From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Jul 1 03:11:58 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id DAA16547; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 03:11:58 -0400 From: "Thomas J. Kraus" Organization: Universitaet Regensburg To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 09:18:04 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: tc-list titles not available Cc: thomas-juergen.kraus@theologie.uni-regensburg.de Priority: normal References: In-reply-to: <4B9B2282861@alf3.ngate.uni-regensburg.de> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.54) Message-ID: <4B9B7D92550@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: 1090 Dear fellows, since my library is incapable of identifying the place from which to order titles important for some of my future research, I am posting these on this list. Maybe, there is someone out there who can tell me where to find them (in order to "help" my library), how to get them, or if I may ask anybody for sending a copy. Daniel B. Wallace, The Article with Multiple Substantives Connected by KAI in the New Testament: Semantics and Significance. PhD Dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary 1995. E.M. Schofield, The Papyrus Fragments of the Greek New Testament, Clinton/New Jersey 1936. Thanks in advance. Best wishes, Thomas J. Kraus Universitaet Regensburg Kath.-theol. Fakultaet Universitaetsstr. 31 D-93053 Regensburg Federal Republic of Germany Tel. + 49 941 943 36 90 Fax. + 49 941 943 19 86 thomas-juergen.kraus@theologie.uni-regensburg.de Universitaet Regensburg Kath.-theol. Fakultaet Universitaetsstr. 31 D-93053 Regensburg Federal Republic of Germany 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 Jul 1 08:36:04 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA18833; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 08:36:04 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3e428e25.24abfc4d@aol.com> Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 07:41:34 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: tc-list N.T. Graece Inquiry Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1877 On 6/30/99, Pappyhays@aol.com wrote: > Bob Waltz replied to my original question with (in part): > >"It is not, of course, KNOWN. A better statement would be that the >committee is certain that these are additions" > > Which of course prompts me to ask," How, were they "certain" of this? I >am not asking anyone to defend their decision, but if possible to help >provide me with the rationale for it. I cannot ask the commitee members, now >can I? I certainly hope that you gentlemen can help, as this is a serious >issue that needs to be resolved, in my own mind anyway. Are there any >rescources that you know of that might help? This really is the wrong question. How were the UBS editors sure about *anything*? If you look at the margin of the UBS text, there are hundreds of "A" variants (readings where they are certain of the text), and tens of thousands more which they don't even bother to note. From the standpoint of *criticism*, these six or so passages are just additional instances of "A" readings -- i.e. readings where the text is certain. So how did the UBS editors decide anything? The basic answer is, of course, that certain readings were found in the Alexandrian text, and others weren't. The UBS text is the most Alexandrian of the modern editions, with the sole exception of Westcott & Hort.) You can find their official answers in their _Textual Commentary_. But the point I am making is that they judged these readings by the same internal and external criteria that they judged all others. They were placed in double brackets simply because they are well-known and unusually long. (Interestingly, they also tend to make Jesus what we would consider a better person: He was forgiving, and he had true human emotions.) Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com "The one thing we learn from history -- is that no one ever learns from history." From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Jul 1 08:43:32 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA18935; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 08:43:31 -0400 Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19990701124353.00d3049c@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, 01 Jul 1999 08:43:53 -0400 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Kevin W. Woodruff" Subject: Re: tc-list titles not available Cc: thomas-juergen.kraus@theologie.uni-regensburg.de Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1863 Thomas: The Schofield thesis is at: Boyce Library, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, Kentucky (paper and microform) Harvard University, Cambridge Massachusetts (paper) Gordon-Conwell Seminary, South Hamilton, Massachusetts (paper) Kevin At 09:18 AM 7/1/99 +0200, you wrote: >Dear fellows, > >since my library is incapable of identifying the place from which to order >titles important for some of my future research, I am posting these on >this list. Maybe, there is someone out there who can tell me where to find >them (in order to "help" my library), how to get them, or if I may ask >anybody for sending a copy. > >Daniel B. Wallace, The Article with Multiple Substantives Connected by KAI >in the New Testament: Semantics and Significance. PhD Dissertation, Dallas >Theological Seminary 1995. > >E.M. Schofield, The Papyrus Fragments of the Greek New Testament, >Clinton/New Jersey 1936. > > >Thanks in advance. > >Best wishes, > >Thomas J. Kraus >Universitaet Regensburg >Kath.-theol. Fakultaet >Universitaetsstr. 31 >D-93053 Regensburg >Federal Republic of Germany > >Tel. + 49 941 943 36 90 >Fax. + 49 941 943 19 86 >thomas-juergen.kraus@theologie.uni-regensburg.de >Universitaet Regensburg >Kath.-theol. Fakultaet >Universitaetsstr. 31 >D-93053 Regensburg >Federal Republic of Germany > >Tel. + 49 941 943 36 90 >Fax. + 49 941 943 19 86 >thomas-juergen.kraus@theologie.uni-regensburg.de > > 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 Jul 1 08:46:24 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA18983; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 08:46:23 -0400 Message-ID: <5215C8330100A0AA@mail.lbc.edu> In-Reply-To: <365C7B37017C0100@mail.lbc.edu> Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 8:50:00 -0400 From: Gerald Lincoln Organization: Lancaster Bible College To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Cc: thomas-juergen.kraus@theologie.uni-regensburg.de Subject: RE: tc-list titles not available Importance: Normal X-SMF-Hop-Count: 2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Connect2-SMTP 4.32 MHS/SMF to SMTP Gateway Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 3376 Dan Wallace's dissertation has been filmed at University Microfilms = International / UMI / now Bell & Howell (www.umi.com) in Ann Arbor, = Michigan. I believe he is in process of having it published and may not = have given them permission to sell copies of it and that is why your librar= y = cannot purchase it. Dallas Theological Seminary has a copy of it in paper = and in microfilm, if they will lend it by Interlibrary Loan. The Schofield book is not in print and probably very difficult to find. Th= e = OCLC information below shows that the Historical Commission of the Southern= = Baptist Convention did microfilm and it may be possible to receive a copy = from them. Because it was also a dissertation, you may be able to receive = a = copy from UMI or by loan from the Southern Baptist Seminary in Louisville. 5 100 1 Schofield, Ellwood Mearle Y =9A 6 245 14 The papyrus fragments of the Greek New Testament =E1h micr= oform = / = =E1c Ellwood Mearle Schofield. Y =9A 7 260 =E1c 1936. Y =9A 8 300 vi, 363 leaves : =E1b ill. Y =9A 9 502 Thesis (Ph. D.)--Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 19= 36. = Y =9A 10 504 Bibliography: leaves 352-363. Y =9A 11 533 Microfilm. =E1b Nashville, Tenn. : =E1c Historical Commiss= ion, = Southern Baptist Convention, =E1d [1953?] =E1e 1 microfilm reel ; 35 mm. --= =E1f = (Pub. no. 4511-292) Y =9A 12 539 s =E1b 1953 =E1d xx =E1e n Y =9A 13 630 00 Bible. =E1p N.T. =E1k Manuscripts. =E1l Greek. Y =9A 14 650 0 Manuscripts, Greek (Papyri) Y =9A 15 830 0 Publication (Historical Commission, Southern Baptist = Convention) ; =E1v no. 4511-292. Y =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Original Message from tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu at = 7/01/99 = 3:18 am >Dear fellows, > >since my library is incapable of identifying the place from which to order >titles important for some of my future research, I am posting these on >this list. Maybe, there is someone out there who can tell me where to find >them (in order to "help" my library), how to get them, or if I may ask >anybody for sending a copy. > >Daniel B. Wallace, The Article with Multiple Substantives Connected by KAI >in the New Testament: Semantics and Significance. PhD Dissertation, Dallas >Theological Seminary 1995. > >E.M. Schofield, The Papyrus Fragments of the Greek New Testament, >Clinton/New Jersey 1936. > > >Thanks in advance. > >Best wishes, > >Thomas J. Kraus >Universitaet Regensburg >Kath.-theol. Fakultaet >Universitaetsstr. 31 >D-93053 Regensburg >Federal Republic of Germany > >Tel. + 49 941 943 36 90 >Fax. + 49 941 943 19 86 >thomas-juergen.kraus@theologie.uni-regensburg.de >Universitaet Regensburg >Kath.-theol. Fakultaet >Universitaetsstr. 31 >D-93053 Regensburg >Federal Republic of Germany > >Tel. + 49 941 943 36 90 >Fax. + 49 941 943 19 86 >thomas-juergen.kraus@theologie.uni-regensburg.de ***************************************************************** * Gerald E. Lincoln ********************************** * Library Director Voice (717) 560-8250 Ext 362 * * Lancaster Bible College Fax (717) 560-8213 * * 901 Eden Road E-mail glincoln@lbc.edu * * Lancaster, PA 17601 ********************************** = ***************************************************************** From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Jul 1 09:44:31 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA20106; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 09:44:30 -0400 From: Pappyhays@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 09:47:26 EDT Subject: Re: tc-list N.T. Graece Inquiry To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Windows 95 sub 76 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 680 In a message dated 99-07-01 08:43:15 EDT, you write: << But the point I am making is that they judged these readings by the same internal and external criteria that they judged all others. They were placed in double brackets simply because they are well-known and unusually long. (Interestingly, they also tend to make Jesus what we would consider a better person: He was forgiving, and he had true human emotions.) Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com "The one thing we learn from history -- is that no one ever learns from history." >> These two points being so (including the one on history), should one consider seriously their text at all? Mark Hays From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Jul 1 10:34:58 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA27133; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 10:34:57 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 1 Jul 1999 09:43:08 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: tc-list N.T. Graece Inquiry Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1690 On 7/1/99, Pappyhays@aol.com wrote: > > These two points being so (including the one on history), should one >consider seriously their text at all? Oops -- forgot which sig to use on this list. :-) Got it right this time. :-) But to answer the question: Sure, why not? I'm not saying it's perfect; I doubt anyone on this list would consider it the best possible text. But every edition ever prepared conforms to *someone's* biases. The UBS edition is strongly Alexandrian, but consider the "competition": Many would consider Von Soden's text too Byzantine. The text of Vogels is even more Byzantine. The texts of Merk and Bover are more eclectic, but this also makes them unpredictable. Tischendorf follows Aleph too closely. The Majority Text editions are Majority Text editions. :-) In addition, the UBS text is the only one to truly take the Bodmer papyri (or even the Beatty papyri) into account. If someone would pay the cost, I would happily produce a "better" edition than the UBS text. I'm sure most on this list would do the same. But there isn't much demand at this time. :-) The UBS text is not perfect. No text is perfect. That's why we still study textual criticism. :-) But if the time comes when you start trying to determine what *you* think are the best readings, the UBS text, and associated commentary, offer ideas that are worth considering. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Jul 1 13:32:25 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA03524; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 13:32:25 -0400 Date: Thu, 01 Jul 1999 12:38:41 -0500 From: Mike Parsons Subject: Re: tc-list N.T. Graece Inquiry To: tc-list Message-id: <199907011738.MAA00066@ccis01.baylor.edu> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: QuickMail Pro 1.5.2 (Mac) Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-Ascii" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable X-Priority: 3 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 4615 Reply to: Re: tc-list N.T. Graece Inquiry sorry, i've come into this discussion about mid-stream (i'm not sure which = UBS variants originally prompted this discussion), but i would like to = mention Kent Clarke's Textual Optimism in the UBS GNT which offers a = critique of the general upgrading of variants in the ubsgnt fourth edition.= one of clarke's most forceful criticisms is that the committee has failed = to provide information for this general upgrade (ie. increase of A = readings and decrease of D readings), though clarke himself suggests it = has to do generally with the rising stock of the alexandrian text type = among the new committee. the commentary on this point does little to help = since as far as i can tell, the comments in the second edition are = essentially the same and even where the ratings go from c (or in a couple = of cases d) to a, there is no revised note in the textual commentary. = clarke does discuss a couple of variants and the presumed reasoning by = the ubs committee which stood behind the decisions. Most helpful are his = statistical tables which trace the history of individual variants = throughtout the various ubs editions. my review of clarke's work is to be = published in the Bible Translator sometime this summer (perhaps the editor = Harold Scanlin can be more precise :-) mikeal parsons Robert B. Waltz wrote: >On 6/30/99, Pappyhays@aol.com wrote: > >> Bob Waltz replied to my original question with (in part): >> >>"It is not, of course, KNOWN. A better statement would be that the >>committee is certain that these are additions" >> >> Which of course prompts me to ask," How, were they "certain" of = this? I = >>am not asking anyone to defend their decision, but if possible to help = >>provide me with the rationale for it. I cannot ask the commitee members, = now = >>can I? I certainly hope that you gentlemen can help, as this is a = serious = >>issue that needs to be resolved, in my own mind anyway. Are there any = >>rescources that you know of that might help? > >This really is the wrong question. How were the UBS editors sure >about *anything*? If you look at the margin of the UBS text, there >are hundreds of "A" variants (readings where they are certain of >the text), and tens of thousands more which they don't even bother >to note. From the standpoint of *criticism*, these six or so passages >are just additional instances of "A" readings -- i.e. readings where >the text is certain. > >So how did the UBS editors decide anything? The basic answer is, >of course, that certain readings were found in the Alexandrian text, >and others weren't. The UBS text is the most Alexandrian of the >modern editions, with the sole exception of Westcott & Hort.) > >You can find their official answers in their _Textual Commentary_. >But the point I am making is that they judged these readings by >the same internal and external criteria that they judged all others. >They were placed in double brackets simply because they are well-known >and unusually long. (Interestingly, they also tend to make Jesus >what we would consider a better person: He was forgiving, and he >had true human emotions.) >Bob Waltz >waltzmn@skypoint.com > >"The one thing we learn from history -- > is that no one ever learns from history." > >RFC822 header >----------------------------------- > >Return-Path: >Received: from ccis08.baylor.edu (ccis08.baylor.edu [129.62.1.2]) > by ccis01.baylor.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA29195 > for ; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 09:06:06 -0500 (= CDT) >Received: from graf.cc.emory.edu by baylor.edu (PMDF V5.1-10 #27028) > with ESMTP id <01JD1MCP45Z4AB23GS@baylor.edu> for > Mike_Parsons@STUMAIL.BAYLOR.EDU; Thu, 1 Jul 1999 09:06:13 CDT >Received: from shemesh.scholar.emory.edu > (shemesh.scholar.emory.edu [170.140.130.65]) > by graf.cc.emory.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA25182; Thu, > 01 Jul 1999 08:42:41 -0400 (EDT) >Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA18833; Thu= , > 01 Jul 1999 08:36:04 -0400 >Date: Thu, 01 Jul 1999 07:41:34 -0500 >From: "Robert B. Waltz" >Subject: Re: tc-list N.T. Graece Inquiry >In-reply-to: <3e428e25.24abfc4d@aol.com> >Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu >X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com >To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu >Reply-to: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu >Message-id: >MIME-version: 1.0 >Content-type: text/plain; charset=3D"us-ascii" >Precedence: bulk >Status: = > From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Jul 2 06:40:27 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id GAA27771; Fri, 2 Jul 1999 06:40:23 -0400 Message-ID: <000f01bec478$111597e0$618a02d1@aekalma-znet.com> From: "Ed and Angie Gorham" To: Subject: tc-list Re: tc-lst titles unavailable Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 06:45:55 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000C_01BEC456.88EFC8C0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 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: 1477 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_000C_01BEC456.88EFC8C0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable As an aside, I recently sent an e-mail to Prof. Wallace about this = unpublished work. His prolonged illness forced him to put efforts to get = it published aside. Although he has mostly recovered, he said he is = behind in his work and still lacks some energy. His hope is to get it = published soon. -Ed Gorham aekalm@a-znet.com ------=_NextPart_000_000C_01BEC456.88EFC8C0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
As an aside, I recently sent an = e-mail to Prof.=20 Wallace about this unpublished work. His prolonged illness forced him to = put=20 efforts to get it published aside. Although he has mostly recovered, he = said he=20 is behind in his work and still lacks some energy. His hope is to get it = published soon.
-Ed Gorham
aekalm@a-znet.com
------=_NextPart_000_000C_01BEC456.88EFC8C0-- From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Jul 2 09:49:22 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA11593; Fri, 2 Jul 1999 09:49:20 -0400 Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 09:53:36 -0400 From: "Harold P. Scanlin" Subject: tc-list Review of Clarke To: TC-List Message-ID: <199907020954_MC2-7B9C-FAC5@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: 575 The review of Clarke's _Textual Optimism_ by Parsons is scheduled to appe= ar in the next issue of _The Bible Translator_, cover date July 1999. I do not know the exact mailing date, but we are fairly close to schedule, so = it should arrive in your mailbox or favorite subscribing library by August 1= . = If you anyone has not seen a copy by then, write to me offlist. (Pardon the crass materialism, but we do accept subscriptions at the bargain pric= e of $12/year.) = Harold P. Scanlin United Bible Societies 1865 Broadway New York, NY 10023 scanlin@compuserve.com From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Jul 5 16:57:54 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA21388; Mon, 5 Jul 1999 16:57:52 -0400 Message-ID: <37811D25.6D46@oneimage.com> Date: Mon, 05 Jul 1999 15:01:25 -0600 From: "robert s. morse" X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: tc-list Jesus is better. 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: 731 Dear tc-list correspondents: My thanks for all the valuable information you have made available. I especially appreciated Mr. Robert B. Waltz's contribution of 1 Jul 1999. In explaining why critical editions of the NT have placed double brackets about certain passages, he notes--very significantly--that the passages "tend to make Jesus what we consider a better person...." No doubt. This being so, the passages would seem to share in the work of the Holy Spirit, of whom the Lord said, "...he will glorify me...." (Jn. 16:14). Since evidence of inspiration is further evidence of canonicity, we have an extra reason for regarding the passages as canonical--the word of God, and not forgeries. Thank you, Mr. Waltz. Bob Morse From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Jul 5 17:37:39 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA02602; Mon, 5 Jul 1999 17:37:38 -0400 From: Pappyhays@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Mon, 5 Jul 1999 17:43:24 EDT Subject: Re: tc-list Jesus is better. To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Windows 95 sub 76 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1117 In a message dated 99-07-05 17:05:34 EDT,Bob Morse wrote: << My thanks for all the valuable information you have made available. I especially appreciated Mr. Robert B. Waltz's contribution of 1 Jul 1999. In explaining why critical editions of the NT have placed double brackets about certain passages, he notes--very significantly--that the passages "tend to make Jesus what we consider a better person...." No doubt. This being so, the passages would seem to share in the work of the Holy Spirit, of whom the Lord said, "...he will glorify me...." (Jn. 16:14). Since evidence of inspiration is further evidence of canonicity, we have an extra reason for regarding the passages as canonical--the word of God, and not forgeries. Thank you, Mr. Waltz. Bob Morse >> AAAAmen Bob, and just think, this is in addition to all of the internal and external evidence that also show the passages in "question" to be the real McCoy. Actually this is what prompted my original question concerning the rather dogmatic remarks in NA 27 concerning the certainty that they were not in the originals. Mark J. Hays From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Jul 5 19:53:49 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA21605; Mon, 5 Jul 1999 19:53:48 -0400 Message-ID: <001701bec742$edfcf6e0$157cebcf@shell.com> From: "Mark Proctor" To: References: Subject: Re: tc-list Jesus is better. Date: Mon, 5 Jul 1999 19:03:07 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2263 I'm probably not the only one that finds this message odd and off topic. What, one might ask, does the topic of inspiration have to do with the practice of textual criticism? Furthermore, it's somewhat unprofessional to refer to "certain passages" without mentioning which ones and then make innuendos about the motivations of the editors of UBSGNT4 and NA27. Finally, the last time I checked it was still the case that the orthodox status of a variant reading had no bearing whatsoever on its claim to a place in the critical text. Please don't try to make doctrinal matters a part of the practice of textual criticism. Instead, try reading Bart Ehrman's book, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture. In closing, if orthodoxy is and has always been the litmus test for "divine inspiration," what are we to make of the Church's (or by extension God's) participation in the Holocaust. Think these things through, please. Mark Proctor ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Monday, July 05, 1999 4:43 PM Subject: Re: tc-list Jesus is better. > In a message dated 99-07-05 17:05:34 EDT,Bob Morse wrote: > > << My thanks for all the valuable information you have made available. > > I especially appreciated Mr. Robert B. Waltz's contribution of 1 Jul > 1999. In explaining why critical editions of the NT have placed double > brackets about certain passages, he notes--very significantly--that the > passages "tend to make Jesus what we consider a better person...." No > doubt. This being so, the passages would seem to share in the work of > the Holy Spirit, of whom the Lord said, "...he will glorify me...." (Jn. > 16:14). Since evidence of inspiration is further evidence of canonicity, > we have an extra reason for regarding the passages as canonical--the > word of God, and not forgeries. Thank you, Mr. Waltz. > > Bob Morse >> > > AAAAmen Bob, and just think, this is in addition to all of the internal and > external evidence that also show the passages in "question" to be the real > McCoy. Actually this is what prompted my original question concerning the > rather dogmatic remarks in NA 27 concerning the certainty that they were not > in the originals. > > Mark J. Hays > From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Jul 5 20:14:23 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA29086; Mon, 5 Jul 1999 20:14:23 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <37811D25.6D46@oneimage.com> Date: Mon, 5 Jul 1999 19:18:22 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: tc-list Jesus is better. Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2560 On 7/5/99, you wrote: >Dear tc-list correspondents: > >My thanks for all the valuable information you have made available. > >I especially appreciated Mr. Robert B. Waltz's contribution of 1 Jul >1999. In explaining why critical editions of the NT have placed double >brackets about certain passages, he notes--very significantly--that the >passages "tend to make Jesus what we consider a better person...." No >doubt. This being so, the passages would seem to share in the work of >the Holy Spirit, of whom the Lord said, "...he will glorify me...." (Jn. >16:14). Since evidence of inspiration is further evidence of canonicity, >we have an extra reason for regarding the passages as canonical--the >word of God, and not forgeries. Thank you, Mr. Waltz. Since I am being -- er -- invoked here, I must sound a very strong note of protest. Textual criticism is NOT a matter of faith. I can't stop you from determining the text of a faith basis, but if you do so, you are ignoring all principles of science and of textual criticism. Moreover, once you start down the path of preferring the reading you personally like, as opposed to the reading more likely to be original, where do you stop? By this principle, every critic would be free to adopt ANY reading. It wouldn't even have to be found in a manuscript; if it's "right," you can adopt it anyway. Under this method of criticism, the Bible, instead of being made a greater and more holy document, is cheapened, because it is simply the text you happen to prefer. It's your entirely human text. A textual critic -- indeed, any Christian who reveres the Bible -- must have a method, and stick to it, even if the results seem unfortunate. I am probably the most extreme proponent of this view; I am constantly pleading for more scientific criticism. But surely it is obvious to all that this method of criticism is both unacceptable and completely hopeless. So, for example, while I consider the Woman Taken in Adultery to be the most beautiful of the legends about Jesus, it is just that: A legend, a product of the "Western" text, not generally adopted until about the tenth century. The case against the other passages in double brackets is similar, though generally not as strong. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Jul 5 21:05:58 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA17720; Mon, 5 Jul 1999 21:05:58 -0400 From: Pappyhays@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Mon, 5 Jul 1999 21:11:00 EDT Subject: Re: tc-list Jesus is better. To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Windows 95 sub 76 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 237 In a message dated 99-07-05 20:00:57 EDT, you write: << I'm probably not the only one that finds this message odd and off topic. What, one might ask, does the topic of inspiration have to do with the practice of textual criticism? >> From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Jul 5 21:31:33 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA26951; Mon, 5 Jul 1999 21:31:33 -0400 From: Pappyhays@aol.com Message-ID: <983ed8b8.24b2b7d4@aol.com> Date: Mon, 5 Jul 1999 21:37:24 EDT Subject: Re: tc-list Jesus is better. To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Windows 95 sub 76 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1183 In a message dated 99-07-05 20:00:57 EDT, Mark Proctor writes: << I'm probably not the only one that finds this message odd and off topic. What, one might ask, does the topic of inspiration have to do with the practice of textual criticism? >> Well, forgive my naivet'e Mark, as well as my lack of professionalism, but I thought that textual criticism had to do with determining what God said, and therefore would be related to inspiration and canonicity. If this is not so, please correct me. If the topic of the list has a narrower definition than that, please accept my apologies. The "certain passages" that the gentleman was referring to have been the topic of several comments, many of which were solicited by me in the interest of determining the motivation or simply the reason behind Nestles dogmatic proclamation concerning the double bracketed verses. Although I did not mention any verses, the ones referred to in this line of conversation have been the last twelve of Mark and the Pericope de Adulteress I would comment on your closing remark, but then church history and fulfilled prophecy would be just as off topic then wouldn't they? Mark J. Hays From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Jul 5 21:59:44 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA07148; Mon, 5 Jul 1999 21:59:44 -0400 From: Pappyhays@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Mon, 5 Jul 1999 22:04:36 EDT Subject: Re: tc-list Jesus is better. To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Windows 95 sub 76 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2583 In a message dated 99-07-05 20:21:15 EDT, Robert Waltz writes in part: << Since I am being -- er -- invoked here, I must sound a very strong note of protest. Textual criticism is NOT a matter of faith. I can't stop you from determining the text of a faith basis, but if you do so, you are ignoring all principles of science and of textual criticism.>> I don't think anyone was *determining* anything by faith, but rather rejoicing in the evidence. <> And conversly, could not, by the adoption of a particular method, ANY reading be discarded? << It wouldn't even have to be found in a manuscript; if it's "right," you can adopt it anyway. Under this method of criticism, the Bible, instead of being made a greater and more holy document, is cheapened, because it is simply the text you happen to prefer. It's your entirely human text. A textual critic -- indeed, any Christian who reveres the Bible -- must have a method, and stick to it, even if the results seem unfortunate.>> And Mr Waltz, is there a rule against criticizing another's method? Or in determining if he truly is "sticking to it"? In my case, I began this with a question about what the method, or , if you will, the reasoning was, behind the dogmatic remarks in NA 27 concerning the double bracketed texts. So far, I've been given political advice, and have been told that the answer is in the commentary. Does anyone know, or do they all simply trust in the previous scholarship? If that's the case, isn't THAT (practically speaking) the same as determining the readings "by faith"? <> Is this how Dean Burgon is dealt with? <> You don't actually base your decisions about such things on "text family" theories do you? My how open minded and "scientific" that would be! Mark Hays From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Jul 6 07:15:24 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id HAA21793; Tue, 6 Jul 1999 07:15:23 -0400 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990706072228.0084f100@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: scarlson@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Tue, 06 Jul 1999 07:22:28 -0400 To: From: "Stephen C. Carlson" Subject: Re: tc-list Jesus is better. In-Reply-To: <001701bec742$edfcf6e0$157cebcf@shell.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 441 Godwin's law for the Internet states that any meaningful discussion has run its course when someone directly or indirectly compares the other side to Hitler. If I may suggest, this has happened here. Stephen Carlson -- Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@mindspring.com Synoptic Problem Home Page http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/ "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35 From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Jul 6 09:55:31 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA19740; Tue, 6 Jul 1999 09:55:31 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com (Unverified) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 08:59:28 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: tc-list Jesus is better. Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 6103 I'm probably going to regret this, but since my position is being badly misrepresented here, I must make one last attempt to clarify what I am saying. On this whole subject, I would add an introduction, from 1 Corinthians 14:20... "Do not be children in your thinking; be babies in evil, but let your thinking be mature." The essence of the scientific method is that, where one's beliefs conflict with evidence, the evidence wins. If there are any innocent bystanders left on this list, I'd advise you not to read this; I cast a fair amount of scorn on non-scientific attitudes. On 7/5/99, Pappyhays@aol.com wrote: >In a message dated 99-07-05 20:21:15 EDT, Robert Waltz writes in part: > ><< Since I am being -- er -- invoked here, I must sound a very strong > note of protest. > > Textual criticism is NOT a matter of faith. I can't stop you from > determining the text of a faith basis, but if you do so, you are > ignoring all principles of science and of textual criticism.>> > >I don't think anyone was *determining* anything by faith, but rather >rejoicing in the evidence. If one accepts a reading based on what one wants to believe, that is determining things by faith. Remember, the discussion started with a series of passages which the UBS editors declared to be interpolations. That's what the [[ ]] notation means. Yet the poster was rejoicing in this evidence about Jesus's goodness. > < you personally like, as opposed to the reading more likely to be > original, where do you stop? By this principle, every critic would > be free to adopt ANY reading.>> >And conversly, could not, by the adoption of a particular method, ANY reading >be discarded? Of course. However, if one adopts a consistent method, you're going to find "good" readings going with "bad." The point is not the method; we all have different methods. The point is, the method has to be the same. It doesn't matter whether you're choosing between AN and EAN in a passage where the difference makes no difference, or deciding whether to include or exclude Mark 16:9-20. An objective text must follow the same rules at all points. [ ... ] >And Mr Waltz, is there a rule against criticizing another's method? Or in >determining if he truly is "sticking to it"? Obviously not. But praising a passage -- which is where this thread started -- has *nothing* to do with methodology. There are two possibilities here: Either one is using faith as a methodology (in which case it isn't textual criticism, and does not belong on this list or in any scientific discussion), or one is talking about the meaning of the passage (in which case it isn't textual criticism, and does not belong on this list or in any scientific discussion). Textual critics come from all faiths (and lack thereof). The only way they can continue to work together is by avoiding bringing faith into the discussion. This is a textual criticism list, not a religious list. And for it to function effectively, it must stay that way. >In my case, I began this with >a question about what the method, or , if you will, the reasoning was, behind >the dogmatic remarks in NA 27 concerning the double bracketed texts. So far, >I've been given political advice, and have been told that the answer is in >the commentary. Does anyone know, or do they all simply trust in the previous >scholarship? If that's the case, isn't THAT (practically speaking) the same >as determining the readings "by faith"? This is a non sequitur. Most critics on this list have examined the evidence in these passages for themselves, and I believe most agree with the UBS editors. Therefore they have no need to offer different assessments of the evidence. As far as the reasoning of the UBS editors is concerned, if you wish their logic, surely it is better to read what they have said about the passage than to ask us to explain what we *think* they mean. > < pleading for more scientific criticism. But surely it is obvious > to all that this method of criticism is both unacceptable and > completely hopeless.>> > >Is this how Dean Burgon is dealt with? If Dean Burgon is treated unfairly, it is because he was an acid-tongued man who treated his opponents as fools. His basic argument was Providential Preservation. Since there is absolutely *no* evidence that this took place, it is ignored. As it should be. I have to add another comment: Burgon argued that the majority is always right. Given that the majority of human beings continue to degrade the environment, make wars, and try to get rich at their neighbours' expense, is there any actual evidence supporting the moral advantage of the majority? [ ... ] >You don't actually base your decisions about such things on "text family" >theories do you? >My how open minded and "scientific" that would be! Deep irony here, since I am one of only two people on this list who bases my decisions *entirely* of textual families (Vinton Deering being the other). It's just that I don't base them on the family known as the Byzantine text, let alone that horridly inaccurate representative of the Byzantine known as the Textus Receptus. Still, I am willing to discuss, and even to contribute to, other methods, as long as they are consistently applied. If you have a case for any of the double-bracketed passages, present that (and be prepared to be attacked :-). But don't bring up faith, or the greater glory of God, or the divinity or humanity of Jesus (except as they might have coloured a scribe's responses). Follow that course, and you will not recieve "political" advice, or any criticism worse than the statement "you're wrong." :-) -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Jul 6 20:16:32 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA05994; Tue, 6 Jul 1999 20:16:31 -0400 Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1999 20:16:31 -0400 (EDT) From: "James R. Adair" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list Jesus is better. 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: 797 The tc-list is a forum for reasoned discussion of textual variants and related topics. It is not a place to promote one's own theological positions, however deeply they may be held. This thread has deviated from the purpose of the list, so as listowner I declare it to be terminated. Members of the list are free to carry on any discussions that may have been sparked by comments on the list in private e-mail communications, but this list is not the place for such discussions. Thanks in advance for your cooperation. *********************************************************** James R. Adair, Jr. Director, ATLA Center for Electronic Texts in Religion ---------------> http://purl.org/CETR <--------------- Listowner, tc-list *********************************************************** From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Jul 7 20:27:45 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA15873; Wed, 7 Jul 1999 20:27:45 -0400 Message-Id: <199907080032.CAA04041@carno.brus.online.be> Subject: tc-list "Western Text" - a correct denomination? Date: Jeu, 8 Jul 99 02:39:25 +0200 x-sender: vale5655@pop3.brus.online.be x-mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1 From: Jean Valentin To: "Liste TC-List" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 3172 Dear TC-ers, I hope to find that some of you will react to this question of mine. I am led to this by the work I do on Arabic gospel manuscripts, and to the necessity in which I am to compare them to a large amount of textual witnesses - not only greek, but also versional. The more I collate, the more I have the impression that my Arabic version stems from a vetus syra. That is, what is called a "western text". And then i realise that there are western texts everywhere: in the west where we have the old latin and the versions that stems from it in several vernaculars, including harmonized ones like the Pepysian and Dutch harmonies. In the East, where we have the Syriac versions, but also other versions and harmonies in Armenian (though known only through citations), Arabic (the version which I study being much more "western" than the Arabic diatessaron), Persian, and what else... Even traces of "western" influences, if I'm correct were found in several coptic versions. This leads me to the question: isn't it time to revise the vocabulary that we use? When a certain type of text (or a set of associated text-types, or variants) are found not only in the West, but also in Egypt, Mesopotamia, Armenia, and Arabia, shouldn't we use a more appropriate term to refer to that text-type or those remains of a very archaic text-type? Why not, after all, choose another adjective that better describes the phenomenon we're confronted to? For example, I would incline to speak no more of the "Western text", but of the "peripheral texts" of the Gospels, as this describes quite accurately the fact that they are spread in the periphery of the Byzantine-Palestine-Egyptian area, where the great text-types were dominant. Also, the plural would help remind the diversity that exists among those texts, which have strong affinities and many common variants (which is why we call them, at the singular, the western text), but also have each one their own coloration. The appellation "peripheral texts" would contain no a-priori judgment as to the value of those texts, even though it can imply that they are earlier, having pushed away from the "center" by later, church-imposed recensions - at least I view them so, but the appellation in itself is purely descriptive. If "Alexandrine" and "Byzantine" are quite good descriptive appellations as to the geographical locations of the text-types I'm referring too, wouldn't "peripheral" or some other appellation be a better label for the so-called "western" text? By the way, when in several years I will put the last hand to my doctoral thesis about those Arabic gospels I'm studying, if I have to describe them, do you think it's worth a few lines in my book to introduce and explain such a new term? And, if anybody on the list sees any better adjective than "peripheral" to fuel the discussion, I'd be very interested! Jean V. _______________________________________________________________ Jean Valentin - 34 rue du Berceau - 1000 Bruxelles - Belgique tel. 32-2-280.01.37 e-mail : jgvalentin@arcadis.be _______________________________________________________________ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Jul 7 21:04:55 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA29213; Wed, 7 Jul 1999 21:04:54 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199907080032.CAA04041@carno.brus.online.be> Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1999 08:14:29 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: tc-list "Western Text" - a correct denomination? Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2620 On 7/7/99, Jean Valentin wrote, in part: [ ... ] >If "Alexandrine" and "Byzantine" are quite good descriptive appellations >as to the geographical locations of the text-types I'm referring too, >wouldn't "peripheral" or some other appellation be a better label for the >so-called "western" text? By the way, when in several years I will put >the last hand to my doctoral thesis about those Arabic gospels I'm >studying, if I have to describe them, do you think it's worth a few lines >in my book to introduce and explain such a new term? > >And, if anybody on the list sees any better adjective than "peripheral" >to fuel the discussion, I'd be very interested! Since people have been admitting for years that the "Western" text is not entirely "Western," but still use the name, I don't think that we're likely to change now. :-) But with that said.... In one sense "peripheral" is a good name, because people have used the word "Western" for almost everything that is "out there somewhere" -- for any text neither Alexandrian nor Byzantine. I think this is a severe error, though. Those "remote" texts are not a unity, and we need to stop using "Western" in the sense "Non-Alexandrian Non-Byzantine." As long as we allow such sloppy terminology, we will be unable to identify new text-types. We are assuming the solution. Personally, I think we need a name other than "Western," though. I tend to think in terms of versions. For example, the core of the "Western" text is the Old Latin and the bilingual uncials D/05, D/06, F/010, G/012. Why not just call this the "Latin" text-type? Then there is Family 2138 in the Catholic Epistles. This type is close to the Harklean Syriac -- but *not* close to the Old Latin; it probably is not "Western" in the sense of "Latin." So call it the "Syriac" text. Then, finally, there is the methodological disaster known as the "Caesarean text." (It's a methodological disaster whether you believe in it or not, since neither those who believe in it nor those who try to disprove its existence will allow the others' definition of the type. :-) Maybe we should be thinking of this as the "Armenian type" or the "Armenian/Georgian type" -- because the earliest witnesses are these versions. Just my thoughts on what is certainly a difficult topic.... -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Jul 8 05:29:57 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id FAA25025; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 05:29:56 -0400 Message-Id: <199907080936.KAA05310@haymarket.ed.ac.uk> From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 10:34:53 +000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: tc-list "Western Text" - a correct denomination? Priority: normal In-reply-to: <199907080032.CAA04041@carno.brus.online.be> 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: 1043 Respectfully, I must say that I think that "peripheral" is not a heuristically helpful term. It sounds like (and I think refers to) a grab-bag of textual complexions and remains also tied to the misleading earlier notion of "local" text-types and geographical categories for text-types. If new terms are to be developed, let us attempt concise descriptor terms that give some idea of what it is we're referring to, terms that give some idea of the *kind* of text we're referring to. Epp's attempts to categorize earliest text-types on the basis of the available papyri point toward what I mean, though his own work will likely need further refinements. For many years now I have been siding with the emergent voices who prefer to think of "text-types" as representing *textual tendencies*, constellations of scribal preferences, or some such category. Larry Hurtado 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 Jul 8 07:31:01 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id HAA09616; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 07:31:01 -0400 Message-Id: <199907081136.NAA20084@carno.brus.online.be> Subject: Re: tc-list "Western Text" - a correct denomination? Date: Jeu, 8 Jul 99 13:42:42 +0200 x-sender: vale5655@pop3.brus.online.be x-mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1 From: Jean Valentin To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1987 Dear Mr Hurtado, Which works of Mr Epp are you referring to and does he treat versions as well? Abandoning geographical terms for more descriptive ones sounds interesting indeed. Can you elaborate on the new terminology, or give me some bibliography? And, what kind of denomination would you (or Epp) then propose for the Western text, including the versions? And, would you keep D and the versions under a single header, or would you split it into several types? And if scribal tendencies are what should be used to described the Western text or the versions and harmonies that are close to it, how would you briefly describe them? Thank you for this interesting feedback - spending most of my time in the versions, I am not aware of the latest developments you refer to (specialization can be a handicap...), and they sound interesting. Jean V. >Respectfully, I must say that I think that "peripheral" is not a >heuristically helpful term. It sounds like (and I think refers to) a >grab-bag of textual complexions and remains also tied to the >misleading earlier notion of "local" text-types and geographical >categories for text-types. If new terms are to be developed, let us >attempt concise descriptor terms that give some idea of what it is >we're referring to, terms that give some idea of the *kind* of text >we're referring to. Epp's attempts to categorize earliest text-types >on the basis of the available papyri point toward what I mean, >though his own work will likely need further refinements. For many >years now I have been siding with the emergent voices who prefer >to think of "text-types" as representing *textual tendencies*, >constellations of scribal preferences, or some such category. _______________________________________________________________ Jean Valentin - 34 rue du Berceau - 1000 Bruxelles - Belgique tel. 32-2-280.01.37 e-mail : jgvalentin@arcadis.be _______________________________________________________________ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Jul 8 09:09:10 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA14633; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 09:09:09 -0400 Message-Id: <199907081315.OAA07002@haymarket.ed.ac.uk> From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 14:14:18 +000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: tc-list "Western Text" - a correct denomination? Priority: normal In-reply-to: <199907081136.NAA20084@carno.brus.online.be> 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: 1761 Jean Valentin asks: > Which works of Mr Epp are you referring to and does he treat versions as > well? Two seminal essays are: --E. C. COlwell, "Method in Establishing the Nature of Text-Types," in E. C. Colwell, _Studies in Methdology in Textual Criticism of the New Testament_ (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969), pp. 45-55; and --E. J. Epp, "The Significance of the Papyri for Determining the Nture of the New Testament Text in the Second Century: A Dynamic View of Textual Transmission," in E. J. Epp and G. D. Fee, _Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism_ (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), pp. 274-97. > Abandoning geographical terms for more descriptive ones sounds > interesting indeed. Can you elaborate on the new terminology, or give me > some bibliography? See above items, esp. the Epp essay. And, what kind of denomination would you (or Epp) then > propose for the Western text, including the versions? See, e.g., Colwell (p. 53): "the uncontrolled, popular text of the second century"; cf. Epp, p. 293-94. And, would you keep > D and the versions under a single header, or would you split it into > several types? And if scribal tendencies are what should be used to > described the Western text or the versions and harmonies that are close to > it, how would you briefly describe them? I can't claim first-hand expertise with "Western" witnesses, but am heavily dependent upon others who have paid their dues here. In addition to Colwell and Epp, David Parker would have some good observations to bring to bear on these matters. Larry Hurtado 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 Jul 8 10:05:22 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA05533; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 10:05:22 -0400 Message-ID: <007d01bec94c$3bb3f720$0f7cebcf@shell.com> From: "Mark Proctor" To: Subject: tc-list Studies and Documents website? Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 09:14:45 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_007A_01BEC922.521DAC60" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 918 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_007A_01BEC922.521DAC60 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Does anyone know if the Eerdman's Studies and Documents series has a = website? Mark Proctor ------=_NextPart_000_007A_01BEC922.521DAC60 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Does anyone know if the Eerdman's Studies and = Documents series=20 has a website?
 
