From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Feb 1 00:40:47 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id AAA06244; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 00:40:46 -0500 Message-ID: <36B53F27.2416DF03@earthlink.net> Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 21:44:07 -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: <3.0.6.32.19990131214439.011ac650@mclink.it> 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: 1395 Ian Hutchesson wrote: > 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"? Ian, At stake is the issue of which is the true temple (and true way of worship): Mt Gerizim or Jerusalem. Whereas in the MT Moses speaks of 'the place which the Lord will choose,' SP speaks of 'the place which the Lord has chosen,' intended to refer to the prior selection of Mt Gerizim. The selection is found in Ex 20 where the 10 comms are followed by an "eleventh commandment" to build the temple on Mt Gerizim. Second, the choice of the respective locations for the reading of the blessings and curses in Deut 27-29 (Mt Gerizim and Mt Ebal) is the opposite of that in the MT. I choose my words carefully, since some scholars in fact argue that SP retains the original. There are other classic differences: in Gen 2:2 (SP & LXX), God ends his work on the sixth day, not the 7th day of the MT. It is also pervasive to supply missing narrative. If an answer or response infers information, the question/narrative, etc. is often supplied so as to make the text more internally consistent. I don't have the texts in front of me, but there are some examples off the top of my head. Bernard Taylor From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Feb 1 10:38:31 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA08805; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 10:38:30 -0500 Message-Id: <199902011542.KAB69010@f04n07.cac.psu.edu> X-Sender: wlp1@mail.psu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0.2 Date: Mon, 01 Feb 1999 10:35:49 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "William L. Petersen" Subject: Re: tc-list Biblical Cruxes (Carlson) In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19990130232229.00845d50@pop.mindspring.com> References: <199901271630.LAA69072@f04n07.cac.psu.edu> <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: 1407 Thanks for the comments. --Petersen. At 11:22 PM 1/30/99 -0500, you wrote: >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 Mon Feb 1 11:10:13 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA09078; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 11:10:12 -0500 Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 11:10:52 -0500 (EST) From: Yuri Kuchinsky To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list sam. pent. In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.19990131213950.011b6e10@mclink.it> 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: 1159 On Sun, 31 Jan 1999, Ian Hutchesson wrote: > 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? I don't know, Ian. > >What did they do with the texts that were deemed "heretical"? They > >burned them. > > Again the sources to this would be rather interesting. Can't give you sources off hand, but I seem to recal some Talmudic statement about what to do with troublesome heretical documents. Do you think what I said didn't make sense? Yours, 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 Mon Feb 1 15:05:57 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA12536; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 15:05:56 -0500 Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 15:05:53 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Adair" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list Biblical Cruxes (OT) 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: 4883 No one has addressed any Old Testament biblical cruxes yet, so let me list a few. 1. The most obvious examples are the books like Daniel and Esther whose Greek forms have substantial additional material (often called deuterocanonical or apocryphal) in comparison with the Masoretic Text. 2. There are also other books that, taken as a whole, differ significantly in the standard versions (i.e., MT and Rahlfs' LXX). These include (but are not limited to) Job, Proverbs, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, and Kings. In the Greek version, numerous verses are left out, or added, or rearranged, in comparison with the MT. These first two categories are really examples of the overlap of textual and literary (or source) criticism, similar to the case with the Synoptic Gospels in the NT. 3. There are of course also numerous examples of important differences among the OT witnesses that are of a more limited scope. I'll list a few of the more interesting ones. (The following abbreviations are used: MT=Masoretic Text, xQyyy=Qumran ms, LXX=Septuagint (as represented in Rahlfs' edition), SP=Samaritan Pentateuch, P=Peshitta, T=Targum, V=Vulgate, Tiq Soph=scribal correction [noted in Masoretic mss], Arm=Armenian.) a. Gen 2:2--(God completed his work of creation on the) "seventh" (day): MT V] "sixth": LXX SP P. Most commentators think the reading of MT is original, with LXX a scribal correction to emphasize that God did not in fact work on the seventh day (Hendel, _The Text of Genesis 1-11_, disagrees). b. 1 Sam 3:13--(Eli's sons cursed) "themselves": MT P T (V)] "God": Tiq soph LXX. To avoid pronouncing the words "curse God" together, a reading tradition developed that changed the words (cf. also Job 1:5, 11; 2:5, 9, where Tiq soph is not indicated). c. Isa 53:11--(out of his anguish he shall see) "light": 1QIsa-a,b LXX] omit: MT etc. d. 1 Sam 17:12-31; 17:55-18:6--present in MT, absent in LXX. This variant really belongs to #2 above, but it's interesting enough to list separately. The story of David playing the harp for Saul is omitted in LXX, so when Saul later asks who it is that has fought Goliath, he really hasn't met him yet. e. Deut 32:8--(Elyon fixed the boundaries of the nations according to the number of the) "sons of Israel" MT V] "angels of God" LXX] "sons of God" 4QDeut-q[?-maybe a different ms] LXX-848 Arm. The presumably original reading "sons of God" (which Wevers says is in fact the original reading of LXX) was modified to accord more fully with monotheistic thinking. f. Judges 18:30--(ancestor of an idolatrous priest) "Manasseh" MT (some mss with suspended nun) LXX-B] "Moses" LXX-A V. The revered name of Moses had to be protected, so a "nun" was added to transform it to Manasseh, the name of the most wicked king of Israel. g. Ps 100:3--(God made us,) "and not we ourselves" MT-kethib LXX] "and we are his" MT-qere V(iuxta Heb) T Aquila. This variation from lamed-alef to lamed-waw (pronounced the same) shifts the meaning from the first to the second of the variant readings. h. Mal 1:1--(identity of the prophet) "Malachi" (a proper name) MT etc.] "his messenger" (an anonymous prophet) LXX. Malachi can mean "my messenger," and a change in the final letter yields the LXX reading. i. Isa 7:14--"a young woman" MT T Aquila Symmachus Theodotion] "virgin" LXX V. Although LXX's translation originally had no theological motivation (the LXX translation in Isaiah is generally a free translation), Matthew's appropriation of the verse in Matt 1:23 gave the LXX rendering added meaning among Christians. j. Gen 5, genealogical list from Adam to Noah-- (A=age when successor born, B=balance of life, C=total years) MT-A MT-B MT-C LXX-A LXX-B LXX-C SP-A SP-B SP-C Adam 130 800 930 230 700 930 130 800 930 Seth 105 807 912 205 707 912 105 807 912 Enosh 90 815 905 190 715 905 90 815 905 Kenan 70 840 910 170 740 910 70 840 910 Mahalalel 65 830 895 165 730 895 65 830 895 Jared 162 800 962 162 800 962 62 785 847 Enoch 65 300 365 165 200 365 65 300 365 Methuselah 187 782 969 167 802 969 67 653 720 Lamech 182 595 777 188 565 753 53 600 653 Noah 500 450 950 500 450 950 500 450 950 There are numerous differences in dates in the three versions of the genealogy--cf. also the genealogy from Shem to Terah in Gen 11. These are some of the more interesting textual problems in the OT/HB. ****************************************************** James R. Adair, Jr. Director, ATLA Center for Electronic Texts in Religion ****************************************************** From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Feb 1 15:52:29 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA12941; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 15:52:27 -0500 Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 15:52:26 -0500 Message-Id: <199902012052.PAA12936@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> >Date: Sat, 27 Jun 1998 13:13:20 -0400 From: "Kevin W. Woodruff" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Cc: thompsgl@mlc-wels.edu Subject: Re: tc-list provenance of uncials Content-Type: text Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 754 Aland and Aland's _The Text of the New Testament Rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989) pages 107-128 gives the provence of the uncials (if it is known) At 11:44 AM 1/27/99 -0600, you wrote: >Does anyone know of a list of all the NT uncials that also gives >there provenance? > >Glen L. Thompson >thompsgl@mlc-wels.edu > > 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 Feb 1 16:14:58 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA13273; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 16:14:57 -0500 Message-Id: <199902012118.QAA126170@f04n01.cac.psu.edu> X-Sender: wlp1@mail.psu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0.2 Date: Mon, 01 Feb 1999 16:12:13 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "William L. Petersen" Subject: tc-list Provenance of uncials & OT cruxes In-Reply-To: <199902012052.PAA12936@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: 1444 Two remarks: (1) On the provenance of MSS: I can't recall if it has been mentioned in this regard, but J.K. Elliott's *A Bibliography of Greek NT MSS* (SNTS.MS 62 [Cambridge: CUP, 1989]) gives all the info about editions of individual MSS (presumably the editors have a section on the provenance) and further studies & articles (some of which clearly touch on matters of provenance). If you have a particular MS, and can't find any info opn provenance, check in Elliott for pubs on that particular MS, and then check them. (2) On Jimmy Adair's post re cruxes: fascinating, Jimmy. Thanks. --Petersen, Penn State Univ. At 03:52 PM 2/1/99 -0500, you wrote: >Aland and Aland's _The Text of the New Testament Rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: >Eerdmans, 1989) pages 107-128 gives the provence of the uncials (if it is known) > >At 11:44 AM 1/27/99 -0600, you wrote: >>Does anyone know of a list of all the NT uncials that also gives >>there provenance? >> >>Glen L. Thompson >>thompsgl@mlc-wels.edu >> >> > >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 Feb 1 16:21:28 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA13337; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 16:21:27 -0500 Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 16:21:25 -0500 Message-Id: <199902012121.QAA13332@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> >Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 14:04:28 -0500 From: "Kevin W. Woodruff" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list uncial provenances Content-Type: text Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 808 Glen: Both editions give provences if know.The problem is that so many uncials are of unknown category. At 08:23 PM 1/27/99 -0600, you wrote: >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 > > 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 Feb 1 16:23:04 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA13392; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 16:23:03 -0500 Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 16:23:00 -0500 Message-Id: <199902012123.QAA13385@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> >Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 15:15:11 -0500 From: "Kevin W. Woodruff" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list Re: looking for a book Content-Type: text Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1001 Dr. rogers: Are you in the United States? If you are, I can tell you which libraries in your area carries the title. At 03:07 PM 1/28/99 EST, you wrote: >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 > > 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 Feb 1 18:38:19 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA14722; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 18:38:18 -0500 Message-ID: <000601be4e3b$e4464500$811b01ce@alski> From: "Albert L. Lukaszewski" To: Subject: tc-list Cowley's Aramaic Papyrus No. 5 Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 15:37:53 -0800 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: 529 Dear Listmembers This pushes the bounds of the list subject, but I think it is still within range. My question concerns Papyrus No. 5 from Cowley's _Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B.C._. I am having some difficulty with line 4 and would like some help on how to take the HY in the middle of the line. The line reads: )GR 1 TMH )GR) ZK ZYLK HY ZY DBQH LBYT) ZYLY LZWYTH ZY L(LYH Where )=aleph and (=ayin. Thanks in advance for any help. Regards, Albert L. Lukaszewski Fuller Theological Seminary alski@fuller.edu From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Feb 1 23:15:03 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id XAA16127; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 23:15:01 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19990202052431.010ac700@mclink.it> X-Sender: mc2499@mclink.it X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 02 Feb 1999 05:24:31 +0100 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: Ian Hutchesson Subject: Re: tc-list sam. pent. In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.6.32.19990131213950.011b6e10@mclink.it> 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: 1072 At 11.10 01/02/99 -0500, Yuri Kuchinsky wrote: > >On Sun, 31 Jan 1999, Ian Hutchesson wrote: > >> 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? > >I don't know, Ian. > >> >What did they do with the texts that were deemed "heretical"? They >> >burned them. >> >> Again the sources to this would be rather interesting. > >Can't give you sources off hand, but I seem to recal some Talmudic >statement about what to do with troublesome heretical documents. Do you >think what I said didn't make sense? Thanks, Yuri. It did make sense. I found the information interesting, but would need sources if I were to use it. Perhaps someone else on the list has some knowledge or ideas in the area. Thanks, Ian From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Feb 1 23:39:21 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id XAA16265; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 23:39:19 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19990202054848.010ac310@mclink.it> X-Sender: mc2499@mclink.it X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 02 Feb 1999 05:48:48 +0100 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: Ian Hutchesson Subject: Re: tc-list sam. pent. In-Reply-To: <36B53F27.2416DF03@earthlink.net> References: <3.0.6.32.19990131214439.011ac650@mclink.it> 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: 1610 Thanks, Bernard, for the information. >At stake is the issue of which is the true temple (and true way of >worship): Mt Gerizim or Jerusalem. This is actually quite a hot subject that must have had currency for quite a while, going back, if we can trust Josephus on this, to the time that a temple was built on Gerizim for the Zadokite Manasseh -- though Josephus probably hides more than he tells us. >Whereas in the MT Moses speaks of >'the place which the Lord will choose,' SP speaks of 'the place which >the Lord has chosen,' intended to refer to the prior selection of Mt >Gerizim. The selection is found in Ex 20 where the 10 comms are followed >by an "eleventh commandment" to build the temple on Mt Gerizim. >[..] > >There are other classic differences: in Gen 2:2 (SP & LXX), God ends his >work on the sixth day, not the 7th day of the MT. (Strangely, this example has just come up in James Adair's post of OT cruxes today!) >It is also pervasive to supply missing narrative. If an answer or >response infers information, the question/narrative, etc. is often >supplied so as to make the text more internally consistent. Is some of this material possibly original and been lost in the MT? I remember from Qumran at least one example of a text discovered that was earlier and longer than the MT tradition, which made its context more understandable. >I don't have the texts in front of me, but there are some examples off >the top of my head. I'd heard a few, but you've given me a few others to get me thinking. If more come to mind, I'd be happy to hear about them! Thanks again, Ian From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Feb 2 00:31:00 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id AAA16469; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 00:30:59 -0500 Message-ID: <36B693CE.136628ED@historian.net> Date: Mon, 01 Feb 1999 23:57:34 -0600 From: Jack Kilmon 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: <3.0.6.32.19990131214439.011ac650@mclink.it> <3.0.6.32.19990202054848.010ac310@mclink.it> 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: 600 Ian Hutchesson wrote: > Is some of this material possibly original and been lost in the MT? I > remember from Qumran at least one example of a text discovered that was > earlier and longer than the MT tradition, which made its context more > understandable. I think you are thinking of the Samuel A scroll which is longer than the MT version and closer to the LXX version and considered by some to be more original tha the MT. Jack -- ______________________________________________ taybutheh d'maran yeshua masheecha am kulkon Jack Kilmon jkilmon@historian.net http://www.historian.net From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Feb 2 03:00:05 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id DAA16941; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 03:00:04 -0500 Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 03:00:03 -0500 Message-Id: <199902020800.DAA16924@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> From: Jimmy Adair (tc-list-owner) Subject: tc-list Quarterly Reminder Content-Type: text Apparently-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 6863 ****************************************************************************** General Information about the List ****************************************************************************** tc-list: a discussion list of biblical textual criticism This list is loosely associated with the new electronic journal _TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism_, and it is intended for a discussion of any matters relating to biblical textual criticism, broadly defined. The rationale for the creation of the TC journal is given below. It is hoped that subscribers to the tc-list will reflect on and respond to material from articles in TC, will deal with issues that arise in the context of text-critical study in the community of biblical scholars at large, and will use the list to suggest new ideas and methodologies. Notes on any aspect of the textual criticism of the Jewish and Christian scriptures (including extracanonical and related literature) are welcome, and threads that transcend the traditional boundary between textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament and New Testament textual criticism are especially encouraged. We would also like to see threads that discuss the relationship between textual criticism and other disciplines. This list is an unmoderated list, and anyone who is a subscriber to the list may contribute. Conventional netiquette should be followed by all contributors to the list. The following points in particular should be kept in mind. (1) Discussion of topics other than textual criticism (or other topics likely to be of interest to members of the list) should be avoided. (2) Scholarly discussion can at times be somewhat heated, but civility should always prevail. (3) Contributors to the list should always sign their messages with their names (not just e-mail addresses). Additional information, such as institutional affiliation, might also be of interest to others on the list. (4) When responding to a message on the list, quote only that portion of the message that you are responding to, or enough of the message to remind readers of the context of the discussion. In many cases it is not necessary to quote the entire message. Archives of tc-list are automatically maintained, and they may be accessed by sending a message like the following to majordomo@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: get tc-list tc-list.yymm where yy is a 2-digit year and mm is a 2-digit month (e.g., tc-list.9604 for April 1996). The first month archived is November 1995 (tc-list.9511). List archives may also be accessed on the Web at http://purl.org/TC/archives/tc-list/tc-list.html. TC messages since 28 Feb 1997 are also archived by Reference.COM at http://www.reference.com. ****************************************************************************** Subscribing, Unsubscribing, and Sending Messages to the List ****************************************************************************** To subscribe or unsubscribe, send the appropriate message to majordomo@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (_not_ to the list itself): subscribe tc-list [your e-mail address] unsubscribe tc-list [your e-mail address] The e-mail address is optional, since subscription will default to the address you are sending from. You may also subscribe to this list in digest form (i.e., messages bundled and sent out a few times per week) by sending this message to majordomo@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: subscribe tc-list-digest [your e-mail address] If you subscribe to the digest, be sure to unsubscribe from the list so you won't receive everything twice. To send a message to the list for all to read, send your message to tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu. Don't send to tc-list-digest, even if you're subscribed to the digest. Just send to tc-list. If you do not want to receive messages for a while (e.g., you're going on vacation or will be away from your computer for an extended time), please unsubscribe from the list. There is no "vacation" command on this list. When you want to start receiving messages again, simply subscribe to the list again. ***************************************************************************** TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism ***************************************************************************** One of the benefits of increasingly widespread Internet access is the ease with which scholars in a particular field can communicate with one another. Although the sciences have dominated the electronic journal field up until this point, several journals in the humanities are now available online. TC follows in the (brief) tradition of the Journal of Buddhist Ethics, the International Journal of Tantric Studies, and the Electronic Journal of Vedic Studies. As far as we are aware, TC is the first Web journal in the area of biblical studies. Why "biblical" textual criticism (rather than t-c of the NT or the Hebrew Bible/OT)? It is time for textual critics in the two camps to communicate more with one another. Textual critics in one field can only benefit by hearing what those in the other field have to say. The journal will accept papers dealing with any aspect of textual criticism of the OT/Hebrew Bible or NT, and it especially encourages "crossover" papers that deal with both areas. Papers dealing either with specific cruxes or with larger issues (methodology, use of versional evidence, etc.) are welcome. Brief notes or full-length articles are equally acceptable. Why an electronic journal? The fact of the matter is that printing a journal costs a lot of money (especially with recent increases in paper prices). In addition, it is debatable whether the field of textual criticism could generate a large enough base to support a paper journal. There are technical difficulties with displaying non-Latin characters that will have to be addressed, but some of these difficulties have already been overcome. With an electronic journal, scholars and students around the world can have free access to one or another form of the journal, either via the World Wide Web, FTP, or e-mail. TC is now in its second year of operation, and we are looking for articles. Please submit your articles in electronic form to: Jimmy Adair Scholars Press P.O. Box 15399 Atlanta, GA 30333-0399 USA You are also welcome to send articles via e-mail to jadair@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu, or you may upload your articles directly to our FTP site at ftp://shemesh.scholar.emory.edu/uploads/TC. TC has a home page on TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web site (http://purl.org/TC), and interested parties can look at this page for announcements. We look forward to your participation in TC and tc-list! The list-owner of tc-list is Jimmy Adair (jadair@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu). From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Feb 2 08:37:01 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA18670; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 08:37:00 -0500 Message-ID: <003086DDAD30D211842F00062B0006E101193F41@esusa.esusa.org> From: Curt Niccum To: "'tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu'" Subject: RE: tc-list sam. pent. Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 07:40:16 -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: 979 The text referred to which "was earlier and longer than the MT tradition" must certainly be 1 Sam. 10:27 found in 4QSam-a. That text, of course, is not Samaritan. It still holds, however, that the Samaritan-type of text attested at Qumran could preserve some "original" readings in comparison with the MT. That must be judged on a comparison in each reading with the MT and all of the other extant witnesses. By the way, the concept of "original" text is even more problematic within Old Testament criticism than in NTTC. It is a shame that the NTTC Section at SBL last year did not coordinate with the Qumran Section which had a much better discussion of the problem. Both groups could have benefited from the other's incites. Curt > Is some of this material possibly original and been lost in the MT? I > remember from Qumran at least one example of a text discovered that was > earlier and longer than the MT tradition, which made its context more > understandable. > > From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Feb 2 08:56:50 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA18760; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 08:56:48 -0500 Message-ID: <36B70A61.C7EC53E3@historian.net> Date: Tue, 02 Feb 1999 08:23:29 -0600 From: Jack Kilmon 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: <3.0.6.32.19990131213950.011b6e10@mclink.it> <3.0.6.32.19990202052431.010ac700@mclink.it> 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: 986 Ian Hutchesson wrote: > > At 11.10 01/02/99 -0500, Yuri Kuchinsky wrote: > > > >On Sun, 31 Jan 1999, Ian Hutchesson wrote: > > > >> 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? I can't seem to find anything about the use of genizoth prior to the Talmudic period. Every reference to ancient genizoth seems to refer to Taylor-Schecter. I would like to know if this was a practice in 2nd temple times. Anyone else have something on this? Jack -- ______________________________________________ taybutheh d'maran yeshua masheecha am kulkon Jack Kilmon jkilmon@historian.net http://www.historian.net From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Feb 2 09:21:58 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA18964; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 09:21:56 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <003086DDAD30D211842F00062B0006E101193F41@esusa.esusa.org> Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 08:25:38 -0600 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: RE: tc-list sam. pent. Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1806 On 2/2/99, Curt Niccum wrote: >The text referred to which "was earlier and longer than the MT tradition" >must certainly be 1 Sam. 10:27 found in 4QSam-a. That text, of course, is >not Samaritan. It still holds, however, that the Samaritan-type of text >attested at Qumran could preserve some "original" readings in comparison >with the MT. That must be judged on a comparison in each reading with the MT >and all of the other extant witnesses. By the way, the concept of "original" >text is even more problematic within Old Testament criticism than in NTTC. >It is a shame that the NTTC Section at SBL last year did not coordinate with >the Qumran Section which had a much better discussion of the problem. Both >groups could have benefited from the other's incites. Just as a footnote, the original question asked about "a [Qumran] text... that was earlier and longer than the MT tradition, which made its context more understandable." This description, I think, applies to 4QSam-a as a whole. It has a text of Samuel which is generally fuller than the MT, and which agrees frequently (though by no means universally) with LXX. Since the MT of Samuel is in bad shape, 4QSam-a (and LXX) are very important witnesses here -- and not just in 10:27. I've always found McCarter's Anchor Bible edition of 1 Samuel fascinating, as one of the few non-specialized books to make textual problems clear to the reader. I don't always agree with his reconstructions -- but it's very instructive. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Feb 2 12:39:52 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA21873; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 12:39:51 -0500 Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 12:39:48 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Adair" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list sam. pent. In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.19990202054848.010ac310@mclink.it> 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: 863 Emanuel Tov, in his _Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible_, says that about five percent of the texts found at Qumran may be classified as either pre-Samaritan or close to the presumed Hebrew source of LXX (p. 115--I've heard that in a later article Tov changes some of the percentages of Qumran "text-types" he gives in TCHB; does anyone have additional information?). Pre-Samaritan texts from Qumran include 4QpaleoExod-m and 4QNum-b. Pre-Samaritan elements in these texts include (1) harmonizing alterations (including supplying missing narratives, as Bernard mentioned), (2) linguistic corrections, (3) content differences, and (4) linguistic differences (Tov 85-93). ****************************************************** James R. Adair, Jr. Director, ATLA Center for Electronic Texts in Religion ****************************************************** From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Feb 2 12:43:12 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA21984; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 12:43:09 -0500 Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 12:43:08 -0500 Message-Id: <199902021743.MAA21979@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> >Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 11:26:08 GMT From: "David G.K. Taylor" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: tc-list Cowley's Aramaic Papyrus No. 5 Content-Type: text Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1022 Dear Albert, Unless I am missing some important detail, this looks fairly straightforward. HY is the S3F pronoun 'she', and like the other personal pronouns in Aramaic can also be used to express the present tense of the verb 'to be'. Thus here it means 'she is', and refers to the roof/portico, )GR), which is the feminine subject of the sentence. Hence: "this portico yours is" > "this portico is yours". Best wishes, David Taylor *************************************************************************** Dr David G.K.Taylor email: d.g.k.taylor@bham.ac.uk Department of Theology, tel: 0121-414 5666 University of Birmingham, fax: 0121-414 6866 Birmingham B15 2TT, U.K. *************************************************************************** From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Feb 2 12:57:03 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA22192; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 12:57:01 -0500 Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 12:56:59 -0500 Message-Id: <199902021756.MAA22187@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> >Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 17:41:11 -0800 (PST) From: Vincent Broman To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list XRISTW in Phi 4.13 Content-Type: text Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2684 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > (3) What is more common? > (3a) Omission or Addition? Several studies of singular readings in the papyri conclude that omission was much more common than addition. M Robinson came to a similar conclusion from readings examined in the Apocalypse. The rule of thumb "lectio brevior potior" from classical philology has many kinds of exceptions and caveats, and in the early transmission of the NT text does not seem to me to be very useful. You have to take intentional and accidental corruptions as separate cases I would suppose, and in tracing back readings to causes you'd have to have a (bayesian) prior likelihood in your mind of how often accidents versus intentional changes happen. > (3b) Does Aleph omit more often or add? It would be hard to judge that without having its parent exemplar available. From singular readings Aleph is known to have a weakness for deletions caused by scribal leaps. > (3c) Does the MT omit more often or add? If by that question you are asking whether in the medieval transmission of the majority text (observable for example in family Pi or the Ferrar or Lake families or in the Kx crowd in singular readings) more omissions or additions occurred, then I would answer that the Apocalypse study by Robinson suggests _omissions_. I don't remember a strong leaning in the family Pi apparatus. But the overriding tendency observable in the families is _mixture_, gradually conforming the family text towards the Kx mean by force of peer pressure. :-) If by that question you are asking about the mysterious origins of the majority or koine text, then the question is easier and harder. Simple counts show that the majority text is longer and the egyption text is shorter. While this prima facie looks bad for the egyptian text, there are other well known reasons why the egyptian text is nevertheless generally believed to be earlier and is not blamed for "omissions" but the majority text is blamed for "additions". My own, very minority, opinion lies somewhere in the middle. 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 iQCVAwUBNrepNGCU4mTNq7IdAQHa3gQAmuIJW4h5hbkElgVVliVk+n3ygEre3lj2 neINevyVRqUSIpMF2BQe8TfJUcdW0oOm/86Fo+99VkQRXI9tPNA7NRKciYAybAeE e7rOyrakDJ3pyPsEkIzS/PWAKqWkS+dA7rdQJEAbwvLoZBup8d5MSe64sibcoxtn Nkt8Np29pVo= =2kOa -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Feb 2 14:42:35 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA23950; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 14:42:33 -0500 From: "Bernard A. Taylor" To: Subject: RE: tc-list OT variants in Mekhilta Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 11:46:12 -0800 Message-ID: <000401be4ee4$afb77b20$be07b2d1@taylorb.earthlink.net> 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 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 In-Reply-To: <199902010000.BAA20979@carno.brus.online.be> Importance: Normal Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 749 Jean observed: 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. ... [snip] 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... I haven't seen an answer, so here is at least a starter. Dirk Buechner, "On the Relationship Between _Mekilta de Rabbi Ishmael_ and Septuagint Exodus 12-23" (_IX Congress of the IOSCS_ Cambridge, 1995, yours truly, editor), SCS 45 (1997). Regards, Bernard Taylor From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Feb 2 16:49:44 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA25195; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 16:49:42 -0500 Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 16:49:41 -0500 Message-Id: <199902022149.QAA25190@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> >Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 13:09:26 -0800 From: Kristin DeTroyer To: "'tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu'" Subject: RE: tc-list Biblical Cruxes (OT) Content-Type: text Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 5412 Well, I think I have addressed your first crux. However, my Ph.D. dissertation (Leiden University, The End of the Alpha-text of Esther) has been published in Dutch and is currently being translated into English. It will be published by SBL. So, have patience! See you, Kristin De Troyer BTW I love your list of cruxes -----Original Message----- From: James R. Adair [SMTP:jadair@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu] Sent: Monday, February 01, 1999 12:06 PM To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list Biblical Cruxes (OT) No one has addressed any Old Testament biblical cruxes yet, so let me list a few. 1. The most obvious examples are the books like Daniel and Esther whose Greek forms have substantial additional material (often called deuterocanonical or apocryphal) in comparison with the Masoretic Text. 2. There are also other books that, taken as a whole, differ significantly in the standard versions (i.e., MT and Rahlfs' LXX). These include (but are not limited to) Job, Proverbs, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, and Kings. In the Greek version, numerous verses are left out, or added, or rearranged, in comparison with the MT. These first two categories are really examples of the overlap of textual and literary (or source) criticism, similar to the case with the Synoptic Gospels in the NT. 3. There are of course also numerous examples of important differences among the OT witnesses that are of a more limited scope. I'll list a few of the more interesting ones. (The following abbreviations are used: MT=Masoretic Text, xQyyy=Qumran ms, LXX=Septuagint (as represented in Rahlfs' edition), SP=Samaritan Pentateuch, P=Peshitta, T=Targum, V=Vulgate, Tiq Soph=scribal correction [noted in Masoretic mss], Arm=Armenian.) a. Gen 2:2--(God completed his work of creation on the) "seventh" (day): MT V] "sixth": LXX SP P. Most commentators think the reading of MT is original, with LXX a scribal correction to emphasize that God did not in fact work on the seventh day (Hendel, _The Text of Genesis 1-11_, disagrees). b. 1 Sam 3:13--(Eli's sons cursed) "themselves": MT P T (V)] "God": Tiq soph LXX. To avoid pronouncing the words "curse God" together, a reading tradition developed that changed the words (cf. also Job 1:5, 11; 2:5, 9, where Tiq soph is not indicated). c. Isa 53:11--(out of his anguish he shall see) "light": 1QIsa-a,b LXX] omit: MT etc. d. 1 Sam 17:12-31; 17:55-18:6--present in MT, absent in LXX. This variant really belongs to #2 above, but it's interesting enough to list separately. The story of David playing the harp for Saul is omitted in LXX, so when Saul later asks who it is that has fought Goliath, he really hasn't met him yet. e. Deut 32:8--(Elyon fixed the boundaries of the nations according to the number of the) "sons of Israel" MT V] "angels of God" LXX] "sons of God" 4QDeut-q[?-maybe a different ms] LXX-848 Arm. The presumably original reading "sons of God" (which Wevers says is in fact the original reading of LXX) was modified to accord more fully with monotheistic thinking. f. Judges 18:30--(ancestor of an idolatrous priest) "Manasseh" MT (some mss with suspended nun) LXX-B] "Moses" LXX-A V. The revered name of Moses had to be protected, so a "nun" was added to transform it to Manasseh, the name of the most wicked king of Israel. g. Ps 100:3--(God made us,) "and not we ourselves" MT-kethib LXX] "and we are his" MT-qere V(iuxta Heb) T Aquila. This variation from lamed-alef to lamed-waw (pronounced the same) shifts the meaning from the first to the second of the variant readings. h. Mal 1:1--(identity of the prophet) "Malachi" (a proper name) MT etc.] "his messenger" (an anonymous prophet) LXX. Malachi can mean "my messenger," and a change in the final letter yields the LXX reading. i. Isa 7:14--"a young woman" MT T Aquila Symmachus Theodotion] "virgin" LXX V. Although LXX's translation originally had no theological motivation (the LXX translation in Isaiah is generally a free translation), Matthew's appropriation of the verse in Matt 1:23 gave the LXX rendering added meaning among Christians. j. Gen 5, genealogical list from Adam to Noah-- (A=age when successor born, B=balance of life, C=total years) MT-A MT-B MT-C LXX-A LXX-B LXX-C SP-A SP-B SP-C Adam 130 800 930 230 700 930 130 800 930 Seth 105 807 912 205 707 912 105 807 912 Enosh 90 815 905 190 715 905 90 815 905 Kenan 70 840 910 170 740 910 70 840 910 Mahalalel 65 830 895 165 730 895 65 830 895 Jared 162 800 962 162 800 962 62 785 847 Enoch 65 300 365 165 200 365 65 300 365 Methuselah 187 782 969 167 802 969 67 653 720 Lamech 182 595 777 188 565 753 53 600 653 Noah 500 450 950 500 450 950 500 450 950 There are numerous differences in dates in the three versions of the genealogy--cf. also the genealogy from Shem to Terah in Gen 11. These are some of the more interesting textual problems in the OT/HB. ****************************************************** James R. Adair, Jr. Director, ATLA Center for Electronic Texts in Religion ****************************************************** From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Feb 2 17:13:30 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA25359; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 17:13:29 -0500 Message-Id: <199902022217.RAA23359@smtp3.fas.harvard.edu> X-Sender: saley@pop.fas.harvard.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0.2 Date: Tue, 02 Feb 1999 17:16:27 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: Richard J Saley Subject: Re: tc-list sam. pent. In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.6.32.19990202054848.010ac310@mclink.it> 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: 1311 Jimmy, The reference you're looking for is: Emanuel Tov, "Groups of Biblical Texts Found at Qumran." _Time to Prepare the Way in the Wilderness_. STDJ 16. Ed. Devorah Dimant and Lawrence H. Schiffman. Leiden, 1995, pp. 85-102. On p. 101 Tov increases the percentage of texts classified as either pre-Samaritan or close to the presumed Hebrew source of LXX from 5% to 10%. Dick Saley At 12:39 PM 2/2/99 -0500, you wrote: >Emanuel Tov, in his _Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible_, says that >about five percent of the texts found at Qumran may be classified as >either pre-Samaritan or close to the presumed Hebrew source of LXX (p. >115--I've heard that in a later article Tov changes some of the >percentages of Qumran "text-types" he gives in TCHB; does anyone have >additional information?). Pre-Samaritan texts from Qumran include >4QpaleoExod-m and 4QNum-b. Pre-Samaritan elements in these texts include >(1) harmonizing alterations (including supplying missing narratives, as >Bernard mentioned), (2) linguistic corrections, (3) content differences, >and (4) linguistic differences (Tov 85-93). > >****************************************************** >James R. Adair, Jr. >Director, ATLA Center for Electronic Texts in Religion >****************************************************** > From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Feb 2 21:57:19 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA26585; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 21:57:18 -0500 Message-ID: <000a01be4f20$f3453760$911b01ce@alski> From: "Albert L. Lukaszewski" To: Subject: Re: tc-list Cowley's Aramaic Papyrus No. 5 Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 18:57:33 -0800 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: 1454 Dear David, I by all means have much to learn about Aramaic; but here I am confused by the use of HY ZY in the line. I haven't been able to consult Bauer-Leander or other Aramaic grammars yet, but I do not recall the relative particle being used to modify a pronoun. Have I missed an important aspect here? Thanks for your help, Albert L. Lukaszewski Fuller Theological Seminary alski@fuller.edu -----Original Message----- From: David G.K. Taylor To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Tuesday, February 02, 1999 9:51 AM Subject: tc-list Cowley's Aramaic Papyrus No. 5 >Dear Albert, > >Unless I am missing some important detail, this looks fairly >straightforward. HY is the S3F pronoun 'she', and like the other >personal pronouns in Aramaic can also be used to express the >present tense of the verb 'to be'. Thus here it means 'she is', and >refers to the roof/portico, )GR), which is the feminine subject of >the sentence. Hence: "this portico yours is" > "this portico is >yours". > >Best wishes, > >David Taylor > > >*************************************************************************** >Dr David G.K.Taylor email: d.g.k.taylor@bham.ac.uk >Department of Theology, tel: 0121-414 5666 >University of Birmingham, fax: 0121-414 6866 >Birmingham B15 2TT, >U.K. >*************************************************************************** > > From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Feb 3 12:10:17 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA00378; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 12:10:16 -0500 Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 12:13:02 -0500 From: "Harold P. Scanlin" Subject: tc-list OT variants in Rabbinic literature To: TC-List Message-ID: <199902031213_MC2-6914-81CF@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: 926 Here are a few more bibliographic leads: Maori, Yeshayahu, "Rabbinic Midrash as Evidence for Textual Variants in t= he Hebrew Bible: History and Practice." In _Modern scholarship in the study= of Torah_, Shalom Carmy, editor, (The Orthodox Forum), Northvale, NJ: Jas= on Aronson, 1996, pp. 101-129. Leiman, Sid Z., "Masorah and Halakhah: A Study in Conflict." In _Tehilla= h le-Moshe . . . studies in honor of Moshe Greenberg_ (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1997), pp. 285 - 306. and the "classic" study by Victor Aptowitzer, _Das Schriftwort in der rabbinischen Literature_ (original edition, Vienna 1906 - 1915; reprint KTAV, 1970, with a new Prolegomenon by Samuel Loewinger). He covers only= Joshua to 2 Samuel. The HUBP edition (Isaiah and Jeremiah so far) also records a number of variants from Rabbinic literature. Harold P. Scanlin United Bible Societies 1865 Broadway New York, NY 10023 scanlin@compuserve.com From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Feb 3 12:50:39 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA00603; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 12:50:37 -0500 Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 11:54:19 -0600 (CST) X-Sender: ljgrn@bluejay.creighton.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: ljgrn@creighton.edu (Leonard Greenspoon) Subject: tc-list IOSCS CALL FOR PAPERS 1999 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1623 CALL FOR PAPERS -- 1999 [READ AND PASS ON TO COLLEAGUES] The International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies will meet this year in Boston, MA, in conjunction with the Society of Biblical Literature and the American Academy of Religion. The meeting dates are 20-23 November 1999. Any IOSCS member interested in presenting a paper should send me a proposal by March 15 at the latest. Your proposal should contain your name, the name of your academic institution, the title of your proposed paper, and a summary or abstract of the paper. The summary should be no more than 300 words in length and must be doubled spaced. In keeping with the description provided by the SBL, your abstract should: "State the problem, the essential background, and your conclusions...Be precise and brief: everyone knows you will provide more detail and a defense of your conclusions at the meeting." SBL members will find the necessary forms and further information in the current SBL Call for Papers. Others can obtain the forms, etc., from the SBL web site or from me. I am confident that we will continue our tradition of presenting a strong and interesting program at each of our meetings. I can be contacted through any of the following means MAIL: Leonard Jay Greenspoon Klutznick Chair in Jewish Civilization Creighton University 2500 California Plaza Omaha, Nebraska 68178 USA TELEPHONE: (402) 280-2303/04 FAX: (402) 280-1454 E-MAIL: LJGRN@CREIGHTON.EDU Very sincerely, Leonard Greenspoon From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Feb 3 17:09:24 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA03158; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 17:09:23 -0500 From: Cook@AKAD.SUN.AC.ZA Organization: University Stellenbosch To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 00:12:43 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: tc-list IOSCS CALL FOR PAPERS 1999 Priority: normal In-reply-to: X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.54) Message-Id: Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 243 I for one will certainly be willing to do be a paper. I'll send my topic soon . Prof. Johann Cook Department of Ancient Near Eastern Studies University of Stellenbosch 7600 Stellenbosch SOUTH AFRICA tel 22-21-8083207 fax: 22-21-8083480 From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Feb 3 20:58:24 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA04215; Wed, 3 Feb 1999 20:58:22 -0500 Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 10:02:00 +0800 (WST) From: Timothy John Finney X-Sender: finney@central To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: tc-list Provenance of mss In-Reply-To: <199902021743.MAA22004@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1927 Dear everyone, I think that I have discovered a way to tell where NT manuscripts (with substantial amounts of text) were written. As you may know, I transcribed all of the papyrus and uncial manuscripts of the Letter to the Hebrews. Next I wrote programs that collated them all with each other to produce a data matrix of all variations among all these manuscripts. Then I separated textual from spelling variations. At this point I had two separate sets of data matrices: one spelling variation matrix per manuscript and one textual variation matrix per manuscript. Finally, I put the matrices through a multivariate analysis procedure called classical scaling. This plots the manuscripts as single points on a two dimensional map (to put it simply and to leave out lots of explanation about higher dimensions). Manuscripts that have lots of the same variations are close together while those with hardly any of the same variations are put far apart. The maps show clear groupings. Quite often a manuscript ends up near the same neighbours in textual and spelling maps. At other times they shift between groups depending on the perspective. I attribute this phenomenon to spelling variation being more volatile than textual variation in the hands of a typical scribe. In my opinion, the groups observed in the spelling variation maps (and they are definite groups -- not just a random spread) are related to localitites. Some implications: (1) There _is_ such a thing as a local text. The maps show that there are three main groups. (After much discussion I associate these, very tentatively, with Egypt, Palestine, and Constantinople/Antioch.) (2) The spelling maps indicate manuscript provenance. For your interest (and dismay?), Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, and Claromontanus all are neighbours of P46 and P13 in the spelling perspective. That is, they were all written in Egypt. Best regards, Tim Finney. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Feb 4 09:05:28 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA07942; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 09:05:26 -0500 Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 09:05:25 -0500 Message-Id: <199902041405.JAA07937@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> >Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 09:11:03 +0100 From: "Dr. Ulrich Schmid" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list Provenance of mss Content-Type: text Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 873 Tim Finney wrote: [...] > Some implications: > > (1) There _is_ such a thing as a local text. The maps show that there > are three main groups. (After much discussion I associate these, very > tentatively, with Egypt, Palestine, and Constantinople/Antioch.) > > (2) The spelling maps indicate manuscript provenance. For your interest > (and dismay?), Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, and Claromontanus all > are neighbours of P46 and P13 in the spelling perspective. That is, they > were all written in Egypt. Thanks Tim, that sounds interesting. One immetidate question arises, however: How do the dates of the MSS relate to your spelling map? Is it possible to exclude *vertical* changes of spelling fashions in favour of more *horizontally* arranged geographic distribution? ------------------------------------------ Dr. Ulrich Schmid U.B.Schmid@t-online.de From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Feb 4 09:06:33 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA07979; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 09:06:31 -0500 Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 09:06:29 -0500 Message-Id: <199902041406.JAA07971@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> >Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 10:49:56 GMT From: "David G.K. Taylor" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: tc-list Cowley's Aramaic Papyrus No. 5 Content-Type: text Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1196 Dear Albert, I think the line can best be read by understanding there to be a pause or a break between the pronoun HY and the relative particle ZY (the equivalent of a comma, although I note that Cowley actually uses a fullstop). Thus ZY is not simply modifying the HY but refers back to the subject of the preceding sentence/clause, ie 'this roof/portico', thus producing: "this portico, which adjoins my house at the upper corner, is yours". I don't think that this construction is particularly unusual in any dialect of Aramaic. Does this get any closer to answering your question? Best wishes, David *************************************************************************** Dr David G.K.Taylor email: d.g.k.taylor@bham.ac.uk Department of Theology, tel: 0121-414 5666 University of Birmingham, fax: 0121-414 6866 Birmingham B15 2TT, U.K. *************************************************************************** From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Feb 4 09:42:17 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA08245; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 09:42:16 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <199902021743.MAA22004@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 08:37:21 -0600 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: tc-list Provenance of mss Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1737 On 2/3/99, Timothy John Finney wrote, in part: >(1) There _is_ such a thing as a local text. The maps show that there >are three main groups. (After much discussion I associate these, very >tentatively, with Egypt, Palestine, and Constantinople/Antioch.) I don't think anyone will really argue with this, though they may argue about which texts go with which areas. :-) I do think that this system needs to include the leading minuscules (at minimum, 33, 81, 451, 1611, 1739, 1881, 2127). Without that, you are missing at least four major groups (Family 1739, Family 330, Family 2127/1319, Family 1611/2138), as well as the later history of the Alexandrian text. >(2) The spelling maps indicate manuscript provenance. For your interest >(and dismay?), Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, and Claromontanus all >are neighbours of P46 and P13 in the spelling perspective. That is, they >were all written in Egypt. If Claromontanus weren't in the list, I don't think anyone would have any problem with that. :-) But there is an observation here: All your "Egyptian" manuscripts are also your oldest complete manuscripts. And, since F and G don't have the Greek text of Hebrews, you have no control on the "Western" text. I ask, simply in the spirit of friendly aggression :-), if you have considered the possibility that your correlation of spelling with location might instead be a correlation of spelling with age? -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Feb 4 22:36:03 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA13456; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 22:36:01 -0500 Message-ID: <36BA68B8.D65D7A38@flash.net> Date: Thu, 04 Feb 1999 21:42:48 -0600 From: Andrew Payne Organization: FamilyFirst Ministries 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 Provenance of mss References: <199902041405.JAA07937@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: 1348 I understand what you mean, but isn't this highly dependent on visual contact with the exemplar? By this, itacisms and the like would not be nearly as constant with someone reading from the exemplar and the scribe copying what he heard (try collating with another person). Maybe you have something and I'm reluctant to admit it. But, I'm not so sure Frederik Wisse was that successful either. Andrew Payne "Dr. Ulrich Schmid" wrote: > Tim Finney wrote: > [...] > > Some implications: > > > > (1) There _is_ such a thing as a local text. The maps show that there > > are three main groups. (After much discussion I associate these, very > > tentatively, with Egypt, Palestine, and Constantinople/Antioch.) > > > > (2) The spelling maps indicate manuscript provenance. For your interest > > (and dismay?), Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, and Claromontanus all > > are neighbours of P46 and P13 in the spelling perspective. That is, they > > were all written in Egypt. > > Thanks Tim, that sounds interesting. One immetidate question arises, however: > How do the dates of the MSS relate to your spelling map? Is it possible to > exclude *vertical* changes of spelling fashions in favour of more *horizontally* > arranged geographic distribution? > > ------------------------------------------ > Dr. Ulrich Schmid > U.B.Schmid@t-online.de From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Feb 5 02:20:01 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id CAA14061; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 02:20:00 -0500 From: "Wieland Willker" To: "TC-List" Subject: tc-list P. Egerton 2 and Luke 6:4 D Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 08:23:30 +0100 Message-Id: <000001be50d8$6e662ae0$75066686@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: 1049 Since I am collecting the canonical parallels for Papyrus Egerton 2, maybe I see parallels now everywhere, but I would like to ask you about this one: Egerton line 2 - 5: 2 [................. kai eipen] toiv nomikoiv: 3 [kolazete pa]nta ton paraprass[onta] 4 [kai ano]mon kai mh eme. [...........] 