From tc-list-owner Wed Sep 1 05:23:19 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id FAA27714 for tc-list-outgoing; Wed, 1 Sep 1999 05:22:48 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Message-Id: Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 11:30:22 +0200 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu References: Subject: Re: tc-list Re: The James M. Robinson debate about Matt. 6.28 and par. 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: 4603 Mark Goodacre wrote: > 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? To be honest, I don't know. My point simply was that we are dealing here with conjectures, i.e. a conjecture made by the scribe of 01 in Skeat's view (according to Robinson), and a conjecture in P. Oxy. 655 supported by some. > > 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. I probably gave a confusing presentation of my case. What I indended to argue was as follows: Robinson brought up the number "four" apparently to illustrate the wide dissemination of GT which enhances the probability that the scribe of 01 made contact with the (conjectured) reading of GT. It is, of course, Robinson's point that lacks force, because the only copy of GT to compare P. Oxy. 655 with, i.e. Coptic Thomas, lacks this part of the logion, as you already indicated. My main point is the confusing textual history of GT which becomes apparent when comparing the Greek fragments with the Coptic text. This is especially odd for logion 36, for this very logion apparently was not preserved in its integrity throughout the entire textual history of GT. To put it boldly: Arguing on the basis of "four copies" of GT for a wide dissemination of the conjectured *reading* in P. Oxy. 655 is deeply misleading. > > 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. Let's rephrase the (rhetorical) questions of my previous post. Given the unstable textual history of GT, especially for logion 36 (see above), I would argue as follows: 1. The extant textual transmission of GT strongly suggests that the XAINW-reading, had it once existed, has not seen wide dissemination (see above). Therefore, this reading is a very poor example of GT influence on scribes of Gospel manuscripts. I would like to see more and better examples of that kind in order to enhance the probability for the XAINW-reading. 2. On the other hand, we do have evidence that GT, at least the Coptic version, has been subjected to influence from the canonical Gospels. Therefore, we can't even be sure, that the XAINW-reading, had it once existed within the textual transmission of GT, belonged to the earliest version of GT, let alone to a written source anterior to GT. One could argue the reverse as well: Logion 36 of GT has been subjected to influence from the canonical tradition (Mt 6:28), since 01* testifies to the reading that could have stood in P. Oxy. 655. ------------------------------------------ Dr. Ulrich Schmid U.B.Schmid@t-online.de From tc-list-owner Wed Sep 1 06:45:47 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id GAA28098 for tc-list-outgoing; Wed, 1 Sep 1999 06:45:42 -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 P.W. Comfort: New Reconstructions and Identifications Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 12:50:03 +0200 Message-Id: <000101bef467$bec14aa0$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: 1561 In the latest issue of Novum Testamentum is an article by P.W. Comfort, in which he makes interesting observations (not all new): P.W. Comfort "New Reconstructions and Identifications of NT Papyri" NovT 41 (1999) 214 - 230 1. Assigning MSS to the same codex: a) P4 + P64 + P67 ("convinced beyond doubt") b) P15 + P16 ("most likely are from the same codex") c) P49 + P65 ("very likely belong to the same codex", "same scribe") d) P77 + POxy4405 + POxy 4403(?, "more likely") (already stated in the Ed.Pr.) 2. New identifications: P4: Comfort mentiones three small fragments that are in a separate envelope inside the box with the other fragments. He assigns them to Luke. P13: He assigns a small strip to Heb 10:29-32 P30: Another small strip assigned to 2Thes 2:1 and 2:9-11 P40: two remaining unassigned fragments assigned to Rom 6 P46: Assignment of several final lines P66: "A paleographic study of the second correctors handwriting reveals that the first paginator is the same as the second corrector..." Stages of production: 1. Some corrections as the scribe wrote 2. The paginator of the first part (p. 1-99) made many corrections. 3. At page 100 a second paginator/corrector took over. He made further corrections. 4. Yet another corrector (possibly the second paginator) made a few changes esp. in ch. 13. Did I got that right? Comfort also assigns (or tries to assign) seven of the many very small scaps of P66. Best wishes Wieland <>< -------------------- mailto:willker@chemie.uni-bremen.de http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/ From tc-list-owner Wed Sep 1 07:40:12 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id HAA28497 for tc-list-outgoing; Wed, 1 Sep 1999 07:40:07 -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 Living Text Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 13:44:16 +0200 Message-Id: <000201bef46f$51bc6180$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: 842 Regarding the discussion about what an autograph is and in view of Parkers "Living Text of the Gospels": If we depart from trying to reconstruct the autographs, what is the end result? If we simply try to establish the diversity of readings? Each variant represented the text of the Gospel for some group at some point. Have they all the same value then? Is this leading people to say: I believe in Codex B! - No, I'm a Sinaiticus-man! Should all early readings (definition!) be placed with equal weighting side by side in the NT? Will the new NA-28 look more like Swanson? Do we have the choice to choose readings, both THE WORD OF GOD? Haven't thought about that before, interesting. Is this a new TC paradigm? Best wishes Wieland <>< -------------------- mailto:willker@chemie.uni-bremen.de http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/ From tc-list-owner Wed Sep 1 15:01:10 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id PAA04758 for tc-list-outgoing; Wed, 1 Sep 1999 15:00:49 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f From: "Matthew Anstey" To: "TC-List" Subject: tc-list Textual question about Ruth 4.1 Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 12:07:12 -0700 Message-ID: <000701bef4ad$341eb5e0$478257ce@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: 904 Gday everyone, I am working at the moment part-time for SIL and we are using the uncorrected proof of Ruth (BHQ) distributed at SBL last year for help with our textual notes for a translations software package that SIL is developing. I was curious as to why no note is attached to "peloniy 'almoniy" in Ruth 4.1 when I understand that the LXX, Targum, and Vulgate have quite different renderings of this phrase. If you could spare the time to respond it would be much appreciated. With regards, Matthew Anstey Regent College, Vancouver ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 tc-list-owner Wed Sep 1 16:47:32 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id QAA06489 for tc-list-outgoing; Wed, 1 Sep 1999 16:47:10 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Message-ID: From: "Lund, Jerome" To: "'tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu'" Subject: RE: tc-list Textual question about Ruth 4.1 Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 16:54:50 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1460.8) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Content-Length: 1316 The formal equivalents to the Hebrew expression reflect exegesis and do not reflect a Hebrew variant. Thus, the editors would not record it. > ---------- > From: Matthew Anstey[SMTP:manstey@portal.ca] > Reply To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu > Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 1999 12:07 PM > To: TC-List > Subject: tc-list Textual question about Ruth 4.1 > > Gday everyone, > > I am working at the moment part-time for SIL and we are using the > uncorrected proof of Ruth (BHQ) distributed at SBL last year for help with > our textual notes for a translations software package that SIL is > developing. I was curious as to why no note is attached to "peloniy > 'almoniy" in Ruth 4.1 when I understand that the LXX, Targum, and Vulgate > have quite different renderings of this phrase. If you could spare the > time > to > respond it would be much appreciated. > > With regards, > Matthew Anstey > Regent College, Vancouver > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 tc-list-owner Thu Sep 2 00:55:34 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id AAA09512 for tc-list-outgoing; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 00:55:13 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Message-ID: <004e01bef500$26465060$d346d8cc@yhwh3in1> From: "Mr. Gary S. Dykes" To: "tc-list" Subject: tc-list RE- The Living Text Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 22:00:59 -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: 2685 Professor Willker (and TC- list community) My web site, which is under construction, will make known my understandings about variants and the Word of God. Indeed, you are to be congratulated, this is a major issue -- a silent one which haunts many conservative pastors. Traditionally TC of the Bible has been subjected exclusively to human logic, using established principles derived from classical scholarship. To the written Word of God the classical canons of criticism have been applied. One result of this has been chaos, especially amongst pagan scholars -- as they cannot determine which reading is original in many cases. Thus they claim (some do) the original text is unrecoverable, when conservatives here of this lamentation despair can set in, or the critics are just ignored. And this is the case in many churches and parishes, the critics/scholars are ignored. My thesis is to posit that the possession and reliance upon the indwelling Holy Spirit is mandatory for critical exegesis to proceed. Only an obedient saint has the ability to use and enjoy the variants. Such gifted saints live and experience the living Word, it is part of their daily lives in every aspect (Hebrews 4:12). They have an extremely close living relationship with the Word! Which means that total agreement or complete uniformity will not result. For each qualified elected person/scholar may truly have a different perspective and choice. I believe God allows for this. Variants exist because God did not want Satan to be able to focus upon ONE single original. It lies in this dispersed in this large panoply of manuscripts, protected, and believers only have the Key by which to extract the true text when variants do arise. The true text is dispersed amongst many copies, and gifted saints/scholars can reconstruct the originals. Much training is required, and not all saints have this unique ministry, and it will engender some bitterness, but faith must prevail. It is this unique faith which pagan critics lack, they cannot even comprehend how a believer (an elected person) can see some poorly attested variant as genuine. It is understood that the canons of textual criticism are very needed and useful, I rely upon them in my work, but the witness of the Holy Spirit is often overlooked. Overlooked because it is not scientifically observable. Both external and internal criteria must be used in decision making, but the Holy Spirit should also be consulted, and only those folks who have a healthy relationship through Christ with God can truly use this powerful tool. much more coming at my site, at your service, Mr. Gary S. Dykes - yhwh3in1@lightspeed.net From tc-list-owner Thu Sep 2 07:23:59 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id HAA11668 for tc-list-outgoing; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 07:22:09 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f From: "DC PARKER" Organization: The University of Birmingham To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1999 12:29:09 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: 12167 Having been away since the beginning of August, I have only just read this reply. I am disappointed to note that Dr Comfort brushes aside two of my three major complaints in the last paragraph. Particularly, he treats my criticism of the lack of dots as though it were of no consequence. He also overlooks the fact that I have been able to indicate that he reproduces typographical errors of the editiones principes - such as in P22. On the other hand, I am pleased to see in the reply a list of MSS which they had actually studied. However, I have had my say about all that in the review, and have no intention of repeating myself. I am also disappointed that Comfort chooses to attack the IGNTP John papyrus volume, of which I was a co-editor, in this rather adversarial context, apparently in the conviction that attack is the best form of defence. Even if the IGNTP volume is atrocious, Comfort's work is not therby any better. He has chosen to make a long list of errors in IGNTP. As editor of that, rather than as reviewer of Comfort's book, I reply to his comments. > 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. That is partly true. Indeed, since I made this observation in a private communication to Dr Comfort, I can even claim precedence over him in the discovery of the fact. But the phrase 'more often than not' is an exaggeration. We usually changed the TR to fit the line length available and what the papyrus might have read, in orthography and abbreviations. It is just that we miscalculated in a couple of places. > 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... We discussed this extensively in committee as a matter of principal and as editors with regard to every witness. Sometimes, we felt that earlier editors had been too sanguine in what they could read at the edge. Sometimes, we did supply missing bits - see e.g. P60. But we felt that it was our duty to record what WE could see, not what other people had seen. The whole point of the notes, indicating all our departures from earlier editors, is that IT ALLOWS THE USERS TO MAKE UP THEIR OWN MINDS. > 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. We only provided a collation of P66 and P75, not a transcription. Since our apparatus does not contain nomina sacra except where necessary (e.g. 19.25 DEF for P66), or punctuation, this is factually so, but not a problem. With regard to indications of line length, our apparatus indicates the number of letters in a lacuna, without restoring the text - so we do show the available space. > 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) > Yes, this is a place where we put in the TR, and I think it's wrong. > 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) > We disagreed with the ed. pr. view of this very difficult line. To say the letter before > the iota could not be a mu; it must be an eta is far too confident. On balance, we felt happier with our reading. > In John 16:17, their text mistakenly reads EN TWN MAQHTWN, when it should > read EK TWN MAQHTWN > Yes, that's right. We'd spotted that one too. > In John 16:20, they missed the correction on LUPHQH --I think we got it > right, but it needs more research. > That puzzled us until after the volume came out. But we accept that there is a correction there. > In John 16:23, their text adds OTI OSA against Grenfell and Hunt's text > and against the space of the line length > No - this line length is still possible. > 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. > We don't "mis" it. We don't think it's there. > In John 20:11, their text fills in the lacuna with TR's MNHMEION with no > ancient manuscript support, contra MNHMEIW. > This isn't a space question, so we are consistent. > In John 20:12, their text says that there are three lines missing--there > are only two (see our transcription). > I think that a confusion arose in my own mind, counting from the extant tau onwards in the previous line. Two must be right. > In John 20:14, an article is added before IHS from the TR, with no > ancient MSS support. > Again, no space question. > In John 20:15, EQHKAS AUTON comes from the TR, with no ancient manuscript > support. > Ditto > > 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. > Disagree. It's a hard papyrus, which we had a good look at, and I'm as confident as is reasonable that we're right. > In 16:1, we followed ed. pr. but now think IGNTP is probably right in > reconstructing it as SKAND]ALISQHTE > There's no doubt about this one. As I wrote, ed. pr. and Comfort reading is a typo. > 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. > We don't know where the lines began, because there are no margins. Our solution was simply to put the beginning of what survives as the beginning of a line. we state this in a note on page 41! > 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. Fits the available space, so consistent. 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. > Don't understand. Does Comfort refer to recto or verso? Anyway, see above on reading what we could see. > 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), No alpha there - Comfort has misread a mark as ink. the epsilon of > EPIASEN (8:20), Ditto and the tau of TH (8:21). We decided that couldn't be ink either - compare the strands of papyrus with the photo of the verso! Overall, we felt that the first editor had read letters that weren't there rather often -hence our 'baffling" number of disagreements with him. > In 8:14, they used TR to reconstruct line with ERCOMAI KA]I versus H as > found in ed. pr. and CT. > Seemed O.K. to us - see above. > 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. > No space problem. > Concerning John 11:32 and 54, this will call for more research. > Why? If Dr Comfort wants to go to Dublin and pay my air fare to join him, I'll show him. > > 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. No it's not - I'm confident that we got this right. I couldn't understand why Kenyon ignored them. > > 20. For P52 > > In John 18:38, the word ECHLQE in IGNTP is lacking final nu. = TR > > Parker's other comments about two readings in P52 are debatable. > Actually, I'm confident about these two. > 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... Again, note that we went with what we could see There follows a long list of suggested corrections to IGNTP collations of P66 and P75. It is too long to go through quickly, and so I sahll nor reply to them here. I am baffled why Dr Comfort failed to point some of these things out when he was working on P66 for IGNTP. Perhaps he only found them out later. > 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. I refute that. I accept a couple of places where there is an oversight of a correction in P5, but nobody has yet found an error in any of our transcriptions of what is IN a papyrus. Comfort has listed a multitude of objections above, but in every place except the P5 correction which I have mentioned, and some restorations and ancillary material, there is no error on our part. Every reading which he criticises is the product of deliberate reflection. I cannot of course speak for his animadversion on P66 and P75 until I have studied them. > We would urge a second, corrected printing of the Johannine papyri in the > IGNTP We intend to provide a list of errata in the majuscule volume. 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. We are happy to stay with our policy of printing what we see. We have no intention of making a transcription of P66 or P75. We will deal later with the criticisms concerning P66. The ultimate goal is to provide as > accurate as possible transcriptions of the Greek NT manuscripts to aid > the work of NT textual criticism. No, our ultimate goal is a critical edition of John's Gospel. > 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. If you look closely at my review, you will see that that is not what I said. I expect that it is disheartening, but reviewers are supposed to express what they consider to be accurate and fair opinions. 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 tc-list-owner Thu Sep 2 08:36:41 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id IAA12032 for tc-list-outgoing; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 08:35:17 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990902084357.00836150@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: scarlson@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Thu, 02 Sep 1999 08:43:57 -0400 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Stephen C. Carlson" Subject: Re: tc-list Reply to Parker's review In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Content-Length: 1836 At 11:34 AM 8/5/99 -0500, Barrett, David 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. [...] >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. At 12:29 PM 9/2/99 GMT, DC PARKER wrote: >I am disappointed to note that Dr Comfort brushes aside two of my >three major complaints in the last paragraph. Particularly, he treats my >criticism of the lack of dots as though it were of no consequence. I would agree that the lack of dots is a serious concern about the book, and I am not entirely satisfied that publishing difficulties should prevent any presentation of this information, even though the preferred form of placing dots under the letters is not available. For example, if it is possible to use both bold and normal print, then the bold print can be used for letters without dots and the normal print for letters with dots or lacunae. Although I do not doubt that the decision not to include the underdots was driven by the publishers, not the editors, I am not entirely convinced that "Publishing constraints required their omission from the outset" (p. 15) is really the case for technical reasons, because the printed text includes overbars for the nomina sacra. I do not understand why the publishers would refuse the underdots but allow the overbars; they seem equally feasible. Stephen Carlson -- Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@mindspring.com Synoptic Problem Home Page http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/ "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35 From tc-list-owner Thu Sep 2 09:08:35 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id JAA12330 for tc-list-outgoing; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 09:07:13 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f From: "Wieland Willker" To: "Papy List" , "TC-List" , "B-Greek" Subject: tc-list Oxyrhynchus Statistics Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1999 15:10:48 +0200 Message-Id: <000001bef544$92f40740$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: 949 This is on my rough count the statistics of the theological fragments found at Oxyrhynchus (1 - 4449): NT-Papyri: 40 (Mt: 11; Jo: 10; Rom: 3; James: 3, Hebr: 2; Rev: 2...) NT-vellum: 7 NT-Apocrypha: 24 (Hermas: 7) OT-LXX: 21 (1-5Mose: 9; Psalms: 6) OT-Apocrypha: 4 (Tobit: 2) other theol. fragments: 27 (homilies, prayers, hymns...) Philo: 3 Most of the fragments are dated to the 3rd or 4th century. Some are dated 2nd cent. and some 5th and 6th. Two OT-LXX fragments are dated 1st century (POxy 3522 and 4443). It is interesting that only one late fragment from the prophets (Amos, POxy 846, VI cent.) has been found. I would have expected at least some Isaiah. Best wishes Wieland <>< -------------------- mailto:willker@chemie.uni-bremen.de http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/ PS: Please check out my list of NT Papyri at: http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/texte/Papyri-list.html I still don't know what P99 is. Anyone? From tc-list-owner Thu Sep 2 09:16:24 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id JAA12404 for tc-list-outgoing; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 09:15:02 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Message-ID: <37CE7532.1E6@total.net> Date: Thu, 02 Sep 1999 09:01:38 -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: Re: tc-list RE- The Living Text References: <004e01bef500$26465060$d346d8cc@yhwh3in1> 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: 1541 Mr. Gary S. Dykes wrote: > It is understood that the canons of textual criticism are very needed > and useful, I rely upon them in my work, but the witness of the Holy Spirit > is often overlooked. Overlooked because it is not scientifically > observable. Both external and internal criteria must be used in decision > making, but the Holy Spirit should also be consulted, and only those folks > who have a healthy relationship through Christ with God can truly use this > powerful tool. Gary, Although I am not interested in starting a debate along these lines on the TC-LIST (but I would be willing to discuss this privately), I would like to ask you a question regarding your methodology: you state that "the canons of textual criticism are very needed and useful, I rely upon them in my work, but the witness of the Holy Spirit is often overlooked. Overlooked because it is not scientifically observable. Both external and internal criteria must be used in decision making, but the Holy Spirit should also be consulted..." I infer that your methodology is: 1 - apply the canons of TC on a select group of variants in order to determine which reading is the 'original'; 2 - 'consult' the Holy Spirit with regards to identifying the original reading. Now since I have your methodology in theory, can you now demonstrate the _practical workings_ of this for the following passages?: 1. Matt. 27:35 ('that it might be fulfilled...') 