Mark Proctor
------=_NextPart_000_007A_01BEC922.521DAC60-- From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Jul 8 13:16:50 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA15469; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 13:16:49 -0400 Message-Id: <199907081723.NAA36114@f04n07.cac.psu.edu> X-Sender: wlp1@mail.psu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0.2 Date: Thu, 08 Jul 1999 13:17:31 -0400 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "William L. Petersen" Subject: Re: tc-list "Western Text" - a correct denomination? In-Reply-To: <199907081315.OAA07002@haymarket.ed.ac.uk> References: <199907081136.NAA20084@carno.brus.online.be> 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: 1288 Two brief comments: (1) Epp's chapter, "The Significance of the Papyri for Determining the Nature of the New Testament Text in the Second Century: A Dynamic View of Textual Transmission," in E. J. Epp and G. D. Fee, _Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism_ (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), pp. 274-97, originally appeared in *Gospel Traditions in the Second Century: Origins, Recensions, Text, and Transmission,* Studies in Christianity and Judaism in Antiquity, Vol. 3 (Notre Dame, Indiana: Univ. of Notre Dame Press, 1989), pp. 71-103, which I edited. The work cited (Epp and Fee) simply contains a reprint of the original work. (2) The terminology "Western" is, of course, something of a misnomer today--and that is recognized by all (hence, the frequent use of quotation marks around the word). The term was first coined by I.S. Semler in 1766, and reiterated a year later. I give the original texts, the reasons for the designation (what manuscripts were meant), and a discussion of the use and suitability of the term in my *Tatian's Diatessaron,* pp. 141 (esp. nn. 220, 221, and 222), as well as 140-141, 143 n. 229, and 11 n. 7 (see in the subject index, under "Western Text," then "origin of name"...). --Petersen, Penn State Univ. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Jul 9 10:31:41 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA20497; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 10:31:41 -0400 Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 09:34:17 -0500 (Central Daylight Time) From: "Prof. Ron Minton" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: tc-list IGNTP films/Piedmont In-Reply-To: <10B402A1862@hhs.bham.ac.uk> Message-ID: X-X-Sender: rminton@orion.missouri.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: 813 I have accepted a position with Piedmont Baptist College. Those of you who occasionally contact me please note my new address information. Maybe now I will be able to finish my collation efforts of one of the IGNTP films (sorry for the delays Dr. Morrill). BTW Bruce, are you still seeking volunteers to collate mss? If so, please make another public announcement on this list and I will forward to some friends who may be interested. OLD ADDRESS: Ronald L. Minton 5379 N. Farm Rd. 179 Springfield, MO 65803 NEW ADDRESS: Dr. Ron Minton, Graduate Division Dean Piedmont Baptist College 716 Franklin Street Winston-Salem, NC 27101 (336) 725-8344 X2209 mintonr@pbc.edu My wife, Nancy, is Director of Financial Aid (336) 725-8344 X2322 mintonn@pbc.edu New addresses are EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY, Ron Minton From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Jul 9 10:44:53 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA25296; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 10:44:52 -0400 Message-Id: Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 16:51:13 +0200 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu References: <199907080032.CAA04041@carno.brus.online.be> Subject: Re: tc-list "Western Text" - a correct denomination? X-Mailer: T-Online eMail 2.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT X-Sender: 320003854441-0001@t-online.de From: U.B.Schmid@t-online.de (U.B.Schmid) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 3550 The questions raised by Jean are bothering me for quite a while. Although I can't come up with a smooth solution, I may add a few comments. 1. In my view the constitution of textual complexions (text-types, clusters, etc.) and the names we attach to them should be treated seperately (yet, they are not entirely seperate issues). 2. Although we may not agree on the definition of what constitutes various levels of textual complexions, we should come to terms with giving names to the animals. a. In an ideal world, I would propose a positive and a negative condition: - the names should be as descriptive as possible; - we should avoid geographical designations, for we simply don't know enough about the geographical offspring, distribution, limitations of any textual complexion at any time in order to apply geographical designations properly and consistantly. b. In real life most people tend to use geographical designations ("Western", Alexandrian, Cesarean, Byzantine being the most common ones). The only concession broadly used is to append inverted commas to the label *Western*, indicating that there seems to be something special in this very case. Moreover, if we were to use the old (geographical) designations, I would strongly suggest to extend the inverted commas to every single geographical label (thus "Western", "Alexandrian", "Cesarean", "Byzantine"), indicating some caution not to extrapolate from those designations. c. Probably we should simply stop using geographical labels at all even within inverted commas. Jean provided us with a perfect example of re-inventing the wheel, because at least as early as the beginning of the 19th century (Griesbach) scholars started to realize that "Western" is a misnomer. 3. Finally, a few scatterd observations: a. Whatever textual comlexion we study, we should restrict our conclusions (descriptions as well as designations) to the portions of text we've examined. A case for the traditional textual complexions ("Western", "Alexandrian", "Cesarean", "Byzantine") can only be made for the Gospels ("Cesarean" only for Mark!). Yet, scholars tend to extrapolate too rapidly into other parts of the NT. E.g., Ch.-B. Amphoux argued that the Greek Harklensis-Vorlage should be viewed as the otherwise missing "Western" text of the Catholic Epistles. But why? I'm tempted to say: Because there is a "Western" text in the Gospels as well. BTW-- Epp's essay suffers from the same defect. He proposes to deal with "The significance of the Papyri for determining the nature of the New Testament text in the second century." Yet, he argues his case solely on the basis of Gospel manuscripts. b. Concerning what Jean wrote (in part): > And then i realise that > there are western texts everywhere: in the west where we have the old > latin and the versions that stems from it in several vernaculars, > including harmonized ones like the Pepysian and Dutch harmonies. This is too broad a statement. In a forthcoming essay on the sources of the Liege Harmony (the most prominent of the Dutch harmonies), August den Hollander and I argue that the concept of an Old Latin Harmony as "the" (or even "a") source of the Liege text is both unnecessary and improbable in the light of the new evidence we present. (The essay will be published in *Queeste. Tijdschrift over middeleeuwse letterkunde* 6/2, 1999.) Well, I'd better stop before I get on the wrong track now... ------------------------------------------ Dr. Ulrich Schmid U.B.Schmid@t-online.de From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Jul 9 12:39:27 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA09085; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 12:39:27 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com (Unverified) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <199907080032.CAA04041@carno.brus.online.be> Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 23:48:35 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: tc-list "Western Text" - a correct denomination? Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 6107 On 7/9/99, U.B.Schmid wrote: >The questions raised by Jean are bothering me for quite a while. Although I >can't come up with a smooth solution, I may add a few comments. The above fairly well summarizes my feelings, too. :-) >1. In my view the constitution of textual complexions (text-types, clusters, >etc.) and the names we attach to them should be treated seperately (yet, they >are not entirely seperate issues). The first thing we need to settle, it seems to me, is how many levels there are. It seems to me (and Colwell hints at this, too) that there are four levels of kinship (the terminology is tentative): 1. The true family: Manuscripts for which an exact stemma can be created. These will generally consist of siblings, or of parents and children. These are not unknown (e.g. 205 and 205abs; some of the subgroups of Family 13; the Kx Cluster 17 manuscripts written by George Hermonymos), but they aren't all that common, either. 2. The super-family, composed of manuscripts which can be grouped, but not actually placed in a stemma. Family 13 as a whole probably fits this description. 3. The sub-text-type 4. The text-type. Note that, just as in a biological "family tree," any of the lower orders can also be the sole members of a higher order. For instance, it appears that Family 2138 in the Catholic Epistles is a super-family. But the members of the family appear to constitute the *only* manuscripts within their (Harklean-Syriac-like) text-type. So Family 2138 is, in effect, a super-family, a sub-text-type, and a text-type. >2. Although we may not agree on the definition of what constitutes various >levels of textual complexions, we should come to terms with giving names to the >animals. >a. In an ideal world, I would propose a positive and a negative condition: >- the names should be as descriptive as possible; >- we should avoid geographical designations, for we simply don't know enough >about the geographical offspring, distribution, limitations of any textual >complexion at any time in order to apply geographical designations properly and >consistantly. I agree with both of these points, in theory. But what do we substitute? Do we, for instance, call the "Western" text the "Periphrastic" text? If so, we are passing even more of a judgment than by calling it "Western." And if we go to Kenyon's a b g d, or Soden't I H K, or the like -- well, I don't think that's very descriptive. :-) The one useful alternative appears to be to refer to groups by their leading representative. But if we are to do this, we *must* refine our other terminology. If "Family B" refers to the whole Alexandrian text, and "Family 630" refers only to the siblings 630 and 2200, it will be very confusing. :-) Also, what do we do when a new, earlier, better manuscript shows up? [ ... ] >3. Finally, a few scatterd observations: >a. Whatever textual comlexion we study, we should restrict our conclusions >(descriptions as well as designations) to the portions of text we've examined. This would seem self-evident, but history shows that it is not. :-) >A >case for the traditional textual complexions ("Western", "Alexandrian", >"Cesarean", "Byzantine") can only be made for the Gospels ("Cesarean" only for >Mark!). Yet, scholars tend to extrapolate too rapidly into other parts of the >NT. E.g., Ch.-B. Amphoux argued that the Greek Harklensis-Vorlage should be >viewed as the otherwise missing "Western" text of the Catholic Epistles. But >why? I'm tempted to say: Because there is a "Western" text in the Gospels as >well. I think you have described the situation exactly. Amphoux (following Duplacy and Vaganay, at least in spirit) thinks the "Western" text is best, so it must exist, so it must be Family 2138 because nothing else is available. :-) This has several problems. First is a practical one: Family 2138 doesn't agree with the Old Latin, so how can it be "Western"? It is logical, in a way, to assume that a text-type that exists in one place must exist in another. If (say) Alexandria had a text of (say) Paul, the assumption is that it also had a text of Acts. But this does not mean: 1. That this text has survived 2. That we can identify it Indeed, who can say that a local text cannot be a text-type in one place and merely a sub-text-type somewhere else? To take another example, suppose that there *is* a "Caesarean" text of Mark. There must also be a text of Matthew used in Caesarea. Does this inevitably mean that this text will also be a separate text-type? Why? Might not the text of Matthew be, instead, a sub-type of the Alexandrian text? This is even more likely to be true as we cross from one corpus to another. The text of B is, at least arguably, *not* a member of the Alexandrian text in Paul -- but it is in Acts. Has its text changed? Or is it just that the B-text is close to the Aleph-text in Acts, and more divergent in Paul? This, I think, is one of the problems Von Soden had. In the Acts and Epistles, he broke the "Western" text up into Ia, Ib, Ic types. Now it happens that *all three of these types* exists in one or another part of the Acts and Epistles; Ia is the true "Western" text (with the footnote that Ia3 is something else, including the group Family 2127; it has ties to the Armenian), Ib is Family 1739, Ic is Family 2138. But Von Soden treated them as if they were entirely coherent throughout. Just my casual thoughts. If anyone wants more details on Von Soden and/or the levels of textual kinship, see the "Text-types" article on the Encyclopedia web site. See, in particular, the section on Appendix III: Von Soden's Textual System (especially the summary); also The Definition of a Text-Type and footnote 2 under History of the Study of Text-types -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Jul 9 13:07:45 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA19363; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 13:07:45 -0400 Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 12:14:21 -0500 (CDT) From: Bruce Morrill To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list IGNTP 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: 801 On Fri, 9 Jul 1999, Prof. Ron Minton wrote: > BTW Bruce, are you still seeking volunteers to collate mss? If so, please > make another public announcement on this list and I will forward to some > friends who may be interested. Yes, we are still needing qualified collators to work on minuscule manuscripts of John. In the past year, several professors have assigned students in graduate level textual criticism classes to complete a collation of a ms of John for the IGNTP, which is a great introduction to various aspects of our task. These collations are checked by experienced collators, following the multiple check policy of the IGNTP, so we are also needing experienced collators. Please contact me if you are interested or for additional information. Bruce Morrill bruce@math.ksu.edu From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Jul 9 18:37:25 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA19539; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 18:37:24 -0400 Message-Id: <199907092237.SAA19528@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> From: "Dave Washburn" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 15:44:53 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: tc-list "Western Text" - a correct denomination? Priority: normal In-reply-to: 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: 1438 Robert Waltz wrote in part: > >a. In an ideal world, I would propose a positive and a negative condition: > >- the names should be as descriptive as possible; > >- we should avoid geographical designations, for we simply don't know enough > >about the geographical offspring, distribution, limitations of any textual > >complexion at any time in order to apply geographical designations properly and > >consistantly. > > I agree with both of these points, in theory. But what do we substitute? > Do we, for instance, call the "Western" text the "Periphrastic" text? > If so, we are passing even more of a judgment than by calling it "Western." > And if we go to Kenyon's a b g d, or Soden't I H K, or the like -- well, > I don't think that's very descriptive. :-) If we're looking for a way to refer to the "Western" text in the sense of anything that is not Alexandrian or Byzantine, I would suggest "non-aligned." Unless we take something like D as a definitive baseline for evaluating western-ness, what we're talking about are mss that don't align with either the Alexandrian or Byzantine traditions. And even if we do take D as the chief representative of a "Western" text-type, mss that depart from it without going in the direction of either of the other types can still be classed as non- aligned. Just a thought... 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 Fri Jul 9 19:05:19 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA29617; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 19:05:19 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199907092237.SAA19528@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> References: Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 06:15:33 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: tc-list "Western Text" - a correct denomination? Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1372 On 7/9/99, Dave Washburn wrote: >If we're looking for a way to refer to the "Western" text in the sense >of anything that is not Alexandrian or Byzantine, I would suggest >"non-aligned." Unless we take something like D as a definitive >baseline for evaluating western-ness, what we're talking about are >mss that don't align with either the Alexandrian or Byzantine >traditions. And even if we do take D as the chief representative of a >"Western" text-type, mss that depart from it without going in the >direction of either of the other types can still be classed as non- >aligned. Just a thought... But this has the same problem as the name "Western" -- it implies a solution. A *manuscript* may be non-aligned; many of them are. But a text-type? And what if there are two text-types that are neither Alexandrian nor Byzantine? We need to answer two things here: First, is this the Bezan text we're talking about, or is it something more? And second (and in either case :-), what can we call this that doesn't assume some sort of solution. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Jul 9 20:55:27 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA09351; Fri, 9 Jul 1999 20:55:26 -0400 Message-Id: <199907100055.UAA09340@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> From: "Dave Washburn" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 18:02:52 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: tc-list "Western Text" - a correct denomination? Priority: normal In-reply-to: References: <199907092237.SAA19528@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: 1881 Robert Waltz wrote: > On 7/9/99, Dave Washburn wrote: > > >If we're looking for a way to refer to the "Western" text in the sense > >of anything that is not Alexandrian or Byzantine, I would suggest > >"non-aligned." Unless we take something like D as a definitive > >baseline for evaluating western-ness, what we're talking about are > >mss that don't align with either the Alexandrian or Byzantine > >traditions. And even if we do take D as the chief representative of a > >"Western" text-type, mss that depart from it without going in the > >direction of either of the other types can still be classed as non- > >aligned. Just a thought... > > But this has the same problem as the name "Western" -- it implies > a solution. A *manuscript* may be non-aligned; many of them are. > But a text-type? And what if there are two text-types that are > neither Alexandrian nor Byzantine? I'm talking strictly about manuscripts, not types. The fact that the "Western" type doesn't appear to be a type at all but rather a catch- all, suggests that there are currently no discernible alignments in the manuscripts. If and when somebody (not me!) were to find alignments between/among some of them that could legitimately be called a text-type, they would be classified as such. Until then, call them non-aligned. When used of manuscripts, I suggest that the term implies there may be a solution but we don't know what it is yet (and it may never come). > We need to answer two things here: First, is this the Bezan > text we're talking about, or is it something more? And second > (and in either case :-), what can we call this that doesn't > assume some sort of solution. The answer to the former will likely take us several steps toward the answer to the latter. 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 Mon Jul 12 06:42:14 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id GAA10672; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 06:42:13 -0400 Message-Id: Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 12:48:20 +0200 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu References: <199907080032.CAA04041@carno.brus.online.be> Subject: Re: tc-list "Western Text" - a correct denomination? X-Mailer: T-Online eMail 2.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT X-Sender: 320003854441-0001@t-online.de From: U.B.Schmid@t-online.de (U.B.Schmid) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 5121 In the light of Bob's comments on my lengthy post I would like to emphasize three points: 1. In my view the geographical designations in general TC use (Western, Alexandrian, Byzantine, Cesarean) don't offer any trustworthy results. I would like to challenge those who want to keep the geographical framework to make their case. 2. Any designation of textual complexions should be primarily related to the documents AND the NT books under consideration. E.g., there seems to be hardly a "Western text" but there is a Latin-Greek bilingual text of Paul and more than one Latin- Greek bilingual text of the Gospels. 3. One way to define designations for textual complexions could be developped by way of comparison with versional evidence. E.g., the group 2138 in the Catholic Epistles has a very intimate relation with the *Vorlage* of the Harclensis version. We could therefore call it the Harclensis-Greek. ------------------------------------- Robert B. Waltz wrote: > On 7/9/99, U.B.Schmid wrote: > [...] > > >2. Although we may not agree on the definition of what constitutes various > >levels of textual complexions, we should come to terms with giving names to > the > >animals. > >a. In an ideal world, I would propose a positive and a negative condition: > >- the names should be as descriptive as possible; > >- we should avoid geographical designations, for we simply don't know enough > >about the geographical offspring, distribution, limitations of any textual > >complexion at any time in order to apply geographical designations properly > and > >consistantly. > > I agree with both of these points, in theory. But what do we substitute? > Do we, for instance, call the "Western" text the "Periphrastic" text? > If so, we are passing even more of a judgment than by calling it "Western." > And if we go to Kenyon's a b g d, or Soden't I H K, or the like -- well, > I don't think that's very descriptive. :-) > > The one useful alternative appears to be to refer to groups by their > leading representative. But if we are to do this, we *must* refine > our other terminology. If "Family B" refers to the whole Alexandrian > text, and "Family 630" refers only to the siblings 630 and 2200, it > will be very confusing. :-) > > Also, what do we do when a new, earlier, better manuscript shows up? > > [ ... ] > > >3. Finally, a few scatterd observations: > >a. Whatever textual comlexion we study, we should restrict our conclusions > >(descriptions as well as designations) to the portions of text we've > examined. > > This would seem self-evident, but history shows that it is not. :-) > > >A > >case for the traditional textual complexions ("Western", "Alexandrian", > >"Cesarean", "Byzantine") can only be made for the Gospels ("Cesarean" only > for > >Mark!). Yet, scholars tend to extrapolate too rapidly into other parts of > the > >NT. E.g., Ch.-B. Amphoux argued that the Greek Harklensis-Vorlage should be > >viewed as the otherwise missing "Western" text of the Catholic Epistles. But > >why? I'm tempted to say: Because there is a "Western" text in the Gospels as > >well. > > I think you have described the situation exactly. Amphoux (following Duplacy > and Vaganay, at least in spirit) thinks the "Western" text is best, so it > must exist, so it must be Family 2138 because nothing else is available. :-) > > This has several problems. First is a practical one: Family 2138 doesn't agree > with the Old Latin, so how can it be "Western"? > > It is logical, in a way, to assume that a text-type that exists in one place > must exist in another. If (say) Alexandria had a text of (say) Paul, the > assumption > is that it also had a text of Acts. But this does not mean: > > 1. That this text has survived > 2. That we can identify it > > Indeed, who can say that a local text cannot be a text-type in one place and > merely a sub-text-type somewhere else? To take another example, suppose that > there *is* a "Caesarean" text of Mark. There must also be a text of Matthew > used in Caesarea. Does this inevitably mean that this text will also be a > separate text-type? Why? Might not the text of Matthew be, instead, a > sub-type of the Alexandrian text? > > This is even more likely to be true as we cross from one corpus to another. > The text of B is, at least arguably, *not* a member of the Alexandrian text > in Paul -- but it is in Acts. Has its text changed? Or is it just that > the B-text is close to the Aleph-text in Acts, and more divergent in Paul? > > This, I think, is one of the problems Von Soden had. In the Acts and > Epistles, he broke the "Western" text up into Ia, Ib, Ic types. Now > it happens that *all three of these types* exists in one or another part > of the Acts and Epistles; Ia is the true "Western" text (with the footnote > that Ia3 is something else, including the group Family 2127; it has ties > to the Armenian), Ib is Family 1739, Ic is Family 2138. But Von Soden > treated them as if they were entirely coherent throughout. ------------------------------------------ Dr. Ulrich Schmid U.B.Schmid@t-online.de From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Jul 12 09:59:41 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA22782; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 09:59:40 -0400 Message-Id: <199907121406.PAA09490@haymarket.ed.ac.uk> From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 15:04:46 +000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: tc-list "Western Text" - a correct denomination? Priority: normal In-reply-to: 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: 1284 Ulrich Schmid's suggestions seem initially congenial to me. Epp tried to sketch new text-type categories (alpha-text, beta-text, etc.), which were intended to be "value neutral" labels. Schmid is correct that Epp's categories were almost entirely based on gospels mss evidence, and may still be too broad. But Schmid's idea of (a) preferring labels that are not misleadingly geographical, and (b) building up group definitions tightly tied to the mss evidence, is very congenial to what I think were the aims Epp was seeking. In my study of Codex W, I proposed that in Mark W and P45 seem to have a special relationship and that they might represent some kind of text of their own, perhaps of Egyptian derivation. Thus, in Mark we might speak of a P45-W text. So, Schmid's suggestion seems to me to make such proposals a basis for moving ahead. Any larger categories and labels could/should only be "built up" inductively on the basis of evidence. The broad point here is that we should treat the traditional text-type categories critically, and not force evidence into the categories. Larry Hurtado 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 Mon Jul 12 18:45:21 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA05207; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 18:45:20 -0400 From: rlmullen@netpath.net Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990712185708.007a89c0@netpath.net> X-Sender: rlmullen@netpath.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 18:57:08 -0400 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list "Western Text" - a correct denomination? In-Reply-To: <199907121406.PAA09490@haymarket.ed.ac.uk> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2317 I would agree that the textual complexion of the NT is more varied (at least as far as the "Western text") than a strictly geographical model would allow. At the same time it seems clear to me that some areas did have peculiar textual traditions with regard to certain books. For example, my own work on Cyril of Jerusalem, with a backward glance at Origen and Eusebius, suggests that the classical "Caesarean text" of Mark, which I call "Group Theta" (represented by Koridethi, 565, and 700) had a rather limited circulation-- chiefly in and around Roman Palestine. To speculate beyond that statement, versional evidence in Armenian and Georgian that has been noted from time to time for Group Theta readings suggests to me that pilgrimmage traffic may have played a role in the spread of that text of Mark. So, I still think that geography plays a role in textual developments, though perhaps not such a broad role as Streeter thought. --Rod Mullen At 03:04 PM 7/12/99 +000, you wrote: >Ulrich Schmid's suggestions seem initially congenial to me. Epp >tried to sketch new text-type categories (alpha-text, beta-text, >etc.), which were intended to be "value neutral" labels. Schmid is >correct that Epp's categories were almost entirely based on >gospels mss evidence, and may still be too broad. But Schmid's >idea of (a) preferring labels that are not misleadingly geographical, >and (b) building up group definitions tightly tied to the mss >evidence, is very congenial to what I think were the aims Epp was >seeking. >In my study of Codex W, I proposed that in Mark W and P45 seem >to have a special relationship and that they might represent some >kind of text of their own, perhaps of Egyptian derivation. Thus, in >Mark we might speak of a P45-W text. So, Schmid's suggestion >seems to me to make such proposals a basis for moving ahead. >Any larger categories and labels could/should only be "built up" >inductively on the basis of evidence. >The broad point here is that we should treat the traditional text-type >categories critically, and not force evidence into the categories. >Larry Hurtado > >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 Mon Jul 12 19:44:50 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA26695; Mon, 12 Jul 1999 19:44:49 -0400 Message-Id: <199907122350.BAA26197@carno.brus.online.be> Subject: Re: tc-list "Western Text" - a correct denomination? Date: Mar, 13 Jul 99 01:56:45 +0200 x-sender: vale5655@pop3.brus.online.be x-mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1 From: Jean Valentin To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 4305 I am very interested by the broad and rich discussion that my question about the denomination "Western text" has caused! Even though I do not react to everything (it's hardly possible as I need to go on collating!), I will keep those messages preciously. It's really "food for thought", very stimulating. Now concerning Mr Mullen's intervention: > To speculate beyond that statement, versional evidence in Armenian and >Georgian that has been noted from time to time for Group Theta readings >suggests to me that pilgrimmage traffic may have played a role in the >spread of that text of Mark. > So, I still think that geography plays a role in textual developments, >though perhaps not such a broad role as Streeter thought. --Rod Mullen > Perhaps another factor is the role of the Jerusalem liturgy, which seems to use more portions from Mk than the Byzantine liturgy does, and which has left important liturgical documents in the Georgian and Armenian liturgies. As to other groupings, the inner diversity of the "Western text" has been, correctly, underlined by some of you. There's the peculiar text of codex Bezae, and probably something like a "syro-latin" text which itself could be divided along several lines (Afra and Itala, vetus syra, Gospel harmonies...). As to Mr Hurtado's words: >The broad point here is that we should treat the traditional text-type >categories critically, and not force evidence into the categories. This points directly to my problem: I'm working on new evidence (an Arabic version) that shows many affinites with the "Western text" but the nature of those affinities seems for the time being very difficult to describe. Even though I meet at nearly each verse with variants that show up in "western" witnesses, those are never exactly the same. Sometimes it's the vetus syra, sometimes it's an old latin ms, sometimes it's a diatessaronic witness. I think that assigning my version to a text-type would certainly "force" it into a catgory, nevertheless with so many variants that are always parallelled in "Western" witnesses as they are called nowadays, I get the impression that, indeed, all those witnesses in their diversity have something in common. That is why also, I was wondering how to give the Western text another name, even though, as Mr Schmid says, I'm probably re-inventing the wheel - replacing a misonmer by another... Go on discussing, I'm really challenged by all that! Then a little present for you all. In Mt 1.17, codex Bobbiensis (k) reads "usque in adventum Christi" (till the advent of Christ) instead of Greek "ews tou xristou", a text that influenced two other codices of the vetus latina, b and c, which use it in a recapitulative at the end of the verse. This variant, if I'm correct, was known only in Latin mss and could be called "Western". Now, I can tell you that I find it also in an Arabic manuscript, probably translated from Syriac. This manuscript dates from... the XVth century. There are hundreds such variants that are parallelled with remote texts, form Persian to Dutch, without any known Greek manuscript. This is the kind of phenomenon that prompted me to speak of "peripheral" texts, probably each one carrying remnants of a very old text in many regions of the world. I understand the objections of many of you who prefer not to give too much weight to geographical criteria, but in the case of such variants, their dissemination in regions that are quite far from each other impresses me, and I would like to find interpretations to this phenomenon. Probably, in the case of my Arabic version, I will have to hypothesize that it was translated from some Syriac version in the kind of the vetus syra, but then with at least twice more "western" or diatessaronic variants (diatessaronic, in this case, not always meaning "harmonized", but simply "found in the harmonized witnesses"). This is very exciting to me, but on the other hand, sometimes I ask myself it this is not too beautiful to be believable? Jean V. _______________________________________________________________ Jean Valentin - 34 rue du Berceau - 1000 Bruxelles - Belgique tel. 32-2-280.01.37 e-mail : jgvalentin@arcadis.be _______________________________________________________________ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Jul 13 09:23:31 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA15913; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 09:23:30 -0400 Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 09:23:30 -0400 From: D.C.Parker@bham.ac.uk Message-Id: <199907131323.JAA15902@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> >Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 11:20:30 +0000 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list "Western Text" - a correct denomination? Content-Type: text Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 3030 Ulrich wrote: > 2. Any designation of textual complexions should be primarily related to the > documents AND the NT books under consideration. E.g., there seems to be hardly a > "Western text" but there is a Latin-Greek bilingual text of Paul and more than > one Latin- Greek bilingual text of the Gospels. I absolutely agree with the second part - the textual history of the different parts and books are all different. Moreover, we know that just because a MS is Alexandrian in the Gospels, it needn't be somewhere else. It will follow from this that, if we take the Gospels as our starting-point, and define a certain text-type as Alexandrian, we may well have no way of knowing what the Alexandrian text of other parts of the NT actually is, even if it exists. One might be able to make a case if there were consistent recensional traits and lack of them (see Zuntz on Paul). But otherwise, since no MS has a label saying 'I'm Alex', the Alexandrian text of Paul or whatever might be in any of the text-types. I'm not so sure that the first part helps me (>Any designation of textual complexions should be primarily related to the documents>). The point about finding textual complexions is that one is trying to reconstruct forms of the text behind the MSS. So the B-Aleph text is not represented by either of them, and you have to eliminate quite a lot of individual error before you get there. So maybe there's a risk that calling it the B-Aleph texts links it too closely to the MSS. I think that I operate with a sort of halfway house. I don't talk about the Western Text, because I've suggested that it represents a style of transmitting the text and not a text-type. (But I accept that agreement between the Lvt and the Vetus Syra takes us back to an early form of the Greek text. I think one could simply call that a second-century or third-century form of the text.) I do use the term Alexandrian, because I know what I think I mean, and think I know what I mean, when I use it. But I don't think that I necessarily use it strictly or only as a geographical term. Its significance is also in reference to the kind of philology associated with Alexandrian scholarship, which I suppose was likely to be learned, but didn't have to be practiced, in the city of Alexandria. Perhaps, in fact rather like the "western text", it is a description of a way of treating texts rather than a geographical locator. And that reminds me that Scot McKendrick put forward a very lively argument at the Scriptorium Conference last year for an Ephesian origin for A, which is 'Alexandrian' outside the Gospels. I suspect that for some people the word Alexandrian is really a synonym for 'best' or 'original'. The fact is that we probably need a revolution before we get a new set of terms to use. The main thing until then is that we define the ones we have before we use them. David Parker Dr D.C. Parker Reader in New Testament Textual Criticism and Palaeography From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Jul 13 11:04:20 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA22522; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 11:04:19 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com (Unverified) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199907131323.JAA15902@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 10:14:05 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Standard Terms (Was: tc-list "Western Text"....) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1429 On 7/13/99, D.C.Parker@bham.ac.uk wrote, in part: >The fact is that we probably need a revolution before we get >a new set of terms to use. The main thing until then is that we >define the ones we have before we use them. I won't argue with anything here. On the other hand, given what is generally the innate conservatism of textual critics, I wonder if a revolution is actually enough. :-) What we need is a standards board -- preferably one to control not only the terms, but their translations, at least into the most important languages (English and German, obviously, but I think we should also try for French, Latin, and Greek). There is a real problem here, in that people *propose* things, but there is no way to approve them. Look at all the work that Colwell did, with nothing ever being universally accepted. (Don't mistake that; I'm not saying, e.g., that we should accept the Colwell/Tune 70% rule as the definition of a text-type; it *isn't* the definition of a text-type. The definition of a text-type is "The most abstract recognizable level of textual kinship." But we need to decide some things, e.g. the meaning of "textual variant" as opposed to "variant reading. We need an approved *dictionary*.) I don't know how to make this happen. But the need is there. So what so we do now? 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 Jul 13 14:19:23 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA03342; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 14:19:22 -0400 From: rlmullen@netpath.net Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990713143114.007a94c0@netpath.net> X-Sender: rlmullen@netpath.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 14:31:14 -0400 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list "Western Text" - a correct denomination? In-Reply-To: <199907122350.BAA26197@carno.brus.online.be> 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: 5265 Jean Valentin's latest e-mail is very thoughtful. In re the "Caesarean" readings, it is of course possible that liturgical developments impacted some traditions and readings. Egeria, for instance, was keenly interested in how things were done in the Jerusalem liturgy. Catechetical works are another possible route of influence at least for Armenian. I have learned since my original research that Cyril of Jerusalem's Catechetical lectures were translated into Armenian very early (5th? cent). Regarding Mt. 1:17, it strikes me that the reading of k might be scribal periphrasis aiming at a higher Christology-- that is going beyond a simple record of the generations to a notice of Christ's coming. Is it possible that the same idea arose independently in the mind of an Arabic speaking scribe? Just food for thought, Rod Mullen At 01:56 AM 7/13/99 +0200, you wrote: >I am very interested by the broad and rich discussion that my question >about the denomination "Western text" has caused! Even though I do not >react to everything (it's hardly possible as I need to go on collating!), >I will keep those messages preciously. It's really "food for thought", >very stimulating. Now concerning Mr Mullen's intervention: > >> To speculate beyond that statement, versional evidence in Armenian and >>Georgian that has been noted from time to time for Group Theta readings >>suggests to me that pilgrimmage traffic may have played a role in the >>spread of that text of Mark. >> So, I still think that geography plays a role in textual developments, >>though perhaps not such a broad role as Streeter thought. --Rod Mullen >> > >Perhaps another factor is the role of the Jerusalem liturgy, which seems >to use more portions from Mk than the Byzantine liturgy does, and which >has left important liturgical documents in the Georgian and Armenian >liturgies. > >As to other groupings, the inner diversity of the "Western text" has >been, correctly, underlined by some of you. There's the peculiar text of >codex Bezae, and probably something like a "syro-latin" text which itself >could be divided along several lines (Afra and Itala, vetus syra, Gospel >harmonies...). > >As to Mr Hurtado's words: > >>The broad point here is that we should treat the traditional text-type >>categories critically, and not force evidence into the categories. > >This points directly to my problem: I'm working on new evidence (an >Arabic version) that shows many affinites with the "Western text" but the >nature of those affinities seems for the time being very difficult to >describe. Even though I meet at nearly each verse with variants that show >up in "western" witnesses, those are never exactly the same. Sometimes >it's the vetus syra, sometimes it's an old latin ms, sometimes it's a >diatessaronic witness. I think that assigning my version to a text-type >would certainly "force" it into a catgory, nevertheless with so many >variants that are always parallelled in "Western" witnesses as they are >called nowadays, I get the impression that, indeed, all those witnesses >in their diversity have something in common. That is why also, I was >wondering how to give the Western text another name, even though, as Mr >Schmid says, I'm probably re-inventing the wheel - replacing a misonmer >by another... > >Go on discussing, I'm really challenged by all that! > >Then a little present for you all. In Mt 1.17, codex Bobbiensis (k) reads >"usque in adventum Christi" (till the advent of Christ) instead of Greek >"ews tou xristou", a text that influenced two other codices of the vetus >latina, b and c, which use it in a recapitulative at the end of the >verse. This variant, if I'm correct, was known only in Latin mss and >could be called "Western". Now, I can tell you that I find it also in an >Arabic manuscript, probably translated from Syriac. This manuscript dates >from... the XVth century. > >There are hundreds such variants that are parallelled with remote texts, >form Persian to Dutch, without any known Greek manuscript. This is the >kind of phenomenon that prompted me to speak of "peripheral" texts, >probably each one carrying remnants of a very old text in many regions of >the world. I understand the objections of many of you who prefer not to >give too much weight to geographical criteria, but in the case of such >variants, their dissemination in regions that are quite far from each >other impresses me, and I would like to find interpretations to this >phenomenon. Probably, in the case of my Arabic version, I will have to >hypothesize that it was translated from some Syriac version in the kind >of the vetus syra, but then with at least twice more "western" or >diatessaronic variants (diatessaronic, in this case, not always meaning >"harmonized", but simply "found in the harmonized witnesses"). This is >very exciting to me, but on the other hand, sometimes I ask myself it >this is not too beautiful to be believable? > >Jean V. > > >_______________________________________________________________ >Jean Valentin - 34 rue du Berceau - 1000 Bruxelles - Belgique >tel. 32-2-280.01.37 >e-mail : jgvalentin@arcadis.be >_______________________________________________________________ > > > From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Jul 13 14:27:12 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA06180; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 14:27:12 -0400 From: rlmullen@netpath.net Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990713143904.007a8df0@netpath.net> X-Sender: rlmullen@netpath.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 14:39:04 -0400 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list "Western Text" - a correct denomination? In-Reply-To: <199907131323.JAA15902@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: 3511 Just before you start talking about the "half way house" below you discuss the difficulties in arriving at text types and write of the danger of linking them too closely to particular Mss. It's worth stating for the sake of the discussion that manuscripts are realia, but text-types are in some sense abstractions based on deductions regarding individual readings. --Rod Mullen At 09:23 AM 7/13/99 -0400, you wrote: >Ulrich wrote: > >> 2. Any designation of textual complexions should be primarily related to the >> documents AND the NT books under consideration. E.g., there seems to be hardly a >> "Western text" but there is a Latin-Greek bilingual text of Paul and more than >> one Latin- Greek bilingual text of the Gospels. > >I absolutely agree with the second part - the textual history of the >different parts and books are all different. Moreover, we know that >just because a MS is Alexandrian in the Gospels, it needn't be >somewhere else. It will follow from this that, if we take the >Gospels as our starting-point, and define a certain text-type as >Alexandrian, we may well have no way of knowing what the Alexandrian >text of other parts of the NT actually is, even if it exists. One >might be able to make a case if there were consistent recensional >traits and lack of them (see Zuntz on Paul). But otherwise, since no >MS has a label saying 'I'm Alex', the Alexandrian text of Paul or >whatever might be in any of the text-types. > >I'm not so sure that the first part helps me (>Any designation of >textual complexions should be primarily related to the documents>). >The point about finding textual complexions is that one is trying to >reconstruct forms of the text behind the MSS. So the B-Aleph text is >not represented by either of them, and you have to eliminate quite a >lot of individual error before you get there. So maybe there's a >risk that calling it the B-Aleph texts links it too closely to the >MSS. > >I think that I operate with a sort of halfway house. I >don't talk about the Western Text, because I've suggested that it >represents a style of transmitting the text and not a text-type. >(But I accept that agreement between the Lvt and the >Vetus Syra takes us back to an early form of the Greek text. I think >one could simply call that a second-century or third-century form of >the text.) I do use the term Alexandrian, because I know what I >think I mean, and think I know what I mean, when I use it. But I >don't think that I necessarily use it strictly or only as a >geographical term. Its significance is also in reference to the kind >of philology associated with Alexandrian scholarship, which I suppose >was likely to be learned, but didn't have to be practiced, in the >city of Alexandria. Perhaps, in fact rather like the "western text", >it is a description of a way of treating texts rather than a >geographical locator. And that reminds me that Scot >McKendrick put forward a very lively argument at the Scriptorium >Conference last year for an Ephesian origin for A, which is >'Alexandrian' outside the Gospels. > >I suspect that for some people the word Alexandrian is >really a synonym for 'best' or 'original'. > >The fact is that we probably need a revolution before we get >a new set of terms to use. The main thing until then is that we >define the ones we have before we use them. > >David Parker > > >Dr D.C. Parker >Reader in New Testament Textual Criticism and Palaeography > > From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Jul 13 14:29:56 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA07195; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 14:29:56 -0400 From: rlmullen@netpath.net Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990713144147.007a9780@netpath.net> X-Sender: rlmullen@netpath.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 14:41:47 -0400 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Standard Terms (Was: tc-list "Western Text"....) In-Reply-To: References: <199907131323.JAA15902@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: 1607 For my money, Eldon Epp has done some of the best work in clarifying our terminology. --Rod Mullen At 10:14 AM 7/13/99 -0500, you wrote: >On 7/13/99, D.C.Parker@bham.ac.uk wrote, in part: > >>The fact is that we probably need a revolution before we get >>a new set of terms to use. The main thing until then is that we >>define the ones we have before we use them. > >I won't argue with anything here. > >On the other hand, given what is generally the innate conservatism >of textual critics, I wonder if a revolution is actually enough. :-) > >What we need is a standards board -- preferably one to control >not only the terms, but their translations, at least into the >most important languages (English and German, obviously, but >I think we should also try for French, Latin, and Greek). There >is a real problem here, in that people *propose* things, but there >is no way to approve them. Look at all the work that Colwell did, >with nothing ever being universally accepted. > >(Don't mistake that; I'm not saying, e.g., that we should accept >the Colwell/Tune 70% rule as the definition of a text-type; it >*isn't* the definition of a text-type. The definition of a text-type >is "The most abstract recognizable level of textual kinship." >But we need to decide some things, e.g. the meaning of >"textual variant" as opposed to "variant reading. We need an >approved *dictionary*.) > >I don't know how to make this happen. But the need is there. >So what so we do now? >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 Jul 13 14:44:42 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA12581; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 14:44:41 -0400 Message-ID: <035C0F6701082600@mail.tyndale.com> X-SMF-Message-ID: 035C0F6701082600 X-SMF-Hop-Count: 1 Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 12:53:46 -0500 From: "Barrett, David" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu X-EXP32-SerialNo: 50000052, 00102384 Subject: tc-list A Reply to Criticisms of Comfort/Barrett's book Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: InterChange (Hydra) SMTP v3.51 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 7326 Following is a response to criticisms that have appeared on the TC-list regarding The Complete Text of the Earliest New Testament Manuscripts. I, David Barrett, am posting this for Dr. Comfort and myself, as he is not currently able to send and receive emails. In recent days, some individuals have offered some criticisms of our book, *The Complete Text of the Earliest New Testament Manuscripts*. This, of course, is not surprising, but rather, expected. The nature of this kind of work--and all the detail that goes into producing it--invites further revision. In the introduction to our book, we said: "We have done our best to provide an accurate transcription, always recognizing that our work may need emendation here and there. We therefore welcome any comments that will help make this book better." As far as we know, the only person to have offered specific suggestions for emendation is Maurice Robinson. (We will address his suggestions below.) The other criticisms are general, some of which we will also address. The most important issue has to do with the accuracy of the transcriptions. As this is our preeminent goal for the book, we desire nothing more than to provide the most accurate transcriptions possible. But this undoubtedly takes at least two printings to get it completely right. No one can expect it to be perfect in the first printing--no matter how much effort was put into it. Other eyes will see what none of us saw the first time around and then recommend emendations. Of course, our chiefest critics--one of whom is William Petersen--want to pan the book immediately because it has some errors. By contrast, Petersen claims that the Muenster Institute would never have printed a book with errors. In this regard, Petersen says: "Pause, for a moment, and think: Have `errors' been a problem with the work of the Muenster Institute? I think not. Their accuracy has been--and I use the word in its very best sense `Teutonic': meticulous, thorough, detailed, exhaustive. We may quibble with what was or was not included in the apparatus of a pocket edition--which is what NA27/UBS4 is; we may argue over what reading they took into the text. But errors? No." Petersen is wrong in this regard. The first printing of NA26 (which is now NA27) had many, many errors in the critical apparatus, especially with respect to the citations of the papyri. I (Comfort) noted several of these in the Gospel of John and wrote to Barbara Aland with my concerns. (I also published several corrections to NA26 in an article entitled, "The Greek Text of the Gospel of John Compiled from the Earliest Papyrus Manuscripts, As Compared to the Greek Text of NA26" in *New Testament Studies*, September, 1990). Barbara Aland wrote me a detailed letter in December of 1987 apologizing for the errors. She agreed that there were, indeed, a great many inaccuracies that they noticed in the critical apparatus of NA26 after the first printing. These mistakes, she assured me, would be corrected in future printings of the Nestle-Aland text. And most of them *were* corrected--in the Gospel of John and in several other books. By the way, the critical apparatus of UBS3 also went through a major revision after its first printing. That's why it was later called, "third, corrected edition." We make these points not to discredit the Nestle text or the work of the Muenster Institute but to argue the case that readers need to be fair in their criticisms. To use the proverbial expression, they shouldn't "throw out the baby with the bath water." In due course, the Muenster Institute got things right and made multiple corrections in their citations of the papyri, as also did the United Bible Societies. No one dare suggest that these two editions were worthless because they contained many errors; rather, all balanced criticisms encouraged revision. In like manner, we will be glad to consider all suggested emendations to our work for future printings. And now, let's look at Robinson's criticisms. He offers 22 emendations. In our estimation, 9 of these call for correction. They are as follows: 1. insert DE (Acts 5:6 in 0189) 2. an extra bracket needs to be deleted (Acts 5:12 in 0189) 3. insert EN (Acts 5:12 in 0189) 4. OUDEI should be written as OUQEI (Acts 5:13 in 0189) 5. KAI should be moved from the beginning of a line to the end of the previous line (Acts 5:21 in 0189) 6. the Greek article TO should be TA (John 2:15 in 0162) 7. insert DE (John 8:15 in P75) 8. note "d" on p. 580 for P75 should read APO THS T[RA]PEZ[HS], omitting the S before T[RA]PEZ[HS]. This is a typographical error. I had cited this correctly in *The Quest for the Original Text of the New Testament*, p. 187. 9. note "c" on John 13:20 in P66 needs to be adjusted As to the rest of the emendations Robinson proposes, some (with respect to 0189) are debatable, and the rest are not debatable at all. What we transcribed is affirmed by the photographs, editio principes, and/or NA27 for the other citations Robinson made with respect to P66, P75, and 0162. Unfortunately, our transcription of 0189 does have a few problems--there were some logistical reasons for this, which we have now discovered. We can assure our readers that our presentation of 0189 is not indicative of what appears in the rest of the book. In any event, these 9 errors that Robinson has cited for our book are minor; they amount to no more than seven words. True, they are errors and need correction. And, of course, there will be more errors spotted as time goes on. But such is the process of producing a better book. Therefore, we appeal to our critics to see the big picture. The book, even as it now stands, is a significant contribution to New Testament textual studies. We have provided transcriptions that are far more accurate than what was originally provided for certain manuscripts such as P45, P46, and P66 (especially). And we have brought together separately published fragments of certain manuscripts into one text, as well as provided new reconstructions. To pan this book is a mistake. To start over--as Robinson suggests--is unthinkable. For anyone who would like to start from scratch, he calls upon them to emulate the meticulousness of the International Greek New Testament Project (IGNTP) and the Muenster Institute. At this point, we must speak of our own participation in the IGNTP project on the papyri of John's Gospel. As participants in this project, we (Comfort and Barrett, along with other graduate students at Wheaton College) provided countless corrections to the first-draft transcription of P66, thereby vastly improving its accuracy. Then, we went way beyond this in our own work on P66. Just compare the two. Our point is this: Our aim in this work is the same as that shared by the IGNTP and the Muenster Institute; we all strive to present accurate replications of the NT manuscripts. Contrary to the opinions of Robinson and Petersen, we think the book will serve students and scholars well, as does the eminent papyrologist, T. C. Skeat, who recently wrote to Comfort, "I must congratulate you on the production of a work which will be of utmost value to scholars in many fields." Philip Comfort and David Barrett From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Jul 13 15:43:17 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA03966; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 15:43:17 -0400 Message-Id: Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 21:49:45 +0200 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu References: <199907122350.BAA26197@carno.brus.online.be> Subject: Re: tc-list "Western Text" - a correct denomination? X-Mailer: T-Online eMail 2.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT X-Sender: 320003854441-0001@t-online.de From: U.B.Schmid@t-online.de (U.B.Schmid) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1145 Jean Valentin wrote: [...] > Then a little present for you all. In Mt 1.17, codex Bobbiensis (k) reads > "usque in adventum Christi" (till the advent of Christ) instead of Greek > "ews tou xristou", a text that influenced two other codices of the vetus > latina, b and c, which use it in a recapitulative at the end of the > verse. This variant, if I'm correct, was known only in Latin mss and > could be called "Western". Now, I can tell you that I find it also in an > Arabic manuscript, probably translated from Syriac. This manuscript dates > from... the XVth century. a. According to Juelicher k reads "usque in adventum iesu". b. The "recapitulative" in b and c could have been taken over from an exegetical comment. In my view there is no conclusive case for a genealogical link with k in this case, especially not in the direction you suggest. c. What about the entire v.17 in k and your Arabic manuscript? Does the latter reproduce all the plunder of k? d. What about a Latin *Vorlage* of your Arabic manuscript? Just a few thoughts... ------------------------------------------ Dr. Ulrich Schmid U.B.Schmid@t-online.de From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Jul 13 15:43:24 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA04028; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 15:43:23 -0400 Message-Id: Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 21:49:43 +0200 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu References: <199907131323.JAA15902@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> Subject: Re: tc-list "Western Text" - a correct denomination? X-Mailer: T-Online eMail 2.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT X-Sender: 320003854441-0001@t-online.de From: U.B.Schmid@t-online.de (U.B.Schmid) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1688 Larry Hurtado wrote: [...] > (a) preferring labels that are not misleadingly geographical, > and (b) building up group definitions tightly tied to the mss > evidence... > Any larger categories and labels could/should only be "built up" > inductively on the basis of evidence. Thanks to Larry for sharpening the point I wanted to make. Unfortunately, my own words gave way to some misunderstanding. D.C.Parker wrote: [...] > I'm not so sure that the first part helps me (>Any designation of > textual complexions should be primarily related to the documents>). > The point about finding textual complexions is that one is trying to > reconstruct forms of the text behind the MSS. So the B-Aleph text is > not represented by either of them, and you have to eliminate quite a > lot of individual error before you get there. So maybe there's a > risk that calling it the B-Aleph texts links it too closely to the > MSS. My idea of linking designations of textual complexions to documents was opposed to linking them to certain locations such as "Alexandrian", "Western", etc. The result was that I overstated the case. Nevertheless I would like to emphasize the "empirical" value of such designations. Using David's example I think "B-Aleph-substratum in Mt (Mk, Lk, respectively)" is a much more neutral designation than, e.g., (proto-, late, etc.) "Alexandrian". In addition I think that designations like that are more flexible. I really do think we should built up larger textual complexions on the basis of smaller ones which usually give us empirically stronger links. ------------------------------------------ Dr. Ulrich Schmid U.B.Schmid@t-online.de From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Jul 13 16:25:04 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA19156; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 16:25:03 -0400 Message-Id: <199907132030.WAA00554@carno.brus.online.be> Subject: Re: tc-list "Western Text" - a correct denomination? Date: Mar, 13 Jul 99 22:37:03 +0200 x-sender: vale5655@pop3.brus.online.be x-mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1 From: Jean Valentin To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 3659 > Is it possible >that the same idea arose independently in the mind of an Arabic speaking >scribe? Theoretically every scenario is possible. Of course, I gave one variant, and you suggest an interpretation that is possible when you are face to face witht his variant alone. But when it's hundreds of variants that show the connection of this Arabic version with always the same textual witnesses (syriac, latin, harmonized), then you have to believed that hundreds of times the same amplifications or modifications were introduced independently in the mss. Which, of course, is very unlikely. Other questions that come to mind are the following. If I find a good number of variants that were known before _only_ in Latin and are now corroborated by my Arabic version, what are the consequences? Given the fact that the Arabic descends most probably from some kind of old syriac version, the result is that variants known previously to be "latin" or purely "western" do belong to something we can call a "syro-latin" text, and that the gap between the latin and syriac versions between to be bridged. The more common variants I find, the more I tend to see both versions as closer to each other than was thought before, the more I tend to see them as reflecting the same text-type. And for the remaining variants that would survive only in one of the two branches, I could be tempted to explain by the fact that the influence of the Greek text on the Latin and Syriac accounts for their disparition from one of the two versions. But... isn't that what the advocates of the "Cesarean text" have done? And it has been told to them by many textual critics that their approach in incorrect. The assumption undelying the analysis being: the evidence being as it is, I expect that more unique or rare variants could find their confirmation in case new manuscripts are collated. In that case, the new evidence being an Arabic version in which variants surface that previously were known only in latin - or: persian, venetian, dutch, hebrew (for Mt...). So I'll probably refrain from going too far in that direction - after all, my main job is making the edition of an Arabic text, not revolutionizing the theory on the Western text - but I can't help asking myself what is the point where the methodology becomes unsound as it has been found concerning the Cesarean text. Other example of such a variant: in Mt 2.20, the majority of the witnesses has "those who were searching the soul of the child have died". Codex vercellensis (a) makes it a singular: he who was searching the soul of the child has died...". Western variant? Purely latin? No, it is attested also in Arabic. Which makes it highly probable that it existed in Syriac. Many other cases give me the feeling that there is at least something which we can call a "syro-latin" text, to which, in fact, belong many variants that nowadays are known only in one of the two branches because both versions have in the course of time seen the intrusion of variants coming from a later Greek tradition. You can tell me: this is exactly the methodology that led to constructing the cesarean text, the axiom "any variant found in any member of that group of witnesses, and not found in the mainstream Greek tradition, belongs to the text-type to be reconstructed". Hmmm... have to think about it! What's wrong? Jean V. _______________________________________________________________ Jean Valentin - 34 rue du Berceau - 1000 Bruxelles - Belgique tel. 32-2-280.01.37 e-mail : jgvalentin@arcadis.be _______________________________________________________________ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Jul 13 16:44:34 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA26264; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 16:44:33 -0400 Message-Id: <199907132049.WAA01078@carno.brus.online.be> Subject: Re: tc-list "Western Text" - a correct denomination? Date: Mar, 13 Jul 99 22:56:33 +0200 x-sender: vale5655@pop3.brus.online.be x-mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1 From: Jean Valentin To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2686 >a. According to Juelicher k reads "usque in adventum iesu". Well, a look at Jullicher shows me that in fact the sign khi-rho follows iesu. So in fact it's iesu christi. Both you and I were wrong ;-) >b. The "recapitulative" in b and c could have been taken over from an >exegetical >comment. In my view there is no conclusive case for a genealogical link >with k >in this case, especially not in the direction you suggest. I agree that this is possible. However, my main point concerns the parallel between k and the Arabic ms. The behavior of b and c is not so important in that respect, the point is that a quite visible latin variant is parallelled in the East. >c. What about the entire v.17 in k and your Arabic manuscript? Does the >latter >reproduce all the plunder of k? Here's a rough translation: So all those generations from Ibrahim to Dawud (are) fourteen generations. And from Dawud to the deportation of Babil (are) fourteen generations. And from the deportation of Babil to the coming of the Christ (are) fourteen generations. (17) And the birth of the Christ was in this manner... Have you noticed another syro-latin variant: the omission of "Jesus" from the beginning of v. 18. >d. What about a Latin *Vorlage* of your Arabic manuscript? Of course I asked myself the question! But it seems very unlikely to me, given that several mistakes done by the translator are explained much better when postuylating a Syriac "Vorlage". I'll name a frequent one: nouns that are in the singular while the Greek text has a plural, or the contrary. The origin of the confusion is the "seyome", the double point that Syriac uses to indicate the plural. As you know, the two mss of the old syriac version quite frequently omit that sign, and all we have to do is guess if the word is singular or plural. The Arabic translator had such a manuscript had to guess too, because of that reason, and often decided in a way that was different from the Greek text. This feature is explained most easily from Syriac, as latin doesn't raise any doubts: it has no need of diacriticals as it has desinences that clearly indicate whether a noun is singular or plural. There are other similar, linguistic, reasons why I think that a Syriac "Vorlage" explains the most naturally the genesis of that Arabic version. More to come when I publish my thesis (give me some five to seven years :-) > >Just a few thoughts... _______________________________________________________________ Jean Valentin - 34 rue du Berceau - 1000 Bruxelles - Belgique tel. 32-2-280.01.37 e-mail : jgvalentin@arcadis.be _______________________________________________________________ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Jul 14 06:52:03 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id GAA25363; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 06:52:02 -0400 Message-Id: <199907141058.LAA24570@haymarket.ed.ac.uk> From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 11:56:38 +000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: tc-list "Western Text" - a correct denomination? Priority: normal In-reply-to: <199907132030.WAA00554@carno.brus.online.be> 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: 3006 Jean Valentin asks: >I can't > help asking myself what is the point where the methodology becomes unsound > as it has been found concerning the Cesarean text. . . . . . > You can tell me: this is exactly the methodology that led to constructing the cesarean text, the > axiom "any variant found in any member of that group of witnesses, and not > found in the mainstream Greek tradition, belongs to the text-type to be > reconstructed". Hmmm... have to think about it! What's wrong? Unless I mistake your meaning, you're raising pretty much the question addressed by E.C. Colwell in his influential essay proposing a more thorough quantitative method for analyzing mss agreements/relationships, a method then refined by Fee, appropriated also by me and others subsequently. The essential answer to your question is this: (1) Individual agreements in readings (unless the readings are in some clear way utterly unexplainable otherwise) mean little as evidence of the relationship of mss. Many, many agreements are likely coincidental, esp. small stylistic variations (e.g., word order, changes from paratactic to hypotactic constructions, etc.). Only *significant amounts of agreements* can suggest some mss relationship. (2) To determine what is a "significant amount" of agreements, the basic principle is that mss should agree (a) meansureably more than they disagree at points where there is textual variation in mss, and (b) two mss should agree with each other measureably more than either agrees with any other. This led to the procedure of calculating % of agreement of any two mss studied, and to the % of agreement being established over *all* variation-units counted where variation can be noted, and to the spread of % agreement being set roughly at 70% with approx. 10% separating two mss from either's agreement with witnesses of any other textual group. These are all rough figures, guidelines not firm laws (thus, e.g., a 68% agreement might still be significant if neither ms has any competing level of agreement with any representative of any other known textual group). (3) To allow for the chance of "block- mixture", mss should be studied preferably across the whole of a biblical writing (e.g., whole of Mark, or Romans), but the counting and % calculating should be done chapter by chapter to allow one to spot changes in levels of agreement. (4) To make the task feasible (though it is still quite daunting!), one selects carefully major witnesses to each known textual group/type (ideally two witnesses for each text-type, to allow for the fact that any ms is a witness to its textual group/type and none a perfect witness). SO, merely counting agreements of this and that witness means little, unless the count can be contextualized within other relevant data. Larry Hurtado L. W. Hurtado University of Edinburgh, New College Mound Place Edinburgh, Scotland EH1 2LX Phone: 0131-650-8920 Fax: 0131-650-6579 E-mail: L.Hurtado@ed.ac.uk From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Jul 14 08:50:01 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA07807; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 08:50:00 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199907141058.LAA24570@haymarket.ed.ac.uk> References: <199907132030.WAA00554@carno.brus.online.be> Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 07:55:32 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: tc-list "Western Text" - a correct denomination? Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 3596 On 7/14/99, Professor L.W. Hurtado wrote, in part: >Unless I mistake your meaning, you're raising pretty much the >question addressed by E.C. Colwell in his influential essay >proposing a more thorough quantitative method for analyzing mss >agreements/relationships, a method then refined by Fee, >appropriated also by me and others subsequently. The essential >answer to your question is this: (1) Individual agreements in >readings (unless the readings are in some clear way utterly >unexplainable otherwise) mean little as evidence of the relationship >of mss. Many, many agreements are likely coincidental, esp. >small stylistic variations (e.g., word order, changes from paratactic >to hypotactic constructions, etc.). Only *significant amounts of >agreements* can suggest some mss relationship. (2) To >determine what is a "significant amount" of agreements, the basic >principle is that mss should agree (a) meansureably more than >they disagree at points where there is textual variation in mss, and >(b) two mss should agree with each other measureably more than >either agrees with any other. This led to the procedure of >calculating % of agreement of any two mss studied, and to the % >of agreement being established over *all* variation-units counted >where variation can be noted, and to the spread of % agreement >being set roughly at 70% with approx. 10% separating two mss >from either's agreement with witnesses of any other textual group. >These are all rough figures, guidelines not firm laws (thus, e.g., a >68% agreement might still be significant if neither ms has any >competing level of agreement with any representative of any other >known textual group). [ etc. ] At the risk of beating a dead horse, I should point out that the work of Colwell and Tune should *not* be treated as the final word (though it is the first and, to date, *only* attempt to get systematic about this). Colwell's work has no scientific merit; he took *one* sample -- a single chapter, for a small number of manuscripts. So neither Colwell's 70% criterion nor his 10% gap has any scientific basis; they were just the numbers he came up with based on his single sample. He had no other data, and no statistical measure of validity. He also took no account of mixture. This should, on its face, invalidate his results -- and, if that isn't enough, Richards demonstrated that his method didn't work in the Johannine Epistles. Don't mistake what I am saying; I consider Colwell the greatest worker on the subject of method of all time. (He doesn't have much competition, but that's beside the point. :-) But he never finished his work -- indeed, he never even truly began it. He proposed a theory, with what amounted to some constants to be determined. The theory has not been tested, and the constants have not been determined. I repeat, the constants have *not* been determined. One sample means nothing! If we are to use Colwell's method, we need to do a *lot* of research first. And if we want to use a Colwell method, we would be much better off using one of his multiple-statistic methods, rather than the "quantitative method" and the 70% definition that -- be it noted -- Colwell *never revisited* after writing his essay with Tune. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Jul 14 08:58:29 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA10862; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 08:58:29 -0400 Message-ID: <008201becdf8$cfec35a0$6b3c883e@charles-croll> From: "Charles Croll" To: "TC List" Subject: Re: Standard Terms (Was: tc-list "Western Text"....) Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 11:59:06 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0070_01BECDF0.465E8FC0" 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: 2244 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0070_01BECDF0.465E8FC0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Yesterday (13 July) Bob Waltz wrote: (... we need to decide some things, e.g. the meaning of "textual = variant" as opposed to "variant reading". We need an approved = *dictionary*.) I don't know how to make this happen. But the need is there. So what do we do now? I agree with this (both in the need for such a dictionary and not = knowing how we should go about it) and don't want to lose the idea. =20 So what do we do now? =20 Charles Croll 57 Shrub End Road Colchester Essex CO3 4RA England Phone/Fax: 44 1206 573511 Email: charles@croll.net ------=_NextPart_000_0070_01BECDF0.465E8FC0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Yesterday (13 July) Bob Waltz=20 wrote:
 
