From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Aug 1 00:03:51 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id AAA19660; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 00:00:36 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <37A3C710.1F3C@oneimage.com> Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 22:03:28 -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 Georgian Gospels 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: 427 Dear participants in the tc-list, Apparently there are very many Georgian Gospel MSS. But so far the literature seems not to offer many clues as to how to access them--with the exception of the favored three: the Adysh, Opiza, and Tbeth. The Library of Congress makes available its Sinai collection, but these are comparatively few. My interest is in checking on Mark's ending. I'd be grateful for any suggestion. Bob Morse From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Aug 1 09:51:02 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id JAA21327; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 09:49:33 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <37A4D427.2DFC@online.no> Date: Sun, 01 Aug 1999 16:11:35 -0700 From: "Mr. Helge Evensen" Organization: Scandinavia Online X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list Burgon on 1Tim 3:16 References: <19990728184840.15149.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Content-Length: 6993 Robert B. Waltz wrote: > > 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 mi (....) > > > >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. :-) *That* is *your* "opinion"! Maybe it's wrong, too. :-) > To put it mildly, he let his rhetoric take charge of the issues. Modern TC after Burgon's time is FULL of "rhetoric", only that THIS kind of "rhetoric" is regarded as "scientific" by those that use it! :) So it's really your "rhetoric" against Burgon's! > Burgon actually did do useful textual work, in that he examined many > manuscripts, both of the New Testament itself and of patristic works. For this reason he was a well competent authority on the text of MSS! Modern TC at large does not acknowledge this, and it's a shame indeed! > But his prejudices are so strong that one must examine *everything* for > motive. :-( Prejudices against the Byzantine Text/TR are behind very much of modern TC's "axioms" with regard to the Text of the NT! > Much safer to simply go back and re-examine the evidence. Which Burgon DID! He re-examined it after Hort, Tischendorf and others had "examined" it! Wilbur Pickering, who has thoroughly studied all of Burgon's books on TC, writes: "A grammatical anomaly is introduced. "Great is the mystery of godliness, who was manifested in flesh", is worse in Greek than it is in English. "Mystery" is neuter in gender while "godliness" is feminine, but "who" is masculine! .. In an effort to explain the "who" it is commonly argued that the second half of verse 16 was a direct quote from a hymn, but where is the evidence for this claim? Without evidence this claim begs the question. ... "Who" is nonsensical, so most modern versions that follow UBS here take evasive action: NEB and NASB have "he who"; Phillips has "the one"; RSV, Jerusalem, TEV and NIV render "he". Berkeley actually has "who"! The Latin reading, "the mystery...that", at least makes sense. The true reading, as attested by over 98% of the Greek MSS, is "God". .... a copyist could be momentarily distracted and forget to add the cross strokes. [] The reading "who" can be explained by an easy transcriptional error. The reading "that" would be an obvious solution to a copyist faced with the nonsensical "who"." ("What Difference Does it Make?", paper, MTS, p.9). Think of it! 98% of the Greek MSS!!! That *is* strong evidence! > So, for instance, the first place to turn in examining a reading like > this is the UBS commentary. As for "prejudice" and "rhetoric", there is a lot of it in this volume! But, of course, its basic reasoning is in harmony with the already established TC canons and is therefore worthy of a hearing among TCers! > (For all the nasty things we've been > saying today, this is the only full and modern textual commentary > in existence.) That's a shame! > > 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. The corrections of Aleph, A, C, D in this instance should NOT be ignored! They testify to the existence of the Byz reading at the time of the correction, and to these scribes' awareness of the Byz reading! Maybe they had *good reasons* for making the correction. This correction shows that the scribes doing it did not approve of those MSS's original reading! Isn't this, then, as good an evidence as a MS dating from the time of the correction?? If so, we have four more ancient witnesses to the Byz reading. (I may be wrong about "*ancient* witnesses" as I do not know the DATE of the corrections. Maybe some could halp me dating these!? Of course, even MSS of the 10th century are regarded as "ancient", though not among the "most ancient".) > > 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. Is 98% of the Greek MSS "forced evidence"? A *better* example of "forced evidence" is pointed out, again, by Pickering: "Metzger [in his "Textual Commentary", on the Pericope Adulterae, John.7:53-8:11] ... claims that "the style and vocabulary of the pericope differ noticeably from the rest of the Fourth Gospel" -- but, wouldn't the native speakers of Greek at that time have been in a better position than modern critics to notice something like that? So how could they allow such an "extraneous" passage to be forced into the text? I submit that the evident answer is that they did not; it was there all the time." (paper, p.9). It should be clear to anyone familiar with Burgon's writings and modern TC, that it is not a matter of Burgon being "rhetoric" (even though he *is*) and modern TC using only "hard facts"; rather, it is a matter of different ways of expression and argumentation, both being equally "subjective"! Just because some theories are more "established" than others does not make them truer! Please do not think that I am out to start a "majority text debate", for I am not! :-) ----- Mr. Helge Evensen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Aug 1 12:30:55 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id MAA21697; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 12:28:42 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <37A4D427.2DFC@online.no> References: <19990728184840.15149.qmail@hotmail.com> <37A4D427.2DFC@online.no> Date: Sun, 1 Aug 1999 11:30:42 -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: 788 I'm not going to get into a long discussion here, but I have to add one comment: On 8/1/99, Mr. Helge Evensen wrote, in part: >Think of it! 98% of the Greek MSS!!! That *is* strong evidence! Think of it! 0% of manuscripts from before the fifth century! An amazing panoply of non-evidence. Think of it! The Textus Receptus, from which the King James Version is translated, which contains readings not found in *any* Greek manuscript. All I will say on the subject. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Aug 1 14:36:09 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id OAA22054; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 14:34:07 -0400 (EDT) From: dd-1@juno.com To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Sun, 1 Aug 1999 13:39:36 -0500 Subject: Re: tc-list Burgon on 1Tim 3:16 Message-ID: <19990801.133936.-843105.0.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: 618 Robert, Denny Diehl here >Think of it! The Textus Receptus, from which the King James Version >is translated, which contains readings not found in *any* Greek >manuscript. > >All I will say on the subject. If you wouldn't mind saying a little more on the subject, besides the Comma Johannine, would you mind listing those readings which are not found in any Greek manuscript? 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 Aug 1 15:07:04 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id PAA22171; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 15:05:31 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19990801190355.00bb6f20@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, 01 Aug 1999 15:03:55 -0400 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Kevin W. Woodruff" Subject: Re: tc-list Burgon on 1Tim 3:16 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Content-Length: 1362 The TR has "book of life" instead of " tree of life" in Rev 22:19. No other Greek manuscripts have that reading. Erasmus got that reading by back translating the Vulgate into Koine Greek (the textual variant in the Vulgate is _libro_ instead of _ligno_) At 01:39 PM 08/01/1999 -0500, you wrote: >Robert, Denny Diehl here > >>Think of it! The Textus Receptus, from which the King James Version >>is translated, which contains readings not found in *any* Greek >>manuscript. >> >>All I will say on the subject. > >If you wouldn't mind saying a little more on the subject, besides >the Comma Johannine, would you mind listing those readings >which are not found in any Greek manuscript? > >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 Sun Aug 1 15:56:50 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id PAA22319; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 15:55:21 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <000901bedc59$32c7af60$307cebcf@shell.com> From: "Mark Proctor" To: References: <19990801.133936.-843105.0.DD-1@juno.com> Subject: Re: tc-list Burgon on 1Tim 3:16 Date: Sun, 1 Aug 1999 15:05:26 -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: 1139 I don't believe that Erasmus had a Greek text for the final two chaps of Revelation. He had latin texts for these two chapters, but no Greek mss. What he did to remedy this problem was translate the Latin into Greek, thereby producing completely unique Gk readings for the final two chaps of the NT. Mark Proctor ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Sunday, August 01, 1999 1:39 PM Subject: Re: tc-list Burgon on 1Tim 3:16 > Robert, Denny Diehl here > > >Think of it! The Textus Receptus, from which the King James Version > >is translated, which contains readings not found in *any* Greek > >manuscript. > > > >All I will say on the subject. > > If you wouldn't mind saying a little more on the subject, besides > the Comma Johannine, would you mind listing those readings > which are not found in any Greek manuscript? > > 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 Aug 1 17:32:40 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id RAA22746; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 17:31:12 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <19990801.133936.-843105.0.DD-1@juno.com> References: <19990801.133936.-843105.0.DD-1@juno.com> Date: Sun, 1 Aug 1999 16:39:48 -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: 3450 On 8/1/99, dd-1@juno.com wrote: >Robert, Denny Diehl here > > >Think of it! The Textus Receptus, from which the King James Version > >is translated, which contains readings not found in *any* Greek > >manuscript. > > > >All I will say on the subject. > >If you wouldn't mind saying a little more on the subject, besides >the Comma Johannine, would you mind listing those readings >which are not found in any Greek manuscript? Someone pointed out that Erasmus had no text of the final portion of the Apocalypse (though it was only a few verses, not two chapters). As a result, there are several readings in there not found in any Greek manuscript. (I don't have a full list, but you could check Hoskier.) In addition, in Phil. 4:3, the TR reads KAI. Metzger reports that this reading is supported only by 462, but according to Davies, 462 reads NAI along with all other witnesses. There may be others; I don't know. Hard to tell, given the lack of complete collations. :-) Technically, the Comma *is* found in Greek manuscripts. It's just that the manuscripts (with the exception of 629 and others which have it from the Latin) are generally copies of the TR. And since you've gotten me talking anyway, I should make a point here. Helge Evenson makes the argument that the issue is the number of witnesses. Jim West or Philip Wesley Comfort would argue for age. Neither one matters. If majority rule meant anything, the world would be flat and we'd all be pantheists (since, when the human race evolved, people held both opinions :-). Age doesn't mean anything either. What matters is that the majority of manuscripts disagree with the earliest manuscripts. Therefore at least one group must be wrong (they may, be it noted, *both* be wrong, but no more than one group can be right). The tendency is to decide this matter "politically" -- as if manuscripts were people lined up at a polling place. (Not that that means much; generally speaking, the unwashed mass of voters are fools. Consider that, in America, they voted for BOTH Reagan AND Clinton :-). It's not a political matter. It's not a dogmatic manner, either. One must, by some *external*, non-political, non-dogmatic means decide between the old manuscripts and the majority of manuscripts. Most textual critics use "internal evidence," and on this basis prefer the text of the older manuscripts. This is *not* universal; Maurice Robinson prefers the majority text based on this sort of reasoning. And, frankly, I have more respect for Robinson (even though his text differs greatly from mine) than I have for Comfort -- whose text more nearly agrees with mine, but for the wrong reasons. But I stress: The matter must be decided based on comparison of the text-types, not comparison of the number, age, or other arbitrary fact about their witnesses. (Surely you wouldn't pick a New Testament text based on the colour of the parchment, would you? Yet that is as valid a basis for discrimination as the others, since it just as completely ignores the text.) I hope that makes sense. This is more time than I was supposed to spend on this subject today. :-) -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Aug 1 19:28:38 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id TAA23082; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 19:26:49 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199908012326.TAA23077@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> From: "Dave Washburn" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Sun, 1 Aug 1999 16:32:44 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: tc-list Burgon on 1Tim 3:16 Priority: normal In-reply-to: <000901bedc59$32c7af60$307cebcf@shell.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: 530 > I don't believe that Erasmus had a Greek text for the final two chaps of > Revelation. He had latin texts for these two chapters, but no Greek mss. > What he did to remedy this problem was translate the Latin into Greek, > thereby producing completely unique Gk readings for the final two chaps of > the NT. Actually, it was only the last 10 verses of Revelation. The one ms he possessed had part of the last page broken off. 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 Sun Aug 1 19:33:43 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id TAA23118; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 19:31:57 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19990801183821.007e2860@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> X-Sender: Joseph.Crea@postoffice.worldnet.att.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Sun, 01 Aug 1999 18:38:21 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: Joseph Crea Subject: tc-list Mark 7:31 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: 8353 Hello everyone! The following was forwarded to me for comment -- which I have already done from the limited resources at my disposal (a copy of UBS/GNT^4 is on order but hasn't arrived yet, so I'm stuck with just NA^27 along with Metzger's __The Text of the New Testament__ and Aland & Aland's __The Text of the New Testament__). The name of the writer is omitted in order to protect the quilty. Hope you find it as interesting as I did! With Mettaa, Joseph Crea ============================== The textual history of Mark 7:24, and the judgment of the Nestle-Aland editorial board, is pretty easy to follow in the textual apparatus of either the 27th edition of the Nestle-Aland or in the 4th edition of the UBS text. 1. According to the textual apparatus, the following manuscripts LACK "kai Sidonos" ("and Sidon"): D -- Codex "Bezae Cantabrigiensis" is dated to the late 5th century, and is a Greek-Latin diglot, with the Greek text on the opposite side from the Latin, written in sense lines for use in worship. It is classified as a category IV manuscript, meaning that it doesn't reflect any particular family of manuscripts, but is sometimes thought of as being of the "Western" Family ("Western" being a misnomer, since it was produced in Egypt). Our difficulty in identifying its family is due to the fact that its readings are frequently very unusual and/or unique to it alone, and while it does contain some interesting early readings, it is not generally considered to be a manuscript of a quality approaching that of the "Great" Uncials (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus). L -- Codex "Regius" is dated to the mid 8th century, is of the late "Egyptian" family of manuscripts, but is generally classified as a Category II manuscript (hence, important readings can be found in it). Its lateness in the textual history, however, limits its strength as a textual exemplar. W -- Codex "Freerianus" is dated to the late 5th or the very early 6th century, is located in the Freer Gallery of Art in Washington, DC (hence "W"), and is specially noted by its highly irregular textual readings. It is a Category III manuscript, and hence rather poor even though it is from the late 5th century. The irregularity of its text makes it hard to identify its family, however the majority of its readings appear to have an affinity with the "Egyptian Family." Delta -- Codex "Sangallensis" is dated to the early 9th century, is another example of a Latin - Greek diglot, with the Latin interlinear with the Greek. It is a Category III manuscript, and in its Greek text is reflective, yet again, of the late Alexandrian Text type, often called the "Egyptian Family." Theta -- Codex "Coridethianus" is dated to the mid 9th century, has a severely uneven textual quality, is written in an very awkward hand by a scribe who evidently didn't know Greek. This doesn't speak well for the quality of the scribes copying, and its many severe errors can be seen in its VERY HIGH unique variant count -- 95. By comparison, most manuscripts of this size will only have about 10 - 25 unique readings. 28 -- this is an 11th century minuscule of category III text ... family unknown. 565 -- this is a 9th century minuscule of category III text .... again, family unknown. some Italian (later Latin) manuscripts ... mostly dated to the 4th - 7th centuries some Syriac manuscripts ... mostly dated 5th - 7th centuries. 2. According to the textual apparatus, the following manuscripts INCLUDE "kai Sidonos" ("and Sidon"): Aleph -- Codex "Sinaiticus" is dated to the early 4th century, is one of the best copies of the entire New Testament available to us today, reflects a very regular though sometimes imprecise copy of the Alexandrian Family. B -- Codex "Vaticanus" is dated to the early 4th century, is THE BEST copy of most of the New Testament available to us today, and reflects a VERY regular and VERY strict copy of the proto-Alexandrian family. A -- Codex "Alexandranus" is dated to the early 5th century and, in its Gospels, reflects a very early version of the Byzantine Family. K -- Codex "Cyprius" is dated to the 9th century and reflects the Byzantine Family. X -- Codex "Monacensis" is dated to the mid 10th century and reflects the Byzantine Family. Pi -- Codex "Petropolitanus" is dated to the 9th century and reflects the Byzantine Family. Family 1 Minuscles and Family 13 Minuscules, both of which are excellent examples of Category III (heavily Caesarian) text. There are 16 manuscripts in these two collections. 33 -- is a minuscule from the 9th century of a Category II, Alexandrian Family 700 -- is a minuscule from the 11th century of a Category III, mixed Family 892 -- is a minuscule from the 9th century of a Category II, Alexandrian Family The MAJORITY TEXT (i.e., the VAST majority of the Byzantine Text Type exemplars (about a thousand manuscripts) all contain "kai Sidonos" ("and Sidon"). The Byzantine Lectionary Some Old Latin/Italian manuscripts, some of which date to the 3rd century The Latin Vulgate The majority of the Syriac version The Coptic version The Gothic version The Armenian version The Ethiopian version The Gregorian version Tatian's Diatessaron -- which is a "Gospel Harmony" that dates from PRIOR to the 3rd century. 3. Analysis. The textual evidence is quite overwhelming in support of the inclusion of the words "kai Sidonos" ("and Sidon") at Mark 7:24. Not only do we have the earliest and the best manuscripts in support of its inclusion (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus), but we also have a BROAD range of Geographical (Africa, Palestine, Byzantium, and Rome) and Text Type (Alexandrian, Caesarian, Byzantine, and Western versions) support for its inclusion. The very fact that Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, Alexandranus, and the Majority Text all support the inclusion of "kai Sidonos" is a STRONG indicator in and of itself that the words should be considered as original. The reason for its being left out of body-text of the Nestle-Aland is curious indeed, and may well be based upon a hypothetical reasoning processes which runs something like this: 1. A few manuscripts leave out "kai Sidonos" 2. We cannot figure out any reason why "kai Sidonos" would have been left out of these manuscripts 3. We CAN posit a guess as to how "kai Sidonos" got added to the earliest and best manuscripts AND the majority text 4. Therefore, even though textual support is VERY strong for the inclusion of "kai Sidonos," we prefer to leave the words out. Their guess as to how "kai Sidonos" got added to the text of Mark 7:24 is that the scribes who were making copies of the Gospels added the words based upon their memory of having written the words in the previous book (Matthew 15:21). This theory works well to help determine the proper reading in cases where the textual evidence is poor or inconclusive. In this case, however, this theory is VERY WEAK INDEED when compared with the strength of the textual witness of Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, Alexandranus, and the Majority Text. It is made even MORE problematic when one considers the relatively weak character of the manuscripts which leave out "kai Sidonos." They are: (1) of one basic textual family, (2) mostly late, (3) mostly from the same geographical region, and (4) all manuscripts with irregular or "sloppy" scribal characteristics. Any of these 4 reasons, and especially the 4th reason, provide sufficient grounds for asserting why they left out "kai Sidonos" contrary to its presence in earlier, superior, manuscripts. I had never noticed this before ... it is an interesting example of where the editors of the Nestle-Aland and the UBS text have allowed their methodology to get in the way of the actual physical textual exemplars, and what those exemplars demonstrate. For example, in almost any other place in the Greek New Testament you would care to indicate, when and where we find Sinaiticus and Vaticanus BOTH agreeing together, and ESPECIALLY when they not only agree together, but agree with the Majority Text, in such places they almost ALWAYS are followed. And, they should be followed here, too. This is my professional opinion as a ThM and PhD (second concentration) in Textual Criticism. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Aug 1 21:34:34 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id VAA23342; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 21:32:41 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express for Macintosh - 4.02 (298) Date: Sun, 01 Aug 1999 18:05:57 +0000 Subject: tc-list TR vs Byz/Maj Text- side comment From: "Kerry Gilliard" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu, tc-list-digest@shemesh Mime-version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 http: //1peter315.iscool.net or http://tidalwave.net/~blufunk195 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <199908012125687.SM00248@[209.150.97.160]> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Content-Length: 2101 >------------------------------ > >From: "Robert B. Waltz" >Date: Sun, 1 Aug 1999 11:30:42 -0500 >Subject: Re: tc-list Burgon on 1Tim 3:16 > >I'm not going to get into a long discussion here, but I have to add one >comment: > >On 8/1/99, Mr. Helge Evensen wrote, in part: > > >>Think of it! 98% of the Greek MSS!!! That *is* strong evidence! > >Think of it! 0% of manuscripts from before the fifth century! >An amazing panoply of non-evidence. > >Think of it! The Textus Receptus, from which the King James Version >is translated, which contains readings not found in *any* Greek >manuscript. > >All I will say on the subject. Robert, Normally, I'd agree with your comments. In this case, I think it would be unfair to turn a discussion on the majority text into a TR discussion, since many Majority Text advocates (ala Maurice Robinson for example) are not advocates of the TR, but of the Byzantine text-type (the TR is 'Byzantine' but the Byz is NOT the TR). This is the same error that a certain Jehovah's Witness made on my apologetics list recently when discussing this same issue (1 Tim. 3:16), unfairly lumping Byz/Maj text advocates in with KJV Only Advocates. :) "The man who hears Christ's words and yet builds his life on a rejection of that revelation is a fool (Matt. 7:26), and the man who suppresses God's general revelation in the created realm is also described as a fool (Romans 1:18). It is quite clear, then, that a fool is one who does not make God and His revelation the starting point (presupposition) of his thinking. Fools depsise the preaching of the cross, refuse to know God, and cannot recieve God's word (1 Cor. 1-2). The self-proclaimed autonomous man, the unbeliever, will not submit to the word of God or build his life and thinking upon it. Disbelief and ignorance of God's will, therefore, produce foolishness (1 Cor. 15:36; Eph. 5:17)." - Dr. Greg Bahnsen 1948 - 1995 ----------- Kerry Gilliard Founder-Director W.I.T.N.E.S.S. Ministries e-mail: blufunk195@tidalwave.net, info@apologetics.hypermart.net http://apologetics.hypermart.net From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Aug 1 21:36:00 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id VAA23351; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 21:34:07 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express for Macintosh - 4.02 (298) Date: Sun, 01 Aug 1999 18:17:36 +0000 Subject: tc-list FW: [apologetics] New Testament manuscripts online (soon) From: "Kerry Gilliard" To: "TC List-Digest" , "Synoptic- L" Mime-version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 http: //1peter315.iscool.net or http://tidalwave.net/~blufunk195 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <19990801212531.SM00248@[209.150.97.160]> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Content-Length: 828 Don't know if anyone ran across this already, but I forwarded it along from one of my other lists. Kerry >I just discovered this on the net--I thought it might be of interest to >some, >when the site is up and running again. the web address is: > >http://www.entmp.org/ > >The Electronic New Testament Manuscripts Project is an international, >scholarly, volunteer effort to make images and transcriptions of New >Testament manuscripts available freely on the Internet. > >The project has been at a standstill for a while but this site will be >returning incremently over the next few months. > >The NT manuscript catalogue will be back and guidelines will be available >for >transcriptions. Significant changes will include an initial focus on keying >in significant transcriptions by others as well as the use of XML. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Aug 1 21:54:42 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id VAA23476; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 21:53:06 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.19990801183821.007e2860@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> References: <3.0.6.32.19990801183821.007e2860@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> Date: Sun, 1 Aug 1999 20:28:57 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: tc-list Mark 7:31 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: 2778 On 8/1/99, Joseph Crea wrote: >Hello everyone! > > The following was forwarded to me for comment -- which I have already >done from the limited resources at my disposal (a copy of UBS/GNT^4 is on >order but hasn't arrived yet, so I'm stuck with just NA^27 along with >Metzger's __The Text of the New Testament__ and Aland & Aland's __The >Text of the New Testament__). The name of the writer is omitted in order >to protect the quilty. Hope you find it as interesting as I did! I found this message more than a little disturbing (e.g. in its use of the Aland "Manuscript Categories," which it treats as if they were measures of manuscripts' actual *values,* when in fact they are simply descriptions of how Byzantine the manuscripts are). That being the case, I've decided simply to analyse the variant myself and ignore the rest. It is interesting to see that this is a reading where the UBS committee actually *raised* the level of uncertainty in UBS4 (from A to B). But let's start at the beginning. As usual, we start with the evidence: TUROU: D L W Delta Theta 28 565 a b d ff2 i n r1 sin (hiat cur) pal Origen Ambrosiaster TUROU KAI SIDONOS: Aleph A B E F G H K N X Pi Sigma f1 f13 33 157 579 700 892 1010 1071 1079 1241 1243 1342 1424 1505 1506 1579 2427 Byz aur c f l q vg pesh hark sa bo arm eth geo goth slav The next step is to break these up by text-types: TUROU TUROU KAI SIDONOS Alexandrian L Delta Aleph B 33 579 892 sa ba and all other witnesses Byzantine - All witnesses "Caesarean" W Theta 28 565 f1 f13 700 arm geo pal Origen "Western" D a b d ff2 i n r1 aur c f l q sin Ambrosiaster Thus TUROU KAI SIDONOS is Byzantine and Alexandrian; TUROU has some late Alexandrian support, plus the "Western" text, and on the face of it is also "Caesarean" (as defined by Streeter, at least, before the fights start :-). Majority of text-types says that TUROU is the better reading, but it's very close. Internal evidence, however, is entirely clear. The parallel in Matt. 15:21 reads TUROU KAI SIDONOS without variant. TYROU KAI SIDONOS is the more familiar reading. There is no basis for scribal error here. The internal evidence overwhelmingly supports the shorter reading. Given that the internal evidence overwhelming supports the variant weakly supported by the external evidence, the reading TUROU is clearly superior. I think the UBS4 committee was right; there is some slight doubt. But TUROU is clearly the better reading. 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 Sun Aug 1 21:58:22 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id VAA23499; Sun, 1 Aug 1999 21:56:49 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199908012125687.SM00248@[209.150.97.160]> References: <199908012125687.SM00248@[209.150.97.160]> Date: Sun, 1 Aug 1999 21:08:10 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: tc-list TR vs Byz/Maj Text- side comment Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Content-Length: 1312 On 8/1/99, Kerry Gilliard wrote: >Robert, >Normally, I'd agree with your comments. In this case, I think it would be >unfair to turn a discussion on the majority text into a TR discussion, since >many Majority Text advocates (ala Maurice Robinson for example) are not >advocates of the TR, but of the Byzantine text-type (the TR is 'Byzantine' >but the Byz is NOT the TR). This is the same error that a certain Jehovah's >Witness made on my apologetics list recently when discussing this same issue >(1 Tim. 3:16), unfairly lumping Byz/Maj text advocates in with KJV Only >Advocates. >:) What you say is correct -- and you'll note that I spoke of Dr. Robinson with some approval. However, Evenson is not an advocate of the Byzantine Text. He is an advocate, specifically, of the King James Version. My comments were an explicit attempt to refute the TR. The Byzantine Text is a much different issue. Evenson invokes the Byzantine Text when convenient -- but what he is defending is the TR. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Aug 2 00:41:31 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id AAA25491; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 00:40:36 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19990801234717.00802100@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> X-Sender: Joseph.Crea@postoffice.worldnet.att.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Sun, 01 Aug 1999 23:47:17 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: Joseph Crea Subject: Re: tc-list Mark 7:31 In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.6.32.19990801183821.007e2860@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> <3.0.6.32.19990801183821.007e2860@postoffice.worldnet.att.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: 2174 Hello Robert! At 08:28 PM 8/1/99 -0500, you wrote: >On 8/1/99, Joseph Crea wrote: > >>Hello everyone! >> >> The following was forwarded to me for comment -- which I have already >>done from the limited resources at my disposal (a copy of UBS/GNT^4 is on >>order but hasn't arrived yet, so I'm stuck with just NA^27 along with >>Metzger's __The Text of the New Testament__ and Aland & Aland's __The >>Text of the New Testament__). The name of the writer is omitted in order >>to protect the quilty. Hope you find it as interesting as I did! > >I found this message more than a little disturbing (e.g. in its use >of the Aland "Manuscript Categories," which it treats as if they >were measures of manuscripts' actual *values,* when in fact they >are simply descriptions of how Byzantine the manuscripts are). That >being the case, I've decided simply to analyse the variant myself >and ignore the rest. > >It is interesting to see that this is a reading where the UBS committee >actually *raised* the level of uncertainty in UBS4 (from A to B). But >let's start at the beginning. > >As usual, we start with the evidence: > >TUROU: D L W Delta Theta > 28 565 > a b d ff2 i n r1 sin (hiat cur) pal > Origen Ambrosiaster > >TUROU KAI SIDONOS: Aleph A B E F G H K N X Pi Sigma > f1 f13 33 157 579 700 892 1010 1071 1079 1241 1243 1342 1424 > 1505 1506 1579 2427 Byz > aur c f l q vg pesh hark sa bo arm eth geo goth slav CREA Now I'm REALLY confused, since my copy of NA^27 adduces the following witnesses in favor of (as opposed to ): "txt Aleph B D L Delta Theta 33. 535. 700. 892. 2427. lat sa^mss bo" CREA Now it looks to me like the witnesses you cite in support of are identical with a number of those cited by NA^27 in favor of -- specifically Aleph B 33. 700. 892. 2427. and bo. Which set of witnesses should be followed, those presented in NA^27 or those you list? Is my reading/understanding of the apparatus in NA^27 faulty or is the apparatus wrong? With Mettaa, Joseph Crea From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Aug 2 07:07:10 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id HAA04462; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 07:06:31 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1999 19:13:32 +0800 (WST) From: Timothy John Finney X-Sender: finney@central To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: tc-list New ENTMP In-Reply-To: <199908011958.PAA22346@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: 5565 Wieland Wilker said > My only wish is that there should be one section in which ALL the > available manuscripts are in plain ASCII format. I agree. Here is an idea I had along these lines. If we all agreed on the basic text of a MS (filling in lacunae with what we think was probably there) and wrote these letters down as a column, then we could add in whatever other information we wanted by filling in adjacent columns: Letter Read? N. S. Abbrev. O Y N N _ Q Y Y N E N N Y O N N Y S Y Y N _ Some explanation... _ = a word break; Y = yes; N = no; Read? = Can it be read?; N. S. = Is there a nomen sacrum superscript above the letter?; Abbrev. = Has this letter been subsumed in an abbreviation? I'm only talking concepts here. Once the first column (the ASCII text) is established, others can add to the parallel columns as they wish. That's why I call this parallel mark-up. If someone comes along with another feature that they want to include (e.g. accents) they simply add another column. With this approach, different people can work on different aspects of the text simultaneously. As they do so, the agreed upon text is double, triple n-tuple checked. If an error turns up, the row in question has to be retranscribed for every column. Believe me, it is much simpler to process text that is in this format. In fact, I ended up writing programs that put my in-line mark-up transcriptions into this format so that I could write a straight-forward program to collate the transcriptions. Bob Waltz said > But I would argue that the first > step is to decide what information we need in a collation. I recommend the inclusion of spelling variations. My research indicates that MS spellings say as much as textual variations when it comes to grouping MSS. A big problem is regularisation, whereby spelling variation has to be standardised before collation. It seems to me that the only safe way to do regularisation in a highly inflected language like Greek is to specify the standard spelling of every single word in the MS. Global replacement is not safe because one scribe's spelling variation can be another scribe's textual variation. Mike Bossingham said > 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. For what it's worth, I agree. All we need to agree upon is the text of the manuscript. Mark-up can then be added by whoever wants to, for whatever reason (see Dave Wasburn's comment below and the above idea). Of course, we would want some quality control. Larry Hurtado said > Electronic data is ephemeral enough, and people come & > go, lose interest, get sick, etc.; we need a good institutional base > for the work. I heartily agree with the first clause, except to say that electronic data need not be ephemeral. A plain ASCII transcription of a manuscript's text need not be ephemeral at all -- letters are letters and you can either read them or not. Even a group of scholars can agree on the text of a manuscript when confronted with a good facsimile. I have some reservations about the second clause. I would say that we need a good standard approach as the basis for our work. Take the Internet as an example. It is built upon standards (ISO, IEC, IEEE, etc). Many of these standards are pretty much what the industry had already invented in order to get a job done. Whether or not a committee is involved may be irrelevant. There was only one Tim Berners-Lee needed to get WWW off the ground. Dave Washburn said > 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. I have always been worried about copyright of images. I don't know whether this is paranoia or fear of getting manuscript custodians off side. How about if we put the images up, then one of us takes on the job of writing to the relevant custodian and asking for permission. That way we are doing the right thing by them (asking permission) and getting the images up straight away. They can only say no, at which point we could politely ask them to put the image up for us or just have a notice saying that the image cannot be displayed due to the custodian being a bad sport. > Are those [images] 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. They are some of the ones that were on the original ENTMP. I have a few others as well. What I would really like to see is for the custodians to put their treasures on the Web. Have you seen the Oxyrhynchus site? They already have images of papyri there. (Go to http://www.csad.ox.ac.uk/) > 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. Yes, yes, yes. My only complaint about CCAT (and Beta code) is the transcription of xi with C and chi with X. In Athens, taxi is spelt with xi, not chi. Oh well. Jim West said > I dont recall which mss I transcribed. The low P's I think. Jim, I still have your transcriptions of P1, P2, P3, P4 and P9. Sorry for this gargantuan post. Tim Finney. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Aug 2 09:09:28 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id JAA06391; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 09:08:49 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com (Unverified) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.19990801234717.00802100@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> References: <3.0.6.32.19990801183821.007e2860@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> <3.0.6.32.19990801183821.007e2860@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> <3.0.6.32.19990801234717.00802100@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1999 08:08:35 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: tc-list Mark 7:31 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: 768 On 8/1/99, Joseph Crea wrote: >CREA > Now I'm REALLY confused, since my copy of NA^27 adduces the following >witnesses in favor of (as opposed to sidOnos>): Ack! My fault. For some reason, I analysed Mark 7:24 instead of 7:31. Wrong variant. :-) (No doubt the reference to "Tyre and Sidon" helped. You just saw scribal error in action. :-) I'll try again later, with the *right* variant. :-) No time now. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Aug 2 10:49:55 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id KAA07221; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 10:49:21 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com (Unverified) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.19990801234717.00802100@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> References: <3.0.6.32.19990801183821.007e2860@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> <3.0.6.32.19990801183821.007e2860@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> <3.0.6.32.19990801234717.00802100@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1999 09:57:44 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: tc-list Mark 7:31, as promised 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: 1801 Well, now that I see the variant I'm supposed to be studying, I'm not sure what the big deal is (I though Mark 7:24 was a lot more fun :-). But here's the story. THE MANUSCRIPT EVIDENCE: TUROU HLQEN DIA SIDWNOS Aleph B D L Delta Theta 33 565 700 892 1342 2427 a (aur) b c d (hiat e) f ff2 i (hiat k) l n r1 vg pal sa-pt bo eth TUROU KAI SIDWNOS HLQEN P45 A E F G H K N W X Pi Sigma 0131 f1 f13 28 157 579 1010 1071 1079 1241 1243 1424 1505 1506 1546 Byz q sin (hiat cur) pesh hark sa-pt (arm) geo goth slav Once again organizing by text-types TUROU HLQEN DIA SIDWNOS TUROU KAI SIDWNOS HLQEN Alexandrian Aleph B L Delta 33 892 2427 579 sa-pt sa-pt bo Byzantine -- All "Caesarean" Theta 565 700 W f1 f13 28 arm geo "Western" D all lat but q q sin Thus the Alexandrian and "Western" texts support TUROU HLQEN DIA SIDWNOS, as do enough "Caesarean" witnesses to imply this is the reading of the type. Looking at this, I personally don't even have to look at internal evidence; TUROU HLQEN DIA SIDWNOS is the better reading. :-) If one insists upon using internal evidence, whether one needs to or not, I would note that TUROU KAI SIDWNOS HLQEN sounds much better and more familiar. I'd call this one of those garden-variety scribal accidents which was preserved because the accidental reading sounded more normal (and makes more geographic sense). -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Aug 2 12:35:31 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id MAA08267; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 12:33:42 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199908021633.MAA08262@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> From: "Dave Washburn" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1999 09:39:28 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: tc-list New ENTMP Priority: normal References: <199908011958.PAA22346@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: 9562 Tim wrote: > Wieland Wilker said > > > My only wish is that there should be one section in which ALL the > > available manuscripts are in plain ASCII format. > > I agree. > > Here is an idea I had along these lines. If we all agreed on the basic > text of a MS (filling in lacunae with what we think was probably there) > and wrote these letters down as a column, then we could add in whatever > other information we wanted by filling in adjacent columns: > > Letter Read? N. S. Abbrev. > O Y N N > _ > Q Y Y N > E N N Y > O N N Y > S Y Y N > _ > > Some explanation... _ = a word break; Y = yes; N = no; Read? = Can it be > read?; N. S. = Is there a nomen sacrum superscript above the letter?; > Abbrev. = Has this letter been subsumed in an abbreviation? > > I'm only talking concepts here. Once the first column (the ASCII text) is > established, others can add to the parallel columns as they wish. That's > why I call this parallel mark-up. If someone comes along with another > feature that they want to include (e.g. accents) they simply add another > column. With this approach, different people can work on different aspects > of the text simultaneously. As they do so, the agreed upon text is double, > triple n-tuple checked. If an error turns up, the row in question has to > be retranscribed for every column. Believe me, it is much simpler to > process text that is in this format. In fact, I ended up writing programs > that put my in-line mark-up transcriptions into this format so that I > could write a straight-forward program to collate the transcriptions. The transcriptions I did didn't have any real way to indicate abbreviations (I assume you mean little ligatures like the trailing-off line on kappa at the end of a line to indicate KAI, that sort of thing?), but under James' direction I used brackets to indicate uncertain or supplied letters, and I believe we were playing with a pseudo-HTML tag to indicate NS. I would tend to prefer something like this that keeps the format of running text, simply because later on it should make it easier to mark up (then again, I may be wrong about that). Here's the preliminary transcription of 071 that I did lo, those many ages ago: ------- Manuscript: 071 Folio: 1 Side: Verso Transcriber: DLW Supplied text source: TR 1: [unreadable] 2: [EKENUION]KAI[EK]ALES[EN] 3: [TOONO]MAAUTOUINTOUDe 4: iUGENNHQENtOIENBEi 5: QLEEMGHSIOUDAIASENH 6: MERAISHRWDOUTOUBASI 7: LEWSIDOUMAGOIaPOANA 8: tOLWN[PAR]EgeNONTOEIs 9: iEROSOLUMALEGONTE[CPOU] 10: ESTINOT[ei/h?]QCEISBA[SILEUS] 11: [T]WNiOUDAIWN[EIDOMEN] 12: [G]aRAUTOUTO[NASTERAENT] 13: [HA]nA[TOLHKAIHLQOMEN] Notes: Line 3: The abbreviation IN has a dot of sorts over it rather than the usual bar. Line 4: GENNHQENTOI for GENNHQENTOS. Line 4: EI for H in BEIQLEEM. Line 5: GHS appears to be a visual error for the THS of the TR; since the reading makes good sense, it is easy to see how the scribe missed the mistake. Line 10: Uncertain whether the ms reads TEIXQEIS or THXQEIS. The parchment is damaged and stained at this spot, and the reading could go either way. Either one appears to be a simple spelling error. ------ > Bob Waltz said > > > But I would argue that the first > > step is to decide what information we need in a collation. > > I recommend the inclusion of spelling variations. My research indicates > that MS spellings say as much as textual variations when it comes to > grouping MSS. A big problem is regularisation, whereby spelling variation > has to be standardised before collation. It seems to me that the only safe > way to do regularisation in a highly inflected language like Greek is to > specify the standard spelling of every single word in the MS. Global > replacement is not safe because one scribe's spelling variation can be > another scribe's textual variation. Agreed. If the goal is transcription rather than collation, then IMNSHO the ms. should be transcribed exactly as it appears. Ditto for collations, though I personally prefer to work with transcriptions rather than collations. That's a personal-level preference, though, and says nothing about the relative merits of the two. > Mike Bossingham said > > > 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. > > For what it's worth, I agree. All we need to agree upon is the text of the > manuscript. Mark-up can then be added by whoever wants to, for whatever > reason (see Dave Wasburn's comment below and the above idea). Of course, > we would want some quality control. As I recall, this was one of the original ideas of the ENTMP. Pass them around freely so anyone can use them, definitely. But I would push for a centralized location (or at least style and dtd) for markup, rather than each doing what is right in his own eyes... > Larry Hurtado said > > > Electronic data is ephemeral enough, and people come & > > go, lose interest, get sick, etc.; we need a good institutional base > > for the work. > > I heartily agree with the first clause, except to say that electronic data > need not be ephemeral. A plain ASCII transcription of a manuscript's text > need not be ephemeral at all -- letters are letters and you can either > read them or not. Even a group of scholars can agree on the text of a > manuscript when confronted with a good facsimile. I have some reservations > about the second clause. I would say that we need a good standard approach > as the basis for our work. Take the Internet as an example. It is built > upon standards (ISO, IEC, IEEE, etc). Many of these standards are pretty > much what the industry had already invented in order to get a job done. > Whether or not a committee is involved may be irrelevant. There was only > one Tim Berners-Lee needed to get WWW off the ground. Agreed. The whole idea of making these available on the Internet is to move away from the "institutional base" idea into a more freely- accessible format and realm (how many of us non-affiliated researchers have the wherewithal to travel to the Huntington library to look at their microfilms of the Dead Sea Scrolls? How many of said folks, myself included, have the cash to buy Brill's hideously- overpriced microfiche set?). If the transcriptions (with or without markup) are on, say, 100 people's computers and can be posted to the Web from any or all of them, I would hardly consider that "ephemeral." > Dave Washburn said > > > 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. > > I have always been worried about copyright of images. I don't know whether > this is paranoia or fear of getting manuscript custodians off side. How > about if we put the images up, then one of us takes on the job of writing > to the relevant custodian and asking for permission. That way we are doing > the right thing by them (asking permission) and getting the images up > straight away. They can only say no, at which point we could politely ask > them to put the image up for us or just have a notice saying that the > image cannot be displayed due to the custodian being a bad sport. Couched in more diplomatic language, of course ;-) What images I have were originally in the ENTMP "manuscript room," which required registration and login before permitting access. I suppose it would be easy enough to set up something like that again. I'm assuming that copyright restrictions were the reason for the login process, which may or may not be correct. > > Are those [images] 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. > > They are some of the ones that were on the original ENTMP. I have a few > others as well. What I would really like to see is for the custodians to > put their treasures on the Web. Have you seen the Oxyrhynchus site? They > already have images of papyri there. (Go to http://www.csad.ox.ac.uk/) > > > 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. > > Yes, yes, yes. My only complaint about CCAT (and Beta code) is the > transcription of xi with C and chi with X. In Athens, taxi is spelt with > xi, not chi. Oh well. Agreed. However, any mapping scheme is going to have some less-than-ideal features. The main reason I suggested CCAT is because a) it's already in place and used profusely, and b) there are numerous fonts for just about any platform, floating around the Net, that are based on it, so all one has to do is download one, install it, and go. > Jim West said > > > I dont recall which mss I transcribed. The low P's I think. > > Jim, I still have your transcriptions of P1, P2, P3, P4 and P9. If it's all right with Jim, could you pass those along to me off-list? I could start putting some of these transcriptions up now if it's agreeable to enough folks. 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 Aug 2 12:59:49 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id MAA08588; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 12:58:19 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1999 10:05:25 -0700 (PDT) From: Jim Deardorff To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list Mark 7:31 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: 3022 On Sun, 1 Aug 1999, Robert B. Waltz wrote: > I found this message more than a little disturbing (e.g. in its use > of the Aland "Manuscript Categories," which it treats as if they > were measures of manuscripts' actual *values,* when in fact they > are simply descriptions of how Byzantine the manuscripts are). That > being the case, I've decided simply to analyse the variant myself > and ignore the rest. > > It is interesting to see that this is a reading where the UBS committee > actually *raised* the level of uncertainty in UBS4 (from A to B). But > let's start at the beginning. > > As usual, we start with the evidence: > > TUROU: D L W Delta Theta > 28 565 > a b d ff2 i n r1 sin (hiat cur) pal > Origen Ambrosiaster > > TUROU KAI SIDONOS: Aleph A B E F G H K N X Pi Sigma > f1 f13 33 157 579 700 892 1010 1071 1079 1241 1243 1342 1424 > 1505 1506 1579 2427 Byz > aur c f l q vg pesh hark sa bo arm eth geo goth slav > .... > Internal evidence, however, is entirely clear. The parallel in Matt. > 15:21 reads TUROU KAI SIDONOS without variant. TYROU KAI SIDONOS is > the more familiar reading. There is no basis for scribal error here. > The internal evidence overwhelmingly supports the shorter reading. > > Given that the internal evidence overwhelming supports the variant weakly > supported by the external evidence, the reading TUROU is clearly superior. > I think the UBS4 committee was right; there is some slight doubt. But > TUROU is clearly the better reading. Robert, This case interested me because it is a good example of where an incorrect decision could easily be made on the basis of a faulty hypothesis -- that of Markan priority over Matthew. Most of those who see Matthew as having come before Mark would prefer the longer reading. This would include neo-Griesbachians as well as supporters of the Augustinian hypothesis (AH) and the external traditions of Matthean priority. It also includes the modified Augustinian hyothesis I support, which includes Matthew having been in its Semitic form when utilized by the writers of Mark and Luke, with the later translator of Matthew into Greek having Mark and Luke before him during his translation. With the AH, it would not have been inconsistent for the writer of Mark to have abbreviated the two cities to one, considering how much other abbreviation he carried out, on this hypothesis. Now I must agree with the sentiment within certain statements you included in an earlier post (yesterday), namely: "If majority rule meant anything, the world would be flat and we'd all be pantheists." "The tendency is to decide this matter politically..." I see these views as applying to the present consensus of Markan priority also, for which it is "politically" incorrect to support an opposing minority position. Does anyone have an estimate of what fraction of TC preferences within NA were based upon Markan priority as a deciding factor? Would it be as large as 1%? Jim Deardorff http://www.proaxis.com/~deardorj From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Aug 2 13:14:36 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id NAA08739; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 13:13:01 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199908021633.MAA08262@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> References: <199908011958.PAA22346@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> <199908021633.MAA08262@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1999 12:21:28 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: tc-list New 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: 3479 On 8/2/99, Dave Washburn wrote, in part: >The transcriptions I did didn't have any real way to indicate >abbreviations (I assume you mean little ligatures like the trailing-off >line on kappa at the end of a line to indicate KAI, that sort of >thing?), but under James' direction I used brackets to indicate >uncertain or supplied letters, and I believe we were playing with a >pseudo-HTML tag to indicate NS. I would tend to >prefer something like this that keeps the format of running text, >simply because later on it should make it easier to mark up (then >again, I may be wrong about that). Here's the preliminary >transcription of 071 that I did lo, those many ages ago: Just a few thoughts.... The idea of HTML tags for nomina sacra, etc. have advantages. But I see a bit of a problem. HTML-style tags, obviously, use the angle brackets < >. But > is a symbol one sometimes encounters in a manuscript. Does one, then, use the correct HTML symbol > in the transcription? If so, we're not using ASCII any more. :-) I might be tempted instead to use something else like {} for these sorts of tags. If one then wishes to convert to HTML, it's a simple change -- just { to < and } to >. And it leaves us [] for lacunae and perhaps () for uncertain letters. I'm not trying to make life difficult here, just point out some things to think about. [ ... ] >Agreed. If the goal is transcription rather than collation, then >IMNSHO the ms. should be transcribed exactly as it appears. I think this should be the goal even with collations. :-) Personally, I prefer collations most of the time, because it's so much easier to notice the difference between, say, ECOMEN and ECWMEN. :-) But it depends on circumstances. I do think that the collation base needs to be posted on the site in its entirety; it's *not* enough to just list it. [ ... ] >As I recall, this was one of the original ideas of the ENTMP. Pass >them around freely so anyone can use them, definitely. But I >would push for a centralized location (or at least style and dtd) for >markup, rather than each doing what is right in his own eyes... I have to agree with this one. I've had to work with some really strange collation styles in my life (the award, I think, goes to Davies's collations of 330, 436, 462, and 2344. I *still* stumble over that one sometimes). Ditto the Collate format for transcriptions. My first few attempts to convert Tim Finney's transcriptions of Hebrews resulted in quite a few bollixes, especially as regards correctors. Using more than one standard is a shortcut to trouble. [ ... ] > > Yes, yes, yes. My only complaint about CCAT (and Beta code) is the > > transcription of xi with C and chi with X. In Athens, taxi is spelt with > > xi, not chi. Oh well. > >Agreed. However, any mapping scheme is going to have some >less-than-ideal features. The main reason I suggested CCAT is >because a) it's already in place and used profusely, and b) there >are numerous fonts for just about any platform, floating around the >Net, that are based on it, so all one has to do is download one, >install it, and go. Obviously the big hang-up here is X/C. (At least, every scheme I've ever seen renders theta as Q, and the rest are obvious.) Maybe it's actually time for a vote. :-) I vote C=chi and X=xi, for what it's worth. Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com "The one thing we learn from history -- is that no one ever learns from history." From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Aug 2 13:15:11 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id NAA08755; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 13:13:38 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1999 10:20:44 -0700 (PDT) From: Jim Deardorff To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list Mark 7:24 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: 634 On Mon, 2 Aug 1999, Jim Deardorff wrote: > On Sun, 1 Aug 1999, Robert B. Waltz wrote: > > I found this message more than a little disturbing (e.g. in its use > > of the Aland "Manuscript Categories," which it treats as if they > > were measures of manuscripts' actual *values,* when in fact they > > are simply descriptions of how Byzantine the manuscripts are). That > > being the case, I've decided simply to analyse the variant myself > > and ignore the rest. Etc. My eye also went straight to Mk 7:24 in N-A 27, rather than to Mk 7:31. But I hope that the 7:24 case is interesting enough to merit some comment. Jim Deardorff From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Aug 2 13:19:57 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id NAA08842; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 13:18:24 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1999 12:29:54 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: tc-list Mark 7:31 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: 226 On 8/2/99, Jim Deardorff wrote, in part: >This case interested me because it is a good example of where an incorrect >decision could easily be made on the basis of a faulty hypothesis -- that >of Markan priority over Matthew From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Aug 2 19:23:35 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id TAA28823; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 19:22:47 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <000501bedd60$659adf40$1e6829a4@vicente.unb.br> From: "Vicente Dobroruka" To: Subject: tc-list Introducing myself Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1999 20:28:23 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3612.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3612.1700 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Content-Length: 1160 Dear fellow members of TC-List, I am new to this list and would like to introduce myself: my name is Vicente Dobroruka, I am in Brazil (Ancient History teacher at the Universidade de Brasília). I am 30, married, no children yet. My master degree dealt with the connections between Joachim of Fiore's apocalyptic writings and the ideas of Gotthold Ephraim Lessing, the German Aufklärer. As a matter of fact I am deeply interested in Jewish apocalyptic since my graduation years. Thus, for the last two years I am concerned about Josephus' account of the '66 revolt in it's connections with apocalyptic literature. I intend this to vbecome my doctorate in few years' time. Biblical studies are also a recent interest of mine, specially those connected with New Testament, even if my main purpose is to the study the pseudepigrapha in relation to the above stated questions. This list caught me immediately, being linked as it is with the TC page. I am sure it will be most useful to me, and I hope I can help any of you where feasible, my knowledge on the subject for the moment being much more modest than yours. Be well, Vicente Dobroruka From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Aug 2 19:33:28 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id TAA28941; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 19:32:59 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 02 Aug 1999 19:41:06 -0400 From: Jim West Subject: Re: tc-list Introducing myself X-Sender: jwest@highland.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.32.19990802234106.0066ce40@highland.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) 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: 1162 At 08:28 PM 8/2/99 -0700, you wrote: >Dear fellow members of TC-List, > > I am new to this list and would like to introduce myself: my name= is >Vicente Dobroruka, I am in Brazil (Ancient History teacher at the >Universidade de Bras=EDlia). I am 30, married, no children yet. My master >degree dealt with the connections between Joachim of Fiore's apocalyptic >writings and the ideas of Gotthold Ephraim Lessing, the German Aufkl=E4rer.= As >a matter of fact I am deeply interested in Jewish apocalyptic since my >graduation years. Then you will absolutely want to take a look at: http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_sd/otpseud.html The owner of this page- Jim davila, is one of the most knowledgeable people in the world regarding OT apocrypha and pseuedepigrapha. there are lots of resources here as well. Sometimes, though, the St. Andrews server is slow so you may have to try a couple of times to get connected. Best wishes on your work- it is a truly fascinating area of Biblical studies- and one filled with significance. Best, Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD email- jwest@highland.net web page- http://web.infoave.net/~jwest From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Aug 2 22:01:18 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id WAA29440; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 22:00:47 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <37A6D0F8.7B05@online.no> Date: Tue, 03 Aug 1999 04:22:32 -0700 From: "Mr. Helge Evensen" Organization: Scandinavia Online X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list TR vs Byz/Maj Text- side comment References: <199908012125687.SM00248@[209.150.97.160]> 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: 1756 Robert B. Waltz wrote: > > On 8/1/99, Kerry Gilliard wrote: > > >Robert, > >Normally, I'd agree with your comments. In this case, I think it would be > >unfair to turn a discussion on the majority text into a TR discussion, since > >many Majority Text advocates (ala Maurice Robinson for example) are not > >advocates of the TR, but of the Byzantine text-type (the TR is 'Byzantine' > >but the Byz is NOT the TR). This is the same error that a certain Jehovah's > >Witness made on my apologetics list recently when discussing this same issue > >(1 Tim. 3:16), unfairly lumping Byz/Maj text advocates in with KJV Only > >Advocates. > >:) > > What you say is correct -- and you'll note that I spoke of Dr. Robinson > with some approval. > > However, Evenson is not an advocate of the Byzantine Text. He is > an advocate, specifically, of the King James Version. My comments > were an explicit attempt to refute the TR. The Byzantine Text > is a much different issue. Evenson invokes the Byzantine Text > when convenient -- but what he is defending is the TR. One correction: I am NOT an advocate, SPECIFICALLY, of the KJV on THIS list! On a Bible *translation* list I may be an advocate, specifically, of the King James Version! :-) Yes, I am defending the exact text underlying the KJV (the Scrivener reconstructio of 1881, today issued by the TBS. And I thank God for their newly published "Original Language Bible" - Hebrew/Greek Bible). As to the statement "Evenson invokes the Byzantine Text when convenient", It's not the whole truth! What I am doing is using evidences that are applied to that text, for the Byz/TR texts is identical in so many places! So much of the Byz evidence CAN be applied also to the TR! -- - Mr. Helge Evensen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Aug 2 22:27:19 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id WAA29581; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 22:26:54 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 02 Aug 1999 22:33:52 -0400 From: Jim West Subject: Re: tc-list TR vs Byz/Maj Text- side comment X-Sender: jwest@highland.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.32.19990803023352.0067445c@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: 523 At 04:22 AM 8/3/99 -0700, you wrote: >Yes, I am defending the exact text underlying the KJV (the Scrivener >reconstructio of 1881, today issued by the TBS. And I thank God for their >newly published "Original Language Bible" - Hebrew/Greek Bible). Please provide a little more detail about this... ISBN, publisher, contents, etc. (I don't know the antecedent for "their" in the above sentence). Thanks, Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD email- jwest@highland.net web page- http://web.infoave.net/~jwest From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Aug 2 22:31:11 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id WAA29633; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 22:30:50 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <37A6D7F5.1752@online.no> Date: Tue, 03 Aug 1999 04:52:21 -0700 From: "Mr. Helge Evensen" Organization: Scandinavia Online X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list Burgon on 1Tim 3:16 References: <19990728184840.15149.qmail@hotmail.com> <37A4D427.2DFC@online.no> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Content-Length: 1744 Robert B. Waltz wrote: > > I'm not going to get into a long discussion here, but I have to add one > comment: > > On 8/1/99, Mr. Helge Evensen wrote, in part: > > >Think of it! 98% of the Greek MSS!!! That *is* strong evidence! > > Think of it! 0% of manuscripts from before the fifth century! > An amazing panoply of non-evidence. OK, then, let's shift evidence and look at patristic and versional evidence. :-) Besides, Byz/TR *readings* are found in P66. In fact, almost all of the Byz readings in that MS is *also* TR-readings! Think of it! :-) > > Think of it! The Textus Receptus, from which the King James Version > is translated, which contains readings not found in *any* Greek > manuscript. Yeah, think of that! And do not forget all of the ancient MSS which scholars *trust* in, which contain multitudes of "singular" readings! (Is my TC-memory failing me, or is "singular reading" an expression used to indicate a reading not found in *any* (other) Greek manuscript?) The TR is nothing more than a complete NT MSS in PRINTED form! But I do not trust in only one TR edition but in a variety of TR's and other evidences besides these, as found in the text of the TBS 1976 edition of the "TR". In turn, this is to trust in the decisions of the many competent scholars who produced the TEXT of the KJV!! I shall say nothing of my belief in providential preservation..... :-) > > All I will say on the subject. Why? No person discussing the text of the NT on a *TC-list* should be afraid of discussing the Byz/TR text since this text/these texts represent the MAJORITY of the available MSS! What kind of "TC" list would *that* be? BTW, I do not think that you are "afraid", though! :-) -- - Mr. Helge Evensen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Aug 2 23:03:13 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id XAA29765; Mon, 2 Aug 1999 23:02:35 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <37A6DF71.1A61@online.no> Date: Tue, 03 Aug 1999 05:24:17 -0700 From: "Mr. Helge Evensen" Organization: Scandinavia Online X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list Burgon on 1Tim 3:16 References: <19990801.133936.-843105.0.DD-1@juno.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Content-Length: 4155 Robert B. Waltz wrote: > > On 8/1/99, dd-1@juno.com wrote: > > >Robert, Denny Diehl here > > > > >Think of it! The Textus Receptus, from which the King James Version > > >is translated, which contains readings not found in *any* Greek > > >manuscript. > > > > > >All I will say on the subject. > > > >If you wouldn't mind saying a little more on the subject, besides > >the Comma Johannine, would you mind listing those readings > >which are not found in any Greek manuscript? > > Someone pointed out that Erasmus had no text of the final portion > of the Apocalypse (though it was only a few verses, not two > chapters). As a result, there are several readings in there not > found in any Greek manuscript. (I don't have a full list, but > you could check Hoskier.) > > In addition, in Phil. 4:3, the TR reads KAI. Metzger reports > that this reading is supported only by 462, but according to > Davies, 462 reads NAI along with all other witnesses. Not a *very* significant variant, though! :) Besides, the evidence is not *clear* at this point! > > There may be others; I don't know. Hard to tell, given the lack > of complete collations. :-) > > Technically, the Comma *is* found in Greek manuscripts. It's just > that the manuscripts (with the exception of 629 and others which > have it from the Latin) are generally copies of the TR. "Copies of the TR"? What is the evidence for that statement? > > And since you've gotten me talking anyway, I should make a point > here. Helge Evenson makes the argument that the issue is the number > of witnesses. Jim West or Philip Wesley Comfort would argue for > age. > > Neither one matters. If majority rule meant anything, the world > would be flat and we'd all be pantheists (since, when the human > race evolved, people held both opinions :-). > > Age doesn't mean anything either. AMEN! > > What matters is that the majority of manuscripts disagree with > the earliest manuscripts. Therefore at least one group must be > wrong (they may, be it noted, *both* be wrong, but no more than > one group can be right). Or maybe the autograph text is found in a *mixture* of two or more "groups"? ALL MSS are "mixed" more or less! > > The tendency is to decide this matter "politically" -- as if > manuscripts were people lined up at a polling place. (Not that > that means much; generally speaking, the unwashed mass of > voters are fools. Consider that, in America, they voted for BOTH > Reagan AND Clinton :-). > > It's not a political matter. It's not a dogmatic manner, either. At least, MSS were altered for "dogmatic" reasons! > One must, by some *external*, non-political, non-dogmatic means > decide between the old manuscripts and the majority of manuscripts. The Byz/TR consists of readings found in BOTH old and later MSS! > > Most textual critics use "internal evidence," and on this basis > prefer the text of the older manuscripts. This is *not* universal; > Maurice Robinson prefers the majority text based on this sort of > reasoning. And, frankly, I have more respect for Robinson (even > though his text differs greatly from mine) than I have for > Comfort -- whose text more nearly agrees with mine, but for the > wrong reasons. > > But I stress: The matter must be decided based on comparison of > the text-types, I would rather say: The matter must be decided based on comparison of *MSS*! (Even though I do not personally follow that line of thought in my own decision of which text to follow! But, at least, I can play around with textual criticism, if for no other reason than plain FUN!) :) > not comparison of the number, age, or other > arbitrary fact about their witnesses. (Surely you wouldn't > pick a New Testament text based on the colour of the parchment, > would you? Yet that is as valid a basis for discrimination as > the others, since it just as completely ignores the text.) > > I hope that makes sense. This is more time than I was supposed > to spend on this subject today. :-) Bob, even though I do not agree with you on what text to follow, I appreciate all your comments! You are an interesting TC'er. -- - Mr. Helge Evensen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Aug 3 01:41:51 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id BAA00520; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 01:41:07 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199908030541.BAA00515@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> From: "Dave Washburn" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1999 22:47:00 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: tc-list TR vs Byz/Maj Text- side comment Priority: normal In-reply-to: <1.5.4.32.19990803023352.0067445c@highland.net> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01d) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Content-Length: 1457 Jim West wrote: > At 04:22 AM 8/3/99 -0700, you wrote: > > >Yes, I am defending the exact text underlying the KJV (the Scrivener > >reconstructio of 1881, today issued by the TBS. And I thank God for their > >newly published "Original Language Bible" - Hebrew/Greek Bible). > > Please provide a little more detail about this... ISBN, publisher, contents, > etc. (I don't know the antecedent for "their" in the above sentence). TBS = Trinitarian Bible Society. My edition of their Greek New Testament was printed in London but has no date or ISBN that I have been able to find. It claims that it "follows the text of Beza's 1598 edition as the primary authority, and corresponds with ' The New Testament in the Original Greek according to the text followed in the Authorized Version" by Scrivener. This they call the Textus Receptus. Of course, when scholars speak of the TR, especially for things like collation purposes, they uniformly mean the Stephens 1550 edition, but apparently the TBS thinks it can unilaterally redefine such things to serve its own purposes. Every so often I blow the dust off this thing and consult it for a reading, but in the main it's a curiosity, nothing more. > > Thanks, > > Jim > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++ > Jim West, ThD > email- jwest@highland.net > web page- http://web.infoave.net/~jwest > 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 Tue Aug 3 02:54:35 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id CAA00708; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 02:53:52 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 09:00:56 +0200 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu References: <19990728184840.15149.qmail@hotmail.com> <37A4D427.2DFC@online.no> <37A6D7F5.1752@online.no> Subject: Re: tc-list Burgon on 1Tim 3:16 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: 1849 Mr. Helge Evensen wrote: > Robert B. Waltz wrote: > > > > I'm not going to get into a long discussion here, but I have to add one > > comment: > > > > On 8/1/99, Mr. Helge Evensen wrote, in part: > > > > >Think of it! 98% of the Greek MSS!!! That *is* strong evidence! > > > > Think of it! 0% of manuscripts from before the fifth century! > > An amazing panoply of non-evidence. > > OK, then, let's shift evidence and look at patristic and versional > evidence. :-) > Besides, Byz/TR *readings* are found in P66. In fact, almost all of the > Byz readings in that MS is *also* TR-readings! Think of it! :-) I would be greatful to see evidence not rhetorics, i.e. P66 has nothing to do with the Pastoral Epistles. Moreover, where is the specific patristic and/or versional evidence for 1 Tim 3,16 that you are invoking? > > > > Think of it! The Textus Receptus, from which the King James Version > > is translated, which contains readings not found in *any* Greek > > manuscript. > > Yeah, think of that! And do not forget all of the ancient MSS which > scholars *trust* in, which contain multitudes of "singular" readings! > (Is my TC-memory failing me, or is "singular reading" an expression used > to indicate a reading not found in *any* (other) Greek > manuscript?) The TR is nothing more than a complete NT MSS in PRINTED > form! Scholars usually don't *trust* in "multitudes of 'singular' readings". Moreover, viewing the TR as just another NT Ms means: a) it certainly doesn't represent the majority of witnesses at every single place of variation; b) it contains errors as every single NT Ms I know of does; b) if "error free" is required, as people defending the TR sometimes claim, the TR is way beyond *real* Mss' human proportions. ------------------------------------------ Dr. Ulrich Schmid U.B.Schmid@t-online.de From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Aug 3 07:12:11 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id HAA02022; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 07:07:34 -0400 (EDT) X-WebTV-Signature: 1 ETAtAhQdFGQddywFxWUWVMpm9uPKLTOO0AIVAMknZrtG/KGzXyZ+K3zhMidPmoPr From: nswift@webtv.net (Norman Swift) Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 07:14:41 -0400 (EDT) To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Cc: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list TR Message-ID: <12829-37A6CF21-30519@postoffice-263.iap.bryant.webtv.net> In-Reply-To: "Dave Washburn" 's message of Mon, 2 Aug 1999 22:47:00 -0700 Content-Disposition: Inline Content-Type: Text/Plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit MIME-Version: 1.0 (WebTV) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Content-Length: 133 Jim West, what is the most reliable history (publication/book) of the pre1550 Stephens TR? Thanks and kindest regards to all. Norm From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Aug 3 08:40:32 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id IAA07319; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 08:39:53 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19990803124225.00bac1b0@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: Tue, 03 Aug 1999 08:42:25 -0400 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Kevin W. Woodruff" Subject: Re: tc-list TR vs Byz/Maj Text- side comment Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Content-Length: 1547 Jim: It's __The Holy Scriptures in the Original Languages: The Greek and Hebrew Texts underlying the Authorised Version_. Published by the Trinitarian Bible Society. 1998. It's a nice compact 1894/1902 Scrivener TR bound with a 1894 Massoretic Text edited by David Ginsburg. It's available from http://biz.ukonline.co.uk/trinitarian.bible.society/branches/us/us-intro.htm I don't use the TR but for only $28.50, it's a whole lot less inexpensive than UBS Biblia Sacra Utriiusque Testamenti: EditioHebraica et Graeca at $80.99 Kevin At 10:33 PM 08/02/1999 -0400, you wrote: >At 04:22 AM 8/3/99 -0700, you wrote: > >>Yes, I am defending the exact text underlying the KJV (the Scrivener >>reconstructio of 1881, today issued by the TBS. And I thank God for their >>newly published "Original Language Bible" - Hebrew/Greek Bible). > >Please provide a little more detail about this... ISBN, publisher, contents, >etc. (I don't know the antecedent for "their" in the above sentence). > >Thanks, > >Jim > >+++++++++++++++++++++++++ >Jim West, ThD >email- jwest@highland.net >web page- http://web.infoave.net/~jwest > > Kevin W. Woodruff, M.Div. Library Director/Reference Librarian Professor of New Testament Greek Cierpke Memorial Library Tennessee Temple University/Temple Baptist Seminary 1815 Union Ave. Chattanooga, Tennessee 37404 United States of America 423/493-4252 (office) 423/698-9447 (home) 423/493-4497 (FAX) Cierpke@utc.campuscw.net (preferred) kwoodruf@utkux.utcc.utk.edu (alternate) http://web.utk.edu/~kwoodruf/woodruff.htm From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Aug 3 08:59:58 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id IAA08918; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 08:59:21 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199908030541.BAA00515@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> References: <199908030541.BAA00515@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 08:10:46 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: tc-list TR vs Byz/Maj Text- side comment 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: 1333 On 8/2/99, Dave Washburn wrote, in part: >Of course, when scholars speak of the TR, especially >for things like collation purposes, they uniformly mean the >Stephens 1550 edition, but apparently the TBS thinks it can >unilaterally redefine such things to serve its own purposes. Every >so often I blow the dust off this thing and consult it for a reading, >but in the main it's a curiosity, nothing more. I don't think this is quite true. Tischendorf, for instance, defined the TR as the agreement of Stephanus and Elzevir. Where they disagreed, he cited both. Modern collations are usually taken from the 1873 (?) Oxford edition -- which, unfortunately, is out of print. It's a problem. It would be very nice if we could agree on ONE TR. It would make it much easier to interpret collations. :-) But it hasn't happened yet. Though it is perhaps more possible now than ever before, since we could distribute it electronically, so there would be no issue of typographical errors in reproducing an edition. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Aug 3 11:15:58 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id LAA01825; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 11:15:28 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 03 Aug 1999 11:23:28 -0400 From: Jim West Subject: Re: tc-list TR X-Sender: jwest@highland.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.32.19990803152328.0067cb48@highland.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Content-Length: 428 At 07:14 AM 8/3/99 -0400, you wrote: >Jim West, what is the most reliable history (publication/book) of the >pre1550 Stephens TR? >Thanks and kindest regards to all. >Norm Someone else will need to answer. To be direct- not only do I not use the TR as a basis for textual work- but I dont even trust 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 Tue Aug 3 11:18:36 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id LAA01878; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 11:18:00 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 03 Aug 1999 11:25:52 -0400 From: Jim West Subject: Re: tc-list TR vs Byz/Maj Text- side comment X-Sender: jwest@highland.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.32.19990803152552.0067fde4@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: 561 At 08:42 AM 8/3/99 -0400, you wrote: >Jim: > >It's __The Holy Scriptures in the Original Languages: The Greek and Hebrew >Texts underlying the Authorised Version_. Published by the Trinitarian Bible >Society. 