From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Jan 4 12:42:58 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA19817; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 12:42:57 -0500 Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 12:42:55 -0500 Message-Id: <199901041742.MAA19812@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> >Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 09:23:36 -0800 (PST) From: Vincent Broman To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: tc-list Swanson publication on Acts Content-Type: text Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1159 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- I was excited to hear recently that the next volume of Reuben Swanson's text critical apparatus has come out: "New Testament Greek Manuscripts: The Acts of the Apostles" which is available through the publisher, William Carey Library, at PO Box 40129, Pasadena, CA 91104, or telephone +1 626 798 0819. Since I was impressed by his four volumes on the Gospels, I plan on ordering this right away. Having heard that Swanson's health hasn't been great, I'm pleased that he was able to complete this installment. Vincent Broman San Diego, California, USA Email: broman at sd.znet.com (home) or spawar.navy.mil or nosc.mil (work) Phone: +1 619 284 3775 Starship: 32d42m22s N 117d14m13s W === PGPv2 protected mail preferred. For public key finger me at np.nosc.mil === -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBNn6D5mCU4mTNq7IdAQHIxAQAuSHpBMXs7XPAjOqXv52wuRWaRWW3E5R8 /NEDKMIMZIhnBYljQwuxsMSYrSSQh4367zSa2gVqvmmLPaChPbYTyJgmxVb+OovI Cl3Z0MZTYuAip1qKzykCDgS0zyBfDw0abe+VyO5gvRshFj+JeqDxf+KcTBg2ID+o NRIg7f662Hw= =RzH7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Jan 4 12:43:51 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA19842; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 12:43:50 -0500 Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 12:43:48 -0500 Message-Id: <199901041743.MAA19835@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> >Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1998 17:05:12 -0800 (PST) From: Vincent Broman To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: tc-list Editio Critica Maior Content-Type: text Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 940 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Can anyone advise on how to order the ECM of James? No one I've talked to in the US can order it for me. I tried initiating an order from the Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft WWW site, but they want DM not US$ and I'm not sure they'll do business with me. How has anyone else in the US ordered it? Vincent Broman San Diego, California, USA Email: broman at sd.znet.com (home) or spawar.navy.mil or nosc.mil (work) Phone: +1 619 284 3775 Starship: 32d42m22s N 117d14m13s W === PGPv2 protected mail preferred. For public key finger me at np.nosc.mil === -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBNol8KWCU4mTNq7IdAQG1JAP/Q0Maht6sa5exNxSGgpYklraVwMLXFM+n LHTV0Cv6ovkpSUIP44f9iAnVy0Nj8uUZPAkHpnRNFT+wdx+HSr+kd+d3NlIrtVAb Z+NZKg/oFEqe+8GAWx/mWgbUx0tDKl1VZtG4hFeFoyG1NXtk/6khrbgSTz12dnaf TgSvvpzTkGc= =XeoX -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Jan 4 15:30:27 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA21937; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 15:30:25 -0500 Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 15:30:23 -0500 Message-Id: <199901042030.PAA21918@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> >Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1998 14:31:39 -0500 From: "Kevin W. Woodruff" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list Greek lexicons Content-Type: text Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2003 James: Unless you do a lot of work in the early Church Fathers, I think BAGD and L&S will serve you just fine. At 10:14 AM 12/29/98 -0500, you wrote: >Is Lampe's _A Patristic Greek Lexicon_ worth the $295 to buy? > >The context of this question is that I am a professor of theology in a >Seminary in Caracas, Venezuela. The seminary does not have the library >facilities that a normal seminary in the States would have. In my >personal library, I have Bauer's Lexicon (2nd ed., not the new one soon >to be released) and Liddell, Scott, Jones' Lexicon as well as various >other theological dictionaries such as Kittel complete set and Colin >Brown's set. Also, with the internet resources such as Thesaurus Gracae >(sp?) available, would I be just as well off getting the newer version of >Bauer, rather than Lampe's? > >I am finishing up my MA in Theological Studies while on furlough and will >soon be finished. My next project will be to do an indepth study of >Galatians from the Greek text. While I do not consider myself a >professional textual critic, I am interested in being able to >independently evaluate the textual variants. > >Sincerely, > >Rev. James A. Gehman >Missionary in Residence, Brookside Community Church >jagehman@juno.com >Web site: http://www.familyshoebox.com/family/gehmangateway > >___________________________________________________________________ >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] > > Kevin W. Woodruff, M.Div. Library Director/Reference Librarian Professor of New Testament Greek 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.campuscw.net (preferred) kwoodruf@utkux.utcc.utk.edu (alternate) http://web.utk.edu/~kwoodruf/woodruff.htm From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Jan 4 20:03:42 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA23414; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 20:03:39 -0500 From: rlmullen@netpath.net Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990104200937.007a2270@netpath.net> X-Sender: rlmullen@netpath.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 04 Jan 1999 20:09:37 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list Editio Critica Maior In-Reply-To: <199901041743.MAA19835@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1185 American Bible Society is the U.S. distributor, but my experience is that you have to be persistent with their customer service folk since it's not a standard item. --Rod Mullen At 12:43 PM 1/4/99 -0500, you wrote: >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > >Can anyone advise on how to order the ECM of James? >No one I've talked to in the US can order it for me. >I tried initiating an order from the Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft >WWW site, but they want DM not US$ and I'm not sure they'll >do business with me. > >How has anyone else in the US ordered it? > >Vincent Broman San Diego, California, USA >Email: broman at sd.znet.com (home) or spawar.navy.mil or nosc.mil (work) >Phone: +1 619 284 3775 Starship: 32d42m22s N 117d14m13s W >=== PGPv2 protected mail preferred. For public key finger me at np.nosc.mil === > >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >Version: 2.6.2 > >iQCVAwUBNol8KWCU4mTNq7IdAQG1JAP/Q0Maht6sa5exNxSGgpYklraVwMLXFM+n >LHTV0Cv6ovkpSUIP44f9iAnVy0Nj8uUZPAkHpnRNFT+wdx+HSr+kd+d3NlIrtVAb >Z+NZKg/oFEqe+8GAWx/mWgbUx0tDKl1VZtG4hFeFoyG1NXtk/6khrbgSTz12dnaf >TgSvvpzTkGc= >=XeoX >-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Jan 4 21:10:22 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA23614; Mon, 4 Jan 1999 21:10:19 -0500 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199901041743.MAA19835@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 20:26:46 +0400 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: Carlton Winbery Subject: Re: tc-list Editio Critica Maior Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 671 >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > >Can anyone advise on how to order the ECM of James? >No one I've talked to in the US can order it for me. >I tried initiating an order from the Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft >WWW site, but they want DM not US$ and I'm not sure they'll >do business with me. > >How has anyone else in the US ordered it? Vincent, This was showcased at the 1997 SBL meeting. I got mine at that meeting from the American Bible Society. I think that it is now advertized in their scholarly catalog. Carlton L. Winbery Fogleman Professor of Religion Louisiana College Pineville, LA 71359 winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net winbery@andria.lacollege.edu From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Jan 5 14:07:59 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA28111; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 14:07:56 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list Swanson publication on Acts Message-ID: <19990105.135704.5471.0.seventh.guardian@juno.com> References: <199901041742.MAA19812@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> X-Mailer: Juno 1.49 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0,2-14,25-26,30-36 From: seventh.guardian@juno.com (Maurice A. Robinson) Date: Tue, 05 Jan 1999 14:10:56 EST Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2030 On Mon, 4 Jan 1999 12:42:55 -0500 Vincent Broman writes: >I was excited to hear recently that the next volume of >Reuben Swanson's text critical apparatus has come out: >"New Testament Greek Manuscripts: The Acts of the Apostles" >which is available through the publisher, William Carey Library, >at PO Box 40129, Pasadena, CA 91104, or telephone +1 626 798 0819. > >Since I was impressed by his four volumes on the Gospels, >I plan on ordering this right away. Having heard that Swanson's >health hasn't been great, I'm pleased that he was able to complete this >installment. The Acts volume (which I have) is certainly welcome, but it has some changes in format from the previous gospel volumes, which may or may not be considered improvements by the readers, depending on their preferences. E.g., the nomina sacra now appear in the text rather than in the footnote apparatus; so too the mere orthographic differences as well as the plain and clear blunders. Previously these were all in the various footnote sections. Also, there no longer is any reference to the Majority text (which was indicated by Gothic "M" in the gospel volumes), and I presume that one simply is supposed to discern "M" by looking for the reading supported by the majority of Swanson's collated witnesses, which in some cases may well be incorrect. . An added feature is the footnoted critique of other apparatuses, particularly Nestle27. I do not know how accurate the critique is, however, and I probably have a greater tendency to suspect Swanson's collation rather than the NA27 apparatus. ============================================== Maurice A. Robinson Professor of NT and Greek Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina. ___________________________________________________________________ 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 Jan 5 18:22:49 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA29691; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 18:22:46 -0500 Message-ID: <3692CACF.DC3@total.net> Date: Tue, 05 Jan 1999 18:30:39 -0800 From: Mike and Jeanne Arcieri X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02E-KIT (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list Swanson publication on Acts References: <199901041742.MAA19812@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> <19990105.135704.5471.0.seventh.guardian@juno.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 383 Maurice A. Robinson wrote: > The Acts volume (which I have) is certainly welcome, but it has some > changes in format from the previous gospel volumes, which may or may not > be considered improvements by the readers, depending on their > preferences. Where did you get the volume from? Did Swanson bring some at the ETS meeting? Any news at what Swanson is doing next? Mike From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Jan 5 20:06:14 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA00254; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 20:06:10 -0500 Message-Id: <199901060109.CAA08076@carno.brus.online.be> Subject: tc-list ms reference please Date: Mer, 6 Jan 99 02:11:46 +0100 x-sender: vale5655@pop3.brus.online.be x-mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1 From: Jean Valentin To: "Liste TC-List" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 610 Dear tc-ers, I need to know the reference of a ms in the current Gregory/Aland system. It is a Greek-Arabic bilingual lectionary, I supposed it is referenced in that system as it has Greek text. Its library quote is Jerusalem Staurou 26. Does anybody know its references in Greek apparatuses (the reference preceded by a cursive letter l, as it is a lectionary)? I'm sorry to ask this, I know I could look in Aland's Kurzgefasste Liste, but I don't have it right here. Thank you for your help, Jean V. Jean Valentin - 34 rue du Berceau - 1000 Bruxelles - Belgique e-mail : jgvalentin@arcadis.be From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Jan 6 09:51:36 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA05018; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 09:51:33 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199901060109.CAA08076@carno.brus.online.be> Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1999 08:15:25 -0600 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: tc-list ms reference please Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1220 Since nobody with immediate acceo a KL2 has answered this yet, I'll report what the KL1 says. I hope it hasn't changed.... On Mer, 6 Jan 9, Jean Valentin wrote: >Dear tc-ers, > >I need to know the reference of a ms in the current Gregory/Aland system. >It is a Greek-Arabic bilingual lectionary, I supposed it is referenced in >that system as it has Greek text. Its library quote is Jerusalem Staurou >26. Does anybody know its references in Greek apparatuses (the reference >preceded by a cursive letter l, as it is a lectionary)? I'm sorry to ask >this, I know I could look in Aland's Kurzgefasste Liste, but I don't have >it right here. The KL1 lists it as l1023. A quick glance as Maurice Robinson's list of changesin the KL doesn't seem to show it, so I assume that is till the number. For what it's worth, the KL dates it to the eleventh century. Hope this helps. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Jan 6 13:13:19 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA07968; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 13:13:17 -0500 Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1999 12:16:10 -0600 (Central Standard Time) From: "Prof. Ron Minton" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: tc-list 3,000 manuscriprs 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: 582 Christian History Magazine, 465 Gunderson Dr. Carol Stream, IL 60188 had an article "Discovering the Oldest New Testament" by H.G.G. Herklots in issue 43 of _Christian History_. On page 35, the caption of the picture says of the St. Catherine's monastery, "In 1975, workers discovered another 3,000 manuscripts hidden there." I would like to find more information about both the discovery and the manuscripts. The magazine editor was not able to help me. Does anyone have information about this? Prof Ron Minton 5379 North Farm Road 179 Springfield, MO 65803 (417) 833-9581 From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Jan 6 13:41:29 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA08351; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 13:41:26 -0500 Message-ID: <003086DDAD30D211842F00062B0006E101193F08@esusa.esusa.org> From: Curt Niccum To: "'tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu'" Subject: RE: tc-list 3,000 manuscriprs Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1999 12:42:51 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1825 Approximately 1148 mss were discovered, 305 of them complete. 836 are in Greek containing primarily Christian literature with the others representing arabic, syriac, old church slavonic, armenian, latin, ethiopic, and hebrew (listed in their order of frequency). The following articles are helpful. Aland, Kurt, "Die neuen Sinai-Funde," Bericht der Hermann Kunst-Stiftung zue Foerderung der neutestamentlichen Textforschung fuer die Jahre 1977 bis 1979, 46-58. Aland, Kurt, "Die Ausgaben und laufenden Arbeit des Instituts," Bericht der Hermann Kunst-Stiftung zue Foerderung der neutestamentlichen Textforschung fuer die Jahre 1979 bis 1981, 33-35. Aland, Barbara, "Die neuen neutestamentlichen Handschriften vom Sinai," Bericht der Hermann Kunst-Stiftung zue Foerderung der neutestamentlichen Textforschung fuer die Jahre 1982 bis 1984, 76-89. A quick look at the Kurzgefasste Liste suggests that uncials 0278-0296, minuscules 2797-2801, and lectionaries 2285-2304 belong to that find. Curt Niccum > -----Original Message----- > From: Prof. Ron Minton [SMTP:rminton@mail.orion.org] > Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 1999 12:16 PM > To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu > Subject: tc-list 3,000 manuscriprs > > Christian History Magazine, 465 Gunderson Dr. Carol Stream, IL 60188 > had an article "Discovering the Oldest New Testament" by H.G.G. Herklots > in issue 43 of _Christian History_. On page 35, the caption of the > picture says of the St. Catherine's monastery, "In 1975, workers > discovered another 3,000 manuscripts hidden there." > > I would like to find more information about both the discovery and the > manuscripts. The magazine editor was not able to help me. Does anyone > have information about this? > > Prof Ron Minton > 5379 North Farm Road 179 > Springfield, MO 65803 > (417) 833-9581 From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Jan 6 17:47:49 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA13014; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 17:47:49 -0500 From: rlmullen@netpath.net Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990106175355.007a24a0@netpath.net> X-Sender: rlmullen@netpath.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1999 17:53:55 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list 3,000 manuscriprs In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 793 In the early 1980's James H. Charlesworth did a series of articles and publications on these that may give you some idea of their contents. --Rod Mullen At 12:16 PM 1/6/99 -0600, you wrote: >Christian History Magazine, 465 Gunderson Dr. Carol Stream, IL 60188 >had an article "Discovering the Oldest New Testament" by H.G.G. Herklots >in issue 43 of _Christian History_. On page 35, the caption of the >picture says of the St. Catherine's monastery, "In 1975, workers >discovered another 3,000 manuscripts hidden there." > >I would like to find more information about both the discovery and the >manuscripts. The magazine editor was not able to help me. Does anyone >have information about this? > >Prof Ron Minton >5379 North Farm Road 179 >Springfield, MO 65803 >(417) 833-9581 > > From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Jan 6 20:37:06 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA13911; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 20:37:06 -0500 From: "Douglas F. Salmon" To: Subject: Re: tc-list 3,000 manuscriprs Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1999 18:39:25 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1161 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1132 See James H. Charlesworth, "The Manuscripts of St Catherine's Monastery," _Biblical Archeologist_ 43 (Winter 1980): 26-34. This was the third of a series, the earlier two being in 41.1 (1978): 29-31 and 42.3 (1979): 174-79. --Doug Salmon ---------- > Date: Wednesday, January 06, 1999 3:53 PM > In the early 1980's James H. Charlesworth did a series of articles and > publications on these that may give you some idea of their contents. --Rod > Mullen > > At 12:16 PM 1/6/99 -0600, you wrote: > >Christian History Magazine, 465 Gunderson Dr. Carol Stream, IL 60188 > >had an article "Discovering the Oldest New Testament" by H.G.G. Herklots > >in issue 43 of _Christian History_. On page 35, the caption of the > >picture says of the St. Catherine's monastery, "In 1975, workers > >discovered another 3,000 manuscripts hidden there." > > > >I would like to find more information about both the discovery and the > >manuscripts. The magazine editor was not able to help me. Does anyone > >have information about this? > > > >Prof Ron Minton > >5379 North Farm Road 179 > >Springfield, MO 65803 > >(417) 833-9581 > > > > > From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Jan 7 00:18:52 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id AAA14902; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 00:18:52 -0500 Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 00:18:51 -0500 Message-Id: <199901070518.AAA14897@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> >Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1999 08:32:58 -0800 From: Kristin DeTroyer To: "'tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu'" Subject: RE: tc-list Editio Critica Maior Content-Type: text Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1727 To Rod Mullen: Just call or email the American Bible Society, I have here the email address of the manager of the Year of the Bible: Ronald Mixer. He helped me at the SBL/AAR and seemed to know a lot: Rmixer@americanbible.org And if that doesn't work, contact the Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, Herr Bader: Bader@dbg.de Success, Kristin -----Original Message----- From: rlmullen@netpath.net [SMTP:rlmullen@netpath.net] Sent: Monday, January 04, 1999 5:10 PM To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list Editio Critica Maior American Bible Society is the U.S. distributor, but my experience is that you have to be persistent with their customer service folk since it's not a standard item. --Rod Mullen At 12:43 PM 1/4/99 -0500, you wrote: >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > >Can anyone advise on how to order the ECM of James? >No one I've talked to in the US can order it for me. >I tried initiating an order from the Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft >WWW site, but they want DM not US$ and I'm not sure they'll >do business with me. > >How has anyone else in the US ordered it? > >Vincent Broman San Diego, California, USA >Email: broman at sd.znet.com (home) or spawar.navy.mil or nosc.mil (work) >Phone: +1 619 284 3775 Starship: 32d42m22s N 117d14m13s W >=== PGPv2 protected mail preferred. For public key finger me at np.nosc.mil === > >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >Version: 2.6.2 > >iQCVAwUBNol8KWCU4mTNq7IdAQG1JAP/Q0Maht6sa5exNxSGgpYklraVwMLXFM+n >LHTV0Cv6ovkpSUIP44f9iAnVy0Nj8uUZPAkHpnRNFT+wdx+HSr+kd+d3NlIrtVAb >Z+NZKg/oFEqe+8GAWx/mWgbUx0tDKl1VZtG4hFeFoyG1NXtk/6khrbgSTz12dnaf >TgSvvpzTkGc= >=XeoX >-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Jan 7 11:12:51 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA18258; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 11:12:50 -0500 Message-ID: <001f01be3a58$a2cc65b0$54256887@typok.research.bell-labs.com> From: "George Kiraz" To: Subject: Re: tc-list 3,000 manuscriprs Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 11:13:17 -0500 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 4.72.3110.5 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: 3134 >> Christian History Magazine, 465 Gunderson Dr. Carol Stream, IL 60188 >> had an article "Discovering the Oldest New Testament" by H.G.G. Herklots >> in issue 43 of _Christian History_. On page 35, the caption of the >> picture says of the St. Catherine's monastery, "In 1975, workers >> discovered another 3,000 manuscripts hidden there." A catalogue of the Syriac fragments (not manuscripts) of that discovery has been catalogued: S. P. Brock, _Catalogue of Syriac Fragments (New Finds) in the Library of the Monastery of Saint Catherine, Mount Sinai_ (Athens: Mount Sinai Foundation, 1995). ISBN 96085739-0-4 [A large volume describing the fragments with photos of the fragments.] ---------- George Anton Kiraz, Ph.D. Language Modeling Research Bell Laboratories Lucent Technologies Room 2D-446 700 Mountain Ave. Murray Hill, NJ 07974 Tel. +1 908 582 4074 Fax. +1 908 582 3306 email: gkiraz@research.bell-labs.com Bell Labs Text-to-Speech: http://www.bell-labs.com/project/tts Hugoye Journal: http://www.acad.cua.edu/syrcom/Hugoye -----Original Message----- From: Curt Niccum To: 'tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu' Date: Wednesday, January 06, 1999 1:49 PM Subject: RE: tc-list 3,000 manuscriprs >Approximately 1148 mss were discovered, 305 of them complete. 836 are in >Greek containing primarily Christian literature with the others representing >arabic, syriac, old church slavonic, armenian, latin, ethiopic, and hebrew >(listed in their order of frequency). > >The following articles are helpful. > >Aland, Kurt, "Die neuen Sinai-Funde," Bericht der Hermann Kunst-Stiftung zue >Foerderung der neutestamentlichen Textforschung fuer die Jahre 1977 bis >1979, 46-58. > >Aland, Kurt, "Die Ausgaben und laufenden Arbeit des Instituts," Bericht der >Hermann Kunst-Stiftung zue Foerderung der neutestamentlichen Textforschung >fuer die Jahre 1979 bis 1981, 33-35. > >Aland, Barbara, "Die neuen neutestamentlichen Handschriften vom Sinai," >Bericht der Hermann Kunst-Stiftung zue Foerderung der neutestamentlichen >Textforschung fuer die Jahre 1982 bis 1984, 76-89. > >A quick look at the Kurzgefasste Liste suggests that uncials 0278-0296, >minuscules 2797-2801, and lectionaries 2285-2304 belong to that find. > >Curt Niccum > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Prof. Ron Minton [SMTP:rminton@mail.orion.org] >> Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 1999 12:16 PM >> To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu >> Subject: tc-list 3,000 manuscriprs >> >> Christian History Magazine, 465 Gunderson Dr. Carol Stream, IL 60188 >> had an article "Discovering the Oldest New Testament" by H.G.G. Herklots >> in issue 43 of _Christian History_. On page 35, the caption of the >> picture says of the St. Catherine's monastery, "In 1975, workers >> discovered another 3,000 manuscripts hidden there." >> >> I would like to find more information about both the discovery and the >> manuscripts. The magazine editor was not able to help me. Does anyone >> have information about this? >> >> Prof Ron Minton >> 5379 North Farm Road 179 >> Springfield, MO 65803 >> (417) 833-9581 > From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Jan 7 13:03:04 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA20783; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 13:03:03 -0500 Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 13:05:10 -0500 From: "Harold P. Scanlin" Subject: Re: tc-list Editio Critica Maior To: "INTERNET:tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu" Message-ID: <199901071306_MC2-65D6-1F93@compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 376 The key to helping ABS Customer Service realize that they actually do hav= e the book you want is to provide the order number. James ECM is order no.= 106081 -- price $16.99. If this still does not work, feel free to send me a note offlist. Harold P. Scanlin Consultant on Scholarly Editions United Bible Societies 1865 Broadway New York, NY 10023 scanlin@compuserve.com From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Jan 7 13:41:31 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA23229; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 13:41:30 -0500 From: "D.R. Edwards" To: Subject: tc-list John Burgon's The Last Twelve Verses of Mark Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 13:53:22 -0500 Keywords: Bible Message-Id: <000401be3a6e$ffd1b6a0$2ec5a380@guido2.bae.uky.