(... we need to decide some things, e.g. the meaning of = "textual=20 variant" as opposed to "variant reading". We need an = approved=20 *dictionary*.)

I don't know how to make this happen. But the need = is=20 there.
So what do we do now?
 
I agree with = this=20 (both in the need for such a dictionary and not = knowing how=20 we should go about it) and don't want to lose the idea.
 
So what do we do now?
 
Charles Croll
57 Shrub End=20 Road
Colchester
Essex   CO3 4RA
England
Phone/Fax: 44 1206 573511
Email: charles@croll.net
<= /BODY> ------=_NextPart_000_0070_01BECDF0.465E8FC0-- From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Jul 14 09:17:25 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA17717; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 09:17:24 -0400 Message-Id: <199907141324.OAA17054@haymarket.ed.ac.uk> From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 14:22:26 +000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: tc-list "Western Text" - a correct denomination? Priority: normal In-reply-to: References: <199907141058.LAA24570@haymarket.ed.ac.uk> 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: 3114 Robert Waltz wrote: > At the risk of beating a dead horse, I should point out that > the work of Colwell and Tune should *not* be treated as the > final word (though it is the first and, to date, *only* attempt > to get systematic about this). Uh, excuse me, but those of us who have taken up, used, tested, and modified Colwell & Tune's proposal have (a) never done so because we saw it as any "final word" but as a plausible approach deserving testing, and(b) have also both generally confirmed it while also modifying and refining the approach. > Colwell's work has no scientific merit; he took *one* sample -- > a single chapter, for a small number of manuscripts. So neither > Colwell's 70% criterion nor his 10% gap has any scientific basis; > they were just the numbers he came up with based on his single > sample. He had no other data, and no statistical measure of > validity. Well, if "scientific" = developing a hypothesis and working approach based on an initial sample of data (which is, I think, exactly how scientific hypotheses and methods get developed), then Colwell and Tune qualify. The provisional validity (is there any other kind in scholarship??) of their approach/proposal *has* in fact been further tested and applied on a number of various texts and mss and over larger bodies of material (e.g., John, Mark, & other texts). > He also took no account of mixture. This should, on its > face, invalidate his results Wrong again. The % of agreement approach makes allowance both for "block mixture" and for the larger fact that nearly all mss contain "mistures" of textual influences. These mixtures are vividly displayed in the % of agreement, if one uses representative witnesses of sufficient breadth. > Richards demonstrated that his method didn't work in the > Johannine Epistles. Well, not exactly. Unless you mean that R. found that we don't have the same sorts of textual groupings and clear witnesses in the Johannines that we have for, e.g., the Gospels. But then, it was precisely the Colwell/Tune method than can show this! > I consider Colwell the greatest > worker on the subject of method of all time. ... But he > never finished his work -- indeed, he never even truly > began it. He proposed a theory, with what amounted to some > constants to be determined. The theory has not been tested... One sample means nothing! > If we are to use Colwell's method, we need to do a *lot* of > research first. Well, more precisely (a) the method in fact *has* been tested several times in major and critically received studies, and (b) we "use" Colwell's method *by* testing it as these studies have done. Waltz and I have exchanged comments on this topic before, and I apologize to list-members familiar with these exchanges for addressing the same issue again. But it is puzzling beyond my limited powers to comprehend why these same incorrect assertions keep coming up. Larry Hurtado L. W. Hurtado University of Edinburgh, New College Mound Place Edinburgh, Scotland EH1 2LX Phone: 0131-650-8920 Fax: 0131-650-6579 E-mail: L.Hurtado@ed.ac.uk From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Jul 14 11:50:19 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA13588; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 11:50:19 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com (Unverified) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199907141324.OAA17054@haymarket.ed.ac.uk> References: <199907141058.LAA24570@haymarket.ed.ac.uk> Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 10:59:35 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: tc-list "Western Text" - a correct denomination? Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 6361 I'm going to give this twenty minutes of refutation, then I'm done. As Hurtado says, we are constantly disagreeing on this, for the simple reason that our disagreement is fundamental. :-) No cure for that except for him to wise up. :-) On 7/14/99, Professor L.W. Hurtado wrote: >Robert Waltz wrote: >> At the risk of beating a dead horse, I should point out that >> the work of Colwell and Tune should *not* be treated as the >> final word (though it is the first and, to date, *only* attempt >> to get systematic about this). >Uh, excuse me, but those of us who have taken up, used, tested, >and modified Colwell & Tune's proposal have (a) never done so >because we saw it as any "final word" but as a plausible approach >deserving testing, and(b) have also both generally confirmed it while >also modifying and refining the approach. This is exactly what has *not* been done. Colwell and Tune put forth a hypothesis based on one (ONE!) sample of data. Before this hypothesis becomes anything but a hypothesis, it must be tested. That means a large number of data points must be gathered, and the hypothesis, and ONLY that hypothesis, tested with this data. But let's take Hurtado's own work. On page 10, he writes, "The method for determining quantitative relationships of MSS first developed by Colwell and Tune is used here with certain refinements." Note the word "developed." Colwell did not "develop" a method, he (in his own word) *suggested* one. His words is "This *suggests* [emphasis mine] that the quantitative definition of a text-type is a group of manuscripts that agree more than 70 per cent of the time...." (Page 59 in _Studies in Methodology_). This is *not* logic-chopping. Colwell threw out an idea. Before *any* conclusions can be based on that idea, it needs to be checked. But what did Hurtado do? He *used* the method. The whole thrust of pages 10-12 in Hurtado is to use the quantitative method. Yet nowhere -- nowhere -- does he offer any proof of the method except his own results. This means that the whole exercise is engaged in two mutually contradictory activities: Proving Colwell and proving the relations between Caesarean witnesses. You can't do both at once. [ ... ] >> He also took no account of mixture. This should, on its >> face, invalidate his results >Wrong again. The % of agreement approach makes allowance >both for "block mixture" and for the larger fact that nearly all mss >contain "mistures" of textual influences. These mixtures are vividly >displayed in the % of agreement, if one uses representative >witnesses of sufficient breadth. Can we stop using "mixture" to mean "block mixture," please? Mixture is when readings of two different types occur in the same section of text, mingled randomly. Block mixture is when different sections of a text are derived from different text-types. Colwell allowed for block mixture. He did *not* allow for mixture. We can see this, e.g., in the data Richards offers for 424* and 424**. 424* is Byzantine. Upon this has been overlaid a text whose readings almost always agree with 1739. But what is the text of 1739-as-corrected? Not, according to Richards, Byzantine, nor A3 (Family 1739). Rather, it goes in with one of the mixed groups (M2; page 178). But even if one considers "mixed" to be a text-type (which is silly, to my mind, but this whole discussion is silly to my mind :-), that does not describe 424-as-corrected, which is Byzantine-plus-1739. >> Richards demonstrated that his method didn't work in the >> Johannine Epistles. >Well, not exactly. Unless you mean that R. found that we don't >have the same sorts of textual groupings and clear witnesses in >the Johannines that we have for, e.g., the Gospels. But then, it >was precisely the Colwell/Tune method than can show this! I quote: It was clearly evident that for the manuscripts used in this study it would not be possible to establish arbitrarily a certain cut-off percentage to determine groupings. If one were to use 70 percent, let us say, as a minimum percentage for showing a text-type, then we would have to conclude that there is no such thing as a distinction between the Byzantine and Alexandrian text-types. (Page 43). Also: As far as a 10 percent gap is concerned, there is no noticeable gap below the 70 percent line. (Page 53.) I've used up my twenty minutes (it takes time to look up these citations :-), but I'm going to add one other point, which is that Colwell's "method" is uncontrolled. The rate of agreement between samples *depends on the manuscripts cited.* What's more, it depends *very much* on the manuscripts cited. I once did a study of Colossians 1, using the following manuscripts: p46, Aleph, A, B , C, D, F, G, K, L, P, Psi, 049, 056, 075, 0142, 0150, 0151, 0278, 330, 1739. I took only those variants supported by two or more sample manuscripts. I then proceeded to move manuscripts in and out of the sample, and compare the rate of agreements for Aleph and B based on these different samples. Here are some of the results: Manuscripts sampled % agreement of B and Aleph ------------------- -------------------------- Omit P46 70% Omit 1739 70% Omit L 70% All manuscripts 69% Omit F 64% Omit G 62% Omit C F 056 0142 0151 59% P46 Aleph A B D G K L 049 1739 only 56% Note that adding or omitting only *one* well-chosen manuscript can cause the sample to shift by as much as eight points, and we have a total swing of 14 points. I don't know what else I can say. I would just add this: I came at this subject *without preconceptions*, and *tested* the Colwell definition. It doesn't work, and fudging the numbers won't make it work, because 1) It ignored mixture (I didn't say "block mixture," I said *mixture* 2) A statistic is dependent on its sample, and it doesn't have a definition for choosing manuscripts. (If it did, it would probably restrict us from testing a lot of manuscripts. :-) -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Jul 14 12:16:08 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA22993; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 12:16:08 -0400 Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 12:23:19 -0400 From: Jim West Subject: tc-list re: barrett's response X-Sender: jwest@highland.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.32.19990714162319.00675850@highland.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 786 Why has no one raised their voice in approval of what Barrett wrote yesterday? You all know he is absolutely correct. You also know that the comments he made about the apparatus of NA 26 and UBS 3 were right on the mark. I appreciate him taking the time to clarify an issue that was clear to me when the book appeared. Minor errors can be corrected and there simply are no major errors in the book. Further, Barrett's level headed answer in face of the really brutal and unfair comments his book engendered demonstrate his scholarly disposition. Hopeing that now more open and fair minded people will take a look at a really important and deserving tome... best, Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD email- jwest@highland.net web page- http://web.infoave.net/~jwest From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Jul 14 12:22:56 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA25421; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 12:22:56 -0400 Message-Id: <199907141629.RAA19121@haymarket.ed.ac.uk> From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:27:35 +000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: tc-list "Western Text" - a correct denomination? Priority: normal In-reply-to: References: <199907141324.OAA17054@haymarket.ed.ac.uk> 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: 3278 Waltz is correct that our disagreement is fundamental. His own response shows why. I leave it for anyone familiar with NT textual criticism to judge. --Item: One can't "test" an idea or method without using it and seeing what it produces. Yet Waltz faults those of us (and I'm not the only one) who have used and refined the Colwell proposal for establishing mss relationships quantitatively because we have "used" the method without it being "tested". Curious. Those who wish can consult my study, Fee's published study of P66 in John, and e.g., the essays by Ehrman (Novum Testamentum 29[1987], 22-45) and Thos Geer (in B.D. Ehrman, M.W. Holmes, _The Text of the NT in Contemporary Research: Essays on the Status Quaestionis_). --Item: He seems to think that NT mss are the result of his notion of "mixture" of "pure" mss types or something. Whereas the mss are all the result of scribal activities which involve combinations of ms copying and scribal tendencies and preferences. --Item: For the Colwell method to work you have to use it properly. There must be provisionally identified key witnesses of provisionally identified textual groups for a NT writing. A ms is then quantitatively analysed over the whole of the NT writing chapter by chapter, noting all variants of all the control witnesses, and counting all agreements of any two. Waltz's description of what he's done (but not, it appears produced for refereed publication by scholars in the field) doesn't seem to correspond to this. --In short, the Colwell method/proposal *has* been tested in critically assessed studies (N.B., critically assessed as doctoral theses and then assessed for publication and then further assessed in the reviews and subsequent research work in the field). In the process, refinements (one or two significant adjustments, e.g., Fee's insistence that weighing should follow, not precede, counting), and further developments (e.g., Ehrman's categorization of agreements). But the basic heuristic aims in Colwell's proposal, and the basic steps in setting up an analysis (e.g., choice of mss, counting all agreements, comparison of all quantitative agreements of all mss used, etc.) all have clear logic and validity. The limitations have to do with the mass of mss and data, the limits of person-power for the tasks, etc. As has been stated before, everyone is legally entitled to an opinion, but in scholarship we depend upon opinions that are (a) backed up by data, and (b) submitted for critical assessment to the scholars competent to judge them. I invite Waltz to do this. And this will likely take more than 20 minutes! :-) Exchanges on a list like this aren't the way we settle things in scholarship. So, it's now clear that Waltz finds fault with the work of a number of current TC scholars. Whether anyone should notice will depend upon him or someone of his position presenting a case through the proper scholarly processes of submission for publication in refereed journals or book series, or at conferences of relevant scholars. Larry Hurtado L. W. Hurtado University of Edinburgh, New College Mound Place Edinburgh, Scotland EH1 2LX Phone: 0131-650-8920 Fax: 0131-650-6579 E-mail: L.Hurtado@ed.ac.uk From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Jul 14 12:49:32 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA05038; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 12:49:32 -0400 From: D.C.Parker@bham.ac.uk To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 18:08:28 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: tc-list "Western Text" - a correct denomination? Priority: normal In-reply-to: <199907132049.WAA01078@carno.brus.online.be> Message-ID: <545D9956FE9@hhs.bham.ac.uk> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 358 > Well, a look at Jullicher shows me that in fact the sign khi-rho follows > iesu. So in fact it's iesu christi. Both you and I were wrong ;-) It may be a place for checking beyond Julicher. I'll try to rememebr to look in the Tischendorf and OLBT editions when I'm near them. Dr D.C. Parker Reader in New Testament Textual Criticism and Palaeography From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Jul 14 12:50:02 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA05245; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 12:50:01 -0400 From: D.C.Parker@bham.ac.uk To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 18:08:51 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: tc-list "Western Text" - a correct denomination? Priority: normal In-reply-to: <199907132049.WAA01078@carno.brus.online.be> Message-ID: <545DB161097@hhs.bham.ac.uk> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 358 > Well, a look at Jullicher shows me that in fact the sign khi-rho follows > iesu. So in fact it's iesu christi. Both you and I were wrong ;-) It may be a place for checking beyond Julicher. I'll try to rememebr to look in the Tischendorf and OLBT editions when I'm near them. Dr D.C. Parker Reader in New Testament Textual Criticism and Palaeography From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Jul 14 17:06:52 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA08595; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:06:51 -0400 Message-Id: Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 23:13:11 +0200 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu References: <199907141324.OAA17054@haymarket.ed.ac.uk> <199907141629.RAA19121@haymarket.ed.ac.uk> Subject: Colwell's Quantitative "Method" (Was: Re: tc-list "Western Text" - a correct denomination?) X-Mailer: T-Online eMail 2.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT X-Sender: 320003854441-0001@t-online.de From: U.B.Schmid@t-online.de (U.B.Schmid) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 3081 Discussing the exact scientific status of Colwell's Quantitative "method" (hypothesis versus suggestion) and the related matters are not my main concern, I have to admit. However, I'm very interested in the application and the results of that method. >From the work that has been carried out by Fee, Hurtado, and Ehrman I may add a few observations from off the top of my head (I don't have the studies here to check; so correct me, if I'm mistaken): 1. The mentioned studies are all devoted to Gospel texts (in the case of Fee and Hurtado only to one Gospel each). 2. The selected manuscripts are broadly speaking more or less the same, usually not exceeding a total of 15 prominent documents. 3. The results are more or less the same regarding a) the fact that Aleph-B usually meet the 70% criterium (the "Byzantine" control-group is usually much more coherent, while the scattered "Western" witnesses are way below), and b) Aleph-B usually keep the 10% gap to the other groups. One exception is Ehrman's study of the Gospel text of Didymus. Here the 10% gap doesn't work properly. Therefore, Bart "refined" the gap definition in order to keep things straight (as they ought to be). Is it unfair to utter fear of circularity with respect to the mentioned method and it's testing? Selecting and using manuscripts because we "know" that they are leading representatives of "known" text-types will, of course, produce some sort of alignments that can be statistically expressed. And the alignments are not expected to change much as long as always the same manuscripts are used (except when block-mixture occurs). BTW-- The 70% agreement level always struck me as (intentionally?) chosen because Aleph-B keep that very level of agreement when the 10 to 12 leading representatives of the other text-types are added to the pool. The intriguing question is this: What happens, if we add some other manuscripts that we don't "know" of to the pool? If it is true, what Bob Waltz says: "The rate of agreement between samples *depends on the manuscripts cited.* What's more, it depends *very much* on the manuscripts cited," I would suggest to add 50 more manuscripts to the pool and see what happens. My own tentative guess is that the gaps will start to even up. The already mentioned work of Richards on the Johannine Epistles made it abundantly clear (when using about 80 manuscripts). Currently, Gerd Mink from the Muenster Intitute is "playing" statistics with the mass of data that has been assembled for the Editio Critica Maior of James (full collation of about 200 manuscripts with more than 800 units of variation). As far as I recall from conversation with him a few months ago there are no 10% gaps between groups of manuscripts among the 200 manuscripts collated for James. I hope Gerd Mink will be able to publish his results in not too distant future. I'd be very curious to see a study on the Gospels (a Gospel) using 50 to 60 manuscripts. ------------------------------------------ Dr. Ulrich Schmid U.B.Schmid@t-online.de From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Jul 14 18:43:04 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA14213; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 18:43:03 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com (Unverified) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <199907141324.OAA17054@haymarket.ed.ac.uk> <199907141629.RAA19121@haymarket.ed.ac.uk> Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:53:21 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Colwell's Quantitative "Method" (Was: Re: tc-list "Western Text" - a correct denomination?) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 8481 On 7/14/99, U.B.Schmid wrote: [ ... ] >Is it unfair to utter fear of circularity with respect to the mentioned method >and it's testing? Selecting and using manuscripts because we "know" that they >are leading representatives of "known" text-types will, of course, produce some >sort of alignments that can be statistically expressed. And the alignments are >not expected to change much as long as always the same manuscripts are used >(except when block-mixture occurs). BTW-- The 70% agreement level always struck >me as (intentionally?) chosen because Aleph-B keep that very level of agreement >when the 10 to 12 leading representatives of the other text-types are added to >the pool. The intriguing question is this: What happens, if we add some other >manuscripts that we don't "know" of to the pool? [ ... ] >My own tentative guess is that the gaps will start to even up. The already >mentioned work of Richards on the Johannine Epistles made it abundantly clear >(when using about 80 manuscripts). Currently, Gerd Mink from the Muenster >Intitute is "playing" statistics with the mass of data that has been assembled >for the Editio Critica Maior of James (full collation of about 200 manuscripts >with more than 800 units of variation). As far as I recall from conversation >with him a few months ago there are no 10% gaps between groups of manuscripts >among the 200 manuscripts collated for James. I hope Gerd Mink will be able to >publish his results in not too distant future. Yes! Someone who actually wants data. :-) It happens that I've written software for this (which should run, with minimal modification, on any system with a Pascal compiler, BTW). This isn't all it does, but it's part. So I can offer a few pieces of data. (I don't claim this is a complete or scientific test. It isn't. What follows does not prove anything -- it's just an indication. It happens that I have done many more tests, and they support the conclusion, but I don't have time to type all this up. :-) The easiest part of this to answer is the "gap." Let's take the results for a few manuscripts. To begin with, here are the manuscripts I'm testing: p75 Aleph A B C D E G K L N Gamma Delta Theta Psi Omega f1 f13 28 33 565 579 700 892 1006 1010 1071 1241 1342 1424 1506 Here are the results for agreements with B: Very briefly (I don't have time to run all this right now; this is supposed to be a paper, except that I'm getting sick of it :-), here are the results for B for 273 readings in Luke: MS % Agreement Gap p75 86% L 71% 15% Aleph 65% 6% 1241 57% 8% 579 55% 3% 33 47% 7% f1 45% 2% 892 44% 1% 1342 36% 8% 700 36% 0% C 36% 0% 565 34% 2% Psi 33% 1% A 33% 0% 1506 32% 1% Theta 32% 0% f13 32% 0% K 31% 1% Delta 30% 1% D 29% 1% 1424 29% 0% Omega 29% 0% 1010 29% 1% G 29% 0% E 28% 0% 1006 28% 0% 28 28% 0% N 28% 0% Gamma 27% 0% 1071 25% 2% Thus the *only* gap of 10% or more, in this sample, is between the agreement with p75 and L -- which is for manuscripts above the 70% agreement rate. This despite a sample that has a much wider range of actual agreements than is at all likely. Now, just for fun, here are the numbers for L. Note that we get *not one* 10% gap: MS % Agreement Gap p75 72% Aleph 72% 0 B 71% 1 33 63% 8 1241 63% 1 579 63% 0 892 59% 4 f1 55% 4 C 49% 6 1342 48% 1 Psi 47% 1 Theta 45% 3 f13 43% 1 565 42% 2 700 41% 0 N 41% 1 1506 41% 0 K 40% 0 A 40% 0 1071 39% 1 Delta 39% 0 1424 39% 0 1006 39% 0 G 39% 0 1010 38% 1 E 38% 0 Omega 38% 0 28 38% 0 Gamma 38% 0 D 28% 9 Now let's re-run the numbers for B, but eliminate D from the list. This gives us: MS % Agreement Gap p75 86% L 71% 16% Aleph 63% 8% 579 56% 6% 1241 56% 0% f1 46% 11% 33 45% 0% 892 44% 2% 1342 38% 6% 700 38% 0% C 36% 2% N 35% 2% 565 34% 1% A 33% 0% f13 33% 0% 1506 33% 0% D 32% 1% Theta 32% 1% Psi 31% 1% Omega 30% 0% K 30% 0% G 30% 1% Delta 29% 0% 1424 29% 1% E 28% 1% 1006 28% 0% 1010 27% 0% Gamma 27% 0% 1071 25% 2% 28 25% 0% Notice that this gives us a different picture: There *is* a gap of over 10% (between 1241 and f1). Notice that these manuscripts aren't even consecutive in the first list. I'm going to collate these lists as best I can. Agreements Agreements MS Including D Excluding D p75 86% 86% L 71% 71% Aleph 65% 63% 1241 57% 56% 579 55% 56% f1 46% 33 47% 45% f1 45% 892 44% 44% 1342 36% 38% 700 36% 38% C 36% 36% N 35% 565 34% 34% Psi 33% A 33% 33% 1506 32% 33% Theta 32% f13 32% 33% Theta 32% Psi 31% K 31% 30% Delta 30% D 29% 1424 29% Omega 29% 30% 1010 29% G 29% 30% 1424 29% Delta 29% E 28% 28% 1006 28% 28% 1010 27% 28 28% N 28% Gamma 27% 27% 1071 25% 25% 28 25% It's true that most manuscripts in this sample didn't change their percentages much (proof that I didn't create this example artificially -- I've seen much larger shifts, as I showed in Colossians :-). But the *order* changed quite a bit -- and, as noted, even these small shifts of only a point or two created a 10% gap where there was none before. If anyone wants more details about the code, contact me. I am not going to send the whole thing to the list -- and besides, you have to format the data so that the program can read it. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Jul 14 22:00:08 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA24964; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 22:00:07 -0400 Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 10:06:57 +0800 (WST) From: Timothy John Finney X-Sender: finney@central To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: tc-list What groups are being named? In-Reply-To: <199907140630.CAA27041@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: 1596 Jean Valentin has begun a lively discussion in relation to the nomenclature we use. It seems to me that we are dealing primarily with a classification problem. The names we give to the groups we discover are a secondary, albeit thorny, problem. Powerful classification methods already exist for the kinds of data we deal with. I tried out a few of these methods on my Hebrews data and found groups that correspond to the Alexandrian and Byzantine texts we are accustomed to speaking of. In addition, there was another group that we are not accustomed to speaking of. (I think that it is a Palestinian or Syrian text. It includes 025, 044, 0150, and 0278 but not D 06.) Here is my point. Before arguing about labels, argue about the classification methods that lead to groups that require the labels. I suggest that the following have potential to lead us forward: (1) Multivariate techniques such as classical scaling. These end up producing maps of manuscript dispositions relative to each other. (Such maps for Hebrews seem to me to correspond to geographical maps). (2) Cladistic techniques such as used on the Canterbury Tales corpus by Peter Robinson and others (see Nature 394, 27 August 1998, 839). These techniques have fundamental advantages over the ad hoc methods currently used by New Testament researchers (e.g., quantitative analysis, profile methods). They are based on mathematical or iterative techniques that are not tied to preconceived notions of the data. Many of them are optimal. That is, they produce the best possible classification of the given data. Tim Finney From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Jul 15 05:37:48 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id FAA03190; Thu, 15 Jul 1999 05:37:47 -0400 Message-Id: <199907150944.KAA28286@haymarket.ed.ac.uk> From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 10:41:54 +000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Colwell's Quantitative "Method" (Was: Re: tc-list "Western Text" - a correct denomination?) Priority: normal In-reply-to: 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: 5009 A couple of (hopefully) positive comments (and one complaint). First, let's get the complaint out of the way. I'm just a bit peeved again (I haven't had my 3rd cup of coffee yet this morning) that Waltz continues to make these slanging comments, e.g., "at last someone who actually wants data", "Colwell's method has never been tested beyond his one sample" etc etc. Even though Waltz sometimes puts funny-faces after some of his comments, it's difficult not to think that he actually means them. As has been pointed out again and again to him, and in fact as he seems well to know (he too seems to know *that* the publications exist), quite a lot of data has been studied using (and adapting) Colwell's method. So, please, can we have done with the cheap and grossly inaccurate mis-characterizations of the field? They don't help your case; and they don't help create the patient tone obviously needed in scholarly argumentation. Now to the positive comments. In response to Schmid's comment that thus far the Colwellian quantitative approach has largely been confined to a few NT writings, this is basically so. But then the mss groupings we all know (and are now re-examining) were established on the basis of study of Gospels mss largely. Moreover, it's not terribly clear whether and how much these groupings characterize non-Gospels writings. We could use the Colwell approach to test this! Schmid asks what would happen if we worked with 50 or 200 mss. Well, first, it would (still, with today's technology) be a herculean task, esp. if done properly: i.e., *every* variant collated, and *every* possible agreement of any two mss counted & calculated, chapter by chapter across the *entirety* of a NT writing. (Please keep in mind that about the only way such intensive studies get done outside of the well-financed Muenster Institute [envy, envy] is by doctoral students, who really would like to complete a thesis within a few years so they can get on with life before starving to death!) Richardson was able to collate a large number of mss, but only because of the relatively small size of the Johannine Epistles! (Moreover, my recollection is that it wasn't entirely clear that Richardson did in fact follow the Colwell approach.) It would be an interesting project to do what Schmid says. But it's not entirely clear what the purpose would be. Most NT text critics don't have time or interest merely to develop projects on a grand scale for purely theoretical purposes. We have "applied" questions about the history of the text, etc. Our methods have been developed to provide answers to these sorts of questions. Thus, Colwell (and others of us who have used the approach) proposed a basic approach for testing whether a given mss belonged to this or that provisionally/previously identified mss group/type. E.g., I wanted to test whether codex W (and P45) *were* or *were not* properly to be linked directly with the so-called "Caesarean text" whether they were "pre-Caesarean" as previously claimed (but denied by others). The point of the method is not to see what happens to any old handful of mss, but (a) to choose widely accepted leading witnesses to the various textual groups for a given NT writing, and (b) test whether such groups show up and whether a given ms aligns itself with leading witnesses of this or that group in a quantitatively demonstrable way that can be distinguished from the way it aligns with witnesses of other groups. Thus, Waltz's extensive lists of % figures and mss are, sorry, useless, as given. He has scooped up a bunch of mss, but has not indicated why they were chosen or what he's trying to test by selecting them. He refers to "273 readings" in Luke, which suggests some kind of *selection* of Lukan variation-units (there surely are more than 273 variation-units in Luke among the mss selected), but doesn't explain why/how the 273 were selected. (And a selection voids the Colwell method anyway). This illustrates why I have REPEATEDLY appealed to Waltz on this issue to SUBMIT his work, data, method, software, whatever, FULLY and to SCHOLARLY ASSESSORS for PUBLICATION AND CRITIQUE. It really doesn't advance scholarship at all for people to claim this or that. Only claims that can be ASSESSED BY COMPETENT SCHOLARS and stand up are worth the time of day. Finney proposes more sophisticated statistical analysis, and I would love to see his or others results who are skilled at such work. But let's be clear what it is we're trying to do, the questions we're trying to answer. I'm utterly pragmatic about methods. I'll use whatever method is demanded by the nature of the inquiry and question. And I'll modify or change methods when I'm shown a better one for the question. Larry Hurtado L. W. Hurtado University of Edinburgh, New College Mound Place Edinburgh, Scotland EH1 2LX Phone: 0131-650-8920 Fax: 0131-650-6579 E-mail: L.Hurtado@ed.ac.uk From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Jul 16 04:53:43 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id EAA15925; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 04:53:42 -0400 From: "Wieland Willker" To: "TC-List" Subject: tc-list Money Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 10:58:59 +0200 Message-Id: <000001becf69$717bb140$67566686@chemie.unibremen.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 4.71.2173.0 Importance: Normal X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 962 > Please keep in mind that about the only > way such intensive studies get done outside of the well-financed > Muenster Institute Eh? Well-financed??? I'm sorry? Maybe we should define this term first? This reminds me of something I wanted to ask for a long time: If you have say 2 Mill. Dollar for TC, what would you do? I would set up a collation program to collate all existing manuscripts. THIS IS WHAT WE NEED. I think it could be done with 50 people in 2 years. Sometimes I can't believe why this had not been done already. 2Mio $ is not so much money (for a church to analyse their sacred texts). If we have all manuscripts in digital form classification is easy and fast. There are e.g. the multivariate analysis methods Tim Finney mentioned. Will I ever see a Principal Component Analysis of 2000 manuscripts in my life? Best wishes Wieland <>< -------------------- mailto:willker@chemie.uni-bremen.de http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Jul 16 05:20:10 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id FAA25528; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 05:20:09 -0400 Message-Id: <199907160926.KAA21682@haymarket.ed.ac.uk> From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 10:24:56 +000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: tc-list Money Priority: normal In-reply-to: <000001becf69$717bb140$67566686@chemie.unibremen.de> 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: 1332 "Well financed" is of course always a relative term. But I don't see any other setup like Muenster, with research associates employed, a grand publishing programme financed, and the funds to collect, store and analyse mss. In comparison, the Claremont MSs centre is "small beer". The collation of mss is very desireable, of course. But that's also obviously only a "raw data" gathering step. The immediately required step thereafter, without which the collation would be of minimal use, would be the *analysis* of the collated data. And while current computer techniques would perhaps facilitate the number crunching, all the collated data would have to be "input" and largely manually (or at least prepared manually for any scanner). Then, of course, the human task of analysis of the data, seeing whether and where there may be significance, and connecting with larger bodies of knowledge (e.g., church history, history of doctrine, papyrology, codicology, palaeography), none of which computers can help us with. It's not promising. E.g., how many codicologists or palaeographers do you know personally under 70?? Larry Hurtado Larry Hurtado L. W. Hurtado University of Edinburgh, New College Mound Place Edinburgh, Scotland EH1 2LX Phone: 0131-650-8920 Fax: 0131-650-6579 E-mail: L.Hurtado@ed.ac.uk From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Jul 16 05:49:02 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id FAA05826; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 05:49:02 -0400 Message-ID: <378F01AF.D20C5F60@cam.ac.uk> Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 10:55:59 +0100 From: Jonathan Ryder X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list Money References: <199907160926.KAA21682@haymarket.ed.ac.uk> 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: 2800 "Professor L.W. Hurtado" wrote: > > The collation of mss is very desireable, of course. But that's also > obviously only a "raw data" gathering step. The immediately > required step thereafter, without which the collation would be of > minimal use, would be the *analysis* of the collated data. And > while current computer techniques would perhaps facilitate the > number crunching, all the collated data would have to be "input" > and largely manually (or at least prepared manually for any > scanner). Could not the collation/input be but one step - ie create a huge database of all manuscripts and their variants searchable by any criterion. And surely whatever analysis was needed would be well within reach of today's technology/programmers, after all 30 yrs a go we put a man on the moon! The important thing would be to get the database right, so that the right questions can be asked of the data. I don't think this should be too difficult, however, as I believe, although I know little about database theory, that it's possible to create databases that are flexible such that they can be changed to facilitate a query that perhaps the database was not originally set up to do. Such a project would be huge, but not impossible, especially so given the internet etc. What we need is someone to set up a database to which all TCers who are attached to the internet can add data as and when they work with an ms. As such a datasbase grows, so the necessary queries can be written to analyse the data ... Of course, there are probably individuals and organisations out there (Muenster?) who already have lots of data in electronic form, but I doubt they'd be willing to share it! Anybody out there thinking along the same lines? Then, of course, the human task of analysis of the data, > seeing whether and where there may be significance, and > connecting with larger bodies of knowledge (e.g., church history, > history of doctrine, papyrology, codicology, palaeography), none of > which computers can help us with. It's not promising. E.g., how > many codicologists or palaeographers do you know personally > under 70?? > Larry Hurtado > I see the problem here, especially as all your post 70 codicologists and paleographers might be less willing to use and master such a database (I'm not being ageist, just noticing the reluctance of some to embrace computers) The key thing is to get all the data together in a searchable form and then those who wish to ask questions of the data from the standpoint of 'church history, history of doctrine, papyrology, codicology, palaeography' can then do so and fast - especially if the front end of such a databse can be made as user-friendly as possible (like the apparatus in NA27 to name but one GNT!). Jonathan Ryder Cambridge UK From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Jul 16 07:39:21 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id HAA15139; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 07:39:20 -0400 From: "DC PARKER" Organization: The University of Birmingham To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 12:45:48 GMT Subject: Re: tc-list Money Priority: normal In-reply-to: <000001becf69$717bb140$67566686@chemie.unibremen.de> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01d) Message-Id: Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 791 Wieland wrote 7F00,0000,0000Arial> > I would set up a collation program to collate all existing manuscripts. THIS > IS WHAT WE NEED. I think it could be done with 50 people in 2 years. BaskervilleInteresting figures. How do you arrive at them? How many hours do you suppose it takes to collate a tetraevangelion? Do you include collating each MS threee times for accuracy, travel to libraries that don't supply microfilms, palimpsests and other difficult texts that have to be read letter by letter? 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 Fri Jul 16 09:42:35 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA29895; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 09:42:34 -0400 Message-Id: Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 15:49:02 +0200 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu References: <000001becf69$717bb140$67566686@chemie.unibremen.de> Subject: Re: tc-list Money X-Mailer: T-Online eMail 2.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT X-Sender: 320003854441-0001@t-online.de From: U.B.Schmid@t-online.de (U.B.Schmid) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 5431 Wieland Willker wrote: > I would set up a collation program to collate all existing manuscripts. THIS > IS WHAT WE NEED. I think it could be done with 50 people in 2 years. > Sometimes I can't believe why this had not been done already. 2Mio $ is not > so much money (for a church to analyse their sacred texts). > If we have all manuscripts in digital form classification is easy and fast. > There are e.g. the multivariate analysis methods Tim Finney mentioned. Will > I ever see a Principal Component Analysis of 2000 manuscripts in my life? I guess you know that there are more than 2000 Greek NT manuscripts known today. But let us try to sum up a few basic requirements when setting up such a program. First of all lets face the fact that not everybody who knows Greek is apriori well equipped to read cursive hands without training. Even more depressing, not everybody who is trained to read cursive hands is able to produce good collations. Just like ancient scribes are very different in quality, modern transcribers are different as well. Next, you have to establish a collation routine that keeps certain standards (e.g., on recording orthographicals and corrections). And you have to make sure that all your collators will stick to that standards. In the Muenster Institut for more than 30 years collations have been done with pen and paper, i.e. compiling huge sets of sheets with transcriptions. Every manuscript is collated twice independently. A third person compared the two collations spotting and checking the differences between the two collations. Within the last years, two different people had to enter the two collations independently into a data base in order to have the computer done the comparison. But then even more differences occured (because of more human intervention), have been spotted by the computer respectively, and had to be resolved by human intervention again. It is self evident that a huge amount of time and man-power is invested in checking and correcting routines, for a lot of details have to be accounted for. Since last year, the Muenster Intitute started to implement new routines for doing machine readable transcripts with Peter Robinson's program *Collate*. As far as I know, it takes an awful lot of time to adjust the people to the new routines as well as the program to the new requirements. Theoretically (and ultimately) electronic transcripts offer much more oportunities, but in practise it's a hard, thorny, and time consuming journey to get to the promised land. It may take even more time to enter a proper electronic transcript than to perform the old collation routine. Now, let's turn to the bulk of cursives. What are you actually going to record in a collation (besides orthographicals and corrections)? Cursives very often have reading sections indicated (arche/telos), Gospel manuscripts include the Eusebian canones, you will find (partly different) sets of argumenta, tables, aparatus, comments in the margins or interspersed. Are you going to record all the information from the manuscripts or only part of it? If you are going to record (part of) that type of information too, people need to be trained more thoroughly in order to handle the often confusing abreviations and numerals, not to mention the better knowledge of Greek when dealing with the "Patristic" Greek from the argumenta and comments. It makes a huge difference, whether you transcribe a text of which you have a certain idea what it should read, or you have to make sense of it without guidelines. Besides, it's always fun to give people a microfilm of an apostolos manuscript and ask them to look up, e.g., James 2.11. It'll take some time to adjust to finding your way through a manuscript. The most challenging experience is, of course, to find your way through a lectionary. Finally, we have the paleographical questions that Larry already indicated, the most basic one being the identification of different hands, which is very tricky to do from microfilm in case of (small) corrections. Much more could be said on all the aspects involved. I'm personally not the most skilled collator, but when working on my Latin manuscripts I'm able to transcribe roughly one chapter (30 verses) per hour electronically. Moreover, in my experience it's not worth trying to collate more than 6 to 7 hours a day. It would be better to do not more than 5 with regular brakes. One person may do 200 verses a day, five days a week, i.e., roughly 50.000 verses per year. I invite people to calculate the work that can be achieved with 50 people in 2 years: there are roughly 2300 manuscripts for the Gospels, 800 for the Pauline epistles, 650 for Acts and Catholic epistles, and 300 for Revelation; every manuscript should be transcribed AT LEAST twice independently. According to my calculations it'll take around 150 people to do only the Gospels in 2 years. The calculation is based on the assumption that the above mentioned collation routines are implemented and that the people are trained. Moreover, correction routines are not included!!! (And I'm sure you'll get an awful lot of instances where you have to consult the manuscripts A THIRD TIME, before you can consider the transcripts safe.) Maybe others want to share their experience... ------------------------------------------ Dr. Ulrich Schmid U.B.Schmid@t-online.de From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Jul 16 11:33:52 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA09973; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 11:33:52 -0400 Message-ID: <19990716154034.46032.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [208.252.64.251] From: "Bruce Prior" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: tc-list Super-Database Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 08:40:34 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1240 TCers -- The core of a super-database already exists for the Gospels and Acts. It's Reuben Swanson's New Testament Greek Manuscripts: Variant Readings Arranged in Horizontal Lines Against Codex Vaticanus, (Pasadena: William Carey International University Press). So far in my work on Matthew in W (032), I've found that I differ with Swanson only very rarely. The format in the recently-released Acts volume is even better, since it retains orthographic differences, including nomina sacra, in the main text of the work, rather than relegating these to notes on the bottom of the page. This is the work of one man, and, at least in its treatment of Matthew in W (032), wipes away all previous scholarship in quality and completeness. Swanson works with a computer for composition of the text. He's hard at work on the Letters now. If there were enough interest in the TC community, I'd guess that the publisher would entertain the production of a version on CD-ROM, which could, indeed, form the basis of a super-database. J. Bruce Prior PhD in Blaine, Washington USA n7rr@hotmail.com _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Jul 16 11:40:11 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA12326; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 11:40:10 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <000001becf69$717bb140$67566686@chemie.unibremen.de> Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 10:49:35 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Time needed for collation (Was: Re: tc-list Money) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2324 On 7/16/99, U.B.Schmid wrote: >But let us try to sum up a few basic requirements when setting up such a >program. > >First of all lets face the fact that not everybody who knows Greek is apriori >well equipped to read cursive hands without training. Even more depressing, not >everybody who is trained to read cursive hands is able to produce good >collations. Just like ancient scribes are very different in quality, modern >transcribers are different as well. [ etc. ] This is a very useful and interesting point. Having just spent the last several weeks reducing a series of transcriptions to collations, I think the warnings here worth noting. I never realized how much work this was! (And I was dealing with the generally simpler task of handling already- regularized materials (no ligatures, etc). It leads me to conclude that it's really true: Anyone who has not done collations cannot judge how long they will take. :-) Personally, I found that my work declined after only about an *hour*, and there was no point after two hours. (Of course, I have the attention span of a mayfly. :-) On the matter of doing electronic collations, I think it *could* be easier and faster than pen-and-ink. But there is something important to note here: When one is collating "by hand," one can work in one's own way. With a program, you have to work its way. So to make collating electronically an easier job, we need programs which can adapt to the user. We might well be better off taking our hypothetical sum of money for collations, and using some of it to produce better software. That might well pay for itself in productivity later. Just a question: Muenster has already gone over nearly ever NT manuscript for the T&T volumes. This process involved far less recording than an actual collation, but the testers had to *read* nearly as much of the text. Does anyone know how long that process took? We could perhaps use that as a basis for estimating how long it would take to collate *everything.* -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Jul 16 11:40:29 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA12453; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 11:40:29 -0400 Message-Id: <199907161540.LAA12442@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> From: "Dave Washburn" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 08:47:25 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: tc-list Money Priority: normal In-reply-to: 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: 1293 All, > First of all lets face the fact that not everybody who knows Greek is apriori > well equipped to read cursive hands without training. Even more depressing, not > everybody who is trained to read cursive hands is able to produce good > collations. Just like ancient scribes are very different in quality, modern > transcribers are different as well. There are many good points raised by all. It seems to me that a lot of the "grunt" work of initially transcribing/collating could be done by a wide variety of "non-professionals" such as Bob Waltz and myself and several others here, then checked by some of you pros to root out errors etc. It's a huge task, to be sure, but I suspect that once the pros have SOMETHING down on paper or electronic media or both, the rest of the task gets quite a bit smaller. Such an approach, with established guidelines such as Ulrich has set out (whether to include sectioning, commentaries etc.) could conceivably be done with the framework of the manpower and time that M. Wilker suggested. Any stipend to the non-pros could be quite a bit less than it would have to be for a pro, thus aiding the budgetary constraints, as well. 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 Fri Jul 16 11:55:40 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA18026; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 11:55:39 -0400 From: "Wieland Willker" To: "TC-List" Subject: tc-list The Bible Genom Project Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 18:01:01 +0200 Message-Id: <000401becfa4$66647b80$67566686@chemie.unibremen.