2. John 5:7-8 (Johannine Comma) 3. Acts 8:37 ('and Philip said...') Mike Arcieri From tc-list-owner Thu Sep 2 09:21:53 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id JAA12444 for tc-list-outgoing; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 09:20:31 -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: <004e01bef500$26465060$d346d8cc@yhwh3in1> References: <004e01bef500$26465060$d346d8cc@yhwh3in1> Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1999 08:24:39 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: tc-list RE- The Living Text 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: 1630 On 9/1/99, Mr. Gary S. Dykes wrote, in part: [ ... ] > My thesis is to posit that the possession and reliance upon the >indwelling Holy Spirit is mandatory for critical exegesis to proceed. To this I must ask a very stupid question: If you and I both practice criticism by trusting the "indwelling Holy Spirit," and we disagree, how do we proceed? Two different scholars practicing scientific methods may produce different results, but both should achieve *repeatable* results. The Holy Spirit, sad to say, does *not* produce repeatable results, or else there would be no profusion of Protestant sects. Again, to ask a stupid question, If you trust the Holy Spirit to tell you what the Bible says, how can you trust the Bible in the first place? If the Spirit tells you that 1 Corinthians 12:3 "ought" to read "It is only by the Holy Spirit that one can say 'Jesus be cursed,'" how can you prove that wrong? The Spirit told you to do it! (And it is no good to say, "No, the Spirit didn't," because while I freely concede that it didn't tell *you* that, there is no question that others have gotten different messages. The point is, how can you, without some form of non-spiritual criteria for judgment, tell a "good" spirit from a "bad"?) I find this attitude utterly incomprehensible -- and dangerous. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Thu Sep 2 09:58:17 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id JAA12686 for tc-list-outgoing; Thu, 2 Sep 1999 09:56:54 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Glen Thompson" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1999 09:06:05 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: tc-list Oxyrhynchus Statistics Priority: normal In-reply-to: <000001bef544$92f40740$67566686@chemie.unibremen.de> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.54) Message-Id: <19990902090604.96eadabe5ffe11d39d6e0080c8678d5f.in@mailhost.mlc-wels.edu> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Content-Length: 806 Thanks for the statistics, Wieland. However we need to be cautious about statements like: >It is interesting that only one late fragment from the prophets >(Amos, POxy 846, VI cent.) has been found. I would have expected at >least some Isaiah. One must beware of assuming that what was found is what has been published. A wealth of material is still awaiting publication. Some of the more recent editors have had little interest in theological material and therefore bypassed it in the publication process. The current editors are remedying that situation. I have been assured that some major New Testament material is still in the process of being published -- at least as exciting as the large Revelation text in the most recent volume (which I have not seen yet). Glen L. Thompson From tc-list-owner Fri Sep 3 08:13:14 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id IAA20376 for tc-list-outgoing; Fri, 3 Sep 1999 08:12:40 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Message-ID: <37CFBD0D.DCD8D17C@emory.edu> Date: Fri, 03 Sep 1999 08:20:29 -0400 From: Patrick Durusau X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: tc-list Angels have no copyrights! 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: 1281 Greetings, The topic of copyright of biblical manuscripts is important to text critics since some assertions of copyright have impaired dissemination of such manuscripts in a variety of forms. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that the copyright on divinely authored materials is held "first human being who compiled, coordinated and arranged." the work. If you would like to discuss copyright of biblical materials or challenges to such claims please contact me off list. For further information on the court decision see: Non-technical announcement: http://www.ljextra.com/copyright/0623urantia.html Legal decision: URANTIA FOUNDATION v. MAAHERRA http://www.ljextra.com/cgi-bin/f_cat?prod/ljextra/data/external/1997/06/970628.c09 Would anyone care to guess when the copyright expired on most manuscript witnesses to the OT and NT? Be aware that the addition of variants and arrangement of a public text can lead to a work that has valid copyright protection. I am interested in getting a formal legal opinion on whether copying the public parts qualifies as public domain text once I strip out the authorial additions that give rise to copyright status. Patrick -- Patrick Durusau Information Technology Services Scholars Press pdurusau@emory.edu Manager, ITS From tc-list-owner Fri Sep 3 09:16:10 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id JAA20796 for tc-list-outgoing; Fri, 3 Sep 1999 09:16:00 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Message-Id: <199909031323.OAA09601@haymarket.ed.ac.uk> From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 14:23:10 +000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: tc-list Angels have no copyrights! Priority: normal In-reply-to: <37CFBD0D.DCD8D17C@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: 798 The whole question(s) about copyright of ancient, edited, restored, texts was taken up in a special one-day conference held in the Univ of Edinburgh earlier this year, sponsored jointly by the Faculty of Divinity and the Centre for Intellectual Propery of the Faculty of Law. Dr. Timothy Lim was a co-ordinator, and will, I think, be taking some papers to publication. All interested in the questions should certainly note the article by Prof. Cindy Alberts Carson, "Raiders of the Lost Scrolls: The Right of Scholarly access to the Content of Historic Documents," _Michigan Journal of International Law_ 16/2(1995): 300-48. L. W. Hurtado University of Edinburgh, New College Mound Place Edinburgh, Scotland EH1 2LX Phone: 0131-650-8920 Fax: 0131-650-6579 E-mail: L.Hurtado@ed.ac.uk From tc-list-owner Fri Sep 3 11:47:15 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id LAA22066 for tc-list-outgoing; Fri, 3 Sep 1999 11:47:06 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Message-Id: Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 17:54:17 +0200 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu References: <000201bef46f$51bc6180$67566686@chemie.unibremen.de> Subject: Re: tc-list The Living Text 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: 1504 Wieland Willker wrote: > Regarding the discussion about what an autograph is and in view of Parkers > "Living Text of the Gospels": > If we depart from trying to reconstruct the autographs, what is the end > result? The concept of "autograph" within NT textual scholarship should be trated with caution, because it supports anachronistic and naive views of the task of our discipline. In my view, the ultimate goal of textual scholarship is clearing up the textual history of given texts. The proper designation of the starting point of a textual transmission is not "autograph", but *archetype*. Whenever there is a textual transmission, it is legitimate, in fact necessary, to ask for it's archetype. However, for a lot of texts from antiquity the archetype doesn't necessarily equal the autograph. This is especially true for texts which have been transmitted through intermediary genres, such as collections of all sorts, e.g., letter collections, collections of excerpts (epitomai), medical prescriptions and diagnoses, laws, oracles, etc. Sometimes, the textual history points back to a collective archetype. And, the quest for the autograph of every single item within the collection requires new orientation. If we follow the textual history of texts back to their off-spring, we should be careful to not somehow "naturally" expect to face "autographs" behind the last turn of the journey. ------------------------------------------ Dr. Ulrich Schmid U.B.Schmid@t-online.de From tc-list-owner Sat Sep 4 01:26:16 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id BAA25734 for tc-list-outgoing; Sat, 4 Sep 1999 01:25:58 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990904013419.008cc670@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: scarlson@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Sat, 04 Sep 1999 01:34:19 -0400 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Stephen C. Carlson" Subject: Re: tc-list Angels have no copyrights! In-Reply-To: <37CFBD0D.DCD8D17C@emory.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Content-Length: 1005 At 08:20 AM 9/3/99 -0400, Patrick Durusau wrote: >Would anyone care to guess when the copyright expired on most manuscript >witnesses to the OT and NT? Be aware that the addition of variants and >arrangement of a public text can lead to a work that has valid copyright >protection. I am interested in getting a formal legal opinion on whether >copying the public parts qualifies as public domain text once I strip >out the authorial additions that give rise to copyright status. If you are seeking legal advice, it is best to seek a competent attorney, who will be able render an opinion after careful consideration of the relevant facts, such as the identity and nature of the text, exactly which portions are proposed to be copied, license, and fair use factors. Stephen Carlson -- Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@mindspring.com Synoptic Problem Home Page http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/ "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35 From tc-list-owner Sat Sep 4 05:00:49 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id FAA26989 for tc-list-outgoing; Sat, 4 Sep 1999 05:00:38 -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: Re: tc-list The Living Text Date: Sat, 4 Sep 1999 11:08:23 +0200 Message-Id: <000001bef6b5$0a289da0$71066686@wieland> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-Msmail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 Importance: Normal X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Content-Length: 562 Ulrich Schmid wrote: > In my view, the ultimate goal of textual scholarship is clearing up the > textual history of given texts. The proper designation of the starting point > of a textual transmission is not "autograph", but *archetype*. 1. What is your definition of a) autograph and b) archetype? 2. How would you handle the edition of the GNT (pocket-edition) when there are readings of "equal weighting"? Best wishes Wieland <>< ------------------------ Wieland Willker mailto:willker@chemie.uni-bremen.de http://purl.org/WILLKER/index.html From tc-list-owner Sat Sep 4 10:35:15 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id KAA27724 for tc-list-outgoing; Sat, 4 Sep 1999 10:34:33 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f From: rlmullen@netpath.net Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990904105034.007a62c0@netpath.net> X-Sender: rlmullen@netpath.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Sat, 04 Sep 1999 10:50:34 -0400 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list Angels have no copyrights! In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19990904013419.008cc670@pop.mindspring.com> References: <37CFBD0D.DCD8D17C@emory.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Content-Length: 1447 I have a Packard Humanities Institute CD Rom of Greek Documentary Texts that got around the copyright problem by doing just what Durusau suggests, stripping out the critical apparatus and printing straight text. Even then I have use of that CD Rom only by a licensing agreement. Perhaps the folk at Packard could point you toward someone with competent legal advice. --Rod Mullen At 01:34 AM 9/4/99 -0400, you wrote: >At 08:20 AM 9/3/99 -0400, Patrick Durusau wrote: >>Would anyone care to guess when the copyright expired on most manuscript >>witnesses to the OT and NT? Be aware that the addition of variants and >>arrangement of a public text can lead to a work that has valid copyright >>protection. I am interested in getting a formal legal opinion on whether >>copying the public parts qualifies as public domain text once I strip >>out the authorial additions that give rise to copyright status. > >If you are seeking legal advice, it is best to seek a competent >attorney, who will be able render an opinion after careful >consideration of the relevant facts, such as the identity and >nature of the text, exactly which portions are proposed to >be copied, license, and fair use factors. > >Stephen Carlson >-- >Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@mindspring.com >Synoptic Problem Home Page http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/ >"Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35 > From tc-list-owner Sat Sep 4 11:28:33 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id LAA28004 for tc-list-outgoing; Sat, 4 Sep 1999 11:28:21 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Message-Id: Date: Sat, 4 Sep 1999 17:35:59 +0200 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu References: <000001bef6b5$0a289da0$71066686@wieland> Subject: Re: tc-list The Living Text 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-dialin.net 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: 3415 Wieland Willker wrote: > Ulrich Schmid wrote: > > In my view, the ultimate goal of textual scholarship is clearing up the > > textual history of given texts. The proper designation of the starting > point > > of a textual transmission is not "autograph", but *archetype*. > > 1. What is your definition of > a) autograph and > b) archetype? The archetype is the starting point of a textual transmission. It's the last step you can reach when you try to find your way back through the extant copies of given texts. Concerning definition of autograph I can't really tell. I do think, however, that the notion of autograph has something to do with the author of a text, pointing to a version he or she wrote down or dictated and approved. Within the realm of NT textual transmission the concept of autograph is very tricky to handle. Let's take, e.g., the Pauline epistles. In all likelyhood the letter to the Romans was sent to Rome as an individual text (possibly a single scroll). The physical reminders of the textual tradition of the Letter to the Romans, however, bears every sign of belonging to joint edition(s): Codex format, more than just the individual letter in one manuscript, superscripts and subscripts. Let's put it boldly: Does anybody really think that one of the versions of Romans found in GNT, NA-27, Von Soden, or Tischendorf has a chance to go back to the version that was sent to Rome? If we just consider the superscript "To the Romans" found in all the mentioned editions, we will immediately realize that critical editions don't pretend to go back to the letter that was sent ot the Romans, even if editors sometimes do. Critical editions just as probably every single piece of Romans' papyrus/parchment go back to collections of Pauline letters. It is not entirely clear, how many collections existed and how many of those have contributed to the textual transmission of the Pauline Corpus. It is, however, reasonably clear that more than one collection was involved. We don't know where, when and through whom the collections have been made. Moreover, we don't know how faithfully the various collections have preserved the individual letters. To sum up: There are quite a few intermediary stages within the textual transmission of the Pauline Corpus, some of which definitely contributed to confuse the whole story (contamination), that it seems utterly naive to assume the textual history of the Letter to the Romans will somehow naturally lead to as well as faithfully represent the version that Paul once sent to Rome - if that's what stands behind the notion of autograph. In my view, we should concentrate our efforts to clear up the archetype situation of the NT books, i.e. identifying, localizing, and reconstructing collections and subcollections, instead of taking the short-cut to the desk of Paul (or John, or Matthew, or...). > 2. How would you handle the edition of the GNT (pocket-edition) when there > are readings of "equal weighting"? I've not studied every single variation unit within the NT, especially not in the GNT pocket-edition, because this one tends to isolate information to the extend that it's not possible to study similar phenomena throughout a given text. What do you mean by "equal weighting"? The committee's "D"-ratings? ------------------------------------------ Dr. Ulrich Schmid U.B.Schmid@t-online.de From tc-list-owner Sun Sep 5 10:56:41 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id KAA02501 for tc-list-outgoing; Sun, 5 Sep 1999 10:55:28 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Message-ID: <01BEF7EA.B3460130.petrovich@nsu.ru> From: Doug Petrovich To: "'tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu'" Subject: tc-list The ultimate goal of textual criticism Date: Sun, 5 Sep 1999 21:57:05 -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: 4308 Wieland Wilker posed a question that is most critical to the field that we all have come to know and love (at least I hope so, if we take the time to read through all of the posts on our list): "If we depart from trying to reconstruct the autographs, what is the end result?" Ulrich Schmid's interesting reply was that "the ultimate goal of textual scholarship is clearing up the textual history of given texts. The proper designation of the starting point of a textual transmission is not "autograph," but "archetype." Unfortunately, I must beg to differ. The ultimate goal of textual criticism, and thus textual scholarship, cannot simply be a proper understanding of the history of the text. Perhaps the words of Gunther Zuntz from his monumental work, The Text of the Epistles (p. viii), are most fitting in pinpointing the true and actual ultimate goal: "Readings are either right or wrong. The plain, primary purpose of criticism is to establish the right wording. All further conclusions depend upon this." Certainly acquiring an accurate knowledge of the textual transmission is a legitimate and vital goal. However, one must distinguish between an end and a means to an end. Even the establishment of the wording of the autographs, though obviously all of us can admit to our individual and collective inability to achieve 100% accuracy in such an endeavor, is not an end. What is the end? How do these components relate to one another? Simply, a proper understanding of textual transmission, plus the other components of internal and external evidence as applied to variant readings, leads to the establishment of the wording of the divinely-inspired human writer (to whatever level of certainty can be reached for any variant). The proper wording of the biblical text leads to a more informed and accurate study of the text, which leads to a proper understanding of it, which leads to the implementation of it into one's own life, which leads to the bold and powerful proclamation of it in the churches, schools, hospitals, parks, beaches, and other venues around the world. Obviously not everyone who frequents our list would agree with many of the steps that I outlined in this process. Certainly everyone is entitled to his opinion. However, as an exegetical practitioner first, and a textual critic second (and thus I shall probably always be), there is no way of escaping the reality or importance of these latter steps. To downgrade the importance of the inspired text to the level of mere ancient literature is to sell short the very reason that the divine author intended it to come into existence. To his credit, Schmid asks a good question: "Does anybody really think that one of the versions of Romans found in GNT, NA-27, Von Soden, or Tischendorf has a chance to go back to the version that was sent to Rome?" Certainly the odds would be against anyone who ventured to labor--even for a lifetime--to accomplish such a goal. However, does this require that any attempt at reaching this goal is altogether impossible, and thus ultimately vain? Does this mean that of necessity we must give up and settle for a lesser ultimate goal? Schmid goes on to say that "we should concentrate our efforts to clear up the archetype situation of the NT books, i.e. identifying, localizing, and reconstructing collections and subcollections, instead of taking the short-cut to the desk of Paul." The wisdom is these words is that we cannot short-circuit the lengthy process which will lead to the closest rendition of the autographs (yes, autographs, as in one original manuscript for each letter/gospel/etc. as divinely superintended through the personality of the individual author, without the occurrence of error on the part of the human writer or his amanuensis). We would certainly do well to clear up the matter of properly reconstructing collections and subcollections, if