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-Msmail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 In-Reply-To: <199901071306_MC2-65D6-1F93@compuserve.com> Importance: Normal Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 386 Forgive me for asking you to indulge an amateur, but would anyone know of a relatively recently-published book or article that counters the points Burgon makes in defense of the long ending? I've only recently obtained a copy of his book; he seems to cover quite a bit of territory - more than I've seen addressed in any single source available to me. Thanks in advance. D. Edwards From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Jan 7 15:54:16 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA25326; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 15:54:15 -0500 Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 15:54:13 -0500 Message-Id: <199901072054.PAA25321@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> >Date: Thu, 07 Jan 1999 13:25:28 -0600 From: "Jeffrey B. Gibson" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list John Burgon's The Last Twelve Verses of Mark Content-Type: text Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 725 D.R. Edwards wrote: > > Forgive me for asking you to indulge an amateur, but would anyone know of a > relatively recently-published book or article that counters the points > Burgon makes in defense of the long ending? I've only recently obtained a > copy of his book; he seems to cover quite a bit of territory - more than > I've seen addressed in any single source available to me. > Though it is not yet published, a PhD thesis on this topic and other matters related to the longer ending has just been submitted to the U of C Divinity school. I can put you in touch with him if you like. Yours, Jeffrey Gibson -- Jeffrey B. Gibson 7423 N. Sheridan Road #2A Chicago, Illinois 60626 e-mail jgibson000@ameritech.net From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Jan 7 16:12:22 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA25478; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 16:12:21 -0500 Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 16:12:20 -0500 Message-Id: <199901072112.QAA25473@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> >Date: Thu, 07 Jan 1999 14:58:41 -0600 From: "Jeffrey B. Gibson" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list John Burgon's The Last Twelve Verses of Mark Content-Type: text Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 882 Jeffrey B. Gibson wrote: > > D.R. Edwards wrote: > > > > Forgive me for asking you to indulge an amateur, but would anyone know of a > > relatively recently-published book or article that counters the points > > Burgon makes in defense of the long ending? I've only recently obtained a > > copy of his book; he seems to cover quite a bit of territory - more than > > I've seen addressed in any single source available to me. > > > Though it is not yet published, a PhD thesis on this topic and other > matters related to the longer ending has just been submitted to the U of > C Divinity school. > > I can put you in touch with him if you like. Forgot to metion the author. It is James Kelhoffer. You can find his e-mail address on the SBL Member's Website. Jeffrey Gibson -- Jeffrey B. Gibson 7423 N. Sheridan Road #2A Chicago, Illinois 60626 e-mail jgibson000@ameritech.net From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Jan 7 19:28:02 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA26536; Thu, 7 Jan 1999 19:28:00 -0500 Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 18:30:56 -0600 (Central Standard Time) From: "Prof. Ron Minton" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list John Burgon's The Last Twelve Verses of Mark In-Reply-To: <199901072054.PAA25321@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> 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: 371 For a good 29-page booklet on Burgon (published Dec. 20, 1998) write to Olde Paths Book Shoppe 3540 HWY 47 N. Rhinelander, WI 54501. It is $3.00 post paid and uses some sources that are extremely rare and hard to find. The author is Glen Conjurske and the title is _The Character and Works of John William Burgon_ (as seen through the eyes of others). Ron Minton From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Jan 10 15:29:27 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA16268; Sun, 10 Jan 1999 15:29:25 -0500 From: "Wieland Willker" To: "TC-List" Subject: tc-list RE: Egerton 2 web page Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 21:31:59 +0100 Message-Id: <000101be3cd8$45bd7800$44066686@wieland> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-Msmail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 Importance: Normal X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 748 The first update of the site has been done. I have - the English and German translations improved, using helpful comments by Curt Niccum. - the bibliography updated and the introduction improved, - Frg 2 verso diplomatic transcript corrected, - a page with the canonical parallels added, - the publication "Papyrus Köln 255" from M. Gronewald added. Check it out! And have a look at my improved GNT (now NA26 + Symbol font!) at: http://www1.uni-bremen.de/~wie/GNT/books.html Best wishes Wieland ------------------------ Wieland Willker willker@chemie.uni-bremen.de http://purl.org/WILLKER/index.html Egerton Homepage: http://purl.org/WILLKER/Egerton/Egerton_home.html Secret Mark Homepage: http://purl.org/WILLKER/Secret/secmark_home.html From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Jan 11 09:27:46 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA20259; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 09:27:45 -0500 Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 09:27:43 -0500 Message-Id: <199901111427.JAA20254@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> >Date: Fri, 08 Jan 1999 13:25:05 -0600 From: "Jeffrey B. Gibson" To: TC-List Subject: [Fwd: [Fwd: tc-list John Burgon's The Last Twelve Verses of Mark]] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2833 I'm forwarding to the list a message I received from James Kelhoffer regarding critiques of Burgon's work. Hope this is helpful. Jim's address is included for those of you who might wish to take up his offer of further bibliography. Yours, Jeffrey Gibson -- Jeffrey B. Gibson 7423 N. Sheridan Road #2A Chicago, Illinois 60626 e-mail jgibson000@ameritech.net [ Part 2: "Included Message" ] Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1999 13:17:22 -0600 From: "James A. Kelhoffer" To: jgibson000@ameritech.net Subject: Re: [Fwd: tc-list John Burgon's The Last Twelve Verses of Mark] Dear Jeffrey, It is always good to hear from you. I look forward to hearing your paper later this month at CSBR. Concerning the individual's question, might this be Douglas R. Edwards, who wrote (1996)? One of the best critiques of J. W. Burgon's 1871 book is by his contemporaries, B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort, (2 Vols.; Cambridge, Macmillan: 1881-1882; Second Edition, 1896) Appendix, 2.28-51. For more recent discussions I would suggest: Steven Lynn Cox, (Lewiston; Queenston; Lampeter: Mellen Biblical Press, 1993) 56-72. Michael H. Heuer, "An Evaluation of John W. Burgon's Use of Patristic Evidence," JETS 38 (1995) 519-530. My own dissertation discusses Burgon's work briefly in the history of scholarship (James A. Kelhoffer, "The Authentication of Missionaries and their Message in the Longer Ending of Mark (Mark 16:9-20)" [University of Chicago, 1999] 20-22). I would be happy to pass along additional bibliography, including works in German and French, if the person is interested. You may post any part of this note on the TC-list. Kind regards, Jim >James, > >This one looks right up your alley. If you are not subscribed to >TC-List, but wish to reply, do so to me, and I'll forwad it to the list. > >Happy new Year, by the way. Hope all is well. > >D.R. Edwards wrote: >> >> Forgive me for asking you to indulge an amateur, but would anyone know of a >> relatively recently-published book or article that counters the points >> Burgon makes in defense of the long ending? I've only recently obtained a >> copy of his book; he seems to cover quite a bit of territory - more than >> I've seen addressed in any single source available to me. >> >> Thanks in advance. >> >> D. Edwards ******************************************************** James A. Kelhoffer, Ph.D. cand. New Testament and Early Christian Literature University of Chicago Adjunct Instructor Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago 1100 East 55th Street Chicago, IL 60615 Home address, phone and e-mail: 5430 South Kimbark Avenue #3S Chicago, IL 60615 773/363-9050 jkelhoff@midway.uchicago.edu From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Jan 11 09:45:30 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA20432; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 09:45:28 -0500 Message-ID: <369A0FFA.E0261B5A@volstate.net> Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 09:51:38 -0500 From: "Nelson D. Roth" Organization: Compu-Sistance X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: tc-list Re: Majority Opinion References: <199901111427.JAA20254@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: 453 I feel as though I am the amateur of all amateurs so please forgive me for asking such an elementary question. Recently in discussion with a local pastor the pastor remarked that most scholars hold to the view giving highest regard to the "majority text." From the little I know of the topic I thought this statement was completely without warrant. I would, however, appreciate the comments of those "in the know." Many thanks in advance. Nelson Roth From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Jan 11 09:59:01 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA20641; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 09:59:00 -0500 Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 10:00:49 +0000 From: Jim West Subject: Re: tc-list Re: Majority Opinion X-Sender: jwest@highland.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.32.19990111100049.00678334@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: 997 At 09:51 AM 1/11/99 -0500, you wrote: >I feel as though I am the amateur of all amateurs so please forgive me for asking >such an elementary question. >Recently in discussion with a local pastor the pastor remarked that most scholars >hold to the view giving highest regard to the "majority text." From the little I >know of the topic I thought this statement was completely without warrant. I would, >however, appreciate the comments of those "in the know." >Many thanks in advance. Your pastor friend is simply wrong. The majority view of those working in textual criticism is that the "majority" text is not due the highest regard. There are, of course, dissenters, (like our own Maurice Robinson- for whom we all have the greatest respect). Still, the majority of textual critics do not support the notion that the majority text is representative of the earliest text. >Nelson Roth Best, Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@highland.net From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Jan 11 10:40:30 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA20946; Mon, 11 Jan 1999 10:40:28 -0500 Message-ID: <369A1CE2.2E9F5006@volstate.net> Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 10:46:43 -0500 From: "Nelson D. Roth" Organization: Compu-Sistance X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list Re: Majority Opinion References: <1.5.4.32.19990111100049.00678334@highland.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1011 Jim West wrote: > Your pastor friend is simply wrong. The majority view of those working in > textual criticism is that the "majority" text is not due the highest regard. > There are, of course, dissenters, (like our own Maurice Robinson- for whom > we all have the greatest respect). Still, the majority of textual critics > do not support the notion that the majority text is representative of the > earliest text. > > Jim West, ThD > Quartz Hill School of Theology > > jwest@highland.net Thank you for such a rapid response. I really did not expect to hear from anyone for at least a brief period of time. Quartz Hill? I'm not familiar with the school. Where is it located? What programs of study do they offer? Also, have you any familiarity with the new translation the "NET Bible?" I've been in communication with Dr. Daniel B. Wallace, one of the translators, and hope to receive a copy within a week or so. It can be viewed at: http://www.bible.org Thanks in advance and blessings, Nelson Roth From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Jan 12 00:39:48 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id AAA25966; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 00:39:47 -0500 X-WebTV-Signature: 1 ETAtAhRA+u+9bXV54q1KSaggNAu8iayG9wIVAMbzoIN6V31B53c+7W7C8HZrmdOp From: nswift@webtv.net (Norman Swift) Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 00:43:01 -0500 (EST) To: b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu Cc: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: tc-list LXX and Book of Common Prayer's Psalter Message-ID: <8391-369AE0E5-2731@mailtod-262.iap.bryant.webtv.net> Content-Disposition: Inline Content-Type: Text/Plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit MIME-Version: 1.0 (WebTV) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 580 Mark Goodacre has kindly suggested the following query may not be too far off subject and suggested I post it: The Psalter in the Book of Common Prayer is ostensibly a revised English translation (original possibly by Miles Coverdale) of a Latin translation of the Greek LXX. Can someone confirm this or steer me in the right direction for documentation, especially as to versions? I'd appreciate it. Many thanks for the many helpful posts that have greatly edified this novice Graecist. Off list replies at your discretion. EFM, Bethesda-by-the-Sea Palm Beach, FL Norman From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Jan 12 07:07:01 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id HAA27665; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 07:07:00 -0500 From: dd-1@juno.com To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Cc: dd-1@juno.com Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 06:08:33 -0600 Subject: tc-list Mt 21:28-31 Message-ID: <19990112.060833.-868885.4.dd-1@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 2.0.11 X-Juno-Att: 0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1353 Denny Diehl here with a question about Mt 21:28-31 There is a textual variant concerning Jesus' question to the Pharisees about a man having two sons. The ~normal~ progression is: Father says go work in the field. 1st son said "I will not" but then went 2nd son said "I will" but then didn't The NASB follows another line: Father says go work in the field 1st son said "I will" but then didn't 2nd son said "I will not" but then went 1) I've checked a few translations, and they, except the NASB, follow the first order. NASB follows the second. Are there other translations besides the NASB that follow the second order of events? 2) Why would the NASB follow the second order of events? 3) According to Metzger's "A Textual Commentary On The Greek New Testament", Jerome knew of another variant which has the Pharisees answering a non-sensical answer that the son who said he would go, but then didn't, was the son who did the will of his father. Are there extant manuscripts which provide that scenario? 4) Anyone have a good explanation why and how came this variation? Thank you! ___________________________________________________________________ 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 Jan 12 10:05:13 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA28654; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 10:05:12 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990112150559.008585e0@gpo.iol.ie> X-Sender: mauros@gpo.iol.ie X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 15:05:59 +0000 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Maurice A. O'Sullivan" Subject: Re: tc-list Mt 21:28-31 Cc: dd-1@juno.com In-Reply-To: <19990112.060833.-868885.4.dd-1@juno.com> 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: 3009 At 06:08 12/01/99 -0600, you wrote: >Denny Diehl here with a question about Mt 21:28-31 > >There is a textual variant concerning Jesus' question >to the Pharisees about a man having two sons. The >~normal~ progression is: > >Father says go work in the field. >1st son said "I will not" but then went >2nd son said "I will" but then didn't > >The NASB follows another line: > >Father says go work in the field >1st son said "I will" but then didn't >2nd son said "I will not" but then went > >1) I've checked a few translations, and they, except >the NASB, follow the first order. NASB follows the >second. Are there other translations besides the >NASB that follow the second order of events? > >2) Why would the NASB follow the second order >of events? Denny: If you check the N/A27 cirtical apparatus, you will find no fewer than 8 lines devoted to the textual variants for vv. 29-31 , and then turn to UBS3 to find 18 lines ! In their Anchor Bible translation and commentary, Albright and Mann explain that: "The manuscripts have considerable variation as to which comes first in this saying, the obedient or the disobedient son. We have chosen to follow the reading of Codex Sinaiticus and other early authorities ....... " So there you are, basically an editorial decision. What lies behind such an editorial decision is extremely well illustrated by Robert H. Gundry in his " Matthew: A Commentary on his Literary and Theological Art" (Eerdmans 1983 ). On p. 421, he exmaines the nature of Matteean parallelism and then on the basis of this prefers the Sinaiticus reading. In addition, he relies on the Matthean preference for hETERWi as against the "unMattean DEUTERWi". "The latter goes with the variant reading which may have arisen out of the later application of the parable to Jews and Gentiles. That application demanded a reversal in the order of the sons to agree with the historical order of Jewish disobedience followed by Gentiles' repentance". One more sad example of the use of scripture for ideolgoical purposes. If I were to use the NASB ( which I don't ) I would want to know more about the agenda lying behind the choice made here in this parable. I think i am right in saying that the NASB was published in 1963, and was the work of 60 _anonymous_ -- so there's not much chance of finding out what lay behind their choice. Compare this with the use of extensive notes in other translations, which often explain their choice; in the case of the NRSV, the translation committee even published a book giving the reasons behind some of their decisions. BTW, what intrigues me much more about this Matthean passage is why this was one of the few occasions when Matthew chose to use the expression "Kingdom of God" rather than his usual circumlocution "kingdom of heaven". Any ideas, Denny? Hope this is of help, Maurice Maurice A. O'Sullivan [Bray, Ireland] mauros@iol.ie " With computers we can now mistinterpret Scripture at speeds never before possible" From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Jan 12 11:33:29 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA29458; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 11:33:28 -0500 Message-Id: <199901121636.RAA24176@carno.brus.online.be> Subject: Re: tc-list Mt 21:28-31 Date: Mar, 12 Jan 99 17:39:27 +0100 x-sender: vale5655@pop3.brus.online.be x-mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1 From: Jean Valentin To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 552 >4) Anyone have a good explanation why and how >came this variation? > About this important passage, a very important article is: Ch-B Amphoux, Les contextes de la parabole des deux fils, LOAPL 3 (1991) pp. 215-248 (LOAPL stands for Langues Orientales Anciennes - Patrologie et Linguistique) If you read french and have difficulties in finding it, I can send you a copy of this article by post, just send me your address. Hope this helps, Jean V. Jean Valentin - 34 rue du Berceau - 1000 Bruxelles - Belgique e-mail : jgvalentin@arcadis.be From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Jan 12 11:50:47 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA29663; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 11:50:46 -0500 From: "Francisco Orozco" To: Cc: Subject: Re: tc-list Mt 21:28-31 Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 09:46:22 -0700 Message-ID: <01be3e4b$15c11fc0$4c03e194@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: 349 Regarding the question about Mt 21:28-31, I have before me the NASB updated NT (which was given to me by one of the translators, it is dated 1997). In this "update" the "~normal~ progression" is followed: >>Father says go work in the field. >>1st son said "I will not" but then went >>2nd son said "I will" but then didn't FWIW, Francisco Orozco From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Jan 12 19:01:28 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA02349; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 19:01:26 -0500 Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 19:01:25 -0500 Message-Id: <199901130001.TAA02344@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> >Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 08:32:51 -0500 From: "Kevin W. Woodruff" To: nswift@webtv.net Cc: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list LXX and Book of Common Prayer's Psalter Content-Type: text Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1640 Norman: The Psalter of The Book of Common Prayer is indeed Miles Coverdale's translation and is based upon Jerome's Vulgate (which was based upon the Hebrew, his Gallican Psalter was based upon the LXX) , Pagnini's Latin version of 1528, Luther's German version, the Zurich Bible of 1531 and Tyndale's version (or possible in place of Tyndale), Desidedrius Erasmus's Latin Version. Documentation for this comes from The Cambridge History of the Bible: The West from the Reformation to the Present Day. Edited by S. L. Greenslade. Cambridge University Press, 1963. page 148 At 12:43 AM 1/12/99 -0500, you wrote: >Mark Goodacre has kindly suggested the following query may not be too >far off subject and suggested I post it: The Psalter in the Book of >Common Prayer is ostensibly a revised English translation (original >possibly by Miles Coverdale) of a Latin translation of the Greek LXX. >Can someone confirm this or steer me in the right direction for >documentation, especially as to versions? I'd appreciate it. Many >thanks for the many helpful posts that have greatly edified this novice >Graecist. > >Off list replies at your discretion. > >EFM, Bethesda-by-the-Sea >Palm Beach, FL > >Norman > > Kevin W. Woodruff, M.Div. Library Director/Reference Librarian Professor of New Testament Greek 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.campuscw.net (preferred) kwoodruf@utkux.utcc.utk.edu (alternate) http://web.utk.edu/~kwoodruf/woodruff.htm From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Jan 14 09:07:17 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA13385; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 09:07:16 -0500 From: jagehman@juno.com To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 08:58:54 -0500 Subject: tc-list Vocabulary of the Greek Testament Message-ID: <19990114.090030.-260249.1.jagehman@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 2.0.11 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 6-14 X-Juno-Att: 0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 874 Thanks to all who responded to the question on Greek Lexicons. I have come across three versions though of Moulton and Milligan's Vocabulary of the Greek Testament. One is published by Hendrickson (ISBN: 1565632710) and retails for $39.95. Another version is published by Gordon Press Publishers (ISBN: 0849028000) and retails for $250! Finally, there is one by Eerdmans (ISBN: 0802821782). Does any one know if these are all the same? Thanks for your help. Sincerely, James A. Gehman Missionary in Residence, Brookside Community Church jagehman@juno.com Web site: http://www.familyshoebox.com/family/gehmangateway ___________________________________________________________________ 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 Thu Jan 14 09:26:52 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA13573; Thu, 14 Jan 1999 09:26:50 -0500 Message-Id: <199901141426.JAA13568@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> From: "Dave Washburn" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 07:21:42 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: tc-list Vocabulary of the Greek Testament Priority: normal In-reply-to: <19990114.090030.-260249.1.jagehman@juno.com> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01d) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 831 > Thanks to all who responded to the question on Greek Lexicons. I have > come across three versions though of Moulton and Milligan's Vocabulary of > the Greek Testament. One is published by Hendrickson (ISBN: 1565632710) > and retails for $39.95. Another version is published by Gordon Press > Publishers (ISBN: 0849028000) and retails for $250! Finally, there is > one by Eerdmans (ISBN: 0802821782). Does any one know if these are all > the same? They should be, and may even be made from the same plates. A few ways to tell: check for "revised by" attributions, if any, and check to see if the original copyright has run out and the work has become public domain. If there's no indication of revision, I suspect they're all the same book. Dave Washburn http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur "Oh, the mind boggles!" -Wakko From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Jan 15 06:50:14 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id GAA20059; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 06:50:12 -0500 X-Sender: mbakker@mail.hum.uva.nl Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <000001be2a78$204e5840$aa15b080@49521890132.uni-muenster.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 12:43:20 +0200 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "H.P.S.Bakker" Subject: tc-list next visit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 237 Dear Ulrich, How are you in 1999? What about your plans of coming to Holland again? Cheers!--Hette dr H.P.S. Bakker Slavic Seminar University of Amsterdam Spuistraat 210 1012 VT Amsterdam tel. +31 20 525 3811 fax. +31 20 525 3052 From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Jan 15 14:49:45 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA25872; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 14:49:43 -0500 Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 14:49:41 -0500 Message-Id: <199901151949.OAA25867@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> >Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 23:06:02 -0600 (CST) From: Burke Gerstenschlager To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list Re: Majority Opinion Content-Type: text Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 673 Burke Gerstenschlager orpheus@inetport.com http://www.inetport.com/~orpheus "What is truth?" asked Pilate... John 18.38 On Mon, 11 Jan 1999, Nelson D. Roth wrote: > Also, have you any familiarity with the new translation the "NET Bible?" I've > been in communication with Dr. Daniel B. Wallace, one of the translators, and > hope to receive a copy within a week or so. It can be viewed at: > http://www.bible.org That's right! I forgot Wallace was doing that. Send him my regards. I haven't talked to him in a long time. He wrote an article on the Majority Text view. Does anyone remember where that is? Of course, you could always ask him directly... pax, Burke From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Jan 15 14:55:11 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA26082; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 14:55:10 -0500 Message-ID: <9063E24E9176D111B0580060083927B9265F98@smtp.crpc.org> From: "Lamerson, Sam" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: RE: tc-list Re: Majority Opinion Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 14:57:15 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1182 The article was published in a book called STUDIES AND DOCUMENTS: THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT IN CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH ed. Bart Ehrman and Michael Holmes. It is an excellent article for getting a handle on the majority text debate. Blessings, Sam Lamerson Knox Seminary 954 771-0376 x. 391 -----Original Message----- From: Burke Gerstenschlager [mailto:orpheus@admin.inetport.com] Sent: Friday, January 15, 1999 2:50 PM To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list Re: Majority Opinion Burke Gerstenschlager orpheus@inetport.com http://www.inetport.com/~orpheus "What is truth?" asked Pilate... John 18.38 On Mon, 11 Jan 1999, Nelson D. Roth wrote: > Also, have you any familiarity with the new translation the "NET Bible?" I've > been in communication with Dr. Daniel B. Wallace, one of the translators, and > hope to receive a copy within a week or so. It can be viewed at: > http://www.bible.org That's right! I forgot Wallace was doing that. Send him my regards. I haven't talked to him in a long time. He wrote an article on the Majority Text view. Does anyone remember where that is? Of course, you could always ask him directly... pax, Burke From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Jan 16 12:26:36 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA00341; Sat, 16 Jan 1999 12:26:34 -0500 Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 12:06:47 +0000 From: Jim West Subject: tc-list web page X-Sender: jwest@highland.net (Unverified) To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.32.19990116120647.00667f54@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: 354 Colleagues, I have taken the plunge and constructed a web page and invite your comments and criticisms. I am especially interested in hearing from you if you have a link I should add. Thanks so much for your help. And please pardon any cross posting. Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@highland.net From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Jan 16 12:50:22 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA00477; Sat, 16 Jan 1999 12:50:20 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19990116120647.00667f54@highland.net> Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 11:52:59 -0600 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: tc-list web page Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 590 On Sat, 16 Jan 1999, Jim West wrote: >Colleagues, > >I have taken the plunge and constructed a web page and invite your comments >and criticisms. I am especially interested in hearing from you if you have >a link I should add. Er -- what's the URL? -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Jan 18 07:18:28 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id HAA09231; Mon, 18 Jan 1999 07:18:27 -0500 Message-Id: <36A37F24.54879C3B@chemie.uni-bremen.de> Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 19:36:21 +0100 From: Wieland Willker X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (X11; I; IRIX 5.3 IP22) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: tc-list Parker: Codex Bezae 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: 466 D. C. Parker "Codex Bezae" Cambridge University Press 1992 This book is excellent! We need books like this about EVERY important manuscript! Are there any? Best wishes Wieland ------------------------------------- willker@chemie.uni-bremen.de http://purl.org/Willker/index.html Secret Mark Homepage: http://purl.org/Willker/Secret/secmark_home.html Egerton 2 Homepage: http://purl.org/Willker/Egerton/Egerton_home.html ------------------------------------- From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Jan 18 12:22:49 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA10902; Mon, 18 Jan 1999 12:22:48 -0500 Message-Id: <199901181633.LAA13636@mime3.prodigy.com> X-Mailer: Prodigy Internet GW(v0.9beta) - ae01dm04sc03 From: XRTC26A@prodigy.com (DR PHILLIP E GOBLE) Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 11:33:45, -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: tc-list Parker: Codex Bezae Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 735 Wieland, I want to thank you for your Greek NT on the Internet. If a scholar wants to quote from it (which would also involve using the GNT font) is it possible to gain permission? If so, how? You see, you have done such good work and have put so much into it, you should be able, if you so desire, to license the use of your work so that it can be used on other web sites. In any case, the GNT font, useable on Word Perfect, should be licenseable, I would hope, so that others could use it with Word Perfect. Please let me know and also whom to make the check out to and where to send it, if such is the case. Wishing you many years to do much more work for the Kingdom of God Dr Phil Goble D.Min Fuller Seminary 1975 From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Jan 19 05:01:44 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id FAA15914; Tue, 19 Jan 1999 05:01:42 -0500 Message-Id: <36A4B0A3.E88B5CB4@chemie.uni-bremen.de> Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 17:19:47 +0100 From: Wieland Willker X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (X11; I; IRIX 5.3 IP22) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: tc-list The Greek NT 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: 1023 GNT-NA-26: http://www1.uni-bremen.de/~wie/GNT/books.html I have changed the font to "Symbol" which is a standard font on many computers, so there is no need for a licence. Unfortunately it doesn't work for Unix-users, but I assume them to be a minority. I don't know if the NA-26 text is "free". It is always copyrighted by the Bible Societies. I have once asked the Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft for presenting the Luther Bibel in German online. They gave the permission but asked me to add a copyright symbol. So I added the copyright to the NA-26 Greek text, too. "Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom..." (Paul, Col.) Best wishes Wieland PS: Btw, what will be the third name after Nestle-Aland-...? ------------------------------------- willker@chemie.uni-bremen.de http://purl.org/Willker/index.html Secret Mark Homepage: http://purl.org/Willker/Secret/secmark_home.html Egerton 2 Homepage: http://www1.uni-bremen.de/~wie/Egerton/Egerton_home.html ------------------------------------- From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Jan 19 10:23:07 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA17153; Tue, 19 Jan 1999 10:23:06 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <36A4B0A3.E88B5CB4@chemie.uni-bremen.de> Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 09:19:22 -0600 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: tc-list The Greek NT Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 820 On Tue, 19 Jan 1999, Wieland Willker wrote: >PS: Btw, what will be the third name after Nestle-Aland-...? Will it not be "Aland"? :-) If you look on the title page of NA27, it reads Apparatum criticum novis curit elaboraverunt Barbara et Kurt Aland I assume Barbara Aland will maintain the edition for at least one more edition, and perhaps two (obviously this depends on the length of time between editions :-). Probably too early to speak of a third name. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Jan 19 12:44:40 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA18018; Tue, 19 Jan 1999 12:44:38 -0500 From: "Wieland Willker" To: "TC-List" , "B-Greek" Subject: tc-list No online GNT anymore Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 18:47:46 +0100 Message-Id: <000001be43d3$d26ef4c0$78066686@wieland> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-Msmail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 Importance: Normal X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 900 Sorry folks, it was to much promotion. Due to a request from the Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft I have to remove the GNT from my page. I will do this tomorrow. So, download it fast! http://www1.uni-bremen.de/~wie/GNT/books.html Maybe someone can provide a new home for this site? In my understanding this text belongs to us, but I am not David to fight against Goliath. That's business. If someone would like to get in contact with the Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, try Dr. Winfried Bader: bader@dbg.de And he said to them, "Give therefore to the emperor the things that are the emperor's, and to God the things that are God's." Best wishes Wieland ------------------------ Wieland Willker willker@chemie.uni-bremen.de http://purl.org/WILLKER/index.html Egerton Homepage: http://purl.org/WILLKER/Egerton/Egerton_home.html Secret Mark Homepage: http://purl.org/WILLKER/Secret/secmark_home.html From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Jan 20 06:18:19 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id GAA22490; Wed, 20 Jan 1999 06:18:18 -0500 From: "Wieland Willker" To: "TC-List" , "B-Greek" Cc: "Wieland Willker" Subject: tc-list The GNT Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 12:19:09 +0100 Message-Id: <000101be4466$b2ea3900$67566686@Atair.chemie.uni-bremen.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-Msmail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2377.0 Importance: Normal X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1083 It seems that the Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft wants to set up its own online GNT now. Their plan is to put up one fully accented version (+font) and one ASCII version within the next three months. So I was told today. I think it might be a good idea to send them your ideas about how this version should look like. My thoughts: At least one version should have 1. no accents 2. no different end-Sigma 3. the transliteration scheme X=Xi, C=Chi, Q=Theta and Y=Psi should be used 4. one should always have one complete book on the screen and not only one chapter. Please send your suggestions to Dr. Winfried Bader who is responsible for their online publications: bader@dbg.de Maybe then the result will come out most user-friendly. Best wishes Wieland "Critically examine everything. Hold on to the good." (Paul, First Thessalonians 5.21) --------------- Wieland Willker willker@chemie.uni-bremen.de http://purl.org/WILLKER/index.html Egerton Homepage: http://purl.org/WILLKER/Egerton/Egerton_home.html Secret Mark Homepage: http://purl.org/WILLKER/Secret/secmark_home.html From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Jan 20 14:55:01 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA25464; Wed, 20 Jan 1999 14:54:59 -0500 From: rlmullen@netpath.net Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990120150209.007a84c0@netpath.net> X-Sender: rlmullen@netpath.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 15:02:09 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list The GNT In-Reply-To: <000101be4466$b2ea3900$67566686@Atair.chemie.uni-bremen.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1358 >From your description, it sounds as if they plan for it to be searchable online? If not, wouldn't it be easier to scan in entire pages of NA27? An online searchable version would be great. Rod Mullen At 12:19 PM 1/20/99 +0100, you wrote: >It seems that the Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft wants to set up its own online >GNT now. Their plan is to put up one fully accented version (+font) and one >ASCII version within the next three months. So I was told today. >I think it might be a good idea to send them your ideas about how this >version should look like. > >My thoughts: At least one version should have >1. no accents >2. no different end-Sigma >3. the transliteration scheme X=Xi, C=Chi, Q=Theta and Y=Psi should be used >4. one should always have one complete book on the screen and not only one >chapter. > >Please send your suggestions to Dr. Winfried Bader who is responsible for >their online publications: bader@dbg.de > >Maybe then the result will come out most user-friendly. > >Best wishes > Wieland > >"Critically examine everything. Hold on to the good." >(Paul, First Thessalonians 5.21) >--------------- >Wieland Willker >willker@chemie.uni-bremen.de >http://purl.org/WILLKER/index.html >Egerton Homepage: http://purl.org/WILLKER/Egerton/Egerton_home.html >Secret Mark Homepage: http://purl.org/WILLKER/Secret/secmark_home.html > > From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Jan 20 22:43:34 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA27454; Wed, 20 Jan 1999 22:43:32 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: tc-list Private Response Message-ID: <19990120.224616.9063.1.seventh.guardian@juno.com> References: <000101be4466$b2ea3900$67566686@atair.chemie.uni-bremen.de> X-Mailer: Juno 1.49 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 1-2,4-6,8-9,15-18,21-25,27-30,34-35 From: M A Robinson Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 22:46:44 EST Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1434 Not sure if my first sending of this reply went through, so I repeat it here: On Wed, 20 Jan 1999 08:55:23 +0100 "Wieland Willker" writes: >I will think about the W-H text, but at the moment I am a bit >frustrated, since I worked on this several days in my rare spare time. Oh, well... Tht is quite understandable. I was not entirely happy with the OLB decision to switch to the WH text after I had carefully prepared and edited the N27 text; but once I saw how few the differences really were, I did so, and the end product is superior to N27 by offering the WH Alexandrian as a documentary base to the eclectic variants which infrequently diverge. >I know about V. Browman's excellent resource page! Very good; so you could get files from there if needed. I do have updated files which Broman does not have, however, with correction of some minor errors. >Yes, I would like to read your text "Copyright and the Bible". Send >it! I will send it from my full internet account as soon as I send this off (this account does not allow file attachments). >Who is E. Jaschke? I found her in the Telefone book. She was just over here and stayed with us during the Christmas holidays, visiting her daughter, who is a teaching assistant in German here in the US at Lincoln University for this year. We have not heard back from her since she returned, so do not know how well her return trip went. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Jan 21 05:44:40 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id FAA29339; Thu, 21 Jan 1999 05:44:39 -0500 Message-Id: <36A75E34.579635BB@chemie.uni-bremen.de> Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 18:04:54 +0100 From: Wieland Willker X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (X11; I; IRIX 5.3 IP22) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: tc-list Re: The GNT 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: 517 I don't know how the Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft GNT will come out. They already have the Luther-Bibel out at http://www.dbg.de/bibel/luther.html Mail them about your ideas and conceptions. Their argument is that NA26 is an artificial text and not the Urtext, therefore they have a copyright on it. > If not, wouldn't it be easier to scan in entire pages of NA27? Btw., does anybody know, how to scan (and OCR) Greek? Is it possible for example to train Corel-Scan with Greek letters? Best wishes Wieland From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Jan 21 06:01:10 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id GAA29407; Thu, 21 Jan 1999 06:01:09 -0500 From: "Mark Goodacre" Organization: The University of Birmingham To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 11:04:27 GMT MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: tc-list The GNT Priority: normal In-reply-to: <3.0.5.32.19990120150209.007a84c0@netpath.net> References: <000101be4466$b2ea3900$67566686@Atair.chemie.uni-bremen.de> Message-ID: <4F9DD82629F@hhs.bham.ac.uk> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1249 On 20 Jan 99 at 15:02, rlmullen@netpath.net wrote: > From your description, it sounds as if they plan for it to be searchable > online? If not, wouldn't it be easier to scan in entire pages of NA27? An > online searchable version would be great. Rod Mullen As you may know, there is already an on-line searchable NA26 at: http://www.biola.edu/online_bible/ The write-up on my Greek NT Resources page is as follows: On-Line Bible: from Biola University: searchable text of the Greek New Testament (NA26) that uses the "symbol" font so that everyone can see the Greek. You can also search the Hebrew Bible, the Septuagint, the Latin Vulgate and several translations from the same page. You also view up to two parallel versions of any passage (e.g. you could look at any passage simulataneously in Greek, Latin and English). Strongly recommended. (http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre/greek.htm) Mark Goodacre -------------------------------------- Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@bham.ac.uk Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512 University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 6866 Birmingham B15 2TT United Kingdom Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Jan 21 09:49:52 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA00155; Thu, 21 Jan 1999 09:49:51 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <36A75E34.579635BB@chemie.uni-bremen.de> Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 08:25:17 -0600 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Scanning Greek (Was: Re: tc-list Re: The GNT) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1819 On Thu, 21 Jan 1999, Wieland Willker wrote, in part: >Btw., does anybody know, how to scan (and OCR) Greek? >Is it possible for example to train Corel-Scan with Greek letters? I'll just answer the technical part. :-) Any trainable OCR program could be trained to read Greek. There are, however, some complications. To begin with, there are accents and breathings. These are small symbols, not connected to the letter they are associated with. It may be possible to scan these, but you can expect a very high rate of errors simply because the symbols are small and not that topologically distinct. Another complication is that the best OCR programs tend to have dictionaries for the language they are scanning -- used to correct odd words. So if an OCR program is confronted with "uniq*e," for instance (where * represents a letter it can't read), it will correct it to "unique." Unless one has a Greek dictionary, this feature needs to be turned off, with resulting loss of accuracy. With all that said, it should be clear that it would be best to try to find an OCR program that has been customized for Greek. I guess you will have to contact the manufacturers. And in light of the above points, I guess I will toss in one aside on an earlier point in this thread. It was suggested: > My thoughts: At least one version should have > 1. no accents > 2. no different end-Sigma > 3. the transliteration scheme X=Xi, C=Chi, Q=Theta and Y=Psi should be used > 4. one should always have one complete book on the screen and not only one chapter. YES to all these! I realize that we won't be using OCR on this text, but it would certainly make scanning easier.... Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com "The one thing we learn from history -- is that no one ever learns from history." From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Jan 21 17:29:45 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA02919; Thu, 21 Jan 1999 17:29:43 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list Private Response Message-ID: <19990121.173220.4503.7.seventh.guardian@juno.com> References: <000101be4466$b2ea3900$67566686@atair.chemie.uni-bremen.de> X-Mailer: Juno 1.49 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0,2-6,9-10,13-14 From: M A Robinson Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 17:32:54 EST Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 523 On Wed, 20 Jan 1999 22:46:44 EST M A Robinson writes: >Not sure if my first sending of this reply went through, so I repeat >it here: Apologies to the tc-list for the posting of private email on the list. I hit a wrong button while replying to Wieland Willker, so feel free to disregard the comments therein. At least the reply was tame and did not contain my usual off-list type of discussion which would cause great embarrassment all around. Things could have been worse... :-) :-) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Jan 21 17:43:18 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA02990; Thu, 21 Jan 1999 17:43:14 -0500 Message-ID: <36A82F9F.1129@online.no> Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 23:58:23 -0800 From: "Mr. Helge Evensen" Organization: Scandinavia Online X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: tc-list tc list: Mark 16:9-20 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: 272 Hi, During my present study of the subject of the authenticity of the disputed "longer ending" of Mark, it would be quite interesting to know how many on this list regard this passage as a later addition to Mark's Gospel. Any opinions, please? -- Mr. Helge Evensen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Jan 21 17:53:26 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA03058; Thu, 21 Jan 1999 17:53:24 -0500 Message-ID: <36A7CA82.4CADFE1B@historian.net> Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 16:46:58 -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 tc list: Mark 16:9-20 References: <36A82F9F.1129@online.no> 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: 643 Mr. Helge Evensen wrote: > Hi, > > During my present study of the subject of the authenticity of the > disputed "longer ending" of Mark, it would be quite interesting to know > how many on this list regard this passage as a later addition to Mark's > Gospel. > > Any opinions, please? > The longer ending is not in Markan Greek, uses another style andvocabulary. It appears in non of the more ancient texts and is attributed to Ariston (Aristeon) in a colophon to an Armenian mss written in 989 CE. Ariston was a contemporary of Papias. I do not consider ANY of the 5 endings as original to the autograph. Jack jkilmon@historian.net From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Jan 21 18:01:13 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA03158; Thu, 21 Jan 1999 18:01:11 -0500 Message-ID: <36A7CC55.3996A377@historian.net> Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 16:54:46 -0800 From: Jack Kilmon X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: tc-list Re: new font References: <36A82F9F.1129@online.no> <36A7CA82.4CADFE1B@historian.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: 452 For those of you that can use "scribal" fonts for your classrooms, I have created a new Greek Minuscule font. It is a preliminary version and I will be refining it. Like all of my "scribal" fonts you have to do some "scribing" by lowering or raising the point size and/or line position of each character to conform to an exemplar hand. It is available for free download at my site. http://www.historian.net/files.htm Jack jkilmon@historian.net From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Jan 21 18:03:49 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA03191; Thu, 21 Jan 1999 18:03:46 -0500 Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 18:02:44 +0000 From: Jim West Subject: Re: tc-list tc list: Mark 16:9-20 X-Sender: jwest@highland.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.32.19990121180244.00674260@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: 611 At 11:58 PM 1/21/99 -0800, you wrote: >Hi, > >During my present study of the subject of the authenticity of the >disputed "longer ending" of Mark, it would be quite interesting to know >how many on this list regard this passage as a later addition to Mark's >Gospel. > >Any opinions, please? Well, I for one think it inauthentic. It is, it seems to me, clearly an addition made decades if not centuries after the completion of the Gospel. There is no early ms evidence for it. Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@highland.net http://web.infoave.net/~jwest From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Jan 21 18:08:50 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA03260; Thu, 21 Jan 1999 18:08:48 -0500 Message-Id: <199901212308.SAA03254@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> From: "Dave Washburn" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 16:03:22 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: tc-list tc list: Mark 16:9-20 Priority: normal In-reply-to: <36A82F9F.1129@online.no> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01d) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 371 > Hi, > > During my present study of the subject of the authenticity of the > disputed "longer ending" of Mark, it would be quite interesting to know > how many on this list regard this passage as a later addition to Mark's > Gospel. > > Any opinions, please? I do... Dave Washburn http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur A Bible that's falling apart means a life that isn't. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Jan 21 18:30:43 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA03414; Thu, 21 Jan 1999 18:30:41 -0500 Message-ID: <41F62217FE1FD2119C4A006097B91A06D87C@buck_srv.vusd.solanocoe.k12.ca.us> From: Michael Kennedy - BCS Teacher To: "'tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu'" Subject: tc-list RE: scanning, trainable dictionaries Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 15:39:24 -0800 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1460.8) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1139 To all concerned, I used to use Omnipage Software on a daily basis, scanning manually-typed manuscripts for professors who never took a liking to the computer age. Omnipage was a good package. It had a trainable dictionary. It takes a bit of work to train it, but in the end, it is quite nice. Still, some things the scanner never catches. Mike Kennedy, M.A. Vacaville, CA > -----Original Message----- > From: Wieland Willker [SMTP:willker@chemie.uni-bremen.de] > Sent: Thursday, January 21, 1999 9:05 AM > To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu > Subject: tc-list Re: The GNT > > I don't know how the Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft GNT will come out. > They already have the Luther-Bibel out at > http://www.dbg.de/bibel/luther.html > > Mail them about your ideas and conceptions. > > Their argument is that NA26 is an artificial text and not the Urtext, > therefore they have a copyright on it. > > > If not, wouldn't it be easier to scan in entire pages of NA27? > > Btw., does anybody know, how to scan (and OCR) Greek? > Is it possible for example to train Corel-Scan with Greek letters? > > Best wishes > Wieland > > > From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Jan 21 19:09:26 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA03586; Thu, 21 Jan 1999 19:09:23 -0500 Message-ID: <41F62217FE1FD2119C4A006097B91A06D87D@buck_srv.vusd.solanocoe.k12.ca.us> From: Michael Kennedy - BCS Teacher To: "'tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu'" Subject: RE: tc-list tc list: Mark 16:9-20 Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 16:18:08 -0800 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1460.8) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 855 "ephobounto gar" is the most likely place to end the book. The other endings just seem to try to explain this unusual ending; these other endings are unsatisfactory. Either the last page of the original manuscript is missing (one's view of inspiration should allow for this), or Mark liked a alarming conclusion. Mike Kennedy, M.A. Vacaville, CA > -----Original Message----- > From: Mr. Helge Evensen [SMTP:helevens@online.no] > Sent: Thursday, January 21, 1999 11:58 PM > To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu > Subject: tc-list tc list: Mark 16:9-20 > > Hi, > > During my present study of the subject of the authenticity of the > disputed "longer ending" of Mark, it would be quite interesting to know > how many on this list regard this passage as a later addition to Mark's > Gospel. > > Any opinions, please? > > > -- Mr. Helge Evensen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Jan 22 10:48:37 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA07424; Fri, 22 Jan 1999 10:48:35 -0500 From: WHITER@Citadel.edu Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 10:26:13 -0500 (EST) Subject: tc-list Biblical Cruxes To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Cc: whiter@Citadel.edu Message-id: <01J6U7BVPEWM8WW59E@Citadel.edu> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1365 Dear TC-er's: I am an English professor preparing to teach a course in the Bible as Literature for the first time. In sending this message, I am jumping brashly into unfamiliar territory, so please forgive my ignorance of things you take for granted--for starters, knowledge of Greek and Hebrew. At any rate, William Barclay wrote, "It has been calculated that in the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament there are 150,000 places in which there are variant readings.... Of the 150,000 fewer than 400 affect the sense, fewer than 50 are of any importance, and there is no case in which an article of faith or a precept of duty is left in doubt." (_Introducing the Bible_, 25th Anniversary Edition, p. 154.) I would like to know some of the 50 important variant readings to which Barclay refers, and I'd also be interested in important variant readings in the OT. I wish to use these to illustrate to undergraduates some of the issues translators and readers confront. The only example I now have is I Thess. 4:4, where, apparently, the Greek original meaning "vessel" may be rendered either "body" or "wife." Is there a single source, appropriate for a layman, that would help here? If not, could you mention either on this list or by direct e-mail a couple of your favorites? Thanks, Robert A. White English Department, The Citadel whiter@citadel.edu From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Jan 22 11:22:29 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA07641; Fri, 22 Jan 1999 11:22:27 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <01J6U7BVPEWM8WW59E@Citadel.edu> Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 10:25:33 -0600 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: tc-list Biblical Cruxes Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 3535 On Fri, 22 Jan 1999, whiter@Citadel.edu wrote: [ ... ] >At any rate, William Barclay wrote, "It has been calculated that in the Greek >manuscripts of the New Testament there are 150,000 places in which there are >variant readings.... Of the 150,000 fewer than 400 affect the sense, fewer than >50 are of any importance, and there is no case in which an article of faith or >a precept of duty is left in doubt." (_Introducing the Bible_, 25th >Anniversary Edition, p. 154.) > >I would like to know some of the 50 important variant readings to which Barclay >refers, and I'd also be interested in important variant readings in the OT. I >wish to use these to illustrate to undergraduates some of the issues >translators and readers confront. The only example I now have is I Thess. 