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 4.71.2173.0 Importance: Normal X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1068 >>I think it could be done with 50 people in 2 years. >Interesting figures. How do you arrive at them? It's just a number. Let it take 4 years or even 10 years. That is not the problem. As far as I see it, the problem is that we have NO manuscripts in digital form available. We have not even a database with P66, P75, A, B, D in it. Not even that! So, I think it is time to start again a NTMProject of some kind. The software is available, also are the analytical methods. The films are all in Muenster. The people are there (many students need jobs). Just fill in the money and PRESS START! Ok, it will take some years, but then you have the data and can play with it to get this "family thing" straight. This is the "Human Genom Project" of theology! Convince your church that this MUST BE DONE! Bruce Prior mentioned the Swanson volumes. I have once wrote to the publisher asking about digital versions, but never got a reply. :-( Best wishes Wieland <>< -------------------- mailto:willker@chemie.uni-bremen.de http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Jul 16 12:50:31 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA08103; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 12:50:31 -0400 Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 12:55:55 -0400 From: Mike Bossingham Subject: tc-list Super-Database To: "INTERNET:tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu" Message-ID: <199907161256_MC2-7D3F-98F6@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: 1425 Hi, I have just been awarded my doctorate for the design of such = a database. This stores variants from a base text and allows some work to be performed in a piece of software supplied with it. The format of the data is simple and open - meaning that it can be used by other programmers to analyse information in ways that I could only dream of. However there is a more pressing need than just a data-base. The shelf life of a data-base is very short - in TC terms that is. So any major project could outlife the life of the database that is storing the data. What really is needed is a internationally agreed transfer format for variants so that valuable data can be moved around world from data-base to data-base. No varinat should then ever be loaded into a data-base that does not offer a reading and writting facility to and from the internationally agreed standard. It is only by woking in this = way that we can be sure that such effort would not be lost when the = technology takes another quantum leap. I am a double graduate (Theology and Computer Science) and I am willing to offer my services in such a project, to help in whatever way a can - But please remember that first and foremost I am a = Methodist Minister in Circuit Ministry. Regards Rev Dr Mike Bossingham PS - Don't even consider scanning - it is light years away from being able to be used on manuscripts, except for digital imaging. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Jul 16 14:22:59 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA12070; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 14:22:59 -0400 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19990716203005.010025f0@mclink.it> X-Sender: mc2499@mclink.it X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 20:30:05 +0200 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: Ian Hutchesson Subject: Re: tc-list re: barrett's response In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19990714162319.00675850@highland.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 310 Where are all those book burners out there who spent reems of internet paper villifying the Comfort/Barrett book? Barrett posted quite a serious well-reasoned response to the criticisms three days ago and so far all he has received is silence. People were very vocal then, where are they now? Yours, Ian From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Jul 16 14:47:53 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA21020; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 14:47:52 -0400 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express Macintosh Edition - 4.5 (0410) Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 11:49:08 -0700 Subject: Re: tc-list re: barrett's response From: "clayton stirling bartholomew" 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 Message-Id: <19990716185435.NEWR9368@[12.73.120.169]> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 655 > > Where are all those book burners out there who spent reems of internet > paper villifying the Comfort/Barrett book? Barrett posted quite a serious > well-reasoned response to the criticisms three days ago and so far all he > has received is silence. People were very vocal then, where are they now? > > > Yours, > > > Ian > Ian, Good question. But you know life is short and there are a lot of books to burn. Perhaps one of us should get our hands on one of the recent pubs of the TC elite and work it over a little J. Derrida style. Could be fun, don't you think? -- Clayton Stirling Bartholomew Three Tree Point P.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062 From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Jul 16 15:35:10 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA08186; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 15:35:09 -0400 Message-Id: Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 21:41:33 +0200 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu References: <000001becf69$717bb140$67566686@chemie.unibremen.de> Subject: Re: Time needed for collation (Was: Re: tc-list Money) X-Mailer: T-Online eMail 2.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT X-Sender: 320003854441-0001@t-online.de From: U.B.Schmid@t-online.de (U.B.Schmid) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2365 Robert B. Waltz wrote: > [...] > On the matter of doing electronic collations, I think it *could* be > easier and faster than pen-and-ink. But there is something important > to note here: When one is collating "by hand," one can work in one's > own way. With a program, you have to work its way. So to make collating > electronically an easier job, we need programs which can adapt to the > user. We might well be better off taking our hypothetical sum of > money for collations, and using some of it to produce better software. > That might well pay for itself in productivity later. I'm not sure whether I got this right. But, as soon as you have more than one person involved in the process, even when collating "by hand", working in one's own way is gone. You have to stick to agreed principles and a certain format of recording. You can design and adjust a program, of course, to meet your requirements (BTW-- That's exactly what the people in Muenster and Peter Robinson are actually doing now for roughly a year). But working in one's own way is wishful thinking of individuals who never had to set up a group of collators working simultaniously on the same project. > Just a question: Muenster has already gone over nearly ever NT manuscript > for the T&T volumes. This process involved far less recording than an > actual collation, but the testers had to *read* nearly as much > of the text. Does anyone know how long that process took? We could > perhaps use that as a basis for estimating how long it would take > to collate *everything.* The work on the T&T volumes won't qualify as a basis for estimating how long it would take to do everything. It is much harder to spot e.g. 10 individual units of variation in a single manuscript than to spot the beginning of, e.g., James and start collating. Moreover, when doing spot collations you have to change microfilms more frequently. Therefore, you can't take advantage of speeding up after being adjusted to the new script (cursive scripts can be verx different!). Changing microfilms (roling, handling, storing, etc.) is, after all, time consuming as well. Maybe Bill Warren can tell us about the routines he employs in his institution and give us an estimation on the basis of his experience. ------------------------------------------ Dr. Ulrich Schmid U.B.Schmid@t-online.de From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Jul 16 15:35:16 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA08231; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 15:35:15 -0400 Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 15:42:31 -0400 From: Jim West Subject: Re: tc-list re: barrett's response X-Sender: jwest@highland.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.32.19990716194231.00670b74@highland.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 520 At 11:49 AM 7/16/99 -0700, you wrote: >Good question. But you know life is short and there are a lot of books >to burn. Perhaps one of us should get our hands on one of the recent >pubs of the TC elite and work it over a little J. Derrida style. Could >be fun, don't you think? Nah- just look for typos--- you will find some in any book. But anyway, the silence itself speaks volumes doesn't it? Best, Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD email- jwest@highland.net web page- http://web.infoave.net/~jwest From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Jul 16 16:26:52 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA27024; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 16:26:51 -0400 Message-Id: Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 22:12:43 +0200 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu References: <19990716185435.NEWR9368@[12.73.120.169]> Subject: Re: tc-list re: barrett's response X-Mailer: T-Online eMail 2.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT X-Sender: 320003854441-0001@t-online.de From: U.B.Schmid@t-online.de (U.B.Schmid) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1443 clayton stirling bartholomew wrote: > > > > Where are all those book burners out there who spent reems of internet > > paper villifying the Comfort/Barrett book? Barrett posted quite a serious > > well-reasoned response to the criticisms three days ago and so far all he > > has received is silence. People were very vocal then, where are they now? > > > > > > Yours, > > > > > > Ian > > > > Ian, > > Good question. But you know life is short and there are a lot of books > to burn. Perhaps one of us should get our hands on one of the recent > pubs of the TC elite and work it over a little J. Derrida style. Due to the limitations of my dictionaries (as a non-native speaker) I can't "re-construct (or was it 'de-construct')" your last sentence. Yet, I have the impression that it has something to do with "reading" and "TC publications". So, Clayton, if you are entertaining the possibility to actually read publications on TC, I would like to encourage your plans. On the issue of reacting to Barrett's response I may add that Maurice Robinson, who gave the initial review, is off-list till August, because he is in Muenster busy collating. Bill Petersen is (most likely) off-list as well, because he headed to Europe last week and is supposed to be in the Netherlands right now. That's where (some) people are, Ian. So, please, cool down. ------------------------------------------ Dr. Ulrich Schmid U.B.Schmid@t-online.de From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Jul 16 16:42:35 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA03468; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 16:42:35 -0400 Message-Id: <199907162047.WAA21686@carno.brus.online.be> Subject: tc-list Mt 23.24 syriac: camel or camels? Date: Ven, 16 Jul 99 22:54:43 +0200 x-sender: vale5655@pop3.brus.online.be x-mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1 From: Jean Valentin To: "Liste TC-List" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1354 A little question about Mt 23.24 in the Syriac versions. The Grrek text has "camel" in the singular. The peshitto has a plural. Until now, everything is clear. But then, when I look at the old Syriac version, the editions don't seem to agree: - Mrs Smith-Lewis (sy.s) has no seyome: thus it's a singular. Nothing in the apparatus, so sy.c has a singular too. - Cureton has the seyome: so, according to him, sy.c has a plural. - Burkitt puts no seyome on his text. He agrees thus with Mrs Smith-Lewis. - Finally, Legg in his apparatus says that all three version, sys, syc and syp have a plural. I can understand that, being a palimpsest, sys can be difficult reading when it comes to a seyome. I understand less what happens with sy.c - even though it seems that there's a lacuna short after. May be the ms is becoming difficult to read because of that. Finally, Legg should have mentioned that there is a problem, if there's any, instead of being so affirmative. Can anybody, may be who has access to copies of those mss, give me some information about thier correct readings? Thank you. Jean V. _______________________________________________________________ Jean Valentin - 34 rue du Berceau - 1000 Bruxelles - Belgique tel. 32-2-280.01.37 e-mail : jgvalentin@arcadis.be _______________________________________________________________ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Jul 16 16:45:39 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA04600; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 16:45:38 -0400 Message-Id: <199907162050.WAA21739@carno.brus.online.be> Subject: Re: tc-list re: barrett's response Date: Ven, 16 Jul 99 22:57:46 +0200 x-sender: vale5655@pop3.brus.online.be x-mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1 From: Jean Valentin To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 994 >>Good question. But you know life is short and there are a lot of books >>to burn. Perhaps one of us should get our hands on one of the recent >>pubs of the TC elite and work it over a little J. Derrida style. Could >>be fun, don't you think? > >Nah- just look for typos--- you will find some in any book. But anyway, the >silence itself speaks volumes doesn't it? > I'm not one of the "book burenrs" out there as you call them, but I repeat what I've said: I prefer the "official" publication made by a serious papyrologist, even if it takes some time to me before I can find it in a university library. The Bodmer publications are remarkable, and I'm afraid nothing can replace them. Books made for the busy pastor are not for me. Jean V. _______________________________________________________________ Jean Valentin - 34 rue du Berceau - 1000 Bruxelles - Belgique tel. 32-2-280.01.37 e-mail : jgvalentin@arcadis.be _______________________________________________________________ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Jul 16 16:50:30 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA06382; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 16:50:30 -0400 Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 15:57:15 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <199907162057.PAA26180@homer.bethel.edu> X-Sender: holmic@mailhost.bethel.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: Michael Holmes Subject: Re: tc-list re: barrett's response Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 504 At 03:42 PM 7/16/99 -0400, a list member wrote: >Nah- just look for typos--- you will find some in any book. Quite true. But the *significance* of those typo's depends a great deal on the genre and/or aims of the book. > But anyway, the >silence itself speaks volumes doesn't it? Perhaps, but not necessarily; this is summer (travel, vacation, whatever), after all, rather than the academic term, and not every one has access to e-mail when away from the office ... Mike Holmes Bethel College From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Jul 16 17:27:00 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA19627; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 17:27:00 -0400 Message-ID: X-SMF-Message-ID: A08E0F6701082600 X-SMF-Hop-Count: 1 Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 15:36:28 -0500 From: "Barrett, David" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu X-EXP32-SerialNo: 50000052, 00102384 Subject: RE: tc-list re: barrett's response Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: InterChange (Hydra) SMTP v3.51 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1000 Dear Jean, I certainly respect your high regard for the publications of "serious papryologists." We all look to respected names to help us sort through the myriad of publications to find those that we can probably trust. I would like to add one comment, however, regarding the Bodmer publications. They are indeed remarkable (especially P75), and I commend the scholar(s) who worked on them. Especially valuable are the excellent photos and informative footnotes. It is well-known, however, that Victor Martin's transcription of P66 contains a number of errors. Gordon Fee has published a list of many (although not all) of these, along with the corrected reading. (I apologize that I do not have the bibliographic information for Fee's article handy. It is listed, however, in our book, along with other sources of corrective input.) I would simply encourage you to use Martin's transcription with caution and to realize that he, too, is subject to error. Yours, David Barrett From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Jul 16 17:28:32 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA20196; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 17:28:32 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19990716194231.00670b74@highland.net> Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 16:10:30 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: tc-list re: barrett's response Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1783 On 7/16/99, Jim West wrote: >At 11:49 AM 7/16/99 -0700, you wrote: > >>Good question. But you know life is short and there are a lot of books >>to burn. Perhaps one of us should get our hands on one of the recent >>pubs of the TC elite and work it over a little J. Derrida style. Could >>be fun, don't you think? > >Nah- just look for typos--- you will find some in any book. But anyway, the >silence itself speaks volumes doesn't it? And here I hoped this thread would die the quiet death it deserved.... There is something this defense misses: It came from *the author of the book*. Not exactly an objective source. The truth is, we are still in the situation we have been in all along: We are waiting for a full and objective review. The only thing that we have learned from the whole debate is that the book does not indicate uncertain readings. Now I would say that, given the state of the papyri, that would eliminate it from consideration right there. But of course this is a matter of opinion. But let's keep in mind: We have had no controlled review (a controlled review consisting of a test of certain manuscripts against their published texts; it does *not* consist of a handful of readings where the book is correct) -- and until we do, both praise and criticism of the book are premature. The one thing I would say is that, given the uncertainty about the book, I would not risk buying it until the real reviews (not preliminary reviews) are in. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Jul 16 17:28:39 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA20246; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 17:28:38 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <000001becf69$717bb140$67566686@chemie.unibremen.de> Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 16:24:07 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Time needed for collation (Was: Re: tc-list Money) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 3785 On 7/16/99, U.B.Schmid wrote: >Robert B. Waltz wrote: > >> [...] >> On the matter of doing electronic collations, I think it *could* be >> easier and faster than pen-and-ink. But there is something important >> to note here: When one is collating "by hand," one can work in one's >> own way. With a program, you have to work its way. So to make collating >> electronically an easier job, we need programs which can adapt to the >> user. We might well be better off taking our hypothetical sum of >> money for collations, and using some of it to produce better software. >> That might well pay for itself in productivity later. > >I'm not sure whether I got this right. But, as soon as you have more than one >person involved in the process, even when collating "by hand", working in one's >own way is gone. You have to stick to agreed principles and a certain format of >recording. No, you don't. You must agree on what you record, yes. But there is no reason you can't customize how a particular user *sees* that data. To take a very simple example, suppose one person prefers to indicate collations by showing the lemma, then the replacement text, thus: O LOGOS ] O QEOS while another prefers something else, say O LOGOS >> O QEOS The computer might use still another format for internal storage, e.g. ...{LOGOS|QEOS}... When a new collator comes along, he/she can choose the collation format he/she prefers. The computer will translate from the first person's format to the second person's. If a third person prefers still another, then it can display in that format, too. The only time you have a problem is if both are working together. :-) We must distinguish between the data of the collation and its appearance. We can make it look like whatever we want to (including a continuous text). The computer isn't limited to data processing; it should be helping us work in our own ways, too. (Can you tell that I don't use Microsoft programs? :-) [ ... ] >> Just a question: Muenster has already gone over nearly ever NT manuscript >> for the T&T volumes. This process involved far less recording than an >> actual collation, but the testers had to *read* nearly as much >> of the text. Does anyone know how long that process took? We could >> perhaps use that as a basis for estimating how long it would take >> to collate *everything.* > >The work on the T&T volumes won't qualify as a basis for estimating how long it >would take to do everything. It is much harder to spot e.g. 10 individual units >of variation in a single manuscript than to spot the beginning of, e.g., James >and start collating. Moreover, when doing spot collations you have to change >microfilms more frequently. Therefore, you can't take advantage of speeding up >after being adjusted to the new script (cursive scripts can be verx different!). I must be saying things badly today. While doing a full collation is much more time consuming than spotting particular variants, we're working with the same manuscripts. If we know how much time it took to collate 50 manuscripts, and how long it took to spot check those 50 manuscripts, and how long it took to spot check all 3500 manuscripts (or whatever the number is), we can make a pretty good estimate of how long it would take to collate the 3500. Of course, we could probably get about as good an estimate by just counting chapters in all the manuscripts, working out how long it takes to collate the average chapter in 50 or so manuscripts, and multiplying that out. So the next question is, does anyone have a catalog of minuscules that is accurate enough to tell us the total number of chapters they contain? 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 Fri Jul 16 20:12:29 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA19614; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 20:12:28 -0400 Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 20:12:27 -0400 (EDT) From: "James R. Adair" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list re: barrett's response 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: 769 I don't usually do this, but since this book has generated great interest on the list, I'll make a brief pre-publication announcement. TC will publish a full review of Comfort/Barrett very soon, hopefully within the next two weeks. The chief delay in publication has been my inability to get the tagging done in a timely manner due to numerous other commitments. Summer vacation? ... Jimmy *********************************************************** James R. Adair, Jr. Director, ATLA Center for Electronic Texts in Religion ---------------> http://purl.org/CETR <--------------- General Editor, TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism ------------------> http://purl.org/TC <------------------- *********************************************************** From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Jul 16 21:31:27 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA17923; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 21:31:27 -0400 Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 21:38:59 -0400 From: Jim West Subject: Re: tc-list re: barrett's response X-Sender: jwest@highland.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.32.19990717013859.006719ec@highland.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 972 At 04:10 PM 7/16/99 -0500, you wrote: >The one thing I would say is that, given the uncertainty about the book, >I would not risk buying it until the real reviews (not preliminary >reviews) are in. This is simply astonishing. Do you mean to say that you let reviewers do your thinking for you? You will buy no book until it has been reviewed? Reviewed by whom? Who's word do you take for such things? Why bother ever buying a book then- just read what some reviewer has written- a reviewer who may or may not be biased against the author or authors, and who may know absolutely nothing of the subject- but who reviewed the book because his buddy at the JBL staff or Novum Testamentum sent it to him (or her). Such an approach to reading books, and TC scholarship in particular, does not bode well for the state of critical thinking among some. Best, Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD email- jwest@highland.net web page- http://web.infoave.net/~jwest From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Jul 16 21:33:13 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA18574; Fri, 16 Jul 1999 21:33:12 -0400 Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 21:40:37 -0400 From: Jim West Subject: Re: tc-list re: barrett's response X-Sender: jwest@highland.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.32.19990717014037.00672224@highland.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 587 At 08:12 PM 7/16/99 -0400, you wrote: >I don't usually do this, but since this book has generated great interest >on the list, I'll make a brief pre-publication announcement. TC will >publish a full review of Comfort/Barrett very soon, hopefully within the >next two weeks. The chief delay in publication has been my inability to >get the tagging done in a timely manner due to numerous other commitments. >Summer vacation? ... > >Jimmy EXCELLENT! Now Bob can buy it! j. +++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD email- jwest@highland.net web page- http://web.infoave.net/~jwest From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Jul 17 09:48:05 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA05489; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 09:48:04 -0400 From: WFWarren@aol.com Message-ID: <84fc1e09.24c1e4f5@aol.com> Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 09:53:57 EDT Subject: Re: Time needed for collation (Was: Re: tc-list Money) To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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: 7188 In a message dated 7/16/99 2:43:08 PM, Ulrich wrote: >Maybe Bill Warren can tell us about the routines he employs in his=20 institution >and give us an estimation on the basis of his experience. I'll post this to add the experiences we've had both in collating and in=20 setting up the Center for New Testament Textual Studies. =20 During 1999 we will complete over 60 collations of the Gospel of John as wel= l=20 as some other collations in the Synoptics and Paulines. As to time=20 requirements, no specific time can be set due to several factors: 1) the=20 ability of the collator and the speed at which the person feels comfortable=20 collating (while on a "clean" ms. we might realize a full collation of John=20 in 40 hours, on other mss. the same length of text can take 100 hours. I=20 worked on 565 in John and thought I'd never finish with the final chapters=20 due to the quality of the ms./microfilm for that portion of text. At times = a=20 single chapter required 10 hours or more); 2) the nature of the ms. and=20 access to a source for checking questionable readings (we work primarily fro= m=20 microfilms, but microfilms are not always adequate for resolving questionabl= e=20 readings); 3) the nature of the rules for the project/collation (our work on=20 the Paulines is for a specific project that only needs notations of=20 "significant" variants as defined by that project, although we have noted al= l=20 items as a part of our internal procedures. We work with the IGNTP=20 primarily, and so seek to have 3 collations of each ms.--not all done=20 necessarily at our Center-- and seek to note all variations, significant and=20 insignificant. Even though noting all items is more time consuming, future=20 studies will benefit due to this practice--for example, a future study on=20 final nu would not require all new collations); 4) the health of the collato= r=20 (I seek to hold collators to about 4 hours maximum per day collating, with=20 regular breaks. We could push more, but the long-term health of the people=20 working in the Center must be considered. I had one student a few years ago=20 that suffered severe eye strain due to collating 10 to 12 hours a day for=20 several weeks. He then had to have about 4 weeks of total eye rest to=20 restore his health. At that point I realized that specific restrictions=20 would be needed to prevent such problems. And obviously the quality of the=20 collation suffers with eye fatigue. I try to remind myself regularly of=20 Legg's health problems.); 5) the start-up time for collating a ms. (I requir= e=20 a collation of a single chapter before allowing the collator to begin an=20 official collation. In this way the hand of the scribe can be somewhat=20 mastered. Also I require the notation of scribal traits while the collation=20 is being made. A helpful suggestion given to me at the Birmingham conferenc= e=20 this past April was to have collators make a hand copy of a page of the ms.,=20 seeking to learn the scribe's strokes, etc. in the process. I have started=20 using that suggestion for beginning collators. Also, I seek to have=20 collators study some about the ms. from the standard handbooks when=20 feasible--not all mss. have descriptions, etc., outside of the Kurzgefasste=20 Liste. And of course, collators new to a specific project must study the=20 guidelines for that project. Overall, we use the IGNTP guidelines as a=20 starting point for all of our work, with variations and additions as=20 needed.); 6) the reconciliation of collations (As has been indicated, once=20 multiple collations of a given ms. are in hand, then the task of reconciling=20 the differences in the collations must take place before a usable collation=20 is produced. This process involves returning to the ms. whereever=20 differences in the collations occur in order to check the correct reading,=20 and so more time is added to the total process at this point.); 7) accuracy=20 demands (No collation is in many ways preferable to a bad collation, since=20 the work of correcting a bad collation is almost as much as that of making a=20 new collation. Therefore, slower work with greater accuracy is preferable t= o=20 faster work with less accuracy. Based on this, I do not place a time=20 restriction on the people doing collations at the Center, but have had to=20 discard or totally rework some collations. As others have stated, not all=20 who are capable with Greek make capable collators. I most trust those in=20 regular employment at the Center since they have worked with multiple mss.=20 and helped in the evaluation of the collations of others, thus becoming=20 acutely aware of the quality issues related to collations.) Some other points to consider from my own experience are as follows: Any=20 Center needs strong financial backing, with that backing being an on-going=20 struggle. We are just finishing our first full year of existance, with=20 set-up of the Center requiring 5 to 6 months after moving into the=20 facilities. Regular staffing with minimal turnover is a must for TC, since=20 expertise with the mss. only comes from contact with the mss. And research=20 assistants require money that is secure for a considerable amount of time. = I=20 doubt that the money needed for such an enterprise would be available to man= y=20 individuals, and so Centers or Institutes are likely going to be needed as a=20 foundation for securing grants, etc. While we've had considerable success o= n=20 this front, securing funds is a cost in and of itself that must be factored=20 into the total cost of the enterprise. =20 And then we have the situation of travel for work on mss. on site. This is=20 an expense that cannot be dismissed since many NT mss. are only accessible o= n=20 site, if accessible then. =20 Personally, I would see a total figure of some 15 to 25 million needed for=20 just the collation side of the equation if all NT mss. are envisioned=20 (including reconciling the collations and putting them into a usable=20 electronic format), and a time period of minimally 10 years if the required=20 funding were available. Just setting up such an undertaking and=20 finding/employing/training capable people would take a couple of years. The=20 evaluation of the resulting data to determine textual relationships and the=20 integration of the evidence into the creation of a critical text would be=20 separate. And the above price would not include the versional or patristic=20 evidence, which requires even more time to assimulate. =20 Realistically, we do need more sites for the work, and more integration amon= g=20 the sites on both data generated and quality guidelines. But smaller sites=20 (we don't need to duplicate M=FCnster) likely will be more feasible for gett= ing=20 the work done rather than waiting for a megasite to take on the task. =20 At least that's the view from here. Feel free to reply off-list to any of=20 these points. Paz, Bill Warren Landrum P. Leavell, II, Professor of New Testament and Greek Director of the Center for New Testament Textual Studies=20 New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Jul 17 10:42:22 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA24965; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 10:42:22 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com (Unverified) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19990717013859.006719ec@highland.net> Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 09:52:08 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: tc-list re: barrett's response Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1590 On 7/16/99, Jim West wrote, in part: >At 04:10 PM 7/16/99 -0500, you wrote: > >>The one thing I would say is that, given the uncertainty about the book, >>I would not risk buying it until the real reviews (not preliminary >>reviews) are in. > >This is simply astonishing. Do you mean to say that you let reviewers do >your thinking for you? Improbable as this may sound, coming from me :-), the answer in this case is assuredly "yes." I don't have the resources to judge the transcriptions. I don't have the time to fully examine the book. In other words, I am not competent to judge it. I don't understand how anyone can feel otherwise. Suppose someone came forward with a "mathematical proof of the existence of God," but it required the use of tensors. Would you content yourself with judging its truth or falsity? Surely not -- you would ask someone who knows tensors to review the mathematics. Similarly, I would want someone who has access to reliable editions or photos of the papyri to judge a book of transcription of papyri. I'm tempted to say that no one who has use for this book is competent to judge it. :-) The whole purpose of reviews is to discover for us that which we do not have the time or knowledge to learn for ourselves! -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Jul 17 11:38:30 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA15102; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 11:38:30 -0400 Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 11:46:07 -0400 From: Jim West Subject: Re: tc-list re: barrett's response X-Sender: jwest@highland.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.32.19990717154607.00664ef0@highland.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2179 At 09:52 AM 7/17/99 -0500, you wrote: >Improbable as this may sound, coming from me :-), the answer in this case >is assuredly "yes." > >I don't have the resources to judge the transcriptions. I don't have the >time to fully examine the book. In other words, I am not competent to >judge it. > >I don't understand how anyone can feel otherwise. Suppose someone >came forward with a "mathematical proof of the existence of God," >but it required the use of tensors. Would you content yourself with >judging its truth or falsity? Surely not -- you would ask someone >who knows tensors to review the mathematics. Similarly, I would >want someone who has access to reliable editions or photos of the >papyri to judge a book of transcription of papyri. About math- I would certainly , absolutely require assistance in any such matter because I can barely add 3+5, and I need the help of a calculator for that! :-) But, I would never presume to speak about math either. In short, if I dont know about something I keep my mouth shut. This is all I can do as speaking merely betrays me for the dullard I am on matters I know nothing about. > >I'm tempted to say that no one who has use for this book is >competent to judge it. :-) This however would be an insult, and I know you are not willing to insult anyone. But what you imply here is patetnly false. Your implication suggests that "the busy pastor" (to use a phrase of another) is not qualified to judge such matters. You are wrong in this. There are a number of highly educated pastors in various churches who know as much or more about TC as folk who have univeristy posts- but who have chosen to give their lives to actual people rather than the minutiae af whether one should call codex Beza a western text or a gamma text. > >The whole purpose of reviews is to discover for us that which we do >not have the time or knowledge to learn for ourselves! > Certainly not. The purpose of reviews is to summarize for the busy scholar what he or she does not have time to read for him or herself. Best, Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD email- jwest@highland.net web page- http://web.infoave.net/~jwest From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Jul 17 14:59:16 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA27107; Sat, 17 Jul 1999 14:59:15 -0400 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express Macintosh Edition - 4.5 (0410) Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 11:59:51 -0700 Subject: tc-list EPISTHRIZWN/STHRIZWN ACTS 18:23 From: "clayton stirling bartholomew" To: TC list Mime-version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <19990717190604.DBPJ9368@[12.73.100.44]> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 342 Does anyone know why the editors of NA26/UBS3 decided to read EPISTHRIZWN in ACTS 18:23 rather than STHRIZWN? This is a change from NA25 and it is intriguing because they are now accepting a reading in D and the Majority Text over a reading in Aleph and B. -- Clayton Stirling Bartholomew Three Tree Point P.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062 From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Jul 18 11:32:36 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA13588; Sun, 18 Jul 1999 11:32:36 -0400 Message-ID: <19990718153923.85361.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [208.255.105.88] From: "Bruce Prior" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: tc-list Nicene and Apostles' Creeds Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 08:39:23 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 329 TCers -- Could somebody point me to a transcription of a reliable manuscript or a critical edition of both the Nicene and Apostles' Creeds? Thanks. J. Bruce Prior in Blaine, WA n7rr@hotmail.com _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Jul 18 13:40:48 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA29653; Sun, 18 Jul 1999 13:40:47 -0400 Message-Id: Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 19:47:28 +0200 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu References: <19990718153923.85361.qmail@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: tc-list Nicene and Apostles' Creeds X-Mailer: T-Online eMail 2.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT X-Sender: 320003854441-0001@t-online.de From: U.B.Schmid@t-online.de (U.B.Schmid) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 555 Bruce Prior wrote: > TCers -- > > Could somebody point me to a transcription of a reliable manuscript or a > critical edition of both the Nicene and Apostles' Creeds? Thanks. > > J. Bruce Prior in Blaine, WA n7rr@hotmail.com I would suggest you should consult J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Creeds, 3rd ed., London 1972. Kelly devoted a chapter of his book to each of the two creeds (and to many more, of course). There you can find all the relevant information. ------------------------------------------ Dr. Ulrich Schmid U.B.Schmid@t-online.de From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Jul 18 14:59:31 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA27823; Sun, 18 Jul 1999 14:59:30 -0400 Message-ID: <19990718190619.90275.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [208.252.64.36] From: "Bruce Prior" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list Nicene and Apostles' Creeds Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 12:06:19 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1206 Dear Dr. Schmidt -- Thank you very much for your help. I've enjoyed reading your contributions to the TC list. Are you working in Muenster by chance? If so, please give my greetings to Maurice Robinson, who is doing some collating at the Institut this summer. Bruce Prior >From: U.B.Schmid@t-online.de (U.B.Schmid) >Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu >To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu >Subject: Re: tc-list Nicene and Apostles' Creeds >Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 19:47:28 +0200 > >Bruce Prior wrote: > > TCers -- > > > > Could somebody point me to a transcription of a reliable manuscript or a > > critical edition of both the Nicene and Apostles' Creeds? Thanks. > > > > J. Bruce Prior in Blaine, WA n7rr@hotmail.com > >I would suggest you should consult J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Creeds, >3rd ed., London 1972. Kelly devoted a chapter of his book to each of the >two >creeds (and to many more, of course). There you can find all the relevant >information. > >------------------------------------------ >Dr. Ulrich Schmid >U.B.Schmid@t-online.de > _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Jul 18 16:13:53 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA24629; Sun, 18 Jul 1999 16:13:52 -0400 Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19990718201147.006f85f0@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: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 16:11:47 -0400 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Kevin W. Woodruff" Subject: Re: tc-list Nicene and Apostles' Creeds Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 852 Try Philip Schaff's _Creeds of Christendom_ At 08:39 AM 7/18/99 PDT, you wrote: >TCers -- > >Could somebody point me to a transcription of a reliable manuscript or a >critical edition of both the Nicene and Apostles' Creeds? Thanks. > >J. Bruce Prior in Blaine, WA n7rr@hotmail.com > > >_______________________________________________________________ >Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com > > 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 Jul 19 04:48:58 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id EAA24300; Mon, 19 Jul 1999 04:48:57 -0400 From: "DGK TAYLOR" Organization: The University of Birmingham To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 09:55:09 GMT MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: tc-list Mt 23.24 syriac: camel or camels? Priority: normal In-reply-to: <199907162047.WAA21686@carno.brus.online.be> Message-ID: <5B5D9A212D0@hhs.bham.ac.uk> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1894 Dear Jean, >When I look at the old Syriac version, the > editions don't seem to agree: > - Mrs Smith-Lewis (sy.s) has no seyome: thus it's a singular. Nothing in > the apparatus, so sy.c has a singular too. > - Cureton has the seyome: so, according to him, sy.c has a plural. > - Burkitt puts no seyome on his text. He agrees thus with Mrs Smith-Lewis. > - Finally, Legg in his apparatus says that all three version, sys, syc > and syp have a plural. > I have just checked Burkitt, and he DOES put a seyome on the word (and this is repeated in George Kiraz' "Comparative Edition", which, incidentally, also shows that the Harklean has the singular form for both nouns). When it comes to matters of detail I would trust Burkitt rather than Lewis every time, and so syc almost certainly has the seyome which its two editors, Cureton and Burkit, give to it. As for sys given that it is a palimpsest the uncertainty about whether the dots occur is, as you say, understandable. Given that 'gnats', baqe, is clearly in the plural I suppose Legg thought it reasonable that this plural would be parallelled by the plural 'camels'. It is not an accurate record of the textual evidence, and as such is not good practice, but it is not a bad piece of reasoning or an unlikely conclusion. 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 Mon Jul 19 10:25:42 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA26557; Mon, 19 Jul 1999 10:25:42 -0400 Message-ID: <013a01bed1eb$2e4758a0$1fb71ed1@dcc-1> From: "Perry L. Stepp" To: Subject: Re: tc-list re: barrett's response Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 09:26:39 -0400 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1332 Regarding Barret's defense of his book, Robert B. Waltz wrote: >There is something this defense misses: It came from *the author of >the book*. Not exactly an objective source. I don't understand this objection. A scholar feels that his/her work has come under attack--a feeling that is quite justified in this particular case, IMHO. Said author responds by defending his/her work in the arena of public discourse (this forum is certainly an accepted arena for public discourse.) We should not cast aspersions on that defense ("not exactly an objective source") simply because it came from the one "being attacked," should we? By your line of reasoning, we should take a jaundiced view of any further word on the subject from Maurice Robinson (being as he is the one who raised some of the initial criticisms.) That doesn't make much sense to me. PLStepp ******************************************************************** Senior Pastor, DeSoto Christian Church, DeSoto TX DCC's webpage: http://come.to/DeSotoCC Ph.D. Candidate in Religion, Baylor University #1 Cowboy Fan Does it not concern us that God's name is often dishonored because of poor theologies of God? --Clark Pinnock, *The Openness of God* ******************************************************************** From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Jul 19 11:45:25 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA25705; Mon, 19 Jul 1999 11:45:24 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <013a01bed1eb$2e4758a0$1fb71ed1@dcc-1> Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 10:45:22 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: tc-list re: barrett's response Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1666 On 7/19/99, Perry L. Stepp wrote: >Regarding Barret's defense of his book, Robert B. Waltz > wrote: > > >>There is something this defense misses: It came from *the author of >>the book*. Not exactly an objective source. > > >I don't understand this objection. A scholar feels that his/her work has >come under attack--a feeling that is quite justified in this particular >case, IMHO. Said author responds by defending his/her work in the arena of >public discourse (this forum is certainly an accepted arena for public >discourse.) We should not cast aspersions on that defense ("not exactly an >objective source") simply because it came from the one "being attacked," >should we? I'm not denying the right of the author to defend him/herself. On a particularl point of fact, an author has every right to answer objections. But what are the odds that an author is going to be able to objectively assess his or her work? The author will (almost) always view things in the best possible light. So I would prefer the opinion of an outside investigator. Given the number of unfavorable made about this book, I still think we need to see an outside, controlled review (not a random list of passages) before we can assess the book. At least, that's what *I* use reviews for. Obviously, others see things very differently.... -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Jul 19 12:36:28 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA14328; Mon, 19 Jul 1999 12:36:27 -0400 Message-Id: <199907191641.SAA11458@carno.brus.online.be> Subject: Re: tc-list Mt 23.24 syriac: camel or camels? Date: Lun, 19 Jul 99 18:48:45 +0200 x-sender: vale5655@pop3.brus.online.be x-mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1 From: Jean Valentin To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 729 >I have just checked Burkitt, and he DOES put a seyome on the word You are right, what I called Burkitt was in fact the Bensly-Harris-Burkitt edition of the SInaitic palimpsest old photocopies which I very seldom use, that's the reason for my mistake). So in fact, and with the elements you gave me it's confirmed, there seems to be unanimity among the Syriac editions to put a seyome in syc and no seyome in sys. Legg is the only one who says there's a seyome in sys. Jean V. _______________________________________________________________ Jean Valentin - 34 rue du Berceau - 1000 Bruxelles - Belgique tel. 32-2-280.01.37 e-mail : jgvalentin@arcadis.be _______________________________________________________________ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Jul 19 21:10:14 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA19236; Mon, 19 Jul 1999 21:10:13 -0400 Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 09:17:09 +0800 (WST) From: Timothy John Finney X-Sender: finney@central To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu cc: tc-list-digest@shemesh Subject: tc-list How to collate everything In-Reply-To: <199907190630.CAA08240@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: 912 On the topic of how to transcribe and collate lots of manuscripts, I think that the Internet provides a wonderful opportunity for many people to work on the project simultaneously. Here is what is needed: (0) Willing workers with sufficient ability (1) A standard approach: just what do we want to transcribe and how shall we do it? (2) A site (3) An administrative process that provides a sufficient level and mechanism of quality control (4) Computer programs that support the enterprise I won't bore you with my views concerning these five points (yet). Just a reminder: a couple of months ago I released my transcriptions of the papyrus and uncial manuscripts of the Epistle to the Hebrews into Net land. They are free and for the use of anyone who wants to play with them. They represent a first faltering step towards the goal of electrification of the New Testament manuscript tradition. Tim Finney From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Jul 20 05:11:39 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id FAA01383; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 05:11:38 -0400 Message-Id: <199907200917.KAA24515@haymarket.ed.ac.uk> From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 10:14:31 +000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: tc-list How to collate everything Priority: normal References: <199907190630.CAA08240@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> In-reply-to: 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: 1537 In response to Timothy Finney's plea, let me re-iterate and re- emphasize what has already been said by others: unilaterial collations and transcriptions (i.e., by one person) are notoriously prone to errors, and collations or transcriptions prepared for others to rely upon (i.e., to "read" the mss) should follow something like the IGNTP protocols (two independent transcriptions/collations, then checked independently by a third party). Collations prepared for quantitative counts will almost certainly have some errors too, but given that quantitative analysis (e.g., the Colwell or Claremont Profile or Ehrman's categories) usually involves a large number of variation units, and no significance is to be attached to %s unless they are separated by some significant distance. An individual error in collation here or there will make thus little or no difference on judgements reached about mss relationships (but, of course a lot of errors concentrated in one area would!). But collations/transcriptions prepared to give the equivalent of the mss themselves (facsimiles of sorts) should be as free of errors as is humanly possible through the exacting procedure stated above. So, could Finney tell us what procedure he has followed in (double)checking his transcriptions which he has so generously provided to the world via the Internet? Larry Hurtado 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 Tue Jul 20 05:12:15 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id FAA01583; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 05:12:14 -0400 Message-Id: <199907200919.KAA24793@haymarket.ed.ac.uk> From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 10:16:35 +000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: tc-list Mt 23.24 syriac: camel or camels? Priority: normal In-reply-to: <199907191641.SAA11458@carno.brus.online.be> 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: 936 Jean Valentin wrote: > >I have just checked Burkitt, and he DOES put a seyome on the word > You are right, what I called Burkitt was in fact the > Bensly-Harris-Burkitt edition of the SInaitic palimpsest old photocopies > which I very seldom use, that's the reason for my mistake). So in fact, > and with the elements you gave me it's confirmed, there seems to be > unanimity among the Syriac editions to put a seyome in syc and no seyome > in sys. Legg is the only one who says there's a seyome in sys. As you will perhaps know, the Legg vols are notoriously error- prone, and cannot be safely relied on in themselves. Sad but true, and after all that effort. A powerful lesson on the importance of the sort of collation procedure adopted by the IGNTP. Larry Hurtado. 