5 [..........]opoiei pwv poie[i.] Reconstructions from Bell/Skeat. The letter before the "o" of opoiei is possibly an "n" or an "m" or an "i". Luke 6:4 (Jesus and the Sabbath) Codex Bezae adds: th auth hmera qeasamenov tina ergazomenon tw sabbatw eipen autw. anqrwpe, ei men oidav ti poieiv, makariov ei. ei de mh oidav, epikataratov kai parabathv ei tou nomou. Is there a correlation, to what extent and how can this help for a reconstruction of line 4 - 5? What do you think? 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 Fri Feb 5 09:30:36 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA16101; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 09:30:34 -0500 Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 09:30:33 -0500 Message-Id: <199902051430.JAA16096@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> >Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 11:20:58 +0100 From: "Dr. Ulrich Schmid" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list Provenance of mss Content-Type: text Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2486 Maybe my point was not clear enough, but it was basically the same point Bob Waltz addressed. The clusters on a spelling map *may* represent chronological instead of geographical distribution. What are the reasons to favour the one explanation over the other? Another question arises with respect to Tim's placing of Codex Alexandrinus among the "Egyptian" manuscripts. This may well be correct on the level of the individual manuscript, but what about the text it represents? Since the geographical associations (Egypt, Palestine, Constantinople) are so closely related to very prominent associations of "text-types", I wonder what the distribution in the Gospels might look like. Assuming for the moment the same groupings on a spelling map for Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, AND Alexandrinus within the Gospels, I wonder what the geographical associations may explain (imply?, represent?), for the textual affiliations certainly change. Ulrich Andrew Payne wrote: > I understand what you mean, but isn't this highly dependent on visual contact > with > the exemplar? By this, itacisms and the like would not be nearly as constant > with > someone reading from the exemplar and the scribe copying what he heard (try > collating with another person). Maybe you have something and I'm reluctant > to admit > it. But, I'm not so sure Frederik Wisse was that successful either. > > Andrew Payne > > "Dr. Ulrich Schmid" wrote: > > > Tim Finney wrote: > > [...] > > > Some implications: > > > > > > (1) There _is_ such a thing as a local text. The maps show that there > > > are three main groups. (After much discussion I associate these, very > > > tentatively, with Egypt, Palestine, and Constantinople/Antioch.) > > > > > > (2) The spelling maps indicate manuscript provenance. For your interest > > > (and dismay?), Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, and Claromontanus all > > > are neighbours of P46 and P13 in the spelling perspective. That is, they > > > were all written in Egypt. > > > > Thanks Tim, that sounds interesting. One immetidate question arises, > however: > > How do the dates of the MSS relate to your spelling map? Is it possible to > > exclude *vertical* changes of spelling fashions in favour of more > *horizontally* > > arranged geographic distribution? > > > > ------------------------------------------ > > Dr. Ulrich Schmid > > U.B.Schmid@t-online.de > ------------------------------------------ Dr. Ulrich Schmid U.B.Schmid@t-online.de From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Feb 5 09:32:43 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA16127; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 09:32:41 -0500 Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 09:32:40 -0500 Message-Id: <199902051432.JAA16122@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> >Date: Sat, 07 Nov 1998 21:41:11 -0500 From: John Albu To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: tc-list Iota adscript in mss of LXX and NT Content-Type: text Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 247 Iota adscript is found in the following mss of LXX: Ryl. 458, Fouad 266, 4Q LXX Numbers, and 4Q LXX Lev a. It is found in one ms of the NT, namely, in P45. Does anybody know other mss of LXX and NT that have iota adscript? John Albu, New York From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Feb 5 20:00:40 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA24755; Fri, 5 Feb 1999 20:00:38 -0500 Message-ID: <36BB95D0.3CB1060F@flash.net> Date: Fri, 05 Feb 1999 19:07:28 -0600 From: Andrew Payne Organization: FamilyFirst Ministries X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list Subject: tc-list Provenance of MSS 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: 192 My apologies to Dr. Schmid. I understood and agreed with your original post. My response was to Mr. Finney's post, but I attached my comments to the top of the wrong message. Andrew Payne From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Feb 6 08:16:10 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA26794; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 08:16:08 -0500 From: "Wieland Willker" To: "Synoptic-L" , "TC-List" Subject: tc-list Codex formats Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1999 14:19:40 +0100 Message-Id: <000001be51d3$5a1c3560$60066686@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: 1125 I've just read E.G. Turners book "The typology of the early codex". He has an interesting table of codex formats and has separated several groups. I have a problem with this though. I can't see any groups here. It's just a random variation of all thinkable formats. Have a look at my little graphic at: http://www1.uni-bremen.de/~wie/Codex-Formate.jpg which shows this random variation of breadth versus hight for all codices with a breadth between 11 and 15 cm. There are no groups. He said, his groups are "significant groupings about a norm". I have correlated also the H/B ratio versus date. There is no clear correlation. Maybe a very small tendency from large H/B ratios to a smaller one, but not statístically signifficant. This is what I've suspected, there is no "early codex typology". Best wishes Wieland PS: I cross-post this mail to Synoptic-L and the TC-List. ------------------------ 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 Feb 6 10:00:02 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA27069; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 10:00:00 -0500 Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1999 23:03:40 +0800 (WST) From: Timothy John Finney X-Sender: finney@central To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: tc-list Ms provenances In-Reply-To: <199902050730.CAA14176@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1431 In reply to some questions: Ulrich Scmid asked whether it was possible to exclude vertical changes (i.e. spellings from different eras) from horizontal changes (i.e. spellings from same era). The answer is yes, but then there would not be enough mss to compare with each other. The thing about multivariate analysis is that you need to compare groups of things with each other. As things stand I am only working with about fifteen mss in a typical map. This is only just enough to begin to show group structure. Anyway, this is a good point Ulrich. All I can say is that it would be good to have more fully transcribed mss (with spelling intact). Unfortunately there are not enough early mss to allow large groups of, say, the same century to be compared. Bob Waltz said that I need to include more mss such as M33, M81, M1739, M1881, M2127. I have done this for the textual perspective using information from the UBS4 apparatus. However I need full transcriptions to include the spelling, and I don't have a year up my sleeve in order to do the complete transcriptions. You are right Bob, this needs to be done for more mss. Andrew Payne mentioned dependence on visual contact with the exemplar. As far as the comparison of spelling goes, the maps show that some manuscripts have similar spellings to others. The full picture only emerges when all kinds of spelling transformation are considered. Best regards, Tim Finney. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Feb 6 10:22:34 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA27158; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 10:22:33 -0500 Message-ID: <36BC64B7.F21F0C35@historian.net> Date: Sat, 06 Feb 1999 09:50:15 -0600 From: Jack Kilmon 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 Ms provenances 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: 2040 Timothy John Finney wrote: > > In reply to some questions: > > Ulrich Scmid asked whether it was possible to exclude vertical changes > (i.e. spellings from different eras) from horizontal changes (i.e. > spellings from same era). The answer is yes, but then there would not be > enough mss to compare with each other. The thing about multivariate > analysis is that you need to compare groups of things with each other. As > things stand I am only working with about fifteen mss in a typical map. > This is only just enough to begin to show group structure. > > Anyway, this is a good point Ulrich. All I can say is that it would be > good to have more fully transcribed mss (with spelling intact). > Unfortunately there are not enough early mss to allow large groups of, > say, the same century to be compared. > > Bob Waltz said that I need to include more mss such as M33, M81, M1739, > M1881, M2127. I have done this for the textual perspective using > information from the UBS4 apparatus. However I need full transcriptions to > include the spelling, and I don't have a year up my sleeve in order to do > the complete transcriptions. You are right Bob, this needs to be done for > more mss. > > Andrew Payne mentioned dependence on visual contact with the exemplar. As > far as the comparison of spelling goes, the maps show that some > manuscripts have similar spellings to others. The full picture only > emerges when all kinds of spelling transformation are considered. I cant help but think of C. Sinaiticus where two of the three scribes whose hand is evident were not such good spellers while "scribe A" seems not to have made many mistakes at all. How do multiple scribes at work on a ms with varying competence in spelling fit into this paradigm? How does the transmission of spelling errors from various source exemplars of unknown provenance fit in? Jack -- ______________________________________________ taybutheh d'maran yeshua masheecha am kulkon Jack Kilmon jkilmon@historian.net http://www.historian.net From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Feb 6 10:30:28 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA27201; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 10:30:27 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com (Unverified) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <000001be51d3$5a1c3560$60066686@wieland> Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1999 09:33:47 -0600 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu, "Synoptic-L" From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: tc-list Codex formats Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2310 On 2/6/99, Wieland Willker wrote: >I've just read E.G. Turners book "The typology of the early codex". >He has an interesting table of codex formats and has separated several >groups. >I have a problem with this though. I can't see any groups here. It's just a >random variation of all thinkable formats. >Have a look at my little graphic at: >http://www1.uni-bremen.de/~wie/Codex-Formate.jpg >which shows this random variation of breadth versus hight for all codices >with a breadth between 11 and 15 cm. There are no groups. >He said, his groups are "significant groupings about a norm". >I have correlated also the H/B ratio versus date. There is no clear >correlation. Maybe a very small tendency from large H/B ratios to a smaller >one, but not stat=EDstically signifficant. >This is what I've suspected, there is no "early codex typology". Based on the chart at the web address, I think I agree partly with both of you. I should note that this is based *just on the graph*; I haven't seen the data. We should also note that the two axes of the graph are not to the same scale. (BTW: A hint. If you do any more such graphs, save them in GIF format. For an image like this, with only three colours, the GIF file will probably be smaller and will certainly be easier to read.) I observe two things: 1. There appears to be one real cluster, centered at 16Hx14B 2. There also appears to be a desired *shape* (not a size, but a ratio of width to height). Without the numbers, I can't calculate the exact slope and intercept, but it appears that we have something on the order of: H =3D 6.5B - 64 Which I'll admit is rather strange.... But I think we have to face the fact that there will be a lot of "noise" in data like this, based on the available writing materials. Indeed, the pattern Turner saw might be the result of the use of standard materials. Wish I knew more. But my feeling is that there is something of a pattern to that data -- just not a strong pattern. :-) -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Feb 6 10:42:27 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA27284; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 10:42:25 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <199902050730.CAA14176@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1999 09:46:39 -0600 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: tc-list Ms provenances Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1928 Timothy John Finney wrote, in part: [ age vs. location ] >Anyway, this is a good point Ulrich. All I can say is that it would be >good to have more fully transcribed mss (with spelling intact). >Unfortunately there are not enough early mss to allow large groups of, >say, the same century to be compared. Which is why we need a similar study of late manuscripts -- preferably manuscripts whose dates and places of origin are known. The sad fact is, what we have here is an uncontrolled experiment. :-( >Bob Waltz said that I need to include more mss such as M33, M81, M1739, >M1881, M2127. I have done this for the textual perspective using >information from the UBS4 apparatus. However I need full transcriptions to >include the spelling, and I don't have a year up my sleeve in order to do >the complete transcriptions. You are right Bob, this needs to be done for >more mss. On second thought, 33 is probably out. Too hard to read! The good news is, two of the most important manuscripts have been published. 1739 is collated in Lake & New, _Six New Testament Manuscripts_ and 330 (near-sister of 451, except -- sadly -- in Hebrews) in Davies's work on 2344. (I don't have bibliographic information at hand, but I can get it if need be.) 1739, at least, is interesting in that it has a lot of *major* differences from the Received Text (as one would expect of such a manuscript), but the number of small deviations, such as spelling, is very slight (comparable to the number in Omega, which tells you something). This fact, in itself, probably tells us something about the history of scribal habits.... -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Feb 6 11:28:27 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA27420; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 11:28:26 -0500 From: "Wieland Willker" To: "TC-List" Subject: tc-list Re: Codex formats Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1999 17:31:58 +0100 Message-Id: <000001be51ee$374fde40$65066686@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: 1992 Here are the values: Maybe you have some more luck in finding patterns: The names are from Turners book. > But my feeling is that there is something of a > pattern to that data -- just not a strong pattern. :-) There might be a pattern, but no pattern which is any help in dating or reconstruction of new or damaged manuscripts. Breadth Hight Name H//B Date 14.7 24.2 c48 1.65 4 14 24.2 p47 1.73 3 14.8 22.5 334 1.52 4 14 21.7 c29 1.55 6 14 21 341 1.50 3 14 18.5 c16 1.32 7 13.7 19.7 210 1.44 5 13.5 20 530 1.48 4 13.5 20 c30 1.48 4 13.1 19.5 503 1.49 4 13 20 p28 1.54 3 14.8 32 354 2.16 6 14.5 32 550 2.21 6 14 32 ot187 2.29 4 14 30 46 2.14 3 14.7 27.9 c46 1.90 4 14.5 29 199a 2.00 4 14.4 30 c41 2.08 4 14.3 28.2 c51 1.97 4 14 27.5 60 1.96 4 14 27 ot222 1.93 4 14 27 140 1.93 4 13.8 27.2 c53 1.97 4 13.5 24.5 224a 1.81 2 13 27.5 225 2.12 4 13 26 p75 2.00 3 13 26 100a 2.00 3 12.5 25 c2 2.00 4 12.5 25 p5 2.00 3 12.1 26.6 c50 2.20 4 12 24.7 p1 2.06 3 12 25 c8 2.08 4 12 24.5 419 2.04 3 12 23 79 1.92 4 11 25 c11 2.27 5 11.5 25 529 2.17 3 11 24.3 ot9 2.21 2 11 21.5 misc2 1.95 7 11 20 ot19a 1.82 4 13.7 32.5 150 2.37 3 13 30.5 m1 2.35 4 13 29.5 106 2.27 3 13 33 p69 2.54 3 12.8 34.4 ot207a 2.69 3 12.5 33.1 280 2.65 2 12.5 31 263 2.48 4 12.3 28 m2 2.28 4 11 30 21 2.73 3 13.5 23 281 1.70 3 13.3 24 c45 1.80 4 13 24 ot75a 1.85 3 13.2 23 ot223 1.74 5 14.2 16.2 p66 1.14 3 14.2 15.5 ot87a 1.09 4 14 16.6 214 1.19 5 14 16 208 1.14 4 14 15 c9 1.07 4 13.5 15 c34 1.11 5 13 15.5 c10 1.19 4 14 18 ot180 1.29 6 14 17 ot22 1.21 4 13.5 17 p4 1.26 3 13 18 355b 1.38 4 13 18 p64p67 1.38 2 12.8 16.7 134 1.30 3 12.4 16.6 ot15 1.34 4 12 17 ot165 1.42 3 12 17 ot51 1.42 3 11.5 16 ot43 1.39 3 14.3 12.2 c6 0.85 4 11.4 12.6 446a 1.11 4 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 Feb 6 15:14:09 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA28063; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 15:14:07 -0500 Message-Id: <199902062014.PAA28052@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> From: "Dave Washburn" To: b-hebrew@franklin.oit.unc.edu, miqra@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu, orion@mscc.huji.ac.il, tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1999 13:19:47 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: tc-list Deut 32:8 in the DSS Priority: normal 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: 1019 There has apparently been some confusion on some of these lists lately regarding the status of Deuteronomy 32:8 and its preservation in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The confusion seems to emanate from a 1956 article by P. Skehan in BASOR, in which he mentioned a fragment that preserves the verse. In that article, he was discussing 4QDeut(q), and the wording seemed to indicate that this fragment included the verse. After checking the materials again including the photos, it appears that Skehan was not referring to 4QDeut(q), the scroll he was publishing, but 4QDeut(j), which was published much later in DJD 14. 4QDeut(q) does not have verse 8 at all. 4QDeut(j) reads BNY )LWHYM, a reading that may or may not support the suggestion by the BHS editors based on the LXX reading, BNY )L or BNY )LYM. In any case, it appears that this one fragment is the only attestation of the verse among the DSS corpus. 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 Sat Feb 6 20:34:36 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA29036; Sat, 6 Feb 1999 20:34:35 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: tc-list Re: Provenance of mss Message-ID: <19990206.203727.4551.0.seventh.guardian@juno.com> References: <199902051430.JAA16096@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> X-Mailer: Juno 1.49 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0,2-3,6-8,11,14-15,19-20,33-34,37 From: M A Robinson Date: Sat, 06 Feb 1999 20:37:52 EST Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2008 On Fri, 5 Feb 1999 09:30:33 -0500 "Dr. Ulrich Schmid" writes: >Another question arises with respect to Tim's placing of Codex Alexandrinus among >the "Egyptian" manuscripts. This may well be correct on the level of the >individual manuscript, but what about the text it represents? [snip] > I wonder what the distribution in the Gospels might look like. Assuming for the >moment the same groupings on a spelling map for Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, AND >Alexandrinus within the Gospels, I wonder what the geographical associations may >explain (imply?, represent?), for the textual affiliations certainly change. Ulrich makes a good point here, and the question (addressed to Tim Finney) would be whether he has made or intends to examine the particular spellings in Codex Alexandrinus in regard to the gospels (or a sample portion thereof) in contrast to the text of Alexandrinus in Hebrews. Ulrich assumed "for the moment the same groupings", but I wonder whether such would in fact be the case. If Tim can tell us anything on this point, it would be interesting indeed. If as I and others suspect Alexandrinus was made up from at least two and maybe three or even four separate exemplar copies reflecting the eapr divisions, then spelling differences _could_ be presumed between Hebrews and the gospels due to the different exemplars involved (which also happen to reflect different texttypes). On the other hand, if the _same_ map of spelling variations would exist in Alexandrinus in the gospels as well as in Hebrews then either (a) the scribe(s) of Alexandrinus were Egyptian or (b) the exemplars of Alexandrinus were copied in Egypt, whether or not Alexandrinus had been; or (c) the spellings may be incidental and related to a time frame, as Bob Waltz suggested. But it would first be helpful to know whether a spelling map for Alexandrinus in the gospels would parallel or differ from that of Alexandrinus in Hebrews. Can you help shed some light on this, Tim? From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Feb 7 18:20:16 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA02547; Sun, 7 Feb 1999 18:20:15 -0500 From: dd-1@juno.com To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1999 17:23:08 -0600 Subject: tc-list Josephus Ant 18.3.3 Message-ID: <19990207.172308.-937603.0.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: 576 Denny Diehl here Perhaps this is not the right forum for this question. If so, please forgive. Does anyone have a handle on Josephus in Ant 18.3.3 if there is textual evidence of it being an interpolation: "Now, there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man ... He was the Christ..." ___________________________________________________________________ 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 Feb 7 21:41:55 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA02998; Sun, 7 Feb 1999 21:41:53 -0500 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1999 22:52:49 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: JOxford@net1plus.com (Jim Oxford) Subject: Re: tc-list Josephus Ant 18.3.3 Cc: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 674 At 18:23 2/7/99, dd-1@juno.com wrote: >Denny Diehl here > >Perhaps this is not the right forum for this question. >If so, please forgive. > >Does anyone have a handle on Josephus in Ant 18.3.3 >if there is textual evidence of it being an interpolation: > > "Now, there was about this time, Jesus, a wise > man, if it be lawful to call him a man ... He was > the Christ..." have a look at jp meier's "jesus in josephus: a modest proposal," cbq 52 (1990): 76-103. meier treats the testimonium flavianum thoroughly, arguing that "this one was the christ" was a christian interpolation. Jim Oxford Ph D candidate in NT Baylor University joxford@net1plus.com From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Feb 7 21:50:35 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA03050; Sun, 7 Feb 1999 21:50:34 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19990208040026.010e99d0@mclink.it> X-Sender: mc2499@mclink.it X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 08 Feb 1999 04:00:26 +0100 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: Ian Hutchesson Subject: Re: tc-list Josephus Ant 18.3.3 In-Reply-To: <19990207.172308.-937603.0.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: 654 At 17.23 07/02/99 -0600, you wrote: >Denny Diehl here > >Perhaps this is not the right forum for this question. >If so, please forgive. > >Does anyone have a handle on Josephus in Ant 18.3.3 >if there is textual evidence of it being an interpolation: > > "Now, there was about this time, Jesus, a wise > man, if it be lawful to call him a man ... He was > the Christ..." Origen (Contra Celsus i,47) said Josephus didn't believe in Jesus, so he didn't know about this passage. Eusebius knows the passage, so we have an indication of the limits. Besides, can you imagine a practising Jew like Josephus saying, "He was the Christ"? Unthinkable. Ian From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Feb 8 09:38:08 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA05648; Mon, 8 Feb 1999 09:38:07 -0500 Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 08:41:55 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199902081441.IAA01744@homer.bethel.edu> X-Sender: holmic@mailhost.bethel.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: Michael Holmes Subject: tc-list SBL NTTC call for papers Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 953 Colleagues, Many of you will have already received the 1999 "Call for Papers" for the upcoming SBL conference this November. For those of you who may not yet have received the announcement, and in light of the special interests of this list, I would like to highlight the following: New Testament Textual Criticism Paper proposals on any aspect of New Testament textual criticism are welcomed. Especially welcome are proposals that develop or discuss issues raised in the the 1997 theme session ("What do we mean by 'original' text?") or that address the topic of the value and/or significance of the papyri. If you have any interest in presenting a paper at the upcoming sessions, or know of someone who would, do not hesitate to contact me in this regard for further information and details. I will be happy to discuss the matter with you. Sincerely, Mike Holmes Program Chair, NTTC Section email: holmic@bethel.edu office phone: 651-638-6349 From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Feb 8 21:13:04 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA10340; Mon, 8 Feb 1999 21:13:03 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list Josephus Ant 18.3.3 Message-ID: <19990208.211628.4503.0.seventh.guardian@juno.com> References: X-Mailer: Juno 1.49 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-11,20-21,26-32 From: M A Robinson Date: Mon, 08 Feb 1999 21:16:39 EST Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1464 Denny Diehl writes: >>Does anyone have a handle on Josephus in Ant 18.3.3 >>if there is textual evidence of it being an interpolation: Jim Oxford writes: >have a look at jp meier's "jesus in josephus: a modest proposal," cbq >52 (1990): 76-103. meier treats the testimonium flavianum thoroughly, >arguing that "this one was the christ" was a christian interpolation. In contrast, take a look at Jakob van Bruggen, _Christ on Earth_ (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998 [Dutch original _Christus op aarde_ (Kampen: Kok, 1987)]), pp. 30-37, which, though allowing for some degree of possible Christian interpolation, nevertheless concludes "that Josephus's [sic] excursus about Jesus can be read as a meaningful passage that is an integral part of the design of the eighteenth book of his _Jewish Antiquities_ and as balanced information from a Jewish perspective about the historical background of the founder of the by then well-known group called Christians." (p. 36) I suspect however, that Mr. Diehl is not inquiring so much about speculations regarding interpolation, but about the actual absence (not the expansion) of the passage regarding Christ in any source manuscripts or versions. In that regard, I know of none, but would welcome any information. ============================================================== 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 Mon Feb 8 21:37:52 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA10428; Mon, 8 Feb 1999 21:37:50 -0500 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 22:48:50 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: JOxford@net1plus.com (Jim Oxford) Subject: Re: tc-list Josephus Ant 18.3.3 Cc: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 622 At 21:16 2/8/99, M A Robinson wrote: >I suspect however, that Mr. Diehl is not inquiring so much about >speculations regarding interpolation, but about the actual absence (not >the expansion) of the passage regarding Christ in any source manuscripts >or versions. In that regard, I know of none, but would welcome any >information. > i do not have meier's piece handy, but it seems to me that he stated that the slavonic version and one other (arabic?) did in fact include something like, "they believed this one was the christ." regards, jim Jim Oxford Ph D candidate in NT Baylor University joxford@net1plus.com From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Feb 9 07:14:39 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id HAA12605; Tue, 9 Feb 1999 07:14:38 -0500 From: dd-1@juno.com To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Cc: dd-1@juno.com Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 06:17:25 -0600 Subject: Re: tc-list Josephus Ant 18.3.3 Message-ID: <19990209.061725.