4:4, >where, apparently, the Greek original meaning "vessel" may be rendered either >"body" or "wife." The example you describe is not a textual issue; it is an issue of translation. That's a matter for another group. :-) In what follows, I'm going to talk mostly about the New Testament. There are textual problems with the Old Testament -- lots of them! -- but they are of a different sort, and often relate at least in part to difficulties in understanding the text. I'm afraid Barclay's numbers are a bit low. The estimate of 150,000 variants in the text is rather out-of-date, but tolerable. However, many more than 400 affect the sense, as the footnotes to the United Bible Societies' critical edition show. 400 might represent his notion of the number of *significant readings adopted by one scholar or another,* though even that sounds a little low (as witness the number of textual footnotes in the NRSV New Testament, below). I would also argue that part about the "precept of duty." How about the sacrament of baptism? Sure, baptism was a common activity in the early church -- but to my (admittedly liberal) eyes, the only place in the Bible that *requires* baptism is Mark 16:16 -- a passage most textual scholars consider spurious, or at least non-Markan. >Is there a single source, appropriate for a layman, that would help here? If >not, could you mention either on this list or by direct e-mail a couple of your >favorites? The easiest way for a lay person to do this is simply to get a Bible translation and read the footnotes. In the New Revised Standard version, for instance, textual variants have footnotes which begin "other ancient authorities read...." I count 463 variants which involve the text (this is a casual count; it's the number of places where I added manuscript listings to the footnotes. And *no*, I can't reproduce this, folks; it's in my personal Bible, not on the computer.) These are all textual variants. And some of them are quite substantial -- e.g. the inclusion/omission of Matt. 16:2-3, Mark 16:9-20, John 7:53-8:11. I don't have precise figures on this (I would guess someone has studied this, but I don't know who). But my spot checks revealed that that Greek text of the _Textus Receptus_, which was used to create the King James Bible, is about 2% longer than the Westcott-Hort text which has influenced every twentieth century translation except the New King James version. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Jan 22 13:26:46 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA08327; Fri, 22 Jan 1999 13:26:45 -0500 Message-ID: <001b01be462d$5a95ec40$f5aa1ed1@dcc-1> From: "Perry L. Stepp" To: Cc: Subject: Re: tc-list Biblical Cruxes Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 12:17:39 -0500 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1556 >I am an English professor preparing to teach a course in the Bible as >Literature for the first time. >I would like to know some of the 50 important variant readings to which Barclay >refers, and I'd also be interested in important variant readings in the OT. I >wish to use these to illustrate to undergraduates some of the issues >translators and readers confront. The only example I now have is I Thess. 4:4, >where, apparently, the Greek original meaning "vessel" may be rendered either >"body" or "wife." > >Is there a single source, appropriate for a layman, that would help here? If >not, could you mention either on this list or by direct e-mail a couple of your >favorites? One of my favorites is Lk 23.34. Two great resources to start with: Bruce Metzger's *Textual Commentary*--it shouldn't be difficult to find nuggets and intrigue in the pages of this book. Bart Ehrman's *The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture*, especially his treatments of passages like Lk 22.19--Ehrman is a member of this list, perhaps he will have the time to suggest other avenues and v.l. as well. Perry L. Stepp ******************************************************************** Pastor, DeSoto Christian Church, DeSoto TX Ph.D. Candidate in Religion, Baylor University #1 Cowboy Fan The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. -George Bernard Shaw ******************************************************************** From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Jan 22 13:45:57 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA08440; Fri, 22 Jan 1999 13:45:55 -0500 Message-Id: <199901221849.NAA108778@f04n01.cac.psu.edu> X-Sender: wlp1@mail.psu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0.2 Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 13:43:30 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "William L. Petersen" Subject: Re: tc-list Biblical Cruxes In-Reply-To: <01J6U7BVPEWM8WW59E@Citadel.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: 7500 Barclay's statement is a half-truth, congenial from his point of view. A good source for examining variants (in English) is B.H. Throckmorton's *Gospel Parallels* (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1992 [NRSV text; ISBN 0-8407-7484-2]); it is a required text in all my NT and early Christianity courses here at Penn State. An example of the problem is at Matt 1:16, where some MSS speak of Joseph as the "husband" of Mary; here on the TC-list, I noticed that just today the vast (unanimous?) consensus was that Mark 16:9+ were not original. Before you teach your course, you should read Bart Ehrman's recent (and very well-received) book *The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture* (Oxford, 1993). It provides a good overview of the development of textual variants in the early church, and is accessible to the non-specialist. But there is another problem, which is more critical: the real problem is not just textual variants, but the synoptic parallels. Dependence among the synoptic gospels (Matt, Mark, Luke) is accepted by critical scholarship. Therefore, the gospels themselves, when compared, show us what editing was going on *before* the manuscripts were copied which are preserved today. An example: Take Throckmorton, and read the parallel passages of the "Cursing of the Fig Tree" (Matt 21:18-22; Mark 11:12-14, 20-25). According to Mark, Jesus is a rather ignorant fool (and certainly not a divinity with foreknowledge), while Matthew has omitted precisely the two statements from Mark which make Jesus' "non-divine" status obvious (Mark 11:13: "he went to see whether perhaps he would find anything on it"; idem: "for it was not the season for figs"). Luke (perhaps embarrassed by the whole thing?) omits the whole story. Another example is the story of the "Rich Young Man/Ruler" (Matt 19:16-30; Mark 10:17-31; Luke 18:18-30). Here again, Mark's text (Mark 10:18) clearly states that Jesus is not God: "Why do you call *me* [Jesus] good? No one is good but God alone." In the parallel in Matt (Matt 19:16-17), the offending words (in Mark 10:17: "Good Master...") have once again been changed (Matt 19:16: "Teacher, what *good deed*..."), so as to remove the "problem." The so-called "comma Ioanneum" (I John 5:7-8) is a clear example of tampering with the text, this time regarding the Trinity (see B. M. Metzger, *The Text of the New Testament* [Oxford: OUP, various editions], pp. 101-102). The most "ancient" evidence for the reading now found in the King James Version is a theological treatise from the fourth century; Metzger gives a good reprise of the history of the insertion of this text into I John (it doesn't appear in any Vulgate MSS until the 8th cent., etc.). The ending of the Gospel of Matthew--the "Great Commission"--is also clearly not "authentic" (it may be part of the oldest text of Matthew, but it is clearly an invention of the second-century church, and never spoken by Jesus), because nowhere in the early and heated controversies between, on the one hand, James' "party of the circumcision" and, on the other hand, Paul and the Pauline Christians, is the "Great Commission" ever cited. Indeed, Peter and the ancient church in Jerusalem know nothing of it (cp. Acts 10-11; note that in Acts 10:48, Peter even acts contrary to the "Great Commission" by baptizing "in the name of Jesus Christ"--he does not baptize in the name of the Trinity, as his Lord Jesus ordered him to do in what were [according to Matt, at least] Jesus' last words on earth). Paul and the apostles also know nothing of the "Great Commission" at the Apostolic Council in Jerusalem in the year 49 or 50 (cp. Acts 15; Gal. 2). Indeed, had Jesus ever actually spoken the "Great Commission," then the entire controversy over circumcision and missionary work with Gentiles is completely inexplicable. Conclusion: the "Great Commission" is a fraud. Historically, our first text with the Trinitarian formula is either the *Didache* or Irenaeus. On the other hand, its theology perfectly agrees with the later (= second-century), evolving, Gentile church, which rejected the party of James. (This illustrates the importance of knowing the history of the early church, when these documents were put into the form in which they have come down to us.) Hmmm. Those two texts (I John 5:7-8 and Matt 28:16-20) are the only two references to the Trinity in the whole NT, and the one is textually rejected (the RSV, etc., all omit it), and the other can be demonstrated on historical grounds to be an invention.... Yet you quote Barclay as asserting: "there is no case in which an article of faith or a precept of duty is left in doubt." I conclude, therefore, that the Trinity was not an article of faith for Barclay.... Nonsense similar to that of Barclay comes from F.F. Bruce, and many others. It is pious gibberish to placate the ignorant; in no way does it comport with the empirical facts determinable from an examination of the manuscripts, parallels among the gospels, and the earliest citations of the NT (in apocryphal and patristic sources). Before you teach your course, take a look at my review of a book by P.W. Comfort (*The Quest for the Original Text of the New Testament*); the review appeared in the *Journal of Biblical Literature* 113 (1994), pp. 529-531. For whatever reasons, demonstrably untrue statements are frequently made in matters theological and religious. These statements include the citation of non-existent sources (both ancient and modern) to "prove" one's point; assertions which are simply, empirically false; illogical arguments (illogical if one knows the history and texts); and emotion-laden appeals. The moral: Beware of the sources you use. Barclay was not a textual scholar; he was a pious, conservative churchman, making the case for his particular brand of Christianity. You might as well ask a mullah whether the Qur'an was dictated to Mohammed by Allah: you know the answer before you ask the question--and that means it is not scholarship. --Petersen, Penn State Univ. At 10:26 AM 1/22/99 -0500, you wrote: >Dear TC-er's: > >I am an English professor preparing to teach a course in the Bible as >Literature for the first time. In sending this message, I am jumping brashly >into unfamiliar territory, so please forgive my ignorance of things you take >for granted--for starters, knowledge of Greek and Hebrew. > >At any rate, William Barclay wrote, "It has been calculated that in the Greek >manuscripts of the New Testament there are 150,000 places in which there are >variant readings.... Of the 150,000 fewer than 400 affect the sense, fewer than >50 are of any importance, and there is no case in which an article of faith or >a precept of duty is left in doubt." (_Introducing the Bible_, 25th >Anniversary Edition, p. 154.) > >I would like to know some of the 50 important variant readings to which Barclay >refers, and I'd also be interested in important variant readings in the OT. I >wish to use these to illustrate to undergraduates some of the issues >translators and readers confront. The only example I now have is I Thess. 4:4, >where, apparently, the Greek original meaning "vessel" may be rendered either >"body" or "wife." > >Is there a single source, appropriate for a layman, that would help here? If >not, could you mention either on this list or by direct e-mail a couple of your >favorites? > >Thanks, > >Robert A. White >English Department, The Citadel >whiter@citadel.edu > From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Jan 22 13:48:57 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA08470; Fri, 22 Jan 1999 13:48:55 -0500 Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 13:52:06 -0500 (EST) From: Bart Ehrman X-Sender: behrman@login0.isis.unc.edu To: WHITER@Citadel.edu cc: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list Biblical Cruxes In-Reply-To: <01J6U7BVPEWM8WW59E@Citadel.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: 3446 In my opinion Barclay is far too conservative in his estimation of places of significant variation in the NT (and far too conservative on the number of variations that actually exist). But he was driven, I think, by apologetic concerns -- wanting his readers to know that we can trust the NT. There is a difference between translation issues and textual issues (the business in 1 THessalonians is the former: it has to do with what a Greek word means in its ancient context). Here I'll mention some textual ones (this is Barclay's concern; the issue has to do with the problem that among our ca 5400 Greek, not to mention other kinds of, MSS, there are many many thousands of differences; and the question is what the oldest form of the text said and how/why it came to be changed) Among my list of personal favorites to talk to non-specialists about are the final twelve verses of Mark (they aren't original) and the story of the woman taken in adultery in John 7-8 (also not original). Others that are not *quite* so well known outside of the sphere of the specialists (but thrashed about a good deal from inside!) are the following (these are ones just from the Gospels, and ones that I've dealt with in my book _The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture_, and so I'm just throwing them out off the top of my head; there are lots of others that might appeal to others on the list): -- Mark 1:1 (does the Gospel begin by calling Jesus the "son of God"?) -- Mark 15:34 (does Jesus' question why God has mocked him?) -- Luke 2:33, 48 (is Joseph called Jesus' father?) -- Luke 3:22 (does the voice suggest that God has "adopted" Jesus to be his son?) -- Luke 22:19-20 (does Jesus talk about his death as salvific?) -- Luke 22:43-44 (does Jesus sweat blood?) -- Luke 24:12 (does Peter see the empty tomb?) -- John 1:18 (is Jesus called the "unique God"?) Plenty here for thought! -- Bart D. Ehrman University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill On Fri, 22 Jan 1999 WHITER@Citadel.edu wrote: > Dear TC-er's: > > I am an English professor preparing to teach a course in the Bible as > Literature for the first time. In sending this message, I am jumping brashly > into unfamiliar territory, so please forgive my ignorance of things you take > for granted--for starters, knowledge of Greek and Hebrew. > > At any rate, William Barclay wrote, "It has been calculated that in the Greek > manuscripts of the New Testament there are 150,000 places in which there are > variant readings.... Of the 150,000 fewer than 400 affect the sense, fewer than > 50 are of any importance, and there is no case in which an article of faith or > a precept of duty is left in doubt." (_Introducing the Bible_, 25th > Anniversary Edition, p. 154.) > > I would like to know some of the 50 important variant readings to which Barclay > refers, and I'd also be interested in important variant readings in the OT. I > wish to use these to illustrate to undergraduates some of the issues > translators and readers confront. The only example I now have is I Thess. 4:4, > where, apparently, the Greek original meaning "vessel" may be rendered either > "body" or "wife." > > Is there a single source, appropriate for a layman, that would help here? If > not, could you mention either on this list or by direct e-mail a couple of your > favorites? > > Thanks, > > Robert A. White > English Department, The Citadel > whiter@citadel.edu > > From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Jan 22 14:18:24 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA08640; Fri, 22 Jan 1999 14:18:22 -0500 Message-ID: <003e01be4634$9033a520$f5aa1ed1@dcc-1> From: "Perry L. Stepp" To: , "b-greek" Subject: tc-list Differences btw. NA 26 and NA 27 Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 13:24:29 -0500 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 770 I've always understood that the two editions (actually four, if you count the 3rd corrected and 4th UBS editions) were identical. But I've found one admittedly minor but substantive textual difference between the NA 26 and 27. My question: has anyone compiled a list of differences between the editions? Perry L. Stepp ******************************************************************** Pastor, DeSoto Christian Church, DeSoto TX Ph.D. Candidate in Religion, Baylor University #1 Cowboy Fan The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. -George Bernard Shaw ******************************************************************** From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Jan 22 14:51:38 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA09071; Fri, 22 Jan 1999 14:51:36 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.19990122134402.006cf240@pop.flash.net> X-Sender: logsdon@pop.flash.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.2 (32) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 13:44:02 -0600 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: Mike Logsdon Subject: Re: tc-list Biblical Cruxes In-Reply-To: <199901221849.NAA108778@f04n01.cac.psu.edu> References: <01J6U7BVPEWM8WW59E@Citadel.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: 2510 >But there is another problem, which is more critical: the real problem is >not just textual variants, but the synoptic parallels. Dependence among >the synoptic gospels (Matt, Mark, Luke) is accepted by critical >scholarship. Therefore, the gospels themselves, when compared, show us >what editing was going on *before* the manuscripts were copied which are >preserved today. > Supposed and theorized editing! >An example: Take Throckmorton, and read the parallel passages of the >"Cursing of the Fig Tree" (Matt 21:18-22; Mark 11:12-14, 20-25). >According to Mark, Jesus is a rather ignorant fool (and certainly not a >divinity with foreknowledge), while Matthew has omitted precisely the two >statements from Mark which make Jesus' "non-divine" status obvious (Mark >11:13: "he went to see whether perhaps he would find anything on it"; >idem: "for it was not the season for figs"). Luke (perhaps embarrassed by >the whole thing?) omits the whole story. OR it is possible that Mark added to Matthew, and that the entire pericope was outside the larger scope of Luke who certainly had a larger body of material to draw from than simply Mark and Matthew (See Luke 1:1-4). That he was embarrassed at all is a purely psychological conjecture! > >Another example is the story of the "Rich Young Man/Ruler" (Matt 19:16-30; >Mark 10:17-31; Luke 18:18-30). Here again, Mark's text (Mark 10:18) >clearly states that Jesus is not God: "Why do you call *me* [Jesus] good? >No one is good but God alone." In the parallel in Matt (Matt 19:16-17), >the offending words (in Mark 10:17: "Good Master...") have once again been >changed (Matt 19:16: "Teacher, what *good deed*..."), so as to remove the >"problem." > Again, it is possible that Mark altered Matthew's text . . . In response to the larger question at hand, however, and since, at the present, I am studying in a seminar on John, the so called purpose statement of John 20:31 contains a variant worthy of mention since one's choice can actually alter the way the entire Gospel is read, evangelistic or edification. Additionally, The Woman Caught in Adultery pericope (John 7:53-8:11) is perhaps the most well known from the larger textual variants. Like others I would recommend Metzger's Textual Commentary Supplement to the UBS 3d and 4th editions as a beginning point for the rational behind the choices made in the UBS text about each of these textual variants. Mike Logsdon PhD Student Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Jan 22 15:33:53 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA09542; Fri, 22 Jan 1999 15:33:51 -0500 Message-Id: <199901222037.PAA54196@f04n07.cac.psu.edu> X-Sender: wlp1@mail.psu.edu (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0.2 Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 15:31:25 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "William L. Petersen" Subject: Re: tc-list Biblical Cruxes In-Reply-To: <3.0.2.32.19990122134402.006cf240@pop.flash.net> References: <199901221849.NAA108778@f04n01.cac.psu.edu> <01J6U7BVPEWM8WW59E@Citadel.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: 5568 Re: Mike Logsdon's comments: At 01:44 PM 1/22/99 -0600, you wrote: >>But there is another problem, which is more critical: the real problem is >>not just textual variants, but the synoptic parallels. Dependence among >>the synoptic gospels (Matt, Mark, Luke) is accepted by critical >>scholarship. Therefore, the gospels themselves, when compared, show us >>what editing was going on *before* the manuscripts were copied which are >>preserved today. >> > >Supposed and theorized editing! ??? I don't follow you. We *know*, from comparison of the synoptic parallels and from the patristic citations of the NT that editing occurred. How is that "supposed and theorized"? > >>An example: Take Throckmorton, and read the parallel passages of the >>"Cursing of the Fig Tree" (Matt 21:18-22; Mark 11:12-14, 20-25). >>According to Mark, Jesus is a rather ignorant fool (and certainly not a >>divinity with foreknowledge), while Matthew has omitted precisely the two >>statements from Mark which make Jesus' "non-divine" status obvious (Mark >>11:13: "he went to see whether perhaps he would find anything on it"; >>idem: "for it was not the season for figs"). Luke (perhaps embarrassed by >>the whole thing?) omits the whole story. > >OR it is possible that Mark added to Matthew, and that the entire pericope >was outside the larger scope of Luke who certainly had a larger body of >material to draw from than simply Mark and Matthew (See Luke 1:1-4). That >he was embarrassed at all is a purely psychological conjecture! (1) You fail to address the two crucial points: (a) an omniscient divinity would "know" whether or not there were figs on the tree *without* going to see if there were [and this is precisely what Matt omits]; (b) Mark paints Jesus a not only *not* a divinity, but also dumber than the average peasant, for, according to Mark's text, Jesus doesn't even know when the season for figs is [and Matt also omits this unflattering detail]. (2) It is possible that--as you suggest--"Mark added to Matthew". Whichever way you look at it, however, you are acknowledging that there is editing going on, contrary to your remark above about editing being "supposed and theorized".... (3) If one accepts your scenario, then you must explain to me how Matthew's earlier, theologically acceptable tale would have been taken over by a *later* writer (Mark, in your reconstruction), who would have inserted theologically *unacceptable* details, which depict Jesus as just plain dumb (he's so ignorant of common knowledge that he wonders if there are figs on trees--when it isn't even the season for figs...) and lacking omniscience (he doesn't know whether there are figs on the tree or not, and need to approach it to determine this...). As a general principle, we do *not* find texts becoming *less* in tune with later theology the later we go in church history; quite the contrary, as the *comma Ioanneum* shows, the tendency has always been to move the text in the direction of contemporary beliefs. An example from the 1990s is the *Living Bible* at John 1:1: "In the beginning was Christ, and Christ was God." (LOGOS and CHRISTOS are two different words in Greek; how can they even venture such a translation? Well, they are "correcting" the theology of John, and "protecting" it from the misinterpretation of people who might have read Plato or Philo...) (4) I try to write carefully, so please read carefully. You say that "That he [Luke ] was embarrassed at all is a purely psychological conjecture!" Indeed it is, as I clearly indicate, by prefacing the words with "perhaps" and not even making it a statement, but a question: "perhaps embarrassed by the whole thing?" >>Another example is the story of the "Rich Young Man/Ruler" (Matt 19:16-30; >>Mark 10:17-31; Luke 18:18-30). Here again, Mark's text (Mark 10:18) >>clearly states that Jesus is not God: "Why do you call *me* [Jesus] good? >>No one is good but God alone." In the parallel in Matt (Matt 19:16-17), >>the offending words (in Mark 10:17: "Good Master...") have once again been >>changed (Matt 19:16: "Teacher, what *good deed*..."), so as to remove the >>"problem." >> > >Again, it is possible that Mark altered Matthew's text . . . Indeed. But then comments #2 and 3 above obtain here: (2) you are admitting editing takes place among the gospels--that Matthew is being revised and substantially changed on theological points by Mark, or the reverse. (3) What about the theological difference between the two--whichever way you wish to have the dependence? And does not both logic and the evidence of texts everywhere (even the *Living Bible*) suggest that the theologically *unacceptable* text is earlier (= Mark) and the theologically more palatable text (= Matthew) is later? > In response to the larger question at hand, however, and since, at the >present, I am studying in a seminar on John, the so called purpose >statement of John 20:31 contains a variant worthy of mention since one's >choice can actually alter the way the entire Gospel is read, evangelistic >or edification. Additionally, The Woman Caught in Adultery pericope (John >7:53-8:11) is perhaps the most well known from the larger textual variants. Indeed, there are theological issues associated with the *pericope adulterae*; although it doesn't focus on them, you might enjoy looking at my textual study of the origins of the *per.ad.* in *Sayings of Jesus: Canonical and Non-canonical*, Supp. Novum Testamentum 89 (Brill, 1997), pp. 191-221. --Petersen, Penn State Univ. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Jan 22 16:51:31 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA10001; Fri, 22 Jan 1999 16:51:29 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990122165613.0080de20@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: scarlson@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 16:56:13 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Stephen C. Carlson" Subject: Re: tc-list Biblical Cruxes In-Reply-To: <199901222037.PAA54196@f04n07.cac.psu.edu> References: <3.0.2.32.19990122134402.006cf240@pop.flash.net> <199901221849.NAA108778@f04n01.cac.psu.edu> <01J6U7BVPEWM8WW59E@Citadel.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: 2236 At 03:31 PM 1/22/99 -0500, William L. Petersen wrote: >Re: Mike Logsdon's comments: >At 01:44 PM 1/22/99 -0600, you wrote: >>>Another example is the story of the "Rich Young Man/Ruler" (Matt 19:16-30; >>>Mark 10:17-31; Luke 18:18-30). Here again, Mark's text (Mark 10:18) >>>clearly states that Jesus is not God: "Why do you call *me* [Jesus] good? >>>No one is good but God alone." In the parallel in Matt (Matt 19:16-17), >>>the offending words (in Mark 10:17: "Good Master...") have once again been >>>changed (Matt 19:16: "Teacher, what *good deed*..."), so as to remove the >>>"problem." >> >>Again, it is possible that Mark altered Matthew's text . . . [...] >(3) What about the theological difference between the two--whichever way >you wish to have the dependence? And does not both logic and the evidence >of texts everywhere (even the *Living Bible*) suggest that the >theologically *unacceptable* text is earlier (= Mark) and the theologically >more palatable text (= Matthew) is later? Peter M. Head, CHRISTOLOGY AND THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM: An Argument for Markan Priority (Cambridge: University Press, 1997), has devoted considerable attention to this pericope, concluding: "The common assumption that Matthew's alteration of Jesus' response to the man (Matt. 19.17) is a redactional evasion of the christological implications of Mark 10.18 does not cohere with the positive emphasis within Matthew's version of the account or with comparison of later preferences in the manuscripts and Tatian." [p.64] Earlier on page 60, Head states that Tatian chose the Markan/Lukan version over the Matthean version [Arabic 28.42-51, Ephraem XV.1f; Persian II.39]. Furthermore, there are wide number of MSS that harmonize the already more palatable text of Matthew to the unacceptable text of Mark or Luke: e.g. C W Delta fam.13 syr:p cop:sa Byz [E F G H]. Typically, however, harmonization goes the other direction. Have you been able to consider Head's analysis? Stephen Carlson -- Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@mindspring.com Synoptic Problem Home Page http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/ "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35 From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Jan 22 17:06:56 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA10094; Fri, 22 Jan 1999 17:06:55 -0500 Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 17:10:12 -0500 (EST) From: Bart Ehrman X-Sender: behrman@login7.isis.unc.edu To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu cc: whiter@Citadel.edu Subject: Re: tc-list Biblical Cruxes In-Reply-To: <01J6U7BVPEWM8WW59E@Citadel.