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 Tue Jul 20 16:25:08 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA04770; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 16:25:07 -0400 Message-ID: <3794ECA2.57DC@orebro.mail.telia.com> Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 21:40:34 +0000 From: TOMMY MARKANZIA REKLAM HB X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Macintosh; I; PPC) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list How to collate everything References: <199907190630.CAA08240@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> <199907200917.KAA24515@haymarket.ed.ac.uk> 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: 1542 I have been following the debate on this list about how to collate mss and make them available electronically. I=B4m am just a happy amateur, bu= t would like to ask You experts: Isn=B4t it possible, in this matter, to build on the massive undertakings of the Muenster Institute and the IGNTP project? = Was it 1997, the Muenster Institute released the first volume of NT "Editio Critica Major" - ECM - (epistle of James)? In their ecclectic text they have of course used a specific methodology which lead to an exclusion of some manuscripts as secondary (Byzantine). But aren=B4t thos= e "Byzantine" manuscripts somehow recorded in the second volume of ECM? = If we have printed editions (available in an electronic format, as they must be for typesetting and printing), albeit with a lot of abbreviations for practical reasons, can=B4t we "translate" them with a computer program and in that way generate electronic "collations" (this is perhaps a wrong designation since this method works backwords) of all manuscripts that the edition itself builds on? The Nestle-Aland alone cites "constant witnesses" in the apparatus, and then one must be able to generate each of these constant witnesses electronically. I=B4m aware that the constant witnesses are only a small group of all mss - but if we turn from NA27 to ECM and the IGNTP (of which I=B4m not that familiar with) then it seems to me that a great deal of work has already been done. Am I wrong here? Tommy Wasserman - a Swedish student with an interest in NT textual matters. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Jul 21 02:53:01 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id CAA19660; Wed, 21 Jul 1999 02:53:01 -0400 From: "Thomas J. Kraus" Organization: Universitaet Regensburg To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 08:59:20 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: Quoted-printable Subject: Re: tc-list Super-Database Cc: thomas-juergen.kraus@theologie.uni-regensburg.de Priority: normal In-reply-to: <19990716154034.46032.qmail@hotmail.com> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.54) Message-ID: <699751019BC@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: 1012 Bruce Prior threw in the subject of a *Super-Database* referring this term to Reuben Swanson=B4s collations. Definitely, this is the work of one man, a honored scholar, who did a tremendously difficult, enervating job. Nevertheless, as each printed book, each work done by a human being, Swanson=B4s work has problems, too.= Only to mention the restriction to a number of manuscripts (e.g. for Matthew 26,1ff. the fragments kept in Vienna, P.Vindob.G. 31974 [i.e. a part of the Chester Beatty P45] is missing), thus, the lacking of the nomina sacra in those manuscripts, and of course, some spelling mistakes. This is not an attempt to disqualify Swanson=B4s work. No way. He did a great job. But it is a problem to rely on the work of others in a too positivistic way. Thomas J. Kraus Universitaet Regensburg Kath.-theol. Fakultaet Universitaetsstr. 31 D-93053 Regensburg Federal Republic of Germany 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 Wed Jul 21 08:01:26 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA04019; Wed, 21 Jul 1999 08:01:25 -0400 From: "Wieland Willker" To: "TC-List" , "Michael Bushell" Subject: Re: tc-list How to collate everything Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 14:07:36 +0200 Message-Id: <000801bed371$9eaf3400$67566686@chemie.unibremen.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 4.71.2173.0 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1686 Some more thoughts about "collating everything" (collating all greek NT manuscripts): 1. It is not needed to have "error free" transcripts at the beginning. In this respect e-versions are much better than printed ones. One can easily update them regularly. 2. It is not needed to bring out everything at once. One can add more and more as times goes by. I don't know if everybody is familiar with the program Bibleworks, but this could be easily addapted to the NT manuscripts. (At least I think so.) Atm Bibleworks brings out new, improved, updated, corrected versions of the GNT and its morphology almost every week or so. These can be downloaded from their website. IMHO it is not very difficult to add a "manuscript selction" info-window. Here instead of choosing NT books, one can select manuscripts to be present on the screen. Besides the normal NA-GNT one has databases for P45, P66, P75, A, B, ...etc. The first versions would be highly experimental of course, but it's a beginning. I don't think that doing everything, extremely accurate in one go is the best method. You can see that the ECM is extremely slow. And in the end after 100 years? Oh dear, it is not electronically readable. And then? I don't understand Larry Hurtado here: His motto seems to be "Everything error-free or nothing". One should start with something NOW and see how it evolves. I think the Swanson volumes would be a good starting point. Also the Barrett/Comfort book is highly welcome in this respect, but it should have been released on CD or even better on the web. Best wishes Wieland <>< -------------------- mailto:willker@chemie.uni-bremen.de http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Jul 21 10:24:54 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA05865; Wed, 21 Jul 1999 10:24:54 -0400 Message-Id: <199907211431.PAA24937@haymarket.ed.ac.uk> From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 15:29:11 +000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: tc-list How to collate everything Priority: normal In-reply-to: <000801bed371$9eaf3400$67566686@chemie.unibremen.de> 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: 2289 Wieland Walker wrote (excerpted): > Some more thoughts about "collating everything" (collating all greek NT > manuscripts): 1. It is not needed to have "error free" transcripts at the > beginning. In this respect e-versions are much better than printed ones. > One can easily update them regularly. > > I don't think that doing everything, extremely accurate in one go is the > best method. You can see that the ECM is extremely slow. And in the end > after 100 years? Oh dear, it is not electronically readable. And then? I > don't understand Larry Hurtado here: His motto seems to be "Everything > error-free or nothing". One should start with something NOW and see how it > evolves. Obviously, anyone is free to spend their efforts and time on whatever one wants. But the prior question before one does any such work is this: What use(s) do you want to serve? If you want simply to produce a working and preliminary draft exercise that is quickly done, and therefore is more likely to have errors, and that is intended simply as a basis for others to improve, then . . . OK, I guess. But this would be something that would be unreliable for detailed usage. If the aim is to supply virtually the ms itself, then accuracy is the sine qua non. And if the aim is to provide as much of the ms data as can be provided in a transcription, then this would include abbreviations, line lengths, capitalized/oversize letters, puctuation, marginal marks, corrections, and more. And all this should be accurate too. So, what is unreasonable about this? What aim is served by a less scrupulous care for detail? One could imagine a transcription that is intended only for those who want to examine only textual variants (and none of the other sorts of data listed above). But would not this also require as high a standard of accuracy as possible? I know it's frustrating to find (a) what all is involved, and (b) how difficult and time-consuming it all is. Good scholarship is simply time-consuming, demanding and difficult. It's why people have to give themselves to it on a career basis. Larry Hurtado L. W. Hurtado University of Edinburgh, New College Mound Place Edinburgh, Scotland EH1 2LX Phone: 0131-650-8920 Fax: 0131-650-6579 E-mail: L.Hurtado@ed.ac.uk From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Jul 21 12:32:42 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA08393; Wed, 21 Jul 1999 12:32:41 -0400 Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 12:39:12 -0400 From: Mike Bossingham Subject: Re: tc-list How to collate everything To: "INTERNET:tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu" Message-ID: <199907211239_MC2-7DC5-EEAD@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: 1448 Hi, We need to ensure that such collations are complete (including spelling errors, Abbreviations etc - because who knows what future scholars will want to examine?) and accurate and secure. A frame of mind should be to do the collation well and once. It strikes me that what is happening is that we are collating and re-collating the same Mss - with good reason in some cases. But any future major project should consider doing them so well and so completely that they should never need to be collated again. Better in the long term to do this than to rush into any quick fix. Computer software can help in this - but we do need to define the task, design the software and keep in mind that this data ideally should have a life span that out lives all of us. The first task I repeat - is to agree a collation interchange format that is acceptable to all parties - sign up to it and stick to it. A format that allows collations to be passed round the net would be helpful. The TC world needs to seek and accept the advice of = Computing Professionals before embarking on any such project. In theory it might be possible to take some info from the = print files etc of printed editions - but would this data give us complete collations - I think not. Such a project could be coupled with making available high quality digital scans of the Mss themselves - DVD could make this possible. Regards Mike Bossingham University of Birmingham. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Jul 22 00:41:10 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id AAA03154; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 00:41:10 -0400 Message-Id: <199907220447.VAA26014@mx.serv.net> X-Sender: yale@mx.serv.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 21:46:45 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: The Yales Subject: Re: tc-list How to collate everything In-Reply-To: <199907211239_MC2-7DC5-EEAD@compuserve.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: 2906 At 12:39 PM 7/21/99 -0400, you wrote: >Hi, > >We need to ensure that such collations are complete >(including spelling errors, Abbreviations etc - because >who knows what future scholars will want to examine?) and >accurate and secure. > >A frame of mind should be to do the collation well and >once. It strikes me that what is happening is that we >are collating and re-collating the same Mss - with >good reason in some cases. But any future major >project should consider doing them so well and so completely that >they should never need to be collated again. >Precision is warranted in such an undertaking. One little mistake multiplies in cyberspace. >Better in the long term to do this than to rush into any >quick fix. > >Computer software can help in this - but we do need to >define the task, design the software and keep in mind >that this data ideally should have a life span that out >lives all of us. >It is true that computer software can help in this area. The format used is the most critical consideration in this whole matter. Each particular software program has its own philosophy of tagging. Once we decide on a universal tagging system for this undertaking, then we might be able to farm out the work to volunteer electronic scribes who enjoy this kind of monotonous and time consuming work. This is where input from the TC list would be most helpful. Lifespan for this data is going to have to be monitored vigorously. The media used for storing this data has a very short life compared to paper or stones. >The first task I repeat - is to agree a collation interchange >format that is acceptable to all parties - sign up to it and >stick to it. A format that allows collations to be passed round >the net would be helpful. >The plea has been made. I will be looking for a completed draft of this format in my in-box by the end of this summer. >The TC world needs to seek and accept the advice of >Computing Professionals before embarking on any such >project. >I would be glad to interact with you on this point seeing I am not a Computing Professional, just someone who sees the need for this task to be done and is presently working on the electronic edtion of Tischendorf's critical apparatus. >In theory it might be possible to take some info from the >print files etc of printed editions - but would this data give >us complete collations - I think not. There are plenty of printed editions that could be used as a basis for collations without reinventing the wheel. With cut and paste capabilities of a good word processor these could be digitized fairly easily. Checking them against the original is the most difficult task. Just ask any ancient scribe. > >Such a project could be coupled with making available >high quality digital scans of the Mss themselves - DVD >could make this possible. > >Regards > >Mike Bossingham >University of Birmingham. > Clint Yale From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Jul 22 03:24:05 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id DAA03527; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 03:24:04 -0400 Message-Id: Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 09:30:32 +0200 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu References: <000801bed371$9eaf3400$67566686@chemie.unibremen.de> Subject: Re: tc-list How to collate everything X-Mailer: T-Online eMail 2.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT X-Sender: 320003854441-0001@t-online.de From: U.B.Schmid@t-online.de (U.B.Schmid) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2959 Wieland Willker wrote: > Some more thoughts about "collating everything" (collating all greek NT > manuscripts): > 1. It is not needed to have "error free" transcripts at the beginning. In > this respect e-versions are much better than printed ones. One can easily > update them regularly. > 2. It is not needed to bring out everything at once. One can add more and > more as times goes by. [...] > The first versions would be highly experimental of course, but it's a > beginning. > > I don't think that doing everything, extremely accurate in one go is the > best method. You can see that the ECM is extremely slow. And in the end > after 100 years? Oh dear, it is not electronically readable. And then? I > don't understand Larry Hurtado here: His motto seems to be "Everything > error-free or nothing". I think, people are approaching the issue under discussion from very different perspectives, which is, of course, legitimate. For my part, however, I have to side with Larry, even in Wieland's way of putting Larry's motto. So, Wieland, you are dreaming of starting on lower levels gradually improving as time goes by and new transcripts as well as corrections of old transcripts are sent in? But who will organize and who will do the job in an effective and responsible way? I'm willing to accept the idea that probably a (comparatively) great many people is technically speaking able to contribute to gathering and improving transcripts of the papyri and many of the uncials of which facsimile editions are available. Finally you may end up with a lot of people debating on ink spots and damaged letters on the payrus fragments never reaching 100% agreement on every single item. That's fine. That's sience. No problem. I'm pretty sure, however, that the mass of cursives is the main problem in this game. How to direct the resources in order to get as many people as possible to do transcripts meeting some basic requirements? Volounteers on the internet won't do. If you keep standards low in the beginning, you have to consult each manuscript several times in order to get results that satisfy basic standards. This is simply a waste of resources. Moreover, you need to have some sort of institution that keeps organizing and checking the work that is carried out and (ideally) sent in. To be honest, it is my ultimate nightmare to have a couple of transcripts somewhere on a web-site which have been compiled by individual x *not proofed* but *constantly updated* as soon as new transcripts by another individual or - even worse - anecdotal lists of corrections come in. Who is there to decide which of the usually differing transcripts (corrections) is to be preferred? Can we ultimately blame somebody for making sure that we use only one accepted currency in TC or that our different currencies are, at least, still convertible? ------------------------------------------ Dr. Ulrich Schmid U.B.Schmid@t-online.de From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Jul 22 05:05:24 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id FAA04502; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 05:05:24 -0400 Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 16:53:56 +0800 (WST) From: Timothy John Finney X-Sender: finney@central To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: tc-list How did I check transcriptions? In-Reply-To: <199907210630.CAA11471@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: 1209 In response to Prof. Hurtado's question, I double-checked my transcriptions by comparing them against the sources from which they were made, whether microfilms, photos, printed editions, or the mss themselves in two cases (P13 and 075). I read the transcriptions I had made in my first run letter by letter and aloud. I found that reading them aloud made me much more likely to detect errors in my original transcriptions. While this is not as rigorous as the independent transcription method practiced by IGNTP, it still suffices to weed out a good number of errors. The beauty of transcriptions on the Internet is that any errors would be easy to detect if the manuscript's image was presented on the same web page as the transcription. Corrections would also be straightforward -- just notify the person in charge of the site that you believe there is an error in the transcription. The URL for my transcriptions and collation programs is ftp://socs.murdoch.edu.au/pub/research/Finney You will need a Mac to make sense of what's there (four disk images). There seems to be a problem with the server at the moment as I can't get through. Hopefully it will be fixed soon. Best regards, Tim Finney From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Jul 22 09:10:35 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA05802; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 09:10:35 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com (Unverified) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <199907210630.CAA11471@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 08:20:01 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: tc-list How did I check transcriptions? Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 996 On 7/22/99, Timothy John Finney wrote, in part: >The URL for my transcriptions and collation programs is >ftp://socs.murdoch.edu.au/pub/research/Finney > >You will need a Mac to make sense of what's there (four disk images). >There seems to be a problem with the server at the moment as I can't get >through. Hopefully it will be fixed soon. If people have real problems with the files on the site, I've already downloaded them and can convert them to other formats. Though they are just text; any word processor should be able to handle them. At worst, you may need to convert RETURNS to RETURN/LINE FEED for Wintel machines, or to LINE FEEDs for unix. The real problem may lie in fonts; reading the files without the appropriate typefaces is (to put it mildly) difficult. I don't know if the Sinaiticus font is available for Windoze. (I've no reason to try to find out. :-) Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com "The one thing we learn from history -- is that no one ever learns from history." From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Jul 22 10:34:09 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA06606; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 10:34:08 -0400 Message-Id: <199907221438.QAA20558@carno.brus.online.be> Subject: Re: tc-list How did I check transcriptions? Date: Jeu, 22 Jul 99 16:45:51 +0200 x-sender: vale5655@pop3.brus.online.be x-mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1 From: Jean Valentin To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 483 > I don't know if the Sinaiticus font is available >for Windoze. (I've no reason to try to find out. :-) If it doesn't exist, there are utilities that can convert a Mac font to a Windows font (like TTConverter on the Mac side). Jean V. _______________________________________________________________ Jean Valentin - 34 rue du Berceau - 1000 Bruxelles - Belgique tel. 32-2-280.01.37 e-mail : jgvalentin@arcadis.be _______________________________________________________________ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Jul 22 12:45:24 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA07444; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 12:45:24 -0400 Message-ID: <19990722165211.1693.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [208.255.105.95] From: "Bruce Prior" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: tc-list The Dowel Error-Correction Method Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 09:52:10 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1859 TCers -- Here's how I go about doing my transcription of the Freer Gospels (W -- 032): The 1912 Sanders Facsimile perches on a heavy-duty music stand to the right of my computer desk. I start a page by touch-typing the text line-by-line in Uncial, using the LaserCoptic font, produced by Linguist’s Software in Edmonds, Washington. I use the Coptic font since it includes supra-lineation which I use for nomina sacra. When something in the text needs some comment, I add a superscript number and jump ahead to the bottom of my upper-and-lower-case transcription page and add a numbered footnote. When I finish a page in Uncial, I print it out. Then I roll the printout over a 7/8-inch diameter short wooden dowel. I then place the dowel-draped printout on the Facsimile page and compare the text letter-by-letter. I have yet to type a perfect page the first time. Maybe someday! After making corrections, I print the page again. With the Uncial text on the music stand and the Grossdruckausgabe of NA27 on a bookstand in front of me, I produce the first draft of my line-by-line transcription in Payne LaserGreek font, also by Linguist’s Software. Whenever the W text differs from NA27 in any way except for nomina sacra and other abbreviations, I highlight all relevant words with bold type. I add chapter and verse numbers and punctuation and paragraphing very largely governed by clues in the manuscript. I follow general punctuation conventions used by UBS4, including capitalization of the first letter of direct discourse. When that page is completed, I use the same dowel method to compare it with my Uncial text and with the Facsimile. J. Bruce Prior in Blaine, WA n7rr@hotmail.com _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Jul 22 16:13:33 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA18929; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 16:13:33 -0400 Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 15:19:11 -0400 From: Jim West Subject: Re: tc-list How did I check transcriptions? X-Sender: jwest@highland.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.32.19990722191911.00688b28@highland.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 528 At 04:45 PM 7/22/99 +0200, you wrote: >> I don't know if the Sinaiticus font is available >>for Windoze. (I've no reason to try to find out. :-) >If it doesn't exist, there are utilities that can convert a Mac font to a >Windows font (like TTConverter on the Mac side). > >Jean V. visit jack kilmons site www.historian.net he has a sin. font. or you can get it from the font section of my site in the sig below. j. +++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD email- jwest@highland.net web page- http://web.infoave.net/~jwest From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Jul 22 22:22:15 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA20628; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 22:22:15 -0400 From: rlmullen@netpath.net Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990722223342.007aeae0@netpath.net> X-Sender: rlmullen@netpath.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 22:33:42 -0400 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list Nicene and Apostles' Creeds In-Reply-To: <19990718153923.85361.qmail@hotmail.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: 753 For the Nicene Creed, the standard source listed in CLAVIS PATRUM GRAECORUM is as follows: Joannou, Pericles-Pierre, ed., FONTI, FASCICULO IX. DISCIPLINE GENERALE ANTIQUE. Tome 1.1. LES CANONS DES CONCILES OECUMENIQUES. (Rome: Typographica Italo-Orientale, 1962). For the Apostles' Creed. CLAVIS PATRUM LATINORUM would probably give you a reference. --Rod Mullen At 08:39 AM 7/18/99 PDT, you wrote: >TCers -- > >Could somebody point me to a transcription of a reliable manuscript or a >critical edition of both the Nicene and Apostles' Creeds? Thanks. > >J. Bruce Prior in Blaine, WA n7rr@hotmail.com > > >_______________________________________________________________ >Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com > > From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Jul 23 11:55:33 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA23426; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 11:55:33 -0400 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199907230630.CAA21236@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 11:06:09 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: Carlton Winbery Subject: Re: tc-list-digest V4 #92 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 3030 >From: "Wieland Willker" >Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 14:07:36 +0200 >Some more thoughts about "collating everything" (collating all greek NT >manuscripts): >1. It is not needed to have "error free" transcripts at the beginning. In >this respect e-versions are much better than printed ones. One can easily >update them regularly. I would strongly agree Prof. Hurtado and a post earlier from Bill Warren. The standard of accuracy for the IGNTP must be very high or we wind up with a big mess. Who is going to be reading the mss "regularly?" We have great difficulty getting them read and collated for the project. Once the project is done, I can't imagine a scenario that will lead to constant checks. Also, it is easier to do it right the first time by having multiple collations of the same mss. to serve as a check and then to have the more experienced collators checking even further. As I see it the purpose of the project demands the highest standard of accuracy. >2. It is not needed to bring out everything at once. One can add more and >more as times goes by. >I don't know if everybody is familiar with the program Bibleworks, but this >could be easily addapted to the NT manuscripts. (At least I think so.) >Atm Bibleworks brings out new, improved, updated, corrected versions of the >GNT and its morphology almost every week or so. These can be downloaded from >their website. This is an edition of the GNT not mss collations. The work in such a case is very different. Many people regularly read editions of the GNT. Those who go back and check collations are few and far between. >IMHO it is not very difficult to add a "manuscript selction" info-window. >Here instead of choosing NT books, one can select manuscripts to be present >on the screen. Besides the normal NA-GNT one has databases for P45, P66, >P75, A, B, ...etc. >The first versions would be highly experimental of course, but it's a >beginning. Working in the papyrii and great uncials is fun. Trudging thru the minuscules is guite another. Here is where we have to insure the standard is upheld. > Larry Hurtado here: His motto seems to be "Everything >error-free or nothing". >One should start with something NOW and see how it evolves. I think the >Swanson volumes would be a good starting point. Also the Barrett/Comfort >book is highly welcome in this respect, but it should have been released on >CD or even better on the web. This is an exageration, but this must be the goal to produce collations that are as error free as possible. There is a difference between the use of a collation and the use of an edition of the Greek NT, hence, the methods must be different. I hope Barrett/Comfort will correct what they have done, but until they do, it is of little use to me apart from my own checking virtually every thing they did. Dr. Carlton L. Winbery Foggleman Professor of Religion Louisiana College winbery@andria.lacollege.edu winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net Ph. 1 318 448 6103 hm Ph. 1 318 487 7241 off From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Jul 23 14:22:27 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA24274; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 14:22:26 -0400 From: lakr Message-Id: <199907231829.LAA09493@netcom9.netcom.com> Subject: tc-list Rev 5:14 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 11:29:13 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19990722223342.007aeae0@netpath.net> from "rlmullen@netpath.net" at Jul 22, 99 10:33:42 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 325 Dear list, Rev 5:14 in the AV has text at the end of this verse that does not appear in the NA27th. I am not an expert in interpreting the critical aparatus, but it did not seem to have anything for this verse. Can someone point me to a resource that can show where these additional words came from? Thanks, Larry Kruper From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Jul 23 15:28:40 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA24657; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 15:28:40 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199907231829.LAA09493@netcom9.netcom.com> References: <199907231829.LAA09493@netcom9.netcom.com> Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 14:26:01 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: tc-list Rev 5:14 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: 1577 On 7/23/99, lakr wrote: >Dear list, > >Rev 5:14 in the AV has text at the end of this verse that does not appear >in the NA27th. I am not an expert in interpreting the critical aparatus, >but it did not seem to have anything for this verse. Can someone point >me to a resource that can show where these additional words came from? I assume the reference is actually to the TR, not the AV, right? :-) The passage in question is ZWNTI EIS TOUS AIWNAS TWN AIWNWN, and it is indeed in the TR and not noted in the NA27 margin. (This is by no means uncommon; NA27 is NOT a complete critical apparatus, and no effort was made to include the readings of the TR.) In this case, the "correct" course is to go to Tischendorf and Von Soden (or, specifically for the Apocalypse, Hoskier and Schmidt). For those of us who can't get our hands on those volumes, the best hand edition is certainly Merk. Looking there, we find only two Greek witnesses cited: 922 and 2026. It is also supported by the Latin witness D (Book of Armagh), by the pseudo-Ambrose, and by Primasius. Presumably Erasmus derived it from some Latin thing or other. But certainly it has no place in the New Testament text. Even the supporters of the Majority Text would agree with this assessment. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Jul 23 23:03:40 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id XAA26556; Fri, 23 Jul 1999 23:03:39 -0400 From: dd-1@juno.com To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 20:36:14 -0500 Subject: tc-list Text of the Church Fathers Message-ID: <19990723.220931.-890737.0.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: 485 Denny Diehl here with a request: Can anyone suggest some studies that have concentrated on the New Testament Text (Western, Byzantine or Alexandrian) used by the Church Fathers in their quotations? Please reply to me privately also: DD-1@Juno.com Thanks ___________________________________________________________________ Get the Internet just the way you want it. Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month! Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Jul 24 10:55:19 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA28474; Sat, 24 Jul 1999 10:55:18 -0400 Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19990724145637.0075ee88@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: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 10:56:37 -0400 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Kevin W. Woodruff" Subject: Re: tc-list Text of the Church Fathers 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: 1174 The Traditional Text by John William Burgon and Edward Miller. London: George Bell and sons, 1896. Pages 90-122. For the use of the Byzantine Text by the Early Church Fathers (I don't agree with him) At 08:36 PM 07/23/1999 -0500, you wrote: >Denny Diehl here with a request: > >Can anyone suggest some studies that have concentrated on >the New Testament Text (Western, Byzantine or Alexandrian) >used by the Church Fathers in their quotations? > >Please reply to me privately also: DD-1@Juno.com >Thanks >___________________________________________________________________ >Get the Internet just the way you want it. >Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month! >Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj. > > 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 Sat Jul 24 12:09:44 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA28629; Sat, 24 Jul 1999 12:09:44 -0400 From: dd-1@juno.com To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 11:14:31 -0500 Subject: Re: tc-list Text of the Church Fathers Message-ID: <19990724.111431.-890737.0.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: 595 Kevin, Denny Diehl here >The Traditional Text by John William Burgon and Edward Miller. >For the use of the Byzantine Text by the Early Church Fathers > > (I don't agree with him) Kenyon pointed out that they were working with uncritical editions of the church fathers. Are there any studies which have been done which come to a differing conclusion? Thanks ___________________________________________________________________ Get the Internet just the way you want it. Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month! Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Jul 25 04:43:49 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id EAA00649; Sun, 25 Jul 1999 04:43:48 -0400 Message-Id: Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 10:50:32 +0200 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu References: <19990724.111431.-890737.0.DD-1@juno.com> Subject: Re: tc-list Text of the Church Fathers X-Mailer: T-Online eMail 2.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT X-Sender: 320003854441-0001@t-online.de From: U.B.Schmid@t-online.de (U.B.Schmid) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1261 dd-1@juno.com wrote: > Kevin, Denny Diehl here > > >The Traditional Text by John William Burgon and Edward Miller. > >For the use of the Byzantine Text by the Early Church Fathers > > > > (I don't agree with him) > > Kenyon pointed out that they were working with uncritical editions > of the church fathers. Are there any studies which have been done > which come to a differing conclusion? I suggest you should consult the most recent survey essay on the issue published in B.D. Rhrman, M.W. Holmes (eds.), _The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research: Essays on the Status Quaestionis (SD 46, 1995)_. Moreover, there is a whole SBL series called _The New Testament in the Greek Fathers_, currently edited by M.W. Holmes. There are more studies on Greek, Latin, and Syriac Fathers, but I don't know of one single publication that fully covers the great variety of Patristic writings. On the issue of uncritical editions I would like to point out that they may give a slightly different picture than critical editions but as long as the samples are large enough it won't affect the substance of studies based thereon. That's my personal impression. ------------------------------------------ Dr. Ulrich Schmid U.B.Schmid@t-online.de From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Jul 26 04:41:15 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id EAA04665; Mon, 26 Jul 1999 04:41:15 -0400 Message-Id: <199907260848.JAA25368@haymarket.ed.ac.uk> From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 09:45:17 +000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: tc-list Text of the Church Fathers Priority: normal In-reply-to: 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: 1006 On the proper use of Patristic citations evidence, I think the crucial methodological discussion is G. D. Fee, "The Use of Greek Patristic Citations in NT Textual Criticism: The State of the Question," in G. D. Fee, E. J. Epp, _Studies in the Theory & Method of NT Textual Criticism_ (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), pp. 344-59. Fee makes plain (and gives good examples in support) that the Greek Fathers (1) use a variety of practices in citing, which makes it dodgy to think that they always are quoting a text as written, and (2) that the Greek Fathers themselves must be prepared in critical additions before making *any* conclusions about what text-type they might reflect (as their writings were heavily assimilated by scribes to the dominant text-type at the times of copying, which progressively became the Byzantine type). 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 Mon Jul 26 08:26:49 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA05687; Mon, 26 Jul 1999 08:26:48 -0400 Message-Id: Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 14:33:37 +0200 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu References: <199907260848.JAA25368@haymarket.ed.ac.uk> Subject: Re: tc-list Text of the Church Fathers X-Mailer: T-Online eMail 2.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT X-Sender: 320003854441-0001@t-online.de From: U.B.Schmid@t-online.de (U.B.Schmid) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1198 Professor L.W. Hurtado wrote: > On the proper use of Patristic citations evidence, I think the crucial > methodological discussion is G. D. Fee, "The Use of Greek > Patristic Citations in NT Textual Criticism: The State of the > Question," in G. D. Fee, E. J. Epp, _Studies in the Theory & > Method of NT Textual Criticism_ (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), > pp. 344-59. > Fee makes plain (and gives good examples in support) that the > Greek Fathers (1) use a variety of practices in citing, which makes > it dodgy to think that they always are quoting a text as written, and > (2) that the Greek Fathers themselves must be prepared in critical > additions before making *any* conclusions about what text-type > they might reflect (as their writings were heavily assimilated by > scribes to the dominant text-type at the times of copying, which > progressively became the Byzantine type). Unfortunately, I don't have my copy of Fee's essay here at home with me. Larry, could you, please, remind me of the "good examples in support" of (2), i.e. assimilation by later scribes. Thanks in advance. ------------------------------------------ Dr. Ulrich Schmid U.B.Schmid@t-online.de From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Jul 26 10:05:09 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA07696; Mon, 26 Jul 1999 10:05:08 -0400 Message-Id: <199907261412.PAA16305@haymarket.ed.ac.uk> From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 15:09:10 +000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: tc-list Text of the Church Fathers Priority: normal In-reply-to: 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: 774 Fee's "good examples" of evidence concerning proper use of Patristic citations (to which I referred) are actually more thoroughly presented in another essay in the same vol.: "The Text of John in Origen and Cyril of Alexandria: A Contribution to Methodology in the Recovery and Analysis of Patristic Citations," pp. 301-34. Actually, most of his examples are of how the Fathers use different citation & adaptation practices, which makes it essential to *analyse* each citation carefully before using it. But he does refer to the uneven quality of the texts of the Fathers esp. in Migne. Larry Hurtado 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 Mon Jul 26 10:29:16 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA07870; Mon, 26 Jul 1999 10:29:15 -0400 From: dd-1@juno.com To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 09:22:34 -0500 Subject: Re: tc-list Text of the Church Fathers Message-ID: <19990726.093431.-801193.0.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: 399 Denny Diehl here I was surfing through Barnes and Noble this am and noted: New Testament Text of Cyril of Jerusalem by Roderic Muller. Anyone familiar with this work? ___________________________________________________________________ Get the Internet just the way you want it. Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month! Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj. From tc-list-owner Mon Jul 26 12:17:26 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id MAA01776 for tc-list-outgoing; Mon, 26 Jul 1999 12:17:17 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 11:24:15 -0500 (CDT) From: Bruce Morrill To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list Text of the Church Fathers In-Reply-To: <19990726.093431.-801193.0.DD-1@juno.com> 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: 484 On Mon, 26 Jul 1999 dd-1@juno.com wrote: > I was surfing through Barnes and Noble this am and > noted: New Testament Text of Cyril of Jerusalem > by Roderic Muller. Anyone familiar with this work? This is one volume in the SBL series that Ulrich already mentioned; the whole series is critical for understanding the current state. There is more information, including reviews and purchase information, at the SBL or Scholars Press web site. Bruce Morrill bruce@math.ksu.edu From tc-list-owner Mon Jul 26 13:20:35 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id NAA02319 for tc-list-outgoing; Mon, 26 Jul 1999 13:20:30 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Message-Id: Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 19:27:25 +0200 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu References: <199907261412.PAA16305@haymarket.ed.ac.uk> Subject: Re: tc-list Text of the Church Fathers X-Mailer: T-Online eMail 2.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT X-Sender: 320003854441-0001@t-online.de From: U.B.Schmid@t-online.de (U.B.Schmid) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Content-Length: 2667 Professor L.W. Hurtado wrote: > Fee's "good examples" of evidence concerning proper use of > Patristic citations (to which I referred) are actually more thoroughly > presented in another essay in the same vol.: "The Text of John in > Origen and Cyril of Alexandria: A Contribution to Methodology in > the Recovery and Analysis of Patristic Citations," pp. 301-34. > Actually, most of his examples are of how the Fathers use different > citation & adaptation practices, which makes it essential to > *analyse* each citation carefully before using it. But he does refer > to the uneven quality of the texts of the Fathers esp. in Migne. This is a reprint of Fee's essay originally published in Biblica 52, 1971, pp. 337-394, right? This one I have in hand. Browsing through it reveals, indeed, some general reservation on Fee's side when using Migne editions and catenae traditions. Fee generally observes that works of Origen and Cyril only available in Migne editions tend to present more Byzantine readings than others. In the case of Origen, however, I can't verify this claim from Fee's data. Even if it were true, two further issues need to be addressed before we may safely credit this phenomenon to the scribes of the patristic texts: a) Do the "Byzantine" readings occur mostly in the lemma of the commentaries or in the commentary texts as well? In the former case we may assume that the lemma was taken from a *Vorlage* different from the text that was commented upon. Yet we don't know whether a later scribe or the initial editor was responsible for the "confusion". b) What do we know about the manuscripts and the policy employed by modern editors of the Migne series? It may well turn out that the modern editors have tampered with their manuscripts. To sum up: I still don't know of compelling examples for scribal adaptations to a Byzantine standard within the textual transmission of patristic texts, although I know about the rumour that is spread. (I'd be really interested in the phenomena, not in rumours.) Moreover, there is hard evidence that modern (18-19th c.) editors (such as, e.g., Pusey) did not always faithfully report their manuscript(s). To be sure, I would love to have critical editions of every ancient text. But I would be satisfied to know which of the extant editions (whether critical or not) actually does faithfully represent the manuscript(s) they use. ------------------------------------------ Dr. Ulrich Schmid U.B.Schmid@t-online.de From tc-list-owner Mon Jul 26 15:55:20 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id PAA01327 for tc-list-outgoing; Mon, 26 Jul 1999 15:55:03 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Message-ID: <379CBECF.2C4BF112@emory.edu> Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 16:02:23 -0400 From: Patrick Durusau X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: tc-list Accuracy & Scholarship Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------13E7150F7C72C9D23B956B1B" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Content-Length: 11292 --------------13E7150F7C72C9D23B956B1B Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Greetings, During the recent thread on "How to Collate Everything" Larry Hurtado wrote in response to a characterization of his position as "error-free or nothing" as follows: > Obviously, anyone is free to spend their efforts and time on > whatever one wants. But the prior question before one does any > such work is this: What use(s) do you want to serve? If you want > simply to produce a working and preliminary draft exercise that is > quickly done, and therefore is more likely to have errors, and that is > intended simply as a basis for others to improve, then . . . OK, I > guess. But this would be something that would be unreliable for > detailed usage. If the aim is to supply virtually the ms itself, then > accuracy is the sine qua non. And if the aim is to provide as much > of the ms data as can be provided in a transcription, then this > would include abbreviations, line lengths, capitalized/oversize > letters, puctuation, marginal marks, corrections, and more. And all > this should be accurate too. > So, what is unreasonable about this? What aim is served by a > less scrupulous care for detail? One could imagine a transcription > that is intended only for those who want to examine only textual > variants (and none of the other sorts of data listed above). But > would not this also require as high a standard of accuracy as > possible? > I know it's frustrating to find (a) what all is involved, and (b) how > difficult and time-consuming it all is. Good scholarship is simply > time-consuming, demanding and difficult. It's why people have to > give themselves to it on a career basis. > I am sympathetic to Hurtado's goal of providing "virtually the ms itself" but I also think that modern methods of collaborating over the Internet may lead to new ways of reaching that happy state for manuscripts. I think everyone would admit that the first transcription a scholar makes of a manuscript is probably not error-free. Rather than have a lone scholar seek out his own errors I understand the prior suggestion be that the initial transcription be posted on the Internet for others to review. This is similar to the Open Source movement in software development that takes as an article of faith (with some empirical justification) that having many eyes look at software code will more quickly find and resolve any errors. In the case of manuscripts it would be necessary to provide high-resolution images of the manuscript in question so other could verify, correct or comment on the proposed transcription. Setting standards for transcription of manuscripts, i.e., what should be transcribed and in what manner should it be represented is a necessary pre-condition to any serious effort to promote collaboration on the transcription of manuscripts. My own preferences lie in the direction of encoding every bit of information possible at the grapheme level (plus all the manuscript evidence cited by Hurtado) so as to allow later annotation or manipulation of the text at whatever level was desired. The SBL Seminar on Electronic Standards for Biblical Language Texts would be an appropriate forum for those wishing to organize/participate in such an effort. We have the technology now to create manuscript annotation mechanisms that are web based that would allow a reader to view a particular section of a manuscript and to enter their transcription of that manuscript in an XML based format that would be keyed to the image of the manuscript. I think we should take full advantage of every advance in technology that will make it easier to record (accurately) the information we seek from manuscripts and not continue with methods that serve no purpose other than to be "time-consuming, demanding and difficult." The print publication of a collation of manuscripts is an example of such a method. It would be much more useable for such information to be presented in electronic form (highly structured XML) that would permit linking to actual images of the manuscripts or manipulation in ways not anticipated by the author. This assumes that images of such manuscripts could be obtained for such display but there does seem to be some movement towards more open access to primary materials than has existed in some past circumstances. There are any number of scholarly organizations that could function as "gate-keepers" to insure that proposed transcriptions meet the standards for biblical manuscripts. The existence of poor transcriptions on the Web is no more of a problem than the local newspaper reporting on new inscriptions found in the Middle East. For the most part we are lucky if they get the continent correct much less the content of the inscription. And no one would claim that scholars should rely upon the afternoon paper as a scholarly source. The same will be true of poor transcriptions, scholars will ignore those that are inaccurate, just as they do now with some print versions, and use those they know are reliable. Yes, "good scholarship" is "time-consuming, demanding and difficult." but I think we should use technology to lessen the times when that is due to largely clerical tasks performed by the lone scholar or small groups of scholars. Patrick -- Patrick Durusau Information Technology Services Scholars Press pdurusau@emory.edu Interim Manager, ITS --------------13E7150F7C72C9D23B956B1B Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Greetings,