that is even possible with the scant extant attestation we have to the history of the earliest part of the of transmission process. That would go a long way toward greater confidence in asserting proper readings for many variants. However, if we mistake the means for the end, we will have missed the trees for the forest. Doug Petrovich ThM in New Testament Novosibirsk Bible Seminary From tc-list-owner Sun Sep 5 13:15:14 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id NAA02896 for tc-list-outgoing; Sun, 5 Sep 1999 13:15:03 -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: <01BEF7EA.B3460130.petrovich@nsu.ru> References: <01BEF7EA.B3460130.petrovich@nsu.ru> Date: Sun, 5 Sep 1999 12:10:56 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: tc-list The ultimate goal of 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: 2976 On 9/5/99, Doug Petrovich wrote, in part: >Ulrich Schmid's interesting reply was that "the ultimate goal of textual scholarship is >clearing up the textual history of given texts. The proper designation of the starting >point of a textual transmission is not "autograph," but "archetype." > >Unfortunately, I must beg to differ. The ultimate goal of textual criticism, and thus >textual scholarship, cannot simply be a proper understanding of the history of the >text. Perhaps the words of Gunther Zuntz from his monumental work, The Text of >the Epistles (p. viii), are most fitting in pinpointing the true and actual ultimate goal: >"Readings are either right or wrong. The plain, primary purpose of criticism is to >establish the right wording. All further conclusions depend upon this." I don't think this was what Ulrich Schmid was saying. The goal of TC is, of course, to discover an original document. But the question here -- and it is a *very* good question -- is, "What is original?" In the case of the Gospels and such, this clearly is the autograph; these books circulated independently and existed in separate copies before being combined into a corpus. There never was an archetype of the four gospels; different people, in making up their gospel sets, would have used *different* individual copies. That's not true for Paul. There were, of course, some copies of the letters individually. But they did not achieve widespread circulation until they were collected. Some -- the fragments found in 2 Corinthians -- were so poorly preserved that large portions of the letters have been *lost*. It could even be argued that the individual books are not canonical. It is only the *collection* which became part of the canon. Now this raises two questions: 1. Can we reconstruct a pre-canonical archetype, and 2. If we can, should we? Different answers are possible for #2. Personally, I don't think we should; it involves us in too much speculation. (Remember, that exact step has been taken before -- by a fellow named Marcion.) But the point Ulrich Schmid is making is, I think, different: Even if we *should* reconstruct the autograph, that doesn't mean we can. Personally, I think he's right. We cannot reconstruct the autograph; the materials are not in our possession. We can only reconstruct the archetype -- the first *disseminated* copy, from which all copies descend. This will almost certainly contain errors. (Look at all the primitive errors Westcott & Hort thought they had found.) But there is nothing you can do about them, except emend the text -- and have the rest of the scholarly community harass you about it. :-) -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From tc-list-owner Sun Sep 5 13:44:53 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id NAA03009 for tc-list-outgoing; Sun, 5 Sep 1999 13:44:50 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19990905125111.008e2d40@postoffice.swbell.net> X-Sender: jstrimm@postoffice.swbell.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.3 (32) Date: Sun, 05 Sep 1999 12:51:11 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: James Trimm Subject: Re: tc-list The ultimate goal of textual criticism In-Reply-To: References: <01BEF7EA.B3460130.petrovich@nsu.ru> <01BEF7EA.B3460130.petrovich@nsu.ru> 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: 835 The ulitmate goal of TC is to achieve a "best text." James Trimm ============================================== He who seeks will not cease until he finds, and having found he will be amazed, and having been amazed he will reign, and having reigned he will rest. - The Goodnews according to the Hebrews ============================================== The Society for the Advancement of Nazarene Judaism: PO Box 471; Hurst, TX 76053; USA http://www.nazarene.net A nonprofit organization supported by freewill offerings Check out our e-mail discusion groups. ============================================== The International Nazarene Beit Din http://www.nazarene.net/beitdin ============================================== International Nazarene Congregation Directory http://www.nazarene.net/directory.htm? From tc-list-owner Sun Sep 5 14:12:58 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id OAA03128 for tc-list-outgoing; Sun, 5 Sep 1999 14:12:51 -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: <3.0.3.32.19990905125111.008e2d40@postoffice.swbell.net> References: <01BEF7EA.B3460130.petrovich@nsu.ru> <01BEF7EA.B3460130.petrovich@nsu.ru> <3.0.3.32.19990905125111.008e2d40@postoffice.swbell.net> Date: Sun, 5 Sep 1999 13:25:43 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: tc-list The ultimate goal of 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: 1048 On 9/5/99, James Trimm wrote: >The ulitmate goal of TC is to achieve a "best text." This is easy to say, but there is a lot more to it. To avoid stepping on anyone's feet, I'll take a non-Biblical example. Consider _Piers Plowman_. It exists in three recensions, of different length and slightly uncertain relationship: A, B, and C. A and B are almost certainly by the same guy; C possibly might not be. Which do you reconstruct? A, the earliest? B, considered the most representative of the author's thought? Or C, the last? *All* exist in manuscript. The situation for the NT is not as extreme, but the problem is real. BTW -- the answer is, most texts of _Piers Plowman_ you see in the bookstores represent the "B" text. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Sun Sep 5 15:24:27 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id PAA03500 for tc-list-outgoing; Sun, 5 Sep 1999 15:24:17 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Message-ID: <37D2C717.7C59D6A7@historian.net> Date: Sun, 05 Sep 1999 14:40:09 -0500 From: Jack Kilmon X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list The ultimate goal of textual criticism References: <01BEF7EA.B3460130.petrovich@nsu.ru> 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: 1531 "Robert B. Waltz" wrote: > We can only reconstruct the archetype -- the first > *disseminated* copy, from which all copies descend. This will almost certainly > contain errors. (Look at all the primitive errors Westcott & Hort thought > they had found.) But there is nothing you can do about them, except emend > the text -- and have the rest of the scholarly community harass you about > it. :-) Is the first "desseminated copy" a single book? Lets look at this "gap" between AMk and, let's say P45. The Markan author writes the book...or it may even be a private correspondence to someone...in 68 CE. It goes to its destination and is read to a community of mainly illiterate believers. Who makes the first copies? The author or the recipient? Does the recipient have a whole gaggle of copies made? or just two or three? How many times has AMk been copied before the beginning of the second century when it appears to have been collected along with the other gospels and Pauline letters to form the NT. I think for at least 40 years, AMk was copied only sporadically with some copies of copies. It's in the 2nd and 3rd centuries that copies of the NT become demanded and scribal groups form to meet the need. Now we have an assembly line as a lector reads aloud and 20 scribes at one time write what they hear. Is P45 an example of an archetypic copy? Jack -- ______________________________________________ taybutheh d'maran yeshua masheecha am kulkon Jack Kilmon jkilmon@historian.net http://www.historian.net From tc-list-owner Sun Sep 5 15:55:22 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id PAA03655 for tc-list-outgoing; Sun, 5 Sep 1999 15:55:18 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Message-Id: Date: Sun, 5 Sep 1999 22:02:41 +0200 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu References: <01BEF7EA.B3460130.petrovich@nsu.ru> Subject: Re: tc-list The ultimate goal of textual criticism 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-dialin.net 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: 2366 Doug Petrovich wrote: [...] > Ulrich Schmid's interesting reply was that "the ultimate goal of textual > scholarship is > clearing up the textual history of given texts. The proper designation of > the starting > point of a textual transmission is not "autograph," but "archetype." > > Unfortunately, I must beg to differ. The ultimate goal of textual criticism, > and thus > textual scholarship, cannot simply be a proper understanding of the history > of the > text. Perhaps the words of Gunther Zuntz from his monumental work, The Text > of > the Epistles (p. viii), are most fitting in pinpointing the true and actual > ultimate goal: > "Readings are either right or wrong. The plain, primary purpose of criticism > is to > establish the right wording. All further conclusions depend upon this." Before we start to fight straw-men I would like to assure you that "clearing up the textual transmission of given texts" means by implication to get a clearer picture of primary and secondary readings. You can't seperate the one from the other. Yet, the more I learn about the discipline, the more I think we underestimate the historical dimension of our task. In my view we don't take seriously the capitalized dictum of Hort: ALL TRUSTWORTHY RESTORATION OF CORRUPTED TEXTS IS FOUNDED ON THE STUDY OF THEIR HISTORY - to call in another big-shot -, if we are going for "either right or wrong" without asking the question: where does the "right" reading lead us to? In my view this is the proper question to address in order to fully account for the historical dimension of textual scholarship. [...] > Schmid goes on to say that "we should concentrate our efforts to clear up the > archetype > situation of the NT books, i.e. identifying, localizing, and reconstructing > collections and > subcollections, instead of taking the short-cut to the desk of Paul." The > wisdom is these > words is that we cannot short-circuit the lengthy process which will lead to > the closest > rendition of the autographs Indeed. This is what I meant to say. I simply want to do justice to this lengthy process by being as open-minded as possible to not letting obstruct short-cut "autograph" appeals the quest for the *archetype* of the textual transmission. ------------------------------------------ Dr. Ulrich Schmid U.B.Schmid@t-online.de From tc-list-owner Sun Sep 5 16:20:33 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id QAA03862 for tc-list-outgoing; Sun, 5 Sep 1999 16:20:25 -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: <37D2C717.7C59D6A7@historian.net> References: <01BEF7EA.B3460130.petrovich@nsu.ru> <37D2C717.7C59D6A7@historian.net> Date: Sun, 5 Sep 1999 15:31:13 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: tc-list The ultimate goal of 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: 4405 On 9/5/99, Jack Kilmon wrote: >"Robert B. Waltz" wrote: > > We can only reconstruct the archetype -- the first > > *disseminated* copy, from which all copies descend. This will almost certainly > > contain errors. (Look at all the primitive errors Westcott & Hort thought > > they had found.) But there is nothing you can do about them, except emend > > the text -- and have the rest of the scholarly community harass you about > > it. :-) > >Is the first "desseminated copy" a single book? Lets look at this "gap" >between AMk and, let's say P45. The Markan author writes the book...or >it may even be a private correspondence to someone...in 68 CE. It goes >to its destination and is read to a community of mainly illiterate >believers. Who makes the first copies? The author or the recipient? > >Does the recipient have a whole gaggle of copies made? or just two or >three? How many times has AMk been copied before the beginning of the >second century when it appears to have been collected along with the >other >gospels and Pauline letters to form the NT. > >I think for at least 40 years, AMk was copied only sporadically with >some copies of copies. It's in the 2nd and 3rd centuries that copies >of the NT become demanded and scribal groups form to meet the need. >Now we have an assembly line as a lector reads aloud and 20 scribes >at one time write what they hear. > >Is P45 an example of an archetypic copy? Let's hope not, given that Colwell showed that P45 was rewritten. :-) First off, let's please distinguish between gospels and Paul. The gospels were clearly intended for publication; even if only one or two copies were made of AMk, the hope was still that it would be disseminated. And the Gospels *did* achieve independent circulation. P66 contained only John. P75 contained only Luke and John. It is likely that many of the other gospel papyri contained only one gospel. In Paul, the situation is completely different. The documents were for public use, yes, but had a particular destination. They weren't intended for actual *publication.* It wasn't until they were collected that an actual public edition seems to have been contemplated. To the best of my knowledge, there is only *one* Pauline manuscript which can be shown to have contained only a single book of the Pauline corpus: P13. And that's a double special case, because P13 is a scroll and Hebrews was a disputed book. There is no evidence that, say, Galatians was ever published separately. (Note the term *published.*) Thus every manuscript of the gospels presumably goes back to a single stopping point. (It may not be the autograph, because it could, say, be taken from a scribe's fair copy of Mark's autograph. But it is a stopping point consisting of Mark only.) In Paul, in all likelihood, there is no such "single stopping point" for each book. The common starting point is *not* the autograph of Romans and the autograph of 1 Corinthians and the autograph of 2 Corinthians (the last of which never even actually existed). It is the manuscript in which they were all assembled. Or, at least, this is a reasonable assumption. I don't know how we can "prove" this textually. But there is always that first disseminated document. Which may or may not be the autograph. And if it is *not* the autograph, we have no way to move beyond it except by emendation. Functionally, it's like (say) Beowulf. There is *one* copy. All we can do is reconstruct that copy as best we can, and then decide whether to emend from there. I get the feeling this bothers people. It shouldn't. If you think of it from a church standpoint, you're reconstructing the work the church canonized. It didn't canonize 2 Corinthians 8; it canonized *Paul*. And if you look at it from a secular standpoint, or when examining a secular book, well, you're reconstructing an actual edition. And the earliest known edition, be it added. If it isn't the autograph, it's as close as you can get. This isn't new, either. Remember, Lachmann set out to reconstruct the fourth century text, not the original text.... -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Sun Sep 5 16:57:57 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id QAA04000 for tc-list-outgoing; Sun, 5 Sep 1999 16:57:52 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Message-Id: <199909052105.XAA04864@carno.brus.online.be> Subject: Re: tc-list The ultimate goal of textual criticism Date: Dim, 5 Sep 99 23:12:48 +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 QAA03996 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Content-Length: 1138 >And the Gospels *did* achieve independent circulation. P66 contained >only John. P75 contained only Luke and John. It is likely that many of >the other gospel papyri contained only one gospel. Bob, just a few words because I don't want to embark on a lengthy discussion... But I can't resist addidng my few cents here. Even though you can show such examples, it remains true that, just as you say that the Church didn't canonize 2 Cor 8, but the whole of Paul, the Church canonized *the Tetraervangelion*. The situation, after all - at least for the subject discussed here - is not so different from Paul after all. It is not because a Gospel is found independently in manuscripts that the copy you discuss doesn't go back to the first edition of the tetraevangelion... Just my few cents :-) 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 Sun Sep 5 17:08:30 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id RAA04078 for tc-list-outgoing; Sun, 5 Sep 1999 17:08:27 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Date: Sun, 5 Sep 1999 14:14:53 -0700 (PDT) From: "Gregory J. Woodhouse" X-Sender: gjw@shell3.ba.best.com To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list The ultimate goal of textual criticism In-Reply-To: Message-ID: X-Url: http://www.wnetc.com/ MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Content-Length: 1074 It seems to me that the basic issue is that textual criticism can only answer relative questions (reading A is to be preferred to reading B), but questions about the nature of autographs or archetypes are at least framed in absolute terms (reading X is the best/original/most ancient reading). This takes us back to the question of whether we would be able to recognize an autograph if we had it. It seems to me that, at best, we would be able to say it is the best version of the text available to us, but that is all. Of course, there is the criterion of stability: to what extent does further research additional manuscript finds, etc. lead us to revise a give reading? Thus, I can imagine a kind of a convergence criterion, but there is no a priori reason to suspect that readings will converge to a common archetype in anything like a gradual fashion, so we are left with relative weightings, after all. --- Gregory Woodhouse gjw@wnetc.com / http://www.wnetc.com/home.html "A faith which destroys reason destroys itself and the humanity of man." --Paul Tillich From tc-list-owner Sun Sep 5 18:33:40 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id SAA04293 for tc-list-outgoing; Sun, 5 Sep 1999 18:33:29 -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: <199909052105.XAA04864@carno.brus.online.be> References: <199909052105.XAA04864@carno.brus.online.be> Date: Sun, 5 Sep 1999 17:45:19 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: tc-list The ultimate goal of 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: 2068 On 9/5/99, Jean Valentin wrote: > >And the Gospels *did* achieve independent circulation. P66 contained > >only John. P75 contained only Luke and John. It is likely that many of > >the other gospel papyri contained only one gospel. > >Bob, just a few words because I don't want to embark on a lengthy discussion... But I can't resist addidng my few cents here. Even though you can show such examples, it remains true that, just as you say that the Church didn't canonize 2 Cor 8, but the whole of Paul, the Church canonized *the Tetraervangelion*. The situation, after all - at least for the subject discussed here - is not so different from Paul after all. It is not because a Gospel is found independently in manuscripts that the copy you discuss doesn't go back to the first edition of the tetraevangelion... > >Just my few cents :-) Well -- but did the church canonize the gospels all at once? It certainly isn't automatic. The Catholic Epistles were *not* canonized all at once. And so we find versions with only some of these books. Even the Gospels may not have been canonized at the same time. Marcion used only Luke, after all. :-) Put it this way: All four gospels were canonical (at least informally) to Irenaeus. But in Irenaeus's time, separate copies of the gospels still existed, as the papyri show. The same cannot be said of Paul. It *may have been* true; I can't prove it wrong. But there is no direct evidence. This, of course, gets into the muddy question of "what is canonicity." We all know that the canon took some time to evolve. But while it is true that the church eventually recognized a four-gospel canon (as opposed to the Diatessaron or Marcion's hacked-up edition of Luke), the books achieved individual canonicity and circulation. Again, this cannot be shown for Paul. And here I thought I didn't have a big part in this discussion; I was just trying to express someone else's viewpoint in different words. :-) Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com "The one thing we learn from history -- is that no one ever learns from history." From tc-list-owner Sun Sep 5 18:57:20 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id SAA04353 for tc-list-outgoing; Sun, 5 Sep 1999 18:57:17 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Message-Id: <199909052257.SAA04348@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> From: "Dave Washburn" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Sun, 5 Sep 1999 15:59:45 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: tc-list The ultimate goal of textual criticism Priority: normal In-reply-to: References: <37D2C717.7C59D6A7@historian.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: 5552 Bob Waltz wrote: > First off, let's please distinguish between gospels and Paul. The gospels > were clearly intended for publication; even if only one or two copies > were made of AMk, the hope was still that it would be disseminated. > > And the Gospels *did* achieve independent circulation. P66 contained > only John. P75 contained only Luke and John. It is likely that many of > the other gospel papyri contained only one gospel. Since both are codices and somewhat fragmentary, I'm not sure we can say with absolute confidence that these gospels are all the actual codices ever contained. True, it is possible that some manuscripts only contained one or two gospels; the question then becomes "why?" > In Paul, the situation is completely different. The documents were > for public use, yes, but had a particular destination. They weren't > intended for actual *publication.* It wasn't until they were collected > that an actual public edition seems to have been contemplated. To > the best of my knowledge, there is only *one* Pauline manuscript which > can be shown to have contained only a single book of the Pauline > corpus: P13. And that's a double special case, because P13 is a > scroll and Hebrews was a disputed book. There is no evidence that, > say, Galatians was ever published separately. (Note the term > *published.