1998. It's a nice compact 1894/1902 Scrivener TR bound with a 1894 >Massoretic Text edited by David Ginsburg. It's available from > >http://biz.ukonline.co.uk/trinitarian.bible.society/branches/us/us-intro.htm > Thanks very much Kevin! j. +++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD email- jwest@highland.net web page- http://web.infoave.net/~jwest From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Aug 3 11:20:29 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id LAA02638; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 11:20:02 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 11:23:27 -0400 From: "Harold P. Scanlin" Subject: Re: tc-list TR vs Byz/Maj Text- side comment To: "INTERNET:tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu" Message-ID: <199908031124_MC2-4139-DDFB@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: 407 For checking on KJV vs. Majority text differences I use J. A. Moorman, _When the KJV Departs from the "Majority" Text_, 2nd edition (Collingswoo= d, NJ: the bible for Today, 1988). Moorman, of course, is a strong KJV advocate. His "The Manuscript Digest" seems to be a reliable guide to th= e evidence. = Harold P. Scanlin United Bible Societies 1865 Broadway New York, NY 10023 scanlin@compuserve.com From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Aug 3 11:32:19 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id LAA07895; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 11:31:50 -0400 (EDT) From: "Douglas F. Salmon" To: Subject: Re: tc-list TR vs Byz/Maj Text- side comment Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 09:39:35 -0600 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1161 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Content-Length: 2247 The text referred to as "the Scrivener reconstructio of 1881" is: _The New Testament in the Original Greek according to the text followed in the Authorised Version together with the variations adopted in the Revised Version_ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1881) This text is not what is usually referred to as the TR, but rather the production of the Greek text underlying the the King James' translators English rendition. Its modern day analogue would be R. V. G. Tasker, _The Greek New Testament: being the text translated in The New English Bible_. Scrivener started, as the basis of this edition, with Beza's fifth and last text of 1598, since according to Scrivener, this text "was more likely than any other to be in the hands of King James's revisers, and to be accepted by them as the best standard within their reach" (preface, vii). Scrivener's text was reprinted several times, and also appeared in a different version from Cambridge University Press: _The Parallel New Testament Greek and English_, 1892. Scrivener also produced an edition of Stephanus' edition of 1550, entitled: _E Kaine Diatheke_ Cambridge, Deighton, Bell, 1860. This was reprinted at least eight times, in four editions, the last (4th ed., 1906) being corrected by Eberhard Nestle. The TR used for most collation purposes is the Oxford: Clarendon Press edition of 1873, which is a reprint of Charles Lloyd's Oxford ed. of 1828, which derives from Mill (1707) which is based on Stephanus (1550). ---------- > From: Jim West > To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu > Subject: Re: tc-list TR vs Byz/Maj Text- side comment > Date: Monday, August 02, 1999 8:33 PM > > At 04:22 AM 8/3/99 -0700, you wrote: > > >Yes, I am defending the exact text underlying the KJV (the Scrivener > >reconstructio of 1881, today issued by the TBS. And I thank God for their > >newly published "Original Language Bible" - Hebrew/Greek Bible). > > Please provide a little more detail about this... ISBN, publisher, contents, > etc. (I don't know the antecedent for "their" in the above sentence). > > Thanks, > > Jim > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++ > Jim West, ThD > email- jwest@highland.net > web page- http://web.infoave.net/~jwest > > From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Aug 3 12:24:33 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id MAA28079; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 12:23:49 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199908031623.MAA28074@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> From: "Dave Washburn" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 09:29:30 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: tc-list New ENTMP Priority: normal In-reply-to: References: <199908021633.MAA08262@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: 4694 Bob Waltz wrote: > On 8/2/99, Dave Washburn wrote, in part: > > >The transcriptions I did didn't have any real way to indicate > >abbreviations (I assume you mean little ligatures like the trailing-off > >line on kappa at the end of a line to indicate KAI, that sort of > >thing?), but under James' direction I used brackets to indicate > >uncertain or supplied letters, and I believe we were playing with a > >pseudo-HTML tag to indicate NS. I would tend to > >prefer something like this that keeps the format of running text, > >simply because later on it should make it easier to mark up (then > >again, I may be wrong about that). Here's the preliminary > >transcription of 071 that I did lo, those many ages ago: > > Just a few thoughts.... > > The idea of HTML tags for nomina sacra, etc. have advantages. But > I see a bit of a problem. HTML-style tags, obviously, use the angle > brackets < >. But > is a symbol one sometimes encounters in a > manuscript. Does one, then, use the correct HTML symbol > in the > transcription? If so, we're not using ASCII any more. :-) > > I might be tempted instead to use something else like {} for these > sorts of tags. If one then wishes to convert to HTML, it's a simple > change -- just { to < and } to >. And it leaves us [] for lacunae > and perhaps () for uncertain letters. Good point. This is the sort of thing that needs to be agreed upon, though I would suggest that when we're down to the level of tweaking individual characters like this, we're pretty close to a standard. Since as I recall the > and < characters are used for accents, they wouldn't be a problem for the earlier mss, and such things could be adjusted during markup later. I could live with that. Of course, if this expands into Hebrew mss, then using { and } won't work because in CCAT these denote a couple of very common final-form letters... > I'm not trying to make life difficult here, just point out some things > to think about. And your points are well taken, at least by yours truly. > [ ... ] > > >Agreed. If the goal is transcription rather than collation, then > >IMNSHO the ms. should be transcribed exactly as it appears. > > I think this should be the goal even with collations. :-) Personally, > I prefer collations most of the time, because it's so much easier to > notice the difference between, say, ECOMEN and ECWMEN. :-) But it > depends on circumstances. I do think that the collation base needs > to be posted on the site in its entirety; it's *not* enough to just > list it. > > [ ... ] > > >As I recall, this was one of the original ideas of the ENTMP. Pass > >them around freely so anyone can use them, definitely. But I > >would push for a centralized location (or at least style and dtd) for > >markup, rather than each doing what is right in his own eyes... > > I have to agree with this one. I've had to work with some really > strange collation styles in my life (the award, I think, goes to > Davies's collations of 330, 436, 462, and 2344. I *still* stumble > over that one sometimes). Ditto the Collate format for transcriptions. > My first few attempts to convert Tim Finney's transcriptions of > Hebrews resulted in quite a few bollixes, especially as regards > correctors. Using more than one standard is a shortcut to trouble. I haven't tried these, but I wholeheartedly agree with the last sentence. > > > Yes, yes, yes. My only complaint about CCAT (and Beta code) is the > > > transcription of xi with C and chi with X. In Athens, taxi is spelt with > > > xi, not chi. Oh well. > > > >Agreed. However, any mapping scheme is going to have some > >less-than-ideal features. The main reason I suggested CCAT is > >because a) it's already in place and used profusely, and b) there > >are numerous fonts for just about any platform, floating around the > >Net, that are based on it, so all one has to do is download one, > >install it, and go. > > Obviously the big hang-up here is X/C. (At least, every scheme I've > ever seen renders theta as Q, and the rest are obvious.) Maybe it's > actually time for a vote. :-) > > I vote C=chi and X=xi, for what it's worth. The only problem there is getting folks like SP to make the necessary adjustments in their fonts etc. as well as changing all the transcriptions that are already out there, such as the stuff at the Perseus Project etc. Were it to come down to a vote, I would probably vote the same way. However, I can see mountains of impracticalities in trying to get the rest of the world to change it... 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 Tue Aug 3 12:56:40 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id MAA01984; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 12:56:01 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19990803100912.007b7a20@mail.teleport.com> X-Sender: dalemw@mail.teleport.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 03 Aug 1999 10:09:12 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Dale M. Wheeler" Subject: Re: tc-list A new ENTMP Cc: "Dave Washburn" 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: 5312 Dave Washburn wrote: >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. > There already is such a committee in SBL, its the Electronic Standards Group, which has been in existence for coming up on 5 years. The committee has several subgroups working on the problems of encoding various types of documents (I'm on the one dealing with Syntax Encoding, along with Kirk Lowery of Westminster Seminary). There is a subgroup wrestling with the issues related to encoding ancient mss (I can't remember off the top of my head who's responsible for that area, but I can find out from Bernard Taylor, one of the co-chairs of the Group, or from Patrick Durusau). While it may be true that in general committees move slowly, the flip side is that in an area that is so rapidly emerging as electronic technology, it provides a forum for dissemination of and interaction on information about the latest technologies. In the case of text encoding, most of us on the committee are biblical scholars trying desparately to stay up with the latest in technology; but there's no way that any one of us can. Thus, when we meet together and hear each other's yearly presentations we REALLY learn alot about emerging technologies that might help us and that we all need to take into consideration as we try to develop standardized electronic texts. The ancient mss group is wrestling with more than just having a transcription of the letters themselves, but also other features of the mss, like lacunae, correctors, paragraph/sentence spacing, end of line indication, multiple letter formations, additional markings (eg., NS bar, dieresis, breathers, etc.), and other features of the mss (codex vs scroll, columnar layout, type of material, type of ink, style of writing, spelling peculiarities, etc.). This is why there is a general concensus in the group that some sort of SGML/XML in conjunction with the TEI (Text Encoding Initiative group) approach is needed; not only does such a mark up language provide the preparer of the text with the tools to fully prepare a representation of that text for posterity, but it also allows the user to turn on/off various features via software and the print publisher to more quickly produce books. This past year we approved a standardized interchange format (NOT font layout) for Hebrew characters based on the Unicode standard proposed by Dick Whitaker. Currently James Ernest of Hendrickson Publishers is working on a similar interchange format for Greek characters. These are to be software "black boxes" that allow different software implementations to talk directly to each other. It has been suggested that either CCAT or the interchange format become the standard for Greek and Hebrew transcriptions, but as yet no decision has been made (though I'd say that my sense is that the committee members are leaning toward CCAT, simply because its sort of readable as it stands in raw format). We've also discussed the issue of preparing "ASCII" databases for later conversion to XML, and the general concensus is that since XML is still an emerging standard and there is no agreed upon complete subset of tags (DTD; cf. http://www.ccel.wheaton.edu/ThML/) for the types of texts we are dealing with, that researchers should go ahead and create "ASCII" versions of the mss, but document anything unusual (ie., outside of CCAT) they include, so that they or others can later convert them to a standard "biblical" XML/DTD. For example, I have not converted the MorphGNT, -LXX, or -BHS that I'm editing to XML from their current ASCII and CCAT formats, simply because the final concensus does not yet exist as to what the DTD will look like. On the other hand, a new project like the Hebrew Syntax Encoding Initiative (which will eventually be part of the MorphBHS) being prepared by Kirk Lowery and Vince DeCaen (UToronto; cf., http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~decaen/hsei/) is being done based on SGML from the outset. Someone from this list should join the SBL Electronic Standards Group to insure that the work being done is relatively consistent with the emerging standards, so that it doesn't have to be redone or go thru massive conversion routines which might end up causing the loss of data. *********************************************************************** Dale M. Wheeler, Ph.D. Research Professor in Biblical Languages Multnomah Bible College 8435 NE Glisan Street Portland, OR 97220 Voice: 503-251-6416 FAX:503-254-1268 E-Mail: dalemw@teleport.com *********************************************************************** From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Aug 3 13:10:29 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id NAA06275; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 13:09:59 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <37A7A611.3E7A@online.no> Date: Tue, 03 Aug 1999 19:31:45 -0700 From: "Mr. Helge Evensen" Organization: Scandinavia Online X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list TR vs Byz/Maj Text- side comment References: <1.5.4.32.19990803023352.0067445c@highland.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Content-Length: 1202 Jim West wrote: > > At 04:22 AM 8/3/99 -0700, you wrote: > > >Yes, I am defending the exact text underlying the KJV (the Scrivener > >reconstructio of 1881, today issued by the TBS. And I thank God for their > >newly published "Original Language Bible" - Hebrew/Greek Bible). > > Please provide a little more detail about this... ISBN, publisher, contents, > etc. (I don't know the antecedent for "their" in the above sentence). OK. It's very simple: "....the TBS. And I thank God for their....". As you will notice, after thorough study of the sentence, the antecedent is "the TBS"! :-) I do not yet have a copy of this edition (but it's on the way). I do not have the ISBN; but this is the Ginsburg/Bomberg Hebrew Text, the 1894 edition of the Bomberg text of 1524-25. The NT is the Scrivener reconstruction, same as their 1976 TR edition. I expect the NT part to be in a new and better type, but I am not sure about that. The price is £15.95 and can be ordered from the Trinitarian Bible Society, Tyndale House, Dorset Road, London, SW19 3NN, England. This is a plain text edition, without critical footnotes. It's my pleasure to give this information. :-) -- - Mr. Helge Evensen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Aug 3 13:20:01 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id NAA08726; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 13:19:29 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 03 Aug 1999 13:27:32 -0400 From: Jim West Subject: Re: tc-list TR vs Byz/Maj Text- side comment X-Sender: jwest@highland.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.32.19990803172732.006649e4@highland.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) 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: 1373 At 07:31 PM 8/3/99 -0700, you wrote: >OK. It's very simple: "....the TBS. And I thank God for their....". As=20 >you will notice, after thorough study of the sentence, the antecedent is=20 >"the TBS"! :-) Yes- this much I ciphered without too much difficulty... it was the abbreviation that was unfamiliar to me. >I do not yet have a copy of this edition (but it's on the way). I do not=20 >have the ISBN; but this is the Ginsburg/Bomberg Hebrew Text, the 1894=20 >edition of the Bomberg text of 1524-25. The NT is the Scrivener=20 >reconstruction, same as their 1976 TR edition. I expect the NT part to be= =20 >in a new and better type, but I am not sure about that. The price is=20 >=A315.95 and can be ordered from the Trinitarian Bible Society, Tyndale=20 >House, Dorset Road, London, SW19 3NN, England. The American branch of the TBS (not to be confused with Trinity Broadcasting I presume!!!!!) has it as well- as Kevin pointed out in an earlier post. >This is a plain text edition, without critical footnotes. Excellent. > >It's my pleasure to give this information. :-) And my honor to receive it. Even though I am no fan of the TR I have ordered a copy just because of the price. Who can pass up a book that only costs 28$ ???? Thanks, Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD email- jwest@highland.net web page- http://web.infoave.net/~jwest From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Aug 3 13:39:17 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id NAA08891; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 13:38:47 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <01BEDE12.E0D5ACF0.petrovich@nsu.ru> From: Doug Petrovich To: "'tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu'" Subject: tc-list on a praxis for textual criticism Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 00:43:21 -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: 9889 I can agree with a previous contributor who said that normally I find myself in agreement with Robert Waltz, but I did come across an e-mail where I must take issue on a few points. Allow me to address a few of his statements, some of which I agree with, and others where I think adjustments need to be made. And since you've gotten me talking anyway, I should make a point here. Helge Evenson makes the argument that the issue is the number of witnesses. Jim West or Philip Wesley Comfort would argue for age. Neither one matters. If majority rule meant anything, the world would be flat and we'd all be pantheists (since, when the human race evolved, people held both opinions :-). Age doesn't mean anything either. First of all, one's praxis of doing N.T. textual criticism is certain the most important issue at stake, just as hermeneutics is the most significant element in biblical exegesis. The rules that are played by determine what happens on the field. I am in total agree-ment with Waltz that the praxis of textual criticism that says, "Choose a favorite text-type based on numerical superiority" is absolutely erroneous. The following flaws cannot be overcome: 1) Mss. must be weighed, and not counted, because if (for example) ten mss. are copied from a single exemplar, then an error appearing 10 times in the exemplar will appear 10 times in all 10 copies. 2) Burgon and Miller use an illustration of a trial before a judge. They say that if there are 10 witnesses called in to give evidence, and one of the 10 resolutely contradicted the testimony of the other 9, which of the two parties would the jurors be inclined to believe? However, this illustration is flawed. The 10 witnesses in the court case are contemporaries, first-hand witnesses to an event. Naturally, the one who opposes the other 9 who bear corroborating evidence is very likely to be wrong. However, in the case of N.T. t.c., the witnesses are not contemporaries. Bringing this into the realm of the illustration, 50 or 100 10th-hand or 20th-hand witnesses, who are far removed from any of the 10 original witnesses, command little weight if their information is only derived from one of the original 10 witnesses. Two or three dissenters who are closer to the original 10 witnesses would be granted much more credibility in the eyes of most jurors. The further problem with some Byzantine readings, particularly those that resulted from conflation (which may have occurred during a large-scale recension), is that they may not even be derived from ONE of the original 10 witnesses (i.e. en efesO in Ephesians 1:1, which probably resulted from #1 the choice of the Pauline corpus editor or a successor to write PROS EFESIOUS at the top of this epistle, followed by #2 an ambitious scribe who wanted to harmonize "Ephsians" with other Pauline epistles that contained an explicit addressee reference in the body of the text). 3) Advocates of this praxis suggest that in light of the great similarity among Byzantine manuscripts, one would have to propose a grand, scribal conspiracy intended to deceive people with the wrong text-type for hundreds of years. In response, opponents of the idea that the majority of manuscripts leads to the original text do not accuse scribes of deceit. Instead, they consider MT scribes to be faithful reproducers who followed the text of their exemplars WITH GREAT CARE. Unfortunately, these scribes were faithfully reproducing a secondary text that was the result of a later revision, as the large number of Byzantine conflations suggests. 4) According to adherents of this theory, the dominance of the MT is accounted for by its continuous transmission from the autographa, and the copies nearest to the autographs will normally have the largest number of descendants, as is true of all ancient documents. Against this argument, the MT form is completely unknown by any of the evidence up to A.D. 350, with the earliest evidence being found in some of the fathers, then later in the fifth century in portions of Codices A and W. Furthermore, if the MT represents the "broad stream" that issues from the autographs, why is it true that amid all of the manuscript evidence from the first three hundred years, only the "offshoots" are attested? 5) Another belief is that quantity was ordained by God as an important factor, and as such, inerrantists must believe that God preserved this text-type throughout the ages (Thus Helge Evenson's providential preservation, which I, as an inerrantist, also believe in!). This is clearly a theological argument rather than a logical one. The fact remains that due to the diligent work of textual critics since the eighteenth century, along with the excavations of the last 150 years, Christian scholarship now knows that God also preserved other text-types, which possess quite excellent examples of the biblical text. Therefore, God's providential preservation also extends to the mss. recently made extant!! Their argument also breaks down in that the MT is not said to be a "bad" or heretical text. It presents the same Christian message as the other three text-types; it just preserves the errors inherrant in its exemplars, in addition to creating its own (as is true of any text type). In addition, until the advent of the printing press, the church had never followed a rigidly uniform text; many variants were present within the manuscripts used by the church down through the ages. Therefore, on the basis of these problems, which are representative but not exhaustive, the praxis of t.c. that chooses a favorite text-type based on numerical superiority must be rejected. Unfortunately, this view is usually embraced as a result of mere presuppositions. Allow me to move on to Waltz's comment that age doesn't mean anything either, along with his claim that Comfort would appeal only to age for selection of readings. In "The Quest for the Original Text of the N.T.", Comfort explicitly states that "an 'early' ms. is not always the most trustworthy manuscript." This does not sound like a statement from one who is ready to burn all mss. copied after A.D. 300. What I assume Comfort and West would be driving at is that earlier mss. are generally more important than later ones. If this is truly their position, then I would tend to agree, especially with the word "generally" inserted. What is the difference between a ms. from the 2nd c. compared with a ms. from the 13th c.? One PROBABLE difference is that there are fewer generations of copies between the ms. in hand and the autographs. This is quite significant, since every generation of new copies brings along with it the errors of previous generations as well as its own errors, not to mention the fact that many more scribes have the potential to compare their own exemplars with other mss. of increasingly-more mixed texts (as time passes), thus resulting in mss. that are further edited (or conflated). Having said this, I must admit that the praxis of t.c. that says, "Choose a Favorite Text-Type Based on the Earliness of Mss." is also flawed. Why? 1) This view cannot avoid the charge of circular reasoning, which thus negates its cogency. Epp explained this well in his 1989 HTR article. Simplistically, a "very ancient" ms. must be examined for the quality of its text in order for it to be considered as a reliable "older" witness. How do we examine it? How do we know that a ms. is reliable, and thus worthy of being using as a standard of external evidence that can effectively weigh more heavily than later, "inferior" mss.? We compare it to other mss. and use the canons of internal criticism. Therefore, we use internal evidence to call a ms. a strong or weak authority in assessing external evidence. Circular reasoning. 2) For this praxis to present an airtight case, it requires a clear picture of the history of the transmission of the text. It also requires that our earliest mss., nearly all from preservation-friendly Egypt, represent the text of the entire church. Epp asks, "How representative, really, of the earliest history of the NT text are these earliest papyri? What assurance do we have that these randomly surviving manuscripts represent in any real sense the entire earliest period of the text?" Comfort asserts that the early papyrus mss. represent not only the Egyptian N.T. text, but also the text of the entire early church. However, this assertion is very difficult to prove, and I am not sure that he convincingly did so in "Quest." The oldest papyrus manuscripts have shown that they also suffer from scribal error and transmission of prior mistakes. 3) If age is indeed the absolute criterion, we should turn to the "Western" text as the basis of our text. However, it is well-established that this "text-type" is certainly not the purest or most reliable for establishing the wording of the autographs. Therefore, choosing a reading because of age of manuscripts is not the best praxis of t.c., but Waltz is not precise when he says that "age doesn't mean anything." It often means a great deal. However, its overall significance can only be assessed after a ms. has undergone thorough scrutiny. But let me restate that greater antiquity means that a ms. probably represents fewer generations of copies between it and the original (a notable exception is 1739), thus meaning that usually there will be fewer reproductions that are laden with error. Well, that is all for now, and probably all that you are ready to read. It is now past midnight in central Russia! Later I want to deal with a few more of Waltz's comments from the same e-mail. Exact quotations and citations can be found in my ThM thesis. Doug Petrovich From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Aug 3 14:03:17 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id OAA09109; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 14:02:38 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <37A7B267.1AF4@online.no> Date: Tue, 03 Aug 1999 20:24:23 -0700 From: "Mr. Helge Evensen" Organization: Scandinavia Online X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list TR vs Byz/Maj Text- side comment References: <199908030541.BAA00515@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Content-Length: 3730 Dave Washburn wrote: > > Jim West wrote: > > At 04:22 AM 8/3/99 -0700, you wrote: > > > > >Yes, I am defending the exact text underlying the KJV (the Scrivener > > >reconstructio of 1881, today issued by the TBS. And I thank God for their > > >newly published "Original Language Bible" - Hebrew/Greek Bible). > > > > Please provide a little more detail about this... ISBN, publisher, contents, > > etc. (I don't know the antecedent for "their" in the above sentence). > > TBS = Trinitarian Bible Society. My edition of their Greek New > Testament was printed in London but has no date or ISBN that I > have been able to find. It claims that it "follows the text of Beza's > 1598 edition as the primary authority, and corresponds with ' The > New Testament in the Original Greek according to the text followed > in the Authorized Version" by Scrivener. This they call the Textus > Receptus. Of course, when scholars speak of the TR, especially > for things like collation purposes, they uniformly mean the > Stephens 1550 edition, but apparently the TBS thinks it can > unilaterally redefine such things to serve its own purposes. The TBS does not "redefine" anything! This *is* an edition of the TR! If it's wrong to call it the TR, it is also wrong to call the Stephens 1550 edition the "TR"! For it was the Elzevirs' edition that was termed the "TR"! (Actually, the Elzevirs' intention apparently was not to give a "title" to their text. They just declared that "this is the text now received by all".) And the Stephens ed. *differs* from it! Today, the title "Textus Receptus" speaks rather of a particular form of the text and not just the 1633 Elzevir edition! Many other editions which differed from the Elzevir text were issued in the 16th and 17 centuries and scholars refers to them (at least the form of the text found in them) as the "TR" without any problem! It's only when somebody wishes to downgrade the integrity of TR defenders one feels "obligated" to raise such points! :-) :-) (Just observe: "....to serve its own purposes". What purposes? The *only* English Bible the TBS is distributing is the KJV. Their "purposes" is clearly to have available the Greek text underlying the translation they distribute! And, as far as I have been able to observe, most scholars do not see any problem with calling the text underlying the KJV the "TR"!! > Every > so often I blow the dust off this thing and consult it for a reading, > but in the main it's a curiosity, nothing more. "a curiosity, nothing more"?? That may be your sincere opinion, but for *many* students of the NT this is not so! I for one see it as a trustworthy representation of the original autograph text, and also a useful tool for detecting the exact text underlying the KJV! And admittedly, for most modern TC'ers it may be "a curiosity", lacking, as they say, "critical value". But for those that use the KJV, this is not the case! They have in this Greek text the *only* edition available today which is in (almost) all points the exact Greek text used by the KJV translators!! And a great many *still* use the KJV! And isn't it great that they have its underlying text available, to consult and study?? Also, isn't it within the scope of "TC" to be able to detect what readings were chosen by the KJV translators, and to compare it with the other "TR" editions? I have used it for these reasons numerous times! > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Jim > > > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > Jim West, ThD > > email- jwest@highland.net > > web page- http://web.infoave.net/~jwest > > > > Dave Washburn > http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur > A Bible that's falling apart means a life that isn't. -- - Mr. Helge Evensen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Aug 3 14:55:41 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id OAA09456; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 14:55:10 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19990803185553.00994330@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: Tue, 03 Aug 1999 14:55:53 -0400 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Kevin W. Woodruff" Subject: Re: tc-list TR vs Byz/Maj Text- side comment Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Content-Length: 6089 Actually the King James translators used at least four different printed editions of the Greek test 1. The Stephanus text of 1550 2.The Beza editon of 1589 3.The Complutensian Polyglot of 1514-1522 4. The various editons of Erasmus (1516, 1519 etc.) According to Scrivener these texts exhibit 128 variants. The King James translators follwed Beza against Stephanus 81 times, Stephanus agianst Beza 21 times, the Complutensian Polyglot against Stephanus and Beza 19 times, and erasmus agains Stephanus and Beza seven times. Three times they followed theLatin Vulgate against all Greek editions and once the inadvertantly failed to follow any known authority. The three places that the KJV followed the Latin instead of the TR is: Acts 19:20 "the Greek editions read "the word of the Lord:" but the KJV has the "word of God" Ephesian 6:24 the KJV 1611 has "in sinceritie" but the Greek editions read " in sincerity , Amen" (This was later corrected in a subsequent revision of the KJV) 2 Timothy 1:18 the KJV reads "he ministered unto me. the Greek editions read "he ministered." the added words remain in the KJV uncorrected, i.e. without italics. In one place the KJV translators emended the Greek text without any known authority. In Hebrews 10:23 the KJV had "profession of our faith" wheas the Greek editions read" profession of our hope." In the Hebrew there are at least 228 deviations from the Bomberg's Second Rabbinic Bible. Massoretic Hebrew Texts, where the KJV tranlsators prefered Massoretic notes, the Aramaic Targums, the Septuagint, the Syraic, the Vulgate, or even Jewish traditional readings over the over the Masoretic Text for more information see the preface to Scrivener's_The Cambridge Paragraph Bible_, Cambridge: Cambridge University press 1873. pages c-ciii. At 08:24 PM 08/03/1999 -0700, you wrote: >Dave Washburn wrote: >> >> Jim West wrote: >> > At 04:22 AM 8/3/99 -0700, you wrote: >> > >> > >Yes, I am defending the exact text underlying the KJV (the Scrivener >> > >reconstructio of 1881, today issued by the TBS. And I thank God for their >> > >newly published "Original Language Bible" - Hebrew/Greek Bible). >> > >> > Please provide a little more detail about this... ISBN, publisher, contents, >> > etc. (I don't know the antecedent for "their" in the above sentence). >> >> TBS = Trinitarian Bible Society. My edition of their Greek New >> Testament was printed in London but has no date or ISBN that I >> have been able to find. It claims that it "follows the text of Beza's >> 1598 edition as the primary authority, and corresponds with ' The >> New Testament in the Original Greek according to the text followed >> in the Authorized Version" by Scrivener. This they call the Textus >> Receptus. Of course, when scholars speak of the TR, especially >> for things like collation purposes, they uniformly mean the >> Stephens 1550 edition, but apparently the TBS thinks it can >> unilaterally redefine such things to serve its own purposes. > >The TBS does not "redefine" anything! This *is* an edition of the TR! If >it's wrong to call it the TR, it is also wrong to call the Stephens 1550 >edition the "TR"! For it was the Elzevirs' edition that was termed the >"TR"! (Actually, the Elzevirs' intention apparently was not to give a >"title" to their text. They just declared that "this is the text now >received by all".) And the Stephens ed. *differs* from it! Today, the >title "Textus Receptus" speaks rather of a particular form of the text >and not just the 1633 Elzevir edition! Many other editions which differed >from the Elzevir text were issued in the 16th and 17 centuries and >scholars refers to them (at least the form of the text found in them) as >the "TR" without any problem! It's only when somebody wishes to downgrade >the integrity of TR defenders one feels "obligated" to raise such points! > :-) :-) (Just observe: "....to serve its own purposes". What purposes? >The *only* English Bible the TBS is distributing is the KJV. Their >"purposes" is clearly to have available the Greek text underlying the >translation they distribute! And, as far as I have been able to observe, >most scholars do not see any problem with calling the text underlying the >KJV the "TR"!! > >> Every >> so often I blow the dust off this thing and consult it for a reading, >> but in the main it's a curiosity, nothing more. > >"a curiosity, nothing more"?? That may be your sincere opinion, but for >*many* students of the NT this is not so! I for one see it as a >trustworthy representation of the original autograph text, and also a >useful tool for detecting the exact text underlying the KJV! And >admittedly, for most modern TC'ers it may be "a curiosity", lacking, as >they say, "critical value". But for those that use the KJV, this is not >the case! They have in this Greek text the *only* edition available today >which is in (almost) all points the exact Greek text used by the KJV >translators!! And a great many *still* use the KJV! And isn't it great >that they have its underlying text available, to consult and study?? >Also, isn't it within the scope of "TC" to be able to detect what >readings were chosen by the KJV translators, and to compare it with the >other "TR" editions? I have used it for these reasons numerous times! > >> >> > >> > Thanks, >> > >> > Jim >> > >> > +++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> > Jim West, ThD >> > email- jwest@highland.net >> > web page- http://web.infoave.net/~jwest >> > >> >> Dave Washburn >> http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur >> A Bible that's falling apart means a life that isn't. > > >-- >- Mr. Helge Evensen > > Kevin W. Woodruff, M.Div. Library Director/Reference Librarian Professor of New Testament Greek Cierpke Memorial Library Tennessee Temple University/Temple Baptist Seminary 1815 Union Ave. Chattanooga, Tennessee 37404 United States of America 423/493-4252 (office) 423/698-9447 (home) 423/493-4497 (FAX) Cierpke@utc.campuscw.net (preferred) kwoodruf@utkux.utcc.utk.edu (alternate) http://web.utk.edu/~kwoodruf/woodruff.htm From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Aug 3 14:57:07 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id OAA09488; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 14:56:18 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 15:02:57 -0400 From: "Harold P. Scanlin" Subject: Re: tc-list TR vs Byz/Maj Text- side comment To: "INTERNET:tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu" Message-ID: <199908031503_MC2-7FAA-919A@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: 1095 Helge Evensen wrote: > I do not yet have a copy of this edition = >this is the Ginsburg/Bomberg Hebrew Text, the 1894 = > edition of the Bomberg text of 1524-25. The NT is the Scrivener = > reconstruction, same as their 1976 TR edition. I expect the NT part to = be > in a new and better type, but I am not sure about that. The price is = > =A315.95 and can be ordered from the Trinitarian Bible Society, Tyndale= = > House, Dorset Road, London, SW19 3NN, England. > This is a plain text edition, without critical footnotes. I have not seen this new Hebrew-Greek combination edition, either, but assuming it is a straight reprint of the TBS Ginsburg edition of 1894, it= does contain footnotes. Ginsburg presents a "diplomatic edition" of the Bomberg text and records in the footnotes variants found in numerous standard printed editions. Ginsburg's later multivolume edition has an expanded apparatus which reports variants in some manuscripts and even mo= re printed editions. = Harold P. Scanlin United Bible Societies 1865 Broadway New York, NY 10023 scanlin@compuserve.com From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Aug 3 14:58:25 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id OAA10098; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 14:57:53 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <000d01bede04$7724f9e0$206829a4@vicente.unb.br> From: "Vicente Dobroruka" To: Subject: tc-list Pseudepigrapha discussion group Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 16:03:51 -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 4.72.3612.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3612.1700 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Content-Length: 172 Dear Jim, Thank you very much for the info concerning the St.Andrews page. This was great news indeed, and I already subscribed it. Be well, Vicente Dobroruka From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Aug 3 15:06:29 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id PAA10281; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 15:06:01 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19990803190355.0098cb84@utc.campuscw.net> X-Sender: cierpke.utc@utc.campuscw.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Tue, 03 Aug 1999 15:03:55 -0400 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Kevin W. Woodruff" Subject: Re: tc-list TR vs Byz/Maj Text- side comment Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Content-Length: 1686 I have a copy of the Hebrew-Greek bible and it does definitely contain the footnotes by Ginsburg At 03:02 PM 08/03/1999 -0400, you wrote: >Helge Evensen wrote: > >> I do not yet have a copy of this edition=20 > >>this is the Ginsburg/Bomberg Hebrew Text, the 1894=20 >> edition of the Bomberg text of 1524-25. The NT is the Scrivener=20 >> reconstruction, same as their 1976 TR edition. I expect the NT part to be > >> in a new and better type, but I am not sure about that. The price is=20 >> =A315.95 and can be ordered from the Trinitarian Bible Society, Tyndale= =20 >> House, Dorset Road, London, SW19 3NN, England. >> This is a plain text edition, without critical footnotes. > >I have not seen this new Hebrew-Greek combination edition, either, but >assuming it is a straight reprint of the TBS Ginsburg edition of 1894, it >does contain footnotes. Ginsburg presents a "diplomatic edition" of the >Bomberg text and records in the footnotes variants found in numerous >standard printed editions. Ginsburg's later multivolume edition has an >expanded apparatus which reports variants in some manuscripts and even more >printed editions.=20 > >Harold P. Scanlin >United Bible Societies >1865 Broadway >New York, NY 10023 >scanlin@compuserve.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.