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: 1918 BTW, a terrific little book that would be ideal for you would be David Parker's _Living Text of the Gospels_ -- written for the non-specialist but showing how the differences among the manuscripts have significant affects on the meaning of the texts (with references to the analogous problems, e.g., in Shakespeare) (though w/o benefit of Tom Stoppard's suggestions :-)). -- Bart Ehrman University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill On Fri, 22 Jan 1999 WHITER@Citadel.edu wrote: > Dear TC-er's: > > I am an English professor preparing to teach a course in the Bible as > Literature for the first time. In sending this message, I am jumping brashly > into unfamiliar territory, so please forgive my ignorance of things you take > for granted--for starters, knowledge of Greek and Hebrew. > > At any rate, William Barclay wrote, "It has been calculated that in the Greek > manuscripts of the New Testament there are 150,000 places in which there are > variant readings.... Of the 150,000 fewer than 400 affect the sense, fewer than > 50 are of any importance, and there is no case in which an article of faith or > a precept of duty is left in doubt." (_Introducing the Bible_, 25th > Anniversary Edition, p. 154.) > > I would like to know some of the 50 important variant readings to which Barclay > refers, and I'd also be interested in important variant readings in the OT. I > wish to use these to illustrate to undergraduates some of the issues > translators and readers confront. The only example I now have is I Thess. 4:4, > where, apparently, the Greek original meaning "vessel" may be rendered either > "body" or "wife." > > Is there a single source, appropriate for a layman, that would help here? If > not, could you mention either on this list or by direct e-mail a couple of your > favorites? > > Thanks, > > Robert A. White > English Department, The Citadel > whiter@citadel.edu > > From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Jan 22 18:14:37 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA10312; Fri, 22 Jan 1999 18:14:35 -0500 X-Sender: winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net (Unverified) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199901212308.SAA03254@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> References: <36A82F9F.1129@online.no> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 17:31:33 +0400 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: Carlton Winbery Subject: Re: tc-list tc list: Mark 16:9-20 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 593 >> Hi, >> >> During my present study of the subject of the authenticity of the >> disputed "longer ending" of Mark, it would be quite interesting to know >> how many on this list regard this passage as a later addition to Mark's >> Gospel. >> >> Any opinions, please? > >I do... >Dave Washburn My guess would be that the vast majority on this list consider the longer and the shorter endings of Mark to be later additions. I certainly do. Carlton L. Winbery Fogleman Professor of Religion Louisiana College Pineville, LA 71359 winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net winbery@andria.lacollege.edu From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Jan 22 18:29:02 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA10362; Fri, 22 Jan 1999 18:29:01 -0500 Message-ID: <97F39596DEEECF11BC020000C09361E589AFF8@mv_exchange_2.mv.unisys.com> From: "Stevens, Charles C" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: RE: tc-list tc list: Mark 16:9-20 Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 16:31:30 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1024 I understand Jerome was aware of the "Freer Logion" in (I think it's) Codex Washingtoniensis. Do any of his writings comment on it? Is there any other ancient evidence of, or support for, this logion? -Chuck Stevens -----Original Message----- From: Carlton Winbery [mailto:winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net] Sent: Friday, January 22, 1999 5:32 AM To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list tc list: Mark 16:9-20 >> Hi, >> >> During my present study of the subject of the authenticity of the >> disputed "longer ending" of Mark, it would be quite interesting to know >> how many on this list regard this passage as a later addition to Mark's >> Gospel. >> >> Any opinions, please? > >I do... >Dave Washburn My guess would be that the vast majority on this list consider the longer and the shorter endings of Mark to be later additions. I certainly do. Carlton L. Winbery Fogleman Professor of Religion Louisiana College Pineville, LA 71359 winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net winbery@andria.lacollege.edu From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Jan 23 11:57:39 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA13249; Sat, 23 Jan 1999 11:57:38 -0500 From: "Wieland Willker" To: "TC-List" Subject: tc-list Swanson books Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 18:00:57 +0100 Message-Id: <000001be46f1$f2587a60$66066686@wieland> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-Msmail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 Importance: Normal X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 471 Just a short note that I've found the Swanson books at Bibal-Press: http://www.cmpu.net/public/bibal/languag.html They sell the new book on Acts for $14.95 and all four Gospel volumes together $49.95 Best wishes Wieland ------------------------ Wieland Willker willker@chemie.uni-bremen.de http://purl.org/WILLKER/index.html Egerton Homepage: http://purl.org/WILLKER/Egerton/Egerton_home.html Secret Mark Homepage: http://purl.org/WILLKER/Secret/secmark_home.html From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Jan 23 15:12:56 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA13945; Sat, 23 Jan 1999 15:12:54 -0500 Message-ID: <009101be470d$6c4d3a20$c9eb2399@david> From: "R. David Large" To: Subject: Re: tc-list tc list: Mark 16:9-20 Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 15:17:37 -0500 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 4.72.3155.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 886 Helge, I believe that mark originally wrote the passage in question and that, despite the phenomena surrounding its transmission, that it is most properly regarded (in the normal sense of the word) as wholly authentic. A case can be made, in fact, for the genuineness of this passage on the basis of both documentary and patristic evidence. Most recently, not a few messages were posted regarding this passage back in October, 1998-- I would suggest them for your perusal as they might contribute something worthwhile as you study the evidence. Best Regards, R. David Large David@planetmail.com >Hi, > >During my present study of the subject of the authenticity of the >disputed "longer ending" of Mark, it would be quite interesting to know >how many on this list regard this passage as a later addition to Mark's >Gospel. > >Any opinions, please? > > >-- Mr. Helge Evensen > From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Jan 23 15:53:16 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA14058; Sat, 23 Jan 1999 15:53:15 -0500 Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 12:56:45 -0800 (PST) From: Jim Deardorff To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list Biblical Cruxes In-Reply-To: <199901222037.PAA54196@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: 6902 On Fri, 22 Jan 1999, William L. Petersen wrote: > >>An example: Take Throckmorton, and read the parallel passages of the > >>"Cursing of the Fig Tree" (Matt 21:18-22; Mark 11:12-14, 20-25). > >>According to Mark, Jesus is a rather ignorant fool (and certainly not a > >>divinity with foreknowledge), while Matthew has omitted precisely the two > >>statements from Mark which make Jesus' "non-divine" status obvious (Mark > >>11:13: "he went to see whether perhaps he would find anything on it"; > >>idem: "for it was not the season for figs"). Luke (perhaps embarrassed by > >>the whole thing?) omits the whole story. Mike Logsdon replied: > >OR it is possible that Mark added to Matthew, and that the entire pericope > >was outside the larger scope of Luke who certainly had a larger body of > >material to draw from than simply Mark and Matthew (See Luke 1:1-4). That > >he was embarrassed at all is a purely psychological conjecture! Petersen responded: > (1) You fail to address the two crucial points: (a) an omniscient divinity > would "know" whether or not there were figs on the tree *without* going to > see if there were [and this is precisely what Matt omits]; (b) Mark paints > Jesus a not only *not* a divinity, but also dumber than the average > peasant, for, according to Mark's text, Jesus doesn't even know when the > season for figs is [and Matt also omits this unflattering detail]. > (2) It is possible that--as you suggest--"Mark added to Matthew". > Whichever way you look at it, however, you are acknowledging that there is > editing going on, contrary to your remark above about editing being > "supposed and theorized".... > (3) If one accepts your scenario, then you must explain to me how Matthew's > earlier, theologically acceptable tale would have been taken over by a > *later* writer (Mark, in your reconstruction), who would have inserted > theologically *unacceptable* details, which depict Jesus as just plain dumb > (he's so ignorant of common knowledge that he wonders if there are figs on > trees--when it isn't even the season for figs...) and lacking omniscience > (he doesn't know whether there are figs on the tree or not, and need to > approach it to determine this...). At the risk of adding to a debate that may then be considered off-topic for tc and more appropriate for those more interested in the synoptic problem, let me contribute the following here, since the two fields do overlap. There is an interesting and plausible alternative that allows the writer of Mark to have expanded upon Matthew at times, even in the above example, while abbreviating away portions he deemed unnecessary or anti-gentile or non-understandable. In the above example, the writer of Mark wished to split Matthew's miracle of the fig-tree withering into two pieces a day apart. So he invented the phony sounding intro of Mk 11:11 where Jesus does nothing more than walk into the temple, look around, and walk out again, so as to allow a first encounter with the fig tree to occur in the morning. Then after a full day had elapsed, he allowed the withered tree to be observed. Thus he avoided Matthew's abrupt withering. Why? It seems quite plausible to me that the writer had heard objections to Matthew at this point, to the effect that anyone knew a tree could even be uprooted or chopped down yet its leaves wouldn't look withered right away. So he was just improving upon Matthew's miracle here to make it more acceptable to his gentile audience. It would still be a miracle even if it took up to a day for its leaves to wither. As for Jesus being dumb here, I would contend that the writer of Mark needs to be blamed for this, and for not being a careful editor. In his desire to make changes for the sake of change, so that his gospel would be more than a mere abbreviation of Matthew, he thought he could safely add "for it was not the season for figs." (He did the same elsewhere, e.g., the "green" grass of Mk 6:39 occurring over a large area yet in a desert or deserted region, with Mt 14:19 not mentioning "green.") > As a general principle, we do *not* find texts becoming *less* in tune with > later theology the later we go in church history; quite the contrary, as > the *comma Ioanneum* shows, the tendency has always been to move the text > in the direction of contemporary beliefs. There are quite a few examples of Mark being an upgrade of Matthew. Like in Mk 1:1 where "Son of God" would not then have been a later scribal alteration. In Mk 1:7 Jesus is upgraded relative to John by having John be unworthy even to touch the thong of Jesus' sandals, let alone carry them. (Mark's omission of practically all of Mt 11:1-14, with its praise for John, is consistent with this.) Mk 6:29-31 avoids the implication that Jesus withdrew because he was afraid, which Mt 14:13 allows. Mark has greater emphasis upon the gospel as a written account (e.g., Mk 1:1, 8:35). Mk 11:3 has the promise that Jesus would send the colt back immediately; this avoids Matthew's implication that the colt was usurped (the writer of Mark emphasized the right of ownership, as in Mk 10:19 and its "Do not defraud"). Mk 10:17 has "Good teacher" while Mt 19:16 simply has "Teacher;" Mk 10:20 has "Teacher" while Mt 19:20 just leaves it as "him," and the same with Mk 10:35 vs Mt 20:20. Equally important, however, is to bear in mind that with the tradition that Matthew came out first, written in a Semitic tongue, that its translator did not translate it into Greek likely until after both Mark and Luke had appeared. At that time, numerous small alterations and upgrades could or would have been emplaced within Matthew, such as replacing Mark's "Teacher" with "Lord" here and there. > >>Another example is the story of the "Rich Young Man/Ruler" (Matt 19:16-30; > >>Mark 10:17-31; Luke 18:18-30). Here again, Mark's text (Mark 10:18) > >>clearly states that Jesus is not God: "Why do you call *me* [Jesus] good? > >>No one is good but God alone." In the parallel in Matt (Matt 19:16-17), > >>the offending words (in Mark 10:17: "Good Master...") have once again been > >>changed (Matt 19:16: "Teacher, what *good deed*..."), so as to remove the > >>"problem." > >Again, it is possible that Mark altered Matthew's text . . . But in this instance the analysis of Lamar Cope seems quite viable. In Matthew, the "Good" had referred to the Torah. That's why its discussion goes on to discuss the commandments. But the writer of Mark, along with many of us today, did not understand this, so he tried to resolve the apparent ambiguity in Matthew by explaining what "Good" applied to, but succeeded only in generating his own problem. Also, note again that it is Mark that has "Good Teacher" while Matthew has only "Teacher." Jim Deardorff Web Page: http://www.proaxis.com/~deardorj (See section on "Evidence that Mark is secondary to Matthew") From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Jan 23 16:57:11 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA14271; Sat, 23 Jan 1999 16:57:10 -0500 Message-ID: <36AA451E.D40@oneimage.com> Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 14:55:47 -0700 From: "robert s. morse" X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: tc-list Mk 16 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: 808 Dear Gentlemen: I appreciate getting information about New Testament text. (The part that's blasphemous I simply delete.) Glad too to see that there is still an interest in Mark 16, after the whole question was "settled" a hundred years ago. After working on the subject for quite a few years (in writing a book), I can only say that my confidence in its originality grows stronger every time I encounter fresh evidence. There are some areas, however, that seem not to be covered very well in the works I have been privileged to delve into. For example, how many Georgian MSS carry the passage? What are the confines of the "Jerusalem Lectionary"? Does the Armenian tradition have lectionary MSS, and if so, what sort of testimony do they bear on this? Glad for any help that might be available. Bob Morse From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Jan 23 17:14:01 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA14347; Sat, 23 Jan 1999 17:13:59 -0500 Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 17:14:07 +0000 From: Jim West Subject: Re: tc-list Mk 16 X-Sender: jwest@highland.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.32.19990123171407.00675bc0@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: 644 At 02:55 PM 1/23/99 -0700, you wrote: >Dear Gentlemen: > >I appreciate getting information about New Testament text. (The part >that's blasphemous I simply delete.) Glad too to see that there is still >an interest in Mark 16, after the whole question was "settled" a hundred >years ago. After working on the subject for quite a few years (in >writing a book), I can only say that my confidence in its originality >grows stronger every time I encounter fresh evidence. What evidence? Anyway, thanks for your post. Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@highland.net http://web.infoave.net/~jwest From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Jan 23 17:21:58 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA14391; Sat, 23 Jan 1999 17:21:57 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list Biblical Cruxes Message-ID: <19990123.172434.4503.1.seventh.guardian@juno.com> References: <199901221849.NAA108778@f04n01.cac.psu.edu> X-Mailer: Juno 1.49 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0,2-3,5-6,12-13,24-25,34-40 From: M A Robinson Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 17:25:17 EST Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2218 On Fri, 22 Jan 1999 13:43:30 -0500 "William L. Petersen" writes: >here on the TC-list, I noticed that just today the vast (unanimous?) consensus was >that Mark 16:9+ were not original. Although the response was related to the question about the English bible, there are indeed some (few) of us who hold Mk. 16:9-20 as original. I didn't chime in with the recent question since I had already discussed my position on that passage during last Fall's discussion. I only speak now because I don't want to get lumped in summarily by "(unanimous?)" with a position which I would not espouse. As for two of the other texts mentioned, even though I obviously concur with Petersen in regard to the inauthenticity of 1 Jn. 5:7, since the textual evidence there is strong and clear, I would strongly demur in regard to Mt. 28:19-20 (and other references cited which have no textual variants among the known MS base); such reflects a judgment made from higher critical praxis and assumptions regarding the pre-transmissional development and stages of the NT documents before there exists text-critical evidence. Petersen also espouses a higher-critical approach which I do not happen to share, and we would have serious differences of interpretation of the identical evidence; but there is no need to discuss such in this forum, since it strays off-topic from tc in particular. However, I would like to ask Petersen this: why Throckmorton and not the Aland "Synopsis of the Four Gospels"? Aside from an English presentation of text-critical variant readings in Throckmorton versus English Bible version variants in Aland, do you see a greater benefit in Throckmorton's layout or pericope arrangement, or are there other benefits which I haven't necessarily noticed? (I have used both in NT Introduction classes during the past 15 years, but I settled on Aland's Synopsis about 7 years ago, primarily due to the low cost factor, since it can be obtained at a very reasonable price from the Bible Society). ============================================================== Maurice A. Robinson, Ph. D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina, USA From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Jan 24 06:45:35 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id GAA17516; Sun, 24 Jan 1999 06:45:33 -0500 From: dd-1@juno.com To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 05:39:00 -0600 Subject: tc-list 1 Jn 5.7-8 Message-ID: <19990124.054721.-802239.1.dd-1@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 2.0.11 X-Juno-Att: 0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 697 Denny Diehl here with a question about 1 Jn 5.7-8 which in the KJV reads: "there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth..." This is attributed to a Spanish heretic Priscillian who died AD 385. 1) Was the first Latin manuscript to contain this text the Pseudo-Virgilius? 2) If so, what was its date and origin? Thanks! ___________________________________________________________________ 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 Jan 24 14:21:35 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA18306; Sun, 24 Jan 1999 14:21:33 -0500 Message-ID: <36ABF4E0.7A17@online.no> Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 20:36:48 -0800 From: "Mr. Helge Evensen" Organization: Scandinavia Online X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list tc list: Mark 16:9-20 References: <009101be470d$6c4d3a20$c9eb2399@david> 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: 802 R. David Large wrote: > > Helge, > > I believe that mark originally wrote the passage in question and that, > despite > the phenomena surrounding its transmission, that it is most properly > regarded > (in the normal sense of the word) as wholly authentic. > > A case can be made, in fact, for the genuineness of this passage on the > basis > of both documentary and patristic evidence. Most recently, not a few > messages > were posted regarding this passage back in October, 1998-- I would suggest > them for your perusal as they might contribute something worthwhile as you > study the evidence. > > Best Regards, > > R. David Large > David@planetmail.com David, Thanks for your reply and for bringing to my attention the October 1998 posts on the passage. God bless -- Mr. Helge Evensen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Jan 24 14:25:25 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA18340; Sun, 24 Jan 1999 14:25:24 -0500 Message-ID: <36ABF5E7.4FDD@online.no> Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 20:41:11 -0800 From: "Mr. Helge Evensen" Organization: Scandinavia Online X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list Mk 16 References: <36AA451E.D40@oneimage.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1003 robert s. morse wrote: > > Dear Gentlemen: > > I appreciate getting information about New Testament text. (The part > that's blasphemous I simply delete.) Glad too to see that there is still > an interest in Mark 16, after the whole question was "settled" a hundred > years ago. After working on the subject for quite a few years (in > writing a book), I can only say that my confidence in its originality > grows stronger every time I encounter fresh evidence. There are some > areas, however, that seem not to be covered very well in the works I > have been privileged to delve into. For example, how many Georgian MSS > carry the passage? What are the confines of the "Jerusalem Lectionary"? > Does the Armenian tradition have lectionary MSS, and if so, what sort of > testimony do they bear on this? Glad for any help that might be > available. > > Bob Morse Wow, that was a good one! :-) Thanks. Sorry I can't answer any of your questions, but I'm sure some on this list can. -- Mr. Evensen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Jan 25 02:32:14 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id CAA20758; Mon, 25 Jan 1999 02:32:12 -0500 Message-ID: <36AC1DA9.5F72@oneimage.com> Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 00:30:49 -0700 From: "robert s. morse" X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list Mk 16 References: <1.5.4.32.19990123171407.00675bc0@highland.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1374 Jim West wrote: > > At 02:55 PM 1/23/99 -0700, you wrote: > >Dear Gentlemen: > > > >I appreciate getting information about New Testament text. (The part > >that's blasphemous I simply delete.) Glad too to see that there is still > >an interest in Mark 16, after the whole question was "settled" a hundred > >years ago. After working on the subject for quite a few years (in > >writing a book), I can only say that my confidence in its originality > >grows stronger every time I encounter fresh evidence. > > What evidence? Anyway, thanks for your post. > > Jim > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > Jim West, ThD > Quartz Hill School of Theology > > jwest@highland.net > http://web.infoave.net/~jwest It would be difficult to put my 469-page book into this reply. One interesting area I'm trying to explore now is the true picture of evidence on the Armenian VS. E. C. Colwell did a monumental study on 220 MSS. But I think he may have omitted lectionary MSS, including some very old ones. These documents just might make his results look a lot different from what they were. I'm beginning to find some answers to this one question that I posed, but accessing the right sources may take time. As you know, those who think that external evidence is important (!) have stressed the Armenian VS's lack of Mark's Ending in many medieval copies. Thanks for the reply. Bob From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Jan 25 10:30:22 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA22791; Mon, 25 Jan 1999 10:30:21 -0500 Message-Id: <199901251533.KAA57260@f04n07.cac.psu.edu> X-Sender: wlp1@mail.psu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0.2 Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 10:27:52 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "William L. Petersen" Subject: tc-list Throckmorton vs. Aland for an English Synopsis In-Reply-To: <19990123.172434.4503.1.seventh.guardian@juno.com> References: <199901221849.NAA108778@f04n01.cac.psu.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: 5092 At 05:25 PM 1/23/99 -0500, Maurice Robinson wrote: [snip] >However, I would like to ask Petersen this: why Throckmorton and not the >Aland "Synopsis of the Four Gospels"? Aside from an English presentation >of text-critical variant readings in Throckmorton versus English Bible >version variants in Aland, do you see a greater benefit in Throckmorton's >layout or pericope arrangement, or are there other benefits which I >haven't necessarily noticed? (I have used both in NT Introduction classes >during the past 15 years, but I settled on Aland's Synopsis about 7 years >ago, primarily due to the low cost factor, since it can be obtained at a >very reasonable price from the Bible Society). There are four main reasons for my preference for Throckmorton. (1) The editions of Aland's English *Synopsis* (RSV text) which I have seen (mine is 1985 printing of the 1st edition) give NO manuscript evidence. The apparatus consists primarily of readings from *English translations*--hardly a satisfactory way to educate students about manuscripts and the radically different readings present in the MSS. One of my aims is to educate students about the manuscript tradition of the NT and to make them (painfully) aware of the enormous range and variety among the MSS and versions. Aland's *Synopsis* is useless for this purpose. (There are--but only very occasionally--references to sources in the notes at the bottom of the page [I am loath to call it an apparatus], but these are useless: e.g.: "other ancient authorities omit *in his day*". But Aland does not tell you *what* ancient authorities, or in what languages, "omit *in his day*"--and most pages are entirely devoid of *any* references to MS variants. Therefore, for many students, who enter university with the defective and empirically incorrect notion that we "have" the "original text" of the NT, or that their English Bibles are all translations of the *same* Greek manuscript (!!), Aland is misleading by tacitly encouraging that view. Throckmorton does not. Aland's (English) *Synopsis* is, in my view, bizarre, for it wastes up to a quarter of the page sometimes giving nothing more than variants between the KJV, the RSV and the 1881 English Revised Version. Look at p. 268, for example. Of what use is this to teaching about the text of the NT? It may be useful for comparing English translations, but it is of no help is showing the textual chaos what was the first centuries of Christianity. (2) Throckmorton (RSV text in older editions; the NRSV in the most recent edition) has an extensive introduction, describing all the major manuscripts of the NT (including the papyri), in addition to providing a description of the major "families" of the NT MSS (Alexandrian, Western, Koine, etc.) and even the Versions (!) and non-canonical sources (!!). Furthermore, he offers a brief overview of the copying of MSS and the materials (papyrus, parchment, etc.), and even the Fathers (who was Clement of Alex., etc.). I assign this as reading, for I know of no NT Intro textbook (Bart, yours may, but I don't remember at the moment...) which provides such a detailed and extensive overview of the MS tradition of the NT, papyri, fathers, codices, and copying practices. (3) Throckmorton gives a rather extensive set of *quotations*--the actual texts--from Patristic and non-canonical sources in his apparatus. If you look at Aland, there is not a *single* reference to the *Gospel of Thomas* in it (as far as I can see). Is it really possible to do synoptic textual and source criticism without taking *Thomas* into consideration? Can one really study the "Parables of the Salt and Light" (Matt 5:13-16) with just the canonical gospels in front of one? I say one can, but that is not scholarship. At this passage, Throckmorton provides an English translation of P.Oxy. 1 and Thomas log. 32 (they differ slightly); in the next verse (Matt 5:17) he provides English translations of the Gospel of the Ebionites and the Gospel of the Egyptians (as cited by Clement Al., Misc. II.9.63 [Throckmorton even gives you the reference in the Father...]). I do NOT want to artificially limit the perspective of my students; I want them to see the full breadth of evidence available, in Thomas, in P.Oxy. 1, and the Fathers. Conclusion: Throckmorton offers more information--more *useful* information for the scholar--than Aland. (4) The setup of Throckmorton is easier on the eyes: the type is bigger (even though the volume is thinner), the headers, layout and typography are better than Aland. Throckmorton also provides useful tools, including a cross-index between all of his non-canonical sources and the appropriate passage in the gospels (pp. xxvii to xxxi: 5 pages!), which guides the student to where certain sources (e.g. Thomas, of the Gospel of Peter) offer parallels. While Throckmorton does not present all the parallels from these sources, he gives *much* more info than any other source. That is why I vastly prefer Throckmorton to Aland. Any questions? --Petersen, Penn State University. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Jan 25 12:02:24 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA24077; Mon, 25 Jan 1999 12:02:22 -0500 Message-Id: <199901251705.MAA37064@f04n07.cac.psu.edu> X-Sender: wlp1@mail.psu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0.2 Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 11:59:54 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "William L. Petersen" Subject: Re: tc-list Biblical Cruxes (Carlson) In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19990122165613.0080de20@pop.mindspring.com> References: <199901222037.PAA54196@f04n07.cac.psu.edu> <3.0.2.32.19990122134402.006cf240@pop.flash.net> <199901221849.NAA108778@f04n01.cac.psu.edu> <01J6U7BVPEWM8WW59E@Citadel.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: 6068 At 04:56 PM 1/22/99 -0500, Stephen Carlson wrote: >Peter M. Head, CHRISTOLOGY AND THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM: An Argument for >Markan Priority (Cambridge: University Press, 1997), has devoted >considerable attention to this pericope, concluding: > > "The common assumption that Matthew's alteration of Jesus' > response to the man (Matt. 19.17) is a redactional evasion > of the christological implications of Mark 10.18 does not > cohere with the positive emphasis within Matthew's version > of the account or with comparison of later preferences in > the manuscripts and Tatian." [p.64] > >Earlier on page 60, Head states that Tatian chose the Markan/Lukan >version over the Matthean version [Arabic 28.42-51, Ephraem XV.1f; >Persian II.39]. Furthermore, there are wide number of MSS that >harmonize the already more palatable text of Matthew to the >unacceptable text of Mark or Luke: e.g. C W Delta fam.13 syr:p >cop:sa Byz [E F G H]. Typically, however, harmonization goes >the other direction. > >Have you been able to consider Head's analysis? No. I've seen the title, but not had time to look at the book; also, I don't have time to muck about in the Diatessaronic materials at the moment. Two observations, however. (1) One must always be concerned about the use of the Diatessaron, even by specialists, for it is a very complex, difficult beast. We have no text of "the" Diatessaron; it must be reconstructed from various sources, which is a difficult, time-consuming and painstaking task. Ephrem cannot be assumed to be the text of the Diatessaron; we know that Eprhem knew not just the Diatessaron, but also the Vetus Syra as well as the "Greek" (he cites it as such several times [ 7 or so, I think] in his Commentary. Also, Ephrem's *own* text appears to have been revised in its transmission history. (2) Head's comments (at least as you quote them) are a bit vague: what, for example, is the "the positive emphasis within Matthew's version"? I, for one, don't know what a "positive emphasis" is. I can assume what he means by the "later preferences in the manuscripts [and Tatian]"? I've already pointed out that we don't have "Tatian"--and we'd certainly have to do a much more extensive analysis to reconstruct Tatian's text. As for the MSS (C, the Koine, etc.,--see your apparatuses, folks) which interpolate the "good" into the salutation in Matt, and also substitute Jesus' Marcan answer for the Matthean answer, it is, indeed, a puzzling picture. But *none* of these MSS (at least so far as my Aland Greek Synopsis shows) delete the distinctively Matthean "AGATHON POIHSW" in Matt 19:16. And it is *this* change which, in B and aleph and a few other early sources, is the key to circumlocuting the Christologically objectionable reading of Mark. The problem here is simple: If the Christologically "orthodox" version (= Matt, in B, etc.) were the earliest version of the passage, then how can one account for the incredible theological "mucking up" this entirely "acceptable" passage gets at the hands of Mark? Ditto for the parallel case in the "Cursing of the Fig Tree" episode: why would Mark interpolate into an acceptable text (Matthew's version) items which are objectionable, and make Jesus out to be a dolt? (Examples of such "improvements" in Matt are legion: cp. the omission in Matt 27:54 of the word "man/anthropos", which is in the Marcan parallel [15:39].) We know that, as time goes on, "theological corrections" are made in the text: Augustine says the *pericope adulterae* was excised in areas he knew because people thought it was too "liberal" a story (so much for the "reverence" accorded "received text" of the gospels in the fifth century...); John "corrects" (even acknowledging its corrections) synoptic events/sayings in John 2:19-22 and John 21:21-23; what editors now often set in brackets (Mark 7:19) certainly must come from a time late in or after the apostolic era, for Peter and the rest certainly don't know they can eat anything in Acts 10 &11--and, indeed, the Acts version of the Apostolic Decree (Acts 15:20) does *not* allow Christians to eat anything... Etc., etc. To the frustration of some of my colleagues, I am an agnostic about synoptic relationships; I think it needs to be decided on a case-by-case, reading-by-reading basis, not "en bloc" (= Matt is *always* using Mark, or the reverse). My point in introducing these examples was *not* to become embroiled in a discussion of the precise synoptic relationships, but to provide some examples for the faculty member at the Citadel, who was looking for text-critical cruxes. These certainly exist (and he now has a goodly handful of them from numerous members of the list); what I also wanted to draw his attention to (he is a professor of English, if I recall) is that there is modification going on *among* the gospels as well--and that these changes *among* the parallel passages are (1) often significant, (2) sometimes have *theological* significance (recall that the Citadel prof's original query was about Barclay's bold assertion that no variants touched on points of doctrine...), and--most importantly for students to understand--that (3) these differences must reflect either (a) a deliberate rewriting of the text which came into the author's (or later revisor's) hands ("Mark" revised by "Matthew"--or, also possible, "Matthew" revised by "Mark," or later redactors revising one or the other or both), or (b) a version of "Mark" (or "Matthew") in manuscript form which is no longer preserved for us in the surviving manuscript tradition. (This is nothing new: the so-called "minor agreements" are an example of this.) While item (a) is not directly of interest to textual criticism--although it may well be of significance, as shown by harmonization and assimilation...), item (b) is (or should be...) of direct interest to all textual critics. This is especially so when such readings are buttressed by early Patristic, versional, or non-canonical evidence. --Petersen, Penn State Univ. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Jan 25 16:01:45 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA26470; Mon, 25 Jan 1999 16:01:44 -0500 Message-Id: <199901252105.WAA10432@carno.brus.online.be> Subject: tc-list Lk 4.23 apparatus of IGNTP Date: Lun, 25 Jan 99 22:08:28 +0100 x-sender: vale5655@pop3.brus.online.be x-mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1 From: Jean Valentin To: "Liste TC-List" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 346 Dear all, A little question about the omission of MOI in Lk 4.23. According to the IGNTP apparatus, this omission is made by mss A, M and... something referred to as Ps 43. What is the meaning of this last siglum? Thanks for your help, Jean V. Jean Valentin - 34 rue du Berceau - 1000 Bruxelles - Belgique e-mail : jgvalentin@arcadis.be From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Jan 26 00:15:00 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id AAA28342; Tue, 26 Jan 1999 00:14:58 -0500 Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 00:14:56 -0500 Message-Id: <199901260514.AAA28337@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> >Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 11:12:10 -0500 From: "Lamerson, Sam" To: "'tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu'" Subject: RE: tc-list Biblical Cruxes Content-Type: text Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2270 I would recommend Black's book on Textual Criticism as a helpful starting point. I would also point out a few places where one should concentrate if one wants to see "big differences" in the text. The most obvious of course are the Lords prayer in Matthew, The Pericope of the Woman Taken in Adultery (John 8), and the end of the gospel of Mark. There are other smaller differences like the use of the word musterion in I Cor. 2. If you would like a syllabus from my TC class which points out the passages that we worked on please let know off list. Blessings, Sam Lamerson Knox Seminary > -----Original Message----- > From: WHITER@Citadel.edu [SMTP:WHITER@Citadel.edu] > Sent: Friday, January 22, 1999 10:26 AM > To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu > Cc: whiter@Citadel.edu > Subject: tc-list Biblical Cruxes > > Dear TC-er's: > > I am an English professor preparing to teach a course in the Bible as > Literature for the first time. In sending this message, I am jumping > brashly > into unfamiliar territory, so please forgive my ignorance of things you > take > for granted--for starters, knowledge of Greek and Hebrew. > > At any rate, William Barclay wrote, "It has been calculated that in the > Greek > manuscripts of the New Testament there are 150,000 places in which there > are > variant readings.... Of the 150,000 fewer than 400 affect the sense, fewer > than > 50 are of any importance, and there is no case in which an article of > faith or > a precept of duty is left in doubt." (_Introducing the Bible_, 25th > Anniversary Edition, p. 154.) > > I would like to know some of the 50 important variant readings to which > Barclay > refers, and I'd also be interested in important variant readings in the > OT. I > wish to use these to illustrate to undergraduates some of the issues > translators and readers confront. The only example I now have is I Thess. > 4:4, > where, apparently, the Greek original meaning "vessel" may be rendered > either > "body" or "wife." > > Is there a single source, appropriate for a layman, that would help here? > If > not, could you mention either on this list or by direct e-mail a couple of > your > favorites? > > Thanks, > > Robert A. White > English Department, The Citadel > whiter@citadel.edu From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Jan 26 00:15:03 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id AAA28355; Tue, 26 Jan 1999 00:15:01 -0500 Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 00:14:59 -0500 Message-Id: <199901260514.AAA28345@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> >Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 11:12:10 -0500 From: "Lamerson, Sam" To: "'tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu'" Subject: RE: tc-list Biblical Cruxes Content-Type: text Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2270 I would recommend Black's book on Textual Criticism as a helpful starting point. I would also point out a few places where one should concentrate if one wants to see "big differences" in the text. The most obvious of course are the Lords prayer in Matthew, The Pericope of the Woman Taken in Adultery (John 8), and the end of the gospel of Mark. There are other smaller differences like the use of the word musterion in I Cor. 2. If you would like a syllabus from my TC class which points out the passages that we worked on please let know off list. Blessings, Sam Lamerson Knox Seminary > -----Original Message----- > From: WHITER@Citadel.edu [SMTP:WHITER@Citadel.edu] > Sent: Friday, January 22, 1999 10:26 AM > To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu > Cc: whiter@Citadel.edu > Subject: tc-list Biblical Cruxes > > Dear TC-er's: > > I am an English professor preparing to teach a course in the Bible as > Literature for the first time. In sending this message, I am jumping > brashly > into unfamiliar territory, so please forgive my ignorance of things you > take > for granted--for starters, knowledge of Greek and Hebrew. > > At any rate, William Barclay wrote, "It has been calculated that in the > Greek > manuscripts of the New Testament there are 150,000 places in which there > are > variant readings.... Of the 150,000 fewer than 400 affect the sense, fewer > than > 50 are of any importance, and there is no case in which an article of > faith or > a precept of duty is left in doubt." (_Introducing the Bible_, 25th > Anniversary Edition, p. 154.) > > I would like to know some of the 50 important variant readings to which > Barclay > refers, and I'd also be interested in important variant readings in the > OT. I > wish to use these to illustrate to undergraduates some of the issues > translators and readers confront. The only example I now have is I Thess. > 4:4, > where, apparently, the Greek original meaning "vessel" may be rendered > either > "body" or "wife." > > Is there a single source, appropriate for a layman, that would help here? > If > not, could you mention either on this list or by direct e-mail a couple of > your > favorites? > > Thanks, > > Robert A. White > English Department, The Citadel > whiter@citadel.edu From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Jan 26 00:30:49 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id AAA28412; Tue, 26 Jan 1999 00:30:48 -0500 Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 00:30:47 -0500 Message-Id: <199901260530.AAA28407@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> >Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 12:21:42 -0800 From: Mike Myers To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list Biblical Cruxes Content-Type: text Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 452 ------------------------ From: Mike Logsdon Subject: Re: tc-list Biblical Cruxes Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 13:44:02 -0600 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mike Logsdon wrote: "Supposed and theorized editing!" Gotta ask..are you claiming, or are you being apprised by your advisors, that the issue of editing/redaction of these MSS is an open one? Mike Myers **************************************************** From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Jan 26 00:35:23 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id AAA28432; Tue, 26 Jan 1999 00:35:21 -0500 Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 00:35:19 -0500 Message-Id: <199901260535.AAA28427@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> >Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 17:48:09 -0600 (CST) From: Burke Gerstenschlager To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list tc list: Mark 16:9-20 Content-Type: text Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 438 After a lot of careful consideration, I would have to say that I agree that the longer endings are add-ons. With the fast pace, constant use of kai euthus, and story-teller use of narrative, it seems very Markan to end the Gospel with "For they were afraid." Something sits very well inside of me in that regard... Burke Gerstenschlager orpheus@inetport.com http://www.inetport.com/~orpheus "What is truth?" asked Pilate... John 18.38 From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Jan 26 00:42:30 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id AAA28484; Tue, 26 Jan 1999 00:42:29 -0500 Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 00:42:27 -0500 Message-Id: <199901260542.AAA28479@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> >Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 22:02:13 -0800 From: "Michael L. Kennedy" To: "'tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu'" Subject: RE: tc-list Mk 16 Content-Type: text Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1342 It is interesting that you suggested that it is "blasphemous" to speak about a shorter ending to Mark, a variation which is supported by the manuscripts. Blasphemy is when God, or something related to him, is cursed or reviled instead of being honored. I don't think God is dishonored by not attributing something to him that he never said. ~MLK -----Original Message----- From: robert s. morse [SMTP:bmorse@oneimage.com] Sent: Saturday, January 23, 1999 1:56 PM To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: tc-list Mk 16 Dear Gentlemen: I appreciate getting information about New Testament text. (The part that's blasphemous I simply delete.) Glad too to see that there is still an interest in Mark 16, after the whole question was "settled" a hundred years ago. After working on the subject for quite a few years (in writing a book), I can only say that my confidence in its originality grows stronger every time I encounter fresh evidence. There are some areas, however, that seem not to be covered very well in the works I have been privileged to delve into. For example, how many Georgian MSS carry the passage? What are the confines of the "Jerusalem Lectionary"? Does the Armenian tradition have lectionary MSS, and if so, what sort of testimony do they bear on this? Glad for any help that might be available. Bob Morse From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Jan 26 00:44:09 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id AAA28513; Tue, 26 Jan 1999 00:44:08 -0500 Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 00:44:06 -0500 Message-Id: <199901260544.AAA28508@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> >Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 14:57:00 -0500 From: "Kevin W. Woodruff" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Cc: dd-1@juno.com Subject: Re: tc-list 1 Jn 5.7-8 Content-Type: text Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1634 Denny: One of the best discussions on the date and origin of the Comma Jahnnine is in Raymond Brown's Anchor Bible commentary on the Johannine Epistles (pages 775--787). In Migne's _Patrologia Latina_ a work called _De Trinitae_ uses it but it is uncertain who quotes it, Vegilius of Thapsus Pseudo-Athanansius, Gregory of Elvira (^Ć 392 A.D.) or Syagrius of Galicia. The date is uncertain but the origin is either Spanish or North African At 05:39 AM 1/24/99 -0600, you wrote: >Denny Diehl here > >with a question about 1 Jn 5.7-8 which in the KJV reads: > > "there are three that bear record in heaven, the > Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and > these three are one. And there are three that > bear witness in earth..." > >This is attributed to a Spanish heretic Priscillian who died >AD 385. > >1) Was the first Latin manuscript to contain this text the >Pseudo-Virgilius? > >2) If so, what was its date and origin? > >Thanks! >___________________________________________________________________ >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] > > Kevin W. Woodruff, M.Div. Library Director/Reference Librarian Professor of New Testament Greek 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.campuscw.net (preferred) kwoodruf@utkux.utcc.utk.edu (alternate) http://web.utk.edu/~kwoodruf/woodruff.htm From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Jan 26 01:11:42 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id BAA28636; Tue, 26 Jan 1999 01:11:41 -0500 Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 01:11:38 -0500 Message-Id: <199901260611.BAA28631@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> >Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 00:02:34 -0800 (PST) From: Vincent Broman To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: tc-list Editio Critica Maior Content-Type: text Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1356 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- My thanks to those who sent helpful tips for ordering the ECM from the American Bible Society. I got it knowing the item nbr in the catalog. The fog arises from the ABS listing the book in its catalog as "GREEK NT FASCICLE LTR JAMES". I'm generally pleased with the volumes received, especially the clear typography. A lot of appendices must be referred to to find out things. I'm not sure how well the format would scale up to deal with an eventual edition of Matthew. I hope the IGNTP learns from some of the excellent ideas used in the ECM, such as using both positive and negative lists of evidence, and retroverting the versions to more than one variant reading when the translation is ambiguous. Vincent Broman San Diego, California, USA Email: broman at sd.znet.com (home) or spawar.navy.mil or nosc.mil (work) Phone: +1 619 284 3775 Starship: 32d42m22s N 117d14m13s W === PGPv2 protected mail preferred. For public key finger me at np.nosc.mil === -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBNq12mGCU4mTNq7IdAQEyWwQAvFcNE84z9uKKXHAtD3h/UL8fmZR71v1Z S1yw/tXSjxj9siek29CUZ712IW0E3ETHJsfLabPY4vq2tT2FvRzZk18PgnRXaHXn 8gRoniWA0ndO8IN8PhnPgiCO7EfTnBFgNK+6aOHrMGDdMGtEQxwxM7pvh+QK1rUc jXiiiFJcVrU= =SxNH -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Jan 26 01:32:29 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id BAA28692; Tue, 26 Jan 1999 01:32:27 -0500 Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 01:32:25 -0500 Message-Id: <199901260632.BAA28687@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> >Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 00:11:19 -0500 From: "Lamerson, Sam" To: "'tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu'" Subject: RE: tc-list tc list: Mark 16:9-20 Content-Type: text Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 658 There was quite a good discussion of this ending a few months back. You might try looking in the archives. Best, Sam Lamerson Knox Theological Seminary > -----Original Message----- > From: Mr. Helge Evensen [SMTP:helevens@online.no] > Sent: Friday, January 22, 1999 2:58 AM > To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu > Subject: tc-list tc list: Mark 16:9-20 > > Hi, > > During my present study of the subject of the authenticity of the > disputed "longer ending" of Mark, it would be quite interesting to know > how many on this list regard this passage as a later addition to Mark's > Gospel. > > Any opinions, please? > > > -- Mr. Helge Evensen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Jan 26 04:19:48 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id EAA29263; Tue, 26 Jan 1999 04:19:46 -0500 From: "DC PARKER" Organization: The University of Birmingham To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 09:23:35 GMT Subject: Re: tc-list Lk 4.23 apparatus of IGNTP Priority: normal In-reply-to: <199901252105.WAA10432@carno.brus.online.be> Message-ID: <57033227CB8@hhs.bham.ac.uk> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 264 AM Ps 43 refers to Ambrose on Ps 43, listed under PATR LATT ADAPT. David Parker DR DC PARKER READER IN NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL CRITICISM AND PALAEOGRAPHY DEPT OF THEOLOGY UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM TEL. 0121-414 3613 FAX 0121-414 6866 E-MAIL D.C.PARKER@.BHAM.AC.UK From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Jan 26 04:24:15 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id EAA29281; Tue, 26 Jan 1999 04:24:13 -0500 From: "DC PARKER" Organization: The University of Birmingham To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 09:28:52 GMT Subject: tc-list Re: Editio Critica Maior and IGNTP Priority: normal In-reply-to: <199901260611.BAA28631@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> Message-ID: <57049EB2C30@hhs.bham.ac.uk> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 655 Something of my personal views on the excellence of ECM and its possible significance for IGNTP may be found in my contribution to the review of ECM at the 1997 SBL session, http://shemesh.scholar.emory.edu/scripts/TC/vol03/Parker1998.html The IGNT John project is the subject of the Second Birmingham Colloquium on the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, to be held 19-22 April. Further details available at http://web.bham.ac.uk/d.c.parker/colloquium.htm DR DC PARKER READER IN NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL CRITICISM AND PALAEOGRAPHY DEPT OF THEOLOGY UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM TEL. 0121-414 3613 FAX 0121-414 6866 E-MAIL D.C.PARKER@.BHAM.AC.UK From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Jan 26 08:34:32 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA00377; Tue, 26 Jan 1999 08:34:31 -0500 Message-Id: <199901261338.IAA08290@web.provide.net> X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express Macintosh Edition - 4.5 (0410) Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 08:36:30 -0500 Subject: Re: tc-list Biblical Cruxes From: "Bill Combs" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mime-version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu X-Return-Path: wcombs@dbts.edu Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 922 Could you send me the syllabus? -- Bill Combs Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary ---------- >From: "Lamerson, Sam" >To: "'tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu'" >Subject: RE: tc-list Biblical Cruxes >Date: Tue, Jan 26, 1999, 12:14 AM > > I would recommend Black's book on Textual Criticism as a helpful starting > point. I would also point out a few places where one should concentrate if > one wants to see "big differences" in the text. The most obvious of course > are the Lords prayer in Matthew, The Pericope of the Woman Taken in Adultery > (John 8), and the end of the gospel of Mark. There are other smaller > differences like the use of the word musterion in I Cor. 2. If you would > like a syllabus from my TC class which points out the passages that we > worked on please let know off list. > > Blessings, > > Sam Lamerson > Knox Seminary From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Jan 26 08:42:31 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA00439; Tue, 26 Jan 1999 08:42:29 -0500 Message-Id: <199901261346.IAA10654@web.provide.net> X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express Macintosh Edition - 4.5 (0410) Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 08:41:02 -0500 Subject: Re: tc-list tc list: Mark 16:9-20 From: "Bill Combs" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mime-version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu X-Return-Path: wcombs@dbts.edu Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 153 I am sorry for the reply to Sam Lamerson I sent to the list. I accidentally hit the wrong button. -- Bill Combs Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary - From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Jan 26 16:32:30 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA03535; Tue, 26 Jan 1999 16:32:29 -0500 Message-ID: <97F39596DEEECF11BC020000C09361E58C0EE2@mv_exchange_2.mv.unisys.com> From: "Stevens, Charles C" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: RE: tc-list Mk 16 Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 14:35:04 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1917 It seems to me that the question as to whether or not the author of the body of the Gospel of Mark wrote any of the three endings to that Gospel has not much at all to do with whether or not God inspired the author of any (or all, for that matter!) of the endings, and/or the scribes that copied them. The former question is a historical one; the latter, doctrinal. -Chuck Stevens -----Original Message----- From: Michael L. Kennedy [mailto:mkennedy@castles.com] Sent: Monday, January 25, 1999 9:42 PM To: 'tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu' Subject: RE: tc-list Mk 16 It is interesting that you suggested that it is "blasphemous" to speak about a shorter ending to Mark, a variation which is supported by the manuscripts. Blasphemy is when God, or something related to him, is cursed or reviled instead of being honored. I don't think God is dishonored by not attributing something to him that he never said. ~MLK -----Original Message----- From: robert s. morse [SMTP:bmorse@oneimage.com] Sent: Saturday, January 23, 1999 1:56 PM To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: tc-list Mk 16 Dear Gentlemen: I appreciate getting information about New Testament text. (The part that's blasphemous I simply delete.) Glad too to see that there is still an interest in Mark 16, after the whole question was "settled" a hundred years ago. After working on the subject for quite a few years (in writing a book), I can only say that my confidence in its originality grows stronger every time I encounter fresh evidence. There are some areas, however, that seem not to be covered very well in the works I have been privileged to delve into. For example, how many Georgian MSS carry the passage? What are the confines of the "Jerusalem Lectionary"? Does the Armenian tradition have lectionary MSS, and if so, what sort of testimony do they bear on this? Glad for any help that might be available. Bob Morse From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Jan 26 17:31:51 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA03812; Tue, 26 Jan 1999 17:31:50 -0500 Message-Id: <199901262235.XAA10515@carno.brus.online.be> Subject: RE: tc-list Mk 16 Date: Mar, 26 Jan 99 23:38:37 +0100 x-sender: vale5655@pop3.brus.online.be x-mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1 From: Jean Valentin To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1312 >For example, how many Georgian MSS >carry the passage? What are the confines of the "Jerusalem Lectionary"? >Does the Armenian tradition have lectionary MSS, and if so, what sort of >testimony do they bear on this? Glad for any help that might be >available. A few information about the Georgian manuscripts. The history of the Georgian version is generally thought to have had three stages of evolution: 1) the Adysh ms, a version probably translated from a lost old-armenian original, stops at 16.8 2) the "pre-vulgate", a version generally called "cesarean" (though I know that this term is quite open to discussion). I have here the publications of four mss: A, B, D and E. Of those, A stops at 16.8 and the three others have the longuer ending. 