*) I don't see how this has anything to do with the question. What you're actually saying is that the paulines in fact did have autographs. Also, the last part of Colossians indicates that Paul intended his letters to be circulated at least somewhat, which sounds an awful lot like "publication" of a sort to me. If the commentaries are correct that Ephesians was a cyclical letter, surely Paul would have assumed the churches to whom it was circulated would have made copies and likely disseminated them. That also sounds a lot like publication. It would appear then, that the matter is not nearly as cut-and-dried as Bob wants to make it. > Thus every manuscript of the gospels presumably goes back to a > single stopping point. (It may not be the autograph, because it > could, say, be taken from a scribe's fair copy of Mark's autograph. > But it is a stopping point consisting of Mark only.) > > In Paul, in all likelihood, there is no such "single stopping point" > for each book. The common starting point is *not* the autograph of > Romans and the autograph of 1 Corinthians and the autograph of > 2 Corinthians (the last of which never even actually existed). It > is the manuscript in which they were all assembled. Or, at least, > this is a reasonable assumption. How is it reasonable? The fact that the letters were ultimately assembled has nothing to do with the question of autographs, at least not as far as I can see. The goal of TC is still to discover exactly what was in those autographs, so I'm not sure I see the point here. > I don't know how we can "prove" this textually. But there is always > that first disseminated document. Which may or may not be the > autograph. And if it is *not* the autograph, we have no way to > move beyond it except by emendation. But there may be a difference between a first disseminated document and an autograph. Suppose Paul sent 1 Corinthians to its recipients with the goal of its ultimately being read by other people and churches as well. Someone in that church takes it and makes a copy to send to the Christians in the next town, but to save space or whatever he uses nomina sacra where Paul had spelled things out. Is this the first disseminated document, or is the letter as it came from Paul? I would argue for the latter, and include the former in the textual history of the letter. I don't see how we can look at it any other way. > Functionally, it's like (say) Beowulf. There is *one* copy. > All we can do is reconstruct that copy as best we can, and then > decide whether to emend from there. > > I get the feeling this bothers people. It shouldn't. If you think > of it from a church standpoint, you're reconstructing the work > the church canonized. It didn't canonize 2 Corinthians 8; it > canonized *Paul*. And if you look at it from a secular standpoint, > or when examining a secular book, well, you're reconstructing > an actual edition. Again, I don't see the point. The church canonized a certain corpus of letters it determined to be from Paul, but that has little or nothing to do with the quest for the autographs as he originally sent them out. (Incidentally, the form-critical stuff about 2 Corinthians is open to fierce and heated debate, but it's secondary and I won't pursue it.) Reconstructing an edition is well and good if that's what you want to do, but the goal of TC is still supposed to be the text of the autograph as it came from the author's hand. > And the earliest known edition, be it added. If it isn't the > autograph, it's as close as you can get. How do you know? If the earliest known edition is what was canonized in the fourth century and we have some copies that are earlier than that, then it would seem that we have a fairly good chance, at least in places, of getting at least 2 centuries closer to the autograph than the earliest known edition. I really don't see the logic here. > This isn't new, either. Remember, Lachmann set out to reconstruct > the fourth century text, not the original text.... That was Lachmann's problem, not mine. Dave Washburn http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur "Ich veranlassenarbeitenworken mein Mojo." From tc-list-owner Sun Sep 5 20:29:12 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id UAA04662 for tc-list-outgoing; Sun, 5 Sep 1999 20:29:07 -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: <199909052257.SAA04348@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> References: <37D2C717.7C59D6A7@historian.net> <199909052257.SAA04348@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> Date: Sun, 5 Sep 1999 19:02:29 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: tc-list The ultimate goal of 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: 7428 On 9/5/99, Dave Washburn wrote: >Bob Waltz wrote: > > First off, let's please distinguish between gospels and Paul. The gospels > > were clearly intended for publication; even if only one or two copies > > were made of AMk, the hope was still that it would be disseminated. > > > > And the Gospels *did* achieve independent circulation. P66 contained > > only John. P75 contained only Luke and John. It is likely that many of > > the other gospel papyri contained only one gospel. > >Since both are codices and somewhat fragmentary, I'm not sure we >can say with absolute confidence that these gospels are all the >actual codices ever contained. Actually, we can in some instances. If a manuscript is a single-quire codex, we know pretty well how long it is. That's how we calculate, e.g., that P46 could not have contained the Pastoral Epistles. Now that calculation may be off, since the scribe could have mis-estimated slightly the number of sheets needed to transcribe a copy of Paul. But a scribe could hardly mis-estimate so badly as to want papyrus for four gospels, but only pull the number of sheets for one gospel. :-) And at least some of the gospel papyri are single-quire codices. (I'd have to look up which ones, but there are some.) So they can only have contained so many gospels. >True, it is possible that some >manuscripts only contained one or two gospels; the question then >becomes "why?" Presumably the cost of writing. But of course we don't know. But it is also noteworthy that there are lots of papyri of John and almost none, save P45, of Mark. This is secondary evidence that the papyri were mostly one-or two-gospel editions. And it hints at the reason: John was treasured more than Mark (the situation is less clear for Matthew and Luke, which are well-enough represented that there may have been as many copies as there were of John). > > In Paul, the situation is completely different. The documents were > > for public use, yes, but had a particular destination. They weren't > > intended for actual *publication.* It wasn't until they were collected > > that an actual public edition seems to have been contemplated. To > > the best of my knowledge, there is only *one* Pauline manuscript which > > can be shown to have contained only a single book of the Pauline > > corpus: P13. And that's a double special case, because P13 is a > > scroll and Hebrews was a disputed book. There is no evidence that, > > say, Galatians was ever published separately. (Note the term > > *published.*) > >I don't see how this has anything to do with the question. What >you're actually saying is that the paulines in fact did have >autographs. Also, the last part of Colossians indicates that Paul >intended his letters to be circulated at least somewhat, which >sounds an awful lot like "publication" of a sort to me. If the >commentaries are correct that Ephesians was a cyclical letter, >surely Paul would have assumed the churches to whom it was >circulated would have made copies and likely disseminated them. >That also sounds a lot like publication. It would appear then, that >the matter is not nearly as cut-and-dried as Bob wants to make it. You're right that it wasn't cut and dried. But I would maintain that there is a fundamental difference between the Paulines and the Gospels. The Paulines were, without exception, addressed to a particular situation. The gospels were intended for public education. Now I'm sure neither Paul nor the gospel writers intended their works for canonization. But they still had different purposes, and the purposes affected their history. The case of Ephesians, it seems to me, is not relevant. If it is indeed to be part of a publication, then it's part of a publication; fine; that's the first step in the process. But then it's not by Paul. :-) > > Thus every manuscript of the gospels presumably goes back to a > > single stopping point. (It may not be the autograph, because it > > could, say, be taken from a scribe's fair copy of Mark's autograph. > > But it is a stopping point consisting of Mark only.) > > > > In Paul, in all likelihood, there is no such "single stopping point" > > for each book. The common starting point is *not* the autograph of > > Romans and the autograph of 1 Corinthians and the autograph of > > 2 Corinthians (the last of which never even actually existed). It > > is the manuscript in which they were all assembled. Or, at least, > > this is a reasonable assumption. > >How is it reasonable? The fact that the letters were ultimately >assembled has nothing to do with the question of autographs, at >least not as far as I can see. The goal of TC is still to discover >exactly what was in those autographs, so I'm not sure I see the >point here. Create a stemma. I draw one below (for illustration purposes only, I hasten to add. But the comments which follow apply for *any* stemma). A | B | C | ------------- | | | | D E F G Assume, for the sake of the argument, that all extant copies are derived from D, E, F, G (and any number of sisters you care to name). Assume, of course, that A, B, and C are destroyed. In that case, the earliest manuscript you can access *directly* is C, the parent of the four sisters. The process from C to B to A is entirely hypothetical. You can only proceed from C, the archetype of all surviving manuscripts, to A *by means of emendation*. You cannot, in fact, prove whether A and C are distinct! The tree *stops at C*. This is a simple fact of criticism; there isn't a thing we can do about it. This means that, *if* the equivalent of C is an edition, such as a collected edition of Paul, then all we can reconstruct is that edition. We may wish to go beyond it, but we *cannot*. Now it is, of course, possible to question whether, in the case of Paul, the original Pauline edition is "C," or if there is access to the individual letters before this. I do not believe this question can be answered. But since it cannot be answered, we must allow the possibility it is so. And, in fact, I think it more likely than not. [ ... ] >Again, I don't see the point. The church canonized a certain >corpus of letters it determined to be from Paul, but that has little or >nothing to do with the quest for the autographs as he originally sent >them out. That's exactly the point! The church canonized what it had (a collection of letters). It did not canonize the autographs, which it did not have. It should also be noted (just to save time down below) that canonization was not a sudden process; canonicity *evolved*. You refer to the "earliest know edition... canonized in the fourth century." This is *not* what I was referring to. By the fourth century, of course, everyone agreed on the canon. But the collected edition of Paul was probably in existence by 100 C.E., and all of the books save Hebrews and perhaps the Pastorals were canonized by 150 C.E. at the latest. This is all incredibly obvious to me. Obviously I'm not explaining it well. Wish I knew what to say.... -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Sun Sep 5 23:11:37 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id XAA05096 for tc-list-outgoing; Sun, 5 Sep 1999 23:11:22 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Message-ID: <003c01bef816$4f96bb80$3146d8cc@yhwh3in1> From: "Mr. Gary S. Dykes" To: "tc-list" Subject: tc-list A Reply to Waltz and Arcieri's Date: Sun, 5 Sep 1999 20:16:36 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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: 6999 Robert Waltz wrote: >Again, to ask a stupid question, If you trust the Holy Spirit to >tell you what the Bible says, how can you trust the Bible in the >first place? If the Spirit tells you that 1 Corinthians 12:3 "ought" >to read "It is only by the Holy Spirit that one can say 'Jesus be >cursed,'" how can you prove that wrong? The Spirit told you to >do it! (And it is no good to say, "No, the Spirit didn't," because >while I freely concede that it didn't tell *you* that, there is >no question that others have gotten different messages. The >point is, how can you, without some form of non-spiritual >criteria for judgment, tell a "good" spirit from a "bad"?) >I find this attitude utterly incomprehensible -- and dangerous. Sir, For starters, you seem to have read into my statements meanings which were not there, and then you ignored other statements which would have answered your questions to begin with. I said that the Holy Spirit is one tool of many, but it is a tool that only elected saints can employ, which theoretically can give them an advantage, IF they are mature and obedient saints. The Holy Spirit *tells* me nothing audibly, nor is He some compelling force. He is like a still small voice which gently guides in extremely subtle ways. For Jesus Christ said to His 11 that the coming Holy Spirit would assist them in their understanding of the Word (John 14:26, 16:13). I realize that this is incomprehensible to you, but there is a symbiotic relationship betwixt God's Word and the indwelling Holy Spirit found in each elected person. Further, it appears that you are not aware of the struggle between the "fleshly mind" and the "mind of the Spirit": because a saint is not able to always correctly discern which is which, nor to always control his/her fleshly mind (thus Paul's lament in Romans 7) those saints who declare that such and such a reading is correct because it was confirmed to them personally by the Holy Spirit, may be just expressing their youth or zeal. After years of reliance upon the Holy Spirit AND the canons of textual criticism, I feel that I personally have a better grasp of numerous variants than most pagan Bible scholars (I make a distinction between pagan and elected Bible scholars). This does not mean as you wrongly surmise, that I feel superior or that I am absolutely certain my research is absolutely correct. It is just that I as a believer, have an extra assurance, a Comforter. I wish you did too, for had you a relationship with the Author of the Bible, you would understand how the Holy Spirit can assist. It is like a woman telling a man what it is like to menstruate, he may nod in agreement, but does he REALLY understand the experience? In closing, a dangerous sign to me, is encountering someone who does not read all of a text, but who sees only what he/she wishes to see. You are confusing me with some unfortunate experience you may have suffered, or with some imagination you created. A Mr. and Ms. Arcieri wrote: >I infer that your methodology is: >1 - apply the canons of TC on a select group of variants in order to determine which reading is >the 'original'; >2 - 'consult' the Holy Spirit with regards to identifying the original reading. >Now since I have your methodology in theory, can you now demonstrate the _practical >workings_ of this >for the following passages?: >1. Matt. 27:35 ('that it might be fulfilled...') >2. John 5:7-8 (Johannine Comma) >3. Acts 8:37 ('and Philip said...') Dear Arcieris: I focus upon the Pauline corpus, and am often current with most exegetical problems in the Pauline texts. For me to due justice to any of the Gospel portions, I would need to spend some quality time familiarizing myself with the primary witnesses (or a select group of representative MSS. Then I would begin to study the style of the human agent in question (Mt, Mk, Lk, or Jn). In a basic analysis I would rely upon my own personal theology as well, that is my understanding of some basic theological essentials (like inerranc y, the Trinity, eschatology, et cetera. A Discourse Analysis (that is determining the Author's intent) is always necessary in any critical analysis, but for mature elected saints, the Word of God requires little discourse analysis, for many of us intuitively know what God's intentions are, especially if we have spent years of original Bible study. The 3 samples you suggest, will probably never be satisfactorily resolved for all inquirers. This does not mean that they are unresolved for me as a believer (for I already have some preferences which may be premature). The original reading is probably not ambiguous, not one with multiple interpretations. It may be the easiest reading, or the more difficult. Your "consult the Holy Spirit" is possibly confusing. The Holy Spirit constantly guides me in all aspects, from the initial collation, to the proof-reading. He also convicts me, and corrects me. I do not actually pray and ask that the results be made error free and perfect (my research), for that is vain. But I do ask for His assistance throughout the ENTIRE process. Each mature elected saint, whom God has so gifted to perform this ministry for the Body of believers, has his/her own spices to add. These differing opinions, from mature, trained saints, can be used by God to generate study, meditation, and growth. we (the elect) need to continually be feeding upon the written Word, and variants promote study and discussion. In hopes that the name of God might be glorified, and often upon the lips and in the hearts of His elect. In Matthew 27:35 lie a whole cluster of variants, often interdependent, just "shooting from the hip" I would suspect that the LXX type addition is not genuine here, it probably was a marginal note (the quote source), and later crept into some MSS. (from Psalms 22:18) The Johannine comma, I retain, but I am not sure where, but I see it as genuine. Acts 8:37 is much more difficult, and I am not able now to offer an initial suggestion, but it seems severely liturgical, possibly an addition. The above are three initial suggestions, further study would certainly clarify the matter for me, but "consulting the Holy Spirit" is not some sort of automatic option. And if you claimed that I thought the above 3 suggestions are the error-free results of the Holy Spirit working within me, then you also may not be able to comprehend how the "still small voice" works in the bosom of an elected (chosen) person. My fleshly mind hinders me, and human logic often clouds the truth, and my fleshly nature opposes the indwelling Spirit, but sometimes He prevails, and my resulting work is exactly as He wants, for I seek to please him, not my judges (I Corinthians 4:4,5). I hope this assists you, and feel free to insist on more from me. I have numerous solutions to many of the Pauline conundrums. at your service, Mr. Gary S. Dykes yhwh3in1@lightspeed.net From tc-list-owner Mon Sep 6 00:00:07 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id AAA05302 for tc-list-outgoing; Mon, 6 Sep 1999 00:00:04 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1999 00:00:03 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199909060400.AAA05296@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: jadair set sender to yhwh3in1@lightspeed.net using -f >Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 21:37:58 -0700 From: "Mr. Gary S. Dykes" To: tc-list Subject: tc-list One More Time Content-Type: text Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Content-Length: 1527 Dr. Prior asked that I re-post an image of the relevant portion of Codex 01 (Sinaiticus) which shows the words in the discussion concerning Mt. 6:28 (and P. Oxy 655). You can view the image at http://purl.org/TC/extras/Mvc-003f.jpg. It is a very low resolution image taken from Lake's facsimile edition, it is a screen shot from my film reader. In the film (and not very well in the shot) the viewer can see the line which reads thusly: ....OYPWSAYXA it has no visible "O" under the alpha following the sigma. If it is there it is not visible in this film nor in Reuben Swanson's film. However, the two final letters "XA" are not in the same instance (or, incident) as the rest of the text. They are in narrower letters (the strokes are narrower) the ink is lighter, and they are written with a bit more caution, perhaps he/she just prepared the point of the stylus as he/she inserted the true reading (the correction). Thus, it seems to me that an erasure did occur here. Without a copy of Skeat's UV photo we cannot determine with any certainty if Robinson's conjecture is correct. Do note that the first alpha in the shot shows some damage to its lower bowl stroke, and that there is no "dot" following the "X", (that was on my lens in the original shot). For P. Oxy 655 Willken gives fine evidence, and from both of these texts, Robinson's position is on very shaky ground, too many "ifs". I will behave myself and not share again my thoughts about the validity of a "Q" myth. at your service, Mr. Gary S. Dykes From tc-list-owner Mon Sep 6 02:23:40 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id CAA05593 for tc-list-outgoing; Mon, 6 Sep 1999 02:22:48 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1999 02:22:48 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199909060622.CAA05587@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: jadair set sender to seventh.guardian@juno.com using -f >Date: Fri, 03 Sep 1999 13:38:34 EDT From: "Maurice A. Robinson" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: tc-list Re: Parker's Reply to the Reply to Parker's review Content-Type: text Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Content-Length: 3389 One question regarding Parker's reply to C/B in regard to P5: On Thu, 2 Sep 1999 12:29:09 GMT "DC PARKER" writes: [quoting Comfort]: >> 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) [Parker responds]: >Yes, this is a place where we put in the TR, and I think it's wrong. My question is, why should EKLEKTOS be presupposed (in the lacuna) as opposed to UIOS written plene? (P5 nowhere else has UIOS in any of its forms, so there is no basis to assume a nomen sacrum for this word). Since reconstruction within a lacuna is often hazardous at best, it seems especially so in this case, since the "line length" argument cited above by Comfort actually seems to favor UIOS. Consider in P5 the line lengths of the seven lines beginning from the top of the leaf (using Comfort and Barrett's reconstruction!) which precede the line 8 EKLEKTOS / UIOS situation with the line lengths of the seven lines following the EKLEKTOS / UIOS case: Line length in letters of seven top lines: 24 25 26 25 27 28 25 = Average 25.71 Line length in letters of seven next lines: 27 23 28 29 27 27 27 = Average 26.85 Length of line 8, reading UIOS = 25 Length of line 8, reading EKLEKTOS = 29 Although there is one line in the "lines following" section with an equal 29 letters, it seems that the line length with UIOS would be more likely representative of the average pattern established for the lines preceding and only slightly below the average for the lines following (as the data shows, the scribe seemed to slowly drift into slightly increasing line lengths as the page went on). It thus would seem more likely that the scribe would have tended toward the shorter rather than the longer line length at the point of line 8; if so, this would favor UIOS over EKLEKTOS, though I would be non-dogmatic about either reading, since both become a matter of speculative reconstruction. (Note that the fourth line following line with 29 letters also _could_ be three letters shorter if the TOU ante QU happened to be omitted by scribal oversight or phonetic homoioteleuton, and this also would better fit the average pattern. Of course this variant also would lie in the reconstructed portion and be singular as well, so no one will likely actively propose such, even though this case is equally plausible and quite parallel to the matter