=20 Chattanooga, Tennessee 37404 United States of America 423/493-4252 (office) 423/698-9447 (home) 423/493-4497 (FAX) Cierpke@utc.campuscw.net (preferred) kwoodruf@utkux.utcc.utk.edu (alternate) http://web.utk.edu/~kwoodruf/woodruff.htm From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Aug 3 15:29:18 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id PAA10500; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 15:28:42 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <37A7C692.5C21@online.no> Date: Tue, 03 Aug 1999 21:50:26 -0700 From: "Mr. Helge Evensen" Organization: Scandinavia Online X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list Burgon on 1Tim 3:16 References: <19990728184840.15149.qmail@hotmail.com> <37A4D427.2DFC@online.no> <37A6D7F5.1752@online.no> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Content-Length: 3971 U.B.Schmid wrote: > > Mr. Helge Evensen wrote: > > Robert B. Waltz wrote: > > > > > > I'm not going to get into a long discussion here, but I have to add one > > > comment: > > > > > > On 8/1/99, Mr. Helge Evensen wrote, in part: > > > > > > >Think of it! 98% of the Greek MSS!!! That *is* strong evidence! > > > > > > Think of it! 0% of manuscripts from before the fifth century! > > > An amazing panoply of non-evidence. > > > > OK, then, let's shift evidence and look at patristic and versional > > evidence. :-) > > Besides, Byz/TR *readings* are found in P66. In fact, almost all of the > > Byz readings in that MS is *also* TR-readings! Think of it! :-) > > I would be greatful to see evidence not rhetorics, i.e. P66 has nothing to do > with the Pastoral Epistles. Moreover, where is the specific patristic and/or > versional evidence for 1 Tim 3,16 that you are invoking? I wasn't talking about evidence for 1 Tim 3,16 in that particular statement about P66 but evidence for the Byz txt in general! Of course I know that P66 does not contain the Pastorals. So maybe I shouldn' have added that comment, since it did not concern 1 Tim 3,16. As to "the specific patristic and/or versional evidence for 1 Tim 3,16" just read Burgon's own 70+ pages dissertation on it in his "Revision Revised"! It's loaded with various kinds of evidence! You know Burgon! :) Not just "rhetoric"! Among other things, he states: "But I am prepared to show that Gregory of Nyssa (a full century before Codex A was produced), in at least 22 places, knew of no other reading but THEOS" (Revision Revised, p.456). On pp. 461-462 he states: "....a famous Epistle purporting to have been addressed by Dionysius of Alexandria (A.D. 264) to Paul of Samosata. .... the epistle must needs have been written by *somebody*: that it may safely be referred to the IIIrd century; and that it certainly witnesses to THEOS EPHANERWTHE.....". But still, 98% of the *MSS*, even though not among the "most ancient", *is* strong evidence! And the 98% MSS is not just copies of each other! > > > > > > Think of it! The Textus Receptus, from which the King James Version > > > is translated, which contains readings not found in *any* Greek > > > manuscript. > > > > Yeah, think of that! And do not forget all of the ancient MSS which > > scholars *trust* in, which contain multitudes of "singular" readings! > > (Is my TC-memory failing me, or is "singular reading" an expression used > > to indicate a reading not found in *any* (other) Greek > > manuscript?) The TR is nothing more than a complete NT MSS in PRINTED > > form! > > Scholars usually don't *trust* in "multitudes of 'singular' readings". I didn't say they "*trust* in "multitudes of 'singular' readings", but: "all of the ancient MSS which scholars *trust* in, WHICH CONTAIN multitudes of "singular" readings!" (emphasis added) There is a difference between trusting in singular readings and trusting in MSS which CONTAIN singular readings. > Moreover, > viewing the TR as just another NT Ms means: > a) it certainly doesn't represent the majority of witnesses at every single > place of variation; Right. I never said it did! No MS does! > b) it contains errors as every single NT Ms I know of does; Especially the first edition of Erasmus. "My TR" is not that one, but rather the later "refined" and corrected editions! > b) if "error free" is required, as people defending the TR sometimes claim, the > TR is way beyond *real* Mss' human proportions. The TR is providential preserved, not referring to just one printing, but to the development which resulted in such editions as Stephens and Beza (though they are not "error free"!). Only the TBS 1976 edition is "error free"! :-) :-) To believe in a God-preserved text is not the same as believing in "error free" MSS or editions! > > ------------------------------------------ > Dr. Ulrich Schmid > U.B.Schmid@t-online.de -- - Mr. Helge Evensen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Aug 3 15:37:03 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id PAA10621; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 15:36:30 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com (Unverified) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <01BEDE12.E0D5ACF0.petrovich@nsu.ru> References: <01BEDE12.E0D5ACF0.petrovich@nsu.ru> Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 14:45:43 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: tc-list on a praxis for textual criticism 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: 3473 I had a great deal of trouble following some of this (including the side Petrovich is on), but I'm going to reply to one point. On 8/4/99, Doug Petrovich wrote, in part: >Therefore, choosing a reading because of age of manuscripts is not the best >praxis of t.c., but Waltz is not precise when he says that "age doesn't >mean anything." It often means a great deal. However, its overall >significance can only be assessed after a ms. has undergone thorough >scrutiny. But let me restate that greater antiquity means that a ms. >probably represents fewer generations of copies between it and the original >(a notable exception is 1739), thus meaning that usually there will be >fewer reproductions that are laden with error. This is, I think, a semantic difference. The point I am trying to make is that age does not guarantee the value of a manuscript. Certainly it is true that earlier manuscripts, taken as a class, are fewer generations removed from the original than are late manuscripts. But note the key words here: "Taken as a class." But we cannot take manuscripts as a class; they're unique individuals. This is true even of the Byzantine witnesses (which are generally highly similar), and is even more true of the earliest witnesses. So we cannot treat them as an entity. If you assume that, say, a "Western" witness is Alexandrian, you're going to be in a lot of trouble. You are approaching the problem based on *having seen the manuscripts.* I am arguing at a purely logical level, which has no relation to the manuscripts. My argument is the same for any for of textual criticism, NT, OT, or classical. The point is, an old manuscript can be bad, and can be copied repeatedly to produce a bad text. Or it can be good, and copied repeatedly to produce a good text. A bad manuscript is bad whatever its age. Once a textual stream is "muddied" (as, e.g., most of us would say the "Western" text was muddied), there is no cure for it except to cut off the stream and substitute something purer. It's all very well to say that the older manuscripts are *less likely* to be corrupted, but it's not helpful. It may well be true -- but it's *not proof*. It is generally accepted, for instance, that the Byzantine texts of the _Iliad_ are more accurate than the papyri, even though the papyri are older. As long as the possibility exists (and the possibility *does* exist) that the old manuscripts are corrupt, then we cannot make *any* judgements in advance. We must categorize the manuscripts, and examine them based on the categorization. It happens that, in the case of the NT manuscripts, the majority of the older manuscripts (i.e. the Alexandrian text) *do* seem to preserve the best readings. But they are best because they are best, not because they are oldest. You yourself observed that "manuscripts must be weighed and not counted." The weighing must be done based solely on the quality of the text. It must not be based on the age, or on the number of supporters -- or on any other irrelevant point, such as the writing material or the quality of the scribe's penmanship or the place the manuscript was discovered. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Aug 3 16:56:33 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id QAA27173; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 16:55:56 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199908032055.QAA27138@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> From: "Dave Washburn" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 14:01:40 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: tc-list TR vs Byz/Maj Text- side comment Priority: normal In-reply-to: <37A7B267.1AF4@online.no> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01d) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Content-Length: 5941 > Dave Washburn wrote: > > > > Jim West wrote: > > > At 04:22 AM 8/3/99 -0700, you wrote: > > > > > > >Yes, I am defending the exact text underlying the KJV (the Scrivener > > > >reconstructio of 1881, today issued by the TBS. And I thank God for their > > > >newly published "Original Language Bible" - Hebrew/Greek Bible). > > > > > > Please provide a little more detail about this... ISBN, publisher, contents, > > > etc. (I don't know the antecedent for "their" in the above sentence). > > > > TBS = Trinitarian Bible Society. My edition of their Greek New > > Testament was printed in London but has no date or ISBN that I > > have been able to find. It claims that it "follows the text of Beza's > > 1598 edition as the primary authority, and corresponds with ' The > > New Testament in the Original Greek according to the text followed > > in the Authorized Version" by Scrivener. This they call the Textus > > Receptus. Of course, when scholars speak of the TR, especially > > for things like collation purposes, they uniformly mean the > > Stephens 1550 edition, but apparently the TBS thinks it can > > unilaterally redefine such things to serve its own purposes. > > The TBS does not "redefine" anything! This *is* an edition of the TR! If Whatever... > it's wrong to call it the TR, it is also wrong to call the Stephens 1550 > edition the "TR"! For it was the Elzevirs' edition that was termed the > "TR"! (Actually, the Elzevirs' intention apparently was not to give a > "title" to their text. They just declared that "this is the text now > received by all".) And the Stephens ed. *differs* from it! Today, the > title "Textus Receptus" speaks rather of a particular form of the text > and not just the 1633 Elzevir edition! Many other editions which differed > from the Elzevir text were issued in the 16th and 17 centuries and > scholars refers to them (at least the form of the text found in them) as > the "TR" without any problem! It's only when somebody wishes to downgrade > the integrity of TR defenders one feels "obligated" to raise such points! > :-) :-) (Just observe: "....to serve its own purposes". What purposes? I honestly don't care. My point was that the TR as commonly spoken of by scholars is a particular edition, not a reconstruction. And I'm not out to "downgrade" anybody, and I really wish you wouldn't attribute such motives to me. For whatever it's worth, about 20 years ago I was in your camp. But careful study of both sides led me to the conclusion that there are too many fallacies built into the pro-TR viewpoint for me to continue taking it seriously. > The *only* English Bible the TBS is distributing is the KJV. Their > "purposes" is clearly to have available the Greek text underlying the > translation they distribute! And, as far as I have been able to observe, > most scholars do not see any problem with calling the text underlying the > KJV the "TR"!! Call it whatever you wish. I really don't care. > > Every > > so often I blow the dust off this thing and consult it for a reading, > > but in the main it's a curiosity, nothing more. > > "a curiosity, nothing more"?? That may be your sincere opinion, but for > *many* students of the NT this is not so! I for one see it as a > trustworthy representation of the original autograph text, and also a > useful tool for detecting the exact text underlying the KJV! And The original autograph text? That pretty well terminates any interest I had in this discussion. > admittedly, for most modern TC'ers it may be "a curiosity", lacking, as > they say, "critical value". But for those that use the KJV, this is not > the case! They have in this Greek text the *only* edition available today > which is in (almost) all points the exact Greek text used by the KJV > translators!! And a great many *still* use the KJV! And isn't it great > that they have its underlying text available, to consult and study?? Is it? The KJV needs to go the way of all things, partly because of its inferior text and partly because of its frequently-indecipherable language. To be bluntly honest, I really don't care what the text was that underlay the KJV because the KJV is one translation among many, nothing more. If you want to use it, fine. But trying to push it as the original autograph text or the best translation or whatever has nothing to do with the scholarly purposes of this list. > Also, isn't it within the scope of "TC" to be able to detect what > readings were chosen by the KJV translators, and to compare it with the > other "TR" editions? I have used it for these reasons numerous times! So what? That's not what I do. I switched to the NIV about 16 years ago and never looked back. When my children were younger and in AWANA, the other kids were still forced to memorize their verses in KJV and most of them didn't have a clue what the gibberish meant. I refused to go along and had my kids memorize in NIV. They know and understand what they read and memorized. The TC that I do is related directly to manuscripts, not to varying editions of a hopelessly flawed text, the originator of which himself described his first edition as "precipitated rather than edited." It's a non-issue with me. I would just point out one other thing, though, and that is your profuse over-use of exclamation points. What is that supposed to accomplish? It doesn't make the points any more valid, nor does it sound scholarly or reasoned. It is reminiscent of the famous preacher's note in the margin of his sermon: "theology weak here. Yell like crazy!" If you want to be taken seriously, the first thing to do is lose all the extraneous punctuation. This kind of visual extremism is typical of KJV-only advocacy writings, and it's counterproductive. 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 Tue Aug 3 17:46:45 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id RAA03774; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 17:46:23 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 22:50:42 +0100 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: Steven Carr Subject: tc-list Review of Eyewitness to Jesus In-Reply-To: <199908032055.QAA27138@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike (16) Version 3.05 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Content-Length: 223 I have a review of Thiede's book 'Eyewitness to Jesus' by Professor J.K.Elliott of Leeds University at http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/thiede.htm -- Steven Carr steven@bowness.demon.co.uk http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Aug 3 22:07:22 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id WAA04777; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 22:06:29 -0400 (EDT) X-WebTV-Signature: 1 ETAsAhRN8gfvLDmwPxp6dTFdTKrO117RtAIUEj6zNp/q7MIfmUyw8MkA/jjXLGI= From: nswift@webtv.net (Norman Swift) Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 22:13:36 -0400 (EDT) To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list TR Message-ID: <17203-37A7A1D0-15821@postoffice-261.iap.bryant.webtv.net> In-Reply-To: Jim West 's message of Tue, 03 Aug 1999 11:23:28 -0400 Content-Disposition: Inline Content-Type: Text/Plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit MIME-Version: 1.0 (WebTV) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Content-Length: 214 Thanks, Jim; come to think of it, I'm really seeking an analysis of the TR that points up its deficiencies. I too eschew it strongly. I just need to marshal my argument from "the usual sources." Warmly, Norm From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Aug 3 23:49:49 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id XAA05125; Tue, 3 Aug 1999 23:47:58 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 03 Aug 1999 23:50:49 -0400 From: Jim West Subject: Re: tc-list TR X-Sender: jwest@highland.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.32.19990804035049.00663d40@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: 681 At 10:13 PM 8/3/99 -0400, you wrote: >Thanks, Jim; come to think of it, I'm really seeking an analysis of the >TR that points up its deficiencies. I too eschew it strongly. I just >need to marshal my argument from "the usual sources." Warmly, >Norm I hope you did not take my answer as a put off-- instead my intention was to disqualify myself as a commentator on the subject because when it comes to the TR and the whole Byzantine tradition I find it impossible to be impartial- and you deserve an impartial explanation- which i clearly cannot provide. 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 Aug 4 00:37:32 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id AAA05280; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 00:37:04 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199908040437.AAA05275@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> From: "Dave Washburn" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 21:42:39 -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: <3.0.6.32.19990803100912.007b7a20@mail.teleport.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: 6132 Dale wrote: > Dave Washburn wrote: > > >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. > > > > There already is such a committee in SBL, its the Electronic Standards > Group, which has been in existence for coming up on 5 years. The committee > has several subgroups working on the problems of encoding various types of > documents (I'm on the one dealing with Syntax Encoding, along with Kirk > Lowery of Westminster Seminary). There is a subgroup wrestling with the > issues related to encoding ancient mss (I can't remember off the top of my > head who's responsible for that area, but I can find out from Bernard > Taylor, one of the co-chairs of the Group, or from Patrick Durusau). While > it may be true that in general committees move slowly, the flip side is > that in an area that is so rapidly emerging as electronic technology, it > provides a forum for dissemination of and interaction on information about > the latest technologies. In the case of text encoding, most of us on the > committee are biblical scholars trying desparately to stay up with the > latest in technology; but there's no way that any one of us can. Thus, > when we meet together and hear each other's yearly presentations we REALLY > learn alot about emerging technologies that might help us and that we all > need to take into consideration as we try to develop standardized > electronic texts. Do they do anything online? Being unaffiliated, I often find it economically impossible to get to the annual meetings and have to rely on interaction forums such as this one to keep up. > The ancient mss group is wrestling with more than just having a > transcription of the letters themselves, but also other features of the > mss, like lacunae, correctors, paragraph/sentence spacing, end of line > indication, multiple letter formations, additional markings (eg., NS bar, > dieresis, breathers, etc.), and other features of the mss (codex vs scroll, > columnar layout, type of material, type of ink, style of writing, spelling > peculiarities, etc.). This is why there is a general concensus in the > group that some sort of SGML/XML in conjunction with the TEI (Text Encoding > Initiative group) approach is needed; not only does such a mark up language > provide the preparer of the text with the tools to fully prepare a > representation of that text for posterity, but it also allows the user to > turn on/off various features via software and the print publisher to more > quickly produce books. Agreed. I have a couple of preliminary TEI/SGML versions of my transcriptions that James and I were working on, but haven't pursued the project since I lost track of him. He was supplying the in-depth knowledge of TEI and SGML, I was supplying the free time to get it all down on disk. > This past year we approved a standardized interchange format (NOT font > layout) for Hebrew characters based on the Unicode standard proposed by > Dick Whitaker. Currently James Ernest of Hendrickson Publishers is working > on a similar interchange format for Greek characters. These are to be > software "black boxes" that allow different software implementations to > talk directly to each other. It has been suggested that either CCAT or the > interchange format become the standard for Greek and Hebrew transcriptions, > but as yet no decision has been made (though I'd say that my sense is that > the committee members are leaning toward CCAT, simply because its sort of > readable as it stands in raw format). I agree that's a big plus. For something based on Unicode to take hold, there will likely have to be some major attitude changes in the computer field, especially the PC branch. > We've also discussed the issue of preparing "ASCII" databases for later > conversion to XML, and the general concensus is that since XML is still an > emerging standard and there is no agreed upon complete subset of tags (DTD; > cf. http://www.ccel.wheaton.edu/ThML/) for the types of texts we are > dealing with, that researchers should go ahead and create "ASCII" versions > of the mss, but document anything unusual (ie., outside of CCAT) they > include, so that they or others can later convert them to a standard > "biblical" XML/DTD. For example, I have not converted the MorphGNT, -LXX, > or -BHS that I'm editing to XML from their current ASCII and CCAT formats, > simply because the final concensus does not yet exist as to what the DTD > will look like. Good idea. This is essentially what I have been thinking: get it down, then make it pretty later. (This is not to say that markup is nothing but cosmetic, it's just a convenient expression.) On the other hand, a new project like the Hebrew Syntax > Encoding Initiative (which will eventually be part of the MorphBHS) being > prepared by Kirk Lowery and Vince DeCaen (UToronto; cf., > http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~decaen/hsei/) is being done based on SGML > from the outset. > > Someone from this list should join the SBL Electronic Standards Group to > insure that the work being done is relatively consistent with the emerging > standards, so that it doesn't have to be redone or go thru massive > conversion routines which might end up causing the loss of data. By "the work being done" you mean the work being done by folks here, correct? Dave Washburn http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur A Bible that's falling apart means a life that isn't. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Aug 4 03:06:23 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id DAA05889; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 03:05:39 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 03:05:38 -0400 (EDT) From: "James R. Adair" To: TC List Subject: tc-list Comfort review Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Content-Length: 703 David Parker has written a detailed review of Comfort and Barrett's The Complete Text of the Earliest New Testament Manuscripts. It is now available in TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism, volume 4. There has been extensive discussion on this list regarding the book, so I'm sure that many of you will want to read it. *********************************************************** 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 Wed Aug 4 06:00:12 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id FAA07199; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 05:59:49 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 05:59:21 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender: ioniccentre@mail.hol.gr Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Greek: GreekView v1.0 by ARTiFACT for Eudora Pro 2.1.4 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: ioniccentre@hol.gr (Isidoros) Subject: Re: tc-list TR vs Byz/Maj Text- a-side comment (of sorts) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Content-Length: 1961 Hi fellow summer-heat sufferers! I am not quite sure why this should be any bit of a puzzle to me (and especially since I, in any case, do not know much about anything, let alone much about textual criticism - inspite of reading the list religiously now for a couple of years, on top of a dozen or so books about t criticism, a real neo-martyr :) but, please, could someone explain to me please what could possibly be meant by "_The Holy Scriptures in the Original Languages: The Greek and Hebrew Texts underlying the Authorised Version_" and on about the "Hebrew/Greek" etc etc? Languages?? Is this a "supposed" of a "supposed" to had been sort of an original origins [re]construction? And "and Hebrew Texts underlying the Authorised" etc. Sounds like a prophetic Semitic NT project to me :-) But, I thought discussion here was supposed to be conducted on the basis of science - not seance! :-) So, what is this? And, Jim, at least I am not one to pay any little 28 bucks *not* to find any about. In fact, there are *very many* books I would *not* like to take in (let alone read - I mean, I am confused enough :-) even if somebody offered to pay me for taking them. Let the "bastards" out. Enough paramyths. Now, having surely come out of my pithos, can I also ask (gee, double treat) Helge Evensen why is it his *pleasure* to pass this information on to us?! Seriously :-) I have often cause to thank of many tc-l contributors, Jimmy especially. Makes it all very heartening to know that, at least via the text, we shall never know! Best to eveyone, Isidoros, Athens Whew! Imagine, I didn't even brake my silence, I even broke (or should I say "filled") my "vacation" for this. You guys ought to feel really guilty over this. OK, it's summertime (for most) but must you be *that* playful? Some of us take it all too seriously and on to heart. ("'Vacation'? from what?!" asked once a Zen master buddy a company of us fellow Zen nuts. "Smart" guy!) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Aug 4 06:41:48 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id GAA07351; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 06:41:25 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.19990804114743.009db760@gpo.iol.ie> X-Sender: mauros@gpo.iol.ie X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.58 Date: Wed, 04 Aug 1999 11:48:35 +0100 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Maurice A. O'Sullivan" Subject: Re: tc-list Comfort review In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Content-Length: 1133 At 03:05 04/08/99 -0400, you wrote: >David Parker has written a detailed review of Comfort and Barrett's The >Complete Text of the Earliest New Testament Manuscripts. It is now >available in TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism, volume 4. There >has been extensive discussion on this list regarding the book, so I'm sure >that many of you will want to read it. > >*********************************************************** >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 <------------------- >*********************************************************** > Not yet available, it would appear James. Clicking on the link in Vol. 4 gives this; Not Found The requested object does not exist on this server. The link you followed is either outdated, inaccurate, or the server has been instructed not to let you have it. Please inform the site administrator of the referring page Maurice A. O'Sullivan [ Bray, Ireland ] mauros@iol.ie From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Aug 4 06:58:33 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id GAA07396; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 06:58:15 -0400 (EDT) From: "Wieland Willker" To: "TC-List" Subject: tc-list Bibliotheca Bodmeriana Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 13:03:53 +0200 Message-Id: <000001bede69$09dc08a0$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: 276 David parker wrote in his review: > It should be added that, since the Bibliotheca Bodmeriana does not permit > study of the ms, ... Why is that? 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 Aug 4 07:20:36 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id HAA07487; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 07:20:11 -0400 (EDT) From: "Wieland Willker" To: "TC-List" Subject: tc-list Correct link Parker review Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 13:26:06 +0200 Message-Id: <000101bede6c$246b5240$67566686@chemie.unibremen.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-Msmail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 Importance: Normal X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Content-Length: 233 http://scholar.cc.emory.edu/scripts/TC/vol04/ComfortBarrett-ed1999rev.html Leave out the " at the end! Best wishes Wieland <>< -------------------- mailto:willker@chemie.uni-bremen.de http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Aug 4 09:00:05 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id IAA07984; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 08:58:09 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <000701bede79$c8a94c60$2346d8cc@yhwh3in1> From: "Mr. Gary S. Dykes" To: "tc-list" Subject: tc-list Greetings Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 06:03:43 -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 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: 1863 Dear TC list users, I finally succeeded in posting (my mail program was sending messages in HTML and plain text which caused some problems). I am an independent researcher, my expertise is in the Greek text of the Pauline corpus, but I have resources to other portions of Scripture, as well as the Hebrew, Sahidic, Syriac, Gothic and some Old Church Slavonic. I have built my own private research center, which houses a fair number of microfiche and NT films, as well as facsimiles. I also utilize several computers and can digitize films and or photographs onto archival quality CD's. I am currently digitizing all of P46. My current project is a critical Greek text (with annotated English translation) of Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians. I have been working on this project for about 7 years. It uses about 55 Greek manuscripts and 4 versions. I have thousands of pages of collations done, and am into chapter 4 of the text. I also have been privileged to work with Reuben Swanson, and have provided him with some needed materials. It is I who encouraged him to show numerous phonetic variants in his apparatus. His work on Galatians is nearly ready to print. I am single (divorced), no children, and I support my research via my own private income. I served two tours in Vietnam, as a ranger and as an ambush team leader. I hope my independent stance is useful for you all. I am a Christian, and represent no denomination. I have no degree and have not the time to get one. I do wish that instead of transcriptions, tc users (and others) focused upon publishing manuscripts in facsimile format, and add perhaps a transcription on the side. I have much to say about "copyrights" and ancient manuscripts. I look forward to contributing any way I can. respectfully, Mr. Gary S. Dykes yhwh3in1@lightspeed.net (of Visalia, CA) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Aug 4 12:34:18 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id MAA28564; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 12:33:33 -0400 (EDT) From: "Matthew Anstey" To: Subject: RE: tc-list-digest V4 #100 Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 09:40:18 -0700 Message-ID: <000001bede98$0c2ca400$2a8257ce@concept> 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 In-Reply-To: <199908031856.OAA09481@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Content-Length: 1029 Gday all, Just to follow up on what Kevin wrote, let's hear from the KJV translators themselves, from their introductory essay on translation, which unfortunatley was dropped at some stage through the KJV's 100+ revisions: "Neither did we think much to consult the translators or commentators, Chaldee, Hebrew, Syrian, Greek, or Latin, no, nor the Spanish, French, Italian, or Dutch; neither did we disdain to revise that which we had done, and to bring back to the anvil that which we had hammered: but having and using as great helps as were needful, and fearing no reproach for slowness, nor coveting praise for expedition, we have at length, through the good hand of the Lord upon us, brought the work to pass that you see." >Actually the King James translators used at least four different printed >editions of the Greek test > >1. The Stephanus text of 1550 > >2.The Beza editon of 1589 > >3.The Complutensian Polyglot of 1514-1522 > >4. The various editons of Erasmus (1516, 1519 etc.) > With regards, Matthew Anstey From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Aug 4 13:30:36 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id NAA28920; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 13:30:08 -0400 (EDT) From: Pappyhays@aol.com Message-ID: <77705236.24d9d42c@aol.com> Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 13:36:44 EDT Subject: Re: tc-list-digest V4 #100 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: 214 In a message dated 99-08-04 12:42:12 EDT, you write: << was dropped at some stage through the KJV's 100+ revisions: >> I might note: Not "revised", but rather "edited", hence editions, not revisions. Mark Hays From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Aug 4 17:19:05 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id RAA01436; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 17:18:17 -0400 (EDT) From: "Bernard A. Taylor" To: Subject: RE: tc-list Comfort review Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 14:25:22 -0700 Message-ID: <000b01bedebf$dc9318a0$1900000a@taylorb> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2377.0 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal 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: 1181 I can get to the TC page (via PURL), but can't get from there to the review page, though I can reach George Howard's response to a previous review in the same issue.' Regards, Bernard Taylor > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu > [mailto:owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu]On Behalf Of James R. > Adair > Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 1999 12:06 AM > To: TC List > Subject: tc-list Comfort review > > > David Parker has written a detailed review of Comfort and Barrett's The > Complete Text of the Earliest New Testament Manuscripts. It is now > available in TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism, volume 4. There > has been extensive discussion on this list regarding the book, so I'm sure > that many of you will want to read it. > > *********************************************************** > 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 Wed Aug 4 17:30:55 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id RAA01732; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 17:30:29 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 04 Aug 1999 17:37:37 -0400 From: Jim West Subject: tc-list the Parker review X-Sender: jwest@highland.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.32.19990804213737.006655d0@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: 1957 Hearty thanks to Professor Parker for providing a fair, reasoned, and precise review of Comfort's book. While I agree with most of what he says- I must wonder about one particular issue which though not precisely addressed has bothered me quite a bit in this whole discussion... i.e., how many errors make a work unusable? If we assume that Comfort's book has as many as 200 errors ( rather a lot! ) on almost 650 pages of text; and further we assume that there is less than one error for every three pages... and that there is less than one error for every single manuscript transcribed... we have a book that is fairly accurate and trustworthy- do we not? So, my question- how many errors make a text useless? Are we to discount every book as useless and untrustworthy if we find a typo or an editorial oversight every three pages? Does the 99% accuracy rate of Comfort's book become overridden by the 1% error rate? Do we, in fact, need to count every accuracy and every error of the book- and then lay out an error to accuracy percentage rate to decide if the book is worthwhile? What we have here- it seems to me- is a book like any other book- it has some errors- and so do they all. But what we also have here is a logical fallacy whereby the whole is being discounted (certainly not by Parker- let me hasten to add) because of the numerically insignificant amount of errors. Perhaps the most honest thing we can say about the book is that its transcriptions should be evaluated on an individual basis. In the end perhaps some will even admit that the transcription of P(x) is accurate while P(y) has one error. I maintain, however, that on the whole the book is a great resource and a tremendous boon to every textual critic. In fact- it will at least give its naysayers something to do over their vacations... :-) 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 Aug 4 17:32:58 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id RAA01879; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 17:32:17 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199908042137.XAA15089@carno.brus.online.be> Subject: RE: tc-list Comfort review Date: Mer, 4 Ao 99 23:45:28 +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: 622 >I can get to the TC page (via PURL), but can't get from there to the review >page, though I can reach George Howard's response to a previous review in >the same issue.' > I think I know why. The page refers to an URL which ends with: ComfortBarrett-ed1999rev.html" The quotes at the end are rpobably the problem. If I take them away, then I get to the correct page. 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 Aug 4 18:01:55 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id SAA04381; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 18:01:24 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <37A8D675.3ACE@orebro.mail.telia.com> Date: Thu, 05 Aug 1999 00:10:33 +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 TR References: <1.5.4.32.19990804035049.00663d40@highland.net> 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: 1073 Jim West wrote: > I hope you did not take my answer as a put off-- instead my intention w= as to > disqualify myself as a commentator on the subject because when it comes= to > the TR and the whole Byzantine tradition I find it impossible to be > impartial- and you deserve an impartial explanation- which i clearly ca= nnot provide. I have found the article by Daniel B. Wallace: "The Majority Text Theory: History, Methods, and Critique" (p. 297-320) in "The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research", ed. Ehrman & Holmes, Eerdmans 1995, very helpful as a means of introduction or "explanation" for anyone who is following the recent discussion on the list, concerning TR, KJV, Byzantine tradition, Majority text etc. The same author (Daniel B. Wallace) has submitted some articles on the web: = http://bible.org/docs/soapbox/soaptoc.htm = (though I would rather recommend the written article). = With regards Tommy Wasserman (I must tell You American TC=B4rs that the supposed "Swedish cook" in the= Muppet Show was=B4nt speaking a word in Swedish) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Aug 4 18:41:24 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id SAA04524; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 18:40:56 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19990804213737.006655d0@highland.net> References: <1.5.4.32.19990804213737.006655d0@highland.net> Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 17:48:56 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: tc-list the Parker review 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: 4247 On 8/4/99, Jim West wrote, in part: >Hearty thanks to Professor Parker for providing a fair, reasoned, and >precise review of Comfort's book. > >While I agree with most of what he says- I must wonder about one particular >issue which though not precisely addressed has bothered me quite a bit in >this whole discussion... i.e., how many errors make a work unusable? > >If we assume that Comfort's book has as many as 200 errors ( rather a lot! >) on almost 650 pages of text; and further we assume that there is less than >one error for every three pages... and that there is less than one error for >every single manuscript transcribed... we have a book that is fairly >accurate and trustworthy- do we not? I have to point out that this is self-contradictory -- how can it have a lot of errors and be fairly accurate? >So, my question- how many errors make a text useless? Are we to discount >every book as useless and untrustworthy if we find a typo or an editorial >oversight every three pages? Does the 99% accuracy rate of Comfort's book >become overridden by the 1% error rate? Do we, in fact, need to count every >accuracy and every error of the book- and then lay out an error to accuracy >percentage rate to decide if the book is worthwhile? There is a mathematical defect here, in that you have not defined "accuracy rate" or "error rate." Are you counting in terms of correct letters where the reading is certain? In that case, I suspect the error rate is less than 1% -- but I also feel that, in that case, an acceptable error rate is on the order of .03% (i.e. one error in three thousand letters). I would also point out that this ignores what, to me, is the most devastating part of the review. It appears that C&B are more accurate than our worst fears (though not, on its face, accurate enough). But it still does not mark questionable letters. I suspect, if questionable letters are treated as errors (as they assuredly should be!) then the error rate is much, MUCH higher than your comments would imply. >What we have here- it seems to me- is a book like any other book- it has >some errors- and so do they all. But what we also have here is a logical >fallacy whereby the whole is being discounted (certainly not by Parker- let >me hasten to add) because of the numerically insignificant amount of errors. 