy is a 2-digit year and mm is a 2-digit month (e.g., tc-list.9604 for April 1996). The first month archived is November 1995 (tc-list.9511). List archives may also be accessed on the Web at http://purl.org/TC/archives/tc-list/tc-list.html. TC messages since 28 Feb 1997 are also archived by Reference.COM at http://www.reference.com. ****************************************************************************** Subscribing, Unsubscribing, and Sending Messages to the List ****************************************************************************** To subscribe or unsubscribe, send the appropriate message to majordomo@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (_not_ to the list itself): subscribe tc-list [your e-mail address] unsubscribe tc-list [your e-mail address] The e-mail address is optional, since subscription will default to the address you are sending from. You may also subscribe to this list in digest form (i.e., messages bundled and sent out a few times per week) by sending this message to majordomo@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: subscribe tc-list-digest [your e-mail address] If you subscribe to the digest, be sure to unsubscribe from the list so you won't receive everything twice. To send a message to the list for all to read, send your message to tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu. Don't send to tc-list-digest, even if you're subscribed to the digest. Just send to tc-list. If you do not want to receive messages for a while (e.g., you're going on vacation or will be away from your computer for an extended time), please unsubscribe from the list. There is no "vacation" command on this list. When you want to start receiving messages again, simply subscribe to the list again. ***************************************************************************** TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism ***************************************************************************** One of the benefits of increasingly widespread Internet access is the ease with which scholars in a particular field can communicate with one another. Although the sciences have dominated the electronic journal field up until this point, several journals in the humanities are now available online. TC follows in the (brief) tradition of the Journal of Buddhist Ethics, the International Journal of Tantric Studies, and the Electronic Journal of Vedic Studies. As far as we are aware, TC is the first Web journal in the area of biblical studies. Why "biblical" textual criticism (rather than t-c of the NT or the Hebrew Bible/OT)? It is time for textual critics in the two camps to communicate more with one another. Textual critics in one field can only benefit by hearing what those in the other field have to say. The journal will accept papers dealing with any aspect of textual criticism of the OT/Hebrew Bible or NT, and it especially encourages "crossover" papers that deal with both areas. Papers dealing either with specific cruxes or with larger issues (methodology, use of versional evidence, etc.) are welcome. Brief notes or full-length articles are equally acceptable. Why an electronic journal? The fact of the matter is that printing a journal costs a lot of money (especially with recent increases in paper prices). In addition, it is debatable whether the field of textual criticism could generate a large enough base to support a paper journal. There are technical difficulties with displaying non-Latin characters that will have to be addressed, but some of these difficulties have already been overcome. With an electronic journal, scholars and students around the world can have free access to one or another form of the journal, either via the World Wide Web, FTP, or e-mail. TC is now in its second year of operation, and we are looking for articles. Please submit your articles in electronic form to: Jimmy Adair Scholars Press P.O. Box 15399 Atlanta, GA 30333-0399 USA You are also welcome to send articles via e-mail to jadair@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu, or you may upload your articles directly to our FTP site at ftp://shemesh.scholar.emory.edu/uploads/TC. TC has a home page on TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web site (http://purl.org/TC), and interested parties can look at this page for announcements. We look forward to your participation in TC and tc-list! The list-owner of tc-list is Jimmy Adair (jadair@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu). From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Nov 2 08:44:25 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA08814; Mon, 2 Nov 1998 08:44:24 -0500 Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 07:46:19 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199811021346.HAA01699@homer.bethel.edu> X-Sender: holmic@mailhost.bethel.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: Michael Holmes Subject: Re: tc-list Has anyone attended Westar Institute Fall Meeting Cc: "Julio Anjos" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 4692 At 06:37 PM 11/1/98 -0000, Julio Anjos inquired: >Fall 1998 >October 2125, 1998 >Flamingo Hotel, Santa Rosa, California > >Paul A. Mirecki and Charles W. Hedrick upcoming book on the recently found >papiry ( a previouslly unknown dialogue-sayings gospel ) in a german >Egyptian Museum was suposed to be presented there. > >Anyone has any info? > In March, 1997, there was an announcement in the press about a "new find" by Mirecki and Hedrick; I pass along the following as I received it. Sounds like it is the document Julio is inquiring about Mike Holmes Bethel College ************************************************* > >KANSAS CITY, Mo. (Reuter) - In a rare finding that could >shed light on the origins of Christianity, an American professor >said Tuesday that he and a colleague have identified fragments >of a ``lost gospel'' that contains conversations between Jesus >Christ and his disciples. > Paul Mirecki, associate professor of religious studies at >the University of Kansas, said he is confident the text is an >authentic early account of the teachings of Christ. If true, >this would mark the first time since 1945 that a so-called lost >gospel has been identified. > Mirecki said that apart from the New Testament's four >Gospels, scholars recognize approximately six other lost gospels >that detail Christ's teachings. The gospel of Thomas, discovered >in Egypt in 1945, was the last such text to be identified, >Mirecki said. > Mirecki happened on this manuscript in 1991 in the vast >holdings of Berlin's Egyptian Museum, but it has taken him until >now to piece together the document's content. He does not know >how the manuscript found its way to the museum. > A specialist in paleography, or ancient modes of writing, >Mirecki said he was confident the item was not a fraud or a >forgery. ``It's definitely an ancient manuscript -- fourth or >fifth century,'' Mirecki told Reuters in an interview. > The newly found gospel was written in the first or second >century, he said. ``The context here is there were many gospels >written in the first two centuries,'' Mirecki said. ``This text >is ... identical to similar texts that are called gospels. It >fits the literary pattern and the contents.'' > Mirecki has been editing and translating the manuscript with >Charles Hedrick, professor of religious studies at Southwest >Missouri State University in Springfield, Missouri. > Each man studied the manuscript independently while working >at the Berlin museum. After a chance encounter at a 1995 >convention in Philadelphia they realized they were working on >the same project and decided to collaborate. Their book on the >new gospel will be published this summer by Brill Publishers in >the Netherlands. > Mirecki said the manuscript is written in Coptic, an ancient >Egyptian language that uses Greek letters. It was probably the >work of a Christian minority group called Gnostics, or knowers, >he said, and recounts a rare ``dialogue gospel'' of >conversations between Jesus and his disciples that supposedly >took place after Christ was resurrected. > He said the text and its message indicate Christianity's >origins were more diverse than what medieval historians have >described. > ``This is simply evidence of minority groups that existed >and that either were brought into the larger church -- the >Catholic or Eastern Orthodox churches -- or died out. Quite >often they were persecuted to the point of death,'' he said. > Only 15 pages remain of the manuscript. Mirecki said it was >probably the victim of an orthodox book burning in about the >fifth century. > Specifically, the gospel espouses a stronger focus on >individual knowledge, urging its readers to reject the confines >of institutional religion. ``It's a non-orthodox text ... >Salvation comes to these people through knowledge rather than >faith,'' Mirecki said. > ``They see orthodox Jews and Christians as being duped by >the evil creator of the material universe. They had a very >different mythology ... one that could not be incorporated into >the larger Catholic church and had to be rejected.'' > For example, one passage unique to the gospel reads, ``I >have overcome the Cosmos, so don't let the Cosmos overcome >you.'' > ``That type of theology is not what developing orthodoxy >wanted to hear,'' Mirecki said. ``They wanted to promote >salvation in the Church, not in one's personal experience.'' > Mirecki said he will present a paper on his findings at an >academic symposium in November in San Francisco. > ********************************** From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Nov 2 10:20:03 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA09857; Mon, 2 Nov 1998 10:20:03 -0500 Message-Id: <199811021521.KAA123802@f04n07.cac.psu.edu> X-Sender: wlp1@mail.psu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0.2 Date: Mon, 02 Nov 1998 10:19:48 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "William L. Petersen" Subject: Re: tc-list Has anyone attended Westar Institute Fall Meeting In-Reply-To: <199811021346.HAA01699@homer.bethel.