with UIOS or EKLEKTOS). My own inclination is to be extremely wary regarding a hypothesized EKLEKTOS in P5 since it would agree _only_ with Aleph* among all Greek witnesses, and which may itself have been a mere accident (early influence from Latin or Syriac witnesses would be unlikely to have caused this, unless there were other readings within P5 which would tend to support such a hypothesis). Had there been strong support from other Egyptian witnesses such as P66, P75, B or even from other Greek witnesses, I would have less reluctance in regard to EKLEKTOS, but as it stands, the UIOS reading seems far more plausible to me, and I do not think the IGNTP volume erred in this regard. ============================================== Maurice A. Robinson Professor of NT and Greek Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina From tc-list-owner Mon Sep 6 10:05:22 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id KAA07554 for tc-list-outgoing; Mon, 6 Sep 1999 10:05:00 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Message-Id: Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1999 16:12:18 +0200 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu References: <37D2C717.7C59D6A7@historian.net> <199909052257.SAA04348@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> Subject: Re: tc-list The ultimate goal of textual criticism 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-dialin.net 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: 4929 Dave Washburn wrote: > Bob Waltz wrote: [...] > > > Thus every manuscript of the gospels presumably goes back to a > > single stopping point. (It may not be the autograph, because it > > could, say, be taken from a scribe's fair copy of Mark's autograph. > > But it is a stopping point consisting of Mark only.) > > > > In Paul, in all likelihood, there is no such "single stopping point" > > for each book. The common starting point is *not* the autograph of > > Romans and the autograph of 1 Corinthians and the autograph of > > 2 Corinthians (the last of which never even actually existed). It > > is the manuscript in which they were all assembled. Or, at least, > > this is a reasonable assumption. > > How is it reasonable? The fact that the letters were ultimately > assembled has nothing to do with the question of autographs, at > least not as far as I can see. The goal of TC is still to discover > exactly what was in those autographs, so I'm not sure I see the > point here. The fact that the Pauline letters were "ultimately assembled" simply is no quantite negligeable, for it strongly pre-determines the way in which we are able to approach the question of autographs. It may even irreversebly obscure the reconstruction of the autograph(s) of, e.g., the Corinthian correspondence. Suppose Paul not only sent the individual letters, of which at least one letter is missing among the extant two letters to the Corinthians, but he also issued the first collection of his letters consisting of, e.g., Gal 1.2. Cor Rom. In such a scenario Paul were not only the writer of the individual letters but also the editor of the first collection. He could have deliberately chosen not to include all of the Corinthian letters or, more likely, purposly redacted the correspondence into two larger letters. In any case, we would be confronted with two possible autographs - those of the actual correspondence and the autograph of the collection. It is conceivable that we might be able to reconstruct the latter but not the former. Don't think it would be unlikely that Paul himself edited the first collection of (some of) his letters. There is a lot of circumstantial evidence pointing towards that assumption (cf. the work of David Trobisch) [Bob Waltz] > > I don't know how we can "prove" this textually. But there is always > > that first disseminated document. Which may or may not be the > > autograph. And if it is *not* the autograph, we have no way to > > move beyond it except by emendation. [Dave Washburn] > But there may be a difference between a first disseminated > document and an autograph. Suppose Paul sent 1 Corinthians to > its recipients with the goal of its ultimately being read by other > people and churches as well. Someone in that church takes it and > makes a copy to send to the Christians in the next town, but to > save space or whatever he uses nomina sacra where Paul had > spelled things out. Put into historical perspective your scenario is highly unlikely. The nomina sacra system has hardly any chance to go back to a single-NT-book-copy. Quite to the contrary, it is, next to the codex format, an editorial feature that was most likely developed, let alone consistently applied, on the level of collections. [Bob Waltz] > > This isn't new, either. Remember, Lachmann set out to reconstruct > > the fourth century text, not the original text.... [Dave Washburn] > That was Lachmann's problem, not mine. I strongly recommend you read Ulrich von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff's *Geschichte der Philologie*, in: _Einleitung in die Altertumswissenschaft_ (edd. A Gercke, E. Norden), vol. 1, 3rd ed. (Berlin 1927), pp. 58-59 on Lachmann. Wilamowitz has some harsh words about Lachmann, accusing him of lack of historical foundation for his judgments (on the Ilias in this case). It really is ironic, Lachmann who was bold enough to utter historically problematic judgments nevertheless was reluctant enough to go beyond reconstructing the NT text of the fourth century. Guess, why. Well, in his days no manuscripts from earlier times have been available. Yet, in this case Wilamowitz is puzzled that Lachmann didn't make use of the countless earlier church father citations. Anyhow, even including all the citations and the papyri from around 200 onwards, nowadays available, we only get back to the end of the second century for substantial parts of the NT (Gospels, Acts, and Paul). This is, no doubt, a tremendous achievement. But it's still more than a hundred years from the autographs of the letters of Paul. Today, Lachmann may have ventured to reconstruct the NT text of around 200 CE. But, as self-entitled textual scholars of the Christian Bible, we know of course that those trained philologists are crazy, especially the dead ones. ------------------------------------------ Dr. Ulrich Schmid U.B.Schmid@t-online.de From tc-list-owner Mon Sep 6 11:38:47 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id LAA08039 for tc-list-outgoing; Mon, 6 Sep 1999 11:36:54 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1999 11:36:53 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199909061536.LAA08032@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: jadair set sender to Parkerdc@hhs.bham.ac.uk using -f >Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1999 10:19:57 GMT From: DC PARKER To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list Re: Parker's Reply to the Reply to Parker's review Content-Type: text Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Content-Length: 3274 Maurice Robinson wrote > > One question regarding Parker's reply to C/B in regard to P5: > > On Thu, 2 Sep 1999 12:29:09 GMT "DC PARKER" > writes: > > [quoting Comfort]: > > >> 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) > > [Parker responds]: > ... My question is, why should EKLEKTOS be presupposed (in the lacuna) as > opposed to UIOS written plene? (P5 nowhere else has UIOS in any of its > forms, so there is no basis to assume a nomen sacrum for this word). > Since reconstruction within a lacuna is often hazardous at best, it seems > especially so in this case, since the "line length" argument cited above > by Comfort actually seems to favor UIOS. > > Consider in P5 the line lengths of the seven lines beginning from the top > of the leaf (using Comfort and Barrett's reconstruction!) which precede > the line 8 EKLEKTOS / UIOS situation with the line lengths of the seven > lines following the EKLEKTOS / UIOS case: > ... I'm grateful for the care which Maurice has taken, and agree that it's not as cut-and-dried as Comfort claimed, or as I accepted in my brief comment. In fact,we started out with eklekto]S, and only moved to uio]S after several drafts. However, I have to point out that because we have the ends of the lines on this leaf, we can reconstruct the number of letters missing BEFORE the extant part of the line, trying to allow for the straightness or not of the left margin on the basis of other parts of the codex, size of letters, and shape of the lacuna. When all that is done, uio]S still looks a bit short. The next line has 20 letters before the ], in a slightly longer space, so 19 with eklekto]S looks reasonable. But if anybody wants to find better evidence in favour of the IGNTP version, don't let me stand in their way. > My own inclination is to be extremely wary regarding a hypothesized > EKLEKTOS in P5 since it would agree _only_ with Aleph* among all Greek > witnesses, and which may itself have been a mere accident (early > influence from Latin or Syriac witnesses would be unlikely to have caused > this, unless there were other readings within P5 which would tend to > support such a hypothesis). > > Had there been strong support from other Egyptian witnesses such as P66, > P75, B or even from other Greek witnesses, I would have less reluctance > in regard to EKLEKTOS, but as it stands, the UIOS reading seems far more > plausible to me, and I do not think the IGNTP volume erred in this > regard. > That's an interesting point. But the agreement of Old Latin (b e ff2*) and Old Syriac (s c) witnesses is surely significant, suggesting that this is a 2nd-3rd century Greek reading. P5 would then be the oldest witness to it. It is so typical of the frustration of reading such MSS that with a few extra millimetres of line there would have been no problem in reconstructing it! David Parker DR DC PARKER READER IN NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL CRITICISM AND PALAEOGRAPHY DEPT OF THEOLOGY UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM TEL. 0121-414 3613 FAX 0121-414 6866 E-MAIL D.C.PARKER@.BHAM.AC.UK From tc-list-owner Mon Sep 6 14:57:22 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id OAA08835 for tc-list-outgoing; Mon, 6 Sep 1999 14:57:03 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Message-ID: <37D42D10.1286@orebro.mail.telia.com> Date: Mon, 06 Sep 1999 21:07:30 +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 The ultimate goal of textual criticism References: <37D2C717.7C59D6A7@historian.net> <199909052257.SAA04348@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: 1016 I´ve been following this discussion and would like to throw in a few points from my point of view (the amateur´s). U.B.Schmid wrote: > Today, Lachmann may have ventured to > reconstruct the NT text of around 200 CE. But, as self-entitled textual scholars > of the Christian Bible, we know of course that those trained philologists are > crazy, especially the dead ones. If we only applied external criteria in TC I think we would have to agree with the cautious Lachmann (and Schmid?) but do we not also use *internal criteria* where we consider e.g. an author´s style, grammar, vocabulary, theology, rethorical patterns etc. If we apply this method we ask questions like "what did the author likely write" (in the original autograph?). Bob Waltz gives us a nice illustration (A-B-C...) and I think I have understood what he was trying to convey, but it seems to me that the method we use in TC is in itself an attempt to reach beyond C even if we do not have access to A and B. Tommy Wasserman Swedish student From tc-list-owner Mon Sep 6 15:44:51 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id PAA09155 for tc-list-outgoing; Mon, 6 Sep 1999 15:44:48 -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: <37D42D10.1286@orebro.mail.telia.com> References: <37D2C717.7C59D6A7@historian.net> <199909052257.SAA04348@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> <37D42D10.1286@orebro.mail.telia.com> Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1999 14:57:33 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: tc-list The ultimate goal of textual criticism 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 PAA09151 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Content-Length: 2161 On 9/6/99, TOMMY MARKANZIA REKLAM HB wrote: >If we only applied external criteria in TC I think we would have to >agree with the cautious Lachmann (and Schmid?) but do we not also use >*internal criteria* where we consider e.g. an author´s style, grammar, >vocabulary, theology, rethorical patterns etc. If we apply this method >we ask questions like "what did the author likely write" (in the >original autograph?). Bob Waltz gives us a nice illustration (A-B-C...) >and I think I have understood what he was trying to convey, but it seems >to me that the method we use in TC is in itself an attempt to reach >beyond C even if we do not have access to A and B. In secular textual criticism, this is of course true. Scholars are always emending the text. The number of proposed emendations to a work like _Beowulf_ may number in the thousands. However, there is a general distaste in New Testament circles for emendation. (There are exceptions; Michael Holmes, e.g., write of the need for emendation in the recent collection edited by Ehrman and Holmes). In theory, I even agree with this. The problem is deciding *where* to emend. In general, emendation is used to correct "obvious" errors. There are few such obvious errors in the New Testament text. Chances are that any obvious emendations have already been proposed -- by the scribes who produced our current manuscripts! I guess the point is this: Many, many scholars have attempted to move back past the most recent common ancestor. They have done this by means of emendation. But such emendations have, almost universally, been rejected. The UBS text, for instance, includes only one conjectural reading (and *it* has some slight Latin support). And even that has been condemned. I don't claim to know the answer. I just think we need to be cautious in what we set out to do.... -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Sep 6 15:52:03 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id PAA09222 for tc-list-outgoing; Mon, 6 Sep 1999 15:52:00 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Message-ID: <37D41F2D.E61FB382@historian.net> Date: Mon, 06 Sep 1999 15:08:14 -0500 From: Jack Kilmon X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list The ultimate goal of textual criticism References: <37D2C717.7C59D6A7@historian.net> <199909052257.SAA04348@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> <37D42D10.1286@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: 1853 TOMMY MARKANZIA REKLAM HB wrote: > > I´ve been following this discussion and would like to throw in a few > points from my point of view (the amateur´s). > > U.B.Schmid wrote: > > > Today, Lachmann may have ventured to > > reconstruct the NT text of around 200 CE. But, as self-entitled textual scholars > > of the Christian Bible, we know of course that those trained philologists are > > crazy, especially the dead ones. > > If we only applied external criteria in TC I think we would have to > agree with the cautious Lachmann (and Schmid?) but do we not also use > *internal criteria* where we consider e.g. an author´s style, grammar, > vocabulary, theology, rethorical patterns etc. If we apply this method > we ask questions like "what did the author likely write" (in the > original autograph?). Bob Waltz gives us a nice illustration (A-B-C...) > and I think I have understood what he was trying to convey, but it seems > to me that the method we use in TC is in itself an attempt to reach > beyond C even if we do not have access to A and B. There is one immutable fact. TC can only work with the the evidence it has, in this case the available surviving texts. The earliest texts that are significant enough to determine the best readings of the previous generation makes 200 CE the "papyrus curtain" and unless, or until, a 2nd century Christian library is discovered, to go beyond the papyrus curtain requires speculations too frought with guesswork to be comfortable to TC as a science...or an art. The autograph cannot be a goal of TC and I am not sure that "archetype" is a valid term. The "earliest best reading" is all we can hope for on the evidence we have. Jack -- ______________________________________________ taybutheh d'maran yeshua masheecha am kulkon Jack Kilmon jkilmon@historian.net http://www.historian.net From tc-list-owner Tue Sep 7 10:40:25 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id KAA14273 for tc-list-outgoing; Tue, 7 Sep 1999 10:39:52 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Message-ID: <37D54247.57FA@orebro.mail.telia.com> Date: Tue, 07 Sep 1999 16:50:19 +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 The ultimate goal of textual criticism References: <37D2C717.7C59D6A7@historian.net> <199909052257.SAA04348@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> <37D42D10.1286@orebro.mail.telia.com> <37D41F2D.E61FB382@historian.net> 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 KAA14269 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Content-Length: 2280 Jack Kilmon wrote: > > There is one immutable fact. TC can only work with the the evidence it > has, in this case the available surviving texts. The earliest texts > that > are significant enough to determine the best readings of the previous > generation makes 200 CE the "papyrus curtain" and unless, or until, > a 2nd century Christian library is discovered, to go beyond the > papyrus curtain requires speculations too frought with guesswork to > be comfortable to TC as a science...or an art. The autograph cannot > be a goal of TC and I am not sure that "archetype" is a valid term. > The "earliest best reading" is all we can hope for on the evidence > we have. Yes Jack, I realize that we choose among the readings of the surviving manuscripts (emendations thus unusual in NT-TC). But in this discussion I´ve heard the argument that: "we wouldn´t recognize an autograph if we saw one", and I suppose this is too big a generalization, even in regard to the Pauline corpus. Now if an autograph of a Pauline letter/epistle turned up, wouldn´t we recognize its provenance in regard to both external and internal factors, namely its *age*, inherent concistency in composition, theology, style etc, (Paul can be said to have created a new literary genre with his writing!). I understand that we would face a difficulty if e.g. Paul himself or a later person edited together material from single letters and later "published" an official collection (what then would be the autograph), but I´m not yet convinced that this was case. I think the churches Paul wrote to, valued his letters very highly, and read them in their services and that Paul himself expected them to be shared with other neighbouring churches, from the start (Col 4:16). Just a thought: Couldn´t the Corinthian church that once had possession of the very autographs, serve as safeguarding the Pauline "Corinthian" tradition as time went on? However, I agree with -Bob was it?- that it was Paul that was canonized by the church, not a single Pauline letter and even if a letter like 2 Cor should be a "patchwork" of Pauline material (perhaps edited by Paul himself?), *I* regard it as apostolic and part of the Holy Scripture, recognized as such by the church. Tommy Wasserman Swedish student From tc-list-owner Tue Sep 7 12:10:38 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id MAA14943 for tc-list-outgoing; Tue, 7 Sep 1999 12:09:53 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Message-ID: <37D53888.5A772473@historian.net> Date: Tue, 07 Sep 1999 11:08:40 -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 The ultimate goal of textual criticism References: <37D2C717.7C59D6A7@historian.net> <199909052257.SAA04348@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> <37D42D10.1286@orebro.mail.telia.com> <37D41F2D.E61FB382@historian.net> <37D54247.57FA@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: 4360 TOMMY MARKANZIA REKLAM HB wrote: > Jack Kilmon wrote: > > > > There is one immutable fact. TC can only work with the the evidence it > > has, in this case the available surviving texts. The earliest texts > > that > > are significant enough to determine the best readings of the previous > > generation makes 200 CE the "papyrus curtain" and unless, or until, > > a 2nd century Christian library is discovered, to go beyond the > > papyrus curtain requires speculations too frought with guesswork to > > be comfortable to TC as a science...or an art. The autograph cannot > > be a goal of TC and I am not sure that "archetype" is a valid term. > > The "earliest best reading" is all we can hope for on the evidence > > we have. > > Yes Jack, I realize that we choose among the readings of the surviving > manuscripts (emendations thus unusual in NT-TC). > > But in this discussion I´ve heard the argument that: "we wouldn´t > recognize an autograph if we saw one", and I suppose this is too big a > generalization, even in regard to the Pauline corpus. Using the Corinthian correspondence as an example, what would we look for to suggest a text, if newly discovered, could be an "autograph?" When the Pauline corpus was collected (around the turn of the 2nd century?), I am assuming that Church scribes (in Ephesus?) wrote to the various churches asking for copies of the letters they had in their possession. Internal evidence suggests that three of the four Pauline epistles to the Corinthians had already deteriorated to fragments and were composited. I expect it would be unlikely that the Presbyter of one of these correspondence churches would send the collectors their precious originals, hence the text, or fragments of our hypothetical autograph would be expected to be found in Corinth and palaeographically assigned to the mid 1st century. > Now if an autograph of a Pauline letter/epistle turned up, wouldn´t we > recognize its provenance in regard to both external and internal > factors, namely its *age*, inherent concistency in composition, > theology, style etc, (Paul can be said to have created a new literary > genre with his writing!). Certainly if we found a copy of Romans in Rome, squirreled away in a catacomb, and in a first century hand, everyone would be excited about the possibility that it was the autograph...but we could never be sure. Of course, as long as we are dreaming the ultimate TC dream, a small library of additional texts in the same provenance would be telling. Hey! It's nice to dream, isn't it? > I understand that we would face a difficulty if e.g. Paul himself or a > later person edited together material from single letters and later > "published" an official collection (what then would be the autograph), > but I´m not yet convinced that this was case. I think the churches Paul > wrote to, valued his letters very highly, and read them in their > services and that Paul himself expected them to be shared with other > neighbouring churches, from the start (Col 4:16). Just a thought: > Couldn´t the Corinthian church that once had possession of the very > autographs, serve as safeguarding the Pauline "Corinthian" tradition as > time went on? As mentioned above, I think this is exactly what happened but, unfortunately, papyri do not hold up well over time in the northern Mediterranean climes. A more realistic hope would be for 1st generation copies as P52 may be...but I would expect these also to be very rare and only fragments. Setting aside the "TC-dream" of a DSS-like discovery of Christian documents, our "papyrus curtain" is still 150 years away from the autographs. > However, I agree with -Bob was it?