200 errors is not significant? Does this mean that we can use the Textus Receptus in Philemon, since it contains far fewer than 200 differences from the UBS text? :-) >Perhaps the most honest thing we can say about the book is that its >transcriptions should be evaluated on an individual basis. In the end >perhaps some will even admit that the transcription of P(x) is accurate >while P(y) has one error. This is well and good -- but it means that students cannot rely on the book until someone has gone over every transcription and tested it. So what use is that? At this point, perhaps I should modify my opinion. I might buy the book *after* someone has gone through and tested each papyrus. :-) But, as Parker observed, that is a lot of work for a small reward. If someone is willing to put that much work into testing papyri, it would be better to just put out a publication that is correct in the first place. Of course absolute accuracy is impossible. Most of us use the editions derived from Von Soden (Soden's own, Merk's, Bover's), even knowing that they contain errors at a rate about as high as C&B. But there is a difference: there is no alternative to Von Soden. None whatsoever. There are, in almost all cases, alternatives to C&B. They're harder to find, they cost more, but they are at least alternatives. I still don't understand why West finds it so desperately important to defend this book. The errors, perhaps, can be corrected in future printings. But will anything be done about the failure to mark uncertain letters? Hard to imagine such happening now.... -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Aug 4 19:01:05 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id TAA04638; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 19:00:44 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <37A949EC.6A81@online.no> Date: Thu, 05 Aug 1999 01:23:08 -0700 From: "Mr. Helge Evensen" Organization: Scandinavia Online X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list TR vs Byz/Maj Text- side comment References: <1.5.4.32.19990803190355.0098cb84@utc.campuscw.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Content-Length: 238 Kevin W. Woodruff wrote: > > I have a copy of the Hebrew-Greek bible and it does definitely contain the > footnotes by Ginsburg Sorry for my misinformation regarding this edition not having any critical notes. -- - Mr. Helge Evensen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Aug 4 20:57:14 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id UAA05205; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 20:56:42 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <37A964F6.4EB6@online.no> Date: Thu, 05 Aug 1999 03:18:30 -0700 From: "Mr. Helge Evensen" Organization: Scandinavia Online X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list TR vs Byz/Maj Text- side comment References: <199908032055.QAA27138@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Content-Length: 4899 Dave, I appreciate that my post stirred you up!!!!! :-) What I did accomplish *with* my "profuse over-use of exclamation points", you managed to accomplish *without* them!!!!! :) :) No, you really didn't stir *me* up, for me this is just plain fun. I only post messages or comments to this list when I do not have *better* things to do or when I have time left over!!!! :-))))) Dave Washburn wrote (in part): > I honestly don't care. My point was that the TR as commonly > spoken of by scholars is a particular edition, not a reconstruction. Yes, I see that, but I just didn't see why it has to be a "redefining" on the part of the TBS to call their edition the "TR" when most scholars (and most others as well) are referring to the text underlying the KJV as the TR! (No big issue, though!) > And I'm not out to "downgrade" anybody, and I really wish you > wouldn't attribute such motives to me. Let me apologize for indicating that your motive was to downgrade TR-advocates. Of course, I cannot know each individual's motives. When this is said, I cannot help but observing an *inconsistency* in this: "apparently the TBS thinks it can unilaterally redefine such things TO SERVE ITS OWN PURPOSES." (From your post, which I commented on. My emphasis.) Maybe I should say: "I really wish you wouldn't attribute such and such motives to the TBS!" So, are you asking *me* to desist from attributing such motives to *you* while you allow yourself to attribute doubtful motives to the TBS??!!! (I'm sorry, but I'm not about to "lose all the extraneous punctuation"). :-))) > For whatever it's worth, > about 20 years ago I was in your camp. But careful study of both > sides led me to the conclusion that there are too many fallacies > built into the pro-TR viewpoint for me to continue taking it seriously. I have not been in any "camp" yet (other than when I am on vacation). :) But "careful study" of both sides led me to the conclusion that the "pro-TR view" is the only view that fits into the Bible's teaching on providential preservation! (I suggest that all ye out there dost not answer me on that particular point, for it mayest causeth me to reply which in turn may resulteth in me being cast out of this list, and that price I am not willing to payest!) :)))) > > The *only* English Bible the TBS is distributing is the KJV. Their > > "purposes" is clearly to have available the Greek text underlying the > > translation they distribute! And, as far as I have been able to observe, > > most scholars do not see any problem with calling the text underlying the > > KJV the "TR"!! > > Call it whatever you wish. I really don't care. But if you really don't care about that, why did you comment on the TBS' "wrong" use of the title "TR" in the first place??? > I for one see it as a > > trustworthy representation of the original autograph text, and also a > > useful tool for detecting the exact text underlying the KJV! And > > The original autograph text? That pretty well terminates any > interest I had in this discussion. So I trust that you will not comment further...... At least, it may not be any fun to do so when the interest is terminated! :-) > And isn't it great > > that they have its underlying text available, to consult and study?? > > Is it? The KJV needs to go the way of all things, partly because of > its inferior text and partly because of its frequently-indecipherable > language. "its inferior text"? Again, many disagree with you! "its frequently-indecipherable language"? MANY disagree with you there!! (even MANY *children*!) :)¤< > But trying > to push it as the original autograph text or the best translation or > whatever has nothing to do with the scholarly purposes of this list. As to "the scholarly purposes of this list", I fail to see what the following statements from you have to do with "the scholarly purposes of this list": > I switched to the NIV about 16 > years ago and never looked back. When my children were younger > and in AWANA, the other kids were still forced to memorize their > verses in KJV and most of them didn't have a clue what the > gibberish meant. I refused to go along and had my kids memorize > in NIV. They know and understand what they read and memorized. This *may* be relevant on a Bible *translation* list, maybe. :) > a hopelessly flawed text, "good godly men differ" > Yell like crazy!" You know, it's possible to do that in writing *without* exclamation points, as you have proved! :) > If you want to be > taken seriously, the first thing to do is lose all the extraneous > punctuation. This kind of visual extremism is typical of KJV-only > advocacy writings, and it's counterproductive. Maybe, but actually, I'm "TR-only". (We even have a Norwegian translation based on the TR now! But the KJV is still a favourite.) -- - Mr. Helge Evensen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Aug 4 21:08:45 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id VAA05268; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 21:08:26 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <37A967B6.AA1@online.no> Date: Thu, 05 Aug 1999 03:30:14 -0700 From: "Mr. Helge Evensen" Organization: Scandinavia Online X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list TR vs Byz/Maj Text- a-side comment (of sorts) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Content-Length: 2420 Isidoros wrote: > > Hi fellow summer-heat sufferers! > > I am not quite sure why this should be any bit of a puzzle to me (and > especially since I, in any case, do not know much about anything, let alone > much about textual criticism - inspite of reading the list religiously now > for a couple of years, on top of a dozen or so books about t criticism, > a real neo-martyr :) but, please, could someone explain to me please > what could possibly be meant by > > "_The Holy Scriptures in the Original Languages: The Greek and Hebrew > Texts underlying the Authorised Version_" and on about the "Hebrew/Greek" > etc etc? > > Languages?? Is this a "supposed" of a "supposed" to had been sort of > an original origins [re]construction? And "and Hebrew Texts underlying > the Authorised" etc. Sounds like a prophetic Semitic NT project to me :-) > > But, I thought discussion here was supposed to be conducted on the basis of > science - not seance! :-) So, what is this? Well, it's *different* opinions. > > And, Jim, at least I am not one to pay any little 28 bucks *not* to find > any about. In fact, there are *very many* books I would *not* like to > take in (let alone read - I mean, I am confused enough :-) even if somebody > offered to pay me for taking them. Let the "bastards" out. Enough paramyths. > > Now, having surely come out of my pithos, can I also ask (gee, double treat) > Helge Evensen why is it his *pleasure* to pass this information on to us?! Well, it's my pleasure to explain it for you! :-) Because I LOVE the TR and because I believe it is nearest to the autograph text (= original text) and *therefore* I LOVE to see others being informed on HOW to secure a copy of it!!! :-) > > Seriously :-) I have often cause to thank of many tc-l contributors, Jimmy > especially. Makes it all very heartening to know that, at least via the text, > we shall never know! > Best to eveyone, > > Isidoros, Athens > Whew! Imagine, I didn't even brake my silence, I even broke (or should I say > "filled") my "vacation" for this. You guys ought to feel really guilty over > this. > OK, it's summertime (for most) but must you be *that* playful? Some of us > take it all too seriously and on to heart. ("'Vacation'? from what?!" asked > once a Zen master buddy a company of us fellow Zen nuts. "Smart" guy!) What *is* this? Isn't this list a TC-list? :) Have fun -- - Mr. Helge Evensen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Aug 4 21:19:51 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id VAA05309; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 21:19:27 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <37A96A50.351E@online.no> Date: Thu, 05 Aug 1999 03:41:20 -0700 From: "Mr. Helge Evensen" Organization: Scandinavia Online X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list TR References: <1.5.4.32.19990804035049.00663d40@highland.net> <37A8D675.3ACE@orebro.mail.telia.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Content-Length: 1388 TOMMY MARKANZIA REKLAM HB wrote: > > Jim West wrote: > > > I hope you did not take my answer as a put off-- instead my intention was to > > disqualify myself as a commentator on the subject because when it comes to > > the TR and the whole Byzantine tradition I find it impossible to be > > impartial- and you deserve an impartial explanation- which i clearly cannot provide. > > I have found the article by Daniel B. Wallace: "The Majority Text > Theory: History, Methods, and Critique" (p. 297-320) in "The Text of the > New Testament in Contemporary Research", ed. Ehrman & Holmes, Eerdmans > 1995, very helpful as a means of introduction or "explanation" for > anyone who is following the recent discussion on the list, concerning > TR, KJV, Byzantine tradition, Majority text etc. The same author (Daniel > B. Wallace) has submitted some articles on the web: > > http://bible.org/docs/soapbox/soaptoc.htm > > (though I would rather recommend the written article). Uh, I have seen this article, but, you know, its main goal is just to try to explain away the evidence for the majority text! It adds little to the old debate, as usually! I rather trust Burgon....or Hills, or even Letis. > > With regards > > Tommy Wasserman > (I must tell You American TC´rs that the supposed "Swedish cook" in the > Muppet Show was´nt speaking a word in Swedish) -- - Mr. Helge Evensen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Aug 4 21:26:31 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id VAA05340; Wed, 4 Aug 1999 21:26:12 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19990805012832.00bc5f64@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: Wed, 04 Aug 1999 21:28:32 -0400 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Kevin W. Woodruff" Subject: Re: tc-list TR vs Byz/Maj Text- side comment Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Content-Length: 816 No problem! (you'll notice only used one exclamation pint :-)) Yours in Christ, Kevin Woodruff At 01:23 AM 08/05/1999 -0700, you wrote: >Kevin W. Woodruff wrote: >> >> I have a copy of the Hebrew-Greek bible and it does definitely contain the >> footnotes by Ginsburg > >Sorry for my misinformation regarding this edition not having any >critical notes. > >-- >- Mr. Helge Evensen > > 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 Aug 5 02:47:18 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id CAA06094; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 02:46:37 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <000701bedf0f$0a65cda0$2c46d8cc@yhwh3in1> From: "Mr. Gary S. Dykes" To: "tc-list" Subject: tc-list More on Comfort's work Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 23:52:09 -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 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: 2090 I just read Parker's detailed review of Comfort's (et al) book. Generally it is a fine review, I have not as yet seen the book. I have not purchased it as I had earlier received a distinctly negative sensation when examining some of P. Comfort's earlier works. I believe it was: EARLY MANUSCRIPTS AND MODERN TRANSLATIONS. My only complaint about some of Comfort's efforts, is that he does not spend enough quality time doing original research on the manuscript. He misses so much evidence seen with the actual manuscript, that one wonders if Comfort even uses the actual manuscript (or film). He seems at times, to rely upon the work of others. An example, he describes his earlier work with P46, he journeyed to the University of Michigan, but instead of actually viewing and directly collating the original ms., he uses their library copy of Kenyon's excellent facsimiles! At I Corinthians 13:5, in P46, Comfort misses the reading of these 3 minuscules: 876, 999, and 1241c. They offer an interesting support for P46's reading of *eusxhmonei* for the more common, *asxhmonei*. Support for P46 can also be found in the Greek as written on the Island of Thera in which the eu- *prefix* is correctly au- in their dialect. Further the Vulgate's *ambitiosa* supports an original *eusxhmonei*, and at least one Syriac writer supports P46s reading. Finally, the internal context lends support to P46s reading as meaning ""does not behave with decorum" (as Metzger suggests). Comfort's latest work, according to Parker, seems to continue Comfort's lack of thoroughness. He also seems to withhold information from the reader. It also gives the impression that he has actually indeed reproduced the *earliest* text (as it existed in Egypt). I want to encourage Comfort to continue in his efforts, but I also would like to see more professional acumen. Working with the text of God's word is serious business. From my experience with his past efforts, he may be giving non-specialists numerous false impressions. Not a happy charge! at your service, Mr. Gary S. Dykes From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Aug 5 12:51:04 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id MAA09878; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 12:48:11 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1999 12:48:10 -0400 (EDT) From: "James R. Adair" To: TC-List Subject: Re: tc-list Correct link Parker review In-Reply-To: <000101bede6c$246b5240$67566686@chemie.unibremen.de> 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: 704 Thanks to those of you who provided others on the list with the correct address for David Parker's review of Comfort and Barrett's book. I've corrected a typo on the TC volume 4 page, so the link there should work as well. I'm on vacation in the land of limited Internet access, hence my tardiness in responding earlier. 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 Thu Aug 5 13:26:06 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id NAA10194; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 13:25:38 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: X-SMF-Message-ID: C193106701082600 X-SMF-Hop-Count: 1 Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1999 11:34:55 -0500 From: "Barrett, David" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu X-EXP32-SerialNo: 50000052, 00102384 Subject: tc-list Reply to Parker's review 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: 19573 Recently, Dr. D. C. Parker presented a review of {i}The Complete Text of the Earliest New Testament Manuscripts{xi} (hereafter referred to as CT), editors Philip Comfort and David Barrett, for the online TC journal. Since the article was so critical, it calls for a critical response. We will do this item by item, following Parker's numeration, from 1-40. We urge readers to be patient with the lengthy and detailed response, as we are certain they have been with Parker's review. 1. no comment needed 2. no comment needed 3. P7--is not dated any earlier than fourth c.--see Aland (who cites others), Das Neue Testament auf Papyrus, 104. No one has dated it earlier than c. 300. P17--explanation for dating is clearly stated in CT, 91 P24--we date c. 300, explanation for dating is clearly stated in CT, 105 P6--why is P6 not included? see {i}Das Neue Testament auf Papyrus,{xi} 104--no one dates it before 300 4. no comment needed 5. Our dates on the first four of the five majuscules are acceptable, as noted by Parker. We accepted C. H. Robert's dating of 0232--WITH A THOROUGH EXPLANATION ABOUT ALAND'S DATING. 6. P15 + P16--we followed Grenfell and Hunt in thinking that the two parts could very well be from the same codex. We cannot be 100% certain; however, a detailed study of lettering reveals a common hand--see our notes in CT, 85. P49 + P65--our detailed comments, following the lead of Bartoletti and Oates (the original editors for these MSS, respectively), provide the groundwork for believing these two MSS to be part of the same codex--see CT347. 7. no comment needed 8. We also wish that some of the photographs weren't so dark. 9. It is not bad argumentation to state that Grenfell and Hunt dated manuscripts later because they thought the codex was a third-century invention. C. H. Roberts and T. C. Skeat take the same line of reasoning for their re-dating of several manuscripts (see our introduction, 16-18 and corresponding bibliography). 10. Where margins of manuscripts were fairly certain, we provided a provisio reconstruction of the entire page. This is not an unusual practise--see, for example, Skeat's "The Oldest Manuscript of the Four Gospels?" NTS 43:1-34 (for P64) and J. N. Birdsall's reconstruction of 0171 (see CT, 635 for bibliography). Perhaps we should make a note of this in the introduction. 11. We were told by our publishers before the project began that they did not want to place dots beneath uncertain letters. We explain this in the introduction. 12. It was a publishing decision not to indicate line numbers because this is needed only if notations correspond to lines. Our notations are on a lettering system. Our text, in contrast to most transliterations, helps readers by giving them the verse numerals exactly where they appear in the text, and not out in the margin. 13. There is no contradiction here, as Parker posits--the word "however" sets up the contrast. But the real criticism here is that Parker says that we could not have consulted many manuscripts because we said that we looked at "several manuscripts." This is an unfair criticism. The truth of the matter is that we examined the following actual manuscripts: P1--at the U. of Pennsylvania P4--twice (for two days and three days) at the Biblioteque Nationale, Paris P64--at Magdalen College P20--Princeton P24--Andover Newton Theological School P37--University of Michigan P38--University of Michigan P39--Rochester Divinity School P46--five separate visits to University of Michigan P53--University of Michigan P66--Bodmer Foundation, Geneva (portions) P69--Ashmolean, Oxford P70--Ashmolean, Oxford P72--Bodmer Foundation, Geneva (portions) P75--Bodmer Foundation, Geneva (portions) P77--Ashmolean, Oxford P78--Ashmolean, Oxford P90--Ashmolean, Oxford P101--Ashmolean, Oxford P102--Ashmolean, Oxford P104--Ashmolean, Oxford For these and the rest of the manuscripts, we put a great deal of effort into getting the best quality photographs as possible. This took several years! 14. Parker tells us here that he is in a good position to do a critique of {i}The Complete Text{xi} by comparing it to his work, with the IGNTP, on the papyri for John's Gospel, entitled {i}The New Testament in Greek IV, The Gospel According to John: Volume One, the Papyri{xi} (editors, W. J. Elliott, D. C. Parker; publisher, E. J. Brill). Because he sets up the IGNTP as the exemplar of excellence, by which he compares our work, I have no choice but to point out the flaws and errors of the IGNTP volume as I respond to his comments. I do not relish making criticisms against this work, because I (with Barrett and other Wheaton College graduate students) participated in correcting the first draft of P66. However, since Parker has called into question the usefulness of our book based on inaccuracies, I must present the facts of the matter. But before I proceed with an item-by-item critique, I need to make some general criticisms about the IGNTP volume. First, the IGNTP's reconstructions of where there are lacunae in the papyri are more often than not filled in with wording from the Textus Receptus. This is very strange, especially for the early papyri, where there are so many significant differences between the early text and that later found in the TR. This affects the reconstruction of several verses. Second, the IGNTP editors provided transliterations of manuscripts as they recently saw them in either manuscript form or in photograph form. This prompted them to disagree with the {i}editio principes{xi} of nearly every manuscript. But the original editors, notably Grenfell and Hunt (for several manuscripts), Kenyon (for P45), and Barns and Martin (for P66, P75) had an advantage over recent editors--THEY WORKED WITH THE ACTUAL MANUSCRIPTS IN THEIR MOST PRISTINE FORM. This means that the original editors saw letters on the margins of manuscripts before there was breakage or even in small fragments that have since broken away. (P1 is a prime example of this. The manuscript as it now stands in Pennsylavania has a piece missing.) We, the editors of {i}The Complete Text{xi}, almost always trusted the judgment of the original editors when it came to reading letters along the margin. By contrast, the editors of the IGNTP disagreed with the {i}editio principes{xi} hundreds of times in this regard. (Note, how often Parker mentions this in his review.) This becomes an extremely bad problem in their reconstruction of P66--see comments below. Third, the format for P66 and P75 in the IGNTP volume has several problems. There is no or little representation of punctuation, nomina sacra are scarse (this is important when showing corrections), explanations of corrections in P66 are extremely difficult to follow, and there is no indication of line lengths (cf. B. Aland's work). By contrast, the {i}Complete Text{xi} has a format that is reader-friendly, with thorough explanations of corrections in marginal notes. And now--on to the items. 15. For P5 In John 1:34, their text reads O UIOS TOU QU instead of O EKLEKTOS TOU QU -- the only reading that fits the line length and the reading first proposed by Grenfell and Hunt (see also NA27) In John 16:15, their text reads UMI instead of UMEI -- the letter before the iota could not be a mu; it must be an eta (cf. the scribe's spelling of the same word, appearing three times in 16:20--it always has EI) In John 16:17, their text mistakenly reads EN TWN MAQHTWN, when it should read EK TWN MAQHTWN In John 16:20, they missed the correction on LUPHQH --I think we got it right, but it needs more research. In John 16:23, their text adds OTI OSA against Grenfell and Hunt's text and against the space of the line length In John 16:25, their text misses the apostrophus (or hook) between the double gammas of APAG'GELW --an important feature for dating manuscripts, according to Turner. In John 20:11, their text fills in the lacuna with TR's MNHMEION with no ancient manuscript support, contra MNHMEIW. In John 20:12, their text says that there are three lines missing--there are only two (see our transcription). In John 20:14, an article is added before IHS from the TR, with no ancient MSS support. In John 20:15, EQHKAS AUTON comes from the TR, with no ancient manuscript support. Parker claims we are wrong on two of our readings, while the rest are debatable. These two (in 20:15 and 20:24), which involve a word break at one letter, call for more research. 16. For P22 In John 15:26, IGNTP text has PRS for the nomen sacrum, but the scribe wrote PS -- there is no room for a rho, and the scribe penned a very broad pi (see next line in photograph)--we did not make a mistake here, as Parker posited. In 16:1, we followed ed. pr. but now think IGNTP is probably right in reconstructing it as SKAND]ALISQHTE In 16:28, we will fix the bracketing on the nomen sacrum for PATROS. In spite of their explanation, their reconstruction of the lines of P22 is very misleading. There is no way the scribe would have left so many words unfinished at the end of the right margin. They should have reconsctructed it the way we did, following ed. pr. 17. For P28 In John 6:8-9, the word ESTI is lacking a final nu. The same line is reconstructed with EN WDE from the TR. Furthermore, the editors of IGNTP show their mistrust of Grenfell and Hunt's reconstruction of letters running along the margin--see, for example, the extant text at the end of l. 17, beginning of l. 19, end of l. 22 in the IGNTP text and cf. ed. pr. , which was followed by CT. Thus, IGNTP has at least three errors here. 18. For P39 I am baffled why the IGNTP editors would disagree with the ed. pr. of this manuscript eight times! But, again, most of these come from their mistrust of the original readings done by Grenfell and Hunt, especially in places where the manuscript has pieces chipped off and/or is broken along the margins. This accounts for seven errors in the IGNTP as I see it--all involving the moving of a bracket (see the differences they note between IGNTP and ed. pr. and cf. CT, which follows ed. pr.). Several of these letters still show: the alpha of ELALHSEN (8:20), the epsilon of EPIASEN (8:20), and the tau of TH (8:21). In 8:14, they used TR to reconstruct line with ERCOMAI KA]I versus H as found in ed. pr. and CT. Parker is right: we need to move the bracket one letter on ELEGON 19. For P45 In John 4:52, the IGNTP text is reconstructed using TR: KAI EIPO]N OTI E[CQES --this differs from CT, 174. Concerning John 11:32 and 54, this will call for more research. We have noted the lack of bracket in John 10:24 for EKUKLWSAN and will correct it. We were very reluctant to reconstruct the beginning and ending lines of folio 17, recto and verso, because there are only the very slightest tracings of letters there--the reconstruction in the IGNTP is very daring. 20. For P52 In John 18:38, the word ECHLQE in IGNTP is lacking final nu. Parker's other comments about two readings in P52 are debatable. 21. For P80 no comment needed 22. For P90 no comment needed 23. For P95 no comment needed 24--29. For P66 and P66c In the IGNTP reconstruction of the text of P66, the editors designated hundreds of lacuna for portions of text that come up to the margin of the page. In these reconstructions, they disagree with the original editors (Martin and Barns) who had the opportunity to lift up (or remove) the overlay papyrus marginal strip (used for strengthening the sheet) on several of these sheets and then read the text beneath (see p. 110 in the photographs of P66 for a good example of where the strip is broken and thereby reveals the text; cf. p. 27). Note: the {i}editio princeps{xi} is found in Victor Martin, {i}Papyrus Bodmer II: Evangile de Jean, 1-14{xi} (Cologny/Geneva, 1956); {i}Papyrus Bodmer II: Supplement, Evangile de Jean, 14-21{xi} (Cologny/Geneva, 1958); Victor Martin and J. W. B. Barns, {i}Papyrus Bodmer II: Supplement, Evangile de Jean, 14-21{xi} (Cologny/Geneva, 1962). Because the editors of the IGNTP worked from the photographs and not from the original leafs of P66, they re-presented P66 as if several portions of text were missing, when, in fact, they were simply beneath marginal overlay strip. This affects nearly a hundred words in the following verses: John 1:6, 21, 30-37; 3:20-26; 3:33--4:6; 8:57--9:6, 11-17, 22-28; 10:36-42; 11:6-12, 19-27; 15:19. By comparison, the editors of the {i}Complete Text{xi} trusted the judgments of the original editors and thereby re-presented these words as not being defective. Furthermore, the editors of the IGNTP volume did not include any of the new reconstructions of P66 fragments made by Kurt Aland in the following article: "Neue neutestamentliche Papyri III," in {i}New Testament Studies{xi} 20 (1974), 357-381. This lack is seen in the following verses: John 16:19, 23; 19:27-28, 32; 20:1, 6, 15-16, 19 (compare IGNTP with Aland's text). One of the most glaring problems with not incorporating these reconstructions is that IGNTP incorrectly says P66 lacks IHSOUS in 19:28, when Aland's reconstruction clearly shows this word (as a nomen sacrum). Another lack is seen in John 16:19, where PROS ALLHLOUS is not listed as a variant reading for P66. {i}The Complete Text{xi} reflects all of Aland's reconstructions (which were checked), plus adds a few more reconstructions of fragments that Aland could not identify--namely, in John 14:21; 15:1; 16:23, 29; 17:6-7, 12-13; 19:16, 20-21, 24; 20:24, 27; 21:12, 17. In all, the IGNTP is affected in over 50 words by failing to represent these fragments. Now, let's move on to the presentation of the scribal corrections in P66. By doing a detailed comparison of the IGNTP's notations of corrections in P66 with those found in the {i}Complete Text{xi}, I can say that we included every correction they noted--and in much clearer language--and we went beyond what they did, both in terms of noting more corrections and in identifying the correctors. Here are the problems I spotted in the IGNTP: 1:8--they do not note that P66 reads ALLA, against the text, ALL 1:35--missing two notes on corrections concerning EPAURION and IWANNHS--cf. CT 380, c and d 2:5--lacking note on correction concerning POIHSATAI--cf. CT 382, d 2:10--lacking note on correction concerning WS--cf. CT 383, b 2:12--EMEINAN should be EMEINAIN 2:15--lacking note on correction concerning TA TE--cf. CT 383, i 3:1--lacking note on erasure of OUTOS--cf. CT 384, d 3:2--lacking note on correction concerning RAMBEI--cf. CT 385, a 3:8--correction to PNEUA is wrong; the scribe started to write nonsacral form of PNEUMA and then corrected it to nomen sacrum--see CT 385, d 3:19--lacking note on correction concerning TO--cf. CT 386, b 3:33--lacking mention of a two-stage correction: TOUTON added superlinearly, then changed to OUTOS 5:11--note on MOI should be listed as a correction--cf. CT 394, b 5:43--lacking note on correction concerning ME--cf. CT 397, e and see Royse's disseration, 378 6:5--lacking note on correction concerning OFQALMOUS--cf. CT 398, c 6:63--lacking note on correction of PNEUMA to nomen sacrum--see CT 401, e 7:30--lacking note on correction concerning OI DE--cf. CT 404, e 7:40--OI, not OU, was changed to OUN--cf. CT 405, e 8:28--lacking note on correction concerning EDEIDACEN--cf. CT 408, d 8:37--P66 was corrected to ZHTITE, not ZHTEITE--cf. CT 409, d 10:8--lacking note on correction concerning EISIN--cf. CT 416, e 10:10--lacking note on correction concerning LUKON--cf. CT 416, g 11:21--it would really help to show change from one nomen sacrum to the other: IN to KN 12:23--P66* reads ELHLIUQEN, not ELHLEUQEN--cf. CT 427, v. 23 13:21--need to show correction from one nomen sacrum to another--cf. CT 432, g 14:24--need to add that LOGOU was changed to LOGOUS--cf. CT 436, c 16:19--lacking note concerning deletion of KAI HQELON--cf. CT 441, b 17:16--note shows deletion of only first half of the verse; the entire verse was deleted by dots above the letters of the entire verse--cf. CT 444, e and NA27. 18:17--the notation of a correction on TWN MAQHTWN is very doubtful 19:38--lacking note on addition of article O after IWSHF--cf. CT 453, a furthermore, it is not noted that P66 could not have contained KAI EPETREYEN O PILATOS--cf. CT 453, NA27 21:12, 17--has no reconstruction of P66--cf. CT 458 Now, in all of this we have not mentioned that the IGNTP and CT vary greatly on the matter of identifying the correctors for P66. Parker's comments are inconclusive. In short, one must do a complete tracing of all the letters by the various hands and then make a detailed study of the differences. We have done this and are sure that we see three hands at work. Our judgment on the differentiation of hands is the best we could do. 30. For P75 John 1:22--the correction noted on P75 in IGNTP is very doubtful; if true, it would read UPER ISEAUTOU--clearly a nonsense reading 5:11--there should not be a correction cited for P75 5:22--lacking note on correction concerning DEDWKEN--cf. CT 570, b 7:3--there should not be listed a correction from SOI to SOU; the iota simply has a diaresis over it --cf. CT 576, v. 3 31-40. Parker asserted that he would be pretty worried if anyone could point to half a dozen clear errors in the IGNTP transcription of the Johannine papyri. Well, the truth of the matter is that the IGNTP volume has a multitude of errors. The most glaring have to do with all those parts of the text which should be presented but are not. We haven't done an exact count of these, but the number of words affected is probably well over 150. In addition, they completely neglected the work of Kurt Aland who made identifications of various fragments for P66. Furthermore, the notations on the corrections in P66 have significant omissions or errors. All this does not mean that the book is damaged beyond repair; rather, it points to the fact that it is difficult to produce an error-free volume in these kinds of works. We used this volume in our work (see CT, 22), and were helped by it. But it is not perfect. The point of all this is not to cast blame but to show that it is exceedingly difficult to get everything just right in the first printing. We would urge a second, corrected printing of the Johannine papyri in the IGNTP--as this is our desire for {i}The Complete Text of the Earliest New Testament Manuscripts.{xi} We would urge the IGNTP editors to rethink their disagreements with the original editors of several (though not all) of the manuscripts, to make use of Aland's work, and to display P66 and P75 with nomina sacra and punctuation. The ultimate goal is to provide as accurate as possible transcriptions of the Greek NT manuscripts to aid the work of NT textual criticism. Finally, we think it is very disheartening that Parker essentially asks us to give up on this project. Why? Because he posits that it has errors and will always have errors because of the process involved in producing it. Yes the book has errors--and we will provide the TC-List with an errata sheet in the near future (most of which are typographical and involve one or two letters). But this does not mean that we should give up on producing transcriptions of the Greek New Testament manuscripts that are as accurate as possible. Philip Comfort and David Barrett From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Aug 5 13:53:19 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id NAA11159; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 13:52:45 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 05 Aug 1999 14:00:41 -0400 From: Jim West Subject: Re: tc-list Reply to Parker's review X-Sender: jwest@highland.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.32.19990805180041.006665fc@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: 846 At 11:34 AM 8/5/99 -0500, you wrote: > >Recently, Dr. D. C. Parker presented a review of {i}The Complete Text of >the Earliest New Testament Manuscripts{xi} (hereafter referred to as CT), >editors Philip Comfort and David Barrett, for the online TC journal. >Since the article was so critical, it calls for a critical response. We >will do this item by item, following Parker's numeration, from 1-40. We >urge readers to be patient with the lengthy and detailed response, as we >are certain they have been with Parker's review. [remainder snipped] Excellent response! I hope that Jimmy places this in html format and adds it to the TC Journal at his earliest convenience... preferably right next to Parker's review. Best, Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD email- jwest@highland.net web page- http://web.infoave.net/~jwest From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Aug 5 14:18:32 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id OAA11342; Thu, 5 Aug 1999 14:18:05 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <001401bedf6f$a4b14f00$1746d8cc@yhwh3in1> From: "Mr. Gary S. Dykes" To: "tc-list" Subject: tc-list Barrett and comfort's reply Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1999 11:23:39 -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 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: 391 Howdy, Good reply, feisty. You show resilience. Good. I hope you fellas produce many more works. And will be able to tell publishers that dots are needed. I am even more displeased with the efforts of the IGNTP. It is a real headache. The cost is also an insult. Your illustration of a few of their errors was very welcomed, and needed. Two can tango. at your service, Mr. Gary S. Dykes From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Aug 6 08:10:32 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id IAA21308; Fri, 6 Aug 1999 08:09:46 -0400 (EDT) From: "Wieland Willker" To: "TC-List" Subject: tc-list Papyri Numbers 99-110 Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1999 14:15:17 +0200 Message-Id: <000201bee005$58756720$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: 714 Can someone please provide me with the Papyrus names for P99-P110? What I have, see below, but there is an inconsistency: p99 ? p100 P. Oxy. 4449 III/IV Jam 3:13-4:4, 4:9-5:1 p101 P. Oxy. 4401 III Mt 3:10-12,3:16-4:3 p102 P. Oxy. 4402 III/IV Mt 4:11-12,22-23 p103 P. Oxy. 4403 II/III Mt 13:55-56,14:3-5 p104 P. Oxy. 4404 II Mt 21:34-37,43,45 p105 P. Oxy. 4405 II/III Mt 23:30-34,35-39 P. Oxy. 4406 V/VI Mt 27:62-64,28:2-5 p106 P. Oxy. 4445 III Jo 1:29-35,40-46 p107 P. Oxy. 4446 III Jo 17:1-2,11 p108 P. Oxy. 4447 III Jo 17:23-24,18:1-5 p109 P. Oxy. 4448 III Jo 21:18-20,23-25 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 Aug 6 12:02:14 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id MAA22624; Fri, 6 Aug 1999 12:01:37 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199908061601.MAA22619@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> From: "Dave Washburn" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1999 09:07:03 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: tc-list Papyri Numbers 99-110 Priority: normal In-reply-to: <000201bee005$58756720$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: 1193 > Can someone please provide me with the Papyrus names for P99-P110? > What I have, see below, but there is an inconsistency: I don't have all of them, but I just examined an article by J. K. Elliott in Novum Testamentum, XLI (April 1999) p. 105ff, and here's what he says about some of these: > p101 P. Oxy. 4401 III Mt 3:10-12,3:16-4:3 Correct according to Elliott. > p102 P. Oxy. 4402 III/IV Mt 4:11-12,22-23 Correct. > p103 P. Oxy. 4403 II/III Mt 13:55-56,14:3-5 Correct. > p104 P. Oxy. 4404 II Mt 21:34-37,43,45 Elliott has a question mark after verse 45, otherwise correct. > p105 P. Oxy. 4405 II/III Mt 23:30-34,35-39 According to Elliott, 4406 is P105. He says "4405 is another part of a leaf already published as P. Oxy 2683 (=P77). A footnote discusses the joins between the two fragments. The article goes on to say that Thomas, in "Oxyrhynchus Papyri Volume LXIV," p. 6, suggests that 4403 may also be part of the same codex. > P. Oxy. 4406 V/VI Mt 27:62-64,28:2-5 According to the article, this should be P105. That's as much as I have. Hope it's helpful. 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 Aug 6 12:33:26 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id MAA22803; Fri, 6 Aug 1999 12:32:59 -0400 (EDT) From: "Wieland Willker" To: "TC-List" Subject: Re: tc-list Papyri Numbers 99-110 Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1999 18:38:37 +0200 Message-Id: <000601bee02a$21e11540$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: 689 Ok, thank you Dave! That's leaving the questions: 1. What is P99? 2. Is P100 = POxy 4449 correct? It has the highest POxy number of all. p99 ? p100 P. Oxy. 4449 III/IV Jam 3:13-4:4, 4:9-5:1 p101 P. Oxy. 4401 III Mt 3:10-12,3:16-4:3 p102 P. Oxy. 4402 III/IV Mt 4:11-12,22-23 p103 P. Oxy. 4403 II/III Mt 13:55-56,14:3-5 p104 P. Oxy. 4404 II Mt 21:34-37,43,45? p105 P. Oxy. 4406 V/VI Mt 27:62-64,28:2-5 p106 P. Oxy. 4445 III Jo 1:29-35,40-46 p107 P. Oxy. 4446 III Jo 17:1-2,11 p108 P. Oxy. 4447 III Jo 17:23-24,18:1-5 p109 P. Oxy. 4448 III Jo 21:18-20,23-25 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 Aug 6 12:42:52 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id MAA22884; Fri, 6 Aug 1999 12:42:26 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <003086DDAD30D211842F00062B0006E101E080C4@esusa.oc.edu> From: Curt Niccum To: "'tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu'" Subject: RE: tc-list Papyri Numbers 99-110 Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1999 11:46:32 -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: 1298 p99 contains portions of the Paulines and is dated around 400. Its shelf number is P. Chester Beatty Ac. 1499. The NT texts are found on folios 11-14. Info taken from Aland's Kurzgefasste Liste. Your information about p100 is correct. It was recently catalogued byThomas and Coles and dated to the 3rd/4th century (see vol. 65 of the Oxyrhynchus Papyri). Curt Niccum > -----Original Message----- > From: Wieland Willker [SMTP:willker@chemie.uni-bremen.de] > Sent: Friday, August 06, 1999 11:39 AM > To: TC-List > Subject: Re: tc-list Papyri Numbers 99-110 > > Ok, thank you Dave! > That's leaving the questions: > 1. What is P99? > 2. Is P100 = POxy 4449 correct? It has the highest POxy number of all. > > p99 ? > p100 P. Oxy. 4449 III/IV Jam 3:13-4:4, 4:9-5:1 > p101 P. Oxy. 4401 III Mt 3:10-12,3:16-4:3 > p102 P. Oxy. 4402 III/IV Mt 4:11-12,22-23 > p103 P. Oxy. 4403 II/III Mt 13:55-56,14:3-5 > p104 P. Oxy. 4404 II Mt 21:34-37,43,45? > p105 P. Oxy. 4406 V/VI Mt 27:62-64,28:2-5 > p106 P. Oxy. 4445 III Jo 1:29-35,40-46 > p107 P. Oxy. 4446 III Jo 17:1-2,11 > p108 P. Oxy. 4447 III Jo 17:23-24,18:1-5 > p109 P. Oxy. 4448 III Jo 21:18-20,23-25 > > Best wishes > Wieland > <>< > -------------------- > mailto:willker@chemie.uni-bremen.de > http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Aug 7 22:20:45 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id WAA16971; Sat, 7 Aug 1999 22:16:11 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <19990808022259.13378.