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: 5457 Michael Holmes is correct: Mierecki and Hedrick announced this papyrus more than a year ago. It was noted in some major newspapers both here and abroad. In the Netherlands, I know the NRC Handelsblat (their equivalent of the NYTimes; the paper of record) ran a piece on it in their weekend "CS" ["Cultural Supplement") section, and interviewed--among others--Prof. Henk Jan de Jonge of Leiden for his reaction. He, along with virtually everyone else I've spoken with, have described it as another secondary, derivative, apocryphal text (akin in many ways to some of the Nag Hammadi stuff, qua genre), with nothing new (at least insofar as can be determined now) to contribute to research. This is why few have heard of it: it doesn't appear to be significant, despite the discoverers' excitement. My recollection is that the "symposium in San Francisco" where the presentation was made not the Westar Institute "fall meeting," as Julio Anjos suggested, but the annual AAR/SBL meeting. --Petersen, Penn State University. >In March, 1997, there was an announcement in the press about a "new find" by >Mirecki and Hedrick; I pass along the following as I received it. Sounds >like it is the document Julio is inquiring about > >Mike Holmes >Bethel College > >************************************************* >> >>KANSAS CITY, Mo. (Reuter) - In a rare finding that could >>shed light on the origins of Christianity, an American professor >>said Tuesday that he and a colleague have identified fragments >>of a ``lost gospel'' that contains conversations between Jesus >>Christ and his disciples. >> Paul Mirecki, associate professor of religious studies at >>the University of Kansas, said he is confident the text is an >>authentic early account of the teachings of Christ. If true, >>this would mark the first time since 1945 that a so-called lost >>gospel has been identified. >> Mirecki said that apart from the New Testament's four >>Gospels, scholars recognize approximately six other lost gospels >>that detail Christ's teachings. The gospel of Thomas, discovered >>in Egypt in 1945, was the last such text to be identified, >>Mirecki said. >> Mirecki happened on this manuscript in 1991 in the vast >>holdings of Berlin's Egyptian Museum, but it has taken him until >>now to piece together the document's content. He does not know >>how the manuscript found its way to the museum. >> A specialist in paleography, or ancient modes of writing, >>Mirecki said he was confident the item was not a fraud or a >>forgery. ``It's definitely an ancient manuscript -- fourth or >>fifth century,'' Mirecki told Reuters in an interview. >> The newly found gospel was written in the first or second >>century, he said. ``The context here is there were many gospels >>written in the first two centuries,'' Mirecki said. ``This text >>is ... identical to similar texts that are called gospels. It >>fits the literary pattern and the contents.'' >> Mirecki has been editing and translating the manuscript with >>Charles Hedrick, professor of religious studies at Southwest >>Missouri State University in Springfield, Missouri. >> Each man studied the manuscript independently while working >>at the Berlin museum. After a chance encounter at a 1995 >>convention in Philadelphia they realized they were working on >>the same project and decided to collaborate. Their book on the >>new gospel will be published this summer by Brill Publishers in >>the Netherlands. >> Mirecki said the manuscript is written in Coptic, an ancient >>Egyptian language that uses Greek letters. It was probably the >>work of a Christian minority group called Gnostics, or knowers, >>he said, and recounts a rare ``dialogue gospel'' of >>conversations between Jesus and his disciples that supposedly >>took place after Christ was resurrected. >> He said the text and its message indicate Christianity's >>origins were more diverse than what medieval historians have >>described. >> ``This is simply evidence of minority groups that existed >>and that either were brought into the larger church -- the >>Catholic or Eastern Orthodox churches -- or died out. Quite >>often they were persecuted to the point of death,'' he said. >> Only 15 pages remain of the manuscript. Mirecki said it was >>probably the victim of an orthodox book burning in about the >>fifth century. >> Specifically, the gospel espouses a stronger focus on >>individual knowledge, urging its readers to reject the confines >>of institutional religion. ``It's a non-orthodox text ... >>Salvation comes to these people through knowledge rather than >>faith,'' Mirecki said. >> ``They see orthodox Jews and Christians as being duped by >>the evil creator of the material universe. They had a very >>different mythology ... one that could not be incorporated into >>the larger Catholic church and had to be rejected.'' >> For example, one passage unique to the gospel reads, ``I >>have overcome the Cosmos, so don't let the Cosmos overcome >>you.'' >> ``That type of theology is not what developing orthodoxy >>wanted to hear,'' Mirecki said. ``They wanted to promote >>salvation in the Church, not in one's personal experience.'' >> Mirecki said he will present a paper on his findings at an >>academic symposium in November in San Francisco. >> >********************************** > From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Nov 2 13:18:12 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA14542; Mon, 2 Nov 1998 13:18:11 -0500 Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 13:20:59 -0500 (EST) From: Yuri Kuchinsky To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: tc-list 1 Jn 4:1-3 translations In-Reply-To: <199811021521.KAA123802@f04n07.cac.psu.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1770 Dear friends, I'm now trying to determine who exactly were the opponents criticised in 1 Jn 4:1-3. Here's the RSV translation: 1 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are of God; for many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2 By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit which confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, 3 and every spirit which does not confess Jesus is not of God. This is the spirit of antichrist, of which you heard that it was coming, and now it is in the world already. The text of v. 2 seems quite clear, and according to this, the opponents of the writer seem to be Docetists (or Marcionites) who claimed that Jesus Christ only "appeared" to come in the flesh. But in the case of v. 3 the Greek text seems to be rather uncertain. I've looked at the variants, but I'm still not sure which variant may be the more reliable. English translations of v. 3 are divided. Some, like RSV above, and the more recent translations in general, say "...every spirit which does not confess Jesus is not of God" But KJV, Darby, and YLT translate more like "...every spirit which does not confess that Jesus Christ came in flesh is not of God" Perhaps someone can clarify this for me. Why has RSV chosen to go with "...every spirit which does not confess Jesus is not of God", and not the other translation? Thanks in advance. Yuri. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Nov 2 13:39:30 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA14865; Mon, 2 Nov 1998 13:39:30 -0500 Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 13:40:59 -0500 (EST) From: Bart Ehrman X-Sender: behrman@login2.isis.unc.edu To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list 1 Jn 4:1-3 translations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2389 Don't think the opponents could be Marcionites, unless you *really* late-date the letter (or prefer not to follow the still-standard-and-for-good-reason line on the dates of marcion). I've dealt with the textual problem at length in my _Orthodox Corruption of Scripture_ pp. 125-35, if you want to see the evidence, arguments, and counterarguments. (I push strongly for _me homologei_ against _luei_). -- Bart Ehrman University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill On Mon, 2 Nov 1998, Yuri Kuchinsky wrote: > > Dear friends, > > I'm now trying to determine who exactly were the opponents criticised in 1 > Jn 4:1-3. > > Here's the RSV translation: > > 1 > Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the > spirits to see whether they are of God; for many > false prophets have gone out into the world. > 2 > By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit > which confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the > flesh is of God, > 3 > and every spirit which does not confess Jesus is not > of God. This is the spirit of antichrist, of which > you heard that it was coming, and now it is in the > world already. > > The text of v. 2 seems quite clear, and according to this, the opponents > of the writer seem to be Docetists (or Marcionites) who claimed that Jesus > Christ only "appeared" to come in the flesh. > > But in the case of v. 3 the Greek text seems to be rather uncertain. I've > looked at the variants, but I'm still not sure which variant may be the > more reliable. > > English translations of v. 3 are divided. Some, like RSV above, and the > more recent translations in general, say > > "...every spirit which does not confess Jesus is not of God" > > But