During the recent thread on "How to Collate Everything" Larry Hurtado wrote in response to a characterization of his position as "error-free or nothing" as follows:
  

Obviously, anyone is free to spend their efforts and time on 
whatever one wants.  But the prior question before one does any 
such work is this:  What use(s) do you want to serve?  If you want 
simply to produce a working and preliminary draft exercise that is 
quickly done, and therefore is more likely to have errors, and that is 
intended simply as a basis for others to improve, then . . . OK, I 
guess.  But this would be something that would be unreliable for 
detailed usage.  If the aim is to supply virtually the ms itself, then 
accuracy is the sine qua non. And if the aim is to provide as much 
of the ms data as can be provided in a transcription, then this 
would include abbreviations, line lengths, capitalized/oversize 
letters, puctuation, marginal marks, corrections, and more.  And all 
this should be accurate too.
So, what is unreasonable about this?  What aim is served by a 
less scrupulous care for detail?  One could imagine a transcription 
that is intended only for those who want to examine only textual 
variants (and none of the other sorts of data listed above).  But 
would not this also require as high a standard of accuracy as 
possible?  
I know it's frustrating to find (a) what all is involved, and (b) how 
difficult and time-consuming it all is.  Good scholarship is simply 
time-consuming, demanding and difficult.  It's why people have to 
give themselves to it on a career basis.