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [209.85.159.164] From: "Martin Smart" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: tc-list 1Tim 3:16: A reqeust for a majority text advocate. Date: Sat, 07 Aug 1999 19:22:59 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: 823 I have followed the debate over the majority text with interest and would like to thank those who took the time to post in detail. I have a special request for proponents of the majority text. The response to my original query ended up in a _general_ debate on the majority text. I have seen responses from those who favor hOS as the reading for 1Tim 3:16 and think I understand the reasons for their preference. However, I don't understand the rationale for selecting QS in 1Tim 3:16 from the majority camp. Perhaps I missed it or did not understand it. Could a majority text advocate briefly present arguments specific to 1Tim 3:16? Thank you very much. Sincerely, Martin Smart _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Aug 8 13:22:34 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id NAA20610; Sun, 8 Aug 1999 13:21:52 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19990808172639.00bdfe24@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, 08 Aug 1999 13:26:39 -0400 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Kevin W. Woodruff" Subject: Re: tc-list 1Tim 3:16: A reqeust for a majority text advocate. Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Content-Length: 1526 Martin: The best and most exhaustive defence of QEOS as opposed to OS appears in Dean John W. Burgon's work _The Revision Revised_ London: J. Murray, 1883 pages 424-501. Kevin W.Woodruff (not a MT proponent) At 07:22 PM 08/07/1999 PDT, you wrote: >I have followed the debate over the majority text with interest and would >like to thank those who took the time to post in detail. > >I have a special request for proponents of the majority text. The response >to my original query ended up in a _general_ debate on the majority text. I >have seen responses from those who favor hOS as the reading for 1Tim 3:16 >and think I understand the reasons for their preference. > >However, I don't understand the rationale for selecting QS in 1Tim 3:16 from >the majority camp. Perhaps I missed it or did not understand it. > >Could a majority text advocate briefly present arguments specific to 1Tim >3:16? > >Thank you very much. >Sincerely, >Martin Smart > > > >_______________________________________________________________ >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 Sun Aug 8 21:57:18 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id VAA20114; Sun, 8 Aug 1999 21:56:34 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com (Unverified) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19990808172639.00bdfe24@utc.campuscw.net> References: <1.5.4.32.19990808172639.00bdfe24@utc.campuscw.net> Date: Sun, 8 Aug 1999 20:17:30 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: tc-list 1Tim 3:16: A reqeust for a majority text advocate. 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: 2346 On 8/8/99, Kevin W. Woodruff wrote: >Martin: > >The best and most exhaustive defence of QEOS as opposed to OS appears in >Dean John W. Burgon's work _The Revision Revised_ London: J. Murray, 1883 >pages 424-501. > >Kevin W.Woodruff (not a MT proponent) We need to make a point here. A true Majority Text proponent *cannot speak* to a particular reading. If you take the Majority Text, you take the Majority Text. You can't argue anything else at a particular reading. (This is not unique to the Majority Text, BTW. If one believes, say, that the "Western" text is original, one still has no argument to make on particular readings.) A Majority Text advocate must demonstrate why the Majority Text *as a whole* is superior -- but until that person is prepared to make exceptions for individual readings (in which case one is no longer a pure MT advocate, but something else), there is no case to be made on an individual basis. Thus, the argument for 1 Tim 3:16, for a majority text advocate, is that QS is the reading of the Majority Text. Of course, one can argue for the reading on other grounds. Burgon did so. But it's actually a violation of his principles. :-) Let's put it another way: All textual critics have a system for selecting the best reading. Some are simple, some are complex, some are contradictory, but they all have something. Explanations of why a particular editor prefers a particular reading are simply justifications: "This is the reading which best fits my system, and here is why." Since the system of the MT advocates is simply, "The majority reading is best," that's where the matter sits. (I wish Scrivener had had something to say about this reading, though. Scrivener is often accused of being a simple Majority Text advocate, a follower of Burgon. This is simply not true. He tended to prefer the Byzantine reading, but with a lot of exceptions and restrictions. His would be the best argument for the reading from someone who favoured the Byzantine reading for more complex reasons.) -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Aug 9 06:07:52 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id GAA22038; Mon, 9 Aug 1999 06:07:21 -0400 (EDT) From: "Wieland Willker" To: "TC-List" Subject: tc-list Bibliotheca Bodmeriana 2 Date: Mon, 9 Aug 1999 12:12:59 +0200 Message-Id: <000101bee24f$c225bf20$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: 523 After an inquiry on the Papy list I have been told from various sides incl. two Directors of Papyri collections that the Bibliotheca Bodmeriana "has always been open to scholars wishing to look at the manuscripts". For this reason I doubt Dr. Parkers statement: "It should be added that, since the Bibliotheca Bodmeriana does not permit study of the ms..." Maybe he can explain what he means? Best wishes Wieland <>< -------------------- mailto:willker@chemie.uni-bremen.de http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Aug 9 06:32:22 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id GAA22091; Mon, 9 Aug 1999 06:32:04 -0400 (EDT) From: "Wieland Willker" To: "TC-List" Subject: tc-list The Comfort/Barrett book Date: Mon, 9 Aug 1999 12:37:43 +0200 Message-Id: <000201bee253$3698d060$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: 1396 Our Library has now obtained the Comfort book and I have looked at it. Some short observations from a layman: 1. I welcome a book like this. 2. This book does NOT look like if it is the result of "after 15 years of labour". 3. The biggest concern I have is that I would like to see the differences of the presented texts to NA-27. (This is not a question of space! Almost half of the book is plain blank!) 4. I haven't checked for errors myself but after reading the reply of Comfort to Parker's review I think their views of the IGNTP volumes are quite different. Parker sees almost no errors and Comfort sees hundreds. So I conclude the truth is somewhere in the middle and there are maybe as many errors in the IGNTP and in Comforts book. This is ok for me, if error lists are provided. (Is there an error list of the IGNTP volume of John available somewhere?) 5. Comfort has a problem with the target group of this book. No real layman needs this book. But the introductions are basically written for layman and are far too short to get enough information. 6. I think I don't need to buy this book for myself. It is enough to have it in the library. But I've got the impression that one should consult it if one wants to work with P66 and P75 (and maybe others). Best wishes Wieland <>< -------------------- mailto:willker@chemie.uni-bremen.de http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Aug 9 12:33:04 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id MAA24969; Mon, 9 Aug 1999 12:32:22 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19990809163415.00bf8508@utc.campuscw.net> X-Sender: cierpke.utc@utc.campuscw.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 09 Aug 1999 12:34:15 -0400 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Kevin W. Woodruff" Subject: Re: tc-list 1Tim 3:16: A reqeust for a majority text advocate. Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Content-Length: 3300 Robert: Actually Scrivener does have something to say about this reading. In his _A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament_ 4th ed. vol 2. pages 390-395 and with much hesitation finds for QEOS but Edward Miller who edited the posthumous work attempts to make a more definite case than Scrivener did. I have a reprint of the two-volume work here in my hand done by Wipf and Stock Publishers in 1997. Kevin At 08:17 PM 08/08/1999 -0500, you wrote: >On 8/8/99, Kevin W. Woodruff wrote: > >>Martin: >> >>The best and most exhaustive defence of QEOS as opposed to OS appears in >>Dean John W. Burgon's work _The Revision Revised_ London: J. Murray, 1883 >>pages 424-501. >> >>Kevin W.Woodruff (not a MT proponent) > >We need to make a point here. > >A true Majority Text proponent *cannot speak* to a particular reading. >If you take the Majority Text, you take the Majority Text. You can't >argue anything else at a particular reading. > >(This is not unique to the Majority Text, BTW. If one believes, say, >that the "Western" text is original, one still has no argument to >make on particular readings.) > >A Majority Text advocate must demonstrate why the Majority Text >*as a whole* is superior -- but until that person is prepared >to make exceptions for individual readings (in which case one is >no longer a pure MT advocate, but something else), there is >no case to be made on an individual basis. > >Thus, the argument for 1 Tim 3:16, for a majority text advocate, >is that QS is the reading of the Majority Text. > >Of course, one can argue for the reading on other grounds. Burgon >did so. But it's actually a violation of his principles. :-) > >Let's put it another way: All textual critics have a system for >selecting the best reading. Some are simple, some are complex, >some are contradictory, but they all have something. Explanations >of why a particular editor prefers a particular reading are simply >justifications: "This is the reading which best fits my system, >and here is why." Since the system of the MT advocates is simply, >"The majority reading is best," that's where the matter sits. > >(I wish Scrivener had had something to say about this reading, >though. Scrivener is often accused of being a simple Majority >Text advocate, a follower of Burgon. This is simply not true. >He tended to prefer the Byzantine reading, but with a lot of >exceptions and restrictions. His would be the best argument >for the reading from someone who favoured the Byzantine reading >for more complex reasons.) > >-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- > > 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) > > 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 Aug 9 14:02:51 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id OAA28624; Mon, 9 Aug 1999 14:01:52 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com (Unverified) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19990809163415.00bf8508@utc.campuscw.net> References: <1.5.4.32.19990809163415.00bf8508@utc.campuscw.net> Date: Mon, 9 Aug 1999 12:20:02 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: tc-list 1Tim 3:16: A reqeust for a majority text advocate. 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: 1252 On 8/9/99, Kevin W. Woodruff wrote: >Robert: > >Actually Scrivener does have something to say about this reading. In his _A >Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament_ 4th ed. vol 2. >pages 390-395 and with much hesitation finds for QEOS but Edward Miller who >edited the posthumous work attempts to make a more definite case than >Scrivener did. I have a reprint of the two-volume work here in my hand done >by Wipf and Stock Publishers in 1997. True enough -- indeed, his discussion is the longest I've seen. I'd almost read it as neutral, though -- certainly it's his equivalent of a {D} reading. :-) Then Miller came along and added a Burgon rehash. :-) Under the circumstances, I think Scrivener's is the best discussion of how a pro-Byzantine scholar (as opposed to a pure Majority-Texter such as Miller) would feel. It also discusses the precise readings of the manuscripts. Well worth checking for anyone. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Aug 9 23:02:09 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id XAA01978; Mon, 9 Aug 1999 23:00:56 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <37AF95FD.356F2DEB@mailhost.chi.ameritech.net> Date: Mon, 09 Aug 1999 22:01:17 -0500 From: "Jeffrey B. Gibson" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: TC-List Subject: tc-list manuscripts of 1 Cor and Acts 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: 242 I'd be grateful if someone might tell me what the dates are for the earliest text witness to Acts and to 1 Cor. Thanks, Jeffrey Gibson -- Jeffrey B. Gibson 7423 N. Sheridan Road #2A Chicago, Illinois 60626 e-mail jgibson000@ameritech.net From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Aug 10 07:50:24 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id HAA04430; Tue, 10 Aug 1999 07:49:00 -0400 (EDT) From: "DC PARKER" Organization: The University of Birmingham To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1999 12:55:43 GMT Subject: Re: tc-list Reply to Parker's review Priority: normal In-reply-to: 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: 312 I'm in between SNTS and holidays, and am simply noting that Barrett has written a reply to my review. Silence is not consent. DR DC PARKER READER IN NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL CRITICISM AND PALAEOGRAPHY DEPT OF THEOLOGY UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM TEL. 0121-414 3613 FAX 0121-414 6866 E-MAIL D.C.PARKER@.BHAM.AC.UK From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Aug 10 10:01:26 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id KAA05537; Tue, 10 Aug 1999 10:00:52 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <37B030A9.9B49A528@mailhost.chi.ameritech.net> Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1999 09:01:13 -0500 From: "Jeffrey B. Gibson" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: TC-List Subject: tc-list manuscripts of 1 Cor and Acts 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: 341 Forgive the potential duplication, but I don't think this made it through the first time I sent it. I'd be grateful if someone might tell me what the dates are for the earliest text witness to Acts and to 1 Cor. Thanks, Jeffrey Gibson -- Jeffrey B. Gibson 7423 N. Sheridan Road #2A Chicago, Illinois 60626 e-mail jgibson000@ameritech.net From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Aug 11 01:20:47 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id BAA10930; Wed, 11 Aug 1999 01:19:58 -0400 (EDT) To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: tc-list Majority Text Advocates Message-ID: <19990811.011118.6519.0.seventh.guardian@juno.com> References: <1.5.4.32.19990808172639.00bdfe24@utc.campuscw.net> X-Mailer: Juno 1.49 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0,2-8,12-13,21-22,39-44,49-56,68-75,85-94,101-105, 114-119,128-133,137-138,151-157 From: "Maurice A. Robinson" Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1999 01:25:49 EDT Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Content-Length: 8562 On Sun, 8 Aug 1999 20:17:30 -0500 "Robert B. Waltz" writes: >We need to make a point here. >A true Majority Text proponent *cannot speak* to a particular reading. >If you take the Majority Text, you take the Majority Text. You can't >argue anything else at a particular reading. Not so, Bob, unless you are caricaturing the "majority text" position as merely "counting noses" (cf. Fee 1979, 1993). If the term "majority text" meant precisely that, then I know of no real "majority text" advocate who would concur. Certainly, a position favoring the "majority text" or (as I prefer) the Byzantine Textform as an entity requires its own underlying theory, justification, and defense within a framework of transmissional history, followed by varied reasons for preferring such over against all other methods of evaluating the data and the respective conclusions of opposing schools of thought. But it would be quite wrong further to caricature a pro-Byzantine position as having little or nothing to say in regard to individual readings. Indeed, the defense of any Byzantine reading on both internal and external grounds -- quite disassociated from the other portion of the theory -- remains prerequisite if a pro-Byzantine advocate is seriously to "do" NT textual criticism. Within this area (praxis rather than theory), the same data has to be evaluated on a reading-by-reading basis, using basically the same text-critical principles which might be applied by those within the modern eclectic school, with the primary difference being in regard to the value accorded external evidence as opposed to internal criteria. While some principles considered "standard" among eclectic praxis might not be applied due to theoretical differences (e.g., the criterion preferring the shorter reading), other criteria will look just as familiar to a pro-Byzantine critic as to a modern eclectic (e.g., the more difficult reading, the smoother reading, the non-harmonizing reading, the reading which best explains the rise of all the others etc., though with certain modifications disallowing additional factors based upon favored external witnesses or various factors which might be more subjective than substantial). >(This is not unique to the Majority Text, BTW. If one believes, say, >that the "Western" text is original, one still has no argument to >make on particular readings.) The same would hold in those cases as well, just as if one were to be an advocate of the Alexandrian texttype (as opposed to a true "eclectic" text) as closest to the original. Judgments and observations at _all_ units of variation are necessary and part of the process for establishing any preferred text as original or "best". >A Majority Text advocate must demonstrate why the Majority Text >*as a whole* is superior -- but until that person is prepared >to make exceptions for individual readings (in which case one is >no longer a pure MT advocate, but something else), there is >no case to be made on an individual basis. Once more I would disagree. The _theory_ provides the framework which might suggest the Byzantine Textform as a whole to be superior, but it still remains to establish the theoretical claim by specific practical examples. I would also note that this line of argument seems to further caricature the Byzantine Textform as monolithic and always in the numerical majority, when in fact there are numerous places where the MSS comprising the Byzantine Textform are seriously divided as regards quantity, and in which cases one would be foolish to proclaim "majority text" when there is no substantial majority present. Precisely in those cases other principles beyond the basic theory underlying Byzantine preference would have to be elucidated before any decision among variants can be made. >Thus, the argument for 1 Tim 3:16, for a majority text advocate, >is that QS is the reading of the Majority Text. > >Of course, one can argue for the reading on other grounds. Burgon >did so. But it's actually a violation of his principles. :-) Another caricature, since Burgon provides his "seven notes of truth" as the basis for his theory, of which "number" is merely one of those notes (and not even in the top three positions on the list). It does not do to claim (as Fee) that those seven principles are merely seven different ways of declaring the numerical majority to be correct, since this is clearly not true on the face of it. Burgon was fully in accord with his own principles in providing "other grounds" for preferring the Byzantine reading in that passage; indeed, such was the _only_ way he could proceed within his own theoretical framework, since "number" was not the only nor the overriding criterion. >Let's put it another way: All textual critics have a system for >selecting the best reading. Some are simple, some are complex, >some are contradictory, but they all have something. Explanations >of why a particular editor prefers a particular reading are simply >justifications: "This is the reading which best fits my system, >and here is why." Since the system of the MT advocates is simply, >"The majority reading is best," that's where the matter sits. This still remains caricature. Applied in the same manner to modern eclectics, it would read "B and Aleph (or B and P75, or even B alone) happen to read in this manner", thus "the reading of B is best" and that's where the matter sits. Since I don't think any modern eclectic would prefer his or her method reduced to such simplicity, perhaps one can then see why I consider such reductionism when applied to the pro-Byzantine position unjustified as well. > Scrivener is often accused of being a simple Majority >Text advocate, a follower of Burgon. Although Scrivener and Burgon were contemporaries, neither was a follower of the other, as their writings prove. Scrivener in the main did support a basically Byzantine text, but (in accordance with his own views of textual transmission) would differ from Burgon in many places, based on his estimation of the manuscript evidence. A resultant text from Scrivener, constructed on his principles, however, would be far closer to the text preferred by Burgon than to that favored by modern eclectics, contrary to the impression Dan Wallace seemed to give in NTSt a while back. >This is simply not true. >He tended to prefer the Byzantine reading, but with a lot of >exceptions and restrictions. The exceptions and restrictions were not many, and really did not affect his predominantly Byzantine preference as regards text. Basically his primary difference with Burgon was his decision to exclude witnesses beyond the 9th century and to evaluate antiquity more from the uncial MSS (no papyri available to him) and versions than did Burgon (who favored the Fathers far more than the early MSS and versions). The amazing thing is that even with these differences Scrivener still came to a basically pro-Byzantine position as regards his overall preferred text., since his theory as established would tend to favor such a result.. >His would be the best argument >for the reading from someone who favoured the Byzantine reading >for more complex reasons.) Not necessarily so today, in part due to his being a person of his own time and culture, without all the new data recovered in the century or so since his death (e.g., what difference might the reading of P46 have made to Scrivener's line of argument and conclusions regarding 1 Tm 3:16?). Scrivener certainly represents a good example of one who evaluated the text on solid theoretical and practical grounds, integrating both theory and praxis into his methodology, but in this sense he is not much different from Burgon (who did much the same within his own theoretical framework, though with much added bombast and rhetoric, which Scrivener properly eschewed); the same could apply not only to myself or Hodges/Farstad, but even to Tregelles, Tischendorf, Westcott-Hort, Nestle-Aland, Merk, Vogels, Bover, etc., each of whom would differ from the others in at least some theoretical points and manner of expression, but all of whom (within their own respective schools!) yet arrive at very close results regarding their preferred text based upon the application of their theory and praxis (which probably is exactly what one would expect from textual critics in general). ============================================== Maurice A. Robinson Professor of NT and Greek Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Aug 11 05:26:57 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id FAA12464; Wed, 11 Aug 1999 05:25:15 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <37B15FCF.3C1D@orebro.mail.telia.com> Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1999 11:34:41 +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: tc-list Wanted: bookdealers in Europe References: <1.5.4.32.19990809163415.00bf8508@utc.campuscw.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Content-Length: 567 Hello listmembers! Today I received a book on Textual Criticism from the US (the survey of methods in NT TC by Epp and Fee). Unfortunately I had to pay 35$ (the netprice from the dealer being 20$). This is very much due to tollfees and taxes (Swedish VAT). If I had ordered the book from a country within the European Union I would have saved at least 10$. Therefore: Does anyone know of European bookdealers from which one can order used books (and/or out of stock books) dealing with the subject of Textual Criticism and related? With regards Tommy Wasserman From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Aug 11 10:37:57 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id KAA16193; Wed, 11 Aug 1999 10:36:55 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1999 10:45:16 -0400 From: Jim West Subject: tc-list Re: Parker's review of Barrett/Comfort X-Sender: jwest@highland.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.32.19990811144516.0067d81c@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: 856 A quick question... Why hasn't Barrett's response to Parker's review of the Barrett /Comfort book yet appeared in the TC Journal? Are there no plans for it to do so? If not, why not? I certainly hope that there is some technical reason having to do with Jimmy's very sparse free time for such matters that is hindering its appearance, and not some belief that it should not appear. In spite of their excellent work, C and B are still being treated less than honorably in this matter. Until it does appear, then, and maybe even afterwards, I have done a simple html of it and made it available on my web site (under the Textual Criticism section). best, Jim And oh yes, by the way, I will keep asking this very question until it does appear. +++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD email- jwest@highland.net web page- http://web.infoave.net/~jwest From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Aug 11 11:43:32 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id LAA16624; Wed, 11 Aug 1999 11:43:04 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <01BEE44C.11667F90.petrovich@nsu.ru> From: Doug Petrovich To: "'tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu'" Subject: tc-list Question on the acquisition of B NT facsimiles Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1999 22:51:08 -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: 441 Dear Fellow List Members: In 1965, the NT portion of Vaticanus was photographically reproduced by order of Pope Paul VI, and copies were presented to the bishops and observers at the Vatican II Council. Do any of you know of where one of these copies might be found or where I might look for one (outside of contacting the Vatican, which I already did)? If so, please contact me off-list. Gratefully, Doug Petrovich petrovich@nsu.ru From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Aug 12 13:13:32 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id NAA16852; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 13:11:52 -0400 (EDT) From: "Matthew Anstey" To: "TC-List" Subject: tc-list Preferred LXX readings Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 10:17:24 -0700 Message-ID: <000701bee4e6$8c18d040$928257ce@concept> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Content-Length: 1604 Gday all, I am working for SIL on a software program for Bible translators (BART 2.0), and we need some advice as to textual witnesses. We are wanting to two sorts of LXXs loaded into the program so translators could see for example Joshua Vaticanus and Alexandrius renderings on either side of the BHS. There would only be two versions when there were two different LXX readings. Now, one of these LXXs would be the major one, and the other minor. Our question is, which would be the major and minor ones for OT books. For instance, UBS in their software Paratext 5.0 has Joshua B in the main list, and Joshua A at the end with teh deuterocanonical books. But they have Judges A in the main list, and Judges B in the deuterocanonical. (Vaticanus & AlexandSimilarly, what shall we do with say Daniel Origen/Theodotian, Susanna Origen/Theodotian, etc. Neither myself nor SIL have enough TC skills to know what to do with the various LXXs here. Any help on or off-list would be most appreciated. Ideally, a list of all OT books with the two major LXX witnesses with one marked as major and the other minor is what we want to end up with. However, I'm not sure just how many electronic LXXs we have access to. With regards, Matthew Anstey ----------------------------------------------------------------------- on behalf of Summer Institute of Linguistics. BART (Biblical Analysis and Research Tool) Software Development Carl Follingstad, Coordinator [cfollingstad@compuserve.com] Todd Hoatson, Programmer [Todd_Hoatson@sil.org] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Aug 12 15:27:43 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id PAA17651; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 15:26:23 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <37B31D5C.F40@total.net> Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 15:15:40 -0400 From: Mike and Jeanne Arcieri X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02E-KIT (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: tc-list Barrett's response to Parker 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: 2516 Fellow TC-LISTers, Forgive this somewhat late rejoinder regarding an issue that seems to be at its end, but I'm simply thinking out loud... ;-) If I understand correctly the reply of Comfort/Barrett: 1) In Comfort and Barrett's initial response (to Robinson's criticisms), they claimed to have carefully and laboriously rechecked the collation of P66 and then cooperatively furnished the IGNTP project with their data, leaving the impression that, to a large degree, their data was actually used by the IGNTP in preparing their edition of the Johannine papyri. Notably, the IGNTP edition was _not_ faulted in any way in that initial comment, even though errors in Nestle-Aland 26 were severely criticized. (2) Yet according to their second response (appearing after Parker's rather unfavorable review), Comfort and Barrett now severely fault the IGNTP for apparently _not_ accepting and incorporating the results of their collation and correction of the _editio princeps_ of P66, even though such was supposedly done in cooperation with the work of the IGNTP and accepted by the project as per the implications of (1) above. Something is very peculiar here, but I don't know what. Why is it that criticisms of the IGNTP did not appear from Comfort and Barrett until _after_ Parker's review hit the screen, even though they earlier were swift to complain about errors in Nestle 26 in response to Petersen? Had the Parker review not appeared, one would have thought that the P66 _editio princeps_ corrections by Comfort and Barrett were welcomed and incorporated into the IGNTP John Papyri volume. Yet one now learns that apparently most of Comfort and Barrett's proffered corrections regarding P66 were _not_ incorporated into the IGNTP (since I do not have access to the IGNTP John, I cannot check this out for myself). Now I wonder: Is there merely a lot of defensive whining going on because a certain ox is getting gored? Else why were these complaints not uttered against IGNTP long before, or even noted within their own reconstructions within the "Earliest Manuscripts" volume? I am not trying to begin a new debate (trust me), but Barrett specifically says: "Parker asserted that he would be pretty worried if anyone could point to half a dozen clear errors in the IGNTP transcription of the Johannine papyri. Well, the truth of the matter is that the IGNTP volume has _a multitude of errors_." (my emphasis) and being a collator for IGNTP John, you can understand my anxiety... Mike Arcieri From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Aug 13 06:01:15 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id GAA21580; Fri, 13 Aug 1999 06:00:27 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <37B3EECC.3BA04897@t-online.de> Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1999 12:09:16 +0200 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [de]C-DT (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: tc-list literature concerning 7Q5!? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Sender: 320068836545-0001@t-online.de From: Enste.Hirschberg@t-online.de (Stefan Enste) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Content-Length: 577 Dear list-members! I am working on a comprehensive book about the identification of Qumran-Fragment 7Q5 with Mc 6, 52 - 53. Since it is not easy to get a (nearly) complete survey of the enormous amount of literature concerning this point I would be very glad if you list-members can help me collecting literature. I ask for all titels you know or heard about, concerning this subject. Internet-sites are welcome because I am planing a chapter about the reception of 7Q5-discussion in the www. I hope you can help me! Stefan Enste Germany e-mail: Enste.Hirschberg@t-online.de From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Aug 16 15:26:14 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id PAA02680; Mon, 16 Aug 1999 15:23:46 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <19990816193107.39204.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [208.252.64.94] From: "Bruce Prior" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: tc-list Contact info for Andy Gaus? Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 12:31:07 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: 484 TCers -- I'd like to contact Andy Gaus, translator of THE UNVARNISHED NEW TESTAMENT, published in 1991 by Phanes Press of Grand Rapids, Michigan. His preface locates him in Boston. I don't find him in the AAR/SBL membership directory. Does anybody have his postal or e-mail address or telephone number? Thanks. J. Bruce Prior in Blaine, WA _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Aug 17 03:08:34 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id DAA06019; Tue, 17 Aug 1999 03:07:54 -0400 (EDT) From: "Wieland Willker" To: "TC-List" Subject: tc-list The 3 TC problems Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 09:10:56 +0200 Message-Id: <000001bee87f$a6c87c00$67566686@chemie.unibremen.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-Msmail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 Importance: Normal X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Content-Length: 207 What are (for you) the 3 most serious, most difficult TC problems in the NT? Best wishes Wieland <>< -------------------- mailto:willker@chemie.uni-bremen.de http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Aug 17 11:31:26 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id LAA09420; Tue, 17 Aug 1999 11:30:39 -0400 (EDT) From: "Wieland Willker" To: "TC-List" , "Synoptic-L" , "john-Lit" , "B-Greek" Subject: tc-list C.H. Dodd "A New Gospel" Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 17:32:04 +0200 Message-Id: <000701bee8c5$a84443c0$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: 565 I have added a new publication to my Egerton site: C.H. Dodd "A New Gospel" Bulletin of the John Rylands Library (BJRL) 20 (1936) 58-92, reprinted in "New Testament Studies", Scribners, New York, 1956, p. 12-52 Dodd is discussing the language and the text of Egerton with respect to the NT in his typical accurate, well considered style. The article can be accessed at: http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/Egerton/egerton-publicat.html Best wishes Wieland <>< -------------------- mailto:willker@chemie.uni-bremen.de http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Aug 17 22:49:45 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id WAA13974; Tue, 17 Aug 1999 22:49:08 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.19990817214122.00843de0@pop.flash.net> X-Sender: logsdon@pop.flash.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.2 (32) Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 21:41:22 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: Mike Logsdon Subject: tc-list Fourth Gospel and Origen In-Reply-To: References: <1.5.4.32.19990809163415.00bf8508@utc.campuscw.net> <1.5.4.32.19990809163415.00bf8508@utc.campuscw.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: 334 Was there ever a 2d. volume to the Ehrman et. al. work The Fourth Gospel in the Writings of Origen? Also what other patristic fathers besides Origen and Clement of Alexandria have under gone intense scrutiny (that is what is some basic bibliographic material known to list members/participants)? Thanks Mike Logsdon SWBTS Student From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Aug 18 10:08:37 1999 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id KAA18897; Wed, 18 Aug 1999 10:07:56 -0400 (EDT) From: "Wieland Willker" To: "john-Lit" , "B-Greek" , "TC-List" Subject: tc-list new pages Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 16:12:02 +0200 Message-Id: <000201bee983$a4bd2780$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: 676 Today I've had 2 hours spare time and I've prepared: a) three images of papyrus P66 b) two vocabulary lists: one with the basic 1200 words and one with the more special John-words (atm with German translation only). Maybe someone wants to prepare the English translation? I don't know if this is worth the effort, comments are always welcome. (I know that there are some wrong accents.) The files can be accessed from the page: http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/ww_tc.html Btw: The TC list is down for one week now, but they are working on it. Best wishes Wieland <>< -------------------- mailto:willker@chemie.uni-bremen.de http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/ From tc-list-owner Mon Aug 30 00:23:27 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id AAA10016 for tc-list-outgoing; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 00:22:36 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 00:22:34 -0400 (EDT) From: "James R. Adair" To: TC List Subject: tc-list the list is back up! 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: 1341 The tc-list is back in business and ready to continue after being down for more than two weeks. The computer that hosts the list experienced some technical difficulties (specifically, mail bombs) and was shut down until the problem could be addressed. Now might be a good time to remind everyone on the list that this is an _academic_ discussion list, and while some latitude will be shown to people without formal training or extensive experience in the field, this list is not the place to promote untenable (i.e., unscholarly) positions. Very soon new material will be published in TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism, and I hope that the forthcoming articles and reviews will provide some stimulus for discussion on the list, along with other matters that arise in the course of our own studies and reading. You might be interested to know that more than 300 people are now on this list, and I expect more to join as the new semester gets under way in September. Welcome back to the tc-list! *********************************************************************** James R. Adair, Jr. Director, ATLA Center for Electronic Resources in Theology and Religion -----------------------> http://purl.org/CERTR <----------------------- Listowner, tc-list *********************************************************************** From tc-list-owner Mon Aug 30 00:31:32 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id AAA10060 for tc-list-outgoing; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 00:31:29 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 00:31:28 -0400 (EDT) From: "James R. Adair" To: TC List cc: "Graphai: NT Discussion List" , "Miqra: Hebrew Bible Discussion List" Subject: tc-list [hugoye-l] Hugoye, Vol. 2, No. 2 (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: MULTIPART/ALTERNATIVE; BOUNDARY="----=_NextPart_000_002C_01BEDD29.2C3019A0" Content-ID: Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Content-Length: 6417 This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. Send mail to mime@docserver.cac.washington.edu for more info. ------=_NextPart_000_002C_01BEDD29.2C3019A0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Content-ID: There are new articles in the e-journal Hugoye. *********************************************************************** James R. Adair, Jr. Director, ATLA Center for Electronic Resources in Theology and Religion http://purl.org/CERTR *********************************************************************** ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1999 20:54:11 -0400 From: George Kiraz Reply-To: hugoye-list@egroups.com To: hugoye-list@egroups.com Subject: [hugoye-l] Hugoye, Vol. 2, No. 2 ** PLEASE EXCUSE ANY MULTIPLE ANNOUNCEMENTS ** The July 1999 (Vol. 2, No 2) issue of "Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies" i= s published now and can be accessed at: Home Site: http://www.acad.cua.edu/syrcom/Hugoye (Catholic University of America, USA) Mirror Site: http://www.leidenuniv.nl/gg/peshitta/syrcom/Hugoye/ (Leiden University, The Netherlands) **NOTE**. The mirror site will have the new issue loaded by mid-late August= =2E This issue features an article titled "A Syriac Letter on Papyrus" by Sebas= tian BROCK (Oxford University), an account of the Deir al-Surian (Egypt) Wa= ll-paintings, Wall-texts, and Manuscripts by Karel C. INNEM=C9E, Lucas VAN = ROMPAY and Elizabeth SOBCZYNSKI, an "Account of Gregory Bar Hebraeus and Hi= s Relations with the Mongols of Persia" by George LANE (SOAS, London), and = finally a detailed annotated list of the "Patriarchs of the Church of the E= ast from the Fifteenth to Eighteenth Centuries" by H.L. MURRE-VAN DEN BERG = (Leiden University). The issue also contains 5 book reviews and 6 conference reports. George Kiraz General Editor ---------- George Anton Kiraz, Ph.D. Language Modeling Research Bell Laboratories Lucent Technologies Room 2D-430 700 Mountain Ave. Murray Hill, NJ 07974 Tel. +1 908 582 4074 Fax. +1 908 582 3306 email: gkiraz@research.bell-labs.com Bell Labs Text-to-Speech: http://www.bell-labs.com/project/tts Hugoye Journal: http://www.acad.cua.edu/syrcom/Hugoye ------------------------------------------------------------------------ eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/hugoye-list http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications ------=_NextPart_000_002C_01BEDD29.2C3019A0 Content-Type: TEXT/HTML; CHARSET=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Content-ID: Content-Description:
** PLEASE EXCUSE ANY MULTIPLE ANNOUNCEMENTS **
 
The July 1999 (Vol. 2, No 2) issue of "Hugoye: Jou= rnal of = Syriac Studies" is published now and can be accessed at:
 
   Home Site:   http://www.acad.cua.edu/syrc= om/Hugoye
         &nbs= p;      = (Catholic University of America, USA)
 
   Mirror Site: http://www.lei= denuniv.nl/gg/peshitta/syrcom/Hugoye/
     =            = (Leiden University, The Netherlands)
 