KJV, Darby, and YLT translate more like > > "...every spirit which does not confess that Jesus Christ came in flesh is > not of God" > > Perhaps someone can clarify this for me. Why has RSV chosen to go with > "...every spirit which does not confess Jesus is not of God", and not the > other translation? > > Thanks in advance. > > Yuri. > > From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Nov 2 13:42:30 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA14903; Mon, 2 Nov 1998 13:42:29 -0500 From: lakr Message-Id: <199811021844.KAA10734@netcom9.netcom.com> Subject: Re: tc-list 1 Jn 4:1-3 translations To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 10:44:19 -0800 (PST) Cc: lakr@netcom9.netcom.com (lakr) In-Reply-To: from "Yuri Kuchinsky" at Nov 2, 98 01:20:59 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2737 > > > Dear friends, > > I'm now trying to determine who exactly were the opponents criticised in 1 > Jn 4:1-3. > > Here's the RSV translation: > > 1 > Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the > spirits to see whether they are of God; for many > false prophets have gone out into the world. > 2 > By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit > which confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the > flesh is of God, > 3 > and every spirit which does not confess Jesus is not > of God. This is the spirit of antichrist, of which > you heard that it was coming, and now it is in the > world already. > > The text of v. 2 seems quite clear, and according to this, the opponents > of the writer seem to be Docetists (or Marcionites) who claimed that Jesus > Christ only "appeared" to come in the flesh. > > But in the case of v. 3 the Greek text seems to be rather uncertain. I've > looked at the variants, but I'm still not sure which variant may be the > more reliable. > > English translations of v. 3 are divided. Some, like RSV above, and the > more recent translations in general, say > > "...every spirit which does not confess Jesus is not of God" > > But KJV, Darby, and YLT translate more like > > "...every spirit which does not confess that Jesus Christ came in flesh is > not of God" > > Perhaps someone can clarify this for me. Why has RSV chosen to go with > "...every spirit which does not confess Jesus is not of God", and not the > other translation? > > Thanks in advance. > > Yuri. > I do not have my Nestle Aland with me at the moment, but the translatins are different because the textus receptus which underlies the KJV is different that the texts which are derived from the science of Textual Criticism. I can give both texts here but cannot comment on exactly which manuscripts follow which tradition. 1Jo 4:3 TR KAI PAN PNEUMA O MH OMOLOGEI TON IHSOUN [ XRISTON EN SARKI ELHLUQOTA ] EK TOU QEOU OUK ESTIN KAI TOUTO ESTIN TO TOU ANTIXRISTOU O AKHKOATE OTI ERXETAI KAI NUN EN TW KOSMW ESTIN HDH 1Jo 4:3 W&H KAI PAN PNEUMA O MH OMOLOGEI TON IHSOUN EK TOU QEOU OUK ESTIN KAI TOUTO ESTIN TO TOU ANTIXRISTOU O AKHKOATE OTI ERXETAI KAI NUN EN TW KOSMW ESTIN HDH Notice that in the top example the words 'Christ in flesh came' are inserted into the Textus Receptus. The RSV does not follow the TR Greek text. Hope this helps, Larry Kruper From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Nov 2 13:43:53 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA14932; Mon, 2 Nov 1998 13:43:53 -0500 Date: Mon, 02 Nov 1998 13:43:44 +0000 From: Jim West Subject: Re: tc-list 1 Jn 4:1-3 translations X-Sender: jwest@highland.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.32.19981102134344.00664908@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: 1555 At 01:20 PM 11/2/98 -0500, you wrote: > >Dear friends, > >I'm now trying to determine who exactly were the opponents criticised in 1 >Jn 4:1-3. > > >But in the case of v. 3 the Greek text seems to be rather uncertain. I've >looked at the variants, but I'm still not sure which variant may be the >more reliable. > >English translations of v. 3 are divided. Some, like RSV above, and the >more recent translations in general, say > >"...every spirit which does not confess Jesus is not of God" > >But KJV, Darby, and YLT translate more like > >"...every spirit which does not confess that Jesus Christ came in flesh is >not of God" > >Perhaps someone can clarify this for me. Why has RSV chosen to go with >"...every spirit which does not confess Jesus is not of God", and not the >other translation? > >Thanks in advance. > >Yuri. Yuri- the answer seems simple- the RSV gives the text attested in the best and oldest mss whereas the KJV and the other versions have expanded the text (based, to be sure, on expansions in various Greek mss). This is one of those places where the various scribes just tried to make clear something they perceived as unclear. Either way, the point remains the same--- those who, like the proto-gnostics- deny the authenticity of the incarnation are not to be believed... that is, it seems to me, John's point plain and simple- textual variants here arose simply to make that plain. Best, Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@highland.net de mortuis nihil nisi baloni! From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Nov 2 15:13:10 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA16243; Mon, 2 Nov 1998 15:13:09 -0500 Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 14:11:23 -0600 (Central Standard Time) From: "Prof. Ron Minton" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list 1 Jn 4:1-3 translations In-Reply-To: <199811021844.KAA10734@netcom9.netcom.com> Message-ID: 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: 778 On Mon, 2 Nov 1998, lakr wrote: > 1Jo 4:3 TR > KAI PAN PNEUMA O MH OMOLOGEI TON IHSOUN > [ XRISTON EN SARKI ELHLUQOTA ] > EK TOU QEOU OUK ESTIN KAI TOUTO ESTIN TO TOU ANTIXRISTOU O AKHKOATE > OTI ERXETAI KAI NUN EN TW KOSMW ESTIN HDH > > 1Jo 4:3 W&H > KAI PAN PNEUMA O MH OMOLOGEI TON IHSOUN > EK TOU QEOU OUK ESTIN KAI TOUTO ESTIN TO TOU ANTIXRISTOU O AKHKOATE > OTI ERXETAI KAI NUN EN TW KOSMW ESTIN HDH > > Notice that in the top example the words 'Christ in flesh came' are > inserted into the Textus Receptus. Can someone check to see if the few mss. Erasmus used have the words or did he use another source? They are in Aleph [kurion instead of christon] which, of course, he did not have. Ron Minton 5379 North Farm Road 179 Springfield, MO 65803 (417)833-9581 From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Nov 2 15:48:43 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA16546; Mon, 2 Nov 1998 15:48:43 -0500 Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 14:46:58 -0600 (Central Standard Time) From: "Prof. Ron Minton" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: tc-list scribal errors In-Reply-To: Message-ID: 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: 201 We have all heard that a million monkeys banging on a million typewriters will eventually reproduce the entire works of Shakespeare. Now, thanks to the Internet, we know this is not true. Ron Minton From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Nov 2 16:01:47 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA16853; Mon, 2 Nov 1998 16:01:47 -0500 Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19981102210138.00c5a39c@utc.campus.mci.net> X-Sender: cierpke.utc@utc.campus.mci.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 02 Nov 1998 16:01:38 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Kevin W. Woodruff" Subject: Re: tc-list 1 Jn 4:1-3 translations Cc: rminton@mail.orion.org Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1325 Ron: The TR reading is also the reading of the majority of the Byzantine manuscripts At 02:11 PM 11/2/98 -0600, you wrote: >On Mon, 2 Nov 1998, lakr wrote: >> 1Jo 4:3 TR >> KAI PAN PNEUMA O MH OMOLOGEI TON IHSOUN >> [ XRISTON EN SARKI ELHLUQOTA ] >> EK TOU QEOU OUK ESTIN KAI TOUTO ESTIN TO TOU ANTIXRISTOU O AKHKOATE >> OTI ERXETAI KAI NUN EN TW KOSMW ESTIN HDH >> >> 1Jo 4:3 W&H >> KAI PAN PNEUMA O MH OMOLOGEI TON IHSOUN >> EK TOU QEOU OUK ESTIN KAI TOUTO ESTIN TO TOU ANTIXRISTOU O AKHKOATE >> OTI ERXETAI KAI NUN EN TW KOSMW ESTIN HDH >> >> Notice that in the top example the words 'Christ in flesh came' are >> inserted into the Textus Receptus. > >Can someone check to see if the few mss. Erasmus used have the words or >did he use another source? They are in Aleph [kurion instead of christon] >which, of course, he did not have. > >Ron Minton >5379 North Farm Road 179 >Springfield, MO 65803 >(417)833-9581 > > Kevin W. Woodruff, M.Div. Library Director/Reference Librarian Cierpke Memorial Library Tennessee Temple University/Temple Baptist Seminary 1815 Union Ave. Chattanooga, Tennessee 37404 United States of America 423/493-4252 (office) 423/698-9447 (home) 423/493-4497 (FAX) Cierpke@utc.campus.mci.net (preferred) kwoodruf@utkux.utcc.utk.edu (alternate) http://web.utk.edu/~kwoodruf/woodruff.htm From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Nov 2 16:48:58 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA17446; Mon, 2 Nov 1998 16:48:57 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 15:51:11 -0600 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: tc-list scribal errors Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1329 On Mon, 2 Nov 1998, Prof. Ron Minton" wrote: >We have all heard that a million monkeys banging on a million typewriters >will eventually reproduce the entire works of Shakespeare. >Now, thanks to the Internet, we know this is not true. While I heartily agree with the sentiment, I have to point out that this has not actually been tested. The key word is *eventually*. I won't go into the math -- my calculator doesn't run that high -- but the odds of the monkeys doing the job in any given period of time are extremely low. We'd need something like the lifetime of the universe to conduct the test. While we have our million monkeys, and more, we haven't had the time. Besides, the monkey are supposed to type *random* letters. The people driving the Internet don't type random letters. They type things they think are meaningful. Net result: They will probably *never* manage the complete works of Shakespeare. The average Internet user isn't nearly as smart as random chance. :-) -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Nov 2 16:56:08 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA17517; Mon, 2 Nov 1998 16:56:08 -0500 Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19981102215707.0074fb24@utc.campus.mci.net> X-Sender: cierpke.utc@utc.campus.mci.