-696593.1.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: 2269 Denny Diehl here >Jim Oxford writes: >>arguing that "this one was the Christ" was a Christian >>interpolation. That makes sense, which was the reason for my original question if there was an extant text which didn't include the Testimonium. That gives rise to another question: Does anyone know who was more zealous in preserving Josephus before Eusebius? Was it the Jewish community or the Christian community? Maurice notes: >In contrast, take a look at Jakob van Bruggen, _Christ on Earth_ >(Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998 [Dutch original _Christus op aarde_ >(Kampen: Kok, 1987)]), pp. 30-37, which, though allowing for some >degree of possible Christian interpolation, nevertheless concludes >"that Josephus's [sic] excursus about Jesus can be read as a >meaningful passage that is an integral part of the design of the >eighteenth book of his _Jewish Antiquities_ and as balanced >information from a Jewish perspective about the historical background >of the founder of the by then well-known group called Christians." I also have to wonder if Josephus was a bit ~unorthodox~ concerning his view of a Jewish Messiah (which might have allowed for the Testimonium Flavianum to be authentic)? E.g., concerning Vespasian he wrote: "But now, what did most elevate them in undertaking this war was an ambiguous oracle that was also found in their sacred writings, how, 'about that time, one from their country should become governor of the habitable earth.' The Jews took this prediction to belong to themselves in particular; and many were thereby deceived in their deter- mination. Now this oracle certainly denoted the government of Vespasian, who was appointed emperor in Judea." -Wars VI.v.4 Even Suetonius picked up on it: "A distinguished Jewish prisoner of Vespasian's, Josephus by name, insisted that he would soon be released by the very man who had put him in fetters, and who would then be Emperor." -The Twelve Caesars, Vespasian 5 I certainly appreciate all the input. ___________________________________________________________________ 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 Feb 9 08:40:14 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA21072; Tue, 9 Feb 1999 08:40:12 -0500 From: DSMynatt@aol.com Message-ID: <9cb0a764.36c03b3b@aol.com> Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 08:42:19 EST To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu, miqra@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: tc-list IOMS Call for Papers Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows sub 224 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1106 Call for Papers--1999 Meeting of the International Organization for Masoretic Studies The International Organization for Masoretic Studies will meet this year in Boston, MA, in conjunction with the SBL/AAR meeting, November 20-23, 1999. There will be two IOMS sessions at the 1999 annual meeting. The theme of the first will be "Integrating the Masorah into the Classroom: Using BHQ," and papers are by invitation. The second session will be open. Your proposal should contain your name, the name of your academic institution, the title of your proposed paper, and a summary or abstract of the paper. The summary should be no more than 300 words in length and must be doubled spaced. An SBL/AAR Annual Meeting participation form will also be needed by March 1. More specific information can be found in the Call for Papers or at the SBL web site. Abstracts, etc. should be to Dr. David Marcus, Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 3080 Broadway, New York, N.Y. 10027-4649 (DAMARCUS@JTSA.EDU) AND Dr. Daniel Mynatt, P.O. Box 1114, Anderson College, Anderson, SC 29621 (DSMynatt@aol.com). From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Feb 9 09:09:09 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA21230; Tue, 9 Feb 1999 09:09:07 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <19990209.061725.-696593.1.dd-1@juno.com> Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 08:12:33 -0600 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: tc-list Josephus Ant 18.3.3 Cc: dd-1@juno.com Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1026 On 2/9/99, dd-1@juno.com wrote, in small part: >I also have to wonder if Josephus was a bit ~unorthodox~ concerning >his view of a Jewish Messiah (which might have allowed for the >Testimonium Flavianum to be authentic)? E.g., concerning >Vespasian he wrote: Don't make too much of the Vespasian bit. Remember, Josephus got Vespasian's by a "prophecy," and proceeded to get ahead due to the favour of the Flavian dynasty. Of *course* Josephus would say anything he could think of that was favorable to Vespasian. :-) Also remember that Josephus, while definitely Jewish, didn't win any awards for his conviction. Remember who was the *only* survivor of the suicide pact at the citadel he commanded.... :-) -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Feb 10 07:06:36 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id HAA27962; Wed, 10 Feb 1999 07:06:34 -0500 Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 20:10:16 +0800 (WST) From: Timothy John Finney X-Sender: finney@central To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: tc-list Manuscript provenances In-Reply-To: <199902100730.CAA26601@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 3033 Sorry for my brief answers, but here goes... Ulrich Schmid asked why I think that the groups in my spelling maps reflect geography rather than date. My answer is that two of the groups (the later two) cover roughly the same time period (C4 to C10). Therefore, their separation must be due to something besides time. One manuscript from the earliest group (U16 = I) is dated fifth C., and so is contemporary with the earliest members of the other groups. I think all this is enough to eliminate time as a possible explanation of the grouping. I have also done a correlation test between manuscript dates and the map axes. There is little if any correlation. (Bob Waltz asked about this, but I neglected to answer him last post.) Ulrich suggests comparing the spelling of Alexandrinus in the Gospels and in Hebrews. Great idea! Maurice Robinson also raises this point, and asked whether I have any information. The answer is no. This analysis requires complete transcriptions. It took me three years to transcribe the thirty papyrus and uncial mss of Hebrews, and only half of those contain all of Hebrews. To do the same for the Gospels requires complete transcriptions of not just Alexandrinus but of the other important mss as well (the more the better). In short, I haven't got the transcriptions so I can't do the analysis to answer this important question. Even with the transcriptions, spelling and textual variations have to be separated from each other. This is also a time-consuming task. My intuition tells me that the spelling of Alexandrinus will stay the same but its text will change from the Egypt group it occupies in Hebrews to the Constantinople group expected for the Gospels. If it does not then my theory that textual peculiarities are preserved but exotic spellings are not will be sunk. Alexandrinus will prove to be a telling test. By the way, one of the more surprising results in the maps is that the text of Alexandrinus is virtually identical to the text of scribe A of Sinaiticus for Hebrews. These two are as close together as any of the near neighbours in my maps. Scribe D of Sinaiticus (who copied a folio of Hebrews) is not in the same textual place. Jack Kilmon asked how transmission of spelling errors from different exemplars fits in. After looking at the different groupings in textual and spelling maps, I thought up a hypothesis that might explain why the maps behave in the manner they do. My hypothesis is that strange texts are more likely to be conserved than strange spellings when a manuscript is copied. Therefore, if a manuscript is transported from one country to another, its textual peculiarities will be more likely to survive copying than its spelling peculiarities. A case in point is U243. Its spelling is in the group I (tentatively) associate with Constantinople, but its text is in the same group as P13, P46, U1, U2, U3, U4, and U16. Best regards, Tim Finney. P.S. Pray for me! I'm trying to complete my thesis by Friday!! (If I wasn't laughing I'd be crying.) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Feb 10 09:01:35 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA28454; Wed, 10 Feb 1999 09:01:33 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com (Unverified) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <199902100730.CAA26601@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 08:05:20 -0600 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: tc-list Manuscript provenances Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2051 On 2/10/99, Timothy John Finney wrote, in part: >Jack Kilmon asked how transmission of spelling errors from different >exemplars fits in. After looking at the different groupings in textual and >spelling maps, I thought up a hypothesis that might explain why the maps >behave in the manner they do. My hypothesis is that strange texts are more >likely to be conserved than strange spellings when a manuscript is copied. >Therefore, if a manuscript is transported from one country to another, its >textual peculiarities will be more likely to survive copying than its >spelling peculiarities. A case in point is U243. Its spelling is in the >group I (tentatively) associate with Constantinople, but its text is in >the same group as P13, P46, U1, U2, U3, U4, and U16. That last pretty well tears it. I have to say, you have a problem. Reason: You've got *three* text-types in that last group. Let's start at the beginning. Known fact (from Zuntz): P46 and B are not the same type as Aleph A C I. He calls P46/B "proto-Alexandrian" and the others "Alexandrian," and I disagree with that conclusion, but the point is, they aren't the same type. They are closer to each other than they are to D -- but that doesn't make them one. It is interesting to observe that U243 uses the orthography of Constantinople. Of course, this would be expected, because 0243 is a very close cousin of 1739 -- which also uses Byzantine orthography but has a non-Byzantine text. However, the text of 1739/0243 is *not* that of Aleph-A-C-I. Zuntz puts it with P46/B; I say it is its own type. But it *must* be distinguished from Aleph et al. And it is simply not valid to draw any conclusions about 0243 if your manuscript base does not include 1739. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Feb 10 09:53:08 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA28798; Wed, 10 Feb 1999 09:53:06 -0500 Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 09:53:05 -0500 Message-Id: <199902101453.JAA28793@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> >Date: Sun, 07 Feb 1999 21:37:21 -0600 From: "Jeffrey B. Gibson" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list Josephus Ant 18.3.3 Content-Type: text Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1026 Jim Oxford wrote: > > At 18:23 2/7/99, dd-1@juno.com wrote: > > >Denny Diehl here > > > >Perhaps this is not the right forum for this question. > >If so, please forgive. > > > >Does anyone have a handle on Josephus in Ant 18.3.3 > >if there is textual evidence of it being an interpolation: > > > > "Now, there was about this time, Jesus, a wise > > man, if it be lawful to call him a man ... He was > > the Christ..." > > have a look at jp meier's "jesus in josephus: a modest proposal," cbq 52 > (1990): 76-103. meier treats the testimonium flavianum thoroughly, > arguing that "this one was the christ" was a christian interpolation. There are also discussions in Schurer and in F.F. Bruce's _Jesus Outside the Gospels_. Moreover, a young contributer over on Crosstalk posted a rather fulsome review of the passage earlier this Summer, I believe. So check Crosstalk's archives. 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 Wed Feb 10 10:01:51 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA28941; Wed, 10 Feb 1999 10:01:49 -0500 Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 10:01:47 -0500 Message-Id: <199902101501.KAA28936@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> >Date: Mon, 08 Feb 1999 08:45:04 -0500 From: "Kevin W. Woodruff" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Cc: dd-1@juno.com Subject: Re: tc-list Josephus Ant 18.3.3 Content-Type: text Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 3014 Denny: The Church Father Origen (185-254 A.D.) states in his work _Against Celsus 1:47_ that: I would like to say to Celsus, who represents the Jew as accepting somehow John as a Baptist, who baptized Jesus, that the existence of John the Baptist, baptizing for the remission of sins, is related by one who lived no great length of time after John and Jesus. For in the 18th book of his Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus bears witness to John as having been a Baptist, and as promising purification to those who underwent the rite. Now this writer, although not believing in Jesus as the Christ, in seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, whereas he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these calamities befalling the people, since they put to death Christ, who was a prophet, says nevertheless ^× being, although against his will, not far from the truth ^× that these disasters happened to the Jews as a punishment for the death of James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus (called Christ), ^× the Jews having put him to death, although he was a man most distinguished for his justice. Paul, a genuine disciple of Jesus, says that he regarded this James as a brother of the Lord, not so much on account of their relationship by blood, or of their being brought up together, as because of his virtue and doctrine. If, then, he says that it was on account of James that the desolation of Jerusalem was made to overtake the Jews, how should it not be more in accordance with reason to say that it happened on account (of the death) of Jesus Christ, of whose divinity so many Churches are witnesses, composed of those who have been converted from a flood of sins, and who have joined themselves to the Creator, and who refer all their actions to His good pleasure. He says that Josephus did not believe Jesus to be the Messiah. This seems to indicate some type interpolation At 05:23 PM 2/7/99 -0600, you wrote: >Denny Diehl here > >Perhaps this is not the right forum for this question. >If so, please forgive. > >Does anyone have a handle on Josephus in Ant 18.3.3 >if there is textual evidence of it being an interpolation: > > "Now, there was about this time, Jesus, a wise > man, if it be lawful to call him a man ... He was > the Christ..." >___________________________________________________________________ >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 Wed Feb 10 10:02:32 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA28964; Wed, 10 Feb 1999 10:02:31 -0500 Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 10:02:30 -0500 Message-Id: <199902101502.KAA28959@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> >Date: Mon, 08 Feb 1999 08:52:34 -0500 From: "Kevin W. Woodruff" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list Josephus Ant 18.3.3 Content-Type: text Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1222 Denny: A good discussion of this passage is in F. F. Bruce's _Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament._ Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974, pages 32-53 At 05:23 PM 2/7/99 -0600, you wrote: >Denny Diehl here > >Perhaps this is not the right forum for this question. >If so, please forgive. > >Does anyone have a handle on Josephus in Ant 18.3.3 >if there is textual evidence of it being an interpolation: > > "Now, there was about this time, Jesus, a wise > man, if it be lawful to call him a man ... He was > the Christ..." >___________________________________________________________________ >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 Wed Feb 10 10:53:19 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA29429; Wed, 10 Feb 1999 10:53:18 -0500 From: "Mark Goodacre" Organization: The University of Birmingham To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 15:57:09 GMT MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: tc-list Josephus Ant 18.3.3 Priority: normal In-reply-to: <19990208.211628.4503.0.seventh.guardian@juno.com> Message-ID: <6DECD84192B@hhs.bham.ac.uk> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 853 For on-line treatments, you might like to try the following: http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~humm/Topics/JewishJesus/josephus.html by Alan Humm at UPenn -- features a nice reproduction in columns of translations of Greek / Arabic / Eisler's reconstruction http://members.aol.com/FLJOSEPHUS/home.htm Flavius Joseph Home Page by G. J. Goldberg, featuring a reproduction of his recent article on the Testimonium in Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha plus discussion of Meier and a variety of bits and bobs. Mark -------------------------------------- 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 Wed Feb 10 11:42:10 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA29820; Wed, 10 Feb 1999 11:42:07 -0500 Message-Id: <199902101642.LAA29815@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> From: "Dave Washburn" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 09:47:36 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: tc-list Josephus Ant 18.3.3 Priority: normal In-reply-to: <199902101502.KAA28959@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> 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: 1622 While I don't have the bib info handy, I believe Edwin Yamauchi did some work on this passage back in the 80's as well and published a number of articles on the subject. Periodical indexes should help locate them. > Denny: > > A good discussion of this passage is in F. F. Bruce's _Jesus and Christian > Origins Outside the New Testament._ Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974, pages 32-53 > > > At 05:23 PM 2/7/99 -0600, you wrote: > >Denny Diehl here > > > >Perhaps this is not the right forum for this question. > >If so, please forgive. > > > >Does anyone have a handle on Josephus in Ant 18.3.3 > >if there is textual evidence of it being an interpolation: > > > > "Now, there was about this time, Jesus, a wise > > man, if it be lawful to call him a man ... He was > > the Christ..." > >___________________________________________________________________ > >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 > > 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 Wed Feb 10 11:54:18 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA29887; Wed, 10 Feb 1999 11:54:17 -0500 From: "Mark Goodacre" Organization: The University of Birmingham To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 16:59:03 GMT MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: tc-list Josephus Ant 18.3.3 Priority: normal In-reply-to: <199902101642.LAA29815@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> References: <199902101502.KAA28959@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> Message-ID: <6DFD53A2651@hhs.bham.ac.uk> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 497 One more on-line address that I forgot to mention before -- the entry on the Testimonium in the Josephus-Bibliographie at Muenster: http://www.uni-muenster.de/Judaicum/Josephus/02testi.htm Mark -------------------------------------- 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 Wed Feb 10 12:58:35 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA00542; Wed, 10 Feb 1999 12:58:33 -0500 From: dd-1@juno.com To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 11:59:25 -0600 Subject: Re: tc-list Josephus Ant 18.3.3 Message-ID: <19990210.115925.-915233.1.dd-1@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 2.0.11 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-12,14-18 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: 1208 Kevin W., Denny Diehl here >The Church Father Origen (185-254 A.D.) states in his work _Against >Celsus 1:47_ that: >For in the 18th book of his Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus >bears witness to John as having been a Baptist, and as promising >purification to those who underwent the rite. Now this writer, >although not believing in Jesus as the Christ, in seeking after >the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, >whereas he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was >the cause of these calamities befalling the people, since they put to >death Christ, who was a prophet, says nevertheless ^× being, although >against his will, not far from the truth ^× that these disasters happened >to the Jews as a punishment for the death of James the Just, who was >a brother of Jesus (called Christ), ^× >From this quote (from Origen) it seems he is knowledgable of the Testimonium Flavianum. Do you agree? ___________________________________________________________________ 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 Wed Feb 10 17:22:24 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA03201; Wed, 10 Feb 1999 17:22:22 -0500 Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 17:22:20 -0500 Message-Id: <199902102222.RAA03196@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> >Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 13:33:28 -0500 From: "Kevin W. Woodruff" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Cc: dd-1@juno.com Subject: Re: tc-list Josephus Ant 18.3.3 Content-Type: text Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1846 Denny: I think at best it would be an argument from silence but Eusebius quotes the Testimonium Flavianum in his Ecclesiatical History. Kevin At 11:59 AM 2/10/99 -0600, you wrote: >Kevin W., Denny Diehl here > >>The Church Father Origen (185-254 A.D.) states in his work _Against >>Celsus 1:47_ that: > >>For in the 18th book of his Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus >>bears witness to John as having been a Baptist, and as promising >>purification to those who underwent the rite. Now this writer, >>although not believing in Jesus as the Christ, in seeking after >>the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, >>whereas he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was >>the cause of these calamities befalling the people, since they put to >>death Christ, who was a prophet, says nevertheless ^× being, although >>against his will, not far from the truth ^× that these disasters >happened >>to the Jews as a punishment for the death of James the Just, who was >>a brother of Jesus (called Christ), ^× > >From this quote (from Origen) it seems he is knowledgable of the >Testimonium Flavianum. Do you agree? >___________________________________________________________________ >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 Wed Feb 10 17:23:34 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA03227; Wed, 10 Feb 1999 17:23:32 -0500 Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 17:23:30 -0500 Message-Id: <199902102223.RAA03222@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> >Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 13:37:35 -0500 From: "Kevin W. Woodruff" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list Josephus Ant 18.3.3 Content-Type: text Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1240 Mark: I get: Forbidden You don't have permission to access /Judaicum/Josephus/02testi.htm on this server. Additionally, a 403 Forbidden error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request. when I try to access that URL Kevin At 04:59 PM 2/10/99 GMT, you wrote: >One more on-line address that I forgot to mention before -- the entry on the >Testimonium in the Josephus-Bibliographie at Muenster: > >http://www.uni-muenster.de/Judaicum/Josephus/02testi.htm > >Mark >-------------------------------------- >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 > > 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 Wed Feb 10 17:28:20 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA03277; Wed, 10 Feb 1999 17:28:18 -0500 Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 17:28:16 -0500 Message-Id: <199902102228.RAA03272@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> >Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 13:42:08 -0500 From: "Kevin W. Woodruff" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list Josephus Ant 18.3.3 Content-Type: text Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 3014 the article is: Yamauchi, Edwin M Josephus and the scriptures Fides et Historia 13 No 1:42-63 Fall 1980 The author compares Josephus' Antiquities with passages in Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Psalms, Daniel, Esther, and Ezra-Nehemiah. The comparisons reveal much that is tendentious and misleading in Josephus. On the other hand, Josephus provides valuable information on the Herodians and John the Baptist. The controversial passage about Jesus, the Testimonium Flavianum, was probably authentic though interpolated. Also discussed are the Slavonic Josephus, the Arabic Josephus, and Josephus' description of the Jewish-Roman War. Full references to the latest literature are included. At 09:47 AM 2/10/99 -0700, you wrote: >While I don't have the bib info handy, I believe Edwin Yamauchi did >some work on this passage back in the 80's as well and published >a number of articles on the subject. Periodical indexes should help >locate them. > >> Denny: >> >> A good discussion of this passage is in F. F. Bruce's _Jesus and Christian >> Origins Outside the New Testament._ Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974, pages 32-53 >> >> >> At 05:23 PM 2/7/99 -0600, you wrote: >> >Denny Diehl here >> > >> >Perhaps this is not the right forum for this question. >> >If so, please forgive. >> > >> >Does anyone have a handle on Josephus in Ant 18.3.3 >> >if there is textual evidence of it being an interpolation: >> > >> > "Now, there was about this time, Jesus, a wise >> > man, if it be lawful to call him a man ... He was >> > the Christ..." >> >___________________________________________________________________ >> >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 >> >> > > >Dave Washburn >http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur >A Bible that's falling apart means a life that isn't. > > 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 Feb 11 03:38:31 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id DAA05148; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 03:38:30 -0500 From: "Wieland Willker" To: "TC-List" , "Papy-list" , "Crosstalk" Subject: tc-list Thiede and Qumran Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 09:42:03 +0100 Message-Id: <000201be559a$662b7080$54066686@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: 1155 On this Saturday we will have a Bible exhibition here in Bremen and C.P. Thiede will give the opening lecture under the title "Jesus and Qumran". I think, he will be talking about 7Q5 and P4/64/67. Maybe I have the time to address one or two points at the end. What can I say? (Only laymen in the audience) Questions: 1. How probable is the assignment of 7Q5 to Mark? a) impossible b) very improbable c) improbable, but possible d) probable, but impossible to proof e) very probable Can you pass on to me all names of scholars who accept the Mark assignment, please? Can one say, it is an extrem minority position? 2. Are there any scholars who agree with Thiede's early dating of P4/64/67? Recently T.C.Skeat reexamined the case and gives the dating "late second century" the highest probability. Do you all agree? 