I am sympathetic to Hurtado's goal of providing "virtually the ms itself" but I also think that modern methods of collaborating over the Internet may lead to new ways of reaching that happy state for manuscripts. I think everyone would admit that the first transcription a scholar makes of a manuscript is probably not error-free. Rather than have a lone scholar seek out his own errors I understand the prior suggestion be that the initial transcription be posted on the Internet for others to review. This is similar to the Open Source movement in software development that takes as an article of faith (with some empirical justification) that having many eyes look at software code will more quickly find and resolve any errors. In the case of manuscripts it would be necessary to provide high-resolution images of the manuscript in question so other could verify, correct or comment on the proposed transcription.

Setting standards for transcription of manuscripts, i.e., what should be transcribed and in what manner should it be represented is a necessary pre-condition to any serious effort to promote collaboration on the transcription of manuscripts. My own preferences lie in the direction of encoding every bit of information possible at the grapheme level (plus all the manuscript evidence cited by Hurtado) so as to allow later annotation or manipulation of the text at whatever level was desired. The SBL Seminar on Electronic Standards for Biblical Language Texts would be an appropriate forum for those wishing to organize/participate in such an effort.

We have the technology now to create manuscript annotation mechanisms that are web based that would allow a reader to view a particular section of a manuscript and to enter their transcription of that manuscript in an XML based format that would be keyed to the image of the manuscript. I think we should take full advantage of every advance in technology that will make it easier to record (accurately) the information we seek from manuscripts and not continue with methods that serve no purpose other than to be "time-consuming, demanding and difficult."

The print publication of a collation of manuscripts is an example of such a method. It would be much more useable for such information to be presented in electronic form (highly structured XML) that would permit linking to actual images of the manuscripts or manipulation in ways not anticipated by the author. This assumes that images of such manuscripts could be obtained for such display but there does seem to be some movement towards more open access to primary materials than has existed in some past circumstances.

There are any number of scholarly organizations that could function as "gate-keepers" to insure that proposed transcriptions meet the standards for biblical manuscripts. The existence of poor transcriptions on the Web is no more of a problem than the local newspaper reporting on new inscriptions found in the Middle East. For the most part we are lucky if they get the continent correct much less the content of the inscription. And no one would claim that scholars should rely upon the afternoon paper as a scholarly source. The same will be true of poor transcriptions, scholars will ignore those that are inaccurate, just as they do now with some print versions, and use those they know are reliable.

Yes, "good scholarship" is "time-consuming, demanding and difficult." but I think we should use technology to lessen the times when that is due to largely clerical tasks performed by the lone scholar or small groups of scholars. 
 