3) the "Georgian vulgate", or Athonite recension made on a byzantine text, has the longuer ending too. As to the Jerusalem lectionary, I didn't take the time to immerse myself in that question - lectionary study is a discipline in itself! - but there's a publication by Tarchnishvili in the belgo-american collection CSCO. And, yes, there are Armenian lectionaries but I don't have references to publications right now. Hope this helps, Jean V. Jean Valentin - 34 rue du Berceau - 1000 Bruxelles - Belgique e-mail : jgvalentin@arcadis.be From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Jan 26 22:12:17 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA05116; Tue, 26 Jan 1999 22:12:16 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list Throckmorton vs. Aland for an English Synopsis Message-ID: <19990126.221501.15751.1.seventh.guardian@juno.com> References: <199901221849.NAA108778@f04n01.cac.psu.edu> X-Mailer: Juno 1.49 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0,2-5,11-12,21-22,31-32,40-41,49-50,52,59-60,62-64, 66-67,69,71-72,76-77,79-81,84-89,91-92,97-98,100-106 From: M A Robinson Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 22:15:39 EST Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 5359 On Mon, 25 Jan 1999 10:27:52 -0500 "William L. Petersen" writes: >That is why I vastly prefer Throckmorton to Aland. Any questions? Good answer, Bill. I think you are probably on target, especially in regard to the matter of the wasted space in the Aland Synopsis with all those (generally) irrelevant citations of readings from older English versions when they could have made a more concerted effort by dumping those and including English translations of all the patristic and extra-biblical quotations which they do include in their Greek Synopsis. I would hope that maybe someone from Muenster or the Bible Societies is listening to that complaint, since it seems that it could be rectified in future editions and they could strive to produce a synopsis in English which has the patristic and extra-biblical material in English as well. It will not do to suggest that one purchase the (overpriced) combined version of the Greek Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum plus the English Synopsis of the Four Gospels, since that still would leave NT Introduction students without any means of understanding the Greek patristic and extra-biblical quotes. My reasons for using the Aland Synopsis were threefold: (1) as mentioned already, price was a primary factor (it is obviously a bargain from the Bible Societies); (2) but in addition I wanted to use it because it also included all the Johannine gospel text (which Throckmorton gives only small samples of when parallel, and even omits long portions when parallel); (3) also, the arrangement of the pericopes is identical with that found in the SQE, and this made a good transitional bridge for those students moving on to comparative work in Greek once they learned the language since the format would be not only familiar but identical. On balance, I still will stay with the Aland Synopsis as the main required text, not because it is best, but because of those three factors noted. I only wish that the Aland English Synopsis would similarly include English translation of major variant readings with MS evidence like Throckmorton and (especially) bring in the patristic and extra-biblical parallel quotation in English like Throckmorton. The Muenster staff has the power and the resources to do this, and if not, certainly the Bible Societies. Otherwise, I still tend to feel quite comfortable (more so) in having the text of all four gospels in complete form rather than a partial citation of John (and that not even partial where the parallels are lengthy). Yet there are very good reasons for retaining Throckmorton as an recommended text in addition, or maybe allowing the students to pick whichever one they prefer as their required text (though this would not make the bookstore people very happy when we request an indeterminate number to be ordered): >(2) Throckmorton (RSV text in older editions; the NRSV in the most recent >edition) has an extensive introduction, describing all the major manuscripts of the >NT (including the papyri), in addition to providing a description of the major >"families" of the NT MSS (Alexandrian, Western, Koine, etc.) and even the Versions >(!) and non-canonical sources (!!). Furthermore, he offers a brief overview of the >copying of MSS and the materials (papyrus, parchment, etc.), and even the Fathers >(who was Clement of Alex., etc.). This also is a plus with Throckmorton which the Aland Synopsis does not come close to matching. >(3) Throckmorton gives a rather extensive set of *quotations*--the >actual texts--from Patristic and non-canonical sources in his apparatus. If >you look at Aland, there is not a *single* reference to the *Gospel of >Thomas* in it (as far as I can see). Is it really possible to do synoptic >textual and source criticism without taking *Thomas* into consideration? And yet the entire GTh is included in Coptic and English within SQE (!) when they probably should have reproduced at least the full English text as an appendix to SFG.(Of course, so should Throckmorton; instead we only get clips of GTh where parallels occur, and this is also a weakness). >I do NOT want to artificially limit the perspective of my students; I want >them to see the full breadth of evidence available This also is a good point, and one which SFG misses by wasting space with all the English versional translation differences instead of what really matters. >(4) The setup of Throckmorton is easier on the eyes: the type is >bigger (even though the volume is thinner), the headers, layout and >typography are better than Aland. The volume is thinner because John is not included. So why does the price go up as the pages decrease? :-) However, I do happen to like the style of type in SFG as opposed to the oversized type in Throckmorton (the older editions of Throckmorton were about the same size type as SFG) -- I just wish SFG were about 2-3 points larger (which it could be if 1/4 of the page had not been given over to those English versional differences). My conclusion thus is still to prefer Aland, but also to recommend Throckmorton. Thanks for your input, Bill. It was helpful. ============================================================== Maurice A. Robinson, Ph. D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina, USA From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Jan 26 23:07:55 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id XAA05224; Tue, 26 Jan 1999 23:07:53 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990126231212.0084a5d0@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: scarlson@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 23:12:12 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Stephen C. Carlson" Subject: Re: tc-list Biblical Cruxes (Carlson) In-Reply-To: <199901251705.MAA37064@f04n07.cac.psu.edu> References: <3.0.5.32.19990122165613.0080de20@pop.mindspring.com> <199901222037.PAA54196@f04n07.cac.psu.edu> <3.0.2.32.19990122134402.006cf240@pop.flash.net> <199901221849.NAA108778@f04n01.cac.psu.edu> <01J6U7BVPEWM8WW59E@Citadel.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: 2510 Seeing how this thread is about to diverge from textual criticism, I will thank William Petersen for this thoughtful and thought-provoking reply, forego the usual point-by-point response, and just touch on a few issues. At 11:59 AM 1/25/99 -0500, William L. Petersen wrote: >The problem here is simple: If the Christologically "orthodox" version (= >Matt, in B, etc.) were the earliest version of the passage, then how can >one account for the incredible theological "mucking up" this entirely >"acceptable" passage gets at the hands of Mark? [...] >To the frustration of some of my colleagues, I am an agnostic about >synoptic relationships; I think it needs to be decided on a case-by-case, >reading-by-reading basis, not "en bloc" (= Matt is *always* using Mark, or >the reverse). My point in introducing these examples was *not* to become >embroiled in a discussion of the precise synoptic relationships, but to >provide some examples for the faculty member at the Citadel, who was >looking for text-critical cruxes. In looking for text-critical cruxes, Mt19:17 might be one such example just in terms of the difference between the TR (+ C W f13 33 Byz f q sy:p sy:h sa and bo:mss) and the modern critical text (01 B, etc.). If the Mt19:17[TR] (along with Mk10:18=Lk18:19) is "theologically unacceptable" then the variation with 01 and B features an important difference in meaning. Mt19:17 also brings up an interesting text-critical issue: shouldn't the "theologically unacceptable" TR variant be the harder reading, despite 01, B and the synoptic harmonization? I think that there are two answers: (1) The theological unacceptability is overstated. Mk10:18 clearly affirms uniquely God's goodness, which not controversial for most of Christianity, but it is a best an iffy inference -- if one does not detect irony -- that Jesus is not God. (2) Mt19:17 then is actually the harder reading, because of its obscurity. (What does hEIS ESTIN hO AGAQOS really mean?) My last point is on its application to synoptic source criticism. It is important to remember the time and place of theological acceptability. Even if Mk10:18 clearly means that Jesus is not God, which is arguable, who is to say that *first century* writers would be so troubled by it? Stephen Carlson -- Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@mindspring.com Synoptic Problem Home Page http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/ "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35 From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Jan 26 23:28:49 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id XAA05280; Tue, 26 Jan 1999 23:28:47 -0500 Message-ID: <19990127043221.9260.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [161.7.247.9] From: "marc bauer" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list tc list: Mark 16:9-20 Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 20:32:20 PST Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 232 >A Bible that's falling apart means a life that isn't. Do you really believe that? You should see my bibles and life. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Jan 26 23:45:40 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id XAA05403; Tue, 26 Jan 1999 23:45:39 -0500 Message-ID: <36AE999E.7B6F@oneimage.com> Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 21:44:14 -0700 From: "robert s. morse" X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list Mk 16 References: <199901260542.AAA28479@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: 1773 Michael L. Kennedy wrote: > > It is interesting that you suggested that it is "blasphemous" to speak > about a shorter ending to Mark, a variation which is supported by the > manuscripts. > > Blasphemy is when God, or something related to him, is cursed or reviled > instead of being honored. I don't think God is dishonored by not > attributing something to him that he never said. > > ~MLK > > -----Original Message----- > From: robert s. morse [SMTP:bmorse@oneimage.com] > Sent: Saturday, January 23, 1999 1:56 PM > To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu > Subject: tc-list Mk 16 > > Dear Gentlemen: > > I appreciate getting information about New Testament text. (The part > that's blasphemous I simply delete.) Glad too to see that there is still > an interest in Mark 16, after the whole question was "settled" a hundred > years ago. After working on the subject for quite a few years (in > writing a book), I can only say that my confidence in its originality > grows stronger every time I encounter fresh evidence. There are some > areas, however, that seem not to be covered very well in the works I > have been privileged to delve into. For example, how many Georgian MSS > carry the passage? What are the confines of the "Jerusalem Lectionary"? > Does the Armenian tradition have lectionary MSS, and if so, what sort of > testimony do they bear on this? Glad for any help that might be > available. > > Bob Morse I never suggested that acceptance of the Shorter Passage (Mark 16:8 c-d) was blasphemy! Nor that discussion about Mark's conclusion is necessarily blasphemous, or that it has been in the contributions so far in tc. I accept both passages as scripture. Sorry for causing misunderstanding. I agree with with your definition. Bob From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Jan 27 10:11:54 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA08163; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 10:11:53 -0500 Message-Id: <199901271515.KAA84184@f04n07.cac.psu.edu> X-Sender: wlp1@mail.psu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0.2 Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 10:09:19 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "William L. Petersen" Subject: Re: tc-list Throckmorton vs. Aland for an English Synopsis In-Reply-To: <19990126.221501.15751.1.seventh.guardian@juno.com> References: <199901221849.NAA108778@f04n01.cac.psu.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: 1623 At this risk of causing several list members to keel over with heart attacks, I agree with M. Robinson's agreement with me on the virtues/vices of Aland's English Synopsis vs. Throckmorton. Indeed, were the apparatus and a goodly dash of non-canonical and Patristic parallels added to the Aland English Synopsis, it would be a very good alternative to Throckmorton. The problem, however, is that they are *not* included, and undergrad students rarely have Greek--at least at a standard good enough to use the Aland Greek Synopsis. As for Aland having John, yes, it would be beneficial to have it included in Throckmorton, but the advantage of having the Thomas and Patristic and MS evidence there outweighs the lack of John. I assign Throckmorton and a Bible; I could assign Aland and a Bible--but then students would somehow also have to get Thomas, the Patristic info, plus the MSS--and I know of *no* English source other than Throckmorton which gives such an extensive apparatus. In short: John is easy to get hold of; the information *in English* given in Throckmorton's apparatus is *not* easy to get hold of. Robinson writes of Throckmorton: >The volume is thinner because John is not included. So why does the price >go up as the pages decrease? :-) The answer: The publisher of Throckmorton, Thomas Nelson, is a commercial (= profit-making) enterprise (they used to be a NASDQ-listed stock; I think they were bought out by another commercial house about 3 years ago); the Bible Societies enjoy bequests, endowments, subvention from churches, and are *not* profit-making. --Petersen, Penn State Univ. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Jan 27 11:27:25 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA09219; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 11:27:24 -0500 Message-Id: <199901271630.LAA69072@f04n07.cac.psu.edu> X-Sender: wlp1@mail.psu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0.2 Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 11:24:50 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "William L. Petersen" Subject: Re: tc-list Biblical Cruxes (Carlson) In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19990126231212.0084a5d0@pop.mindspring.com> References: <199901251705.MAA37064@f04n07.cac.psu.edu> <3.0.5.32.19990122165613.0080de20@pop.mindspring.com> <199901222037.PAA54196@f04n07.cac.psu.edu> <3.0.2.32.19990122134402.006cf240@pop.flash.net> <199901221849.NAA108778@f04n01.cac.psu.edu> <01J6U7BVPEWM8WW59E@Citadel.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: 3805 A quick response to Steve Carlson, on one of his points: >My last point is on its application to synoptic source criticism. It is >important to remember the time and place of theological acceptability. >Even if Mk10:18 clearly means that Jesus is not God, which is arguable, >who is to say that *first century* writers would be so troubled by it? > I agree: it is something of a puzzle. But note your presupposition: that the Matthean text we now have is "first century". (1) We have no evidence for this claim; (2) it is, therefore, open to debate. I'd have to look (and I don't have the time to do so now), but my guess is that the Matthean parallel to Mark 10:18 is first evidenced in the late 2nd cent (at the earliest!), in the Fathers (Justin? Origen? Clement? Irenaeus?). The Alands' chart of the papyri in their 1st English ed. of *The Text of the NT* shows--interestingly enough--*no* evidence in the papyri for Matt 19:16-17 (P25 gives part of Matt 19, but is defective for these verses; P71 apparently has vv. 17-18 [whether it includes the beginning of 17, which is our focus, is unclear from Aland], but P71 is *fourth* century!); therefore our earliest MS evidence would be aleph, B, etc. I am, therefore, reluctant to assume that these "theological changes"--if that is what they are--were made in the "first century," as you submit. Rather, they could have been made at any time between the first and--what?--late second or third century... We simply don't know when the changes were made, by whom, or for what purposes. All we know is that someone mucked about with the Young Man's question and Jesus' answer; depending on your view of synoptic dependence, Matt changed Mark's (theology appears the most likely reason), or Mark changed Matt's (for which I can find no explanation). As to the "when", we have no evidence; as to they "why" we must intuit--and to my mind, theology seems to scream out here, as it does in other, similar changes (the Fig Tree, the Centurion's Confession, etc., etc.). Another well-known example of this same phenomenon is Mark 6:5 ("And [Jesus] could do *NO* deed of power there") vs. Matt 13:58 ("And [Jesus] did not do *MANY* deeds of power there"). Mark qualified his "no" later in the verse ("..except that he laid his hands on a few sick people and cured them"), but Matt, in the same pattern we have seen elsewhere, makes it impossible to quote *his* (Matt's) gospel as saying "Jesus could do no deed of power" in a certain place: according to Matt, Jesus was bloody well capable of doing miracles anyplace he bloody well pleased. Note also the subtle shift in the onus as to *why* Jesus didn't do more miracles in Nazareth: in Mark, it is KAI OUK *EDUNATO* EKEI POIHSAI OUDEMIAN DUNAMIN ("and he *COULD not do* there *no/any* powerful deed"), while in Matt it is KAI OUK *EPOIHSEN* EKEI DUNAMEIS POLLAS ("and *he DID not do* there *many* powerful deeds"). In Mark, the reason is clear: Jesus can only work miracles if the people have faith; in Matthew, Jesus *chose* not to work miracles *because* (DIA) they didn't have faith. So we see it is not just the "no/any" miracles of Mark vs. the "many" miracles of Matthew--it is much more subtle and complex. Ladies and gentlemen: this is theology, and it is clearly influencing the text of the gospels--and Mark's "bad" theology (from the standpoint of later orthodoxy) appears to be corrected at these points by Matthew. Elsewhere in the gospels it may be different; perhaps there are places where Mark corrects Matthew's "bad"/low theology. But at the points listed above, I suggest Mark is earlier, and Matthew (or a later redactor of Matthew) has clearly cleaned things up. And someone has been mucking about with the text they received. --Petersen, Penn State Univ. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Jan 27 12:40:18 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA10029; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 12:40:17 -0500 Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Glen Thompson" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 11:44:38 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: tc-list provenance of uncials Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.52) Message-Id: <19990127114754.62c712dcb48811d29d510080c8678d5f.in@mailhost.mlc-wels.edu> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 125 Does anyone know of a list of all the NT uncials that also gives there provenance? Glen L. Thompson thompsgl@mlc-wels.edu From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Jan 27 21:18:51 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA13664; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 21:18:50 -0500 Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Glen Thompson" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 20:23:13 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: tc-list uncial provenances Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.52) Message-Id: <19990127202628.62c71acbb48811d29d510080c8678d5f.in@mailhost.mlc-wels.edu> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 226 Kevin: Thanks for the tip. I have the 1st edition and no provenances are given -- only the current wheereabouts of the mss. Was this an adddition in the revised version of Aland and Aland? Glen L. Thompson Glen Thompson From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Jan 28 15:05:20 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA19313; Thu, 28 Jan 1999 15:05:18 -0500 From: CleonLR@aol.com Message-ID: <4c09d910.36b0c373@aol.com> Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 15:07:15 EST To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: tc-list Re: looking for a book Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0.i for Windows 95 sub 66 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 402 Hello This may be out of the scope of the discussion group, but I would greatly appreciate any help. I am looking for the translation of the Aramaic texts in a book edited by Theodor Gaster, Studies and Texts in Folklore, Magic, Mediaeva;, Romance, Hebrew Apocrypha and Samaritan Archaeology, Prolegomenon by Theodor Gastor KTAV Publishing Housre, 1971. Could any one help me. Cleon L. Rogers III From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Jan 29 10:05:58 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA23953; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 10:05:57 -0500 From: "Grzegorz P. Turkanik" To: Subject: tc-list Gen.32 and Samar Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 15:41:54 +0100 Message-ID: <000001be4b95$849f5f40$2583ccc2@amd166> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-2" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 691 Greetings, I am writing a paper on Gen.32,23-33 and I wonder if someone could share his/her views on importance of Samaritan Pentateuch to TC of MT. For example, should one accept reading of Samar in 32,23? There are no other traditions that would support Samar, but Samar on the other hand may have preserved text independent of Masoretic tradition. Hope my question is not too simplistic for this list (till now I have benefited a great deal - thank you). Thank you in advance for your help. Gregor P. Turkanik ________________________________ student of Biblical Studies Christian Academy of Theology Warsaw, Poland e-mail: G.P.Turkanik@ptew.org.pl ________________________________ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Jan 29 10:46:38 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA24484; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 10:46:37 -0500 Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 10:42:56 +0000 From: Jim West Subject: Re: tc-list Gen.32 and Samar X-Sender: jwest@highland.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.32.19990129104256.00674d54@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: 1076 At 03:41 PM 1/29/99 +0100, you wrote: >Greetings, > >I am writing a paper on Gen.32,23-33 and I wonder if someone could share >his/her views on importance of Samaritan Pentateuch to TC of MT. For >example, should one accept reading of Samar in 32,23? There are no other >traditions that would support Samar, but Samar on the other hand may have >preserved text independent of Masoretic tradition. Most likely the tradents of the Sam. Pent. merely did here what they do in a number of places- i.e., offer a reading which supports Samaritan theology. > >Hope my question is not too simplistic for this list (till now I have >benefited a great deal - thank you). > Not at all. The Sam. Pent. is useful, but in matters textual it has to be taken with a huge grain of salt and its readings must generally be supported by another textual tradition. That is how I handle it anyway. >Thank you in advance for your help. > >Gregor P. Turkanik best, Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@highland.net http://web.infoave.net/~jwest From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Jan 29 11:21:31 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA24839; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 11:21:30 -0500 Message-ID: <003086DDAD30D211842F00062B0006E101193F3D@esusa.esusa.org> From: Curt Niccum To: "'tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu'" Subject: RE: tc-list Gen.32 and Samar Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 10:24:40 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2175 The text of the Samaritan Pentateuch was once easily dismissed as merely a theologically edited text. The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls has since changed that perception (for most). There are manuscripts at Qumran which contain the "Samaritan" text without the variant readings (very few in number, by the way) motivated by Samaritan theology (assuming that the Samaritans actually did the changing rather than one of the more "orthodox" :-) Jewish groups). Gregor correctly notes that the Samaritan text can preserve an independent tradition. (Whether or not that is true of Gen. 32:23 I do not know, nor do I have the time to examine witnesses.) Basically, due to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, scholars can no longer disregard the Samaritan text as biased or the Septuagint as a free or poor translation. Curt > -----Original Message----- > From: Jim West [SMTP:jwest@Highland.Net] > Sent: Friday, January 29, 1999 4:43 AM > To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu > Subject: Re: tc-list Gen.32 and Samar > > At 03:41 PM 1/29/99 +0100, you wrote: > >Greetings, > > > >I am writing a paper on Gen.32,23-33 and I wonder if someone could share > >his/her views on importance of Samaritan Pentateuch to TC of MT. For > >example, should one accept reading of Samar in 32,23? There are no other > >traditions that would support Samar, but Samar on the other hand may have > >preserved text independent of Masoretic tradition. > > Most likely the tradents of the Sam. Pent. merely did here what they do in > a > number of places- i.e., offer a reading which supports Samaritan theology. > > > > >Hope my question is not too simplistic for this list (till now I have > >benefited a great deal - thank you). > > > > Not at all. The Sam. Pent. is useful, but in matters textual it has to be > taken with a huge grain of salt and its readings must generally be > supported > by another textual tradition. That is how I handle it anyway. > > >Thank you in advance for your help. > > > >Gregor P. Turkanik > > best, > > Jim > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > Jim West, ThD > Quartz Hill School of Theology > > jwest@highland.net > http://web.infoave.net/~jwest From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Jan 29 13:03:30 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA25544; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 13:03:29 -0500 Message-Id: <199901291807.NAA79680@f04n07.cac.psu.edu> X-Sender: wlp1@mail.psu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0.2 Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 13:00:54 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "William L. Petersen" Subject: RE: tc-list Gen.32 and Samar In-Reply-To: <003086DDAD30D211842F00062B0006E101193F3D@esusa.esusa.