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 (UPDATED: A. Criddle article, It's a forgery) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Feb 11 04:26:25 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id EAA05415; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 04:26:24 -0500 From: "Mark Goodacre" Organization: The University of Birmingham To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 09:30:44 GMT MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: tc-list Josephus Ant 18.3.3 Priority: normal In-reply-to: <199902102223.RAA03222@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> Message-ID: <6F05D1F285F@hhs.bham.ac.uk> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 926 On 10 Feb 99 at 17:23, Kevin W. Woodruff wrote: > I get: > > Forbidden > > You don't have permission to access /Judaicum/Josephus/02testi.htm on this > server. > > Additionally, a 403 Forbidden error was encountered while trying to use an > ErrorDocument to handle the request. > > when I try to access that URL I am not sure why, but perhaps it is because I gave the URL of the frame rather than the overarching URL. So try the following instead: http://www.uni-muenster.de/Judaicum/Welcome.html (Institutum Judaicum Delitzschianum on-line). Then go to "Bibliographie" and then to "Testimonium Flavianum". Mark -------------------------------------- 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 Feb 11 04:35:39 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id EAA05450; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 04:35:38 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19990211104540.010f7d20@mclink.it> X-Sender: mc2499@mclink.it X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 10:45:40 +0100 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: Ian Hutchesson Subject: Re: tc-list Thiede and Qumran In-Reply-To: <000201be559a$662b7080$54066686@wieland> 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: 1540 Wieland wrote: >On this Saturday we will have a Bible exhibition here in Bremen and C.P. >Thiede will give the opening lecture under the title "Jesus and Qumran". The two terms go together like cheese and toothbrush. He may want to believe that there is a connection but he has not seriously shown any (to my knowledge). >I think, he will be talking about 7Q5 and P4/64/67. The conclusion of the web article which deals with the other 7Q fragments: http://pw2.netcom.com/~emuro/7qenoch/article2.html is: In closing Fr. Puech goes on to say that fragment 7Q5 is not a part of the New Testament and that the task of identifying it should proceed calmly and without controversy. Noone seems particularly impressed by Thiede's work on the miniscule fragment which has so little text on it the best one can do without a context is guess. >Maybe I have the time to address one or two points at the end. >What can I say? (Only laymen in the audience) > >Questions: >1. How probable is the assignment of 7Q5 to Mark? > a) impossible > b) very improbable My choice ^ > c) improbable, but possible > d) probable, but impossible to proof > e) very probable >Can you pass on to me all names of scholars who accept the Mark assignment, >please? Can one say, it is an extrem minority position? Extreme minority. >2. Are there any scholars who agree with Thiede's early dating of P4/64/67? >Recently T.C.Skeat reexamined the case and gives the dating "late second >century" the highest probability. Do you all agree? Ian From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Feb 11 04:53:03 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id EAA05539; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 04:53:01 -0500 Message-Id: <199902110956.JAA15521@haymarket.ed.ac.uk> From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 09:54:21 +000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: tc-list Thiede and Qumran Priority: normal In-reply-to: <000201be559a$662b7080$54066686@wieland> 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: 419 I don't know of *any* scholars with competence in NT papyri who give *any* credance to Thiede's (and earlier O'Callaghan's) views on 7Q5 or on P4/64/67. Gordon Fee did another devastating job of Thiede's view on 7Q5 at the 98 SBL NT text-crit meeting. L. W. Hurtado University of Edinburgh, New College Mound Place Edinburgh, Scotland EH1 2LX Phone: 0131-650-8920 Fax: 0131-650-6579 E-mail: L.Hurtado@ed.ac.uk From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Feb 11 06:40:21 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id GAA06555; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 06:40:20 -0500 Message-ID: <36C2C2D7.5BBAAF5F@uni-muenster.de> Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 12:45:36 +0100 From: Klaus Wachtel X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [de] (Macintosh; I; PPC) X-Accept-Language: de MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu CC: Papy-list , Crosstalk Subject: Re: tc-list Thiede and Qumran References: <000201be559a$662b7080$54066686@wieland> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 956 Wieland Willker wrote: > Questions: > 1. How probable is the assignment of 7Q5 to Mark? > b) very improbable > 2. Are there any scholars who agree with Thiede's early dating of P4/64/67? I don't know of any. > Recently T.C.Skeat reexamined the case and gives the dating "late second > century" the highest probability. Do you all agree? I for one do agree with his (and Roberts') date. One can regard the matter of Thiede's "re-dating" of P64/67 as settled. In a recent article on P4/64/67 ("The oldest manuscript of the four gospels?" New Test. Stud. 43, 1997, 1-34), T.C. Skeat did not even mention Thiede's claims. On Thiede, 7Q5, and P64/67 I recommend Graham Stanton: Gospel Truth? London 1995, p. 1-62. Best wishes Klaus Wachtel ----------------------------------------------------------- Dr. Klaus Wachtel, wissenschaftlicher Mitarbeiter Westfaelische Wilhelms-Universitaet Muenster Institut fuer neutestamentliche Textforschung From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Feb 11 09:04:36 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA07027; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 09:04:35 -0500 Message-Id: <199902111408.JAA25368@web.provide.net> X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express Macintosh Edition - 4.5 (0410) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 09:04:36 -0500 Subject: Re: tc-list Thiede and Qumran 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: 526 Is Fee's essay available? -- Bill Combs Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary ---------- >From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" >To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu >Subject: Re: tc-list Thiede and Qumran >Date: Thu, Feb 11, 1999, 4:54 AM > > I don't know of *any* scholars with competence in NT papyri who > give *any* credance to Thiede's (and earlier O'Callaghan's) views on > 7Q5 or on P4/64/67. Gordon Fee did another devastating job of > Thiede's view on 7Q5 at the 98 SBL NT text-crit meeting. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Feb 11 09:16:58 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA07087; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 09:16:56 -0500 Message-Id: <199902111420.OAA19979@haymarket.ed.ac.uk> From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 14:18:13 +000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: tc-list Thiede and Qumran Priority: normal In-reply-to: <199902111408.JAA25368@web.provide.net> 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: 307 I don't know that Fee's SBL presentation has been published yet, but he may have plans. Contact him at Regent College, Vancouver, B.C. Canada. L. W. Hurtado University of Edinburgh, New College Mound Place Edinburgh, Scotland EH1 2LX Phone: 0131-650-8920 Fax: 0131-650-6579 E-mail: L.Hurtado@ed.ac.uk From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Feb 11 09:46:08 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA07301; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 09:46:06 -0500 Message-ID: <45D54DA9E035D21199F200A0C9E047A2B305@oak_pdc.oakhill.ac.uk> From: Peter Head To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: tc-list thiede and qumran etc. Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 14:39:34 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.1960.3) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 545 In his Dead Sea Scrolls: Major Publications and Tools for Study (SBL Resources 70; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990) J.A. Fitzmyer expresses himself very cautiously concerning the 7Q5 = Mark 6.52f question: "Though most scholars have been skeptical about the claims that O'Callaghan has been making, the issue cannot be simply dismissed." He has a five page bibliography on the subject. ............................................ Peter M. Head Oak Hill College LONDON N14 4PS peterh@oakhill.ac.uk ............................................ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Feb 11 10:11:17 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA07430; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 10:11:16 -0500 Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 10:14:47 -0500 From: Mike Bossingham Subject: tc-list Thiede and Qumran To: "INTERNET:tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu" Message-ID: <199902111015_MC2-6A1F-686D@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: 62 Hi, Do let us know how he responds Regards Mike Bossingham From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Feb 11 10:46:36 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA07698; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 10:46:35 -0500 Message-ID: <36C3019C.4A4F243D@historian.net> Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 10:13:16 -0600 From: Jack Kilmon X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Wieland Willker CC: TC-List , Papy-list , Crosstalk Subject: tc-list Re: Thiede and Qumran References: <000201be559a$662b7080$54066686@wieland> 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: 1463 Wieland Willker wrote: > > On this Saturday we will have a Bible exhibition here in Bremen and C.P. > Thiede will give the opening lecture under the title "Jesus and Qumran". > I think, he will be talking about 7Q5 and P4/64/67. > > Maybe I have the time to address one or two points at the end. > What can I say? (Only laymen in the audience) > > Questions: > 1. How probable is the assignment of 7Q5 to Mark? > a) impossible > b) very improbable > c) improbable, but possible > d) probable, but impossible to proof > e) very probable between b and c > Can you pass on to me all names of scholars who accept the Mark assignment, > please? O'Callaghan, of course, since he is the one that proposed 7Q5 as Mark Ferdinand Rohrhirsch (Catholic Univ) Herbert Hunger (Vienna), papyrologist Harald Risenfeld, Uppsala Eugen Ruckstuhl, Lucerne Can one say, it is an extrem minority position? I wouldn't say Extreme...but a minority position, yes. > > 2. Are there any scholars who agree with Thiede's early dating of P4/64/67? > Recently T.C.Skeat reexamined the case and gives the dating "late second > century" the highest probability. Do you all agree? My opinion is that Thiede has succumbed to the lure of popularity, the notice and the revenue that comes with it. Jack -- ______________________________________________ taybutheh d'maran yeshua masheecha am kulkon Jack Kilmon jkilmon@historian.net http://www.historian.net From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Feb 11 12:27:09 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA08727; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 12:27:08 -0500 From: WHITER@Citadel.edu Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 12:24:45 -0500 (EST) Subject: tc-list Why Not Latin? To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <01J7M8QH32DY8Y6AGG@Citadel.edu> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 456 1. Thank you for your thoughtful, interesting, and valuable responses to my January query on cruxes. They are most helpful to me. 2. Please humor me as I ask another undergraduate-like question: If, as I've read, "Mark" was written ca. 70 CE in Rome to Roman Christians, and if textual studies suggest that the author knew Latin, why would it not have been written in Latin rather than in Greek? Thanks, Robert A. White English Department The Citadel From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Feb 11 13:45:20 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA09380; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 13:45:18 -0500 Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19990211184440.00bd991c@utc.campuscw.net> X-Sender: cierpke.utc@utc.campuscw.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 13:44:40 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Kevin W. Woodruff" Subject: Re: tc-list Why Not Latin? Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1198 Greek was the lingua franca of the masses until the 3rd century A.D. Latin did not supplant it until later. Polybius, Josephus, the Early church Fathers all used Koine Greek until the time of Tertullian who was the first major Church Father to write in Latin At 12:24 PM 2/11/99 -0500, you wrote: >1. Thank you for your thoughtful, interesting, and valuable responses to my >January query on cruxes. They are most helpful to me. > >2. Please humor me as I ask another undergraduate-like question: If, as I've >read, "Mark" was written ca. 70 CE in Rome to Roman Christians, and if textual >studies suggest that the author knew Latin, why would it not have been written >in Latin rather than in Greek? > >Thanks, > >Robert A. White >English Department >The Citadel > > 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 Feb 11 16:18:22 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA10493; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 16:18:21 -0500 Message-Id: <199902112122.QAA43580@f04n07.cac.psu.edu> X-Sender: wlp1@mail.psu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0.2 Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 16:15:26 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "William L. Petersen" Subject: Re: tc-list Why Not Latin? In-Reply-To: <01J7M8QH32DY8Y6AGG@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: 6030 At 12:24 PM 2/11/99 -0500, Robert White wrote: [snip] >2. Please humor me as I ask another undergraduate-like question: If, as I've >read, "Mark" was written ca. 70 CE in Rome to Roman Christians, and if textual >studies suggest that the author knew Latin, why would it not have been written >in Latin rather than in Greek? > >Thanks, > >Robert A. White >English Department >The Citadel As for Mark in Latin, I know of no serious treatment in modern scholarship arguing for composition of Mark in Latin. For an overview of the original language/authorship matter, see Vincent Taylor, *The Gospel according to Mark* (2nd ed.; London: Macmillan, 1966), pp. 1-25 (history of scholarship) and 26-32 (author, provenance, date). Another handy resource is the *Anchor Bible Dictionary,* whose article on Mark is by Paul Achtermeier. Both of these scholars note that the "Latinisms" in Mark's text are in no way proof of composition in Latin for, as Taylor puts it (pp. 44-45): "Special interest belongs to Mark's use of...'Latin' words... The 'Latin' words are [list in Greek]. Of these words [subset of list] are found in other Gospels, but [second subset of the list] are peculiar to Mark. The presence of almost all [in a note, Taylor lists only one exception to what he is going to say...] these words in the [Greek] papyri shows that they belonged to the Koine, but their frequency in Mark suggests that the Evangelist wrote in a Roman environment." In other words, there is no clear-cut evidence that (as you put it) "the author knew Latin," nor do "textual studies" suggest composition in Latin. The Latinisms are (1) evidenced in the papyri as words known and used in Koine Greek (just as we in English use "fin-de-siecle"--which does not mean we wrote the sentence in French--or "Sitz-im-Leben" without writing the whole article in German); and (2) appear part of the general "Sprachgut" of that time and place. Hence, no argument for Latin as the original language of Mark can be based on such evidence. As a parallel: Zuntz wrote a famous article titled: "Melito -- Syriac?" in the journal *Vigiliae Christianae* in 1952 (pp. 193-201) in which he argued against the suggestion that Melito of Sardis wrote his *Peri pascha* in Syriac. His most devastating argument was simply to point to "Asianic Greek"--the popular Greek of that time and place--which, although Greek, had acquired the artifices of Semitic diction, with *parallelismus membrorum,* anaphora, etc., etc. Therefore, said Zuntz, each and every item adduced as a "Syriasm" in Melito could be paralleled in texts which we *knew* were originally composed in Greek--albeit Asianic Greek. Since the MS tradition of Melito was Greek, *in dubito, pro tradio": when in doubt, opt for the tradition--which for Melito means Greek. Looking at the Vetus Latina of Mark, it clearly seems to be a translation from the Greek. The division of the tradition in Latin when there is none in the Greek confirms this. One example: at Mark 16:5, one finds the women (in the Greek text) seeing a "neaniskon" (youth, young man) sitting in the tomb. The Vetus Latina divides in its translation: one MS reads "adulescentem" (ff2) while others read "iuvenem" (rell). In other words, faced with the entire Greek MS tradition unified behind a single word, "neaniskon," the *later* Latin *translator*s*, working separately, and in different times/places, often differ in translating the same Greek word. In this case, some render it with a rough equivalent of the English "adolescent" (adulescentem), while others give "youth" (iuvenem). This split at such an early stage in the Latin tradition (I'm using Vetus Latina evidence here, not the Vulgate) clearly suggests translation from the Greek. I cannot resist a second example: in the same verse (Mark 16:5), where the Greek tradition is united in reading "leuken" ("white"), the Latin once again does what two undergrad students would do, if translating from a foreign language: for "maison" in French, one student uses "house" and the other uses "home." Here, the Latin divides between "candidam" and "candida" (dazzling white) on the one side, and "albam" (white) on the other side. This split in the early Latin tradition is best explained by assuming that the Latin is being translated *from* another language--and therefore Greek wins by default. Incidentally, such "splits" in translation number literally in the hundreds (probably thousands); it is not just vocabulary, but also splits in rendering the Greek grammar: another (third) example, in Mark 16:6: Greek = autais ("to them" [dative]; D is the only MS [apparently] with a variant: autois ["them", dative pl. masc. (!)]); Latin = "eis" (*dative [= Greek]*: to them [fem.]) or "ad illas" (to those [fem.] [accusative]) or "illis" (*dative [= Greek]* to those [fem.] )--all attempting to render the Greek. Other examples from the same 2 verses: v. 5: Latin, introeuntes -- ingresse -- ingresse -- intrantes -- introissent, all rendering the Greek eiselthousai or elthousai Latin, coopertum -- amictum -- indutum, all attempting to render the Greek peribeblemenon Latin, obstipuerunt -- expaverunt -- hebetes factae sunt, for the Greek exethambethesan v. 6: Latin, expavescere -- timere -- stupetis, for the Greek ekthambeisthe Latin, surrexit -- resurrexit, for the Greek egerthe Latin, posuerent -- fuit positus -- positus erat, all trying to render the Greek ethekan. This constant, repeated (at least 9 times, in 2 verses) division of the Latin--the *Vetus* Latina--tradition, suggests that it is translating a text from another language. (This patten repeats throughout not just Mark, but all the gospels and the rest of the NT in the Latin....) Did you get this idea from a source? Or did the thought occur to you spontaneously, having read about some "Latinisms" in Mark? If there is a source that proposes this, would you be so kind as to identify it? Thanks. --Petersen, Penn State Univ. (in haste and not proofed) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Feb 11 17:52:16 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA11057; Thu, 11 Feb 1999 17:52:15 -0500 Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 17:52:13 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Adair" To: TC List Subject: Re: tc-list Thiede and Qumran 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: 606 Has anyone seen the proposal that 7Q5 should be identified as a fragment not of Mark but of Zechariah? Here's the source: Ferdinand Rohrhirsch, "Zur Relevanz wissenschaftstheoretischer Implikationen in der Diskussion um das Qumranfragment 7Q5 und zu einem neuen Identifizierungsvorschlag von 7Q5 mit Zacharias 7,4-5," _Theologie und Glaube_ 85 (1995): 80-95. Any comments from anyone who's read the article? Jimmy ****************************************************** James R. Adair, Jr. Director, ATLA Center for Electronic Texts in Religion ****************************************************** From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Feb 12 09:24:08 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA13872; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 09:24:07 -0500 Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 09:25:43 -0500 From: "Harold P. Scanlin" Subject: Re: tc-list Thiede and Qumran To: "INTERNET:tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu" Message-ID: <199902120926_MC2-6A3A-7840@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: 969 Jimmy Adair asked, > Has anyone seen the proposal that 7Q5 should be identified as a fragmen= t > not of Mark but of Zechariah? Here's the source: Ferdinand Rohrhirsch,= > "Zur Relevanz wissenschaftstheoretischer Implikationen in der Diskussio= n > um das Qumranfragment 7Q5 und zu einem neuen Identifizierungsvorschlag von > 7Q5 mit Zacharias 7,4-5," _Theologie und Glaube_ 85 (1995): 80-95. Any= > comments from anyone who's read the article? I have not seen this article, but the Zechariah reading was proposed earlier by Victoria Spottorno in "Una nueva possible identification de 7Q5," in _Sefarad_ 52(1992):541-543. I don't have immediate access to th= e _Sefarad_ article, and I do not recall the details but I do think this identification is more plausible than Mark. Reading = as Zech. does not strictly follow the OG, but is more likely "Lucianic." = Harold P. Scanlin United Bible Societies 1865 Broadway New York, NY 10023 scanlin@compuserve.com From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Feb 12 11:16:39 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA14614; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 11:16:38 -0500 From: "Wieland Willker" To: "TC-List" Subject: tc-list Isaiah Scroll page Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 17:19:37 +0100 Message-Id: <000101be56a3$7c6b0900$67566686@Atair.chemie.uni-bremen.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-Msmail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2377.0 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 139 I came across this highly interesting Isaiah Scroll page: http://www.ao.net/~fmoeller/qumdir.htm Check it out! Best wishes Wieland From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Feb 13 13:55:02 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA20276; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 13:55:01 -0500 From: "Wieland Willker" To: "Papy-list" , "TC-List" , "Crosstalk" Subject: tc-list Thiede's talk Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 19:58:43 +0100 Message-Id: <000001be5782$e06da680$29066686@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: 1687 First: Thanks to all, who replied to my request. I have read everything, was also in the library, have read several articles and thought about it on my own. Thank you again! After his talk I must say I was quite impressed. He presented a well considered lecture (unfortunately without slides) about Qumran in general, the Essenes etc. and I agreed about most of what he said (= no connection between Jesus and Qumran, but connections of Jesus with Essenes). Except that he mentioned two times the "christian texts found in cave 7" in passing. About these christian texts his model is, that the Christians, with a similar messianic perspective wanted to communicate with the Essenes about that. He quoted a jewish scholar S. Talmon(?) who said that "if we hadn't found the christian texts in Qumran already, we must have expected them there." or something to that effect. He also said that the Qumranians wanted to "tell the world" about their views and that's the reason why they produced all these texts. I find this in conflict with the evidence from their rule not to tell anybody about their views. Nothing about P4/64/67. So, pass to the order of the day... Best wishes Wieland PS: Thiede thinks the "Nu" is safe. My personal (completely irrelevant) view is that I find the "Nu" not convincing. I think a Iota - Chi (Jon Peter) more probable. I have never seen the infra red picture (is it published?) and Thiedes microscope image shows nothing IMHO. To me this looks like typical random variations in the (damaged) fibre structure. The assignment of 7Q4,8,12 to Enoch with "Bibleworks for Windows" is really cool! See: http://pw2.netcom.com/~emuro/7qenoch/article2.html From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Feb 13 14:33:36 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA20563; Sat, 13 Feb 1999 14:33:35 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19990213204340.011209d0@mclink.it> X-Sender: mc2499@mclink.it X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 20:43:40 +0100 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: Ian Hutchesson Subject: Re: tc-list Thiede's talk In-Reply-To: <000001be5782$e06da680$29066686@wieland> 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: 407 At 19.58 13/02/99 +0100, Wieland wrote: >[Thiede] presented a well considered lecture ... about >Qumran in general, the Essenes etc. and I agreed about most of what he said >(= no connection between Jesus and Qumran, but connections of Jesus with >Essenes). When he says there are connections between Jesus and the Essenes, does he mean between Jesus and the ideas he (Thiede) gleans from the DSS? Ian From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Feb 14 15:59:52 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA23909; Sun, 14 Feb 1999 15:59:51 -0500 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail & News for Macintosh - 3.0c (405) Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 16:06:07 +0000 Subject: tc-list Theide,Qumran, etc... From: Kerry Gilliard To: TC List-Digest Mime-version: 1.0 http: //1peter315.iscool.net or http://tidalwave.net/~blufunk195 Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <199902141557.SM00092@208.220.25.10> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1098 Theide has written replies to claims made by Graham Stanton in one of his most recent books (written at a popular level)- the Jesus Papyrus. I'm only familiar with the subject through Theide's work and a few mentions of it in John Wenham's 'Redating Matthew, Mark and Luke'. I also have a book of 18 of Theide's published essays entitled 'Rekindling the Word: In Search of Gospel Truth' (which is where I guess Graham Stanton got his title from). I don't have it with me right now (I can get to the exact reference when I get home), but there is one essay where Theide claims to have put 7Q5 under a laser/electronic microscope and determined the one letter that was in doubt (faded ink) as far as the determination of whether or not 7Q5 was Mark. Has anyone seen any responses directly to this (assuming everyone knows what I'm talking about) or does Graham Stanton deal directly with this in his book? Kerry In Christ, Kerry Gilliard Founder-Director W.I.T.N.E.S.S. Ministries 1 Peter 3:15, Jude 3 e-mail: blufunk195@tidalwave.net, witnessministries@usa.net http://tidalwave.net/~blufunk195 From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Feb 14 23:54:59 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id XAA24899; Sun, 14 Feb 1999 23:54:58 -0500 Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 22:58:15 -0600 (Central Standard Time) From: "Prof. Ron Minton" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: tc-list Russina/Greek interlinear In-Reply-To: <199902081441.IAA01744@homer.bethel.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: 227 I just returned from teaching in Ukraine. I was asked whether there is available a Greek/Russian interlinear. Does anyone know where one is available? Ron Minton 5379 North Farm Road 179 Springfield, MO 65803 (417)833-9581 From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Feb 15 00:04:09 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id AAA24964; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 00:04:08 -0500 Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 23:07:25 -0600 (Central Standard Time) From: "Prof. Ron Minton" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: tc-list LITERAL, DYNAMIC EQUIVALENT, AND PARAPHRASE TRANSLATIONS 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: 1248 This is not directly TC, but I have added to my previous list and revised it as well. I have not included translations from Latin. This chart attempts to arrange the translations below from the literal to the full paraphrase. Each one is more paraphrastic than the one above it. There is, of course, some differences of opinion in the order of arrangement. Comments, additions, and evaluations are welcomed. LITERAL 1901 American Standard Version 1970 New American Standard Version 1982 New King James Version 1611 King James Version LITERAL/DYNAMIC EQUIVALENT 1952 Revised Standard Version 1978 New International Version 1989 New Revised Standard Version 1970 New American Bible DYNAMIC EQUIVALENT 1985 New Jerusalem Bible 1989 Revised English Bible 1996 New Living Translation 1995 Contemporary English Version DYNAMIC EQUIVALENT/PARAPHRASE 1976 Today's English Version 1995 God's Word 1996 New Century Version 1958 Phillips Version PARAPHRASE 1993 The Message 1971 Living Bible Ron Minton 5379 North Farm Road 179 Springfield, MO 65803 (417)833-9581 From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Feb 15 02:46:33 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id CAA25317; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 02:46:31 -0500 From: "Thomas J. Kraus" Organization: Universitaet Regensburg To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 08:49:41 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: Quoted-printable Subject: Re: tc-list Theide,Qumran, etc... Cc: thomas-juergen.kraus@theologie.uni-regensburg.de Priority: normal In-reply-to: <199902141557.SM00092@208.220.25.10> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.54) Message-ID: <9693B6D2D3C@alf3.ngate.uni-regensburg.de> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2134 On Sun, 14 Feb 1999, Kerry Gilliard wrote: Theide has written replies to claims made by Graham Stanton in one of his most recent books (written at a popular level)- the Jesus Papyrus. I'm onl= y familiar with the subject through Theide's work and a few mentions of it i= n John Wenham's 'Redating Matthew, Mark and Luke'. I also have a book of 18= of Theide's published essays entitled 'Rekindling the Word: In Search of Gospel Truth' (which is where I guess Graham Stanton got his title from). = I don't have it with me right now (I can get to the exact reference when I g= et home), but there is one essay where Theide claims to have put 7Q5 under a laser/electronic microscope and determined the one letter that was in doub= t (faded ink) as far as the determination of whether or not 7Q5 was Mark. Ha= s anyone seen any responses directly to this (assuming everyone knows what I= 'm talking about) or does Graham Stanton deal directly with this in his book? Dear Kerry, the problem with Thiede=B4s *magnificient* investigation performed by mean= s of his special microscope is that he does not allow anybody to prove his observations. Some of those, who studied the original 7Q5 (see Puech, Stanton, Boismard ...) do not confirm Thiede=B4s observation. I do not regard the way Thiede treats the case with a hidden means of research as scientific. On the original you can see ... a stroke, and it still depends on your own interpretation of how to reconstruct the disputed letter (nu or iota or whatever). For further assessment of Thiede=B4s hiding away of his *superb* microscop= e see: Vocke, H., Papyrus Magdalen 17 - weitere Argumente gegen die Fr=FChdatierung des angeblichen Jesus-Papyrus, in: ZPE 113, 1996, 153-157. For a wider discussion of 7Q5 see my *very long* and *probably tiring* mail. Best wishes, Thomas J. Kraus B. Mayer, ed., Christen und Christliches in Qumran?, Eichst=E4tter Studien= 32, Regensburg 1992 Universitaet Regensburg Kath.