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 02 Nov 1998 16:57:07 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Kevin W. Woodruff" Subject: Re: tc-list 1 Jn 4:1-3 translations Cc: rminton@mail.orion.org Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1978 Codices of manuscripts used by Erasmus for his first edition (1516) Most of these codices are at the University Library at the University of Basel, Switzerland Evan. 2 15th century or earlier. According to Scrivener "is the the inferior manuscript chiefly used by Erasmus for his first edition of the N.T. (1516)." Act. Paul 2 13th or 14th century according to Burgon. Erasmus grounded on this copy in some passages with some alterations of the manuscripts the text of his first edition Paul. 7 date not known Evan.Act.Paul 1 12th or 13th century according to Burgon Act.Paul 4 15th century according to Scrivener, most likely 12th century Apoc. 1 12th century according to Scrivener At 02:11 PM 11/2/98 -0600, you wrote: >On Mon, 2 Nov 1998, lakr wrote: >> 1Jo 4:3 TR >> KAI PAN PNEUMA O MH OMOLOGEI TON IHSOUN >> [ XRISTON EN SARKI ELHLUQOTA ] >> EK TOU QEOU OUK ESTIN KAI TOUTO ESTIN TO TOU ANTIXRISTOU O AKHKOATE >> OTI ERXETAI KAI NUN EN TW KOSMW ESTIN HDH >> >> 1Jo 4:3 W&H >> KAI PAN PNEUMA O MH OMOLOGEI TON IHSOUN >> EK TOU QEOU OUK ESTIN KAI TOUTO ESTIN TO TOU ANTIXRISTOU O AKHKOATE >> OTI ERXETAI KAI NUN EN TW KOSMW ESTIN HDH >> >> Notice that in the top example the words 'Christ in flesh came' are >> inserted into the Textus Receptus. > >Can someone check to see if the few mss. Erasmus used have the words or >did he use another source? They are in Aleph [kurion instead of christon] >which, of course, he did not have. > >Ron Minton >5379 North Farm Road 179 >Springfield, MO 65803 >(417)833-9581 > > Kevin W. Woodruff, M.Div. Library Director/Reference Librarian Cierpke Memorial Library Tennessee Temple University/Temple Baptist Seminary 1815 Union Ave. Chattanooga, Tennessee 37404 United States of America 423/493-4252 (office) 423/698-9447 (home) 423/493-4497 (FAX) Cierpke@utc.campus.mci.net (preferred) kwoodruf@utkux.utcc.utk.edu (alternate) http://web.utk.edu/~kwoodruf/woodruff.htm From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Nov 3 00:50:09 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id AAA19434; Tue, 3 Nov 1998 00:50:08 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: tc-list re: 1 Jn 4:3 Message-ID: <19981103.005127.10911.1.seventh.guardian@juno.com> References: <1.5.4.32.19981102134344.00664908@highland.net> X-Mailer: Juno 1.49 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0,5-22,24-26,28,30-31,38-39,44-45,48-49,51-55,59-61, 63-65,71-77 From: seventh.guardian@juno.com (M A Robinson) Date: Tue, 03 Nov 1998 00:51:49 EST Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 3684 Just to make the contrast a little more proper, the TR should not be the standard of comparison against WH; rather BYZ versus NA27. Not that there is any difference between WH and NA27 (as normal); but BYZ as R/P or H/F edited it differs from the TR in omitting (with K pm) TON ante IHSOUN (and of course no brackets in the verse): 1Jo 4:3 BYZ KAI PAN PNEUMA O MH OMOLOGEI IHSOUN CRISTON EN SARKI ELHLUQOTA EK TOU QEOU OUK ESTIN KAI TOUTO ESTIN TO TOU ANTICRISTOU O AKHKOATE OTI ERCETAI KAI NUN EN TW KOSMW ESTIN HDH 1Jo 4:3 NA27 KAI PAN PNEUMA O MH OMOLOGEI TON IHSOUN EK TOU QEOU OUK ESTIN KAI TOUTO ESTIN TO TOU ANTICRISTOU O AKHKOATE OTI ERCETAI KAI NUN EN TW KOSMW ESTIN HDH Now to the other point: On Mon, 02 Nov 1998 13:43:44 +0000 Jim West writes: >At 01:20 PM 11/2/98 -0500, you wrote: >Yuri- the answer seems simple- the RSV gives the text attested in the >best and oldest mss whereas the KJV and the other versions have expanded >the text (based, to be sure, on expansions in various Greek mss). I know your principles, Jim, and you are continuing to act in accordance with them. But it would be nice to stop blaming the KJV for the Byzantine readings :-) Also it would probably be more helpful to at least acknowledge the other more obvious possibility, namely that the phrase CRISTON EN SARKI ELHLUQOTA _could_ simply have been omitted in a _very_ small minority of MSS (A B 323 945 1241 1739 pc it-r vg cop Ir-lat Or) by two simultaneous (or nearly so) stages of homoioteleuton which could easily have happened during the copying process in a small number of witnesses which may have been less-than-careful at this point. Stage 1 -- omit CRISTON by homoioteleuton IN XN -> IN (cf. not only the previous small group of witnesses at that point, but also Psi 33 81 630 1505 pc which read only IHSOUN, but left the other longer reading in place); stage 2 --accompany this by the homoioteleuton from E1 to E3 causing EN SARKI ELHLUQOTA EK to leave only EK as a result. Since even other witnesses of the same texttypes as those supporting NA27 here do not side with the shorter variant in this unit, the chance of error as the primary cause should not be minimized or overlooked. As for "Byzantine" or other scribal expansion, I would ask why ? You wrote, >This is one of those places where the various scribes just tried to >make clear something they perceived as unclear. The expansion is already present and quite "clear" for the entire context in verse 2, so why would you think the "various scribes" (i.e. nearly all of them, including "early" ones) would think it necessary to clarify further in the verse immediately following? >those who, like the proto-gnostics- deny the authenticity >of the incarnation are not to be believed... that is, it seems to me, John's >point plain and simple Exactly, and that is my point. The textual variant arose primarily by accident; if deliberate it could only be argued that, since the context was already plain, the phrase was stylistically removed to eliminate a redundancy (but I do not make that line of argument in a case where error is so likely and where so few witnesses agree in support of such a reading). ============================================================== Maurice A. Robinson, Ph. D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina, USA ___________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Nov 3 06:59:01 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id GAA20700; Tue, 3 Nov 1998 06:59:01 -0500 Message-ID: <003201be0721$ce1d6260$b6107ec1@ju.local.lusodoc.pt> From: "Julio Anjos" To: Subject: Re: tc-list Has anyone attended Westar Institute Fall Meeting Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 12:02:17 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1618 Info on the book can be found on: http://westarinstitute.org/Books/Author/Savior/savior.html I have mine ordered sice August. More info on the find can be found in: http://scholar.cc.emory.edu/scripts/jv/rsn_may_gosp.html But in short the facts are: Designated the Berlin Manuscript P. 22220, the manuscript is comprised of approximately thirty fragments, which are the remains of at least eighteen parchment leaves. The fragments range in size from a few centimeters square to at least one complete, though damaged, sheet comprising two leaves. One or two fragments show evidence of having been burned. Hedrick and Mirecki estimate on codicological grounds that the fragments come from leaves 97114 of the original codex. ... Written in Coptic, the document is probably a translation of an original Greek text. Hedrick describes the Coptic as a rather pure example of the Sahidic dialect, with only one possible Achmimic variant extant. .... . The Lord is portrayed as speaking with his apostles, and the names James, John, and Andrew are extant. As far as I know there are new sayings strong in gnostic imagery, and new versions like: Whoever is near me is near the fire; whoever is far from me is far from life. A slightly different version of the same saying is attested in the Gospel of Thomas, logion 82: Whoever is near me is near the fire; whoever is far from me is far from the kingdom. The info on the Westar Fall 1998 Meeting where the first presentation was to be made was removed once the meeting was held, but it stated very clearly both authours were to be there. Best regards. Julio From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Nov 3 12:06:35 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA23444; Tue, 3 Nov 1998 12:06:35 -0500 Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 12:09:21 -0500 (EST) From: Yuri Kuchinsky To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list 1 Jn 4:1-3 translations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 3811 On Mon, 2 Nov 1998, Bart Ehrman wrote: > I've dealt with the textual problem at length in my _Orthodox > Corruption of Scripture_ pp. 125-35, if you want to see the evidence, > arguments, and counterarguments. (I push strongly for _me homologei_ > against _luei_). Dear Bart, I have read your treatment now, and I agree with you on some points, while disagree on others. We