**NOTE**. The mirror site will have the new issue loade= d by = mid-late August.
 
 
The issue also contains 5 book reviews and 6 conference= = reports.
 
George Kiraz
General Editor
 
----------
George Anton Kiraz, Ph.D.
Language Mod= eling = Research
Bell Laboratories
Lucent Technologies
Room 2D-430
700 = Mountain Ave.
Murray Hill, NJ 07974
Tel. +1 908 582 4074
Fax. +1 9= 08 = 582 3306
email: gkiraz@research.bell-labs.com=
 
eGroups.com home: http= ://www.egroups.com/group/hugoye-list
www.egroups.com - Simplifying group = communications
------=_NextPart_000_002C_01BEDD29.2C3019A0-- From tc-list-owner Mon Aug 30 00:49:12 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id AAA10203 for tc-list-outgoing; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 00:49:12 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 00:49:11 -0400 (EDT) From: "James R. Adair" To: TC List Subject: tc-list test 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: 281 test test test test *********************************************************************** James R. Adair, Jr. Director, ATLA Center for Electronic Resources in Theology and Religion http://purl.org/CERTR *********************************************************************** From tc-list-owner Mon Aug 30 01:12:19 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id BAA10336 for tc-list-outgoing; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 01:12:10 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Message-ID: From: "Freedman, Howard" To: tc-list Subject: Out of Office AutoReply: tc-list the list is back up! Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 06:18:00 +0100 X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Content-Length: 2297 I have now left Primark. You can contact me at: howardfreedman@yahoo.co.uk See you soon! begin 600 winmail.dat M>)\^(AT%`0:0"``$```````!``$``0>0!@`(````Y`0```````#H``$(@`<` M)0```$E032Y.;W1E+E)U;&5S+D]O9E1E;7!L871E+DUI8W)O`B9`.!0'EA M''!O+G$%H"YU:QES[\@```&G]``,`+@```````@'R/P$````6```` MR0N:2G/S[\@```&R?/@``"P`(#`````!``#D`L-5%!Z?RO@$# M`/$_"00``!X`,4`!````"@```$92145$34%.2`````,`&D``````'@`P0`$` M```*````1E)%141-04Y(`````P`90``````#`"8```````,`-@``````'@!P M``$````>````('1C+6QI`/H_`0`` M`!$```!& X-Originating-IP: [208.252.64.3] From: "Bruce Prior" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: tc-list Whereabouts of Andy Gaus Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1999 23:00:57 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: 274 TCers -- Does anybody know how to get in touch with Andy Gaus, the translator of THE UNVARNISHED NEW TESTAMENT? Thanks, J. Bruce Prior, PhD in Blaine, WA ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From tc-list-owner Mon Aug 30 01:59:57 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id BAA10564 for tc-list-outgoing; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 01:59:54 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Message-ID: <19990830060732.44216.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [208.252.64.3] From: "Bruce Prior" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: tc-list Matthew 6:28 Discussion re: James M. Robinson Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1999 23:07:31 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: 489 TCers -- While tc-list was inoperative, a discussion among a small group of TCers and a few others was begun regarding an article in Harvard Theological Review, "A Written Greek Sayings Cluster Older than Q: A Vestige," written by James M. Robinson. Would there be any interest in my posting the thread to the list? J. Bruce Prior, PhD in Blaine, WA n7rr@hotmail.com ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From tc-list-owner Mon Aug 30 02:14:16 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id CAA10644 for tc-list-outgoing; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 02:14:13 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 02:14:11 -0400 (EDT) From: "James R. Adair" To: TC List Subject: tc-list missing messages 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: 1182 The tc-list stopped working on August 12, so messages sent after that time were not passed on to most members of the list. Because my main e-mailbox is on the computer that hosts the list, I actually received all of the messages, and they are also all in the tc-list archives, but no one else saw copies of them. Those of you who tried to start new threads might want to go back through your old posts and consider re-posting your messages. Some old threads, notably the TR discussion, should be left to rest, however; I think we've beaten that one to death! I would like to comment on one item raised just before the list went belly-up. Jim West suggested that I do something to make Barrett's response to Parker's review available to readers of TC, and I will make every effort to do so as soon as I can, though it won't be immediately. Jimmy *********************************************************************** James R. Adair, Jr. Director, ATLA Center for Electronic Resources in Theology and Religion -----------------------> http://purl.org/CERTR <----------------------- Listowner, tc-list *********************************************************************** From tc-list-owner Mon Aug 30 03:03:01 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id DAA10903 for tc-list-outgoing; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 03:02:49 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f From: "Wieland Willker" To: "TC-List" Subject: tc-list C.H. Dodd "A New Gospel" Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 09:07:30 +0200 Message-Id: <000501bef2b6$5362b4e0$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: 565 I have added a new publication to my Egerton site: C.H. Dodd "A New Gospel" Bulletin of the John Rylands Library (BJRL) 20 (1936) 58-92, reprinted in "New Testament Studies", Scribners, New York, 1956, p. 12-52 Dodd is discussing the language and the text of Egerton with respect to the NT in his typical accurate, well considered style. The article can be accessed at: http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/Egerton/egerton-publicat.html Best wishes Wieland <>< -------------------- mailto:willker@chemie.uni-bremen.de http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/ From tc-list-owner Mon Aug 30 03:03:59 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id DAA10923 for tc-list-outgoing; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 03:03:57 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f From: "Wieland Willker" To: "TC-List" Subject: tc-list The 3 TC problems Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 09:08:41 +0200 Message-Id: <000601bef2b6$7d852500$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: 207 What are (for you) the 3 most serious, most difficult TC problems in the NT? Best wishes Wieland <>< -------------------- mailto:willker@chemie.uni-bremen.de http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/ From tc-list-owner Mon Aug 30 07:41:11 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id HAA12165 for tc-list-outgoing; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 07:41:01 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 07:49:43 -0400 From: Jim West Subject: tc-list barrett's response to parker X-Sender: jwest@highland.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.32.19990830114943.0066b5f8@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: 364 Listers, until Jimmy has a chance to put Barrett's response to Parker's review on the TC journal page- I offer a simple html of it on my web page. visit the site in my sig- and follow the textual criticism link. best, and glad the list is back up, Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD email- jwest@highland.net web page- http://web.infoave.net/~jwest From tc-list-owner Mon Aug 30 08:38:35 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id IAA12410 for tc-list-outgoing; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 08:38:30 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <000601bef2b6$7d852500$67566686@chemie.unibremen.de> References: <000601bef2b6$7d852500$67566686@chemie.unibremen.de> Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 07:49:41 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: tc-list The 3 TC problems 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: 901 On 8/30/99, Wieland Willker wrote: >What are (for you) the 3 most serious, most difficult TC problems in the NT? 1. Convincing people that I'm right. 2. Convincing people that I'm right. 3. Convincing people that I'm right. :-) Seriously, the problems are methodological: 1. Getting people to use mathematics properly 2. Getting people to agree on definitions 3. Transferring rigour in definitions to rigour in the practice of criticism. All three of these tie directly to the most pressing problem I see: The rigorous and repeatable discovery and definition 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 tc-list-owner Mon Aug 30 08:48:46 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id IAA12473 for tc-list-outgoing; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 08:48:41 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Message-ID: <37CA7FF0.9AAD8F63@t-online.de> Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 14:58:24 +0200 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [de]C-DT (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: tc-list literature concerning 7Q5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Sender: 320068836545-0001@t-online.de From: Enste.Hirschberg@t-online.de (Stefan Enste) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Content-Length: 636 Dear list-members! I am working on a comprehensive book about the identification of Qumran-Fragment 7Q5 with Mc 6, 52 - 53 - some of you know that by the papy-list or the orion list. Since it is not easy to get a (nearly) complete survey of the enormous amount of literature concerning this point I would be very glad if you list-members can help me collecting literature. I ask for all titels you know or heard about, concerning this subject. Internet-sites are welcome because I am planing a chapter about the reception of 7Q5-discussion in the www. I hope you can help me! Stefan Enste Germany e-mail: Enste.Hirschberg@t-online.de From tc-list-owner Mon Aug 30 10:07:29 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id KAA12984 for tc-list-outgoing; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 10:07:20 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f From: "Wieland Willker" To: "TC-List" Subject: tc-list Re: The 3 TC problems Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 16:11:33 +0200 Message-Id: <000101bef2f1$907242c0$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: 433 >> What are (for you) the 3 most serious, most difficult TC problems in the NT? Robert B. Waltz: >Seriously, the problems are methodological Of course methodology is important. What I meant was: If you have three wishes of small fragments (some verses) from the autographs, which ones would you choose? Best wishes Wieland <>< -------------------- mailto:willker@chemie.uni-bremen.de http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/ From tc-list-owner Mon Aug 30 10:46:44 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id KAA13277 for tc-list-outgoing; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 10:46:36 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com (Unverified) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <000101bef2f1$907242c0$67566686@chemie.unibremen.de> References: <000101bef2f1$907242c0$67566686@chemie.unibremen.de> Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 09:58:45 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: tc-list Re: The 3 TC problems 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: 670 On 8/30/99, Wieland Willker wrote: > >> What are (for you) the 3 most serious, most difficult TC problems in the >NT? >Robert B. Waltz: > >Seriously, the problems are methodological > >Of course methodology is important. What I meant was: >If you have three wishes of small fragments (some verses) from the >autographs, which ones would you choose? This gets much easier, because we can go by the importance of the passages. So: Mark 16:8 and whatever follows. :-) John 7:52 and whatever follows. 1 Corinthians 13:3. (Maybe. This one is harder.) Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com "The one thing we learn from history -- is that no one ever learns from history." From tc-list-owner Mon Aug 30 11:10:45 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id LAA13555 for tc-list-outgoing; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 11:10:27 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 11:18:41 -0400 From: Jim West Subject: Re: tc-list Re: The 3 TC problems X-Sender: jwest@highland.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.32.19990830151841.0066712c@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: 834 At 04:11 PM 8/30/99 +0200, you wrote: >Of course methodology is important. What I meant was: >If you have three wishes of small fragments (some verses) from the >autographs, which ones would you choose? > >Best wishes > Wieland I would like to have ANY of the autographs. But 1) how would we know we had an autograph? 2) What difference would it make if it were proven to be the autograph? After all, the various texts we have are windows on the beliefs of the communtities that produced them. Scribal changes tell us a lot more about early christianity then a perfect succession of completely identical documents. If you mean- which mss would we like to SEE- I would purely love to have a copy of P92. Best, Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD email- jwest@highland.net web page- http://web.infoave.net/~jwest From tc-list-owner Mon Aug 30 12:13:17 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id MAA14032 for tc-list-outgoing; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 12:13:08 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Message-ID: <002201bef303$898b1ec0$327cebcf@shell.com> From: "Mark Proctor" To: References: <000601bef2b6$7d852500$67566686@chemie.unibremen.de> Subject: Re: tc-list The 3 TC problems Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 11:20:12 -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: 604 I would say that the "Western" non-interpolations should be one of the three, and if this is too specific, then the problem of the "Western" text in general. Mark Proctor ----- Original Message ----- From: Wieland Willker To: TC-List Sent: Monday, August 30, 1999 2:08 AM Subject: tc-list The 3 TC problems > > What are (for you) the 3 most serious, most difficult TC problems in the NT? > > Best wishes > Wieland > <>< > -------------------- > mailto:willker@chemie.uni-bremen.de > http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/ > > From tc-list-owner Mon Aug 30 12:22:07 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id MAA14112 for tc-list-outgoing; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 12:22:04 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Message-Id: <199908301622.MAA14107@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> From: "Dave Washburn" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 09:24:58 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: tc-list Re: The 3 TC problems Priority: normal In-reply-to: <000101bef2f1$907242c0$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: 487 > >> What are (for you) the 3 most serious, most difficult TC problems in the > NT? > Robert B. Waltz: > >Seriously, the problems are methodological > > Of course methodology is important. What I meant was: > If you have three wishes of small fragments (some verses) from the > autographs, which ones would you choose? 1. The ending of Mark. 2. Since you only mentioned NT, that's about it for me. Dave Washburn http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur "Ich veranlassenarbeitenworken mein Mojo." From tc-list-owner Mon Aug 30 12:26:56 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id MAA14154 for tc-list-outgoing; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 12:26:53 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Message-ID: <37CAB040.1F6C474F@historian.net> Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 11:24:32 -0500 From: Jack Kilmon X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list Re: The 3 TC problems References: <000101bef2f1$907242c0$67566686@chemie.unibremen.de> 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: 496 Wieland Willker wrote: > >> What are (for you) the 3 most serious, most difficult TC problems in the > NT? > Robert B. Waltz: > >Seriously, the problems are methodological > > Of course methodology is important. What I meant was: > If you have three wishes of small fragments (some verses) from the > autographs, which ones would you choose? > 1. The rest of P52 2. Autograph Mark 3. Original Aramaic "Gospel of the Nazarenes." Jack Kilmon jkilmon@historian.net http://www.historian.net From tc-list-owner Mon Aug 30 12:29:25 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id MAA14180 for tc-list-outgoing; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 12:29:18 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Message-ID: <37CAB0D2.615B763C@historian.net> Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 11:26:58 -0500 From: Jack Kilmon X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list Matthew 6:28 Discussion re: James M. Robinson References: <19990830060732.44216.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Content-Length: 427 Bruce Prior wrote: > TCers -- > While tc-list was inoperative, a discussion among a small group of > TCers and a few others was begun regarding an article in Harvard Theological > Review, "A Written Greek Sayings Cluster Older than Q: A Vestige," written > by James M. Robinson. Would there be any interest in my posting the thread > to the list? I would be very interested. Jack Jack Kilmon jkilmon@historian.net From tc-list-owner Mon Aug 30 15:00:25 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id PAA14875 for tc-list-outgoing; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 15:00:07 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Message-Id: Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 21:07:16 +0200 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu References: <1.5.4.32.19990830151841.0066712c@highland.net> Subject: Re: tc-list Re: The 3 TC problems 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: 953 Jim West wrote: > At 04:11 PM 8/30/99 +0200, you wrote: > > >Of course methodology is important. What I meant was: > >If you have three wishes of small fragments (some verses) from the > >autographs, which ones would you choose? > > > >Best wishes > > Wieland > > I would like to have ANY of the autographs. But 1) how would we know we had > an autograph? This is, indeed the most intriguing question. In my view our concept(s) of autographs need to be thoroughly readdressed. >2) What difference would it make if it were proven to be the > autograph? After all, the various texts we have are windows on the beliefs > of the communtities that produced them. Scribal changes tell us a lot more > about early christianity then a perfect succession of completely identical > documents. What do you mean? Are you talking about texts or manuscripts or both? ------------------------------------------ Dr. Ulrich Schmid U.B.Schmid@t-online.de From tc-list-owner Mon Aug 30 18:42:45 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id SAA16120 for tc-list-outgoing; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 18:42:27 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f From: rlmullen@netpath.net Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990830185805.007a36f0@netpath.net> X-Sender: rlmullen@netpath.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 18:58:05 -0400 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list Re: The 3 TC problems In-Reply-To: <000101bef2f1$907242c0$67566686@chemie.unibremen.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Content-Length: 1056 My first wish for an autograph copy would certainly be be a text containing the "Western non-interpolations" first discussed by Westcott and Hort. My other two desiderata would relate to the development of the text: Second, a complete copy of Mark as used by Origen at Caesarea would be very interesting, though probably not close to the Markan autograph. Third, Tertullian's (or someone else in the West's) copy of the Catholic Epistles so that we could see if there was ever anything that looked like a "western" text in that section of the NT. --Rod Mullen At 04:11 PM 8/30/99 +0200, you wrote: >>> What are (for you) the 3 most serious, most difficult TC problems in the >NT? >Robert B. Waltz: >>Seriously, the problems are methodological > >Of course methodology is important. What I meant was: >If you have three wishes of small fragments (some verses) from the >autographs, which ones would you choose? > >Best wishes > Wieland > <>< >-------------------- >mailto:willker@chemie.uni-bremen.de >http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/ > From tc-list-owner Mon Aug 30 18:55:31 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id SAA16162 for tc-list-outgoing; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 18:55:28 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 19:02:57 -0400 (EDT) From: Bart Ehrman X-Sender: behrman@login5.isis.unc.edu To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list Re: The 3 TC problems In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19990830185805.007a36f0@netpath.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Content-Length: 340 With apologies to everyone who would like to find an autograph with the Western non-interpolations (by which I assume is meant the longer text in these instances, since obviously you can't "find" the non-interpolation, if you see what I mean) -- it ain't going to happen! -- Bart Ehrman University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill From tc-list-owner Mon Aug 30 19:07:10 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id TAA16210 for tc-list-outgoing; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 19:07:07 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 19:14:53 -0400 From: Jim West Subject: Re: tc-list Re: The 3 TC problems X-Sender: jwest@highland.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.32.19990830231453.00669860@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: 598 At 09:07 PM 8/30/99 +0200, you wrote: >>2) What difference would it make if it were proven to be the >> autograph? After all, the various texts we have are windows on the beliefs >> of the communtities that produced them. Scribal changes tell us a lot more >> about early christianity then a perfect succession of completely identical >> documents. > >What do you mean? Are you talking about texts or manuscripts or both? Both. Texts, text groups, manuscripts, all of it. Best, Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD email- jwest@highland.net web page- http://web.infoave.net/~jwest From tc-list-owner Mon Aug 30 19:53:55 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id TAA16389 for tc-list-outgoing; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 19:53:42 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Message-ID: <19990831000120.86357.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [208.252.64.185] From: "Bruce Prior" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: tc-list The James M. Robinson debate about Matt. 6:28 Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 17:01:17 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: 16898 TCers -- There appears to be enough interest from tc-list people to join the debate stemming from James M. Robinson's recent article, in which he claims to have found a scribal error in Q. So, I have consolidated my files on the debate so far. If I have missed anybody, please accept my apology, and feel free to jump in again. J. Bruce Prior Colleagues – In the absence of an active tc-list, I thought I’d throw out some thoughts to an abbreviated list of worthies who might be interested in a discussion. If you wish to reply, you may do so to all those who are receiving this e-mail. If you receive the message without the list attached, just send it to me and I’ll forward it to the group. James M. Robinson has written a provocative, but well-argued article in the Harvard Theological Review, 1999, volume 92, number 1, pp. 61-77, "A Written Greek Sayings Cluster Older than Q: A Vestige." Note: in the following P = Pi, X = Xi and W = Omega and U = Upsilon. Robinson argues that evidence from P. Oxy. 655 and Codex Sinaiticus suggests that PWSAUXANOUSIN or pws auxanousin should actually read PWSOUXANOUSIN or pws ou xanousin. So, instead of speaking about ‘living’, the text is referring to ‘not carding’ or ‘not combing’ some fiber, such as wool. This is especially interesting to me, since I can’t think of any hand-work stage in fabric processing which epitomizes drudgery better than carding. Since a version of the passage is Q 12:27, Robinson claims to have found, through the transformation of an Omicron to an Alpha, a scribal error in Q, proving the common theory that Q was a written text. I’d like to hear (or rather read) reactions. Is Robinson convincing? If so, should Matthew 6:28 be revised, and perhaps Luke 12:27 as well? If the error precedes Q, how could the "correct" text have fallen into the hands of the original Codex Sinaiticus scribe? I wait with skepticals mounted and quill dipped .... (8=}) J. Bruce Prior, PhD in Blaine, Washington n7rr@hotmail.com ------------------------------------------------------------------ >James M. Robinson has written a provocative, but well-argued article in the >Harvard Theological Review, 1999, volume 92, number 1, pp. 61-77, "A Written >Greek Sayings Cluster Older than Q: A Vestige." Dear Dr. Prior (and to one and all), I have not access to Robinson's article, but he is known as a reputable scholar. The issues at hand here are not new: in the BAGD lexicon (s.v. xainw [page 547]), we note the basic argument from earlier days. Robinson's twist is that he attempts to (apparently) use this variant for a premise in an argument for the existence of a "Q" or a written "Q". To me this twist is a very desperate foray. >Robinson argues that evidence from P. Oxy. 655 and Codex Sinaiticus suggests >that PWSAUXANOUSIN or pws auxanousin should actually read PWSOUXANOUSIN or >pws ou xanousin. So, instead of speaking about 'living', the text is >referring to 'not carding' or 'not combing' some fiber, such as wool. This >is especially interesting to me, since I can't think of any hand-work stage >in fabric processing which epitomizes drudgery better than carding. The variant as proposed by Robinson (which would read the "they card") is attractive and can fit the style and context. However, before one changes the basic text of Matthew 6:28 (and or Luke 12:27) more evidence is truly needed. Using the myth of a "Q" is totally invalid here, that aside the P. Oxy 655 reading does support his hypothesis, but not as a support for an anterior reading prior to Sinaiticus. We are comparing apples to oranges here, P. Oxy 655 is not a Biblical text, Sinaiticus is. According to Robert Grant and David Noel Freedman (The Secret Sayings of Jesus, page 49), it was H.-C. Puech who first recognized that this fragment is a part of the Gospel of Thomas, page 49 in the Fontana paper back edition. This "Q" issue here is to me a non-issue. >Since a version of the passage is Q 12:27, Robinson claims to have found, >through the transformation of an Omicron to an Alpha, a scribal error in Q, >proving the common theory that Q was a written text. > >I'd like to hear (or rather read) reactions. Is Robinson convincing? If >so, should Matthew 6:28 be revised, and perhaps Luke 12:27 as well? If the >error precedes Q, how could the "correct" text have fallen into the hands of >the original Codex Sinaiticus scribe? If other NT Greek witnesses supported Sinaiticus here, then we may have a case, but the variant should still be seen as a minor variant, one probably based upon a phonetic error. In several places we note an a/o interchange in Codex 01 (Sinaiticus). The interchanges in this scribe's hand should be completely investigated before we jump to a conclusion here. Most of the other changes are well supported by other Greek witnesses, this one here is very questionable, a poor support for his theory. It seems that most critic's are following some opinion about an erasure here in 01's text. Did Tischendorf state that there was an erasure? And if so, what was erased? A good high quality image of the text in question is needed before I dare follow the reading as suggested by Robinson here. The apparatus to Nestle/Aland seems faulty here. I am not sure what Swanson follows here, he has a good film of 01, (and in it no original "o" is seen!) but he seems to simply print what the N/A apparatus suggests. Here is a low resolution shot of the text in question: please see the attachment to this note. (a jpg shot titled Mvc-003f.jpg) So now open the attachment and view it before proceding. In this image we can see ...pwsauxa which continues on to the next line as the plural form. >From the source of this low resolution shot, I note that the "x" and the "a" following the "x" are different, they were written in over a good erasure (vid). The alpha following the omega, has been "repaired" its lower bowl stroke is a bit deformed, but the upper backstroke appears strong and original, though with a slighly odd curve, but definitely not part of an "o". The upsilon seems original. The letters on the next line appear original. The palaeographical issue here is: was there an "original" omicron beneath the alpha? From my film, and even from this low resolution shot, it appears not. However, infrared photography or ultraviolet light may disclose otherwise. This is foundational to Robinson's argument here, if 01 does not support his argument then he is totally awash. Without seeing his article, which you cite, I have no idea of his palaeographical preparation. How well did he examine the passage here in 01? Or did he just follow the herd? The reading in 01 needs a better reviewing before I would declare Swanson and the N/A editions correct. To me this is the issue here, the reading in P Oxy 655 "may" actually contain a variety of 01 original's text, but the evidence in 01 does not readily support this. At this stage I would say that the phonetic similarities between P Oxy 655 and 01 here is just a coincidence. If an erasure occurred in 01, it seems to be a minor one in which the scribe corrected something under the "xa" NOT under the first alpha following the "pws". The little "dot" after the "x" may have a bearing as well, but it seems that he began writing the normal "au..." and then made an error after the "au" erased it and wrote in the "xa". This is my conclusion from my film, which is a tentative conclusion. Send me a nice sharp close-up color image! :) Until then keep your paws off of the standard text of Matthew 6:28. at your service, Mr. Gary S. Dykes email yhwh3in1@lightspeed.net NOTE: Mr. Dykes attached an image of the relevant page of Sinaiticus, which did not transfer properly. Perhaps he would be kind enough to post it to tc-list. _________________________________________ Bruce,I read Robinson's piece (a German version appeared also just prior to the HTR version) some time ago and so I now have only a general memory of it, and, in the midst of trying to finish a chapter of a book myself, can't now take time to re-read it. But my memory is that it presents what is in principle a plausible scenario, though I personally think that the odds are against it. Not against Q being a written source, and not against there being versions of Q and Q having had its own copying/textual history likely. But against the attendant argument that Aleph can be played with the POxy text to argue that GosThom is closer to the earliest Jesus- stratum than the canonicals. Odds are against it, because it's difficult to account for the overwhelming preference of the other reading, and because the presence of the reading in Aleph can more easily be accounted for by assuming the scribe knew the other reading and preferred it. Moreover, I simply don't see the alleged difficulty of sense/meaning of the more familiar reading. Seems to me to fit fine with the larger statement. Larry L. W. Hurtado University of Edinburgh, New CollegeMound Place Edinburgh, Scotland EH1 2LX Phone: 0131-650-8920 Fax: 0131-650-6579 E-mail: L.Hurtado@ed.ac.uk ---------------------------------------------------- Robinson cites two MS evidences: a) Sinaiticus: Robinson says that the reading has been seen by T.C. Skeat under an UV lamp and that Skeat sent Robinson a photograph of this find. No other reference is given, unfortunately. But we should believe these highly respected scholars that it is correct.b)POxy 655: According to the Editio Princeps POxy 655 reads:7 ........[POL]LW KREI[S 8 SON]ES [ESTE] TWN [KRI9 NWN ATI[NA A]UXA[10 NEI OUDE N[HQ]EI I have looked at the plate and there is nothing of a letter before the U visible. Even the U is slightly damaged. The X is clearly there, but from the following A one can see only one small stroke. I would place at least a dot under this A (from looking at the plate).Robinson (and others) have: 7 ........[POL]LW KREI[S8 SON]ES [ESTE] TWN [KRI9 NWN ATI[NA O]U XA[I 10 NEI OUDE N[HQ]EI What Robinson cites as evidence is a conjecture only. They base it on the Greek grammatical construction OU - OUDE (neither - nor). It is very possible, but is is a conjecture, not evidence. If one accepts this as evidence, then one can say: Yes, there was a variant OU XAINEI in the 3rd cent. But if it's the original reading is at least debatable. At least it is not the harder reading. I personally don't know what to make of the Synoptic Problem, but I find this whole "Q-industry" rather alarming.Best wishes Wieland <>< --------------------mailto:willker@chemie.uni-bremen.de http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/ PS: My mail program has problems with sending to so many people. So please accept my apologies, if there appears a "multi"-posting. ---------------------------------------------- I am of course pleased that you want to engender discussion of my HTR essay, which I do think reports on an important finding (actually made by T.C. Skeat in 1938, but thoroughly ignored). Let me for the moment only speak to mechanics of a superficial kind: My e-mail address has changed. The one you use is out of date, and we are at Claremont Graduate University in a grace period during which it still works, but that will soon terminate, and the new address is hence needed (unfortunately the AAR/SBL 1998 Membership Directory has the old address). So please ask people to send email to me from now on to James.Robinson@cgu.edu. Second, the HTR essay is the third I have published on this topic, cast in a more popularizing vein (an SBL talk at Orlando). For the more detailed, fully documented information please see the following two essays: "Zeugnisse eines schriftlichen, griechischen vorkanonischen Textes: Mt 6,28b Sinaiticus, P.Oxy. 655 I,1-17 (EvTh 36) und Q 12,27." With Christoph Heil. Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 89 (1998): 30-44. This essay was written with a Q-Project member at Bamberg who conducted together with me a seminar there on Q and Thomas. He might well be added to your mailing list: Christoph.Heil@ktheo.uni-bamberg.de. The fullest presentation is in my essay "The Pre-Q Text of the (Ravens and) Lilies: Q 12:22-31 and P. Oxy. 655 (Gos. Thom. 36)." Eds. Stefan Maser and Egbert Schlarb. Text und Geschichte: Facetten theologischen Arbeitens aus dem Freundes- und Schülerkreis. Dieter Lührmann zum 60. Geburtstag, Marburger Theologische Studien 50. Marburg: N. G. Elwert, 1999. Pp. 143-180. To your concluding question, Skeat thinks the scribe of Sinaiticus was (like Skeat himself) an ingenious textual critic who conjectured the text he was copying was a scribal error so himself introduced the (correct) emendation. I think the Gospel of Thomas was common enough at the time to have influenced the scribe (4 copies of it are attested, which compares well with the number of copies attested for the canonical gospels at the time). Since the error was already in Q, I do not think the text of Q, Matthew and Luke are to be corrected. The Novum Testamentum Graece and translations report what Matthew and Luke wrote (as best we can), and both of them seemed to have written the scribal error that was already in Q. It is even unclear whether it should be corrected in the Critical Edition of Q (on which I am now working full-time), since the Q we are reconstructing itself may have copied from its source the mistake. It is the copy of Q that is the shared ancestor of the copies of Q used by Matthew and Luke that we seek to reconstruct, and that copy of Q had the error. Sincerely your Jim Robinson _______________________________________________________________ > I’d like to hear (or rather read) reactions. Is Robinson convincing? If >so, should Matthew 6:28 be revised, and perhaps Luke 12:27 as well? If the >error precedes Q, how could the "correct" text have fallen into the hands >of >the original Codex Sinaiticus scribe? I don't really understand your questions, Bruce. Is Robinson arguing that PWSOUXANOUSIN is the *Urtext* of Mt 6:28 (and Lk 12:27)? Only in that case do we have to contemplate revising the pertinent texts. The "original" reading of "Q" is irrelevant to this case, for it is only available through MT/Lk (if "Q" ever existed). I've not seen Robinson's article, probably I miss something here... ------------------------------------------Dr. Ulrich Schmid U.B.Schmid@t-online.de ------------------------------------------ >REPLY FROM JAMES M. ROBINSON:> > >I am of course pleased that you want to engender discussion of my HTR > >essay, which I do think reports on an important finding (actually made by > >T.C. Skeat in 1938, but thoroughly ignored). In my copy of Walter Bauer's *Griechisch-Deutsches Woerterbuch..., 5th ed. 1971* I find the entry *XAINW*, reporting Skeat's idea expressed in his 1938 ZNW-article.[...]> Skeat thinks the scribe of Sinaiticus was (like Skeat > >himself) an ingenious textual critic who conjectured the text he was > >copying was a scribal error so himself introduced the (correct) >emendation. > >I think the Gospel of Thomas was common enough at the time to have > >influenced the scribe (4 copies of it are attested, which compares well > >with the number of copies attested for the canonical gospels at the >time). Let's sum up: 1) We are dealing here with a conjectural emendation by the scribe of 01 (in Skeat's view) plus a conjecture made by Skeat to fill in a lacuna in P.Oxy. 655 (as part of the Gospel of Thomas = GT). 2) Correct me, if I'm wrong. But, out of the four copies of GT only one gives us a hint to speculate about the XAINW-reading. Oddly enough, the hint is a dammaged portion of text. Would you call that substantial evidence that GT ever contained the reading under discussion? 