- that it was Paul that was canonized > by the church, not a single Pauline letter and even if a letter like 2 > Cor should be a "patchwork" of Pauline material (perhaps edited by Paul > himself?), *I* regard it as apostolic and part of the Holy Scripture, > recognized as such by the church. I guess that brings up a point, probably outside of the topic of TC, as to whether a "patchwork" of 3 epistles into one can be considered "canon." In a very real sense, Paul did not write 2 Cor as a whole. Jack -- Great savings on high speed wireless or hardwire T-1s, DS-3, Web design and hosting. Jack Kilmon Account Executive IJNT 713-462-4222 http://www.ijnt.net From tc-list-owner Tue Sep 7 16:33:59 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id QAA17006 for tc-list-outgoing; Tue, 7 Sep 1999 16:33:32 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Message-ID: <37D59543.3CA4@orebro.mail.telia.com> Date: Tue, 07 Sep 1999 22:44:19 +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 The ultimate goal of textual criticism References: <37D2C717.7C59D6A7@historian.net> <199909052257.SAA04348@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> <37D42D10.1286@orebro.mail.telia.com> <37D41F2D.E61FB382@historian.net> <37D54247.57FA@orebro.mail.telia.com> <37D53888.5A772473@historian.net> 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 QAA17002 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Content-Length: 967 Regarding the discussed composition of 2 Cor here is an interesting quotation from S.J. Hafemann´s article "Corinthians, Letters to the" in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters. IVP 1993, p. 177, regarding 2 Corinthians: "The growing consensus is that chapters 1-9 are in fact a unified composition written after Paul´s encounter with Titus (cf. 2 Cor 7:5-13). Chapters 10-13 are then taken as a subsequent work which was written after a fresh outbreak of trouble in Corinth and appended to the previous section at some time early on in the history of these traditions, since there is no text-critical evidence that chapters 10-13 ever circulated independently of chapters 1-9 (see, e.g., the commentaries by Martin and Furnish)." The commentaries refered to is R.P. Martin, 2 Corinthians (WBC 40; Waco; Word, 1986); V.P. Furnish, II Corinthians (AB 32; Garden City, NY: Doubleday 1984). Tommy Wasserman student of theology at Örebro Missionsskola in Örebro, Sweden From tc-list-owner Wed Sep 8 00:33:28 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id AAA18987 for tc-list-outgoing; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 00:33:03 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1999 00:33:02 -0400 (EDT) From: "James R. Adair" To: TC List Subject: tc-list TC review of Weitzman 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: 655 Jerome Lund has written a review of M. P. Weitzman's _The Syriac Version of the Old Testament: An Introduction_, and it is available in the pages of TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism, volume 4. More to come .... *********************************************************************** 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 Wed Sep 8 02:01:08 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id CAA19199 for tc-list-outgoing; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 02:01:03 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Message-ID: <19990908060849.63047.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [208.252.64.84] From: "Bruce Prior" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: tc-list Fwd: Q 12:27 Date: Tue, 07 Sep 1999 23:08:48 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: 5085 >From: "James M. Robinson" >To: n7rr@hotmail.com >Subject: Q 12:27 >Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1999 20:31:02 -0700 > >I have written up, for The Critical Edition of Q, text critical notes, >where I also include a statement about the "grow" vs. "card" problem. I add >it here, in case it would be useful to distribute to the discussion group: >Q 12:27: In Matt 6:28 the reading aujxavnousin is presupposed in RSV, NRSV, >TOB and BJ. This is also the case in NEB and REV, but with the note: "one >witness reads Consider the lilies: they neither card, nor spin, nor work." >Tasker put ouj xaivnousin oujde; nhvqousin oujde; kopiw'sin in a note and >explained: "a*, it would appear, has the interesting reading ouj xevnousin >( = xaivnousin) oujde; nhvqousin oujde; kopiw'sin. As OUXENOUSIN, wrongly >read as AUXANOUSIN, could have given rise to the other variants, and as >aujxavnousin seemed unnatural in the present context, the translators >thought that the possibility that the reading of a* is original should be >left open, but aujxavnousin was retained in the text. The passage should be >compared with Lk. 12.27." Nestle-Aland25 has a note: "ouj xevnousin ( = >xaivn-) oujde; nhvqousin oujde; kopiw'sin a*vid. (cf. ZNW 1938, 211-214)." >Nestle-Aland27 has abbreviated the note: "ouj xaivnousin oujde; nhvqousin >oujde; kopiw'sin a*vid." GNT has the note: "ouj xevnousin [ = xaivnousin] >oujde; nhvqousin oujde; kopiw'sin a*vid." Metzger: "The original reading of >codex Sinaiticus, which was detected when the manuscript was examined under >an ultra-violet ray lamp, is ouj xevnousin ( = xaivnousin) oujde; nhvqousin >oujde; kopiw'sin, 'they do not card neither do they spin nor toil.' This >reading, though regarded as original by some scholars, doubtless arose as a >scribal idiosyncrasy that was almost immediately corrected. Codex >Koridethi, supported by the Curetonian Syriac, reverses the order of verbs, >placing the specific word ('spin') before the general word ('toil')." >Huck-Greeven reads as does Nestle-Aland27, but refers in the critical >apparatus to Athanasius, Chrysostom and the Gospel of Thomas. >Boismard-Lamouille reads as does Nestle-Aland27, but quotes in a note the >Gospel of Thomas. >But, on the other hand, in the case of Luke 12:27 Nestle-Aland25 had read >pw'" ou[te nhvqei ou[te uJfaivnei. BJ reads "comme ils ne filent ni ne >tissent," and lists in a note as a variant not adopted: "ils ne peinent ni >ne filent," with reference to Matt 6:28. NEB and REB read "they neither >spin nor weave." Then Nestle-Aland27, Huck-Greeven and Boismard-Lamouille >came to read: pw'" aujxavnei: ouj kopia/' oujde; nhvqei. Metzger explains >the change: "After some hesitation a majority of the Committee rejected the >reading of D itd syrc.s al, ou[te nhvqei ou[te uJfaivnei ('they neither >spin nor weave'), as a stylistic refinement introduced by copyists in view >of the following reference to Solomon's clothing." RSV and NRSV read: "how >they grow; they neither toil nor spin." >Thus the gradual recognition of the presence of aujxavn- in both Matthew >and Luke now leads to the unavoidable conclusion that aujxavn- was already >in Q: Indeed, aujxan- is a scribal error already in the archetype of Q >presupposed in Matthew and Luke. Hence an emendation is in place. The >original text must have read ouj xain-, lilies "do no card," which was >corrupted to read aujxan-, they "grow": >The Gospel of Thomas (P Oxy 655) documents a form of the sayings cluster on >the Ravens and Lilies (Q 12:22b-31) that in some other regards as well >itself pre-dates Q by presenting an even more archaic form. For it >contains, in Saying 36, the reading ATI[NAO]UXA[I] / NEIOUDEN[HQ]EI (a{tina >ouj xaivnei oujde; nhvqei, "which neither card nor spin"), as well as other >readings in Saying 36 that are more archaic than those found in Q >12:22b-31. >With the help of P Oxy 655, T. C. Skeat read at Matt 6:28 in Codex >Sinaiticus, using ultraviolet light, an erased text below the familiar >lines TAKRINATOU / AGROUPWSAUXA / NOUSINOUKOPI / WSINOUDENH> / QOUSIN (ta; >krivna tou' ajgrou' pw''" aujxavnousin: ouj kopiw'sin oujde; nh'qousin, >"the lilies of the field, how they grow; they neither toil nor spin"). This >otherwise unattested reading, erased by the first corrector, read: >TAKRINATOU / AGROUPWSOUXE / NOUSINOUDENH / QOUSINOUDEKOPI / WSIN (ta; >krivna tou' ajgrou' pw''" ouj xevvnousin [itacism for xaivnousin] oujde; >nh'qousin oujde; kopiw'sin, "... the lilies of the field: They do not card >nor spin nor toil"). >These two manuscripts, P Oxy 655 (Gos. Thom. 36) and the original hand of >Codex Sinaiticus, thus attest the original reading ouj xaivn-, already >corrupted into aujxan- in Matthew and Luke, and hence presumably in Q, at >least in the archetype of Q presupposed in Matthew and Luke. >This scribal error, since already in Q, attests to Q having been a written >Greek text, copied from a written Greek archetype. > > > ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From tc-list-owner Thu Sep 9 16:18:36 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id QAA01487 for tc-list-outgoing; Thu, 9 Sep 1999 16:16:34 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Message-Id: <199909092016.QAA01482@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> From: "Dave Washburn" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Thu, 9 Sep 1999 13:18:35 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: tc-list The ultimate goal of textual criticism Priority: normal In-reply-to: References: <199909052257.SAA04348@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: 9407 Bob Waltz wrote: > On 9/5/99, Dave Washburn wrote: > > >Bob Waltz wrote: > > > First off, let's please distinguish between gospels and Paul. The gospels > > > were clearly intended for publication; even if only one or two copies > > > were made of AMk, the hope was still that it would be disseminated. > > > > > > And the Gospels *did* achieve independent circulation. P66 contained > > > only John. P75 contained only Luke and John. It is likely that many of > > > the other gospel papyri contained only one gospel. > > > >Since both are codices and somewhat fragmentary, I'm not sure we > >can say with absolute confidence that these gospels are all the > >actual codices ever contained. > > Actually, we can in some instances. If a manuscript is a single-quire > codex, we know pretty well how long it is. That's how we calculate, > e.g., that P46 could not have contained the Pastoral Epistles. How about multiple-quire codices? And how can we tell? > Now that calculation may be off, since the scribe could have > mis-estimated slightly the number of sheets needed to transcribe > a copy of Paul. But a scribe could hardly mis-estimate so badly > as to want papyrus for four gospels, but only pull the number > of sheets for one gospel. :-) Agreed, but could it be that he pulled the number of sheets for one gospel in each quire and built a codex of four (or more) quires? > And at least some of the gospel papyri are single-quire codices. > (I'd have to look up which ones, but there are some.) So they > can only have contained so many gospels. Again, I do wonder how we can tell. > >True, it is possible that some > >manuscripts only contained one or two gospels; the question then > >becomes "why?" > > Presumably the cost of writing. But of course we don't know. > > But it is also noteworthy that there are lots of papyri of John > and almost none, save P45, of Mark. This is secondary evidence > that the papyri were mostly one-or two-gospel editions. And it > hints at the reason: John was treasured more than Mark (the > situation is less clear for Matthew and Luke, which are > well-enough represented that there may have been as many > copies as there were of John). Or it could just be an accident of preservation. > > > In Paul, the situation is completely different. The documents were > > > for public use, yes, but had a particular destination. They weren't > > > intended for actual *publication.* It wasn't until they were collected > > > that an actual public edition seems to have been contemplated. To > > > the best of my knowledge, there is only *one* Pauline manuscript which > > > can be shown to have contained only a single book of the Pauline > > > corpus: P13. And that's a double special case, because P13 is a > > > scroll and Hebrews was a disputed book. There is no evidence that, > > > say, Galatians was ever published separately. (Note the term > > > *published.*) > > > >I don't see how this has anything to do with the question. What > >you're actually saying is that the paulines in fact did have > >autographs. Also, the last part of Colossians indicates that Paul > >intended his letters to be circulated at least somewhat, which > >sounds an awful lot like "publication" of a sort to me. If the > >commentaries are correct that Ephesians was a cyclical letter, > >surely Paul would have assumed the churches to whom it was > >circulated would have made copies and likely disseminated them. > >That also sounds a lot like publication. It would appear then, that > >the matter is not nearly as cut-and-dried as Bob wants to make it. > > You're right that it wasn't cut and dried. But I would maintain > that there is a fundamental difference between the Paulines and > the Gospels. The Paulines were, without exception, addressed to > a particular situation. The gospels were intended for public > education. A particular situation or audience, yes. But isn't the same true of the gospels? Weren't they intended for particular types of audiences, e.g. Matthew geared toward Jewish readers etc.? > Now I'm sure neither Paul nor the gospel writers intended their > works for canonization. But they still had different purposes, > and the purposes affected their history. I have to disagree. I think Paul had a fair idea that his letters would be passed around, published if you will, and we know that by the time 2 Peter was written they were dubbed "scriptures." But Paul often mentions his authority as an apostle, speaks of things that he has decreed to be done "in all the churches" and similar phrases, so I find it hard to accept that he didn't intend his letters for a wider audience or as ways for various churches to establish what was or wasn't appropriate for their faith and practice. > The case of Ephesians, it seems to me, is not relevant. If it > is indeed to be part of a publication, then it's part of a publication; > fine; that's the first step in the process. But then it's > not by Paul. :-) That's a flying leap, or at least it seems so to me. At the very least it's circular reasoning. Why shouldn't it be by Paul if it was intended for publication as a cyclical letter to a region of churches? Ditto for Galatians which is addressed to several churches. You're setting up a false test here: if it was intended to be published, it can't be by Paul. Why? Because Paul's letters weren't intended for publication. But there's no really solid basis for either assertion. > > > Thus every manuscript of the gospels presumably goes back to a > > > single stopping point. (It may not be the autograph, because it > > > could, say, be taken from a scribe's fair copy of Mark's autograph. > > > But it is a stopping point consisting of Mark only.) > > > > > > In Paul, in all likelihood, there is no such "single stopping point" > > > for each book. The common starting point is *not* the autograph of > > > Romans and the autograph of 1 Corinthians and the autograph of > > > 2 Corinthians (the last of which never even actually existed). It > > > is the manuscript in which they were all assembled. Or, at least, > > > this is a reasonable assumption. > > > >How is it reasonable? The fact that the letters were ultimately > >assembled has nothing to do with the question of autographs, at > >least not as far as I can see. The goal of TC is still to discover > >exactly what was in those autographs, so I'm not sure I see the > >point here. > > Create a stemma. I draw one below (for illustration purposes only, > I hasten to add. But the comments which follow apply for *any* > stemma). > > A > | > B > | > C > | > ------------- > | | | | > D E F G > > Assume, for the sake of the argument, that all extant copies are derived > from D, E, F, G (and any number of sisters you care to name). Assume, of > course, that A, B, and C are destroyed. In that case, the earliest > manuscript you can access *directly* is C, the parent of the four > sisters. The process from C to B to A is entirely hypothetical. You > can only proceed from C, the archetype of all surviving manuscripts, > to A *by means of emendation*. You cannot, in fact, prove whether A > and C are distinct! The tree *stops at C*. This is an extremely despairing attitude, and I can't accept it. Of course we don't have A or B, but that doesn't mean we can't use other means, such as the internal evidence somebody already mentioned (and no, Bob, "internal evidence" does NOT mean resorting to emendation, as you well know!) and comparison of the stemmas etc. and all the rest of the work that is normally done in TC. The methods at our disposal give us at least a 98% chance of determining the reading of A with a very high degree of probability. If you're looking for absolute certainty, then once again I think you're setting up an impossible criterion for TC. But absolute certainty isn't necessary if we can get probability that high. > This is a simple fact of criticism; there isn't a thing we can do > about it. > > This means that, *if* the equivalent of C is an edition, such as > a collected edition of Paul, then all we can reconstruct is that > edition. We may wish to go beyond it, but we *cannot*. Not so. If this is true, then why bother? TC becomes nothing but academic exercise, and life is too short for that. > Now it is, of course, possible to question whether, in the case > of Paul, the original Pauline edition is "C," or if there is access > to the individual letters before this. I do not believe this > question can be answered. But since it cannot be answered, we > must allow the possibility it is so. And, in fact, I think it > more likely than not. Too many pronouns. What is more likely than not? > >Again, I don't see the point. The church canonized a certain > >corpus of letters it determined to be from Paul, but that has little or > >nothing to do with the quest for the autographs as he originally sent > >them out. > > That's exactly the point! The church canonized what it had (a collection > of letters). It did not canonize the autographs, which it did not > have. But my point is that canonization has nothing to do with the quest in TC to determine the readings of the autographs. [snip] Dave Washburn http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur "Ich veranlassenarbeitenworken mein Mojo." From tc-list-owner Thu Sep 9 16:22:49 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id QAA01519 for tc-list-outgoing; Thu, 9 Sep 1999 16:22:33 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Message-Id: <199909092022.QAA01514@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> From: "Dave Washburn" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Thu, 9 Sep 1999 13:24:36 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: tc-list The ultimate goal of textual criticism Priority: normal In-reply-to: X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01d) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Content-Length: 6045 Ulrich wrote: > Dave Washburn wrote: > > Bob Waltz wrote: > [...] > > > > > Thus every manuscript of the gospels presumably goes back to a > > > single stopping point. (It may not be the autograph, because it > > > could, say, be taken from a scribe's fair copy of Mark's autograph. > > > But it is a stopping point consisting of Mark only.) > > > > > > In Paul, in all likelihood, there is no such "single stopping point" > > > for each book. The common starting point is *not* the autograph of > > > Romans and the autograph of 1 Corinthians and the autograph of > > > 2 Corinthians (the last of which never even actually existed). It > > > is the manuscript in which they were all assembled. Or, at least, > > > this is a reasonable assumption. > > > > How is it reasonable? The fact that the letters were ultimately > > assembled has nothing to do with the question of autographs, at > > least not as far as I can see. The goal of TC is still to discover > > exactly what was in those autographs, so I'm not sure I see the > > point here. > > The fact that the Pauline letters were "ultimately assembled" simply is > no quantite negligeable, for it strongly pre-determines the way in which we are > able to approach the question of autographs. It may even irreversebly obscure > the reconstruction of the autograph(s) of, e.g., the Corinthian correspondence. > Suppose Paul not only sent the individual letters, of which at least one letter > is missing among the extant two letters to the Corinthians, but he also issued > the first collection of his letters consisting of, e.g., Gal 1.2. Cor Rom. In > such a scenario Paul were not only the writer of the individual letters but also > the editor of the first collection. Considering what we know of the historical details of Paul's life, I find this unlikely unless he had an amanuensis make two copies of each letter and kept one for himself, later to be published. But I see no evidence of that, either. He could have deliberately chosen not to > include all of the Corinthian letters or, more likely, purposly redacted the > correspondence into two larger letters. In any case, we would be confronted with > two possible autographs - those of the actual correspondence and the autograph > of the collection. It is conceivable that we might be able to reconstruct the > latter but not the former. > Don't think it would be unlikely that Paul himself edited the first collection > of (some of) his letters. There is a lot of circumstantial evidence pointing > towards that assumption (cf. the work of David Trobisch) You'll excuse me if I find said evidence lacking. > [Bob Waltz] > > > I don't know how we can "prove" this textually. But there is always > > > that first disseminated document. Which may or may not be the > > > autograph. And if it is *not* the autograph, we have no way to > > > move beyond it except by emendation. > > [Dave Washburn] > > But there may be a difference between a first disseminated > > document and an autograph. Suppose Paul sent 1 Corinthians to > > its recipients with the goal of its ultimately being read by other > > people and churches as well. Someone in that church takes it and > > makes a copy to send to the Christians in the next town, but to > > save space or whatever he uses nomina sacra where Paul had > > spelled things out. > > Put into historical perspective your scenario is highly unlikely. The nomina > sacra system has hardly any chance to go back to a single-NT-book-copy. Quite to > the contrary, it is, next to the codex format, an editorial feature that was > most likely developed, let alone consistently applied, on the level of > collections. I was using the nomina sacra as an example, Ulrich. Nothing more. My point is that the first disseminated copy might have had such alterations. > [Bob Waltz] > > > This isn't new, either. Remember, Lachmann set out to reconstruct > > > the fourth century text, not the original text.... > > [Dave Washburn] > > That was Lachmann's problem, not mine. > > I strongly recommend you read Ulrich von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff's *Geschichte > der Philologie*, in: _Einleitung in die Altertumswissenschaft_ (edd. A Gercke, > E. Norden), vol. 1, 3rd ed. (Berlin 1927), pp. 58-59 on Lachmann. Wilamowitz has > some harsh words about Lachmann, accusing him of