agree that the opponents in 1Jn 4:1-3 are docetists. But your treatment of this passage focuses primarily on _me homologei_ against _luei_ problem. For all I can see you're right on this, but this does not really seem relevant to the issues I'm dealing with at this time. There are many interpretative problems with 1Jn. I've just read Anchor BD (1992) article on the Johannine epistles by Robert Kysar, and he admits that plenty is disputed as to authorship, context, and dating. According to him, "The dates of the documents can be fixed only approximately." He, himself, gives ca. 100, but other opinions are possible. Now, the question as to whether the opponents in 1Jn 4:1-3 are Marcionites is not directly relevant to my larger thesis, and depends on the dating. I think it is possible to date the epistles to mid-second century, and I prefer such later dating. My larger thesis is that there are two distinct sets of opponents discernable in 1Jn, and this has been argued by a number of commentators. You mention Smalley yourself. According to such a view, some opponents are Ebionites, and have low Christology. These are the opponents in 1Jn 2:18-23. Others, in 1Jn 4:1-3, and in 2Jn, are docetists with high Christology. You don't like this sort of an interpretation, but I disagree on this. I'm just taking the most literal reading of these passages, and this is what the texts seem to say to me. I have a more detailed treatment of these matters that I posted to Synoptic-l in the last few days. http://www.egroups.com/list/synoptic-l/1253.html and http://www.egroups.com/list/synoptic-l/1259.html Johannine correspondence is only a part of my larger argument in these two long articles that deal mostly with Papias and Irenaeus. I see no real need to conflate the opponents in 1Jn 2:18-23, and in 1Jn 4:1-3 like you tend to. But this question is very complex, since it involves the exact understanding of various Christologies. In spite of many apparent similarities between the two, I think there was a pretty clear distinction between the much earlier group of Ebionites/Adoptionists, and the rather later docetists, although this distinction is often neglected by scholars. On this, see M. Goulder, ST. PAUL VERSUS ST. PETER: A TALE OF TWO MISSIONS, Westminster/John Knox Press, 1995, p. 117. (Goulder uses the term Possessionist to describe Adoptionists.) He points out that, while in mainstream academic literature "Adoptionists" are often conflated with "Docetists", according to him this is confusing, and he advocates defining these terms more precisely. It was the Adoptionists/Possessionists who resisted identifying Jesus with Christ, just like the opponents in 1Jn 2:22. Now, the question that I posted to tc-list originally only focused on the reading of 4:3a, which, in itself, is a rather narrow problem that does not need to involve larger issues, since the interpretation of 4:2 is already pretty clear. According to Kevin, the longer reading comes mostly from the Byzantine mss. Whether or not XRISTON EN SARKI ELHLUQOTA was added later, or was edited out later, still seems not too clear to me. In any case, the phrase just seems to fit the meaning of the passage rather well. Best wishes, Yuri. Yuri Kuchinsky || Toronto http://www.trends.net/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Nov 4 02:59:33 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id CAA27424; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 02:59:32 -0500 Message-Id: <199811040801.JAA255856@mail.uni-muenster.de> From: "Ulrich Schmid" To: Subject: Re: tc-list Mk 16:19-20 KURIOS IHSOUS Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 18:30:24 +0100 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: 884 Below you will find the pertinent information from the "Text und Textwert" volumes on Mark (16:19): a) KURIOS is given by 1521 witnesses. b) The whole of Mk 16:9-20 is absent from 3 witnesses. c) IHSOUS is given by three witnesses. d) KURIOS IHSOUS is given by 85 witnesses. e) KURIOS IHSOUS CHRISTOS is given by one witness (032). f) KURIOS IHSOUS omitted by one witness (minuscule 2693) g) A total of 134 witnesses are either illegible from microfilm or lacuneous. Note: The denominator "witness" does NOT EQUAL manuscript. One manuscript can testify to more than one reading at a given place by giving, e.g. corrections, marginal notes, etc.). Unfortunately, one has to emphasize the obvious, since even scholars reviewing "Text und Textwert" confuse the two. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr. Ulrich Schmid schmiul@uni-muenster.de From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Nov 4 08:34:45 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA28823; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 08:34:45 -0500 Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 08:35:33 +0000 From: Jim West Subject: Re: tc-list Mk 16:19-20 KURIOS IHSOUS X-Sender: jwest@highland.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.32.19981104083533.0067b960@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: 1662 Though the evidence presented below is interesting, important, and worthwhile, it is not realy helpful. First, witnesses are weighed, not counted. Here we have stones on a scale but we dont know if they are lumps of coal or diamonds in the rough. For instance, the fact that 16:9-20 is absent from 3 witnesses may lead some to say- "ahah! see, ONLY three witnesses lack it, so it must have been dropped by them" when in fact the contrary is equally possible. Further, the weighing of manuscripts says nothing about quality, textual affinity, or usefulness in TC. Now, let me hasten to say that I dont think Ulrich is weighing mss. I simply wanted to point out the danger for those who do. best, Jim At 06:30 PM 11/3/98 +0100, you wrote: >Below you will find the pertinent information from the "Text und Textwert" >volumes on Mark (16:19): > >a) KURIOS is given by 1521 witnesses. > >b) The whole of Mk 16:9-20 is absent from 3 witnesses. > >c) IHSOUS is given by three witnesses. > >d) KURIOS IHSOUS is given by 85 witnesses. > >e) KURIOS IHSOUS CHRISTOS is given by one witness (032). > >f) KURIOS IHSOUS omitted by one witness (minuscule 2693) > >g) A total of 134 witnesses are either illegible from microfilm or >lacuneous. > >Note: The denominator "witness" does NOT EQUAL manuscript. One manuscript >can testify to more than one reading at a given place by giving, e.g. >corrections, marginal notes, etc.). Unfortunately, one has to emphasize the >obvious, since even scholars reviewing "Text und Textwert" confuse the two. > > >------------------------------------------------------------------- >Dr. Ulrich Schmid >schmiul@uni-muenster.de > From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Nov 4 19:48:13 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA03652; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 19:48:12 -0500 From: "Vinton A. Dearing" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 16:53:07 PST MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: tc-list new address X-Confirm-Reading-To: "Vinton A. Dearing" X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) Message-ID: <64E47F24AC7@113hum4.humnet.ucla.edu> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 712 My web page address is no longer http://englishwww.humnet.ucla.edu/individuals/dearing but http://www.english.humnet.ucla.edu/individuals/dearing A small difference, but important to me. I have just found out that the old address still "works" but the computer programs so accessed are old versions. The new address accesses the new versions of my computer programs for making stemmas. Those of you who have the old versions, please get the new ones of QPREP, QRING, and QSYN, the first three in the series. QANOM, QTREE, and QARCH are unchanged. I am trying to have the old address and page deleted, but must wait for help from the person who handles our computer accounts. Vinton A. Dearing From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Nov 7 13:40:39 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA06261; Sat, 7 Nov 1998 13:40:39 -0500 From: "Vinton A. Dearing" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1998 10:45:24 PST MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: tc-list address correction for web page X-Confirm-Reading-To: "Vinton A. Dearing" X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) Message-ID: <6902A07491D@113hum4.humnet.ucla.edu> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 566 I am sorry to have given a false address for my web page; it does not have "/individuals" in it, but reads correctly http://www.english.humnet.ucla.edu/dearing I have added links to my collation of the manuscripts of Third John that date before the tenth century, and to a computer program for examining the probability that manuscripts or printed editions descend independently from a lost source. I should particularly like to have comments on the collation, in which I indicate my sense of which readings are better than others. Vinton A. Dearing From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Nov 8 02:25:29 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id CAA08163; Sun, 8 Nov 1998 02:25:29 -0500 Message-ID: <364547EE.E621F460@concentric.net> Date: Sat, 07 Nov 1998 23:27:42 -0800 From: Ken Litwak X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.07 [en] (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list Mark 16:9-20 Style References: <0F1K00A33U2PX7@pobox1.oit.umass.edu> <3.0.2.32.19981030210109.0076dd8c@pop.flash.net> <199811011405.JAA28681@pike.sover.