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: 3323 Just to second Curt Niccum's comment with a specific example: Von Gall's edition of the Samaritan Pentateuch shows that some Samaritans had a version of the Shema which was, apparently, binary ("heart--strength"), as do some early Christian sources. My recollection is that one Samaritan MS gives this binary version, which also shows up in Justin (Dial. 92.3 [twice], Apol. 16.6), Vetus Latina MS *k*, and, perhaps, Tatian's Diatessaron. A careful examination of the Samaritan Pentateuch shows that it preserves ancient traditions--such as this one--*which are otherwise unattested in the MT and LXX.* Once again, this points up the axiom I have stated again and again: If one's field of reference is delimited, then it is easy to make generalizations; however, the broader one's array of sources, then the more difficult it is to do so. Before making an argument about the MT/LXX and the relationship to the NT, I always like to check Samaritan sources, for sometimes one finds interesting things.... --Petersen, Penn State University. At 10:24 AM 1/29/99 -0600, you wrote: >The text of the Samaritan Pentateuch was once easily dismissed as merely a >theologically edited text. The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls has since >changed that perception (for most). There are manuscripts at Qumran which >contain the "Samaritan" text without the variant readings (very few in >number, by the way) motivated by Samaritan theology (assuming that the >Samaritans actually did the changing rather than one of the more "orthodox" >:-) Jewish groups). Gregor correctly notes that the Samaritan text can >preserve an independent tradition. (Whether or not that is true of Gen. >32:23 I do not know, nor do I have the time to examine witnesses.) >Basically, due to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, scholars can no >longer disregard the Samaritan text as biased or the Septuagint as a free or >poor translation. > >Curt > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Jim West [SMTP:jwest@Highland.Net] >> Sent: Friday, January 29, 1999 4:43 AM >> To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu >> Subject: Re: tc-list Gen.32 and Samar >> >> At 03:41 PM 1/29/99 +0100, you wrote: >> >Greetings, >> > >> >I am writing a paper on Gen.32,23-33 and I wonder if someone could share >> >his/her views on importance of Samaritan Pentateuch to TC of MT. For >> >example, should one accept reading of Samar in 32,23? There are no other >> >traditions that would support Samar, but Samar on the other hand may have >> >preserved text independent of Masoretic tradition. >> >> Most likely the tradents of the Sam. Pent. merely did here what they do in >> a >> number of places- i.e., offer a reading which supports Samaritan theology. >> >> > >> >Hope my question is not too simplistic for this list (till now I have >> >benefited a great deal - thank you). >> > >> >> Not at all. The Sam. Pent. is useful, but in matters textual it has to be >> taken with a huge grain of salt and its readings must generally be >> supported >> by another textual tradition. That is how I handle it anyway. >> >> >Thank you in advance for your help. >> > >> >Gregor P. Turkanik >> >> best, >> >> Jim >> >> +++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> >> Jim West, ThD >> Quartz Hill School of Theology >> >> jwest@highland.net >> http://web.infoave.net/~jwest > From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Jan 29 13:30:29 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA25656; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 13:30:27 -0500 From: George Kiraz Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 13:32:47 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199901291832.NAA20635@ankur.research.bell-labs.com> To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: tc-list Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies (2:1) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2799 ** PLEASE EXCUSE ANY MULTIPLE ANNOUNCEMENTS ** The January 1999 (Vol 2, No 1) issue of "Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies" is published now and can be accessed at: Home Site: http://www.acad.cua.edu/syrcom/Hugoye (Catholic University of America, USA) Mirror Site: http://www.leidenuniv.nl/gg/peshitta/syrcom/Hugoye/ (Leiden University, The Netherlands) **NOTE**. The mirror site will have the new issue loaded by the first week of February. This is the 2nd of two special issues on the "Influence of St. Ephrem the Syrian", named after a conference at the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, during which most of the papers of this issue were read. The current issue features 8 articles on the subject in addition to 4 book reviews, 3 conference reports and 5 conference announcements. For the very first time, this issue contains audio material (see paper by Ibrahim and Kiraz). If you would like to receive further notifications when a new issue is published, please register your email at the address: http://www.acad.cua.edu/syrcom/Hugoye/VolInd.html For information on submitting articles, please see under 'Submission' on the site. George Anton Kiraz, Ph.D. Hugoye, General Editor -- \_\_\_\_\_\_\_ George Anton Kiraz \_\_\_ \_\_\_\_ \_ \_ Language Modeling Research \_ \_ \_ \_ Bell Laboratories \_ \_ \_ \_ Lucent Technologies \_ \_\_\_ \_\_\_\_\_\_\_ \_ \_ Room 2D-513 \_ \_ 700 Mountain Ave. \_ \_ Murray Hill, NJ 07974 \_ \_ Tel. +1 908 582 4074 \_ \_ Fax. +1 908 582 3306 \_\_\_ gkiraz@research.bell-labs.com \_\_\_\_\_\_\_ George Anton Kiraz, Ph.D. \_\_\_ \_\_\_\_ \_ \_ Language Modeling Research \_ \_ \_ \_ Bell Laboratories \_ \_ \_ \_ Lucent Technologies \_ \_\_\_ \_\_\_\_\_\_\_ \_ \_ Room 2D-446 \_ \_ 700 Mountain Ave. \_ \_ Murray Hill, NJ 07974 \_ \_ Tel. +1 908 582 4074 \_ \_ Fax. +1 908 582 3306 \_\_\_ email: gkiraz@research.bell-labs.com Bell Labs Text-to-Speech: http://www.bell-labs.com/project/tts/ Hugoye Journal: http://www.acad.cua.edu/syrcom/Hugoye/ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Jan 29 13:36:03 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA25694; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 13:36:02 -0500 Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 13:38:46 +0000 From: Jim West Subject: tc-list sam. pent. X-Sender: jwest@highland.net (Unverified) To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.32.19990129133846.0066b6d4@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: 1100 I am not a little amused that several of you seem to place such great weight on the sam. pent. Your main reason appears to be that it is, in a few places, in harmony with the famed Qumran materials. One problem. If the Qumran caves were some sort of genizah, as has been suggested (rightly so it seems to me)- then the texts there were there BECAUSE they were found faulty or useless. What we have then, if we support the sam. pent. with qumran, is genizah material compared to tendentious scribalism. Are we, then, any better off? I realize that Qumran's texts are the darlings of hebrew Bible TC. But in all honesty it seems a little silly to me to suggest that they are somehow so god awful superior to anything else. I have nothing but respect for you folk- and am merely a general practitioner among experts. But it seems to me that the basis of scholarly work is to question existing presuppositions. Yet that doesn't seem to happen much, does it? Best, Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@highland.net http://web.infoave.net/~jwest From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Jan 29 14:16:56 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA25976; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 14:16:54 -0500 Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 14:17:38 -0500 (EST) From: Yuri Kuchinsky To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list sam. pent. In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19990129133846.0066b6d4@highland.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1635 On Fri, 29 Jan 1999, Jim West wrote: > I am not a little amused that several of you seem to place such great > weight on the sam. pent. Your main reason appears to be that it is, > in a few places, in harmony with the famed Qumran materials. > > One problem. If the Qumran caves were some sort of genizah, as has > been suggested (rightly so it seems to me)- then the texts there were > there BECAUSE they were found faulty or useless. But, Jim, this was not why mss were put away in a genizah. > I realize that Qumran's texts are the darlings of hebrew Bible TC. That's because they are the earliest OT mss we have. Do you usually tend to prefer later mss to earlier ones? > But in all honesty it seems a little silly to me to suggest that they > are somehow so god awful superior to anything else. I'm puzzled by your attitude, Jim. > I have nothing but respect for you folk- and am merely a general > practitioner among experts. But it seems to me that the basis of > scholarly work is to question existing presuppositions. Yet that > doesn't seem to happen much, does it? But Jim, you seem to be doing the opposite of what you preach. Because you seem to be accepting existing and widely accepted presupposition that Sam. Pent. is unreliable. Best wishes, Yuri. Yuri Kuchinsky || Toronto http://www.trends.net/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm The goal proposed by Cynic philosophy is apathy, which is equivalent to becoming God -=O=- Julian From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Jan 29 14:26:52 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA26046; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 14:26:50 -0500 Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 14:27:34 -0500 (EST) From: Yuri Kuchinsky To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list Biblical Cruxes (Carlson) In-Reply-To: <199901251705.MAA37064@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: 1334 Thanks for your informative post, William. On Mon, 25 Jan 1999, William L. Petersen wrote: > To the frustration of some of my colleagues, I am an agnostic about > synoptic relationships; I think it needs to be decided on a > case-by-case, reading-by-reading basis, not "en bloc" (= Matt is > *always* using Mark, or the reverse). I will wholeheartedly agree with you on this. This is my own attitude as well. Unfortunately all too many commentators, both of conservative and of liberal tendencies, still consider the Synoptic problem as something that can be solved in one fell swoop, i.e. either Mk is the earliest, or some other gospel is the earliest. The truth seems to be far more complicated. In my view, writing and editing of all four canonical gospels continued well into the 2nd century. So, although I do believe Mk is the earliest _for the most part_, still many large parts of it seem to have been based on the other gospels, and added later. Best wishes, Yuri. Yuri Kuchinsky || Toronto http://www.trends.net/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm The goal proposed by Cynic philosophy is apathy, which is equivalent to becoming God -=O=- Julian From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Jan 29 14:47:28 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA26234; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 14:47:26 -0500 Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 14:47:32 +0000 From: Jim West Subject: Re: tc-list sam. pent. X-Sender: jwest@highland.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.32.19990129144732.00663470@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: 1418 At 02:17 PM 1/29/99 -0500, you wrote: > >But, Jim, this was not why mss were put away in a genizah. ? Why were they? To remove them from circulation or to dispose of them with dignity even though they were corrupted, right? >That's because they are the earliest OT mss we have. Do you usually tend >to prefer later mss to earlier ones? I tend to respect mss more if they have age and use. >I'm puzzled by your attitude, Jim. Sorry- I didnt intend to be puzzling. >But Jim, you seem to be doing the opposite of what you preach. Because you >seem to be accepting existing and widely accepted presupposition that Sam. >Pent. is unreliable. No- I have not "adopted" that position. Adoption implies that it belongs to someone else and then you take it for your own. My attitude towards the Sam Pent. is based on actually reading the whole bloody thing and comparing it to the MT. Where they differ, the sam. pent. appears to me to be attempting to justify a theological position which supports samaritan theology. It seems to me that the majority of scholars (and i aint one) have seen something similar to what I have. > >Best wishes, To you as well Yuri. Nice to hear from you. > >Yuri. > >Yuri Kuchinsky || Toronto Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@highland.net http://web.infoave.net/~jwest From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Jan 29 16:57:03 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA27032; Fri, 29 Jan 1999 16:57:01 -0500 Message-ID: <36B2493B.38BA607@historian.net> Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 15:50:19 -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 sam. pent. References: <1.5.4.32.19990129144732.00663470@highland.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 904 Jim West wrote: > At 02:17 PM 1/29/99 -0500, you wrote: > > > > >But, Jim, this was not why mss were put away in a genizah. > > ? > Why were they? To remove them from circulation or to dispose of them with > dignity even though they were corrupted, right? > > >That's because they are the earliest OT mss we have. Do you usually tend > >to prefer later mss to earlier ones? > I have also wondered whether the genizoth idea was more viable that the "hide em before the Kittim get here" idea in 68ish with the texts being deposited cumulatively over a long period of time. The only thing I wonder about, however, are the presence of texts not considered "sacred" hence deserving of genizahing (is that a word?). I have never looked at the catalogues of the genre of texts found in other ancient genizahs like the one in Cairo. Come to think of it, however, CD was also there too, wasn't it? Jack From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Jan 30 17:04:56 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA01326; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 17:04:55 -0500 From: "Francisco Orozco" To: "TC-List" Subject: tc-list XRISTW in Phi 4.13 Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 15:07:21 -0700 Message-ID: <01be4c9c$e8afd840$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: 1260 According to Hodges & Farstad MT "XRISTW" is omitted by the original hand of Aleph, B & A. against its presence in the MT. UBS3rd (corr) GNT and Metzger's Comm do not even notice the variant. The Nestle text (I do not know what edition I have, it does not have a date) in its apparatus says that XRISTW is present in the Koine text (G) pl [most witnesses] Or. (1) Silva [Wycliffe comm] states "Although this reading is attested as early as the fourth century (the second corrector of Codex Sinaiticus belonged to the original scriptorium), the omission has much wider and stronger attestation" (1a) If the Or of Nestle is Origen, then its attestation goes as far back as 254AD (1b) How come the first hand of Aleph, B & A are "much wider and stronger attestation"? (2) Against what "type" was Aleph corrected? If the second corrector was indeed of the original scriptorium apparently he corrected it to a Koine (MT) reading! (3) What is more common? (3a) Omission or Addition? (3b) Does Aleph omit more often or add? (3c) Does the MT omit more often or add? (note: 3b & 3c would requiere a 3rd standard against which to check Aleph and MT?!) (4) How would a single word (perhaps a 2 letter nomen sacro) find its way into the MT? Thank you, Francisco Orozco From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Jan 30 23:19:23 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id XAA02290; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 23:19:21 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990130232229.00845d50@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: scarlson@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 23:22:29 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Stephen C. Carlson" Subject: Re: tc-list Biblical Cruxes (Carlson) In-Reply-To: <199901271630.LAA69072@f04n07.cac.psu.edu> References: <3.0.5.32.19990126231212.0084a5d0@pop.mindspring.com> <199901251705.MAA37064@f04n07.cac.psu.edu> <3.0.5.32.19990122165613.0080de20@pop.mindspring.com> <199901222037.PAA54196@f04n07.cac.psu.edu> <3.0.2.32.19990122134402.006cf240@pop.flash.net> <199901221849.NAA108778@f04n01.cac.psu.edu> <01J6U7BVPEWM8WW59E@Citadel.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: 1301 At 11:24 AM 1/27/99 -0500, William L. Petersen wrote: >A quick response to Steve Carlson, on one of his points: > >>My last point is on its application to synoptic source criticism. It is >>important to remember the time and place of theological acceptability. >>Even if Mk10:18 clearly means that Jesus is not God, which is arguable, >>who is to say that *first century* writers would be so troubled by it? > >I agree: it is something of a puzzle. But note your presupposition: that >the Matthean text we now have is "first century". [...] First century changes are, of course, presupposed in "synoptic source criticism", to which I took the trouble to explicitly confine this one remark of mine. The omitted reminders about text critical issues are therefore beside the point. >I am, therefore, reluctant to assume that these "theological changes"--if >that is what they are--were made in the "first century," as you submit. Actually, what I had submitted is that the commonly assumed, christological unacceptability of Mk10:18 is, frankly, overstated. Stephen Carlson -- Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@mindspring.com Synoptic Problem Home Page http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/ "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35 From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Jan 30 23:41:23 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id XAA02355; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 23:41:22 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list sam. pent. Message-ID: <19990130.234358.7415.0.seventh.guardian@juno.com> References: <1.5.4.32.19990129133846.0066b6d4@highland.net> X-Mailer: Juno 1.49 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-3,5-7,12-13,18-19,25-31 From: M A Robinson Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 23:44:39 EST Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1462 On Fri, 29 Jan 1999 13:38:46 +0000 Jim West writes: >One problem. If the Qumran caves were some sort of genizah, as has >been suggested (rightly so it seems to me)- then the texts there were there >BECAUSE they were found faulty or useless. A peculiar comment, sounding much like the now-discredited claims of Burgon that the old uncials Aleph, B, C, D survived _because_ they were considered faulty and thus were not used as much as all those other "good" MSS which are now non-extant due to having "worn out" from constant use. What I find amusing is that West applies this argument to the "early" and "minority" Qumran texts, yet would never imitate Burgon in claiming anything similar in regard to the "early" and "minority" Greek texts of the NT (not that I would advocate such -- it just seems to me contradictory to see West making this argument). In any case, a genizah more frequently would be a receptacle for worn-out "good" texts and not merely a trashcan for aberrant or faulty texts. If the Qumran site in fact were a genizah as opposed to a mere hiding place (and this is hardly certain), then the possibilities would include that these texts were considered "good" and not necessarily "faulty' by any means. ============================================================== Maurice A. Robinson, Ph. D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina, USA From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Jan 31 11:20:01 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA04423; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 11:20:00 -0500 Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 11:20:42 -0500 (EST) From: Yuri Kuchinsky To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list sam. pent. In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19990129144732.00663470@highland.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1686 On Fri, 29 Jan 1999, Jim West wrote: [Yuri:] > >But, Jim, this was not why mss were put away in a genizah. > ? Why were they? To remove them from circulation or to dispose of > them with dignity even though they were corrupted, right? No, Jim. As M A Robinson already noted, genizah was primarily a way to deal with worn out sacred texts. Since they were too worn out to be useful, and destroying them would be sacrilegious, they were put away in a genizah. Genizah was like a cemetery for old and treasured texts. What did they do with the texts that were deemed "heretical"? They burned them. > >But Jim, you seem to be doing the opposite of what you preach. Because you > >seem to be accepting existing and widely accepted presupposition that Sam. > >Pent. is unreliable. > > No- I have not "adopted" that position. Adoption implies that it > belongs to someone else and then you take it for your own. My > attitude towards the Sam Pent. is based on actually reading the whole > bloody thing and comparing it to the MT. Where they differ, the sam. > pent. appears to me to be attempting to justify a theological position > which supports samaritan theology. > > It seems to me that the majority of scholars (and i aint one) have > seen something similar to what I have. But that was precisely my point, Jim. You're following the majority, while also claiming to question "existing presuppositions". Yours as always, Yuri. Yuri Kuchinsky || Toronto http://www.trends.net/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Jan 31 14:53:18 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA04958; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 14:53:16 -0500 Message-ID: <36B4B582.4F0B87DA@earthlink.net> Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 11:56:50 -0800 From: "Bernard A. Taylor" 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 sam. pent. References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1202 > On Fri, 29 Jan 1999, Jim West wrote: > My > attitude towards the Sam Pent. is based on actually reading the whole > bloody thing and comparing it to the MT. Where they differ, the sam. > pent. appears to me to be attempting to justify a theological position > which supports samaritan theology. Jim, >From where I sit, there are two clear issues re the SP. 1. In places the text is modified to insert or justify Sam. theology. However, these are basically easy to identify. 2. There is the bulk of the text that was not of interest or concern theologically to the Samaritans, and has been transmitted independently as part of their tradition. Time and again I find interesting variants, some of which are shared with the LXX, for instance. More than once I wish that the text extended beyond the Pentateuch. I have the five Isaeli fascicles that have MT and SP in parallel/ synoptic relationship, with all places where the two texts differ in larger type. It makes it easy to spot the differences, and fun to compare the texts. For me at least, this is where the value of the text lies, not in such things as the "eleventh commandment" or the pervasive changes in Deuteronomy. Bernard Taylor From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Jan 31 15:30:52 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA05135; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 15:30:50 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19990131213950.011b6e10@mclink.it> X-Sender: mc2499@mclink.it X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 21:39:50 +0100 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: Ian Hutchesson Subject: Re: tc-list sam. pent. In-Reply-To: References: <1.5.4.32.19990129144732.00663470@highland.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: 592 Yuri wrote: >As M A Robinson already noted, genizah was primarily a way to >deal with worn out sacred texts. Since they were too worn out to be >useful, and destroying them would be sacrilegious, they were put away in a >genizah. Genizah was like a cemetery for old and treasured texts. Are there any ancient documents to support this view or does it only go back to the middle ages? If there are, I'd be happy to know the references. >What did they do with the texts that were deemed "heretical"? They burned >them. Again the sources to this would be rather interesting. Thanks, Ian From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Jan 31 15:35:15 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA05166; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 15:35:13 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19990131214439.011ac650@mclink.it> X-Sender: mc2499@mclink.it X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 21:44:39 +0100 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: Ian Hutchesson Subject: Re: tc-list sam. pent. In-Reply-To: <36B4B582.4F0B87DA@earthlink.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 453 Bernard Taylor wrote: >For me at least, this is where the value of the text lies, not in such >things as the "eleventh commandment" or the pervasive changes in >Deuteronomy. Sadly, I haven't any experience with the diversity of the Samaritan lit., although I do know that the DSS often favour Samaritan readings over the MT (but there is no regularity). Could you kindly give a few examples of the "pervasive changes in Deuteronomy"? Thanks, Ian From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Jan 31 18:56:53 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA05496; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 18:56:51 -0500 Message-Id: <199902010000.BAA20979@carno.brus.online.be> Subject: tc-list OT variants in Mekhilta Date: Lun, 1 Fv 99 01:03:57 +0100 x-sender: vale5655@pop3.brus.online.be x-mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1 From: Jean Valentin To: "Liste TC-List" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1788 Dear TC-ers, For once I'll write about OT variants. One of my hobbies when I want to relax after collating Arabic Nt manuscripts is Rabbinical literature. I'm not planning to do scholarly work on this, but my curiosity pushes me to explore it once in a while. Here at home I have a pentateuch in a rabbinical edition, with targums and the tannaitic midrashim accompanied by the commentaries of the Malbim. I just noticed a few singular features in the biblical quotations in the text of the Mekhilta d-Rabbi Yishmael, which I didn't expect in such an edition: they have variants! Here are a few: Ex. 3.6 (TM) wy'mr 'nky 'lhy 'byk 'lhy 'brhm... Mek 1.3 has wy'mr 'nky (h'l) 'lhy 'byk 'lhy 'brhm... The brackets probably mean that the editor of the text noticed that this word - ha'el - was not in his MT but was in his ms of the Mekhilta? Lev. 26.42: Mek 1.3 puts the 2nd and 3rd 't (eth) between square brackets. This could mean that they were not in his ms of the Mekhilta but that the editor inserts them according to his MT.? 2 Chr 13.5 ntn mmlkh Mek 1.4 ntn ('t h)mmlkh In Mek., there's thus the insertion of eth + article. Once again, the brackets, like in Ex. 3.6, would mean that the editor didn't find that in his MT. Jer 36.32 w`wd nwsp Mek 1.4 w`wd (ywsyp) [nwsp] Here, the text of the Mekhilta ms would have nwsp, while the MT has ywsyp. Though variant readings are to be expected anywhere, I didn't expect to find them, and at such a high frequency (these are only two paragraphs of the first parasha of the Mekhilta) in Rabbinic literature. Have there been studies about this phenomenon? Thanks for any remark, bibliographical reference, etc... Jean V. Jean Valentin - 34 rue du Berceau - 1000 Bruxelles - Belgique e-mail : jgvalentin@arcadis.be