-theol. Fakultaet Universitaetsstr. 31 D-93053 Regensburg Tel. + 49 941 943 36 90 Fax. + 49 941 943 19 86 thomas-juergen.kraus@theologie.uni-regensburg.de From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Feb 15 02:54:47 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id CAA25352; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 02:54:45 -0500 From: "Thomas J. Kraus" Organization: Universitaet Regensburg To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 08:58:25 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: Quoted-printable Subject: tc-list Re: Thiede and the nu Cc: thomas-juergen.kraus@theologie.uni-regensburg.de Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.54) Message-ID: <969610D5F8E@alf3.ngate.uni-regensburg.de> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1046 Dear Wieland, of course, C.P. Thiede=B4s *nu* cannot be safe! A damaged letter (above all near lacunae) is always a great problem for those who try to reconstruct it. Here, on 7Q5, Thiede=B4s microscopic investigation (why no= t engage the FBI and CIA next time :)) has one decisive mistake: the damaged= letter does not convincingly show what Thiede wants to see on it (it shows= a haste, or to be less precise a stroke, which still needs interpretation). A picture of that investigation can be found in B. Mayer,= ed., Christen und Christliches in Qumran?, Eichst=E4tter Studien 32, Regensburg 1992. Harald Vocke (ZPE 113, 1996, 153-157) wanted to know something about this specific microscope and the investigation. But he never got any response. Wieland, your observation is at least as plausible as Thiede=B4s. Best wishes, Thomas J. Kraus Universitaet Regensburg Kath.-theol. Fakultaet Universitaetsstr. 31 D-93053 Regensburg Tel. + 49 941 943 36 90 Fax. + 49 941 943 19 86 thomas-juergen.kraus@theologie.uni-regensburg.de From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Feb 15 03:00:15 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id DAA25394; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 03:00:13 -0500 From: "Thomas J. Kraus" Organization: Universitaet Regensburg To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 09:03:30 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: Quoted-printable Subject: Re: tc-list Theide,Qumran, etc... Cc: thomas-juergen.kraus@theologie.uni-regensburg.de Priority: normal References: <199902141557.SM00092@208.220.25.10> In-reply-to: <9693B6D2D3C@alf3.ngate.uni-regensburg.de> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.54) Message-ID: <96976FF50E6@alf3.ngate.uni-regensburg.de> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 573 Dear Kerry, haste is the opponent to ... If you want to see a reproduction of Thiede=B4s laser/electronic microscop= ic investigation (wow), you=B4ll find it in: B. Mayer, ed., Christen und Christliches in Qumran?, Eichst=E4tter Studien= 32, Regensburg 1992. Unfortunately, I included this reference hidden in between my address. Sorry about that. Best wishes, Thomas J. Kraus Universitaet Regensburg Kath.-theol. Fakultaet Universitaetsstr. 31 D-93053 Regensburg Tel. + 49 941 943 36 90 Fax. + 49 941 943 19 86 thomas-juergen.kraus@theologie.uni-regensburg.de From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Feb 15 05:22:34 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id FAA26496; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 05:22:32 -0500 Message-Id: <36C84E09.D079320@chemie.uni-bremen.de> Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 17:40:41 +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 Inscription on P75 John 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: 798 I accidently found this interesting inscription on P75, John. It is on plate 82 (Jo 8:22) and written in majuscle upside down: I read: ()= unsure, [] and ... = missing TON UON W(S) . . . .[----- APO THS T . . PEZ[----- The editor Martin reads: TON UON W(S)[K](URIO)[N--- APO THS (T)[RA]PE(Z)[HS--- To me the "trapez.." is quite sure, but I am not at all sure about "kurion". What is the meaning of this? Is there a connection with the text of John? The "apo ths trapezhs" can be found in Mt 15:27 and Lk 16:21. Best wishes Wieland ------------------------------------- willker@chemie.uni-bremen.de 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 Mon Feb 15 07:21:17 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id HAA26619; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 07:21:16 -0500 From: "Wieland Willker" To: "TC-List" Subject: tc-list Thiede's Nu: image Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 13:24:04 +0100 Message-Id: <000101be58de$1336e020$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: 430 I have uploaded Thiede's image from B. Meyer's book together with his reconstruction and the other visible Nu on the papyrus at: http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/7Q5.html Three images to download (136 kB alltogether, not that much), it's worth it! Best wishes Wieland "Critically examine everything. Hold on to the good." (Paul, First Thessalonians 5.21) This quote Thiede actually used in his lecture on Saturday! :-) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Feb 15 07:42:56 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id HAA26689; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 07:42:55 -0500 From: "DC PARKER" Organization: The University of Birmingham To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 12:40:45 GMT Subject: tc-list Codex formats according to Turner Priority: normal Message-ID: <7538B3D51EF@hhs.bham.ac.uk> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 3389 There was some interesting data sent about Turner's format theories. I can remember wondering about the data which he placed into groups when I read first the book, and whether there was not some overlap between the groups. However, the criticisms placed against it in Wieland Willker's message of 6 February need careful scrutinising, for the following reasons: 1. It includes MSS which Turner himself describes as 'Aberrants' (pp. 19ff). This obscures the data which he places firmly in a group. In fact 36 out of the 70 MSS in Willker's list are aberrant. One would need to run the check only on the MSS which Turner placed firmly within a group, to invalidate his theories. 2. The MSS listed by Willker begin near the end of Group 7 and finish in Group 10. That is, they cross various Group boundaries. But the evidence might be stronger for some groups than for others. 3. What about the MSS of other sizes listed (Groups 1-6, some of 7 and 10, 11?), not to mention the parchment codices? That is, only a small part of Turner's data has been scrutinised here. 4. Part of Turner's enquiry is to distinguish between papyrus and parchment MSS in size and format, and this is not, it seems to me, affected by the criticism. 5. Turner himself allows a certain variation (p. 23). It would presumably need to be shown that this variation was either mathematically or historically inadmissible for his groupings to be invalidated. N.B. Turner treats P4 and P64+P67 as two MSS, which we now know to be one. He categorised them as Group 9 Aberrant 1. But Willker on the basis of Turner's data records a variation of 0.12 between their proportions. This is the same as between the highest and lowest proportions of the MSS listed by Willker from Group 9, suggesting that at least this range of variation is permissible. Add the MSS from the group not included by Willker, and you get a variation of 0.13. If you've ever tried measuring a MS, you'll find that it's not so precise a science that the odd 0.something here and there can be quantified. In fact, take 100a, in Turner's Group 8. It is recorded as 13x26, i.e. B half H exactly. But add a mere 1mm to its height and take one off its breadth, and you have 2.02. Do the opposite, and you have 1.98. You must expect at least this much degree of variation. In fact, you would have a greater variation in size than this within a MS: they didn't trim pages by machine then. When one notes from Turner's main list (p. 106) that this MS 100a is given these dimensions by its editor (i.e. there is some uncertainty), the need for this flexibility becomes more obvious. 6. The discussion in Turner's final chapter places his data in the context of the development of the codex. One would have to show this to be at fault before one could demonstrate his groupings to be inadmissible. (i.e. the statistics are only aprt of his argument). 7. His case also (again see the last chapter) involves the beta as well as the alpha measurement (that is, written area as well as size of page). In short, the more I look at this critique of Turner, the less convincing I find it. 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 Mon Feb 15 08:40:04 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA26842; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 08:40:02 -0500 From: "Mark Goodacre" Organization: The University of Birmingham To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 13:43:14 GMT MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: tc-list Russina/Greek interlinear Priority: normal References: <199902081441.IAA01744@homer.bethel.edu> In-reply-to: Message-ID: <7549559068F@hhs.bham.ac.uk> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 801 On 14 Feb 99 at 22:58, Prof. Ron Minton wrote: > I just returned from teaching in Ukraine. I was asked whether there is > available a Greek/Russian interlinear. Does anyone know where one is > available? I have no idea, but one useful similar resource might be the On-Line Bible: http://www.biola.edu/online_bible/ Here you can view Greek (UBS3) in one column and the Russian Bible in the other, which comes close. Mark -------------------------------------- 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 http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre Aseneth Home Page Recommended New Testament Web Resources World Without Q From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Feb 15 08:47:47 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA26892; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 08:47:45 -0500 From: John van der Hoek Message-Id: <199902151351.AAA14253@staff.maths.adelaide.edu.au> Subject: Re: tc-list Russina/Greek interlinear In-Reply-To: <7549559068F@hhs.bham.ac.uk> from Mark Goodacre at "Feb 15, 1999 01:43:14 pm" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 00:21:36 +1030 (CST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL49 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 940 Dear Prof Ron Minton and readers: > On 14 Feb 99 at 22:58, Prof. Ron Minton wrote: > > > I just returned from teaching in Ukraine. I was asked whether there is > > available a Greek/Russian interlinear. Does anyone know where one is > > available? Are you familiar with Miklosich's dictionary : Greek-Slavonik. This helps with matching up words. There have of course been some interesting consequences of this correspondence not being one-to-one. I know this does not answer the question, but I ask - why does one want an Greek/Russian interlinear? The trans- lation of bible into Russian (as opposed to Slavonik) is a new thing (I doubt it is complete). Cheers, John -- Dr John van der Hoek l e-mail: Department of Applied Mathematics, l jvanderh@maths.adelaide.edu.au University of Adelaide, l 'phone: +61-(0)8-8303-5903 Adelaide, S.A. 5005 AUSTRALIA l fax: +61-(0)8-8303-3696 From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Feb 15 09:03:28 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA26973; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 09:03:26 -0500 Message-ID: <002a01be58ec$7c191fa0$31ded6d0@default> From: "Craig Rolinger" To: Subject: Re: tc-list Russina/Greek interlinear Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 08:07:11 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.0810.800 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.0810.800 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 519 This is not a print version, but Bible Works by Hermeneutika version 4.0 has the Russian Synodal version coded to Strongs numbers. I am sure that they adapted their database from the Online Bible data base. The interface in BW is much more user friendly than OLB. Bible Works home page: http://www.bibleworks.com Craig Craig & Nancy Rolinger 1621 33 Street, Rock Island, IL 61201-2918 rolinger@netexpress.net 309-793-4694 Home Page: www.netexpress.net/~rolinger From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Feb 15 09:08:15 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA26995; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 09:08:13 -0500 Message-Id: <36C882F7.3D8532D9@chemie.uni-bremen.de> Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 21:26:31 +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: Codex formats according to Turner 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: 1722 My initial idea was to place Egerton 2 somewhere in these categories. Therefore I simply choose ALL papyrus manuscripts which very roughly fit the size of Egerton, that means a breadth of 11 - 15 cm. I collected all manuscripts from Turner's list without any preferences. I just wanted to see if I could find the groups Turner had listed. What I found was (more or less) random variation. Of course, you can group the manuscripts in any way you want. But there are no REAL boundaries between these groups (= free space in my diagram). There are too many "aberrants" inbetween. > One would need to run the check only on the MSS which > Turner placed firmly within a group, to invalidate his > theories. No! Turner used artificial groups. Of course you will find these groups if you leave out all the aberrants. I didn't want to criticise Turner's complete book or theory. The book is extremely interesting. The only thing I want to say is, that in the above range of manuscripts there are no NATURAL groups. Maybe I missed something, but I've understood Turner in that way that he had found NATURAL groups. Eventually I could accept a group (slight accumulation) at BxH = 14x16. Have a look at: http://www1.uni-bremen.de/~wie/Codex-Formate.jpg All other manuscripts from Turner's book lie outside (left and right) of this diagram. I know that these measurements are not very exact. I have used large dots for the points to indicate some pagesize variation. Maybe one must allow even more variation, but this doesn't really change anything. Last point: I don't have his book here with me, but I can't remember a grouping according the beta-measurement. Thank you for your answer! Best wishes Wieland From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Feb 15 09:35:46 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA27132; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 09:35:45 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <7538B3D51EF@hhs.bham.ac.uk> Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 08:38:43 -0600 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: tc-list Codex formats according to Turner Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1371 On 2/15/99, DC PARKER wrote, in part: >There was some interesting data sent about Turner's format theories. >I can remember wondering about the data which he placed into groups >when I read first the book, and whether there was not some overlap >between the groups. However, the criticisms placed against it in >Wieland Willker's message of 6 February need careful scrutinising, >for the following reasons: > >1. It includes MSS which Turner himself describes as 'Aberrants' >(pp. 19ff). This obscures the data which he places firmly in a >group. In fact 36 out of the 70 MSS in Willker's list are aberrant. >One would need to run the check only on the MSS which Turner >placed firmly within a group, to invalidate his theories. This brings up an important question, though, which I can't answer since I don't have Turner. How does Turner decide which mss. are "aberrant"? By your figures, Turner threw out *more than half* the data as "aberrant." Chances are, in *any* data set, I could discover patterns if I'm allowed to toss out half the data arbitrarily. So how did Turner cast out those 36 documents? By some absolutely repeatable process, or simply by some intuitive examination? If the latter, his data should go out the window. Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com "The one thing we learn from history -- is that no one ever learns from history." From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Feb 15 09:56:47 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA27282; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 09:56:46 -0500 Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19990215145300.00c02480@utc.campuscw.net> X-Sender: cierpke.utc@utc.campuscw.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 09:53:00 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Kevin W. Woodruff" Subject: Re: tc-list Russina/Greek interlinear Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1021 Ron: I checked WorldCat which is a online catalog of the libraries on the OCLC network that joins most public and academic libraries in the United States and there does not seem to be such a book. One could very easily be done using Hermeneutika's BibleWorks which has the Greek and Russinian Synodal Version on it At 10:58 PM 2/14/99 -0600, you wrote: >I just returned from teaching in Ukraine. I was asked whether there is >available a Greek/Russian interlinear. Does anyone know where one is >available? > >Ron Minton >5379 North Farm Road 179 >Springfield, MO 65803 >(417)833-9581 > > 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 Feb 15 10:24:40 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA27442; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 10:24:38 -0500 Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 10:24:38 -0500 Message-Id: <199902151524.KAA27437@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> >Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 09:05:00 +0200 From: "Thomas J. Kraus" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Cc: thomas-juergen.kraus@theologie.uni-regensburg.de Subject: Re: tc-list Thiede,Qumran, and Papyrology Content-Type: text Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1898 I know that a mail-forum is not the media to discuss matters of interest in full, and that e-mails are meant to be short, precise, and easily accessible. So, I apologize for the length of this message. But recent mails depict that there are more and more questions arising around C.P. Thiede´s claims. On Thu, 11 Feb 1999, Wieland Wilker referred to C.P. Thiede´s redating of P4/64/67 (in Tyndale Bulletin 46, 1995, 29-42, 55-57, and above all ZPE 105, 1995, 13-20): Klaus Wachtel and L.W. Hurtado already replied to Wieland in the - from a paleographical and papyrological view - only acceptable way: The matter is settled, no scholar is really promoting Thiede´s methodologically inadequate dating. For further discussion of Thiede´s redating see, for instance: T.C. Skeat, The Oldest Manuscript of the Four Gospels, in: NTS 43, 1977, 1-34 (already mentioned by Klaus Wachtel) and the two recensions of Thiede´s (adventurous) book (Eyewitness to Jesus, New York: Doubleday 1996) by H. Förster, in: biblos 46,1, 1997, 230-232 and P. Grelot, in: RB 105, 1998, 589-596. Klaus Wachtel himself made a decisive reply in ZPE 107, 1995, 73-80, where everybody can find the relevant facts. On Thu, 11 Feb 1999, James R. Adair, Jr., asked: Has anyone seen the proposal that 7Q5 should be identified as a fragment not of Mark but of Zechariah? ... Any comments from anyone who´s read the article? If I may - I hope I do so -, I´ll try to elaborate on the hypothesis proposed by J. O´Callaghan, heavily propagated by C.P. Thiede, and then the alternative proposal for 7Q5 by M.V. Spottorno and the paleographical investigation by E. Puech. In between comes the handling of F. Rohrhirsch´s treatment of the case focusing primarily on the probabilities and plausibilities of all the proposals based on Popper´s views on scientific research (and not relying on a text-critical or papyrological methodology) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Feb 15 15:39:56 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA29365; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 15:39:55 -0500 Message-Id: <199902152043.PAA07247@pike.sover.net> Comments: SoVerNet Verification (on pike.sover.net) newdell from st232.virt.sover.net [207.136.205.232] 207.136.205.232 Mon, 15 Feb 1999 15:43:51 -0500 (EST) X-Sender: nichael@sover.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0.2 Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 15:46:25 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: Nichael Lynn Cramer Subject: Re: tc-list Thiede,Qumran, and Papyrology Cc: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu, thomas-juergen.kraus@theologie.uni-regensburg.de In-Reply-To: <199902151524.KAA27437@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 584 James R. Adair, Jr., asked: >Has anyone seen the proposal that 7Q5 should be identified as a fragment >not of Mark but of Zechariah? ... Any comments from anyone who=B4s read the >article? On a related note, it is worth noting that W Slaby has pointed out (in Eichstu:tter Studient, Neue Folge Bd 32, 1992) that if one restricts the reading of 7Q5 to the sure letters only (i.e. no conjectural emendations, etc) the only possible identification is Lk 3:19-21. (See also, p198 n17 of G Stanton's book.) Nichael -- Nichael Cramer nichael@sover.net http://www.sover.net/~nichael/=20 From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Feb 15 21:29:01 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA01415; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 21:28:59 -0500 Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 20:34:44 -0600 From: Huey Bahr Subject: Re: tc-list LITERAL, DYNAMIC EQUIVALENT, AND PARAPHRASE TRANSLATIONS In-reply-to: X-Sender: 109nrf5ijads@mail10.cwix.com To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <3.0.3.32.19990215203444.006a0858@mail10.cwix.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.3 (32) Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" References: Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1252 You should include the two translations from the Jewish Publication Society. 1985 Tanakh: A New Translation of the Holy Scriptures According to the Traditional Hebrew Text would be dynamic equivalent. 1917 The Holy Scriptures According to the Masoretic Text A New Translation would be literal. Both of these are excellent translations, that any scholar would find useful. > LITERAL > 1901 American Standard Version > 1970 New American Standard Version > 1982 New King James Version > 1611 King James Version > > LITERAL/DYNAMIC EQUIVALENT > 1952 Revised Standard Version > 1978 New International Version > 1989 New Revised Standard Version > 1970 New American Bible > > DYNAMIC EQUIVALENT > 1985 New Jerusalem Bible > 1989 Revised English Bible > 1996 New Living Translation > 1995 Contemporary English Version > > DYNAMIC EQUIVALENT/PARAPHRASE > 1976 Today's English Version > 1995 God's Word > 1996 New Century Version > 1958 Phillips Version > > PARAPHRASE > 1993 The Message > 1971 Living Bible > > >Ron Minton >5379 North Farm Road 179 >Springfield, MO 65803 >(417)833-9581 > > > From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Feb 15 21:51:56 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA01559; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 21:51:55 -0500 Message-Id: <199902160255.DAA04907@carno.brus.online.be> Subject: Re: tc-list LITERAL, DYNAMIC EQUIVALENT, AND PARAPHRASE TRANSLA Date: Mar, 16 Fv 99 03:59:52 +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="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1187 Taking this discussion to a different direction, what should we say = about the ancient versions? Putting aside the question of their = textual type proper, can we say the same variety of translation = technique exists? And what can present-day Bible translators learn = about this? With the notable exception of the targumim, can't we say = that ancient translation hold a certain balance between extreme = literality and extreme paraphrase? Sometimes I'm afraid that the = present trend to be more paraphrastic represents a break with the = tradition: do you think that the churches gave enough attention to = that problem, and does this break involve theological reorientation = as well? What are the risks and benefits, etc, etc... These are a few = questions that seem interesting to me... To you too? Jean V. _______________________________________________________________ Jean Valentin - 34 rue du Berceau - 1000 Bruxelles - Belgique e-mail : jgvalentin@arcadis.be _______________________________________________________________ "Ce qui est trop simple est faux, ce qui est trop compliqu=E9 est = inutilisable" _______________________________________________________________ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Feb 15 22:12:51 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA01835; Mon, 15 Feb 1999 22:12:49 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199902160255.DAA04907@carno.brus.online.be> Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 21:16:57 -0600 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: tc-list LITERAL, DYNAMIC EQUIVALENT, AND PARAPHRASE TRANSLA Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2474 On 2/15/99, Jean Valentin wrote: >Taking this discussion to a different direction, what should we say about= the ancient versions? Putting aside the question of their textual type= proper, can we say the same variety of translation technique exists? And= what can present-day Bible translators learn about this? With the notable= exception of the targumim, can't we say that ancient translation hold a= certain balance between extreme literality and extreme paraphrase?= Sometimes I'm afraid that the present trend to be more paraphrastic= represents a break with the tradition: do you think that the churches gave= enough attention to that problem, and does this break involve theological= reorientation as well? What are the risks and benefits, etc, etc... These= are a few questions that seem interesting to me... To you too? They *are* interesting questions. It is noteworthy that we want the ancient versions to be literal, but want modern translations (generally speaking) to be understandable -- which means *not* being precisely literal. Personally, I don't think it is possible to achieve the right balance -- everyone who reads the Bible should have several translations. I would suspect that the tendency toward less literal translations comes out of the Protestant tradition that everyone should read the Bible. A priest could be expected to understand Latin or Greek, or a literal translation such as the Douai version or (in the Orthodox churches) the Old Church Slavonic -- but ordinary people need something they can understand without having to study theology. But as regards the versions, I think they vary greatly. It seems to me that the Latin versions are usually the most literal -- if for no other reason than that they can preserve Greek word order and, to a large extent, noun and verb forms. I don't have any Syriac or Coptic (I can't really say I have any Latin; I can't read it without a dictionary and a grammar :-), but I understand that neither language can convey Greek that precisely. So the question then becomes, *given the limits of the language*, how literal are the translations? And to what extent can we trust them on any given sort of variant? Our own Jimmy Adair has done some really good work on this subject. I hope he is still working on it -- and can share his latest if there is any "latest." Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com "The one thing we learn from history -- is that no one ever learns from history." From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Feb 16 01:10:55 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id BAA02346; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 01:10:53 -0500 Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 01:10:50 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Adair" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list LITERAL, DYNAMIC EQUIVALENT, AND PARAPHRASE TRANSLA In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2767 On Mon, 15 Feb 1999, Robert B. Waltz wrote: > Our own Jimmy Adair has done some really good work on this subject. > I hope he is still working on it -- and can share his latest if > there is any "latest." Thanks for the plug, Bob. My two articles on the subject are not extremely recent: "A Methodology for Using the Versions in the Textual Criticism of the Old Testament," Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 20 (1994): 111-142. "'Literal' and 'Free' Translations: A Proposal for a More Descriptive Terminology," Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 23 (1997): 143-171. I hope that my revised dissertation cum M.A. thesis will see the light of day this year, so that I'll have something a little more recent (although actually written before either article!) to offer. Although we all use terms like "literal" and "free" (or "paraphrastic") and have an intuitive idea of what they mean, it often happens that a translation is literal in some ways and free in others, so to describe it as one or the other can be both imprecise and misleading. For example, the Vulgate is often extremely conscious of following the word order of its Vorlage (literal), but it exhibits great variety in rendering conjunctions and connecting adverbs (free). The Targums are often quite consistent in rendering one Hebrew word with a single Aramaic word (literal), but they use all sorts of circumlocution to avoid certain anthropomorphic references to God (free). Similarly, modern translations may be literal in some ways and free in others. The NASB generally uses a single vocabulary item to render the same Hebrew or Greek word (at least in a given context), but should the Hebrew text of Psalms imply something other than strict monotheistic beliefs on the part of the authors, the translators of NASB resort to "scribal corrections"(!); for the literal rendering, see the Revised English Bible! Ps 82:1b [God] judges in the midst of the rulers (NASB). [God will] pronounce judgement among the gods (REB). Ps 8:5a Thou hast made him [humankind] a little lower than God [footnote: or "the angels"] (NASB). Yet you have made him little less than a god (REB). NASB is in good company here, following a scribal tradition that lies behind the MT of Deut 32:8: "Elyon ... set the boundaries of the peoples accoring to the number of the sons of Israel"--4QDeut-j [thanks to Dave Washburn for the reference] reads "... sons of Elohim" (also LXX-848 Arm). As I noted in an earlier post, the change was apparently effected to strengthen the monotheism of the verse. Jimmy ****************************************************** James R. Adair, Jr. Director, ATLA Center for Electronic Texts in Religion ****************************************************** From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Feb 16 15:47:53 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA07659; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 15:47:52 -0500 Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19990216214934.006bd9cc@ucr.campuscwix.net> X-Sender: dwilkins@ucr.campuscwix.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 13:49:34 -0800 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: Don Wilkins Subject: Re: tc-list LITERAL, DYNAMIC EQUIVALENT, AND PARAPHRASE TRANSLA Cc: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 4214 It is my privilege to do translation and research for the NASB, and I normally handle suggestions for changes to the text, so I'd like to thank Jimmy for his comments and offer a response. I should note at the outset that he addressed passages in the original NASB, and the Lockman Foundation published an updated edition in '95 which should be considered in discussions of the NASB. At 01:10 AM 2/16/99 -0500, James R. Adair wrote: [snip] >Similarly, modern translations may be literal in some ways and free in >others. The NASB generally uses a single vocabulary item to render the >same Hebrew or Greek word (at least in a given context), but should the >Hebrew text of Psalms imply something other than strict monotheistic >beliefs on the part of the authors, the translators of NASB resort to >"scribal corrections"(!); for the literal rendering, see the Revised >English Bible! That is a relatively fair, tongue-in-cheek appraisal, but it oversimplifies the process of translation for the public. In the first place, Jimmy opens a can of worms in mentioning the "strict monotheistic beliefs," because there are theolgico/historical issues from both the Jewish and Christian viewpoints which cannot be ignored for translation purposes. Unfortunately this list is not the place for such discussion (although I would be happy to participate if some latitude were desired and permitted). It will have to suffice to say for the moment that orthodox Jewish tradition (as seen both in Torah and Talmud, etc.) strongly favors a strict monotheism as does the Christian tradition. A dilemma for the translator occurs whenever s/he is forced to take a theological position (as perceived by the average reader) no matter what the choice of rendering, and that is not a simple matter, as I note below. >Ps 82:1b > >[God] judges in the midst of the rulers (NASB). > >[God will] pronounce judgement among the gods (REB). Note first that the '95 updated NASB has notes on the literal Hebrew both for "His" and "rulers". The REB version will inevitably be interpreted by many readers as lending support to a polytheistic Weltanshauung. On the other hand, the context indicates that it is the rulers of Israel whom the Psalmist has in mind, as seen especially in v. 6. Neither I nor the other translators are ever happy about using something in the text other than the literal translation, but past experience has taught us that we have to take the needs of the average reader into account, and sometimes it is best to put the literal rendering in the margin. >Ps 8:5a > >Thou hast made him [humankind] a little lower than God [footnote: or "the >angels"] (NASB). > >Yet you have made him little less than a god (REB). >NASB is in good company here, following a scribal tradition that lies >behind the MT of Deut 32:8: "Elyon ... set the boundaries of the peoples >accoring to the number of the sons of Israel"--4QDeut-j [thanks to Dave >Washburn for the reference] reads "... sons of Elohim" (also LXX-848 Arm). >As I noted in an earlier post, the change was apparently effected to >strengthen the monotheism of the verse. I missed Jimmy's earlier post, and perhaps I am missing even more than that in his line of reasoning. Keeping in mind the needs of the reader, the REB of Ps 8:5 should either render ELOHIM as "gods" if a small 'g' is preferred, or "God" if the singular is preferred, referring to the God of Israel. We (NASB translators) on the other hand see the options either as "God" or angels, and we include a note which both gives the "angels" alternative and--more importantly perhaps--gives ELOHIM in transliteration as the Hebrew original. The point is that we are giving the most acceptable translation for the average reader, but providing sufficient information for the advanced reader to consider other possibilities. As to Deut 32:8, since I missed the earlier discussion, I will limit myself to saying that we put a high value on the lectio difficilior, which is sometimes in the eye of the beholder and can be a strong argument against an LXX or Qumran ms. I see "sons of Israel" as more difficult, but that is a debatable point and I appreciate Jimmy's argument to the contrary. Don Wilkins From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Feb 16 16:40:44 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA08168; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 16:40:43 -0500 Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 16:43:48 -0500 From: Ian H Thain Subject: Re: tc-list LITERAL, DYNAMIC EQUIVALENT, AND PARAPHRASE TRANSLA To: "INTERNET:tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu" Message-ID: <199902161644_MC2-6AB7-2A67@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: 1096 On Mon 15 Feb, Bob Waltz wrote; >it seems to me that the Latin versions are usually the most literal In his 'Preface to the Reader' to "Obedience of a Christian Man" (1528) William Tyndale wrote; "They will say it [The Bible] cannot be translated into our tongue, it is= so rude. "It is not so rude as they are false liars. For the Greek tongue agreeth more "with the English than with the Latin. And the properties of the Hebrew tongue "agreeth a thousand times more with the English than with the Latin. The manner "of speaking is both one, so that in a thousand places thou needest not b= ut to "translate it in to the English word for word, when thou must seek a compass "in the Latin and yet shall have much work to translate it well-favouredl= y, so "that it have the same grace and sweetness, sense and pure understanding "with it in the Latin as it hath in the Hebrew. A thousand parts better m= ay it "be translated into the English than into the Latin." Not a man short of loud-mouthed opinions himself, was Tyndale. :-) Ian H Thain Software Engineer Banbury Oxfordshire, UK. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Feb 16 16:53:43 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA08347; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 16:53:42 -0500 Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 15:56:52 -0600 (Central Standard Time) From: "Prof. Ron Minton" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list LITERAL, DYNAMIC EQUIVALENT, AND PARAPHRASE TRANSLA In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19990216214934.006bd9cc@ucr.campuscwix.net> 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: 619 On Tue, 16 Feb 1999, Don Wilkins wrote: > It is my privilege to do translation and research for the NASB, and I > normally handle suggestions for changes to the text,... Don or anyone, I have heard that the NASB NT was based on NA22 (please correct this if incorrect). Also, the previous double column edition included some 20 verses that were not in the earlier editions, and the 95 edition also retains those verses. Please tell if this is accurate and give a basic explanation of the textual basis for the NASB NT. Thanks ahead of time. Ron Minton 5379 North Farm Road 179 Springfield, MO 65803 (417)833-9581 From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Feb 16 17:47:33 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA08668; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 17:47:32 -0500 Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19990216234922.006d2008@ucr.campuscwix.net> X-Sender: dwilkins@ucr.campuscwix.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 15:49:22 -0800 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: Don Wilkins Subject: Re: tc-list LITERAL, DYNAMIC EQUIVALENT, AND PARAPHRASE TRANSLA Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1209 At 03:56 PM 2/16/99 -0600, Prof. Ron Minton wrote: ... >Don or anyone, I have heard that the NASB NT was based on NA22 (please >correct this if incorrect). The original NASB NT was based on NA23, but the '95 edition is based on NA26/27. >Also, the previous double column edition included some 20 verses that were >not in the earlier editions, and the 95 edition also retains those verses. >Please tell if this is accurate and give a basic explanation of the >textual basis for the NASB NT. Thanks ahead of time. That doesn't sound quite correct to me, but I would need some time for research. It would help if you could be more specific about the "previous double column edition" and the 20 verses. I would guess that we have some of those verses in brackets to indicate that they lack reliable support. Most of the textual choices in the '95 edition are the same as in earlier editions, but there have been changes based on the current NA. We follow NA26/27 except in places where we disagree with the rationale for a decision. For example, we would generally give more weight to external considerations than internal, and would prefer the harder readings (as I noted in my previous post). Don Wilkins From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Feb 16 18:11:24 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA08806; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 18:11:23 -0500 Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19990216230940.00c20130@utc.campuscw.net> X-Sender: cierpke.utc@utc.campuscw.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 18:09:40 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Kevin W. Woodruff" Subject: Re: tc-list LITERAL, DYNAMIC EQUIVALENT, AND PARAPHRASE TRANSLA Cc: rminton@mail.orion.org Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1556 Ron: According to the Lockman Foundation Website at http://www.gospelcom.net/lockman/nasb/nasb.htm#Preserving the Integrity, Beauty, and Power of the New American Standard Bible: In addition, the NASB=AE translators benefited from Rudolf Kittel=92s= Biblia Hebraica, the 23rd edition of Eberhard Nestle=92s Novum Testamentum Graece, the best lexicons,= concordances, and commentaries available on the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Scriptures.=20 At 03:56 PM 2/16/99 -0600, you wrote: >On Tue, 16 Feb 1999, Don Wilkins wrote: >> It is my privilege to do translation and research for the NASB, and I >> normally handle suggestions for changes to the text,... > > >Don or anyone, I have heard that the NASB NT was based on NA22 (please >correct this if incorrect). > >Also, the previous double column edition included some 20 verses that were >not in the earlier editions, and the 95 edition also retains those verses. >Please tell if this is accurate and give a basic explanation of the >textual basis for the NASB NT. Thanks ahead of time. > > >Ron Minton >5379 North Farm Road 179 >Springfield, MO 65803 >(417)833-9581 > > 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.=20 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 Feb 16 20:24:21 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA09172; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 20:24:20 -0500 Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 20:24:18 -0500 Message-Id: <199902170124.UAA09167@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> >Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 15:36:01 -0800 (PST) From: Vincent Broman To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: tc-list CCAT NA26 texts Content-Type: text Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 3423 I have identified 20 errors in the CCAT electronic transcription of the NA26 NT text, some significant, with the kind assistance of Maurice Robinson, (who did most of the work, while wearing his Online Bible hat). Corresponding corrections are making their way slowly into the materials available on my WWW site, e.g. the NA-Byz collation. However, since the CCAT work is the original source behind a variety of electronic texts and databases, I thought the corrections to be of general interest -- general enough for me to post them in concise form below. Further corrections welcome, but I would guess that very few errors remain. --- na26.gnt.ccat Wed Aug 23 12:36:52 1995 +++ na26.gnt Mon Feb 15 20:26:55 1999 @@ -20 +20 @@ -matt-01-20 FOBHQHS PARALABEIN MARIAM THN GUNAIKA +matt-01-20 FOBHQHS PARALABEIN MARIAN THN GUNAIKA @@ -726 +726 @@ -matt-21-44 [[KAI O PESWN ... PESH LIKMHSEI AUTON.]] +matt-21-44 [KAI O PESWN ... PESH LIKMHSEI AUTON.] @@ -1796,2 +1796,2 @@ -luke-01-46 KAI EIPEN MARIAM, -luke-01-47 MEGALUNEI H YUXH MOU TON KURION, KAI HGALLIASEN +luke-01-46 KAI EIPEN MARIAM, MEGALUNEI H YUXH MOU TON KURION, +luke-01-47 KAI HGALLIASEN @@ -2403 +2403 @@ -luke-13-28 ODONTWN, OTAN OYESQE ABRAAM KAI +luke-13-28 ODONTWN, OTAN OYHSQE ABRAAM KAI @@ -2765 +2765 @@ -luke-22-44 QROMBOI AIMATOS KATABAINONTOS EPI THN +luke-22-44 QROMBOI AIMATOS KATABAINONTES EPI THN @@ -3137 +3137 @@ -john-06-23 ALLA HLQEN PLOI[ARI]A EK TIBERIADOS +john-06-23 ALLA HLQEN PLOIA[RIA] EK TIBERIADOS @@ -3635 +3635 @@ -john-17-19 KAI UPER AUTWN [EGW] AGIAZW EMAUTON, +john-17-19 KAI UPER AUTWN EGW AGIAZW EMAUTON, @@ -4387 +4387 @@ -acts-17-07 DOGMATWN KAISAROS PRASSOUSI, BASILEA ETERON +acts-17-07 DOGMATWN KAISAROS PRASSOUSIN, BASILEA ETERON @@ -5326 +5326 @@ -1cor-06-03 AGGELOUS KRINOUMEN, MHTIGE BIWTIKA; +1cor-06-03 AGGELOUS KRINOUMEN, MHTI GE BIWTIKA; @@ -5397 +5397 @@ -1cor-09-01 KURION HMWN EWRAKA; OU TO +1cor-09-01 KURION HMWN EORAKA; OU TO @@ -5736 +5736 @@ -2cor-05-03 EI GE KAI ENDUSAMENOI OU GUMNOI EUREQHSOMEQA. +2cor-05-03 EI GE KAI EKDUSAMENOI OU GUMNOI EUREQHSOMEQA. @@ -5793 +5793 @@ -2cor-08-05 KAI OU KAQWS HLPISAMEN ALL' EAUTOUS EDWKAN +2cor-08-05 KAI OU KAQWS HLPISAMEN ALLA EAUTOUS EDWKAN @@ -5870 +5870 @@ -2cor-11-25 TRIS ERABDISQHN, APAC ELIQASQHN, +2cor-11-25 TRIS ERRABDISQHN, APAC ELIQASQHN, @@ -6766 +6766 @@ -titu-02-03 MH DIABOLOUS MHDE OINW POLLW +titu-02-03 MH DIABOLOUS MH OINW POLLW @@ -6809 +6809 @@ -phlm-01-16 OUKETI WS DOULON ALLA UPER DOULON, +phlm-01-16 OUKETI WS DOULON ALL' UPER DOULON, @@ -6979 +6979 @@ -hebr-09-19 TON LAON ERANTISEN, +hebr-09-19 TON LAON ERRANTISEN, @@ -6981 +6981 @@ -hebr-09-21 AIMATI OMOIWS ERANTISEN. +hebr-09-21 AIMATI OMOIWS ERRANTISEN. @@ -7219 +7219 @@ -jmes-05-10 ADELFOI, THS KAKOPAQEIAS KAI THS +jmes-05-10 ADELFOI, THS KAKOPAQIAS KAI THS @@ -7533 +7533 @@ -jude-01-05 BOULOMAI, EIDOTAS UMAS PANTA, OTI +jude-01-05 BOULOMAI, EIDOTAS [UMAS] PANTA, OTI @@ -7546 +7546 @@ -jude-01-18 ELEGON UMIN OTI EP' ESXATOU +jude-01-18 ELEGON UMIN [OTI] EP' ESXATOU 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 === (this mail wasn't signed because the mangling of hyphens was just too hideous.) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Feb 16 21:37:38 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA09450; Tue, 16 Feb 1999 21:37:37 -0500 Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 20:40:51 -0600 (Central Standard Time) From: "Prof. Ron Minton" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list LITERAL, DYNAMIC EQUIVALENT, AND PARAPHRASE TRANSLA In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19990216234922.006d2008@ucr.campuscwix.net> 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: 2834 On Tue, 16 Feb 1999, Don Wilkins wrote: > At 03:56 PM 2/16/99 -0600, Prof. Ron Minton wrote: ... > >Also, the previous double column edition included some 20 verses that were > >not in the earlier editions, and the 95 edition also retains those verses. > >Please tell if this is accurate and give a basic explanation of the > >textual basis for the NASB NT. Thanks ahead of time. > > That doesn't sound quite correct to me, but I would need some time for > research. It would help if you could be more specific about the "previous > double column edition" and the 20 verses. I would guess that we have some of > those verses in brackets to indicate that they lack reliable support. Most > of the textual choices in the '95 edition are the same as in earlier > editions, but there have been changes based on the current NA. We follow > NA26/27 except in places where we disagree with the rationale for a > decision. For example, we would generally give more weight to external > considerations than internal, and would prefer the harder readings (as I > noted in my previous post). > Don Wilkins Don and all, I will try to illustrate what I meant by the NASB including some whole verses which were not in earlier editions. These versec are in the TR, KJV, & NKJV (Lk 17:36 not in TR). VERSES TR MAJ CR NASB NIV NRSV INCLUDED IN Mt 12:47 [ ] C,D,W Mt 17:21 OMIT OMIT* OMIT OMIT C,D,W Mt 18:11 OMIT [ ] OMIT OMIT D,W Mt 21:44 [ ] X,B,C,W Mt 23:14 OMIT [ ] OMIT OMIT W Mk 7:16 OMIT OMIT* OMIT OMIT A,D,W Mk 9:44 OMIT OMIT* OMIT OMIT A,D Mk 9:46 OMIT OMIT* OMIT OMIT A,D Mk 11:26 OMIT OMIT* OMIT OMIT A,C,D Mk 15:28 OMIT OMIT* OMIT OMIT Mk 16:9-20 [[ ]] [ ] [[ ]] A,C,D,W Lk 17:36 OMIT OMIT OMIT OMIT* OMIT OMIT D Lk 22:20 P75,X,A,B,C,W Lk 22:43 [[ ]] [[ ]] X,D Lk 22:44 [[ ]] OMIT [[ ]] X,D Lk 23:17 OMIT OMIT* OMIT OMIT X,D,W Lk 24:12 [ ] P75,X,A,B,W Lk 24:40 OMIT* P75,X,A,B,W Jn 5:4 OMIT OMIT* OMIT OMIT A Jn 7:53-8:11 [[ ]] [ ] [[ ]] D Acts 8:37 OMIT OMIT OMIT* OMIT OMIT Acts 15:34 OMIT OMIT OMIT* OMIT OMIT C,D Acts 28:29 OMIT OMIT* OMIT OMIT Rom 16:24 OMIT OMIT* OMIT OMIT D * = verses now included in parallel column reference editions of the NASB. Matt. 23:13 and 14 are reversed in W and the Majority Text. 1 Jn. 5:7-8 is not considered because no complete verse is involved. The Majority Text lacks only three passages. For some years the NASB omitted Luke 24:40 against both the Alexandrian and the Majority. Luke 17:36 was in the Elzevir 1624 and the TBS 1976 editions of the Textus Receptus I do not have the NASB "95." Does it include the above passages? Do all NASB editions now include all the above verses? Prof Ron Minton 5379 North Farm Road 179 Springfield, MO 65803 (417) 833-9581 From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Feb 17 06:29:28 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id GAA11328; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 06:29:27 -0500 From: "Wieland Willker" To: "B-Greek" , "TC-List" Subject: tc-list Bibleworks 4.0 Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 12:31:29 +0100 Message-Id: <000001be5a69$0fc22440$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: 440 Bibleworks 4.0 is out. It comes as update for $ 75, full price is $ 300. See: http://www.bibleworks.com/default.htm Unfortunately the shipping prices to Europe are shocking: $ 30! Add the same amount for customs' duties you'll arrive at c. $ 140 for the update!!! Any idea? (European distributors are even more expensive!) Best wishes Wieland "Critically examine everything. Hold on to the good." (Paul, First Thessalonians 5.21) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Feb 17 12:42:18 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA13076; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 12:42:17 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19990217095351.006d8c70@mail.teleport.com> X-Sender: dalemw@mail.teleport.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 09:53:51 -0800 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Dale M. Wheeler" Subject: Re: tc-list CCAT NA26 texts Cc: Vincent Broman , pmiller@gramcord.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: 4908 On Tue, 16 Feb 1999 20:24:18 -0500 Vincent Broman wrote: >I have identified 20 errors in the CCAT electronic transcription of the >NA26 NT text, some significant, with the kind assistance of Maurice Robinson, >(who did most of the work, while wearing his Online Bible hat). >Corresponding corrections are making their way slowly into the >materials available on my WWW site, e.g. the NA-Byz collation. >However, since the CCAT work is the original source behind a variety >of electronic texts and databases, I thought the corrections to be of >general interest -- general enough for me to post them in concise form below. > >Further corrections welcome, but I would guess that very few errors remain. > >- --- na26.gnt.ccat Wed Aug 23 12:36:52 1995 >+++ na26.gnt Mon Feb 15 20:26:55 1999 >@@ -20 +20 @@ >- -matt-01-20 FOBHQHS PARALABEIN MARIAM THN GUNAIKA >+matt-01-20 FOBHQHS PARALABEIN MARIAN THN GUNAIKA >@@ -726 +726 @@ >- -matt-21-44 [[KAI O PESWN ... PESH LIKMHSEI AUTON.]] >+matt-21-44 [KAI O PESWN ... PESH LIKMHSEI AUTON.] >@@ -1796,2 +1796,2 @@ >- -luke-01-46 KAI EIPEN MARIAM, >- -luke-01-47 MEGALUNEI H YUXH MOU TON KURION, KAI HGALLIASEN >+luke-01-46 KAI EIPEN MARIAM, MEGALUNEI H YUXH MOU TON KURION, >+luke-01-47 KAI HGALLIASEN >@@ -2403 +2403 @@ >- -luke-13-28 ODONTWN, OTAN OYESQE ABRAAM KAI >+luke-13-28 ODONTWN, OTAN OYHSQE ABRAAM KAI >@@ -2765 +2765 @@ >- -luke-22-44 QROMBOI AIMATOS KATABAINONTOS EPI THN >+luke-22-44 QROMBOI AIMATOS KATABAINONTES EPI THN >@@ -3137 +3137 @@ >- -john-06-23 ALLA HLQEN PLOI[ARI]A EK TIBERIADOS >+john-06-23 ALLA HLQEN PLOIA[RIA] EK TIBERIADOS >@@ -3635 +3635 @@ >- -john-17-19 KAI UPER AUTWN [EGW] AGIAZW EMAUTON, >+john-17-19 KAI UPER AUTWN EGW AGIAZW EMAUTON, >@@ -4387 +4387 @@ >- -acts-17-07 DOGMATWN KAISAROS PRASSOUSI, BASILEA ETERON >+acts-17-07 DOGMATWN KAISAROS PRASSOUSIN, BASILEA ETERON >@@ -5326 +5326 @@ >- -1cor-06-03 AGGELOUS KRINOUMEN, MHTIGE BIWTIKA; >+1cor-06-03 AGGELOUS KRINOUMEN, MHTI GE BIWTIKA; >@@ -5397 +5397 @@ >- -1cor-09-01 KURION HMWN EWRAKA; OU TO >+1cor-09-01 KURION HMWN EORAKA; OU TO >@@ -5736 +5736 @@ >- -2cor-05-03 EI GE KAI ENDUSAMENOI OU GUMNOI EUREQHSOMEQA. >+2cor-05-03 EI GE KAI EKDUSAMENOI OU GUMNOI EUREQHSOMEQA. >@@ -5793 +5793 @@ >- -2cor-08-05 KAI OU KAQWS HLPISAMEN ALL' EAUTOUS EDWKAN >+2cor-08-05 KAI OU KAQWS HLPISAMEN ALLA EAUTOUS EDWKAN >@@ -5870 +5870 @@ >- -2cor-11-25 TRIS ERABDISQHN, APAC ELIQASQHN, >+2cor-11-25 TRIS ERRABDISQHN, APAC ELIQASQHN, >@@ -6766 +6766 @@ >- -titu-02-03 MH DIABOLOUS MHDE OINW POLLW >+titu-02-03 MH DIABOLOUS MH OINW POLLW >@@ -6809 +6809 @@ >- -phlm-01-16 OUKETI WS DOULON ALLA UPER DOULON, >+phlm-01-16 OUKETI WS DOULON ALL' UPER DOULON, >@@ -6979 +6979 @@ >- -hebr-09-19 TON LAON ERANTISEN, >+hebr-09-19 TON LAON ERRANTISEN, >@@ -6981 +6981 @@ >- -hebr-09-21 AIMATI OMOIWS ERANTISEN. >+hebr-09-21 AIMATI OMOIWS ERRANTISEN. >@@ -7219 +7219 @@ >- -jmes-05-10 ADELFOI, THS KAKOPAQEIAS KAI THS >+jmes-05-10 ADELFOI, THS KAKOPAQIAS KAI THS >@@ -7533 +7533 @@ >- -jude-01-05 BOULOMAI, EIDOTAS UMAS PANTA, OTI >+jude-01-05 BOULOMAI, EIDOTAS [UMAS] PANTA, OTI >@@ -7546 +7546 @@ >- -jude-01-18 ELEGON UMIN OTI EP' ESXATOU >+jude-01-18 ELEGON UMIN [OTI] EP' ESXATOU > Vincent: After comparing your list to the NA27 (there ARE minor differences from the NA26, contrary to "popular opinion") we use in GRAMCORD (which comes from UBS/ABS/GBS), I'm unclear as to which line is the original CCAT line and which is the corrected one. If the line with "--" is the orginal and the line with the "+" is the correction, then our text would appear to already have these changes/corrections in it. Winfried Bader, who's now in charge of all the electronic licensing for GBS, told me at SBL two years ago that the text they were supplying was corrected and I subsequently received some additional changes (which I could probably dig up) from another researcher for GBS, which I have incorporated as well. I don't think any of the major software vendors or research databases use the CCAT text anymore, and, while I'm not absolutely sure on this, I believe I remember a discussion two years ago when all of the owners/editors of the Morph databases were meeting with Bader, in which he indicated that GBS was planning on changing their out-of-date arrangement with CCAT...I could be wrong on this, but its worth checking out. XAIREIN... Dale M. Wheeler, Ph.D. Editor, The GRAMCORD Morphological GNT Co-Editor, The Westminster Morphological BHS Associate Editor, The UPenn/CATSS Morphological LXX *********************************************************************** Dale M. Wheeler, Ph.D. Research Professor in Biblical Languages Multnomah Bible College 8435 NE Glisan Street Portland, OR 97220 Voice: 503-251-6416 FAX:503-254-1268 E-Mail: dalemw@teleport.com *********************************************************************** From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Feb 17 16:01:31 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA14959; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 16:01:30 -0500 From: WFWarren@aol.com Message-ID: <991fb98d.36cb2eea@aol.com> Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 16:04:42 EST To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: tc-list CPART GNT text Project Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL for Macintosh sub 54 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 722 I've received a bit of information from our library about a project being organized by CPART on the GNT text. The info says that "[t]he aim of this undertaking is to provide New Testament scholars with an electronic database which will contain not only the standard Greek New Testament text, but also the many variations that are found in the most important Greek NT manuscripts." (CPART, p. 18). Does anyone know more about this project and its scope, participants, backing, etc.? Thanks in advance for any info that might be forthcoming. Paz, Bill Warren Landrum P. Leavell, II, Professor of New Testament and Greek Director of the Center for New Testament Textual Studies New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Feb 17 23:33:22 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id XAA16614; Wed, 17 Feb 1999 23:33:21 -0500 Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 22:36:34 -0600 (Central Standard Time) From: "Prof. Ron Minton" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: tc-list TLG for early English? In-Reply-To: <9cb0a764.36c03b3b@aol.com> Message-ID: X-X-Sender: rminton@orions0.orion.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 307 Does anyone know of a data base of Anglo Saxon, early, and middle English writings that is somewhat like the TLG for ancient Greek? I know the OED has good etymologies and early word usage, but it is limited because of its purpose. Ron Minton 5379 North Farm Road 179 Springfield, MO 65803 (417)833-9581 From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Feb 18 00:35:18 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id AAA16775; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 00:35:17 -0500 From: rlmullen@netpath.net Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990218004437.007a9050@netpath.net> X-Sender: rlmullen@netpath.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 00:44:37 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list TLG for early English? In-Reply-To: References: <9cb0a764.36c03b3b@aol.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: 1370 I'm not sure what you're looking for. Do you want somethig that will deal with old english biblical quotations? Of course the Old English was translated from the Latin Vulgate, and was never translated in full. If Old English Bible is what you're after, I can recommend the following texts (sorry they are in old-fashioned ink & paper): 1. A.S. Cook, "Biblical Quotations in Old English Prose writers." (one volume was printed in 1898 and reprinted in 1971, the other volume was reprinted in 1974). 