lack of historical foundation > for his judgments (on the Ilias in this case). > It really is ironic, Lachmann who was bold enough to utter historically > problematic judgments nevertheless was reluctant enough to go beyond > reconstructing the NT text of the fourth century. Guess, why. Well, in his days > no manuscripts from earlier times have been available. Yet, in this case > Wilamowitz is puzzled that Lachmann didn't make use of the countless earlier > church father citations. Anyhow, even including all the citations and the papyri > from around 200 onwards, nowadays available, we only get back to the end of the > second century for substantial parts of the NT (Gospels, Acts, and Paul). This > is, no doubt, a tremendous achievement. But it's still more than a hundred years > from the autographs of the letters of Paul. Today, Lachmann may have ventured to > reconstruct the NT text of around 200 CE. But, as self-entitled textual scholars > of the Christian Bible, we know of course that those trained philologists are > crazy, especially the dead ones. I don't recall saying such a thing. My point was that Lachmann had his view and I have mine. As you point out, we have moved beyond the manuscript evidence that he had. That doesn't mean he was crazy, it just means we can get much further back than he felt he could. Westcott and Hort did the same thing, and were of the opinion that they could get back to the autographs even before the papyri came to light. Lachmann had an opinion, but that's all it was. That's all I said. Dave Washburn http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur "Ich veranlassenarbeitenworken mein Mojo." From tc-list-owner Thu Sep 9 16:29:53 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id QAA01625 for tc-list-outgoing; Thu, 9 Sep 1999 16:29:50 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Message-Id: <199909092029.QAA01620@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> From: "Dave Washburn" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Thu, 9 Sep 1999 13:31:54 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Subject: Re: tc-list The ultimate goal of textual criticism Priority: normal In-reply-to: <37D53888.5A772473@historian.net> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01d) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from Quoted-printable to 8bit by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu id QAA01621 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Content-Length: 1364 Jack wrote in part: > > Yes Jack, I realize that we choose among the readings of the surviving > > manuscripts (emendations thus unusual in NT-TC). > > > > But in this discussion I´ve heard the argument that: "we wouldn´t > > recognize an autograph if we saw one", and I suppose this is too big a > > generalization, even in regard to the Pauline corpus. > > Using the Corinthian correspondence as an example, what would we > look for to suggest a text, if newly discovered, could be an "autograph?" Throughout this and other threads we've seen this assertion about *finding* an autograph. But it strikes me as a bit of a smokescreen when it comes to the goal of TC. Sure, maybe we couldn't know for sure if a newly-discovered ms was an autograph, but so what? Comparison of documents, internal evidence and all the rest enable us to determine the readings of the autographs with a great degree of certainty. Jack mentioned that the "papyrus curtain" is some 150 years after the autograph, as if that's a long time. It's not. In comparison with many, many other works, it's mighty close. I tend to think we have every reason to be hopeful that we can recover the original text of the various parts of the NT; we certainly have enough material to work from. Dave Washburn http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur "Ich veranlassenarbeitenworken mein Mojo." From tc-list-owner Thu Sep 9 18:38:22 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id SAA02275 for tc-list-outgoing; Thu, 9 Sep 1999 18:38:13 -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: <199909092016.QAA01482@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> References: <199909052257.SAA04348@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> <199909092016.QAA01482@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> Date: Thu, 9 Sep 1999 17:50:27 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: tc-list The ultimate goal of 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: 9682 Bits and pieces of a reply.... On 9/9/99, Dave Washburn wrote: [ ... ] > > >Since both are codices and somewhat fragmentary, I'm not sure we > > >can say with absolute confidence that these gospels are all the > > >actual codices ever contained. > > > > Actually, we can in some instances. If a manuscript is a single-quire > > codex, we know pretty well how long it is. That's how we calculate, > > e.g., that P46 could not have contained the Pastoral Epistles. > >How about multiple-quire codices? And how can we tell? Not sure what the question is. In the case of a multi-quire codex, of course, we can't tell what the original may have contained. But *if* a codex is single-quire, we can tell how long it was, and therefore how much it could have contained, even if we have only a single leaf (cf. P5). > > Now that calculation may be off, since the scribe could have > > mis-estimated slightly the number of sheets needed to transcribe > > a copy of Paul. But a scribe could hardly mis-estimate so badly > > as to want papyrus for four gospels, but only pull the number > > of sheets for one gospel. :-) > >Agreed, but could it be that he pulled the number of sheets for one >gospel in each quire and built a codex of four (or more) quires? Conceivable, but strange. It means that the scribe has to guess how long *each gospel* will be. The likely result is either blank leaves or extra short quires or both. Lousy way to run a scriptorium. Also, if the books are in separate quires, you can't prove one way or the other whether they were intended to go together. They could have been assembled later. The one thing you know is that they weren't designed to be bound together. > > And at least some of the gospel papyri are single-quire codices. > > (I'd have to look up which ones, but there are some.) So they > > can only have contained so many gospels. > >Again, I do wonder how we can tell. What is the question? How we tell if they're single-quire codices? You look at the fold. Either there is one quire or there are multiple quires. > > >True, it is possible that some > > >manuscripts only contained one or two gospels; the question then > > >becomes "why?" > > > > Presumably the cost of writing. But of course we don't know. > > > > But it is also noteworthy that there are lots of papyri of John > > and almost none, save P45, of Mark. This is secondary evidence > > that the papyri were mostly one-or two-gospel editions. And it > > hints at the reason: John was treasured more than Mark (the > > situation is less clear for Matthew and Luke, which are > > well-enough represented that there may have been as many > > copies as there were of John). > >Or it could just be an accident of preservation. This cannot be disproved, of course. However, looking at the list at the back of the Aland introduction shows: 22 papyri of John 18 papyri of Matthew 8 papyri of Luke 3 papyri of Mark (one of them, of course, being P45) (That's not absolutely current, but the ratio probably hasn't changed much.) A ratio of better than 7:1 in favour of John over Mark is pretty extreme. Mark takes 59 pages in NA27; John is 73 pages. Therefore the expected ratio, under the hypothesis that all codices are actually four-gospel manuscripts, is 1.23. Your deviation from the expected magnitude is a factor of six! (5.9, to be precise). I don't buy it. [ ... ] > > The case of Ephesians, it seems to me, is not relevant. If it > > is indeed to be part of a publication, then it's part of a publication; > > fine; that's the first step in the process. But then it's > > not by Paul. :-) > >That's a flying leap, or at least it seems so to me. At the very least >it's circular reasoning. Why shouldn't it be by Paul if it was >intended for publication as a cyclical letter to a region of churches? >Ditto for Galatians which is addressed to several churches. You're >setting up a false test here: if it was intended to be published, it >can't be by Paul. Why? Because Paul's letters weren't intended >for publication. But there's no really solid basis for either assertion. The part you're leaving out is that Ephesians is so clearly a hack of Colossians. If that weren't the case, then I'd concede the possibility of a leap. But Ephesians, if by Paul, *has to* have been written at the same time as Colossians. So Paul is publishing a collection. Why, then, not send *that* to the Colossians? I'll admit this is a form-critical point -- but so is claiming Ephesians as a cover letter. As far as the church was concerned, it was simply a Pauline letter. The whole point should be left behind. [ ... ] > > Create a stemma. I draw one below (for illustration purposes only, > > I hasten to add. But the comments which follow apply for *any* > > stemma). > > > > A > > | > > B > > | > > C > > | > > ------------- > > | | | | > > D E F G > > > > Assume, for the sake of the argument, that all extant copies are derived > > from D, E, F, G (and any number of sisters you care to name). Assume, of > > course, that A, B, and C are destroyed. In that case, the earliest > > manuscript you can access *directly* is C, the parent of the four > > sisters. The process from C to B to A is entirely hypothetical. You > > can only proceed from C, the archetype of all surviving manuscripts, > > to A *by means of emendation*. You cannot, in fact, prove whether A > > and C are distinct! The tree *stops at C*. > >This is an extremely despairing attitude, and I can't accept it. What's despairing about it? I'm attempting to reconstruct an actual document. I'd rather have a good reconstruction of the archetype than a bad reconstruction of a hypothetical autograph. :-) The fact that we want something doesn't make it possible. Otherwise, I'd be seeking to textually reconstruct world peace. :-) >Of >course we don't have A or B, but that doesn't mean we can't use >other means, such as the internal evidence somebody already >mentioned (and no, Bob, "internal evidence" does NOT mean >resorting to emendation, as you well know!) And as you ought to know, internal evidence can only work with extant readings. Let's take a hypothetical case, say from Ephesians. Suppose, for the sake of the argument, that Ephesians 1:1 was actually addressed to (say) Smyrna. Then A would have read "to the saints in Smyrna." Now B comes along and either deletes that phrase or changes it to "Ephesians." C copies that, and so on down the line. The reading of A is gone. It does not exist in *any* extant copy. None. Therefore internal evidence cannot operate on it. It's not an option. The only way to get it back is emendation. I repeat my claim: Since *all* extant readings are derived from C, any reading found in A or B but not in C can only be recovered by emendation. [ ... ] > > > This means that, *if* the equivalent of C is an edition, such as > > a collected edition of Paul, then all we can reconstruct is that > > edition. We may wish to go beyond it, but we *cannot*. > >Not so. If this is true, then why bother? TC becomes nothing but >academic exercise, and life is too short for that. In other words, if you can't have *the* original Bible, you don't want anything? By analogy, if a book contains a single typographical error, it's worthless. In practice, what you are doing is the same as what I am doing. I simply label it "the earliest attainable text," while you want it to be the autograph. I can't see any shame in stopping with what I can reliably reconstruct. > > Now it is, of course, possible to question whether, in the case > > of Paul, the original Pauline edition is "C," or if there is access > > to the individual letters before this. I do not believe this > > question can be answered. But since it cannot be answered, we > > must allow the possibility it is so. And, in fact, I think it > > more likely than not. > >Too many pronouns. What is more likely than not? Oops. I think it more likely than not that the archetype of the surviving Pauline canon (or, more correctly, of the nine Pauline letters to churches; Hebrews and the Pastorals are another issue) is an anthology of Pauline letters. > > >Again, I don't see the point. The church canonized a certain > > >corpus of letters it determined to be from Paul, but that has little or > > >nothing to do with the quest for the autographs as he originally sent > > >them out. > > > > That's exactly the point! The church canonized what it had (a collection > > of letters). It did not canonize the autographs, which it did not > > have. > >But my point is that canonization has nothing to do with the quest >in TC to determine the readings of the autographs. Even when the autograph is *not* something accepted by the church? Suppose you could, by some means, reconstruct one of the letters which contributed to 2 Corinthians? Or the Ending of Mark? Or the letter to the Laodiceans? What do you do then? It seems to me that that way lies madness. All of these are interesting, but the "true" ending of Mark (if there is one) is not something the church ever canonized. Are you going to canonize it? If you can canonize that, what is to stop you from canonizing anything else, from "3 Corinthians" to the Diatessaron to "Chariots of the Gods"? The church accepted 2 Corinthians in its present form, composite though it apparently is. It accepted Mark in (some form or other). :-) Is it not worth accepting the document the church meant to canonize, and reconstructing that? Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com "The one thing we learn from history -- is that no one ever learns from history." From tc-list-owner Thu Sep 9 20:32:36 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id UAA02659 for tc-list-outgoing; Thu, 9 Sep 1999 20:32:22 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Message-Id: <199909100032.UAA02654@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> From: "Dave Washburn" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Thu, 9 Sep 1999 17:34:23 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: tc-list The ultimate goal of textual criticism Priority: normal In-reply-to: References: <199909092016.QAA01482@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: 16294 Bits and pieces of a reply to a reply... > Bits and pieces of a reply.... > > On 9/9/99, Dave Washburn wrote: > > [ ... ] > > > > >Since both are codices and somewhat fragmentary, I'm not sure we > > > >can say with absolute confidence that these gospels are all the > > > >actual codices ever contained. > > > > > > Actually, we can in some instances. If a manuscript is a single-quire > > > codex, we know pretty well how long it is. That's how we calculate, > > > e.g., that P46 could not have contained the Pastoral Epistles. > > > >How about multiple-quire codices? And how can we tell? > > Not sure what the question is. In the case of a multi-quire codex, > of course, we can't tell what the original may have contained. But > *if* a codex is single-quire, we can tell how long it was, and > therefore how much it could have contained, even if we have only > a single leaf (cf. P5). I wonder if we're operating on different definitions of "quire"... > > > Now that calculation may be off, since the scribe could have > > > mis-estimated slightly the number of sheets needed to transcribe > > > a copy of Paul. But a scribe could hardly mis-estimate so badly > > > as to want papyrus for four gospels, but only pull the number > > > of sheets for one gospel. :-) > > > >Agreed, but could it be that he pulled the number of sheets for one > >gospel in each quire and built a codex of four (or more) quires? > > Conceivable, but strange. It means that the scribe has to guess > how long *each gospel* will be. The likely result is either blank > leaves or extra short quires or both. Lousy way to run a scriptorium. Or overlap of a gospel from one quire to another... > Also, if the books are in separate quires, you can't prove one > way or the other whether they were intended to go together. They > could have been assembled later. The one thing you know is that > they weren't designed to be bound together. And we know this how? > > > And at least some of the gospel papyri are single-quire codices. > > > (I'd have to look up which ones, but there are some.) So they > > > can only have contained so many gospels. > > > >Again, I do wonder how we can tell. > > What is the question? How we tell if they're single-quire codices? > You look at the fold. Either there is one quire or there are multiple > quires. Expand on this, please. The definition I know of "quire" is a set of folded sheets that are put together inside one another (the "standard" definition that I've seen is 24 sheets). I get the feeling you're describing a single sheet of vellum/papyrus/whatever... > > > >True, it is possible that some > > > >manuscripts only contained one or two gospels; the question then > > > >becomes "why?" > > > > > > Presumably the cost of writing. But of course we don't know. > > > > > > But it is also noteworthy that there are lots of papyri of John > > > and almost none, save P45, of Mark. This is secondary evidence > > > that the papyri were mostly one-or two-gospel editions. And it > > > hints at the reason: John was treasured more than Mark (the > > > situation is less clear for Matthew and Luke, which are > > > well-enough represented that there may have been as many > > > copies as there were of John). > > > >Or it could just be an accident of preservation. > > This cannot be disproved, of course. However, looking at the list at the > back of the Aland introduction shows: > > 22 papyri of John > 18 papyri of Matthew > 8 papyri of Luke > 3 papyri of Mark (one of them, of course, being P45) > > (That's not absolutely current, but the ratio probably hasn't changed > much.) > > A ratio of better than 7:1 in favour of John over Mark is pretty > extreme. Mark takes 59 pages in NA27; John is 73 pages. Therefore > the expected ratio, under the hypothesis that all codices are actually > four-gospel manuscripts, is 1.23. Your deviation from the expected > magnitude is a factor of six! (5.9, to be precise). I don't buy > it. The ratio of John to Mark, sure. But Matthew isn't far behind. Here's an idea: we know from some mss such as D that at least some copies had the gospels in the order Matthew, John, Mark, Luke (don't hold me to the order of the last 2, I'm going from spontaneous memory). It could be that the back pages started falling off first, accounting for the lesser preservation of Mark. I'm not saying that's what happened, but it shows that there are several scenarios in which these stats could easily be due to an accident of preservation. OTOH, I don't have a problem with the idea that John was the most popular gospel. > > > The case of Ephesians, it seems to me, is not relevant. If it > > > is indeed to be part of a publication, then it's part of a publication; > > > fine; that's the first step in the process. But then it's > > > not by Paul. :-) > > > >That's a flying leap, or at least it seems so to me. At the very least > >it's circular reasoning. Why shouldn't it be by Paul if it was > >intended for publication as a cyclical letter to a region of churches? > >Ditto for Galatians which is addressed to several churches. You're > >setting up a false test here: if it was intended to be published, it > >can't be by Paul. Why? Because Paul's letters weren't intended > >for publication. But there's no really solid basis for either assertion. > > The part you're leaving out is that Ephesians is so clearly a hack > of Colossians. "Clearly"? I've seen suggestions of just the opposite. That's the joy of form criticism: it can produce just about any result one wants. If that weren't the case, then I'd concede the > possibility of a leap. But Ephesians, if by Paul, *has to* have been > written at the same time as Colossians. They're both considered prison epistles, so I don't see why this is so significant unless by "same time" you mean "within a day or two of each other." That's not necessarily the case, nor does it need to be. So Paul is publishing a > collection. Why, then, not send *that* to the Colossians? Whoa, another leap. A collection? Not necessarily. A number of things on his mind that he feels like telling to two different churches. You don't give Paul enough credit, and rely far too heavily on form criticism. > I'll admit this is a form-critical point -- but so is claiming > Ephesians as a cover letter. Who said anything about a cover letter? You pulled that out of the air, Bob. I never said, to my knowledge nobody did, that it was a cover letter. The common suggestion, which may or may not be accurate, is that it was a cyclical letter to several churches around the region of Ephesus. How does one jump from that to a "cover letter"? As far as the church was concerned, > it was simply a Pauline letter. The whole point should be left > behind. And I agree it's a Pauline letter. Whether it was cyclical or not, whether the words "in Ephesus" are original or not, and all the rest. The point is, if in fact it was a cyclical letter, then Paul wrote it with the intention of having it circulated, or published, at least in a limited sense. You said a while back that he never intended for them to be published. I'm saying that Ephesians, as well as the last chapter of Colossians and the fact that Galatians is addressed to more than one church, indicate that this is not correct. > > > Create a stemma. I draw one below (for illustration purposes only, > > > I hasten to add. But the comments which follow apply for *any* > > > stemma). > > > > > > A > > > | > > > B > > > | > > > C > > > | > > > ------------- > > > | | | | > > > D E F G > > > > > > Assume, for the sake of the argument, that all extant copies are derived > > > from D, E, F, G (and any number of sisters you care to name). Assume, of > > > course, that A, B, and C are destroyed. In that case, the earliest > > > manuscript you can access *directly* is C, the parent of the four > > > sisters. The process from C to B to A is entirely hypothetical. You > > > can only proceed from C, the archetype of all surviving manuscripts, > > > to A *by means of emendation*. You cannot, in fact, prove whether A > > > and C are distinct! The tree *stops at C*. > > > >This is an extremely despairing attitude, and I can't accept it. > > What's despairing about it? I'm attempting to reconstruct an > actual document. I'd rather have a good reconstruction of > the archetype than a bad reconstruction of a hypothetical > autograph. :-) Part of the despair is the idea that only one copy was made of A. Another part is the assumption that the original readings of A didn't survive. I don't think either point is legitimate. > The fact that we want something doesn't make it possible. > Otherwise, I'd be seeking to textually reconstruct world > peace. :-) > > >Of > >course we don't have A or B, but that doesn't mean we can't use > >other means, such as the internal evidence somebody already > >mentioned (and no, Bob, "internal evidence" does NOT mean > >resorting to emendation, as you well know!) > > And as you ought to know, internal evidence can only work with > extant readings. Yep. And most reputable text critics that I know of maintain that virtually