Patrick

--
Patrick Durusau
Information Technology Services
Scholars Press
pdurusau@emory.edu
Interim Manager, ITS
  --------------13E7150F7C72C9D23B956B1B-- From tc-list-owner Mon Jul 26 17:36:51 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id RAA02144 for tc-list-outgoing; Mon, 26 Jul 1999 17:36:21 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f From: rlmullen@netpath.net Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990726174905.0079dc10@netpath.net> X-Sender: rlmullen@netpath.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 17:49:05 -0400 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list Text of the Church Fathers In-Reply-To: <19990726.093431.-801193.0.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: 570 Yes, I'm the author of that work. Glad to know that B&N lists it. What would you like to know? --Roderic L. Mullen At 09:22 AM 7/26/99 -0500, you wrote: >Denny Diehl here > >I was surfing through Barnes and Noble this am and >noted: New Testament Text of Cyril of Jerusalem >by Roderic Muller. Anyone familiar with this work? >___________________________________________________________________ >Get the Internet just the way you want it. >Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month! >Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj. > From tc-list-owner Mon Jul 26 19:27:44 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id TAA02717 for tc-list-outgoing; Mon, 26 Jul 1999 19:27:32 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Message-ID: <379CF104.9EA3643A@flash.net> Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 18:36:37 -0500 From: Andrew Payne Organization: Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list Subject: tc-list Scholarly Reprints Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------0A5DF9DE24CA409CEBE713CF" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Content-Length: 1856 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------0A5DF9DE24CA409CEBE713CF Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I recently received a catalog from "Good Books" out of Springfield, IL which is marketing "quality secondhand religious books." I believe the "secondhand" nature means that these volumes are xerox copies of out-of-print books. The first 8 pages average about 10 books per page and primarily deal with text critical issues of the New Testament. With only a few exceptions, most of the books were published in the 19th century. As a general rule, judging from book descriptions, the company appears to be more supportive of the Textus Receptus than critical editions. They offer all three volumes of Tischendorf's 8th edition for $150. (There are other works by other authors). My question is this: I have never heard of Good Books and I don't know if -- for example -- an 8th edition Tischendorf can be found for less than $150 among used book circles. BTW, I'm probably not interested in a Tischendorf. Can anyone tell me anything about this company? I know that xerox copies are at best a second-generation of an unknown-quality original. Is this something worth my time? Or my money? Thanks in advance. Andrew Payne --------------0A5DF9DE24CA409CEBE713CF Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="andrew11.vcf" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Description: Card for Andrew Payne Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="andrew11.vcf" begin:vcard n:Payne;Andrew x-mozilla-html:FALSE adr:;;;;;; version:2.1 email;internet:andrew11@flash.net note;quoted-printable:"Even if you are on the right track,=0D=0Ayou'll get run over if you just sit there."=0D=0A Mark Twain fn:Andrew end:vcard --------------0A5DF9DE24CA409CEBE713CF-- From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Jul 27 03:35:07 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id DAA25006; Tue, 27 Jul 1999 03:34:11 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <379D3E44.E158CD49@chemie.uni-bremen.de> Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 07:06:12 +0200 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 Electronically available manuscripts 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: 1292 Carlton Winbery wrote: > I would strongly agree Prof. Hurtado and a post > earlier from Bill Warren. > The standard of accuracy for the IGNTP must be > very high or we wind up with > a big mess. I agree and would like to say that I mixed up two different things in my last post which maybe caused some irritation. I fully agree that the collation of ALL the minuscles must be as accurate as possible. Another thing is to have some of the most important manuscripts like P45,P66,P75,B,D... in electronic format on the web somewhere (and in Bible programs). As far as I know know there is nothing atm. I have asked several people, if they have anything, because I wanted to add it to my online GNT, but there is nothing. (There are plans btw. at the Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft to release the GNT NA-27 WITH apparatus on a CD sometime, but I don't know how this is working.) If anybody know of any available ASCII-ed manuscripts (of the more important species), please let me know. Best wishes Wieland ------------------------------------- willker@chemie.uni-bremen.de http://purl.org/Willker/index.html Secret Mark Homepage: http://purl.org/Willker/Secret/secmark_home.html Egerton Homepage: http://purl.org/Willker/Egerton/Egerton_home.html ------------------------------------- From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Jul 27 07:22:22 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id HAA26207; Tue, 27 Jul 1999 07:21:38 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199907271127.NAA23298@carno.brus.online.be> Subject: Re: tc-list Electronically available manuscripts Date: Mar, 27 Jul 99 13:34:21 +0200 x-sender: vale5655@pop3.brus.online.be x-mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1 From: Jean Valentin To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Content-Length: 485 >If anybody know of any available ASCII-ed manuscripts (of the more >important species), please let me know. > Wasn't there a member of the list that made a transcription of Mt according to W and made it available on a web site? Jean V _______________________________________________________________ Jean Valentin - 34 rue du Berceau - 1000 Bruxelles - Belgique tel. 32-2-280.01.37 e-mail : jgvalentin@arcadis.be _______________________________________________________________ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Jul 27 07:55:33 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id HAA26291; Tue, 27 Jul 1999 07:54:59 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 14:01:27 +0200 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu References: <199907261412.PAA16305@haymarket.ed.ac.uk> Subject: Re: tc-list Text of the Church Fathers X-Mailer: T-Online eMail 2.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT X-Sender: 320003854441-0001@t-online.de From: U.B.Schmid@t-online.de (U.B.Schmid) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Content-Length: 2667 Professor L.W. Hurtado wrote: > Fee's "good examples" of evidence concerning proper use of > Patristic citations (to which I referred) are actually more thoroughly > presented in another essay in the same vol.: "The Text of John in > Origen and Cyril of Alexandria: A Contribution to Methodology in > the Recovery and Analysis of Patristic Citations," pp. 301-34. > Actually, most of his examples are of how the Fathers use different > citation & adaptation practices, which makes it essential to > *analyse* each citation carefully before using it. But he does refer > to the uneven quality of the texts of the Fathers esp. in Migne. This is a reprint of Fee's essay originally published in Biblica 52, 1971, pp. 337-394, right? This one I have in hand. Browsing through it reveals, indeed, some general reservation on Fee's side when using Migne editions and catenae traditions. Fee generally observes that works of Origen and Cyril only available in Migne editions tend to present more Byzantine readings than others. In the case of Origen, however, I can't verify this claim from Fee's data. Even if it were true, two further issues need to be addressed before we may safely credit this phenomenon to the scribes of the patristic texts: a) Do the "Byzantine" readings occur mostly in the lemma of the commentaries or in the commentary texts as well? In the former case we may assume that the lemma was taken from a *Vorlage* different from the text that was commented upon. Yet we don't know whether a later scribe or the initial editor was responsible for the "confusion". b) What do we know about the manuscripts and the policy employed by modern editors of the Migne series? It may well turn out that the modern editors have tampered with their manuscripts. To sum up: I still don't know of compelling examples for scribal adaptations to a Byzantine standard within the textual transmission of patristic texts, although I know about the rumour that is spread. (I'd be really interested in the phenomena, not in rumours.) Moreover, there is hard evidence that modern (18-19th c.) editors (such as, e.g., Pusey) did not always faithfully report their manuscript(s). To be sure, I would love to have critical editions of every ancient text. But I would be satisfied to know which of the extant editions (whether critical or not) actually does faithfully represent the manuscript(s) they use. ------------------------------------------ Dr. Ulrich Schmid U.B.Schmid@t-online.de From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Jul 27 13:37:25 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id NAA27912; Tue, 27 Jul 1999 13:36:48 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <379DCB76.EAC94689@chemie.uni-bremen.de> Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 17:08:38 +0200 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 Textual Optimism 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: 247 In the Sheffield catalogue is a book entitled "Textual Optimism" by Kent D. Clarke in which he "questions the evaluation of textual variants made in the UBS NT." What are his arguments and is he pessimistic or optimistic? Best wishes Wieland From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Jul 27 15:07:11 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id PAA28411; Tue, 27 Jul 1999 15:06:42 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com (Unverified) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <379DCB76.EAC94689@chemie.uni-bremen.de> References: <379DCB76.EAC94689@chemie.uni-bremen.de> Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 14:15:59 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: tc-list Textual Optimism Cc: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu 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: 1525 On 7/27/99, Wieland Willker wrote: >In the Sheffield catalogue is a book entitled >"Textual Optimism" >by Kent D. Clarke >in which he "questions the evaluation of textual variants made in the >UBS NT." >What are his arguments and is he pessimistic or optimistic? I haven't read _Textual Optimism_, but Clarke summarizes his own opinions in K. D. Clarke & K Bales, "The Construction of Biblical Certainty: Textual Optimism and the United Bible Societies' _Greek New Testament_," published in D, G, K, Taylor, ed., _Studies in the Early Text of the Gospels and Acts_. If the summary correctly summarizes the book, the point is that, when the UBS text went from the third to the fourth edition, the text was not changed, but the apparatus was. And the major change in the apparatus is that the text became more certain. The number of "A" readings (where the committee had no doubt about the original text) was greatly increased; the number of "D" readings (where the committee was not certain at all) went from significant to almost non-existent. In other words, the UBS4 committee is in love with their own text. :-) And, frankly, I don't think it's worthy of that enthusiasm. I think Clarke agrees. :-) -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Jul 28 07:37:35 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id HAA27316; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 07:36:26 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199907281143.MAA11114@haymarket.ed.ac.uk> From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 12:40:30 +000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: tc-list Jean Valentin 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: 501 Sorry to trouble the list with a personal matter, but I wish to link Jean Valentin with another scholar who is working on Arabic NT mss, and I don't have Valentin's e-mail address. Mr. Valentin, could you contact me directly and I can supply the name and postal information (the person in question is not on e-mail yet). Larry Hurtado L. W. Hurtado University of Edinburgh, New College Mound Place Edinburgh, Scotland EH1 2LX Phone: 0131-650-8920 Fax: 0131-650-6579 E-mail: L.Hurtado@ed.ac.uk From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Jul 28 10:39:06 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id KAA28823; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 10:36:52 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 10:43:28 -0400 From: "Harold P. Scanlin" Subject: Re: tc-list Textual Optimism To: "INTERNET:tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu" Message-ID: <199907281043_MC2-7E90-63D1@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: 1654 Robert Waltz offered the following evaluation of Clark's critique of GNT4= : = > I haven't read _Textual Optimism_, but Clarke summarizes his own > opinions in K. D. Clarke & K Bales, "The Construction of Biblical > Certainty: Textual Optimism and the United Bible Societies' _Greek > New Testament_," published in D, G, K, Taylor, ed., _Studies in the > Early Text of the Gospels and Acts_. > And the major change in the apparatus is that the text became > more certain. The number of "A" readings (where the committee > had no doubt about the original text) was greatly increased; > the number of "D" readings (where the committee was not certain > at all) went from significant to almost nonexistent. Although the extensive upgrading of ratings is a noticeable feature of GNT4, there were significant revisions to the apparatus. 200+ variation units considered to be of minor significance for Bible translators were dropped from the apparatus and about the same number of variation units that would be more useful to translators were added. For the academic study of text history and the practice of textual criticism, the user can= now, of course, turn to NA27. Another feature of GNT4, especially useful= to translators and for exegesis, is the completely reworked "segmentation= apparatus." Without denying the plain fact that many readings were upgraded, I would suggest that tc-list readers see Mikeal Parson's review of _Textual Optimism_ in the July 1999 issue of _The Bible Translator_ for a good evaluation of Clark's methodology. Harold P. Scanlin United Bible Societies 1865 Broadway New York, NY 10023 scanlin@compuserve.com From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Jul 28 10:57:12 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id KAA28915; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 10:56:45 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com (Unverified) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199907281043_MC2-7E90-63D1@compuserve.com> References: <199907281043_MC2-7E90-63D1@compuserve.com> Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 10:08:06 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: tc-list Textual Optimism 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: 1678 On 7/28/99, Harold P. Scanlin wrote: >Although the extensive upgrading of ratings is a noticeable feature of >GNT4, there were significant revisions to the apparatus. 200+ variation >units considered to be of minor significance for Bible translators were >dropped from the apparatus and about the same number of variation units >that would be more useful to translators were added. This is, of course, true, and I do think the readings selected are better than those used before. But that's not the point; as Clarke observed (and I fully concur with this), the UBS apparatus presents a text that is nearly certain. Only 9 (!) {D} variants in the entire text. I call that absurd; I have more than that in Galatians alone. :-) I would still say the UBS4 apparatus indicates much too much confidence in its text. The other problem with the apparatus, if I may say so, is that it has eliminated all diversity in UBS4. Taking Paul as an example, what changed from UBS3 to UBS4? Well, they dropped several minuscules and added others. But it happens that the minuscules they added are all pretty much Alexandrian or Alexandrian/Byzantine mix. What was taken out? Manuscripts like 330, 451, 629, 2492 -- which show a more independent text. No wonder the editors think their text is written on stone tablets: They stopped looking at the competing evidence. :-) -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Jul 28 12:04:28 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id MAA29304; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 12:03:44 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 18:10:34 +0200 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu References: <199907281043_MC2-7E90-63D1@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: tc-list Textual Optimism X-Mailer: T-Online eMail 2.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT X-Sender: 320003854441-0001@t-online.de From: U.B.Schmid@t-online.de (U.B.Schmid) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Content-Length: 772 Quite frankly, I never placed too much interest in the UBS ratings except when preparing a paper that I gave last summer. For my study I checked Metzger's *Textual Commentary* in both editions and I figured out that at the variation unit I was interested in (Lk 22,19b-20) the rating was upgraded while Metzger's pertinent commentary has not changed. I couldn't find the slightest hint about new evidence or new insights that might have caused the change. I don't have the time to perform a systematic check, but maybe K.D. Clark offers some insights. I'm simply curious. Harold, how does the latest edition of Metzger's *Textual Commentary* fit/relate to the new ratings? ------------------------------------------ Dr. Ulrich Schmid U.B.Schmid@t-online.de From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Jul 28 12:21:24 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id MAA29429; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 12:20:56 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 11:28:24 -0500 From: Mike Parsons Subject: Re: tc-list Textual Optimism To: tc-list Message-id: <199907281627.LAA19583@ccis01.baylor.edu> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: QuickMail Pro 1.5.2 (Mac) Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-Ascii" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable X-Priority: 3 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Content-Length: 3887 Reply to: Re: tc-list Textual Optimism not to speak for harold, but i have looked into this issue, and my = impression is that the comments in the second edition have NOT been = significantly revised in light of the changes to the ratings, other than = the obvious elimination of ratings beside comments on texts that are now = no longer rated. Interestingly even there, the comments are usually = retained (even if the rating is dropped). and in many cases where a rating= is added for a new variant, a comment already existed (as you know there = are hundreds of comments on texts that are not actually among those rated = by the committee). again, so far as i can tell, comments received only = light editorial revision, and in some cases the dissonance between printed = text and accompanying comment are jarring (i give some examples i think = in the review and will reproduce some if anyone is REALLY interested). = most peculiar are those places where a minority of the committee appends a = dissenting note (sort of like the US supreme court!). in some cases those = notes are written by members now no longer members of the committee (esp. = wikgren). and the rhetoric of "the majority of the committee" is of = course now inaccurate since the composition of the committee for the = ubsgnt4 has significantly changed. clarke does not deal in any sustained = way with the relationship between the commentary and the text (other than = a footnote or two), a point i make in the bible translator review (it's = actually an invitation for someone to do more work in this area as a way = of nudging the ubs folk to revise the commentary). mikeal parsons = U.B.Schmid wrote: >Quite frankly, I never placed too much interest in the UBS ratings except = when = >preparing a paper that I gave last summer. For my study I checked Metzger'= s = >*Textual Commentary* in both editions and I figured out that at the = variation = >unit I was interested in (Lk 22,19b-20) the rating was upgraded while = Metzger's = >pertinent commentary has not changed. I couldn't find the slightest hint = about = >new evidence or new insights that might have caused the change. I don't = >have the = >time to perform a systematic check, but maybe K.D. Clark offers some = insights. = >I'm simply curious. Harold, how does the latest edition of Metzger's *= Textual = >Commentary* fit/relate to the new ratings? = > > >------------------------------------------ >Dr. Ulrich Schmid >U.B.Schmid@t-online.de > >RFC822 header >----------------------------------- > >Return-Path: >Received: from ccis08.baylor.edu (ccis08.baylor.edu [129.62.1.2]) > by ccis01.baylor.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA16227 > for ; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 11:12:42 -0500 (= CDT) >Received: from graf.cc.emory.edu by baylor.edu (PMDF V5.1-10 #27028) > with ESMTP id <01JE3GNFHORKABKNH3@baylor.edu> for > Mike_Parsons@STUMAIL.BAYLOR.EDU; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 11:13:13 CDT >Received: from shemesh.scholar.emory.edu > (shemesh.scholar.emory.edu [170.140.130.65]) > by graf.cc.emory.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA06436; Wed, > 28 Jul 1999 12:12:04 -0400 (EDT) >Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id MAA29304; = Wed, > 28 Jul 1999 12:03:44 -0400 (EDT) >Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 18:10:34 +0200 >From: U.B.Schmid@t-online.de (U.B.Schmid) >Subject: Re: tc-list Textual Optimism >Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu >X-Sender: 320003854441-0001@t-online.de >To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu >Reply-to: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu >Message-id: >MIME-version: 1.0 >X-Mailer: T-Online eMail 2.3 >Content-type: text/plain; charset=3DISO-8859-1 >Content-transfer-encoding: 8BIT >Precedence: bulk >References: <199907281043_MC2-7E90-63D1@compuserve.com> >Status: = > From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Jul 28 13:09:25 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id NAA00468; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 13:08:23 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199907281627.LAA19583@ccis01.baylor.edu> References: <199907281627.LAA19583@ccis01.baylor.edu> Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 12:19:24 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: tc-list Textual Optimism 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: 2379 On 7/28/99, Mike Parsons wrote, in part: > [...] most peculiar are those places where a minority of the committee appends a dissenting note (sort of like the US supreme court!). in some cases those notes are written by members now no longer members of the committee (esp. wikgren). and the rhetoric of "the majority of the committee" is of course now inaccurate since the composition of the committee for the ubsgnt4 has significantly changed. This makes sense, in a way, though. The text, after all, was not changed between the third and fourth editions of UBS/GNT. The new members of the committee don't have any say in the text. (Personally, it makes one wonder why they took the job.) Whereas the opinions of Wikgren, etc. *do* figure into the text. It's an odd situation: The new committee decided the variants to put in the margin, and how to assess them, but could not change the text. This allows the theoretical possibility that they could have a reading in the text that they do not approve. What do you do with the commentary in that case? Say, "Well, we think this reading is wrong, but here's why we read it anyway?" :-) Under the circumstances, a "patch job" on the commentary seems reasonable. The original logic must still stand, since the original text still stands. But this is why I haven't bothered replacing my first edition of the commentary with the second (though of course I do have a copy of UBS4). In a way, though, this is the scary part. We, as textual critics, know what is going on, and know that UBS is just another provisional text. But it's targeted at translators, who *don't* know these things. So here they are, with an apparatus prepared by scholars who didn't prepare the text, and which says that nearly every reading in the entire apparatus is secure. Why do they even *need* the apparatus? Why not just chuck UBS, buy something like the NRSV/UBS interlinear, and assume that they don't need textual variants? We need more {D} variants, just to convince people that textual criticism still needs to be done. :-) -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Jul 28 13:46:56 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id NAA01970; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 13:46:34 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 12:53:55 -0500 From: Mike Parsons Subject: Re: tc-list Textual Optimism To: tc-list Message-id: <199907281752.MAA19764@ccis01.baylor.edu> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: QuickMail Pro 1.5.2 (Mac) Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-Ascii" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable X-Priority: 3 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Content-Length: 3896 Reply to: Re: tc-list Textual Optimism Robert B. Waltz wrote: >On 7/28/99, Mike Parsons wrote, in part: > >> > >This makes sense, in a way, though. The text, after all, was not changed >between the third and fourth editions of UBS/GNT. The new members of the >committee don't have any say in the text. (Personally, it makes one >wonder why they took the job.) Whereas the opinions of Wikgren, etc. >*do* figure into the text. The fourth edition states that "the committee also redefined the various = levels in the evaluation of evidence on the basis of their relative = degrees of certainty. Thus the evaluations of all the 1437 sets of = variations cited in the apparatus have been completely reconsidered." It = is Clarke's point (and here i am in total agreement), that the criteria = for reconsidering the variants should be made explicit. My point is that = the Commentary is the natural place for such explanations. Take Clarke's example of Luke 19.25, a reading which was upgraded from "D" = in UBSGNT3to "A" in UBSGNT4. The note in the second edition of the = commentary (1994) is exactly the same as the first edition (1971): "A majority of the Committee considered it to be more probable that the = words were omitted in several Western witnesses . . . A majority of the = Committee considered that, on balance, both external attestation and = transcriptional probabilities favor the retention of the words in the text"= (Metzger, 1994, p. 144; Clarke's italics). Clarke notes "Metzger's use of the words 'majority', 'more probable,' 'on = balance,' and 'favor' clearly do not correspond to the degree of certainty = necessary for a variant to receive an A letter-rating. . . .According to = Metzger's commentary, it would seem more justifiable that this variant = receive a C letter-rating" (Clarke, 164). According to clarke's statistics, the number of A ratings in ubsgnt4 = increase by c. 27% while the number of C and D ratings decrease by about = 30% percentage without adequate explanation from the committee; hence the = charge of 'textual optimisim.' >It's an odd situation: The new committee decided the variants to put >in the margin, and how to assess them, but could not change the text. >This allows the theoretical possibility that they could have a reading >in the text that they do not approve. What do you do with the commentary >in that case? Say, "Well, we think this reading is wrong, but here's >why we read it anyway?" :-) It is my understanding the committee could have chosen to change the text = but decided not to. am i mistaken? >In a way, though, this is the scary part. We, as textual critics, know >what is going on, and know that UBS is just another provisional text. >But it's targeted at translators, who *don't* know these things. So >here they are, with an apparatus prepared by scholars who didn't prepare >the text, and which says that nearly every reading in the entire >apparatus is secure. Why do they even *need* the apparatus? Why not just >chuck UBS, buy something like the NRSV/UBS interlinear, and assume >that they don't need textual variants? two points. 1) we should not miss harold scanlin's point about the revised = segmentation apparatus in ubsgnt4. in my opinion, this is the best part of = the new edition and is critical for translators. 2)In my limited experience many translators read the comments and pay less = attention to the ratings, e.g. how many people are aware that there are = 600 comments on unrated variants? and of course, the commentary was meant = i think to explain the textual decisions (and ratings). thus, the avenue = is available for the committee to defend its ratings (and decisions) if = theywould revise the commentary. >We need more {D} variants, just to convince people that textual >criticism still needs to be done. :-) = i agree (or at least more C's Mikeal Parsons From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Jul 28 14:10:02 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id OAA05335; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 14:09:18 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 20:15:56 +0200 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu References: <199907281627.LAA19583@ccis01.baylor.edu> Subject: Re: tc-list Textual Optimism X-Mailer: T-Online eMail 2.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT X-Sender: 320003854441-0001@t-online.de From: U.B.Schmid@t-online.de (U.B.Schmid) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Content-Length: 1233 Robert B. Waltz wrote in part: > On 7/28/99, Mike Parsons wrote, in part: > > > [...] most peculiar are those places where a minority of the committee > appends a dissenting note (sort of like the US supreme court!). in some > cases those notes are written by members now no longer members of the > committee (esp. wikgren). and the rhetoric of "the majority of the > committee" is of course now inaccurate since the composition of the > committee for the ubsgnt4 has significantly changed. > > This makes sense, in a way, though. The text, after all, was not changed > between the third and fourth editions of UBS/GNT. The new members of the > committee don't have any say in the text. Well, the new members should be credited with upgrading the ratings, isn't it. This makes me wonder what Metzger, who's name is after all intimately related to the *Textual Commentary*, says about the changing of ratings, if he mentions it at all (in the new preface, introduction or somewhere else). I don't have the 2nd edition here with me to check it and I don't know of other statments regarding this issue. Can anybody offer some insights? ------------------------------------------ Dr. Ulrich Schmid U.B.Schmid@t-online.de From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Jul 28 14:42:03 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id OAA06499; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 14:41:39 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <19990728184840.15149.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [209.85.159.164] From: "Martin Smart" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: tc-list Burgon on 1Tim 3:16 Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 11:48:39 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Content-Length: 4350 Dear list. It is not my intention to start a debate on the merits of the KJV-only position, or the majority text debate. I however, know that what Burgon wrote below might be out of date or even biased. Is Burgon accurate in his opinion of 1Tim 3:16 below, and can anyone point me to any literature which might specifically address/rebut his views? Thanks very much, Martin Smart Burgon: "The place of Scripture before us, the Readers is assured, presents a memorable instance of the michief which occasionally resulted to the inspried Text from the ancient practice of executing copies of the Scriptures in unical characters. S. Paul certain wrote mega esti to ths eusebeias musthrion. Theos ephanerothe en sarki ('Great is the msytery of godliness: God was manifested in the flesh.") But it requres to be explained at the outset, that the holy Name when abbreviated (which it always was), thus, (THETA SIGMA with line drawn over the top - the abbreviated form of God in the NT), is only distinguishable from the relative pronoun 'WHO' (Omicron Sigma with no line over the top) by two horizontal strokes, which , in manuscripts of early date, it was often the practice to trace so faintly that at present they can scarcely be discerned. Need we go on? An archetypal copy in which one or both of these slight strokes had vanished from the word QS (Theta Sigma), gave rise to the reading OS (Omicron Sigma), of which nonsensical substitute, traces survive in only two* manuscripts - sinaiticus and 17: not, for certain, in one single ancient Father, no, nor for certain in one single ancient version. So transparent, in fact, is the absurdity of writing to musterion os (the mystery who) that copyists promptly substituted 'o (which): thus furnishing another illustration of the well-known property of a fabricated reading, vz. sooner or later inevitablly to become the parent of a second. Happily, to this second mistake the sole surviving witness is the Codex Claromontanus, of VI century (D): the only Patristic evidence in its favor being Gelasius of Cyzicus (Concilia, ii. 217 c.), and the unknown author of a homily in the appendix to Cysostom. The Versions - all but the Gregorian and the Slavonic, which agree with the Received Text- favor it unquestionably; for they are obversed invriably to make the relative pronoun agree in gender with the word which represents mystery (musterion) which immediately precedes it. Thus, in the Syriac Versions, OS (who) is found, but only becuase the Syriac equivalent for musterion is of the masculine gender: in Latin, quod (which) but only because mysterium in Latin (like musterion in greek) is neuter. Over this latter reading, however, we need not linger; seeing that ho does not find a single patron at the present day. And yet, this was the reading which was eagerly upheld during the last century: Wetstein and Sir Isaac Newton being its most strenous advocates. It is time to pass under hasty review the direct evidence for the true reading. A and C exhibited QS until ink, thumbing and the injurious use of chemicals, obliterated what was once patent. It is too late, by full 150 years, to contend on the negative side of this question. F and G, which exhibit OS with a line over the top were confessedly derived from a common archetype: in which archetype, it is evident that the horizontal stroke which distinguishes theta from omicron must have been so faintly traced as to be scarcely discernable. The supposition that, in this place, the stroke in question represents the aspirate, is scarcely admissible. There is no single example of os written as os with a line over the top in ANY part of either Codex F or G. On the other hand, in the only place where OS represents QS, it is written OS (with a line over the top) in BOTH. Predjudice herself may safely be called upon to accept the obvious and only lawful inference. *For, of the 3 cursives usually cited for the same reading (17, 73, 181),the second proves (en enquiry at Upsala) to be merely an abridgement of OEcumenius, who certainly read Theos; and the last is non-existent. (Dean John William Burgon, The Revision Revised, pp. 99-101) _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Jul 28 15:37:29 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id PAA10057; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 15:36:41 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <9063E24E9176D111B0580060083927B950AE29@smtp.crpc.org> From: "Lamerson, Sam" To: "'tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu'" , "'martinsmart@hotmail.com'" Subject: RE: tc-list Burgon on 1Tim 3:16 Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 15:42:00 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Content-Length: 4813 You might check any technical commentary or gramar on the appropriatness of poetry starting with a relative pronoun. This (starting with a rel. pronoun) is very common and tells against the argument of Burgeon. Blessings, Professor Sam Lamerson Knox Theological Seminary "Where Ministry Comes First!" 1 800 344-KNOX (5669) -------- From: Martin Smart Sent: July 28, 1999 2:49 PM To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Cc: Subject: tc-list Burgon on 1Tim 3:16 Dear list. It is not my intention to start a debate on the merits of the KJV-only position, or the majority text debate. I however, know that what Burgon wrote below might be out of date or even biased. Is Burgon accurate in his opinion of 1Tim 3:16 below, and can anyone point me to any literature which might specifically address/rebut his views? Thanks very much, Martin Smart Burgon: "The place of Scripture before us, the Readers is assured, presents a memorable instance of the michief which occasionally resulted to the inspried Text from the ancient practice of executing copies of the Scriptures in unical characters. S. Paul certain wrote mega esti to ths eusebeias musthrion. Theos ephanerothe en sarki ('Great is the msytery of godliness: God was manifested in the flesh.") But it requres to be explained at the outset, that the holy Name when abbreviated (which it always was), thus, (THETA SIGMA with line drawn over the top - the abbreviated form of God in the NT), is only distinguishable from the relative pronoun 'WHO' (Omicron Sigma with no line over the top) by two horizontal strokes, which , in manuscripts of early date, it was often the practice to trace so faintly that at present they can scarcely be discerned. Need we go on? An archetypal copy in which one or both of these slight strokes had vanished from the word QS (Theta Sigma), gave rise to the reading OS (Omicron Sigma), of which nonsensical substitute, traces survive in only two* manuscripts - sinaiticus and 17: not, for certain, in one single ancient Father, no, nor for certain in one single ancient version. So transparent, in fact, is the absurdity of writing to musterion os (the mystery who) that copyists promptly substituted 'o (which): thus furnishing another illustration of the well-known property of a fabricated reading, vz. sooner or later inevitablly to become the parent of a second. Happily, to this second mistake the sole surviving witness is the Codex Claromontanus, of VI century (D): the only Patristic evidence in its favor being Gelasius of Cyzicus (Concilia, ii. 217 c.), and the unknown author of a homily in the appendix to Cysostom. The Versions - all but the Gregorian and the Slavonic, which agree with the Received Text- favor it unquestionably; for they are obversed invriably to make the relative pronoun agree in gender with the word which represents mystery (musterion) which immediately precedes it. Thus, in the Syriac Versions, OS (who) is found, but only becuase the Syriac equivalent for musterion is of the masculine gender: in Latin, quod (which) but only because mysterium in Latin (like musterion in greek) is neuter. Over this latter reading, however, we need not linger; seeing that ho does not find a single patron at the present day. And yet, this was the reading which was eagerly upheld during the last century: Wetstein and Sir Isaac Newton being its most strenous advocates. It is time to pass under hasty review the direct evidence for the true reading. A and C exhibited QS until ink, thumbing and the injurious use of chemicals, obliterated what was once patent. It is too late, by full 150 years, to contend on the negative side of this question. F and G, which exhibit OS with a line over the top were confessedly derived from a common archetype: in which archetype, it is evident that the horizontal stroke which distinguishes theta from omicron must have been so faintly traced as to be scarcely discernable. The supposition that, in this place, the stroke in question represents the aspirate, is scarcely admissible. There is no single example of os written as os with a line over the top in ANY part of either Codex F or G. On the other hand, in the only place where OS represents QS, it is written OS (with a line over the top) in BOTH. Predjudice herself may safely be called upon to accept the obvious and only lawful inference. *For, of the 3 cursives usually cited for the same reading (17, 73, 181),the second proves (en enquiry at Upsala) to be merely an abridgement of OEcumenius, who certainly read Theos; and the last is non-existent. (Dean John William Burgon, The Revision Revised, pp. 99-101) _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Jul 28 15:39:14 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id PAA10104; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 15:38:50 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <9063E24E9176D111B0580060083927B950AE2A@smtp.crpc.org> From: "Lamerson, Sam" To: "'tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu'" , "'martinsmart@hotmail.com'" Subject: RE: tc-list Burgon on 1Tim 3:16 Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 15:44:08 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2232.9) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Content-Length: 4668 Sorry for the intrusion but I just noticed that I misspelled "appropriateness." I also meant to mention that on this issue the commentary by G. Knight comes to mind. Sam Lamerson -------- From: Martin Smart Sent: July 28, 1999 2:49 PM To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Cc: Subject: tc-list Burgon on 1Tim 3:16 Dear list. It is not my intention to start a debate on the merits of the KJV-only position, or the majority text debate. I however, know that what Burgon wrote below might be out of date or even biased. Is Burgon accurate in his opinion of 1Tim 3:16 below, and can anyone point me to any literature which might specifically address/rebut his views? Thanks very much, Martin Smart Burgon: "The place of Scripture before us, the Readers is assured, presents a memorable instance of the michief which occasionally resulted to the inspried Text from the ancient practice of executing copies of the Scriptures in unical characters. S. Paul certain wrote mega esti to ths eusebeias musthrion. Theos ephanerothe en sarki ('Great is the msytery of godliness: God was manifested in the flesh.") But it requres to be explained at the outset, that the holy Name when abbreviated (which it always was), thus, (THETA SIGMA with line drawn over the top - the abbreviated form of God in the NT), is only distinguishable from the relative pronoun 'WHO' (Omicron Sigma with no line over the top) by two horizontal strokes, which , in manuscripts of early date, it was often the practice to trace so faintly that at present they can scarcely be discerned. Need we go on? An archetypal copy in which one or both of these slight strokes had vanished from the word QS (Theta Sigma), gave rise to the reading OS (Omicron Sigma), of which nonsensical substitute, traces survive in only two* manuscripts - sinaiticus and 17: not, for certain, in one single ancient Father, no, nor for certain in one single ancient version. So transparent, in fact, is the absurdity of writing to musterion os (the mystery who) that copyists promptly substituted 'o (which): thus furnishing another illustration of the well-known property of a fabricated reading, vz. sooner or later inevitablly to become the parent of a second. Happily, to this second mistake the sole surviving witness is the Codex Claromontanus, of VI century (D): the only Patristic evidence in its favor being Gelasius of Cyzicus (Concilia, ii. 217 c.), and the unknown author of a homily in the appendix to Cysostom. The Versions - all but the Gregorian and the Slavonic, which agree with the Received Text- favor it unquestionably; for they are obversed invriably to make the relative pronoun agree in gender with the word which represents mystery (musterion) which immediately precedes it. Thus, in the Syriac Versions, OS (who) is found, but only becuase the Syriac equivalent for musterion is of the masculine gender: in Latin, quod (which) but only because mysterium in Latin (like musterion in greek) is neuter. Over this latter reading, however, we need not linger; seeing that ho does not find a single patron at the present day. And yet, this was the reading which was eagerly upheld during the last century: Wetstein and Sir Isaac Newton being its most strenous advocates. It is time to pass under hasty review the direct evidence for the true reading. A and C exhibited QS until ink, thumbing and the injurious use of chemicals, obliterated what was once patent. It is too late, by full 150 years, to contend on the negative side of this question. F and G, which exhibit OS with a line over the top were confessedly derived from a common archetype: in which archetype, it is evident that the horizontal stroke which distinguishes theta from omicron must have been so faintly traced as to be scarcely discernable. The supposition that, in this place, the stroke in question represents the aspirate, is scarcely admissible. There is no single example of os written as os with a line over the top in ANY part of either Codex F or G. On the other hand, in the only place where OS represents QS, it is written OS (with a line over the top) in BOTH. Predjudice herself may safely be called upon to accept the obvious and only lawful inference. *For, of the 3 cursives usually cited for the same reading (17, 73, 181),the second proves (en enquiry at Upsala) to be merely an abridgement of OEcumenius, who certainly read Theos; and the last is non-existent. (Dean John William Burgon, The Revision Revised, pp. 99-101) _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Jul 28 16:56:21 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id QAA23400; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 16:55:50 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <19990728184840.15149.qmail@hotmail.com> References: <19990728184840.15149.qmail@hotmail.com> Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 15:38:23 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: tc-list Burgon on 1Tim 3:16 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: 3231 On 7/28/99, Martin Smart wrote: >Dear list. > >It is not my intention to start a debate on the merits of the KJV-only position, or the majority text debate. I however, know that what Burgon wrote below might be out of date or even biased. > >Is Burgon accurate in his opinion of 1Tim 3:16 below, and can anyone point me to any literature which might specifically address/rebut his views? One is tempted to say that any time Burgon expresses an opinion, it is wrong. :-) To put it mildly, he let his rhetoric take charge of the issues. Burgon actually did do useful textual work, in that he examined many manuscripts, both of the New Testament itself and of patristic works. But his prejudices are so strong that one must examine *everything* for motive. :-( Much safer to simply go back and re-examine the evidence. So, for instance, the first place to turn in examining a reading like this is the UBS commentary. (For all the nasty things we've been saying today, this is the only full and modern textual commentary in existence.) The other thing to do is look at the manuscript evidence as we know it today. (In this instance, there isn't all that much new data, but usually there is. It's just that the Pastorals are relatively poorly represented in our early witnesses.) Anyway, the evidence: OS: Aleph* A* C* F G 33 365 442 1175 2127 QEOS: Aleph** A** C** D** K L P Psi 075 0150 6 81 (88 O QEOS) 104 263 330 424 436 451 629 630 1241 1319 1505 1739 1881 1962 2492 2495 Byz geo2 slav OS QEOS: 256 (conflation) O: D* (a b d f m vg "quod," i.e. O on its face but possibly a grammatical correction for OS) O or OS: most other versions except as cited. Thus OS has the best support, being supported by all the Alexandrian witnesses plus some "Western" witnesses. "QEOS," except for the members of Family 1739, is purely Byzantine (we can ignore the corrections in Aleph, A, C, etc.; those are Byzantine also). "O" is supported only by a subset of the "Western" witnesses. Internal evidence also supports OS. (This is where most of us disagree with Burgon: Our rule is, "Prefer the reading which best explains the others." His is, "Prefer the reading which doesn't pose any problems.") "OS" is the reading which best explains the others in several senses. First, the best witnesses all support a relative pronoun (either O or OS). This is much the more difficult reading. So surely a relative pronoun is correct, and OS is better attested. OS is also the middle reading. To get from OS to O requires a change of only one letter; similarly, to get from OS to QEOS requires only one letter (remember that QEOS was written QS). To get from O to QEOS or vice versa is a larger change. So OS is to be preferred as the middle reading. Thus one must conclude that this is another instance where Burgon has preferred to Byzantine reading, and has come up with forced evidence to support his conclusion. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Jul 28 17:17:54 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id RAA24449; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 17:17:23 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <379F852B.5362@orebro.mail.telia.com> Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 22:33:18 +0000 From: TOMMY MARKANZIA REKLAM HB X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Macintosh; I; PPC) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list Textual Optimism References: <199907281627.LAA19583@ccis01.baylor.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: 1137 I have been following the discussion about the UBS4 which was triggered, I believe, by Wieland Wilker, where he mentions a book by Kent D. Clarke. I am not familiar with this book, but would like to point out for the list members that there is a review by W. Larry Richards, Andrews University on the SBL site (se http reference below) Richards conclude his review with stating: "I personally found it easy to support the "optimism" toward certainty given in UBS4 for the simple reason that I have believed through the years that the ratings in UBS1-3 were often too cautious. Frequently I have made my own upgrades in the classroom, and, interestingly, done so on precisely the same grounds used by Clarke to draw his negative conclusions about the optimism of the editors of UBS4, namely, "the recognized principles of New Testament textual criticism" (p. 14). But the questions Clarke raises are important even if one does not agree completely with his conclusions". You will find the complete review on: www.sbl-site.org/SBL/Reviews/185075649X.html (hope I got that right) Tommy Wasserman Swedish seminary student of theology From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Jul 28 17:23:16 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id RAA24479; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 17:22:42 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <19990728212941.10348.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [209.85.159.164] From: "Martin Smart" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list Burgon on 1Tim 3:16 Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 14:29:41 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Content-Length: 1109 From: "Robert B. Waltz" Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list Burgon on 1Tim 3:16 Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 15:38:23 -0500 OS is also the middle reading. To get from OS to O requires a change of only one letter; similarly, to get from OS to QEOS requires only one letter (remember that QEOS was written QS). To get from O to QEOS or vice versa is a larger change. So OS is to be preferred as the middle reading. Martin: Robert, thank you very much. One thing, though is unclear to me. What about the horizontal line above the QS? Do you categorize the bar as a letter as well which would mean to go from OS to bar-QS would be one change? What about the change from a theta to an omnicron? Is that too slight to be considered a character change? Would this mean that if the original reading was bar-QS it would take two changes to get to OS and three to get to hO? Martin _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Jul 28 17:27:53 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id RAA24534; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 17:27:33 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <379F878D.2BEC@orebro.mail.telia.com> Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 22:43:28 +0000 From: TOMMY MARKANZIA REKLAM HB X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Macintosh; I; PPC) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list Text of the Church Fathers References: <199907261412.PAA16305@haymarket.ed.ac.uk> 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: 652 I think Denny Diehl asked about studies on patristic textual criticism and received some piece of good advice. I just wanted to add (if it could be of any help), that I found the recent title below in a booksearch: Patristic Textual Criticism Part 1 number_of_pages: 184 SP_code: 33 0006 isbn: paper 0-7885-0046-5 author: Miroslav Marcovich year_published: 1994 source: SP Backlist paper_price: $24.95 series: Illinois Classical Studies Supplement 6 Perhaps someone on this list have read the publication and could give additional information. Tommy Wasserman Swedish student of theology From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Jul 28 17:32:50 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id RAA24629; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 17:32:29 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <003086DDAD30D211842F00062B0006E101E080AE@esusa.oc.edu> From: Curt Niccum To: "'tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu'" Subject: RE: tc-list Text of the Church Fathers Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 16:36:26 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Content-Length: 1218 This book is about the practice of textual criticism on Patristic texts. [BTW, Marcovich has received some criticism (justly in my opinion) for his palmary emendations.] I believe Denny was searching for material on the New Testament text found in the Church Fathers. Curt Niccum > -----Original Message----- > From: TOMMY MARKANZIA REKLAM HB > [SMTP:tommy.wasserman@orebro.mail.telia.com] > Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 1999 5:43 PM > To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu > Subject: Re: tc-list Text of the Church Fathers > > I think Denny Diehl asked about studies on patristic textual criticism > and received some piece of good advice. I just wanted to add (if it > could be of any help), that I found the recent title below in a > booksearch: > > Patristic Textual Criticism Part 1 > number_of_pages: 184 > SP_code: 33 0006 > isbn: paper 0-7885-0046-5 > author: Miroslav Marcovich > year_published: 1994 > source: SP Backlist > paper_price: $24.95 > series: Illinois Classical Studies Supplement 6 > > Perhaps someone on this list have read the publication and could give > additional information. > > Tommy Wasserman > Swedish student of theology From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Jul 28 20:05:17 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id UAA25489; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 20:04:50 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <19990728212941.10348.qmail@hotmail.com> References: <19990728212941.10348.qmail@hotmail.com> Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 19:07:46 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: tc-list Burgon on 1Tim 3:16 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: 1315 On 7/28/99, Martin Smart wrote: >Robert, thank you very much. One thing, though is unclear to me. What about the horizontal line above the QS? Do you categorize the bar as a letter as well which would mean to go from OS to bar-QS would be one change? What about the change from a theta to an omnicron? Is that too slight to be considered a character change? > >Would this mean that if the original reading was bar-QS it would take two changes to get to OS and three to get to hO? The line above QS (nominum sacrum) doesn't count as a change (in my book, anyway), because QS is not a word unless it has the line. If a scribe found QS in the text without the line, or read OS as QS without the line, he would automatically assume that it was there. An English analogy might be something like Jim went to the store He bought milk. There is no period after "store," but you *know* it's there. Similarly, if a scribe read QS with no bar over it, he would read it as QEOS. Hope this helps. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Jul 29 03:45:30 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id DAA03055; Thu, 29 Jul 1999 03:44:59 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <003b01bed997$2fafebe0$476802c7@byronk.open.org> From: "Byron Knutson" To: Subject: Re: tc-list Burgon on 1Tim 3:16 Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 00:47:36 -0700 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: 2433 > >From: "Robert B. Waltz" >Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 15:38:23 -0500 >Subject: Re: tc-list Burgon on 1Tim 3:16 > > >Anyway, the evidence: > >OS: Aleph* A* C* F G 33 365 442 1175 2127 >QEOS: Aleph** A** C** D** K L P Psi 075 0150 > 6 81 (88 O QEOS) 104 263 330 424 436 451 629 630 1241 1319 > 1505 1739 1881 1962 2492 2495 Byz > geo2 slav >OS QEOS: 256 (conflation) >O: D* (a b d f m vg "quod," i.e. O on its face but possibly > a grammatical correction for OS) > >O or OS: most other versions except as cited. > Robert: I'm wondering if it is possible that the OS reading is really a scribes shorthand THETA SIGMA (QS) for QEOS which is what it appeared to be to me when I was checking a photocopy I had (I think it was either ALEPH or A, I'll have to go dig it out and look again)? Byron Knutson >Thus OS has the best support, being supported by all the Alexandrian >witnesses plus some "Western" witnesses. "QEOS," except for the >members of Family 1739, is purely Byzantine (we can ignore the >corrections in Aleph, A, C, etc.; those are Byzantine also). >"O" is supported only by a subset of the "Western" witnesses. > >Internal evidence also supports OS. (This is where most of us >disagree with Burgon: Our rule is, "Prefer the reading which >best explains the others." His is, "Prefer the reading which >doesn't pose any problems.") > >"OS" is the reading which best explains the others in several >senses. First, the best witnesses all support a relative >pronoun (either O or OS). This is much the more difficult >reading. So surely a relative pronoun is correct, and OS >is better attested. > >OS is also the middle reading. To get from OS to O requires a >change of only one letter; similarly, to get from OS to QEOS >requires only one letter (remember that QEOS was written QS). >To get from O to QEOS or vice versa is a larger change. So >OS is to be preferred as the middle reading. > >Thus one must conclude that this is another instance where Burgon >has preferred to Byzantine reading, and has come up with forced >evidence to support his conclusion. > >- -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- > > 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 Jul 29 08:28:58 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id IAA06746; Thu, 29 Jul 1999 08:28:24 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <003b01bed997$2fafebe0$476802c7@byronk.open.org> References: <003b01bed997$2fafebe0$476802c7@byronk.open.org> Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 07:37:28 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: tc-list Burgon on 1Tim 3:16 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Content-Length: 1076 On 7/29/99, Byron Knutson wrote: >Robert: > >I'm wondering if it is possible that the OS reading is really a scribes >shorthand THETA SIGMA (QS) for QEOS which is what it appeared to be to me >when I >was checking a photocopy I had (I think it was either ALEPH or A, I'll have >to go dig it out and look again)? If you look at the list of witnesses, both Aleph and A were corrected -- both originally read OS, both were corrected to QEOS. Again, note that this is a very trivial change -- simply a matter of adding horizontal lines. At a casual glance, or even a close look in an imperfect reproduction, one might well think that QS was the original reading. To the best of my knowledge, however, everyone agrees that both Aleph* and A* read OS, not QS. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Jul 29 11:16:20 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id LAA09050; Thu, 29 Jul 1999 11:15:23 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 08:20:59 -0700 (PDT) To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu In-reply-to: <199907271127.NAA23298@carno.brus.online.be> (message from Jean Valentin on Mar, 27 Jul 99 13:34:21 +0200) Subject: Re: tc-list Electronically available manuscripts From: Vincent Broman Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.106) 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: 1225 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Wasn't there a member of the list that made a transcription of Mt > according to W and made it available on a web site? I did Matthew in W, using SGML/TEI. Find it under http://www.znet.com/~broman/manuscripts.html . A guy in Washington state is doing more work on W. Finney's transcriptions of Hebrews are the biggest corpus of public transcriptions, except they are in a not very easily accessible format, yet. The ENTMP, Electronic NT MS Project, exists to present and promote public transcriptions and images of NT MSS, but the WWW site has been moribund for a while. 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 iQCVAwUBN6BxV2CU4mTNq7IdAQET/gQAkbY7NmlSFyvsJGJZUZjm78szit+x32+m aL4yt31RtYy88S2XQ6ut2CdJ3wH5GH/W1IzlJSwD7x0AeMHtJW+VBnYBZdaKIuer WkhUpjR4nBD4m227z06dhZEG9KDuWBVe03SVF/ug3KfoFCqbw85i7gDFku6VRyjt hUILwH7AVaU= =2qfH -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Jul 29 12:23:08 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id MAA09532; Thu, 29 Jul 1999 12:22:24 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <37A09DEA.14B2@orebro.mail.telia.com> Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 18:31:06 +0000 From: TOMMY MARKANZIA REKLAM HB X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Macintosh; I; PPC) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list Text of the Church Fathers References: <003086DDAD30D211842F00062B0006E101E080AE@esusa.oc.edu> 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: 764 Curt Niccum wrote: > = > This book is about the practice of textual criticism on Patristic texts= =2E > [BTW, Marcovich has received some criticism (justly in my opinion) for = his > palmary emendations.] I believe Denny was searching for material on the= New > Testament text found in the Church Fathers. > = Okey Curt, but I just thought that the quotations from NT used by the Fathers and perhaps edited by later scribes, was an area where the disciplines overlap - the quotations being part of the patristic text, and at the same time part of the NT textual tradition (correct me if I=B4= m wrong - I am just an amateur). But perhaps the book of Marcovich doesn=B4= t deal too much with the quotations as such. Tommy Wasserman Swedish student of theology From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Jul 29 12:34:53 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id MAA09639; Thu, 29 Jul 1999 12:34:21 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <003086DDAD30D211842F00062B0006E101E080B1@esusa.oc.edu> From: Curt Niccum To: "'tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu'" Subject: RE: tc-list Text of the Church Fathers Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 11:38:17 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) 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: 1875 You are absolutely correct about the disciplines overlapping. One must = be aware of the textual traditions of the Fathers before conclusions about their New Testament text(s) can be made. (This, of course, was one of Burgon's problems, although not necessarily his fault due to the lack = of critical editions). Marcovich's interest is not in the biblical text. = Some of his discussions include allusions to biblical material, but not = citations (as far as I can remember). Although I have not had the time to = thoroughly investigate his critical edition of Hippolytus' Refutatio, I have = noticed several places where he "restores" a NT quotation by making it more Alexandrian (i.e. conforms it to the Nestle text) apparently without = any manuscript evidence (at least he supplies none in the aparatus). Curt Niccum > -----Original Message----- > From: TOMMY MARKANZIA REKLAM HB > [SMTP:tommy.wasserman@orebro.mail.telia.com] > Sent: Thursday, July 29, 1999 1:31 PM > To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu > Subject: Re: tc-list Text of the Church Fathers >=20 > Curt Niccum wrote: > >=20 > > This book is about the practice of textual criticism on Patristic = texts. > > [BTW, Marcovich has received some criticism (justly in my opinion) = for > his > > palmary emendations.] I believe Denny was searching for material on = the > New > > Testament text found in the Church Fathers. > >=20 >=20 > Okey Curt, but I just thought that the quotations from NT used by the > Fathers and perhaps edited by later scribes, was an area where the > disciplines overlap - the quotations being part of the patristic = text, > and at the same time part of the NT textual tradition (correct me if = I=B4m > wrong - I am just an amateur). But perhaps the book of Marcovich = doesn=B4t > deal too much with the quotations as such. >=20 > Tommy Wasserman > Swedish student of theology From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Jul 29 13:02:16 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id NAA09805; Thu, 29 Jul 1999 13:01:43 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <37A06559.5D556098@chemie.uni-bremen.de> Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 16:29:45 +0200 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: Electronically available manuscripts 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: 683 Vincent Broman wrote: > The ENTMP, Electronic NT MS Project, exists to > present and promote public transcriptions and > images of NT MSS, but the WWW site has been > moribund for a while. If it exists: Where can I get info about its contents? So, atm we have two things available: Mt in W at: http://www.znet.com/~broman/manuscripts.html Hebrews collated in Apple(?) formate at: ftp://socs.murdoch.edu.au/pub/research/Finney I will collect these links and put them on my web site of Bible-links soon. I could also mirror the files on my server. Best wishes Wieland ------------------------------------- willker@chemie.uni-bremen.de http://purl.org/Willker/index.html From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Jul 29 15:09:41 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id PAA04802; Thu, 29 Jul 1999 15:09:10 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 14:18:49 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: tc-list Electronically available manuscripts 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: 1125 On 7/29/99, Vincent Broman wrote, in part: [ ... ] >Finney's transcriptions of Hebrews are the biggest corpus >of public transcriptions, except they are in a not very easily >accessible format, yet. Actually, they are in Collate format, which is machine-readable, and can be read by human beings with practice. :-) There are two difficulties, one real and one trivial. One is that Collate-readable files really require a special font. Tim Finney uses Sinaiticus, which he supplies for Macintosh. If someone knows of a PC font for use with Collate, let people know. :-) The other problem lies in reading BinHexed StuffIt files. This isn't a real problem; StuffIt Expander (which is free, and will handle BinHex and StuffIt files *and* convert Mac to PC text formats) is available at www.aladdinsys.com -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Jul 29 18:28:13 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id SAA05832; Thu, 29 Jul 1999 18:27:01 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199907292226.SAA05827@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> From: "Dave Washburn" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 15:33:03 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: tc-list Electronically available manuscripts Priority: normal In-reply-to: References: <199907271127.NAA23298@carno.brus.online.be> (message from Jean Valentin on Mar, 27 Jul 99 13:34:21 +0200) 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: 1217 Vincent wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > > Wasn't there a member of the list that made a transcription of Mt > > according to W and made it available on a web site? > > I did Matthew in W, using SGML/TEI. > Find it under http://www.znet.com/~broman/manuscripts.html . > A guy in Washington state is doing more work on W. > Finney's transcriptions of Hebrews are the biggest corpus > of public transcriptions, except they are in a not very easily > accessible format, yet. > > The ENTMP, Electronic NT MS Project, exists to > present and promote public transcriptions and images of > NT MSS, but the WWW site has been moribund for a while. The last time I tried it, it was nonexistent. I'm not sure what happened; I trascribed at least half a dozen mss for it, and James Tauber and I were working on getting them into SGML when suddenly everything stopped. A while back I was contacted by a member of this list about possibly putting some of the material on some of my web space; I said I'd be glad to, and that's the last I heard of it. So I'm not sure what the status of that project is. 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 Jul 29 19:57:41 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id TAA06189; Thu, 29 Jul 1999 19:57:04 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 20:03:29 -0400 From: Jim West Subject: Re: tc-list Electronically available manuscripts X-Sender: jwest@highland.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.32.19990730000329.006665fc@highland.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Content-Length: 907 At 03:33 PM 7/29/99 -0700, you wrote: >The last time I tried it, it was nonexistent. I'm not sure what >happened; I trascribed at least half a dozen mss for it, and James >Tauber and I were working on getting them into SGML when >suddenly everything stopped. A while back I was contacted by a >member of this list about possibly putting some of the material on >some of my web space; I said I'd be glad to, and that's the last I >heard of it. So I'm not sure what the status of that project is. I too transcribed a number of mss for the ENTMP- and have never seen them appear anywhere on the ENTMP pages. I feel somewhat guilty that I stopped transcribing- but I did not feel like doing it if the materials were not made use of. Tim- what ever became of those mss transcriptions? Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD email- jwest@highland.net web page- http://web.infoave.net/~jwest From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Jul 29 20:55:03 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id UAA06324; Thu, 29 Jul 1999 20:54:25 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <01BEDA61.E3054990.petrovich@nsu.ru> From: Doug Petrovich To: "Textual Criticism List (E-mail)" Subject: tc-list Colossians 1:20 & P46 Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 21:39:55 -0000 Organization: Exegetes International X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 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: 1034 Dear List Subscribers, According to UBS3 & UBS4, in Colossians 1:20 P46 is listed as supporting the inclusion of the variant di' autou. But in Comfort and Barrett, the transcription of P46 omits this second use of the prepositional phrase "through Him." Being that I live in Russia, I am not able to consult Kenyon's "The Chester Beatty Biblical Papyri: Descriptions and Texts of Twelve Manuscripts on Papyrus of the Greek Bible: Fasciculus III: Pauline Epistles" (London: Emery Walker Limited, 1936) to see what the facsimile reads. Does anyone who is located near a library with this volume have a minute to consult the reading in P46 and let me know what he/she finds? The Textual Commentary follows the UBS texts in attributing the phrase to P46. However, the choice of the committee to include the variant evidently was challenged by a vocal minority. Robert Waltz will be greatly disappointed to know that the variant was indeed upgraded from a D to a C rating. Yours in Novosibirsk, Doug Petrovich petrovich@nsu.ru From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Jul 30 05:56:06 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id FAA08563; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 05:52:40 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 17:59:31 +0800 (WST) From: Timothy John Finney X-Sender: finney@central To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: tc-list What happened to ENTMP In-Reply-To: <199907300630.CAA07337@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: 2393 Jim West wrote: > I feel somewhat guilty that I stopped > transcribing- but I did not feel like doing it if the materials were not > made use of. Tim- what ever became of those mss transcriptions? You think _you_ feel guilty. I hang my head in shame. For those who came in late, the Electronic New Testament Manuscripts Project was established early in 1994 when no one had heard of WWW and the only browser was Mosaic. James Tauber set up the ENTMP site and we began discussions on a grand plan to make images and transcriptions available by a cooperative web-based effort. Unfortunately, James and I have always been too busy doing other things to make it work. We are both keen to make the site into something useful one day. The fact that we have not done so yet is a cause for shame on my part. (By the way, I think that the transcriptions by David Washburn and Jim West are still in James' computer.) I am glad that people have started to talk about the topic of transcriptions again. Patrick Durusau made what I think are some very useful remarks the other day. XML holds great promise for the markup of all kinds of things, not least for New Testament manuscripts. Whether or not XML becomes the markup method of choice, we in the field still need to establish a transcription standard for NT MSS. Patrick mentioned one project to establish such standards. I have a suggestion that might help to get the ball rolling. Perhaps we could put a manuscript image at some agreed place then use this forum to discuss how to transcribe it. (I have some nice manuscript images that I obtained for just such a purpose with the blessing of the custodians. Of course, Jimmy Adair would have to agree to us using this list as the forum.) Not everyone knows about XML (including me). But that should not stop us from saying what kinds of things to focus on. Once we have some basic agreement on what a transcription should include, how it can be made future-proof, etc, we can hammer out a transcription that everyone is happy to live with, at least for now. It's all about achieving a standard approach. Without such an approach, we will continue to go nowhere. With such an approach, you can expect to see a rapid growth in the number of electronic manuscript transcriptions and a corresponding growth in the kind of knowledge that comes from analysing such transcriptions. Tim Finney From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Jul 30 06:47:25 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id GAA08725; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 06:45:52 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <37A15E48.D99778A2@chemie.uni-bremen.de> Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 10:11:52 +0200 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 A new ENTMP 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: 673 My only wish is that there should be one section in which ALL the available manuscripts are in plain ACII formate. We all use different fonts, computers, methods at home. A manuscript in ASCII would allow for easy conversion. You can talk a lot about elaborate techniques like XML etc. but you need someone who has the time to realize it. Therefore I think we should at first agree on a basic ASCII transliteration scheme (Accents - no accents? Nomina Sacra? Doubtful letters?...). MHO. Btw. I have some images of P. Egerton with line by line transcription/images at: http://purl.org/Willker/Egerton/Egerton_home.html Look at The Greek Text. Best wishes Wieland From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Jul 30 06:47:53 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id GAA08732; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 06:46:26 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <37A15E6A.405B5291@chemie.uni-bremen.de> Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 10:12:26 +0200 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 A new ENTMP 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: 673 My only wish is that there should be one section in which ALL the available manuscripts are in plain ACII formate. We all use different fonts, computers, methods at home. A manuscript in ASCII would allow for easy conversion. You can talk a lot about elaborate techniques like XML etc. but you need someone who has the time to realize it. Therefore I think we should at first agree on a basic ASCII transliteration scheme (Accents - no accents? Nomina Sacra? Doubtful letters?...). MHO. Btw. I have some images of P. Egerton with line by line transcription/images at: http://purl.org/Willker/Egerton/Egerton_home.html Look at The Greek Text. Best wishes Wieland From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Jul 30 08:21:51 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id IAA08970; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 08:17:25 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 08:21:46 -0400 From: Mike Bossingham Subject: tc-list A new ENTMP To: "INTERNET:tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu" Message-ID: <199907300821_MC2-7F02-B2C4@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: 1073 Hi, I said it early on in the debate and I'll say it again. What is really needed is not a common data base - these are transient and come and go. But a means of sending transciptions in plain ASCII around the net - so that data can be built into the different data bases and used. Such a format would have to handle accents, nomina sacra, spelling errors etc., (perhaps not require them, but certainly cope with them if present). I would feel thaat such elements should be present in transcriptions and optionally (ie be able to be filter them out) in on-line critical editions. We do not know what will be researched in the future. The software I have developed/am developing is an on-line crictical edition. It would process locally and store data locally, but could be updated from the net. = This is the best way to go if we want to have flexible and = powerful software for handling critical texts. Someone has to get the ball rolling and put their neck on the = line and propose a format - I might even do it to start things off Regards Mike Bossingham From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Jul 30 09:28:54 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id JAA09225; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 09:28:11 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199907301335.OAA11499@haymarket.ed.ac.uk> From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 14:32:10 +000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: tc-list A new ENTMP Priority: normal In-reply-to: <199907300821_MC2-7F02-B2C4@compuserve.com> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01d) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Content-Length: 736 In the interests of (a) not losing the benefits of hard work once done, such as developing software and protocols, etc., and (b) making widest availability to relevant scholars, I STONGLY suggest that any serious work toward mounting mss transcriptions/data should be done through the Society of Biblical Literature, which has committees and groups set up and emerging to deal with the use of computing technology. Electronic data is ephemeral enough, and people come & go, lose interest, get sick, etc.; we need a good institutional base for the work. Larry Hurtado L. W. Hurtado University of Edinburgh, New College Mound Place Edinburgh, Scotland EH1 2LX Phone: 0131-650-8920 Fax: 0131-650-6579 E-mail: L.Hurtado@ed.ac.uk From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Jul 30 10:05:14 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id KAA09514; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 10:04:38 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com (Unverified) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 09:11:08 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: XML (Was: Re: tc-list What happened to ENTMP) 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: 1700 On 7/30/99, Timothy John Finney wrote, in part: >Not everyone knows about XML (including me). We should perhaps note that it's a very wide-open format. It's at once a superset of HTML and a customized subset of SGML -- but it is much closer to SGML. Translation for ordinary folks: It is very, very complex. It allows almost anything you want in the way of formatting, but it has so many bells and whistles that a single result can be achieved in many ways. I strongly suspect, when we start seeing XML programs, that their XML will *not* be mutually compatible; they will actually implement subsets, and the subsets won't be the same. So I would have to say that we shouldn't pin our hopes on particular features of XML. If we can manage compatibility with its standards, great -- but I wouldn't start transcribing stuff in it yet. >But that should not stop >us from saying what kinds of things to focus on. Once we have some >basic agreement on what a transcription should include, how it can >be made future-proof, etc, we can hammer out a transcription that >everyone is happy to live with, at least for now. This I absolutely agree with. But I would argue that the first step is to decide what information we need in a collation. Only once that is done can we implement a format. And chances are, as we implement the format, we'll wind up making a few corrections. :-) -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Jul 30 13:23:35 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id NAA10713; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 13:22:17 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199907301722.NAA10708@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> From: "Dave Washburn" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 10:28:17 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: tc-list A new ENTMP Priority: normal In-reply-to: <37A15E48.D99778A2@chemie.uni-bremen.de> 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: 3127 Wieland wrote: > My only wish is that there should be one section in which ALL the > available manuscripts are in plain ACII formate. > We all use different fonts, computers, methods at home. A manuscript in > ASCII would allow for easy conversion. > You can talk a lot about elaborate techniques like XML etc. but you need > someone who has the time to realize it. Agreed. The transcriptions I have done so far, on very small mss. by the way, have been strictly in ASCII, using CCAT mapping. I would suggest this mapping standard for most all of them because it's a solid, established base from which to work. At the time he dropped off the face of the earth, James Tauber and I were experimenting with ways to take those ASCII transcriptions and mark them up in SGML. I still have a little of that material, but I'm not sure what point we were at. OTOH, I have all the original ASCII transcriptions that I made, and I believe I have most of the electronic images that I was working from to make them. > Therefore I think we should at first agree on a basic ASCII > transliteration scheme (Accents - no accents? Nomina Sacra? Doubtful > letters?...). > MHO. CCAT has accents available, and if one is working with an uncial that doesn't have accents one simply leaves them out. I'll have to double-check to see if it has something that functions as the bar over nomina sacra; if not, it wouldn't take much to agree on something, ditto for some way to flag doubtful letters. It seems to me that most of the mapping strategy is already in place, "we" (whoever that might be) simply need to give it a tweak here and there. An added bonus is that many fonts, such as SPIonic and John Baima's SGreek, already use that mapping. > Btw. I have some images of P. Egerton with line by line > transcription/images at: > http://purl.org/Willker/Egerton/Egerton_home.html > Look at The Greek Text. Gladly. I need to finagle some more web space, though I do have about 9 meg available in various ways at the moment, but I can see about putting some of mine online as well. The only problem I have with this is, the whole idea of ENTMP was to have most all of them in a centralized location so a researcher doesn't have to surf all over the world to find the material. While I can appreciate Larry H's comments about routing such a project through the SBL, I have reservations for the simple reason that "a camel is a horse that was designed by a committee." In order to g along with such a suggestion, I would need it stipulated that independents (mavericks?) such as myself could continue to transcribe in the agreed-upon format, and at some point when the committee is formed and operational, submit their (our) material to the group for checking and posting to the web. The transcriptions that I have done already, I did simply because I had the time and the interest. Had I been required to wait for a committee to give me the go-ahead, I suspect the latter would have waned rapidly. 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 Fri Jul 30 13:31:34 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id NAA10770; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 13:30:58 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199907301730.NAA10765@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> From: "Dave Washburn" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 10:36:59 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: tc-list What happened to ENTMP Priority: normal References: <199907300630.CAA07337@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> In-reply-to: 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: 3818 Tim, > Jim West wrote: > > > I feel somewhat guilty that I stopped > > transcribing- but I did not feel like doing it if the materials were not > > made use of. Tim- what ever became of those mss transcriptions? > > You think _you_ feel guilty. I hang my head in shame. For those who came > in late, the Electronic New Testament Manuscripts Project was established > early in 1994 when no one had heard of WWW and the only browser was > Mosaic. James Tauber set up the ENTMP site and we began discussions on a > grand plan to make images and transcriptions available by a cooperative > web-based effort. Unfortunately, James and I have always been too busy > doing other things to make it work. We are both keen to make the site into > something useful one day. The fact that we have not done so yet is a cause > for shame on my part. (By the way, I think that the transcriptions by > David Washburn and Jim West are still in James' computer.) I still have the ones I did; Jim, do you still have copies of yours? I still have the printed edition of P75 (Luke) that you sent me, and to my own shame I haven't touched it in a year. In any case, if we can agree to a place to put them, I can make what I have available again. A related question: the original ENTMP site had to use a login process to give access to the images, as I recall because of something to do with copyright. I'd like to know more about that, because I also have most of the images I worked from, and as long as it's not stepping on somebody's toes I could probably post those, too. > I am glad that people have started to talk about the topic of > transcriptions again. Patrick Durusau made what I think are some very > useful remarks the other day. XML holds great promise for the markup of > all kinds of things, not least for New Testament manuscripts. Whether or > not XML becomes the markup method of choice, we in the field still need to > establish a transcription standard for NT MSS. > > Patrick mentioned one project to establish such standards. I have a > suggestion that might help to get the ball rolling. Perhaps we could put a > manuscript image at some agreed place then use this forum to discuss how > to transcribe it. (I have some nice manuscript images that I obtained for > just such a purpose with the blessing of the custodians. Of course, Jimmy > Adair would have to agree to us using this list as the forum.) Are those the ones that were on the original ENTMP? I may have some of those around here...I had 0166, 071, I think P22 and perhaps one other, I don't remember which. I'll have to search my computer and my daughter's and see if I can locate them. > Not everyone knows about XML (including me). But that should not stop > us from saying what kinds of things to focus on. Once we have some > basic agreement on what a transcription should include, how it can > be made future-proof, etc, we can hammer out a transcription that > everyone is happy to live with, at least for now. > > It's all about achieving a standard approach. Without such an approach, we > will continue to go nowhere. With such an approach, you can expect to see > a rapid growth in the number of electronic manuscript transcriptions and a > corresponding growth in the kind of knowledge that comes from analysing > such transcriptions. Agreed. I like Wieland's idea of going with ASCII (and I will push again for CCAT mapping) to begin with, that way anybody who wants to can take them and do the markup. If we do the bare transcriptions in a fairly unencumbered format, markup becomes a matter of retrofitting which should be easier. At least I found it to be so when I was doing the SGML stuff with JT. 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 Fri Jul 30 13:48:52 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id NAA10853; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 13:48:25 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199907301748.NAA10848@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> From: "Dave Washburn" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 10:54:26 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: tc-list Here's what I have 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: 878 I have images and transcriptions of the following: P9 P22 071 0166 As soon as someone can tell me that I won't get sued for it, I can post these to a temporary web site. Since the transcriptions are mine, of course, I can post them with no problem, I refer to the images. Thanks to the kindness of Jim West, I have a printed transcription of P75 in John (I misspoke before); the only problem I have with it is, it separates words and includes some diacritics such as the diaresis and sentence separators. I'd be glad to transcribe it, but I would rather work straight from photos. If we of the list are serious about getting this project rolling again, I'll see about getting my hands on them and moving forward. I believe Jim is working on Luke in P75, as well? 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 Fri Jul 30 15:47:16 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id PAA12323; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 15:46:38 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 15:53:52 -0400 From: Jim West Subject: Re: tc-list Here's what I have X-Sender: jwest@highland.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.32.19990730195352.00669284@highland.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Content-Length: 1341 At 10:54 AM 7/30/99 -0700, you wrote: >I have images and transcriptions of the following: > >P9 >P22 >071 >0166 I dont recall which mss I transcribed. The low P's I think. > >As soon as someone can tell me that I won't get sued for it, I can >post these to a temporary web site. Since the transcriptions are >mine, of course, I can post them with no problem, I refer to the >images. If you can get the transcriptions I sent to the ENTMP you are more than welcome to use them as well. > >Thanks to the kindness of Jim West, I have a printed transcription >of P75 in John (I misspoke before); the only problem I have with it >is, it separates words and includes some diacritics such as the >diaresis and sentence separators. I'd be glad to transcribe it, but I >would rather work straight from photos. If we of the list are serious >about getting this project rolling again, I'll see about getting my >hands on them and moving forward. I believe Jim is working on >Luke in P75, as well? well, like I said, I was working on P75 (and other mss), but as none of the materials ever showed up anywhere I have occupied my time with other concerns. I would be happy to pick it up again if it would be made use of. Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD email- jwest@highland.net web page- http://web.infoave.net/~jwest From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Jul 30 15:57:44 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id PAA13156; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 15:57:17 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 15:51:08 -0400 From: Jim West Subject: Re: tc-list What happened to ENTMP X-Sender: jwest@highland.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.32.19990730195108.0067c240@highland.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Content-Length: 320 At 10:36 AM 7/30/99 -0700, you wrote: >I still have the ones I did; Jim, do you still have copies of yours? I dont. I sent them in and in an effort to reclaim disk space deleted them. Stupid- I know. Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD email- jwest@highland.net web page- http://web.infoave.net/~jwest