2. S. J. Crawford, "The Old English Version of the Heptateuch." (London, 1922). 3. The Old English (West Saxon) Gospels. Various editions. 4. Alfred the Great translated several of the psalms (or had them translated) into English. 5. Also, the metrical homilies of Aelfric contain many renditions of biblical text into Old English. 6. There is also a dictionary of Old English (sorry the reference is not at hand, but a good academic library should have a copy) which ought to help you. --Rod Mullen At 10:36 PM 2/17/99 -0600, you wrote: >Does anyone know of a data base of Anglo Saxon, early, and middle English >writings that is somewhat like the TLG for ancient Greek? I know the OED >has good etymologies and early word usage, but it is limited because of >its purpose. > >Ron Minton >5379 North Farm Road 179 >Springfield, MO 65803 >(417)833-9581 > > From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Feb 18 08:40:34 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA18694; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 08:40:32 -0500 Message-Id: <199902181340.IAA18689@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> From: "Dave Washburn" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 06:45:42 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: tc-list TLG for early English? Priority: normal In-reply-to: <3.0.5.32.19990218004437.007a9050@netpath.net> References: 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: 576 > I'm not sure what you're looking for. Do you want somethig that will deal > with old english biblical quotations? Of course the Old English was > translated from the Latin Vulgate, and was never translated in full. If > Old English Bible is what you're after, I can recommend the following texts > (sorry they are in old-fashioned ink & paper): I read Ron's post to mean he's looking for a general database of Old English writings, not just biblical material and quotes. 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 Feb 18 14:30:19 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA01532; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 14:30:18 -0500 Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 14:34:13 -0500 (EST) From: "Paul F. Schaffner" X-Sender: pfs@frogger.rs.itd.umich.edu To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list TLG for early English? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2231 > Does anyone know of a data base of Anglo Saxon, early, and middle English > writings that is somewhat like the TLG for ancient Greek? For Old English (Anglo-Saxon) the standard text base is that prepared in connection with the Dictionary of Old English in Toronto. Some earlier versions of this were distributed free on disk, I believe, but its current incarnation is as the subscription-only "Dictionary of Old English Old English Corpus" hosted by the University of Michigan at http://www.hti.umich.edu/english/oec/ Middle English is a little more complicated: here at Michigan we host a fledgling but growing corpus of 42+ texts (probably more like 200+ within a year or so), alongside an electronic version of the Middle English Dictionary. The MED, with its roughly 800,000 ME quotations, is something of a corpus in itself. MED, ME corpus, and ME bibliography together form the "Middle English Compendium"; this too is available only via institutional site license. See http://www.hti.umich.edu/mec A large number of Middle English texts are included in commercial text products such as the Chadwyck-Healey "English Poetry Database," "Verse Drama" database, and Bible database (which includes the Wycliffite Bible, I believe). Many smaller databases have been created or are in the process of being created in connection with individual projects such as the Middle English project at Glasgow and Margaret Laing's project at Edinburgh; many scholars have posted individual texts to the web; and the partly normalized texts of the TEAMS series are mostly (entirely?) available on the web (see: http://www.lib.rochester.edu/camelot/teams/tmsmenu.htm) For some other links, see: http://www.georgetown.edu/labyrinth/library/me/me.html http://virgil.org/chaucer/links/ A general web search will turn up a few more, but not many. Hope this helps. I wish the situation were tidier, and all the texts were free, but it's not and they're not. pfs -------------------------------------------------------------------- Paul Schaffner | pfs@umich.edu | http://www-personal.umich.edu/~pfs/ SGML Prod'n Mgr, ME Compendium, Univ. of Mich. Digital Libraries Pgm -------------------------------------------------------------------- From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Feb 19 06:41:24 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id GAA11964; Fri, 19 Feb 1999 06:41:23 -0500 From: "Wieland Willker" To: "TC-List" Subject: tc-list P. Egerton 2 and Luke 6:4 D Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 12:43:57 +0100 Message-Id: <000401be5bfd$2271f620$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: 1309 I have just rediscovered this mail below and realized that no one has replied to it. Though this is no psychological problem for me :-), I would nevertheless like to recieve ideas and opinions about possible reconstructions of line 4-5. Thanks in advance! ---------------------------------- Since I am collecting the canonical parallels for Papyrus Egerton 2, maybe I see parallels now everywhere, but I would like to ask you about this one: Egerton line 2 - 5: 2 [................. kai eipen] toiv nomikoiv: 3 [kolazete pa]nta ton paraprass[onta] 4 [kai ano]mon kai mh eme. [...........] 5 [..........]opoiei pwv poie[i.] Reconstructions from Bell/Skeat. The letter before the "o" of opoiei is possibly an "n" or an "m" or an "i". Luke 6:4 (Jesus and the Sabbath) Codex Bezae adds: th auth hmera qeasamenov tina ergazomenon tw sabbatw eipen autw. anqrwpe, ei men oidav ti poieiv, makariov ei. ei de mh oidav, epikataratov kai parabathv ei tou nomou. Is there a correlation, to what extent and how can this help for a reconstruction of line 4 - 5? What do you think? Best wishes Wieland ------------------------ Wieland Willker willker@chemie.uni-bremen.de 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 Feb 20 21:34:29 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA20371; Sat, 20 Feb 1999 21:34:28 -0500 Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 21:34:27 -0500 Message-Id: <199902210234.VAA20366@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> >Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 03:14:37 +0100 From: Boguslaw Blawat To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: tc-list Russian/Greek interlinear Content-Type: text Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 913 Dear Prof. Ron Minton and readers: Several months ago I have heard from my friend Dr. Victor Rebrik, there is running in St. Petersburg a Russian/Greek interlinear project. Mr. Rebrik was, if I am not wrong, a former unofficial co-editor of the new Russian translation of Revelation - as a part of this project. He should be back in Germany only about 1. March, but I can try to call him and ask about details. I was several days off-line, sorry for the late answer. > On 14 Feb 99 at 22:58, Prof. Ron Minton wrote: > > I just returned from teaching in Ukraine. I was asked whether there is > available a Greek/Russian interlinear. Does anyone know where one is > available? Regards Boguslaw Blawat, M.A. Institut fuer Neutestamentliche Textforschung Muenster, Germany Home: Nuenningweg 131/10 D-48161 Muenster Germany T. +251-8724183 blawat@uni-muenster.de (preferred) bblawat@muenster.de (alternative) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Feb 22 09:59:34 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA26740; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 09:59:33 -0500 Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 09:59:32 -0500 Message-Id: <199902221459.JAA26735@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> >Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 20:30:16 -0800 From: Mark Gipe To: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: tc-list Martyrdom & Ascension of Isaiah? Content-Type: text Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 639 I have been reading the "Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah" from the 2nd Vol of "The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha" Edited by James H. Charlesworth It is stated that most of this book is believed to have been written in Hebrew ( but they site no Hebrew Manuscripts only Ethiopic, Latin, Greek fagments and others... but no Hebrew. Question #1 Does anyone know of only Hebrew fagments of this work? Question #2 I noted that in the translation "LORD" was spelled with all chaps. This is normally done when the original was the Hebrew Divine Name. Does the Ethiopic text use a form of the Divine Name? Thanks for your Help Mark Gipe From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Feb 22 12:35:57 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA28215; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 12:35:55 -0500 Message-ID: <003086DDAD30D211842F00062B0006E10119404B@esusa.esusa.org> From: Curt Niccum To: "'tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu'" Subject: RE: tc-list Martyrdom & Ascension of Isaiah? Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 11:39:39 -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: 1332 With regard to question #2, the Ethiopic does not use a form of the Divine Name. Knibb is making a distinction between three Ethiopic words and their "usual" use in OT translation (see note s. on page 157). The capitalized form LORD can only be used safely for distinguishing the Ethiopic word underlying the English translation. It possibly indicates the presence of the tetragrammaton in the Hebrew (if the original was Hebrew). Curt > -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Gipe [SMTP:gipe@sd.znet.com] > Sent: Monday, February 22, 1999 9:00 AM > To: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu > Subject: tc-list Martyrdom & Ascension of Isaiah? > > I have been reading the "Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah" from the 2nd > Vol > of "The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha" Edited by James H. Charlesworth > > It is stated that most of this book is believed to have been written in > Hebrew > ( but they site no Hebrew Manuscripts only Ethiopic, Latin, Greek fagments > and others... but no Hebrew. > > Question #1 Does anyone know of only Hebrew fagments of this work? > > Question #2 I noted that in the translation "LORD" was spelled with all > chaps. This is normally done when the original was the Hebrew Divine Name. > Does the Ethiopic text use a form of the Divine Name? > > > Thanks for your Help > > > Mark Gipe > From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Feb 24 18:14:47 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA13458; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 18:14:46 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990224152221.00c35e90@mail.teleport.com> X-Sender: dalemw@mail.teleport.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 15:22:21 -0800 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Dale M. Wheeler" Subject: tc-list Origins of the Papyri 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: 1095 TC'ers: Many folks today are saying (pace: K. Aland) that the origins of the papyri are unknown, ie., they were only "found" in Egypt, but could have been written or originated anywhere; thus their lack of agreement could reflect the state of the text throughout Christianity in the first couple of hundred years. On the other hand K. Aland has written several times that p38/p48 have been determined by paleographers to have come from Egypt (though they are the "basis"--I use the term very loosely--of the "D" type of text in the West). What I'm wondering (and don't seem to be able to locate) is, have paleographic studies been done on the other papyri to determine their "origins" or not? XAIREIN... *********************************************************************** Dale M. Wheeler, Ph.D. Research Professor in Biblical Languages Multnomah Bible College 8435 NE Glisan Street Portland, OR 97220 Voice: 503-251-6416 FAX:503-254-1268 E-Mail: dalemw@teleport.com *********************************************************************** From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Feb 25 05:37:22 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id FAA15862; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 05:37:21 -0500 Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 05:41:15 -0500 From: Mike Bossingham Subject: tc-list Nestle-Aland Font To: tc list Message-ID: <199902250541_MC2-6BC2-3F04@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: 214 Hi, Does anyone out there know where I can download a Windows 3.1 font that contains all the symbols used in the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament? Thanking you in advance Regards Mike Bossingham Maidenhead, UK From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Feb 25 07:22:43 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id HAA16052; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 07:22:42 -0500 From: "Mark Goodacre" Organization: The University of Birmingham To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 12:25:07 GMT MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: tc-list Nestle-Aland Font Priority: normal In-reply-to: <199902250541_MC2-6BC2-3F04@compuserve.com> Message-ID: <78F2BB6C11@hhs.bham.ac.uk> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1129 On 25 Feb 99 at 5:41, Mike Bossingham wrote: > Does anyone out there know where I can download a > Windows 3.1 font that contains all the symbols used > in the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament? I think the SIL Greek fonts + the SIL Apparatus fonts should do the trick. You can use them in Windows 3.1and they are free. See: http://www.sil.org/computing/fonts/silgreek/ (SIL Greek Font System) and http://www.sil.org/computing/fonts/silgreek/SILApparatusFonts.html (SIL apparatus fonts -- this web pages illustrates the use with a paragraph from UBS3). For further information on Greek fonts available to download from the internet, see my Recommended Greek New Testament Resources at: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre/greek.htm Mark -------------------------------------- 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 http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre Aseneth Home Page Recommended New Testament Web Resources World Without Q From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Feb 25 09:17:14 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA16589; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 09:17:13 -0500 Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 09:17:12 -0500 Message-Id: <199902251417.JAA16584@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> >Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 12:01:03 GMT From: "David G.K. Taylor" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list Nestle-Aland Font Content-Type: text Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 770 Hello Mike! I thoroughly recommend the SIL Apparatus fonts which can be dowloaded from: http://www.sil.org/computing/fonts/silgreek/SILApparatusFonts.html Have fun! Best wishes, David *************************************************************************** Dr David G.K.Taylor email: d.g.k.taylor@bham.ac.uk Department of Theology, tel: 0121-414 5666 University of Birmingham, fax: 0121-414 6866 Birmingham B15 2TT, U.K. *************************************************************************** From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Feb 25 11:26:23 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA17506; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 11:26:22 -0500 From: "Thomas J. Kraus" Organization: Universitaet Regensburg To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 16:26:14 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: Quoted-printable Subject: tc-list In need of help Cc: thomas-juergen.kraus@theologie.uni-regensburg.de Priority: normal In-reply-to: <199902251417.JAA16584@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.54) Message-ID: Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 859 Dear b-Greekers, out of quite mysterious reasons I have to prepare a short dossier about Carlo M. Martini and his importance for the textual criticism of the NT. Well, I stated *I have to*. Apart from some (minor) essays, his doctoral dissertation (Analecta biblica 26; 1966), and the facsimile edition of Bibl. Vaticana Gr. 1209 (B) and his membership in the editorial board responsible for Nestle/Aland26 and Greek New Testament4 I could not find anything. Does anybody know of further works by Martini related to tc? Any= comments are helpful (even about Martini=B4s introduction to the facsimile= edition of B)? Help! Thanks in advance ... Thomas J. Kraus Universitaet Regensburg Kath.-theol. Fakultaet Universitaetsstr. 31 D-93053 Regensburg Tel. + 49 941 943 36 90 Fax. + 49 941 943 19 86 thomas-juergen.kraus@theologie.uni-regensburg.de From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Feb 25 11:56:08 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA17715; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 11:56:07 -0500 Message-ID: <36D582A3.C3B2D398@cam.ac.uk> Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 17:04:37 +0000 From: Jonathan Ryder 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 In need of help References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 11420 "Thomas J. Kraus" wrote: > Dear b-Greekers, > > out of quite mysterious reasons I have to prepare a short dossier about > Carlo M. Martini and his importance for the textual criticism of the NT. > Well, I stated *I have to*. Apart from some (minor) essays, his doctoral > dissertation (Analecta biblica 26; 1966), and the facsimile edition of > Bibl. Vaticana Gr. 1209 (B) and his membership in the editorial board > responsible for Nestle/Aland26 and Greek New Testament4 I could not find > anything. Does anybody know of further works by Martini related to tc? Any > comments are helpful (even about Martini´s introduction to the facsimile > edition of B)? > > Help! > Thanks in advance ... > > Thomas J. Kraus Try these: Author: Martini, Carlo Title: La Parola di Dio alle origini della Chiesa/ Carlo Maria Martini Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1980 352p; 25cm Series title: Analecta Biblica; 93 Subjects: Bible. N.T.--Exegesis Bible. N.T.--Criticism, interpretation, etc. Word of God (Theology) Author: Martini, Carlo Title: Reflections on the Church: meditations on Vatican II/ Carlo Cardinal Martini Dublin: Veritas, 1987 93p; 22cm Series title: Cathedral series; 4 Subjects: Catholic Church--History--1965- Vatican Council (2nd : 1962-1965) tem 1 Author: Martini, Carlo Uniform title: L'Evangelizzatore in San Luca. English Title: Ministers of the Gospel: meditations on St Luke's Gospel/ Carlo Maria Martini; translated by Susan Leslie Slough: St. Paul Publications, 1983 104p; 21cm (pbk) Notes: Translation of: L'Evangelizzatore in San Luca Subjects: Bible. N.T. Luke--Meditations Location: [Univ. Lib.] Uc.1.2735 Loan status and location Item 2 Author: Martini, Carlo Uniform title: Le confessioni di Paolo. English Title: The testimony of St Paul: meditations on the life and letters of St Paul/ Carlo Maria Martini; translated by Susan Leslie Slough: St. Paul Publications, 1983 102p; 21cm Notes: Translation of: Le confessioni di Paolo Subjects: Paul, the Apostle, Saint Bible. N.T.--Meditations Location: [Univ. Lib.] 9100.d.10624 Loan status and location Item 3 Author: Martini, Carlo Title: La Parola di Dio alle origini della Chiesa/ Carlo Maria Martini Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1980 341p; 25cm Series title: Analecta Biblica; 93 Subjects: Bible. N.T.--Criticism, Textual Bible. N.T.--Criticism, interpretation, etc. Word of God (Theology) Location: [Univ. Lib.] 35:01.c.18.91 Loan status and location Item 4 Conference: Settimana biblica nazionale (26 : 1980 : Roma) Title: Gerusalemme: atti della XXVI Settimana biblica in onore di Carlo Maria Martini/ scritti di Maurizio Borrmans... [et al.] Brescia: Paideia, 1982 xix,300p; 25cm Notes: At head of title: Associazione biblica italiana Subjects: Jerusalem in the Bible--Congresses Jerusalem in Judaism--Congresses Jerusalem--History--Congresses Other entries: Martini, Carlo Borrmans, Maurizio Associazione biblica italiana Location: [Univ. Lib.] 36:5.c.95.103 Loan status and location Item 5 Author: Martini, Carlo Title: Women and reconciliation/ Carlo Martini Dublin: Veritas Publications, 1987 66p; 22cm (pbk) Series title: Cathedral series; 3 Subjects: Woman (Theology)--Biblical teaching Location: [Univ. Lib.] 1990.8.3256 Loan status and location Item 6 Author: Martini, Carlo Title: Drawn to the Lord: six stories of vocation.../ Carlo Maria Cardinal Martini Dublin: Veritas Publications, 1987 69p; 22cm (pbk) Series title: Cathedral series; 1 Subjects: Commitment to the church Location: [Univ. Lib.] 1990.8.3041 Loan status and location Item 7 Author: Martini, Carlo Title: Praying with Saint Luke/ Carlo Cardinal Martini Dublin: Veritas Publications, 1987 80p; 22cm (pbk) Series title: Cathedral series; 2 Subjects: Bible. N.T. Luke--Commentaries Location: [Univ. Lib.] 1990.8.3042 Loan status and location Item 8 Author: Martini, Carlo Uniform title: Paolo nel vivo del minstero. English Title: In the thick of his ministry/ Carlo-Maria Martini Slough: St Paul Publications, 1990 91p; 22cm (pbk) Notes: Translated from the Italian by Dinah Livingstone Subjects: Bible. N.T. Corinthians, 2nd--Commentaries Location: [Univ. Lib.] 1991.8.1391 Loan status and location Item 9 Author: Martini, Carlo Uniform title: Qualche anno dopo. English Title: After some years: reflections on the ministry of the priest/ Carlo Cardinal Martini; [translation: Teresa Cadamartori] Dublin: Veritas, 1991 125p; 21cm (pbk) Series title: Cathedral series; 5 Subjects: Catholic Church--Clergy--Meditations Priesthood--Meditations Location: [Univ. Lib.] 1992.8.1614 Loan status and location Item 10 Author: Martini, Carlo Uniform title: Davide peccatore e credente. English Title: David, sinner and believer/ Carlo-Maria Martini Slough: St. Paul, c1990 xiv,173p; 22cm (pbk) Subjects: David, King of Israel Location: [Univ. Lib.] 1991.8.2258 Loan status and location Item 11 Author: Martini, Carlo Title: What am I that you care for me?/ Carlo-Maria Martini Slough: St Paul, 1990 138p; 22cm (pbk) Notes: Translations of: Che cosa è l'uomo perché te ne curi? - La scuola della Parola. Translated by Mary Groves Subjects: Bible. O.T. Psalms--Criticism, interpretation, etc. Other entries: Martini, Carlo. Che cosa è l'uomo perché te ne curi? Martini, Carlo. Scuola della Parola Location: [Univ. Lib.] 1992.8.2422 Loan status and location Item 13 Author: Martini, Carlo Uniform title: Mettere ordine nella propria vita. English Title: Letting God free us: meditations on Ignatian spiritual exercises/ Carlo Maria Martini; foreword by George A. Maloney; [translated by Richard Arnandez] Slough: St Pauls, 1993 128p; 22cm (pbk) Notes: Translation of: Mettere ordine nella propria vita Subjects: Ignatius, of Loyola, Saint, 1491-1556 spiritualia Spiritual exercises Meditations Retreats for clergy Location: [Univ. Lib.] 1993.8.6440 Loan status and location Item 14 Author: Martini, Carlo Uniform title: Donna nel suo populo. English Title: The woman among her people: a spiritual journey into the "planet woman"/ Carlo-Maria Martini Slough: St Paul, 1989 136p; 20cm (pbk) Series title: Faith and life series Notes: Translation of: La Donna nel suo popolo Subjects: Women in the Bible Location: [Univ. Lib.] 1995.7.1585 Loan status and location Item 15 Author: Martini, Carlo Uniform title: Il riposo della columba. English Title: The dove at rest: contributions for a possible peace/ Carlo Maria Martini Slough: St Pauls, c1995 126p; 22cm (pbk) Subjects: Peace--Religious aspects--Catholic Church Location: [Univ. Lib.] 1996.8.3783 Loan status and location Item 16 Title: Encounters with Christ: meditations on six readings from the Gospel/ Carlo Maria Martini ... [et al.] London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1995 92p; 20cm (pbk) Subjects: Jesus Christ--Meditations Bible. N.T. Gospels--Meditations Other entries: Martini, Carlo Location: [Univ. Lib.] 1997.7.188 Loan status and location Apologies for the formatting, haven't got time to edit Hope this helps Jonathan Ryder Tyndale House Cambridge From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Feb 25 17:22:27 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA20111; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 17:22:26 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.19990225161509.0071602c@pop.flash.net> X-Sender: logsdon@pop.flash.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.2 (32) Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 16:15:09 -0600 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: Mike Logsdon Subject: tc-list John 4:51 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: 742 I do not have a critical Nestle 21 text but have noticed that the text I do have reads at John 4:51 the slaves while the NA27, UBS3 and UBS4 all read his slaves. Not surprisingly the UBS does not have this as a textual variant BUT the NA27 does. IS this a listed variant in the Nestle 21 critical texts and why the textual change between these two editions NA27 and Nestle 21? I realize this is a relatively nuetral variant in that it is more of a stylistic/clarification concern, but I have noticed that the Nestle 21 edition that I do have contains numerous alterations from the NA27 (can't think of any others at this time?) Just curious if it is listed as a variant and why the NA27 would include the pronoun when the Nestle 21 did not? From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Feb 25 18:36:57 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA20403; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 18:36:56 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com (Unverified) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3.0.2.32.19990225161509.0071602c@pop.flash.net> Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 17:35:30 -0600 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: tc-list John 4:51 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1868 On 2/25/99, Mike Logsdon wrote: >I do not have a critical Nestle 21 text but have noticed that the text I do >have reads at John 4:51 the slaves while the NA27, UBS3 and UBS4 all read >his slaves. Not surprisingly the UBS does not have this as a textual >variant BUT the NA27 does. IS this a listed variant in the Nestle 21 >critical texts and why the textual change between these two editions NA27 >and Nestle 21? I realize this is a relatively nuetral variant in that it is >more of a stylistic/clarification concern, but I have noticed that the >Nestle 21 edition that I do have contains numerous alterations from the >NA27 (can't think of any others at this time?) Just curious if it is listed >as a variant and why the NA27 would include the pronoun when the Nestle 21 >did not? The variant is listed in NA21. As for why the pronoun was omitted in NA21 but included in UBS3, we cannot, of course, answer for the UBS committee; this is not one of the variants discussed in the supplementary volume. But I think the answer is obvious. The evidence for omission is: Aleph D L Psi fam-1 565 892 1241 The evidence for inclusion is: P66 P75 A B C W fam-13 33 579 Byz NA21 omits because Tischendorf (who really, REALLY liked the combination Aleph D) omitted it, and I assume Weiss did also (WH included it). The reason the UBS committee included it is, I think, obvious, given their feelings: P75. It's a little strong to say that UBS3 always follows P75 -- but it's safe to say they followed it if there was the slightest excuse to do so. :-) -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Feb 26 04:40:57 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id EAA22407; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 04:40:56 -0500 Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 04:44:24 -0500 From: Mike Bossingham Subject: tc-list Fonts To: tc list Message-ID: <199902260444_MC2-6BE8-5A6F@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: 133 Thanks to Mark and David for their help. The fonts downloaded easily and were just what I was looking for Regards Mike Bosisngham From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Feb 27 13:28:12 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA00823; Sat, 27 Feb 1999 13:28:11 -0500 From: "Vinton A. Dearing" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1999 10:36:49 PST MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: tc-list corrections in 010 X-Confirm-Reading-To: "Vinton A. Dearing" X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) Message-ID: <2D2C5174B30@113hum4.humnet.ucla.edu> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 539 I would be grateful for opinions as to the corrections written above the lines in 010. I have been working with Titus (ffol. 126v-129v), but the same sort of corrections may appear elsewhere (not in Philemon). The letters are slightly smaller than in the main text but seem to have the same forms. Are they the work of a second hand? If anyone out there is at Cambridge, perhaps you could look at the manuscript (Trinity College B.XVII.1 according to Aland) for differences in the ink that do not show in photos. Vinton A. Dearing