3) Let's assume for a moment that one copy of GT might have given the XAINW-reading. How likely is ist to assume that the mentioned reading was transmitted faithfully within the textual transmission of GT, considering (a) the dramatically unstable textual transmission of GT when compared to Mt, Mk, and Lk, and (b) the clear signs of influence from the canonical Gospels on GT (by the fourth century GT was already transmitted with the title borrowed from the canonical Gospels = Gospel _according_ to Thomas)? I'm left with puzzling questions: Is there undisputable evidence that GT exerted any other influence on fourth century scribes of Gospel manuscripts (by now we have only evidence of the reverse)? Is there any chance that a possible XAINW-reading at some point within the fluid textual transmission of GT might go back to a written source anterior to GT's initial composition? ------------------------------------------Dr. Ulrich Schmid U.B.Schmid@t-online.de ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From tc-list-owner Mon Aug 30 20:39:42 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id UAA16567 for tc-list-outgoing; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 20:39:34 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 20:48:05 -0400 From: Jim West Subject: Re: tc-list Re: The 3 TC problems X-Sender: jwest@highland.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.32.19990831004805.0067948c@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: 842 At 07:02 PM 8/30/99 -0400, you wrote: > With apologies to everyone who would like to find an autograph with the >Western non-interpolations (by which I assume is meant the longer text in >these instances, since obviously you can't "find" the non-interpolation, >if you see what I mean) -- it ain't going to happen! Of course not. But supposing you did find some 1st c. ms.... how would you know it was an autograph in the first place? What is an autograph anyway? Is it the first copy made by the amanuensis? What of the author's corrections to that before its sent? Is that the second edition? I dont understand the interest in autographs because autographs are like martians- we wouldnt know one if we saw it. Best, Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD email- jwest@highland.net web page- http://web.infoave.net/~jwest From tc-list-owner Mon Aug 30 20:59:53 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id UAA16642 for tc-list-outgoing; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 20:59:48 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f From: rlmullen@netpath.net Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990830211527.007a2810@netpath.net> X-Sender: rlmullen@netpath.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 21:15:27 -0400 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list Re: The 3 TC problems In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.5.32.19990830185805.007a36f0@netpath.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: 1585 Bart, I know very well what you mean, but since we are in the realm of the hypothetical here, an autograph (or even an additional papyrus) covering the section of text in which the western non-interpolations are disputed would be awful handy. You and I have had this duscussion before, and I still believe that liturgical practice has heavily influenced the text here. P75, A, B, K, PI, et al. have the order cup-bread-cup. D and itala-a have the order cup-bread. Itala b & e have the order bread-cup. I think a deeper look at the Syriac witnesses might be revealing. All have the order bread-cup, though Sinaitic Syriac seems to be a conflation of some sort. Sinaitic and Peshitta Syriac have v.20 with the theologically charged "in my blood." Based on a look at the arabic version of Tatian's diatessaron and at Ephraim Syrus' commentary (extant here only in Armenian)on the same, I take the order bread-cup to be the typical Syriac order. Ephraim doesn't mention blood, and the arabic version of the diatessaron apparently follows the Matthean wording, so we have no help there. This is still a thorny problem, so you can see why additional manuscript evidence would be helpful. --Rod At 07:02 PM 8/30/99 -0400, you wrote: > With apologies to everyone who would like to find an autograph with the >Western non-interpolations (by which I assume is meant the longer text in >these instances, since obviously you can't "find" the non-interpolation, >if you see what I mean) -- it ain't going to happen! > >-- Bart Ehrman > University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill > From tc-list-owner Mon Aug 30 21:03:20 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id VAA16676 for tc-list-outgoing; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 21:03:17 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19990831004805.0067948c@highland.net> References: <1.5.4.32.19990831004805.0067948c@highland.net> Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 20:13:23 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Martians? (Was: Re: tc-list Re: The 3 TC problems) 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: 1909 On 8/30/99, Jim West wrote: >Of course not. But supposing you did find some 1st c. ms.... how would you >know it was an autograph in the first place? What is an autograph anyway? >Is it the first copy made by the amanuensis? What of the author's >corrections to that before its sent? Is that the second edition? I dont >understand the interest in autographs because autographs are like martians- >we wouldnt know one if we saw it. I'm not going to argue the point about autographs; indeed, I think it's rather worse than that. What, for instance, is the autograph to 2 Corinthians? (I choose this because, of course, 2 Corinthians gives such strong evidence of being composite.) Is the autograph the three or four original parchment copies, or the collated version -- or, indeed, the copy originally included in the Pauline corpus? Or, perhaps, should the autograph be something which never existed in print at all: The actual words Paul spoke, as opposed to those taken down by his scribe? Well, I said I wasn't going to get into that. I have a question instead: What makes you say we wouldn't know a martian if we saw it? (We won't see one, of course, as popularly conceived, as there is clearly no intelligent life on Mars. But that's beside the point.) I ask, with some modicum of seriousness, "What do you know about martians that I don't know?" (It might be important. Who knows, the Martian version might preserve the original text better than any other extant translation. :-) Uh-oh -- I feel a new Encyclopedia article coming on. Even if I can only post it on April 1.... -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 tc-list-owner Mon Aug 30 21:18:10 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id VAA16785 for tc-list-outgoing; Mon, 30 Aug 1999 21:17:59 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 21:25:15 -0400 (EDT) From: Bart Ehrman X-Sender: behrman@login3.isis.unc.edu To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list Re: The 3 TC problems In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19990830211527.007a2810@netpath.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Content-Length: 2215 Sure. My point simply was (and is) that if we *were* to discover the autographs of Luke and Matthew (and if these could be proven to be autographs even to Jim West) (see hypothetical I'm making this? :-)), they wouldn't contain the non-Western interpolations. There's a lot more than Luke 22:19-20 involved here, and all of the disputed texts move in the same direction. They (the longer texts) were interpolated, imho -- but note, there *is* evidence (!), by scribes with anti-docetic concerns. -- Bart Ehrman On Mon, 30 Aug 1999 rlmullen@netpath.net wrote: > Bart, I know very well what you mean, but since we are in the realm of the > hypothetical here, an autograph (or even an additional papyrus) covering > the section of text in which the western non-interpolations are disputed > would be awful handy. You and I have had this duscussion before, and I > still believe that liturgical practice has heavily influenced the text > here. P75, A, B, K, PI, et al. have the order cup-bread-cup. D and itala-a > have the order cup-bread. Itala b & e have the order bread-cup. I think a > deeper look at the Syriac witnesses might be revealing. All have the order > bread-cup, though Sinaitic Syriac seems to be a conflation of some sort. > Sinaitic and Peshitta Syriac have v.20 with the theologically charged "in > my blood." Based on a look at the arabic version of Tatian's diatessaron > and at Ephraim Syrus' commentary (extant here only in Armenian)on the same, > I take the order bread-cup to be the typical Syriac order. Ephraim doesn't > mention blood, and the arabic version of the diatessaron apparently follows > the Matthean wording, so we have no help there. This is still a thorny > problem, so you can see why additional manuscript evidence would be > helpful. --Rod > > At 07:02 PM 8/30/99 -0400, you wrote: > > With apologies to everyone who would like to find an autograph with the > >Western non-interpolations (by which I assume is meant the longer text in > >these instances, since obviously you can't "find" the non-interpolation, > >if you see what I mean) -- it ain't going to happen! > > > >-- Bart Ehrman > > University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill > > > > From tc-list-owner Tue Aug 31 00:59:00 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id AAA17533 for tc-list-outgoing; Tue, 31 Aug 1999 00:58:25 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Message-ID: <001201bef36e$43bd8ac0$dd46d8cc@yhwh3in1> From: "Mr. Gary S. Dykes" To: "tc-list" Subject: tc-list My 3 problems Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 22:04:10 -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 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: 2078 To me the three most difficult TC problems are: 1) Having access to and acquiring good films of NT manuscripts in America. I would especially like the codices 0278, 0285, 0289 which the monks at Sinai are now digitizing at St. Catherine's. For years they will not share with Americans these manuscripts. I would like for the U. of Michigan to share a complete photo inventory of the Chester Beatty papyri (including Dublin's portion). I would like for the Arthur M. Sackler Gallery (connected with the Smithsonian) to share all of the photographs of codex 016, (they claim they have no photographs) or even to rephotograph it. I would like for the Librarians at Harvard, to find their "lost" 100 films of Biblical manuscripts. I would like for IBM and the Vatican to share all of the Biblical manuscripts they are currently digitizing, on high resolution CD's for all to see. I could go on and on. More support for the ABMC. 2) We need an internet site (with heavy international funding) to serve as a serving database of all known Biblical manuscripts. I am speaking of images, nice sharp high resolution, full color images of each folio of each manuscript. Transcriptions may be included, but a good image is of the greatest need. This would need ground level support, perhaps more than what was generated when the U.S. and Britain filmed 3 monasteries after WW II (now in the Library of Congress). These databases of images can easily and cheaply be shared on CD ROMs or DVDs. 3) All pre-printing era Biblical manuscripts need to be released into the Public Domain, and holding institutions must share that which they did not create within a reasonable time. What right has the British Library to forbid the publishing of codex 01? It is possible that some monasteries can demonstrate right of ownership and the historical lineage of some particular manuscript presently in their possession - these receive a special status. If I had the support I would definitely create numerous court challenges to this international crime. at your service, Mr. Gary S. Dykes From tc-list-owner Tue Aug 31 01:22:09 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id BAA17627 for tc-list-outgoing; Tue, 31 Aug 1999 01:22:06 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 01:22:05 -0400 (EDT) From: "James R. Adair" To: TC List Subject: tc-list review of Guting & Mealand 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: 685 A review of Asyndeton in Paul: A Text-critical and Statistical Inquiry into Pauline Style, by Eberhard W. Guting and David L. Mealand, is now available in TC volume 4. Thanks again go to David Parker for this review. More new material is on the way! *********************************************************************** James R. Adair, Jr. Director, ATLA Center for Electronic Resources in Theology and Religion -----------------------> http://purl.org/CERTR <----------------------- General Editor, TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism ------------------> http://purl.org/TC <------------------- *********************************************************************** From tc-list-owner Tue Aug 31 02:03:27 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id CAA17732 for tc-list-outgoing; Tue, 31 Aug 1999 02:03:17 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Message-ID: <19990831061055.33753.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [208.255.105.96] From: "Bruce Prior" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list My 3 problems -- regarding Freer 016 Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 23:10:54 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: 1662 >From: "Mr. Gary S. Dykes" >Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu >To: "tc-list" >Subject: tc-list My 3 problems >Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 22:04:10 -0700 snip: I would like for the Arthur M. Sackler Gallery (connected >with the Smithsonian) to share all of the photographs of codex 016, (they >claim they have no photographs) or even to rephotograph it. Gary and the group -- As far as I can ascertain, it is true that no photographs of 016 have ever been taken. When Henry A. Sanders did his transcription, he was working with the original manuscript, and did the best job he could with his own eyes. I assume in consultation with photographer George R. Swain, Sanders concluded that the leaves could not be photographed and published in a form which would be more useful than Sanders' transcript. The important research aspect of 016 is possibly recoverable text in the charred edges of the extant leaves which Sanders was unable to read. We now have multispectral scanning capabilities which I think could usefully be applied to 016. There is no Greek scholar on the staff of the Arthur M. Sackler Gallery and the Freer Gallery of Art, whose joint archives hold the manuscript leaves. I have in mind going to Washington to take on the challenge of a proper publication of 016, including computer-enhanced images and a new transcription, after I complete my current transcription/facsimile project on 032. J. Bruce Prior, Phd in Blaine, WA n7rr@hotmail.com ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From tc-list-owner Tue Aug 31 02:38:02 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id CAA17837 for tc-list-outgoing; Tue, 31 Aug 1999 02:38:00 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Message-Id: Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 08:45:26 +0200 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu References: Subject: Re: tc-list Re: The 3 TC problems 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: 677 Bart Ehrman wrote: > My point simply was (and is) that if we *were* to discover the > autographs of Luke and Matthew (and if these could be proven to be > autographs even to Jim West) (see hypothetical I'm making this? :-)), > they wouldn't contain the non-Western interpolations. Which bribgs us back to Jim's initial point: We would never recognize autographs. Let me put it slightly different: We would never _agree_ on identifying autographs, because, e.g., Bart would never allow a manuscript of Matthew and Luke containing the non-Western interpolations to be the autograph. ------------------------------------------ Dr. Ulrich Schmid U.B.Schmid@t-online.de From tc-list-owner Tue Aug 31 03:00:04 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id DAA17890 for tc-list-outgoing; Tue, 31 Aug 1999 03:00:01 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 03:00:00 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199908310700.DAA17874@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> From: Jimmy Adair (tc-list-owner) Subject: tc-list Quarterly Reminder Content-Type: text Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Content-Length: 6899 ****************************************************************************** General Information about the List ****************************************************************************** tc-list: a discussion list of biblical textual criticism This list is loosely associated with the new electronic journal _TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism_, and it is intended for a discussion of any matters relating to biblical textual criticism, broadly defined. The rationale for the creation of the TC journal is given below. It is hoped that subscribers to the tc-list will reflect on and respond to material from articles in TC, will deal with issues that arise in the context of text-critical study in the community of biblical scholars at large, and will use the list to suggest new ideas and methodologies. Notes on any aspect of the textual criticism of the Jewish and Christian scriptures (including extracanonical and related literature) are welcome, and threads that transcend the traditional boundary between textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament and New Testament textual criticism are especially encouraged. We would also like to see threads that discuss the relationship between textual criticism and other disciplines. This list is an unmoderated list, and anyone who is a subscriber to the list may contribute. Conventional netiquette should be followed by all contributors to the list. The following points in particular should be kept in mind. (1) Discussion of topics other than textual criticism (or other topics likely to be of interest to members of the list) should be avoided. (2) Scholarly discussion can at times be somewhat heated, but civility should always prevail. (3) Contributors to the list should always sign their messages with their names (not just e-mail addresses). Additional information, such as institutional affiliation, might also be of interest to others on the list. (4) When responding to a message on the list, quote only that portion of the message that you are responding to, or enough of the message to remind readers of the context of the discussion. In many cases it is not necessary to quote the entire message. Archives of tc-list are automatically maintained, and they may be accessed by sending a message like the following to majordomo@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: get tc-list tc-list.yymm where yy is a 2-digit year and mm is a 2-digit month (e.g., tc-list.9604 for April 1996). The first month archived is November 1995 (tc-list.9511). List archives may also be accessed on the Web at http://purl.org/TC/archives/tc-list/tc-list.html. TC messages since 28 Feb 1997 are also archived by Reference.COM at http://www.reference.com. ****************************************************************************** Subscribing, Unsubscribing, and Sending Messages to the List ****************************************************************************** To subscribe or unsubscribe, send the appropriate message to majordomo@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (_not_ to the list itself): subscribe tc-list [your e-mail address] unsubscribe tc-list [your e-mail address] The e-mail address is optional, since subscription will default to the address you are sending from. You may also subscribe to this list in digest form (i.e., messages bundled and sent out a few times per week) by sending this message to majordomo@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: subscribe tc-list-digest [your e-mail address] If you subscribe to the digest, be sure to unsubscribe from the list so you won't receive everything twice. To send a message to the list for all to read, send your message to tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu. Don't send to tc-list-digest, even if you're subscribed to the digest. Just send to tc-list. If you do not want to receive messages for a while (e.g., you're going on vacation or will be away from your computer for an extended time), please unsubscribe from the list. There is no "vacation" command on this list. When you want to start receiving messages again, simply subscribe to the list again. ***************************************************************************** TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism ***************************************************************************** One of the benefits of increasingly widespread Internet access is the ease with which scholars in a particular field can communicate with one another. Although the sciences have dominated the electronic journal field up until this point, several journals in the humanities are now available online. TC follows in the (brief) tradition of the Journal of Buddhist Ethics, the International Journal of Tantric Studies, and the Electronic Journal of Vedic Studies. As far as we are aware, TC is the first Web journal in the area of biblical studies. Why "biblical" textual criticism (rather than t-c of the NT or the Hebrew Bible/OT)? It is time for textual critics in the two camps to communicate more with one another. Textual critics in one field can only benefit by hearing what those in the other field have to say. The journal will accept papers dealing with any aspect of textual criticism of the OT/Hebrew Bible or NT, and it especially encourages "crossover" papers that deal with both areas. Papers dealing either with specific cruxes or with larger issues (methodology, use of versional evidence, etc.) are welcome. Brief notes or full-length articles are equally acceptable. Why an electronic journal? The fact of the matter is that printing a journal costs a lot of money (especially with recent increases in paper prices). In addition, it is debatable whether the field of textual criticism could generate a large enough base to support a paper journal. There are technical difficulties with displaying non-Latin characters that will have to be addressed, but some of these difficulties have already been overcome. With an electronic journal, scholars and students around the world can have free access to one or another form of the journal, either via the World Wide Web, FTP, or e-mail. TC is now in its second year of operation, and we are looking for articles. Please submit your articles in electronic form to: Jimmy Adair ATLA Center for Electronic Texts in Religion 486 Castleaire Dr. Stone Mountain, GA 30087 USA You are also welcome to send articles via e-mail to jadair@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu, or you may upload your articles directly to our FTP site at ftp://shemesh.scholar.emory.edu/uploads/TC. TC has a home page on TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web site (http://purl.org/TC), and interested parties can look at this page for announcements. We look forward to your participation in TC and tc-list! The list-owner of tc-list is Jimmy Adair (jadair@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu). From tc-list-owner Tue Aug 31 06:21:55 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id GAA19169 for tc-list-outgoing; Tue, 31 Aug 1999 06:21:19 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 06:28:44 -0400 (EDT) From: Bart Ehrman X-Sender: behrman@login3.isis.unc.edu To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list Re: The 3 TC problems 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: 1064 Hey, I may be closed-minded about *some* things (we should avoid split infinitives; the market economy is killing scholarship; and Talisker is one fine single malt), but you show me a first-century manuscript of any kind that has the texts interpolated, and I'll change my mind in a *flash*! -- Bart Ehrman On Tue, 31 Aug 1999, U.B.Schmid wrote: > Bart Ehrman wrote: > > My point simply was (and is) that if we *were* to discover the > > autographs of Luke and Matthew (and if these could be proven to be > > autographs even to Jim West) (see hypothetical I'm making this? :-)), > > they wouldn't contain the non-Western interpolations. > > Which bribgs us back to Jim's initial point: We would never recognize > autographs. Let me put it slightly different: We would never _agree_ on > identifying autographs, because, e.g., Bart would never allow a manuscript of > Matthew and Luke containing the non-Western interpolations to be the autograph. > > ------------------------------------------ > Dr. Ulrich Schmid > U.B.Schmid@t-online.de > > From tc-list-owner Tue Aug 31 08:25:29 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id IAA19576 for tc-list-outgoing; Tue, 31 Aug 1999 08:25:14 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f From: "Mark Goodacre" Organization: The University of Birmingham To: "TC-List" Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 13:32:23 GMT MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: tc-list Re: The James M. Robinson debate about Matt. 6.28 and par. CC: james.robinson@cgu.edu Priority: normal 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: 3058 Dr. Ulrich Schmid wrote: > Let's sum up: > 1) We are dealing here with a conjectural emendation by the scribe of > 01 (in Skeat's view) plus a conjecture made by Skeat to fill in a > lacuna in P.Oxy. 655 (as part of the Gospel of Thomas = GT). Did Skeat himself make the latter suggestion as well as the former? He may well have done -- I have not checked his article -- but Fitzmyer, who prefers the reconstruct HATI[NA A]UXANEI, attributes the reconstruction to R. A. Kraft, "Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 655 Reconsidered", _HTR 54 (1961), pp. 253-262 (pp. 258-9). In an ealier exchange on Robinson's article on the Gospel of Thomas list, Sytze van der Laan noted that this reconstruction was also proposed by Bartlet (1905), Taylor (1906) and Michelsen (1909) -- for full references see his comprehensive Gospel of Thomas bibliography. > 2) > Correct me, if I'm wrong. But, out of the four copies of GT only one > gives us a hint to speculate about the XAINW-reading. Oddly enough, > the hint is a dammaged portion of text. Would you call that > substantial evidence that GT ever contained the reading under > discussion? This point lacks force because only one of "the four copies of GT" contains the *sentence* in question -- so we have nothing within the Thomas tradition with which to compare this reconstruction. P Oxy 655 is the fragment featuring the words in question; P Oxy 654 and 1 do not cover the same material and Coptic Thomas has a much shorter version of Logion 36. > 3) Let's assume for a moment that one copy of GT might > have given the XAINW-reading. How likely is ist to assume that the > mentioned reading was transmitted faithfully within the textual > transmission of GT, considering (a) the dramatically unstable textual > transmission of GT when compared to Mt, Mk, and Lk, and (b) the clear > signs of influence from the canonical Gospels on GT (by the fourth > century GT was already transmitted with the title borrowed from the > canonical Gospels = Gospel _according_ to Thomas)? I'm left with > puzzling questions: Is there undisputable evidence that GT exerted any > other influence on fourth century scribes of Gospel manuscripts (by > now we have only evidence of the reverse)? Is there any chance that a > possible XAINW-reading at some point within the fluid textual > transmission of GT might go back to a written source anterior to GT's > initial composition? If I have understood Robinson (and Heil's) thesis, isn't that the point, that Thomas and Q shared a Vorlage that featured the words OU XAINEI? Thomas (P Oxy 655) witnesses directly to the Vorlage while Q is held to have made a scribal error, misreading the words as AUXANEI. Mark -------------------------------------- Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@bham.ac.uk Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512 University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 6866 Birmingham B15 2TT United Kingdom http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre The New Testament Gateway Mark Without Q Aseneth Home Page From tc-list-owner Tue Aug 31 08:59:01 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id IAA19759 for tc-list-outgoing; Tue, 31 Aug 1999 08:58:57 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Message-Id: Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 15:06:16 +0200 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu References: Subject: Re: tc-list Re: The 3 TC problems 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: 1779 I would be happy to learn more about first-century NT manuscripts. Are there recent findings, purchases, etc. that escaped my notice? But seriously, Bart. Suppose the following scenario: A fragment of a manuscript is found somewhere in the desert. It covers bits and pieces of the Gospel of Luke, including Lk 22:20 and it appears to be written by the same hand as P52. Given the usual dating of P52 (125 CE +/-25 years) touching the turn of the first century, would the supposed interpolation in your view tip the scale to date it later or not? Bart Ehrman wrote: > Hey, I may be closed-minded about *some* things (we should avoid split > infinitives; the market economy is killing scholarship; and Talisker is > one fine single malt), but you show me a first-century manuscript of any > kind that has the texts interpolated, and I'll change my mind in a > *flash*! > > -- Bart Ehrman > > > On Tue, 31 Aug 1999, U.B.Schmid wrote: > > > Bart Ehrman wrote: > > > My point simply was (and is) that if we *were* to discover the > > > autographs of Luke and Matthew (and if these could be proven to be > > > autographs even to Jim West) (see hypothetical I'm making this? :-)), > > > they wouldn't contain the non-Western interpolations. > > > > Which bribgs us back to Jim's initial point: We would never recognize > > autographs. Let me put it slightly different: We would never _agree_ on > > identifying autographs, because, e.g., Bart would never allow a manuscript > of > > Matthew and Luke containing the non-Western interpolations to be the > autograph. > > > > ------------------------------------------ > > Dr. Ulrich Schmid > > U.B.Schmid@t-online.de > > > > > ------------------------------------------ Dr. Ulrich Schmid U.B.Schmid@t-online.de From tc-list-owner Tue Aug 31 09:15:29 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id JAA19866 for tc-list-outgoing; Tue, 31 Aug 1999 09:15:20 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 09:22:39 -0400 (EDT) From: Bart Ehrman X-Sender: behrman@login4.isis.unc.edu To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list Re: The 3 TC problems 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: 3158 No, in fact I think the text would have to be dated strictly on palaeographic grounds. Once it is dated, then one would have to consider the implications for theories of textual corruption (since there were already strong anti-docetic tendencies in proto-orthodox circles by 125 CE +/- 25, I'm not sure that it would affect things too much; by all counts, whether one thinks the longer or shorter text is original, it was changed very early) If, though, a text were discovered that could *somehow* be dated even earlier, say, to the year 95 CE (this wouldn't be impossible of course; suppose it were discovered as a text in a leather bound volume, and the binding had been strengthened with documentary scraps -- grocery lists, scorecards, or whatever -- that were dated 95; that would be pretty good evidence), then I should think the theory of an anti-docetic corruption in this case would be seriously called into question. Obviously all we can do is base our judgments on the evidence at hand, and my point is simply that on the basis of what we've got, it looks as if the shorter texts in these passages is original and that the interpolations were made in an attempt to counter certain docetic tendencies. -- Bart Ehrman On Tue, 31 Aug 1999, U.B.Schmid wrote: > I would be happy to learn more about first-century NT manuscripts. Are there > recent findings, purchases, etc. that escaped my notice? But seriously, Bart. > Suppose the following scenario: > A fragment of a manuscript is found somewhere in the desert. It covers bits and > pieces of the Gospel of Luke, including Lk 22:20 and it appears to be written by > the same hand as P52. Given the usual dating of P52 (125 CE +/-25 years) > touching the turn of the first century, would the supposed interpolation in > your view tip the scale to date it later or not? > > Bart Ehrman wrote: > > Hey, I may be closed-minded about *some* things (we should avoid split > > infinitives; the market economy is killing scholarship; and Talisker is > > one fine single malt), but you show me a first-century manuscript of any > > kind that has the texts interpolated, and I'll change my mind in a > > *flash*! > > > > -- Bart Ehrman > > > > > > On Tue, 31 Aug 1999, U.B.Schmid wrote: > > > > > Bart Ehrman wrote: > > > > My point simply was (and is) that if we *were* to discover the > > > > autographs of Luke and Matthew (and if these could be proven to be > > > > autographs even to Jim West) (see hypothetical I'm making this? :-)), > > > > they wouldn't contain the non-Western interpolations. > > > > > > Which bribgs us back to Jim's initial point: We would never recognize > > > autographs. Let me put it slightly different: We would never _agree_ on > > > identifying autographs, because, e.g., Bart would never allow a manuscript > > of > > > Matthew and Luke containing the non-Western interpolations to be the > > autograph. > > > > > > ------------------------------------------ > > > Dr. Ulrich Schmid > > > U.B.Schmid@t-online.de > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------ > Dr. Ulrich Schmid > U.B.Schmid@t-online.de > > From tc-list-owner Tue Aug 31 11:36:07 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id LAA20801 for tc-list-outgoing; Tue, 31 Aug 1999 11:35:12 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Message-Id: <199908311542.RAA22088@carno.brus.online.be> Subject: Re: tc-list Re: The 3 TC problems Date: Mar, 31 Ao 99 17:49:10 +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="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu id LAA20797 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Content-Length: 780 > >1. The rest of P52 >2. Autograph Mark >3. Original Aramaic "Gospel of the Nazarenes." Well, if it ever existed, I sure would like to see an Aramaic or Hebrew gospel from the first century - it will probably contain many surprises. My other wishes would be: the missing parts of codex Bezae, and a complete copy (or even only a fragment, but then a long one) of the Diatessaron in Syriac, and one more manuscript of the vetus syra. Jean V. _______________________________________________________________ Dites-le avec des mots. Ca coûte moins cher. _______________________________________________________________ Jean Valentin - 34 rue du Berceau - 1000 Bruxelles - Belgique e-mail : jgvalentin@arcadis.be _______________________________________________________________ From tc-list-owner Tue Aug 31 18:01:31 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id SAA23542 for tc-list-outgoing; Tue, 31 Aug 1999 18:01:11 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Message-ID: <19990831220849.38554.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [208.252.64.14] From: "Bruce Prior" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Cc: evans@twu.ca Subject: tc-list Fwd: POxy655 again Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 15:08:49 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: 3676 >From: "Craig A. Evans" >To: "Bruce Prior" >Subject: POxy655 again > >31 August 1999 > >Bruce: > >I heard Jim Robinson's presentation in Helsinki/Lahti, at the 1999 >International SBL meeting in July. He discussed this alleged original >reading, preserved in POxy655 and apparently attested in the original form >of Codex Sinaiticus. He sees it as further evidence of a primitive cluster >of early Q tradition. POxy655 attests, Robinson believes, a "scribal error" >in Q, which has now been carried over into Matthew and Luke. The original >reading of Sinaiticus, so Robinson's proposal goes, harks back to the >original form of the saying, later corrupted in the copies of Q used by the >Matthean and Lukan evangelists. > >I have at least four problems with Robinson's published studies (which he >mentions in the email and which are duly noted in the footnotes of the 1999 >HTR article): (1) Not one of the key letters for the proposed "they do not >card" is actual visible in POxy655. Therefore, it is an overstatement to >claim that this reading is attested by this papyrus. The reading is >certainly possible, but it is far from certain. (2) Robinson implies that >scholars have been irresponsible in neglecting POxy655's important >contribution to the question of the original reading of Q. I don't think >so; several studies have appeared, beginning with Bartlet's 1905 study >(which Robinson refers to, almost dismissively) and including studies by >Robert Kraft, Joseph Fitzmyer, and others. (3) Robinson's HTR article >leaves one with the impression that T.C. Skeat's ultra-violet study of the >variants (and particularly erasures) of Sinaiticus is recent news. It is >not; Skeat published his findings in 1938. (4) Finally, in my opinion >Robinson makes a great deal of weight rest on a reading that is in fact not >clearly attested. A whole series of conclusions are drawn from what might >not actually be the reading of POxy655. In the end, Robinson could be >correct on all points: that POxy655 does support "they do not card," that >Sinaiticus does attest this reading, that it is the original reading of Q >later corrupted in the editions utilized by Matthew and Luke, and that this >is further evidence of the existence of a written Q, which also contains >primitve clusters of material. However, I think it is important that >readers, especially nonexperts, realize just how tenuous this whole line of >reasoning is. Robinson speaks with more confidence and assurance than the >ambiguous and fragmentary evidence warrants. > >One last point, Robinson's reference to "right wing charlatans," who from >time to time argue for a first-century date of NT papyri, is unkind and >discourteous. He is of course referring to Carsten Peter Thiede who has >argued that P64 (the Magdalene Papyrus) dates to 70 AD (and he may also >have in mind Jose O'Callahan who argued similar with reference to 7Q5 as a >fragment of Mark). Whether one agrees with Thiede or not (and I don't), I >don't think that makes him a charlatan. > >I have begun writing an article covering some of these points. I should >finish it in a few weeks. Where I submit it I have not decided yet. > >If you want to circulate this note, you have my permission. > >Sincerely, > >Craig A. Evans, Director >Graduate Program in Biblical Studies >Trinity Western University >Langley, British Columbia > >____________________________ > >Craig A. Evans, Director >Graduate Program in Biblical Studies >Trinity Western University >Langley, British Columbia > > ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com