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: 1642 Nichael Lynn Cramer wrote: > snip > > ... I don't have a definition of style > >that would be helpful. That's the point. > > Perhaps the point is that there are other folks who do. > Fine Nichael, as I said in my post, I'd like to see someone post a definition of style that can account for all possible data and that deals intelligently with all the possibilities. For example, should the delineation of someone's style forbid the use of vocabulary not in this constructed style? Is Mark allowed to use words not part of his style? I am not arguing that one critic makes other view points null and void. On the other hand, is it really academically sound to make an argument based on style but not be willing to come clean and say what that definite is? So, if you've got a definition of style that would be useful for academic study and applicable to TC, please by all means post it. Don't merely reply to me that others have useful definitions. Is it problematic to you that I want to be academically rigourous? If you know of a useful definition of style, please cite it. The fundamental problem is that everyone here has been using style without defining it. I submit that this is precisely the problem that I have found in work on my dissertation, viz., lots of scholars say they are using intertextuality without delineating what that means and it can mean lots of things so it does not help particularly to state that you are using this approach. I am asking for something pretty basic to proper scholarship: define your terms. Why is that problematic for you????????? Ken Litwak Trinity College/University of Bristol From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Nov 8 08:32:46 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA09496; Sun, 8 Nov 1998 08:32:45 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981108133442.0085c100@gpo.iol.ie> X-Sender: mauros@gpo.iol.ie X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Sun, 08 Nov 1998 13:34:42 +0000 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Maurice A. O'Sullivan" Subject: Re: tc-list address correction for web page In-Reply-To: <6902A07491D@113hum4.humnet.ucla.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 749 At 10:45 07/11/98 PST, you wrote: >I am sorry to have given a false address for my web page; it does not >have "/individuals" in it, but reads correctly > http://www.english.humnet.ucla.edu/dearing >I have added links to my collation of the manuscripts of Third John >that date before the tenth century, and to a computer program for >examining the probability that manuscripts or printed editions >descend independently from a lost source. > I should particularly like to have comments on the collation, in which >I indicate my sense of which readings are better than others. > Vinton A. Dearing > > Sorry to tell you I'm still error message on your revised URL Regards, Maurice [Maurice A. O'Sullivan Bray, Ireland] mauros@iol.ie From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Nov 8 08:37:28 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA09546; Sun, 8 Nov 1998 08:37:28 -0500 Message-ID: <36459F5A.813215D7@flash.net> Date: Sun, 08 Nov 1998 07:40:42 -0600 From: Andrew Payne X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list address correction for web page References: <3.0.5.32.19981108133442.0085c100@gpo.iol.ie> 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: 887 Regrettably I receive the same error message as well. Andrew Payne "Maurice A. O'Sullivan" wrote: > At 10:45 07/11/98 PST, you wrote: > >I am sorry to have given a false address for my web page; it does not > >have "/individuals" in it, but reads correctly > > http://www.english.humnet.ucla.edu/dearing > >I have added links to my collation of the manuscripts of Third John > >that date before the tenth century, and to a computer program for > >examining the probability that manuscripts or printed editions > >descend independently from a lost source. > > I should particularly like to have comments on the collation, in which > >I indicate my sense of which readings are better than others. > > Vinton A. Dearing > > > > > > Sorry to tell you I'm still error message on your revised URL > Regards, > > Maurice > > [Maurice A. O'Sullivan > Bray, Ireland] > > mauros@iol.ie From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Nov 11 12:55:41 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA02207; Wed, 11 Nov 1998 12:55:40 -0500 Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 11:57:44 -0600 (CST) X-Sender: ljgrn@bluejay.creighton.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: ljgrn@creighton.edu (Leonard Greenspoon) Subject: tc-list Orlando Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1364 Harold--Friday evening, at 5:30 (for an early dinner) seems to be the best time for the Adm.Comm. of NETS to meet..Rob, Dave, and I are free then, and Dave THINKS you are..I hope so. Since Dave and Rob (and maybe you) wish to go to the evening IBR meeting, I said to let me know which hotel IBR meets in, and we could meet for dinner in that lobby..Meanwhile, Don Kraus had asked a while back to meet me for lunch on Monday...in asking what I should plan for, I just received the following reply: >Don sends his apologies for not having more information; there has been >a great deal of internal wrangling about the electronic clause in the >Septuagint contract. As he says, though, the fact that they are arguing >about it means they want to sign the contract. So, that's something we'll want to consider Friday...Also, Rob and I are part of a new ad hoc committee to discuss the possibility of having our BULLETIN published by a publisher..and I thought we might discuss some of that on Friday evening also (will there be time to EAT?). Ted Bergren, Fritz Knobloch, and Mel Peters are the other members of that group, but they are unavailable for Friday, so I'll get together with them (and eat again?) on Saturday.. let me know how all of this sounds to you.. thanks leonard p.s.--We are still saving a place of hono(u)r for your KS10 article,ljg From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Nov 11 12:56:19 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA02230; Wed, 11 Nov 1998 12:56:18 -0500 Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 11:58:22 -0600 (CST) X-Sender: ljgrn@bluejay.creighton.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: ljgrn@creighton.edu (Leonard Greenspoon) Subject: tc-list Re: Koren vs BHS (2) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 56 Oops--please ignore the messge I just posted..leonard From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Nov 11 23:36:02 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id XAA05567; Wed, 11 Nov 1998 23:36:02 -0500 Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 23:36:01 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Adair" To: TC List Subject: tc-list new reviews Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 721 Three new reviews are now in TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism, volume 3: Timothy H. Lim, Holy Scripture in the Qumran Commentaries and Pauline Letters (R. Glenn Wooden, reviewer) Johann Cook, The Septuagint of Proverbs: Jewish and/or Hellenistic Proverbs? Concerning the Hellenistic Colouring of LXX Proverbs (Claude Cox, reviewer) Kathryn L. Beam and Traianos Gagos, eds., The Evolution of the English Bible: From Papyri to King James (CD-ROM) (D. C. Parker, reviewer) My thanks to the reviewers and to Leonard Greenspoon, the TC book review editor, for their work. Jimmy Adair General Editor of TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism -------------------> http://purl.org/TC <-------------------- From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Nov 17 16:40:18 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA15946; Tue, 17 Nov 1998 16:40:18 -0500 Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 16:40:17 -0500 Message-Id: <199811172140.QAA15941@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> >Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 10:49:03 +0000 From: George Howard To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: tc-list request from ioudaios Content-Type: text Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 880 Colleagues: I have received a request for information from Stephen Goranson on the ioudaios list. For some reason I cannot reply on that list. We have recently had a change in addresses at UGA and I suppose that is the reason. I will try to correct that. In the meantime I am replying to his request here, hoping that someone will transfer the message to the ioudaios list. I'm still here. My response to Bill Petersen's review of my book on Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew has been prepared and will appear in TC. A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism. James Adair assures me that it will be published before the end of this year so it can be in the same volume as Petersen's critique. I am also preparing a response to Petersen's latest article in NTS and Horbury's appendix in Davies and Allison. It will be a while before can appear in print. George Howard UGA From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Nov 17 18:23:47 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA17399; Tue, 17 Nov 1998 18:23:47 -0500 Message-ID: <365220C7.20408E01@historian.net> Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 17:20:07 -0800 From: Jack Kilmon X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list request from ioudaios References: <199811172140.QAA15941@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1442 George Howard wrote: > Colleagues: > I have received a request for information from Stephen Goranson on > the ioudaios list. For some reason I cannot reply on that list. We > have recently had a change in addresses at UGA and I suppose that is the > reason. I will try to correct that. In the meantime I am replying to > his request here, hoping that someone will transfer the message to the > ioudaios list. > > I'm still here. My response to Bill Petersen's review of my book on > Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew has been prepared and will appear in TC. A > Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism. James Adair assures me that it > will be published before the end of this year so it can be in the same > volume as Petersen's critique. I am also preparing a response to > Petersen's latest article in NTS and Horbury's appendix in Davies and > Allison. It will be a while before can appear in print. > I will look forward to that article, Dr. Howard. I must admit thatI found Petersen convincing but I am sure you respond well to his points. My primary source of skepticism for Shem-tob as a relic of a semitic "proto-Matthew" is simply that I cannot read the Greek Matthew and see it as a translation from Hebrew. I can understand Aramaic sub-structures in some of the sayings material but even then the scribe's sources may have already been Greek translations. I will be watching the Journal with great anticipation. Jack From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Nov 19 10:30:10 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA29130; Thu, 19 Nov 1998 10:30:08 -0500 Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 10:30:06 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Adair" To: TC List Subject: tc-list another new review Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 305 Another review is now available in TC: Review of Raymond F. Person, The Kings-Isaiah and Kings-Jeremiah Recensions. Hermann-Josef Stipp of Tuebingen is the reviewer. Jimmy Adair General Editor of TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism -------------------> http://purl.org/TC <-------------------- From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Nov 21 16:32:21 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA09581; Sat, 21 Nov 1998 16:32:20 -0500 From: "Francisco Orozco" To: Subject: tc-list Phi 3.16 Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 14:23:09 -0700 Message-ID: <01be1595$230b3500$LocalHost@fran> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: 3448 In Phi 3.16 the Critical Text omits KANONI TO AUTO FRONEIN and acc. to Metzger this is so because "The earliest form of the text appears to be that preserved in p16, p46, Aleph (1st hand), A, B, I (vid) 33, 424(corr), 1739 cop (sa,bo) eth(ro) etc. Because of the conciseness of style, copyists added various explanatory words and phrases; e.g. the TR reads TW AUTW STOIXEIN KANONI TO AUTO FRONEIN with Aleph (corr), K, P, Psi, 88, 614, syr (p,h), eth(pp), etc, where KANONI serves to identify the otherwise enigmatic TW AUTW and TO AUTO FRONEIN is a gloss explaining TW AUTW STOIXEIN (cf. 2.2 and Gal 6.16); other witnesses insert KANONI before STOIXEIN (69, 1908), and still others insert TO AUTO FRONEIN before TW AUTW with or without KANONI (D, G, 81, 330, 1241, it, vg, goth, arm, Euthalius). The variety and lack of homogeneity of the longer readings make it difficult to suppose that the shorter reading TW AUTW STOIXEIN arose because of homoeoteleuton." So that acc. to Metzger we have the following: (1) TW AUTW STOIXEIN p16, p46, Aleph (1st hand), A, B, I (vid) 33, 424(corr), 1739, cop (sa,bo) eth(ro) (2) TW AUTW STOIXEIN KANONI TO AUTO FRONEIN with Aleph (corr), K, P, Psi, 88, 614, syr (p,h), eth(pp) (3) TW AUTW KANONI STOIXEIN TO AUTO FRONEIN 69,1908 (4) TO AUTO FRONEIN TW AUTW STOIXEIN (KANONI) D, G, 81, 330, 1241, it, vg, goth, arm, Euthalius (A) I suppose we may dismiss reading (3) because of its minimal witnesses, and perhaps a simple accidental metathesis. (B) I do not know if we can also call reading (4) a case of metathesis (coupled to error in hearing, reading or memory lapse?). Its witnesses are Byz (goth) West (D, G, it, vg) Alex (81) Caesa (arm) (I do not know where to put 330, 1241 & Euth). Apparently this reading has ample geographical distribution. (C) The reading (2) has Byz (K, P, Syr) Alex (Aleph (corr)?, Psi) West (88) (where do 614 & eth(pp) go?). This reading has fairly good geographical distribution. Acc. to Hodges & Farstad this is the MT (I do not know about M. Robinson since I do not own a copy of his edition of the MT), and would then have the bulk of the witnesses. (D) The reading (1) is apparently Alexandrian (but where do we put p16 & eth(ro) ?). This reading is apparently a localized (geograohically) reading. It enjoys the early witness of p46. Now, to Metzger's explanation: (1) How convincing is that KANONI was added to identify the otherwise enigmatic TW AUTW, and that TO AUTO FRONEIN is a gloss explaining TW AUTW STOIXEIN? In this explanation TW AUTW is being asked to serve two times: to explain KANONI and to partly explain TO AUTO FRONEIN. (2) How the references cited (Phi 2.2 and Gal 6.16) serve to support that TO AUTO FRONEIN is a gloss explaining TW AUTW STOIXEIN ? Did the scribes of reading (2) gloss from 2.2 & Gal 6.16 in order to think that TO AUTO FRONEIN might be a good explanation of TW AUTW STOIXEIN ? And, some last questions: (1) Unto what did the corrector of Aleph corrected it? Was it the same first-scribe who corrected himself? Is Aleph(corr) still then Alexandrian? (2) Could it be that Phi 2.2 & Gal 6.16 and Phil. 1:7; 2:2, 5; 3:15, 19; 4:2, 10 (where some form of FRONEW appears) rather be confirmatory of the originality of reading (2)? (3) Reading (1) is the shortest reading, but also a localized reading. Is there really no chance that this reading arose due to homoeoteleuton or some other accident? Thanks, Francisco Orozco TC Lurker From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Nov 21 20:33:11 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA10081; Sat, 21 Nov 1998 20:33:09 -0500 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail & News for Macintosh - 3.0c (405) Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 20:41:23 +0000 Subject: tc-list Request From: Blue Skies White Stars To: TC List-Digest Mime-version: 1.0 http: //zpbstimes.org Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <19981122013406015.AAA336.216@[209.12.221.70]> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 711 Greetings list, This issue is related to translation instead of TC, so please pardon me for asking. I know there's more than a few of you that have access to this material quicker, so I'm asking here- I recalled reading a few years back about a big fuss the scholarly community made over the NIV's inconsistency of the translation of the word sarx (flesh here, sinful nature there, etc....). Can someone e-mail me the references and criticisms if they are aware of them? Thank you. Please e-mail them to me off list, since they don't relate to the subject of TC and many folks might not be interested in reading. Kerry Gilliard 1 Peter 3:15, Jude 3 blufunk195@tidalwave.net http://tidalwave.net/~blufunk195 From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Nov 24 21:17:44 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA23683; Tue, 24 Nov 1998 21:17:43 -0500 Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 21:22:36 -0500 Message-Id: <199811250222.VAA29195@server1.netpath.net> X-Sender: rlmullen@server1.netpath.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Roderic L. Mullen" Subject: Re: tc-list Phi 3.16 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 3955 With regard to your Manuscript groupings, 614 is often considered to be a secondary Western witness in Acts, but I have no idea what it's character would be in the Pauline epistles. I don't think there's any evidence for anything that could be called a distinctive Caesarean text-type in the Pauline epistles, so I'm not sure tht the armenian version is a useful witness at this point. --Rod Mullen At 02:23 PM 11/21/98 -0700, you wrote: >In Phi 3.16 the Critical Text omits KANONI TO AUTO FRONEIN and acc. to >Metzger this is so because "The earliest form of the text appears to be that >preserved in p16, p46, Aleph (1st hand), A, B, I (vid) 33, 424(corr), 1739 >cop (sa,bo) eth(ro) etc. Because of the conciseness of style, copyists added >various explanatory words and phrases; e.g. the TR reads TW AUTW STOIXEIN >KANONI TO AUTO FRONEIN with Aleph (corr), K, P, Psi, 88, 614, syr (p,h), >eth(pp), etc, where KANONI serves to identify the otherwise enigmatic TW >AUTW and TO AUTO FRONEIN is a gloss explaining TW AUTW STOIXEIN (cf. 2.2 and >Gal 6.16); other witnesses insert KANONI before STOIXEIN (69, 1908), and >still others insert TO AUTO FRONEIN before TW AUTW with or without KANONI >(D, G, 81, 330, 1241, it, vg, goth, arm, Euthalius). The variety and lack of >homogeneity of the longer readings make it difficult to suppose that the >shorter reading TW AUTW STOIXEIN arose because of homoeoteleuton." > >So that acc. to Metzger we have the following: >(1) TW AUTW STOIXEIN p16, p46, Aleph (1st hand), A, B, I (vid) 33, >424(corr), 1739, cop (sa,bo) eth(ro) >(2) TW AUTW STOIXEIN KANONI TO AUTO FRONEIN with Aleph (corr), K, P, Psi, >88, 614, syr (p,h), eth(pp) >(3) TW AUTW KANONI STOIXEIN TO AUTO FRONEIN 69,1908 >(4) TO AUTO FRONEIN TW AUTW STOIXEIN (KANONI) D, G, 81, 330, 1241, it, vg, >goth, arm, Euthalius > >(A) I suppose we may dismiss reading (3) because of its minimal witnesses, >and perhaps a simple accidental metathesis. >(B) I do not know if we can also call reading (4) a case of metathesis >(coupled to error in hearing, reading or memory lapse?). Its witnesses are >Byz (goth) West (D, G, it, vg) Alex (81) Caesa (arm) (I do not know where to >put 330, 1241 & Euth). Apparently this reading has ample geographical >distribution. >(C) The reading (2) has Byz (K, P, Syr) Alex (Aleph (corr)?, Psi) West (88) >(where do 614 & eth(pp) go?). This reading has fairly good geographical >distribution. Acc. to Hodges & Farstad this is the MT (I do not know about >M. Robinson since I do not own a copy of his edition of the MT), and would >then have the bulk of the witnesses. >(D) The reading (1) is apparently Alexandrian (but where do we put p16 & >eth(ro) ?). This reading is apparently a localized (geograohically) reading. >It enjoys the early witness of p46. > >Now, to Metzger's explanation: >(1) How convincing is that KANONI was added to identify the otherwise >enigmatic TW AUTW, and that TO AUTO FRONEIN is a gloss explaining TW AUTW >STOIXEIN? In this explanation TW AUTW is being asked to serve two times: to >explain KANONI and to partly explain TO AUTO FRONEIN. >(2) How the references cited (Phi 2.2 and Gal 6.16) serve to support that TO >AUTO FRONEIN is a gloss explaining TW AUTW STOIXEIN ? Did the scribes of >reading (2) gloss from 2.2 & Gal 6.16 in order to think that TO AUTO FRONEIN >might be a good explanation of TW AUTW STOIXEIN ? > >And, some last questions: >(1) Unto what did the corrector of Aleph corrected it? Was it the same >first-scribe who corrected himself? Is Aleph(corr) still then Alexandrian? >(2) Could it be that Phi 2.2 & Gal 6.16 and Phil. 1:7; 2:2, 5; 3:15, 19; >4:2, 10 (where some form of FRONEW appears) rather be confirmatory of the >originality of reading (2)? >(3) Reading (1) is the shortest reading, but also a localized reading. Is >there really no chance that this reading arose due to homoeoteleuton or some >other accident? > >Thanks, >Francisco Orozco >TC Lurker > > From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Nov 25 09:05:15 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA26177; Wed, 25 Nov 1998 09:05:14 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199811250222.VAA29195@server1.netpath.net> Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 07:56:30 -0600 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: tc-list Phi 3.16 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1601 On Tue, 24 Nov 1998, "Roderic L. Mullen" wrote: >With regard to your Manuscript groupings, 614 is often considered to be a >secondary Western witness in Acts, but I have no idea what it's character >would be in the Pauline epistles. I don't think there's any evidence for >anything that could be called a distinctive Caesarean text-type in the >Pauline epistles, so I'm not sure tht the armenian version is a useful >witness at this point. >--Rod Mullen I don't have a collation of 614 in Paul, but the data in UBS3 makes it clear that 614 and 2412 are sisters there, or nearly (as they are in the Acts and Catholics). And Clark published a collation of 2412. On this basis we can say: - 614 and 2412 are *not* members of Family 1611 (1611, 1505, 2495, hark; possibly 2005; also 1022 in the Pastorals) - 614 and 2412 are almost purely, if not purely, Byzantine As for the Armenian: It is a useful witness, although it has not been classified. Based on the data in UBS3, it is largely non-Byzantine -- but does not appear to go with Origen, or with Family 1739. So it is an open question whether arm is "Caesarean" or not, even if one accepts the existence of that text-type. I hope to have more to say on this thread later; too much to do right now.... -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Nov 25 22:28:42 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA29317; Wed, 25 Nov 1998 22:28:41 -0500 Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 22:33:36 -0500 Message-Id: <199811260333.WAA26741@server1.netpath.net> X-Sender: rlmullen@server1.netpath.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Roderic L. Mullen" Subject: Re: tc-list Phi 3.16 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2962 The cautious reader will note that I said 614 is "often considered to be a secondary Western witness in Acts." The key word here is SECONDARY. As a quick and thus rough guide I checked my data for Cyril of Jerusalem and found that there are 51 points of variation where Cyril, D, 614, TR, and UBS all have text and are all non singular. In those points, 614 agrees with D about 23 times, 614 agrees with TR about 35 times, and 614 agrees with UBS about 20 times. Thus on the basis of this limited sample, 614 in Acts would appear to be about 68% Byzantine, but with a substantial number of readings in agreement with D. Hence its significance as a secondary witness. With regard to the possibility of a "Caesarean" text in the Pauline epistles, the patristic evidence is thus: Origen is definitely Alexandrian in the Paulines, Eusebius appears to be Alexandrian in Romans and I Corinthians at least, and Cyril of Jerusalem's text varies between Alexandrian and Byzantine. Three just doesn't seem to be any evidence for a distinctive text-type of the Paulines around Caesarea. Ergo, whatever importance the Armenian version may have for other reasons, it is pointless to use the Armenian text as witness for a nonexistent Caesarean text of the paulines. --Rod Mullen At 07:56 AM 11/25/98 -0600, you wrote: >On Tue, 24 Nov 1998, "Roderic L. Mullen" wrote: > >>With regard to your Manuscript groupings, 614 is often considered to be a >>secondary Western witness in Acts, but I have no idea what it's character >>would be in the Pauline epistles. I don't think there's any evidence for >>anything that could be called a distinctive Caesarean text-type in the >>Pauline epistles, so I'm not sure tht the armenian version is a useful >>witness at this point. >>--Rod Mullen > >I don't have a collation of 614 in Paul, but the data in UBS3 >makes it clear that 614 and 2412 are sisters there, or nearly >(as they are in the Acts and Catholics). And Clark published >a collation of 2412. > >On this basis we can say: > >- 614 and 2412 are *not* members of Family 1611 (1611, 1505, 2495, >hark; possibly 2005; also 1022 in the Pastorals) > >- 614 and 2412 are almost purely, if not purely, Byzantine > >As for the Armenian: It is a useful witness, although it has not >been classified. Based on the data in UBS3, it is largely non-Byzantine -- >but does not appear to go with Origen, or with Family 1739. So it >is an open question whether arm is "Caesarean" or not, even if one >accepts the existence of that text-type. > >I hope to have more to say on this thread later; too much to do >right now.... >-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- > > 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 Nov 26 05:35:23 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id FAA00902; Thu, 26 Nov 1998 05:35:22 -0500 Message-Id: <199811261037.KAA20140@haymarket.ed.ac.uk> From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1998 10:35:48 +000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: tc-list SBL meeting Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01b) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1444 IN the two sessions of the 1998 SBL NT textual criticism section there were some very interesting presentations. My own list of highlights follows. Maybe someone in OT TC could do the same for us? --Gordon Fee did another devastatingly persuasive job demolishing the psuedo-arguments of C. Thiede for Qumran 7Q5 as a fragment of Mark. (When will Thiede turn to real scholarship instead of sensationalism?) --Wm. Warren (New Orleas Bapt. Theol. Sem.) gave striking evidence that P4 (which is now identified as a portion of the same ms as P64 & P67) shows an overwhelmingly "B"-type text of Luke. Another early witness (along with P75) for a relatively strong B-text by the late 2nd cent at latest. --In the second session E. J. Epp & Wm. Petersen gave papers showing the complexity of "original text", even suggesting that the term may be of questionable value. Yours truly gave an invited response to Epp, and David Parker to Petersen. We both basically argued that "original text" though not empirically verifiable was a useful theoretical entity that gave shape to the effort to trace the history of the NT text. There was very vigourous discussion involving others such as Bart Ehrman, Gordon Fee, et alia. A very good time for conceptual clarification. L. W. Hurtado University of Edinburgh, New College Mound Place Edinburgh, Scotland EH1 2LX Phone: 0131-650-8920 Fax: 0131-650-6579 E-mail: L.Hurtado@ed.ac.uk From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Nov 26 09:41:36 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA01617; Thu, 26 Nov 1998 09:41:35 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199811260333.WAA26741@server1.netpath.net> Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1998 08:26:45 -0600 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: tc-list Phi 3.16 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1000 On Wed, 25 Nov 1998, "Roderic L. Mullen" >The cautious reader will note that I said 614 is "often considered to be a >secondary Western witness in Acts." The key word here is SECONDARY. I should offer a clarification. The comments I made (about 614 and 2412 being Byzantine) were meant to apply *only to Paul*. On re-reading, I realize I didn't say that. In Acts and the Catholic Epistles, they are *not* Byzantine. They are members of Family 2138 (Amphoux's name; Wachtel's Hk-gr, etc.) It may be questioned whether these manuscripts are in fact "Western" (in the Catholics, they do *not* agree with the surviving Old Latins) -- but that is another story. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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)