all, if not indeed all, of the original readings are present in the extant readings. I agree. > Let's take a hypothetical case, say from Ephesians. Suppose, > for the sake of the argument, that Ephesians 1:1 was actually > addressed to (say) Smyrna. Then A would have read "to the saints > in Smyrna." > > Now B comes along and either deletes that phrase or changes it to > "Ephesians." > > C copies that, and so on down the line. > > The reading of A is gone. It does not exist in *any* extant copy. > None. Therefore internal evidence cannot operate on it. It's not > an option. The only way to get it back is emendation. But this is only accurate if B is the only copy ever made of A. I really doubt that's the case. A letter from Paul himself would have been quite a prize, and you can bet that it was copied many times, not just one. This would be particularly true of a multiple- addressee letter like Galatians; do we really suppose that a messenger took the letter to church X and read it to them, then moved on to church Y without giving X a chance to copy it? "I don't think so, Tim." The stemma above assumes ONLY one copy of A. Not only unlikely, but I find it frankly inconceivable. > I repeat my claim: Since *all* extant readings are derived from > C, any reading found in A or B but not in C can only be recovered > by emendation. Again, this claim only holds if B was the only copy ever made of A. If B' made another copy, the stemma just gained another huge leg, unless you assum that B, B', B'' and everybody else made the very same copying error at various and sundry times in the lifetime of A. Again, I just don't think it holds water. > > > This means that, *if* the equivalent of C is an edition, such as > > > a collected edition of Paul, then all we can reconstruct is that > > > edition. We may wish to go beyond it, but we *cannot*. > > > >Not so. If this is true, then why bother? TC becomes nothing but > >academic exercise, and life is too short for that. > > In other words, if you can't have *the* original Bible, you don't > want anything? By analogy, if a book contains a single typographical > error, it's worthless. The analogy breaks down at once, of course, unless one views the NT as just another book (which I don't). I also didn't say that I "don't want anything" if I can't have the original, I said that if the original is as unrecoverable as you say, for me there's no point. I'll use my best guess and forget TC. But I don't think it is unrecoverable, so I'll keep looking. > In practice, what you are doing is the same as what I am doing. > I simply label it "the earliest attainable text," while you want > it to be the autograph. I can't see any shame in stopping with > what I can reliably reconstruct. And just how reliable is that? And how do you know? If we really want to push this to its logical conclusion, the first one we could "reliably" reconstruct, because copies would have been consistent and not subject to copyists' errors, is Gutenberg's Latin version. Before printing we have a plethora of variants (after printing too, but considerably less and much easier to recreate a stemma from a single press), so we can't really construct anything truly reliable from, say, the time of Jerome. It all depends on one's definition of "reliable." > > > Now it is, of course, possible to question whether, in the case > > > of Paul, the original Pauline edition is "C," or if there is access > > > to the individual letters before this. I do not believe this > > > question can be answered. But since it cannot be answered, we > > > must allow the possibility it is so. And, in fact, I think it > > > more likely than not. > > > >Too many pronouns. What is more likely than not? > > Oops. I think it more likely than not that the archetype of the > surviving Pauline canon (or, more correctly, of the nine Pauline > letters to churches; Hebrews and the Pastorals are another issue) > is an anthology of Pauline letters. Do you mean you think Paul himself created such an anthology? I'm still not clear. > > > >Again, I don't see the point. The church canonized a certain > > > >corpus of letters it determined to be from Paul, but that has little or > > > >nothing to do with the quest for the autographs as he originally sent > > > >them out. > > > > > > That's exactly the point! The church canonized what it had (a collection > > > of letters). It did not canonize the autographs, which it did not > > > have. > > > >But my point is that canonization has nothing to do with the quest > >in TC to determine the readings of the autographs. > > Even when the autograph is *not* something accepted by the church? This is so hypothetical as to be pointless to continue discussing. > Suppose you could, by some means, reconstruct one of the letters > which contributed to 2 Corinthians? Or the Ending of Mark? Or > the letter to the Laodiceans? What do you do then? We've gotten out of the realm of TC here, so I'm not going to bother. > It seems to me that that way lies madness. All of these are interesting, > but the "true" ending of Mark (if there is one) is not something the > church ever canonized. Are you going to canonize it? If you can canonize > that, what is to stop you from canonizing anything else, from > "3 Corinthians" to the Diatessaron to "Chariots of the Gods"? I don't think the true ending of Mark has survived. I don't know why that should be, but that's where I end up. However, canonization is a very separate issue from TC. If such an ending were to be found and verified (God only knows how) by TC, then the question of canonization would come up. But it would be a separate issue. > The church accepted 2 Corinthians in its present form, composite though > it apparently is. It accepted Mark in (some form or other). :-) > Is it not worth accepting the document the church meant to canonize, > and reconstructing that? I don't buy the patchwork view of 2 Corinthians, as you may have gathered by now, and from what I read in the journals and the book reviews the idea is losing steam. IMO form criticism has been weighed in the balances and found lacking, and frankly should have no overlap at all with TC. The goal of TC should be to reconstruct as accurately as possible the original (autograph, if you will) form of a document, be it a NT letter, the Iliad or the Denver phone book from 1982. You think the earliest form of the NT we can reconstruct with any confidence is that which was canonized (when? At which point in the canonization process do you place this earliest recoverable form?); I disagree, I have no reason not to think that with the evidence we have, internal and external, we can do better than that and recover virtually all of the original NT. So be it. You pays your money and you takes your choice. Dave Washburn http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur "Ich veranlassenarbeitenworken mein Mojo." From tc-list-owner Thu Sep 9 22:36:26 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id WAA03172 for tc-list-outgoing; Thu, 9 Sep 1999 22:36:19 -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: <199909100032.UAA02654@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> References: <199909092016.QAA01482@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> <199909100032.UAA02654@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> Date: Thu, 9 Sep 1999 21:48:54 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: tc-list The ultimate goal of 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: 13090 On 9/9/99, Dave Washburn wrote: Some yet smaller fleas.... (If that doesn't mean anything, don't ask....) [ ... ] > > Not sure what the question is. In the case of a multi-quire codex, > > of course, we can't tell what the original may have contained. But > > *if* a codex is single-quire, we can tell how long it was, and > > therefore how much it could have contained, even if we have only > > a single leaf (cf. P5). > >I wonder if we're operating on different definitions of "quire"... >From what's said below, we are. You're operating, it seems, based on a more or less modern definition. A quire is *any* number of leaves folded over. Now most uncials used a standard quire of (as I recall) four sheets, or sixteen pages. This means that K/018, for instance, of 288 pages (according to KL1), would have 18 quires. A large enough manuscript -- such as a full Bible -- had to consist of multiple quires. But for smaller segments, such as a single gospel, or even the larger epistles of Paul as found in P46, it was possible to create a single-quire codex -- dozens of sheets folded one over the other. The result was rather ugly, and it meant that you had to guess exactly how many leaves you needed, but it could be done. P46 is a single-quire codex, originally of 104 leaves (we know this because 52/53 is the middle). This means that, even though we're missing the first few pages, we know exactly how many pages P46 was originally intended to contain. From this, we can calculate, e.g., that it did not have room for the Pastoral Epistles. (If it contained the Pastorals, they would have had to be in an appendix.) There are other single-quire codices, though the only ones I am *certain* of off the top of my head are P5 and P75 (I remember those because Comfort tried to use their page count to prove that neither papyrus contained John 21). [ ... ] > > >Agreed, but could it be that he pulled the number of sheets for one > > >gospel in each quire and built a codex of four (or more) quires? > > > > Conceivable, but strange. It means that the scribe has to guess > > how long *each gospel* will be. The likely result is either blank > > leaves or extra short quires or both. Lousy way to run a scriptorium. > >Or overlap of a gospel from one quire to another... But that's the point. P75 is a quire of 36 sheets. Now go ahead, get 36 pieces of paper and fold them together. It's a very messy result -- and it was worse with papyrus, which is thicker and stiffer than modern paper. If you're going to assemble a multi-quire codex, you aren't going to use 36-sheet quires. You'll use four sheets, or at most five or six. Is this proof? No. But the odds are pretty slight that our two most extensive single-quire codices (P46 and P75) are *both* partial volumes.... > > Also, if the books are in separate quires, you can't prove one > > way or the other whether they were intended to go together. They > > could have been assembled later. The one thing you know is that > > they weren't designed to be bound together. > >And we know this how? Covered above. [ ... ] > > This cannot be disproved, of course. However, looking at the list at the > > back of the Aland introduction shows: > > > > 22 papyri of John > > 18 papyri of Matthew > > 8 papyri of Luke > > 3 papyri of Mark (one of them, of course, being P45) > > > > (That's not absolutely current, but the ratio probably hasn't changed > > much.) > > > > A ratio of better than 7:1 in favour of John over Mark is pretty > > extreme. Mark takes 59 pages in NA27; John is 73 pages. Therefore > > the expected ratio, under the hypothesis that all codices are actually > > four-gospel manuscripts, is 1.23. Your deviation from the expected > > magnitude is a factor of six! (5.9, to be precise). I don't buy > > it. > >The ratio of John to Mark, sure. But Matthew isn't far behind. >Here's an idea: we know from some mss such as D that at least >some copies had the gospels in the order Matthew, John, Mark, >Luke (don't hold me to the order of the last 2, I'm going from >spontaneous memory). It could be that the back pages started >falling off first, accounting for the lesser preservation of Mark. I'm >not saying that's what happened, but it shows that there are >several scenarios in which these stats could easily be due to an >accident of preservation. OTOH, I don't have a problem with the >idea that John was the most popular gospel. We may have passed each other in the night, here. I understood your claim to be that the church always used the four gospels together in single volumes. The whole point of my argument was simply that the gospels did *not* always exist together, and could (and did) have highly distinct textual histories. The latter is implied by the former, and the former is implied by the ratio of mss of John to Mark among the papyri. [ ... ] The next part is about form criticism, and I'm going to omit it as we've both said that we thing form critics are quite capable of spinning hallucinations. :-) Just want to comment on one thing, though it's not relevant to the main topic.... [ ... ] > > The part you're leaving out is that Ephesians is so clearly a hack > > of Colossians. > >"Clearly"? I've seen suggestions of just the opposite. That's the >joy of form criticism: it can produce just about any result one wants. As an editor, I can't let this pass. Ephesians is based on Colossians. Why? Because Ephesians is such a lousy piece of writing. Ephesians 1 consists of only two sentences! It's a hack trying to bloat up Colossians. Clearly there is dependence (if not literary, then they are written in the same setting). But the styles are distinctly different (and Ephesians is much the worse). One has to be taken from the other. Since the difference, where they are parallel, is clearly bloat (I know bloat when I see it :-), Ephesians has to be secondary. [ ... ] > > > > Create a stemma. I draw one below (for illustration purposes only, > > > > I hasten to add. But the comments which follow apply for *any* > > > > stemma). > > > > > > > > A > > > > | > > > > B > > > > | > > > > C > > > > | > > > > ------------- > > > > | | | | > > > > D E F G > > > > > > > > Assume, for the sake of the argument, that all extant copies are derived > > > > from D, E, F, G (and any number of sisters you care to name). Assume, of > > > > course, that A, B, and C are destroyed. In that case, the earliest > > > > manuscript you can access *directly* is C, the parent of the four > > > > sisters. The process from C to B to A is entirely hypothetical. You > > > > can only proceed from C, the archetype of all surviving manuscripts, > > > > to A *by means of emendation*. You cannot, in fact, prove whether A > > > > and C are distinct! The tree *stops at C*. > > > > > >This is an extremely despairing attitude, and I can't accept it. > > > > What's despairing about it? I'm attempting to reconstruct an > > actual document. I'd rather have a good reconstruction of > > the archetype than a bad reconstruction of a hypothetical > > autograph. :-) > >Part of the despair is the idea that only one copy was made of A. >Another part is the assumption that the original readings of A didn't >survive. I don't think either point is legitimate. No one said that only one copy was made of A. (Though I think that possible in some cases.) The claim is simply that all later copies passed through a single manuscript. Of course this may not be true. Probably isn't, in at least some cases. But it probably *is* in others. Suppose, for the sake of the argument, that Paul kept a copy of his letters. (I don't think this is a given; to make a copy of 1 Corinthians would take a fair bit of time and parchment.) Why would he ever make a copy of his copy? It just sits there and dies out. And, unless one assumes Providential Preservation or something equally silly, why would you ever assume that all the original readings survived? Just because we have a lot of variants? For that matter, suppose there were an error in the original. Suppose Tertius wrote PAULOUS instead of PAULOS at the beginning of Romans. All the copyists knew it was a spelling error, and changed it. Reasonable on its face -- but it means that they don't agree with the autograph! [ ... ] > > And as you ought to know, internal evidence can only work with > > extant readings. > >Yep. And most reputable text critics that I know of maintain that >virtually all, if not indeed all, of the original readings are present in >the extant readings. I agree. So do I. I suspect that at least 99% of the original text is preserved in the extant copies. So what? It's the 1% that matters, not the 99%. There is no variation of any significance at all in 90% of the text; that just means it's beyond out province. [ ... ] > > I repeat my claim: Since *all* extant readings are derived from > > C, any reading found in A or B but not in C can only be recovered > > by emendation. > >Again, this claim only holds if B was the only copy ever made of A. >If B' made another copy, the stemma just gained another huge leg, >unless you assum that B, B', B'' and everybody else made the very >same copying error at various and sundry times in the lifetime of A. >Again, I just don't think it holds water. Well, we've made progress. You'll concede, *if* the stemma has a constriction down to one copy, that we cannot reconstruct past that copy. The question is, do we ever reach that point of one manuscript (the archetype)? The answer is, we don't know. That's the fact of the matter. You are making an assumption: That the stream always gets wider. I simply can't be comfortable with that assumption, because there is no evidence either way. None. It is simply not possible to tell A from C; they are the same. So I, with the courage of scientific conviction, claim only to be reconstructing C. :-) > > > > This means that, *if* the equivalent of C is an edition, such as > > > > a collected edition of Paul, then all we can reconstruct is that > > > > edition. We may wish to go beyond it, but we *cannot*. > > > > > >Not so. If this is true, then why bother? TC becomes nothing but > > >academic exercise, and life is too short for that. > > > > In other words, if you can't have *the* original Bible, you don't > > want anything? By analogy, if a book contains a single typographical > > error, it's worthless. > >The analogy breaks down at once, of course, unless one views the >NT as just another book (which I don't). Ignoring matters of faith -- which should not come into play in TC -- how does the transmission of the NT differ from the Iliad or Beowulf or any other manuscript copy? I'm not saying the NT is like any other book. (For one thing, it isn't a single book; it's a collection. :-) But I can't see how its *history*, as opposed to its *contents*, are qualitatively different from other texts. [ ... ] > > In practice, what you are doing is the same as what I am doing. > > I simply label it "the earliest attainable text," while you want > > it to be the autograph. I can't see any shame in stopping with > > what I can reliably reconstruct. > >And just how reliable is that? And how do you know? Frankly, I *don't* know. For all I can *prove*, Marcion's canon is right and the rest of what we see is all interpolation. What I know is, it's more reliable than any attempt to reconstruct something based on non-extant materials. :-) Frankly, I find this whole discussion scary, because it implies such an unscientific approach to the problem. Too many assumptions! I could, in point of fact, be wrong at every stage. The Alexandrian and "Western" texts could, e.g., derive from different copies of the autographs. But any such reconstruction relies on assumptions where we have no data and need not make assumptions. Remember that my caution is general, not specific. There probably were multiple first-generation copies in existence of most books, and most of those copies left at least some trace in the tradition. But there need be only one exception.... [ ... ] > > Oops. I think it more likely than not that the archetype of the > > surviving Pauline canon (or, more correctly, of the nine Pauline > > letters to churches; Hebrews and the Pastorals are another issue) > > is an anthology of Pauline letters. > >Do you mean you think Paul himself created such an anthology? >I'm still not clear. This is a form-critical thing again. Personally, I don't. But I also don't think it makes that much difference, and would be open to counter-evidence. At this point I'm going to give up for the night; I'm completely stymied as to why this is not so obvious.... -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Fri Sep 10 01:41:10 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id BAA03599 for tc-list-outgoing; Fri, 10 Sep 1999 01:41:05 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Message-Id: <199909100541.BAA03594@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> From: "Dave Washburn" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Thu, 9 Sep 1999 22:43:08 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: tc-list The ultimate goal of textual criticism Priority: normal In-reply-to: References: <199909100032.UAA02654@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: 13232 Time to play snippity snappity: > > > Not sure what the question is. In the case of a multi-quire codex, > > > of course, we can't tell what the original may have contained. But > > > *if* a codex is single-quire, we can tell how long it was, and > > > therefore how much it could have contained, even if we have only > > > a single leaf (cf. P5). > > > >I wonder if we're operating on different definitions of "quire"... > > >From what's said below, we are. You're operating, it seems, based > on a more or less modern definition. > > A quire is *any* number of leaves folded over. Now most uncials > used a standard quire of (as I recall) four sheets, or sixteen pages. > This means that K/018, for instance, of 288 pages (according to > KL1), would have 18 quires. 4 sheets is what I couldn't remember. I got the impression you were calling a quire a single sheet or something similar. Never mind. [snippity] > >The ratio of John to Mark, sure. But Matthew isn't far behind. > >Here's an idea: we know from some mss such as D that at least > >some copies had the gospels in the order Matthew, John, Mark, > >Luke (don't hold me to the order of the last 2, I'm going from > >spontaneous memory). It could be that the back pages started > >falling off first, accounting for the lesser preservation of Mark. I'm > >not saying that's what happened, but it shows that there are > >several scenarios in which these stats could easily be due to an > >accident of preservation. OTOH, I don't have a problem with the > >idea that John was the most popular gospel. > > We may have passed each other in the night, here. I understood your > claim to be that the church always used the four gospels together > in single volumes. The whole point of my argument was simply that > the gospels did *not* always exist together, and could (and did) > have highly distinct textual histories. The latter is implied > by the former, and the former is implied by the ratio of mss > of John to Mark among the papyri. I never implied such a thing, and wouldn't. I'm not sure where that idea came from, but let's put it to rest. My point had to do with the question of whether Paul intended any of his letters for publication. [snippity] > > > The part you're leaving out is that Ephesians is so clearly a hack > > > of Colossians. > > > >"Clearly"? I've seen suggestions of just the opposite. That's the > >joy of form criticism: it can produce just about any result one wants. > > As an editor, I can't let this pass. Ephesians is based on Colossians. > Why? Because Ephesians is such a lousy piece of writing. Ephesians > 1 consists of only two sentences! It's a hack trying to bloat up > Colossians. Clearly there is dependence (if not literary, then they > are written in the same setting). But the styles are distinctly > different (and Ephesians is much the worse). One has to be taken > from the other. Since the difference, where they are parallel, > is clearly bloat (I know bloat when I see it :-), Ephesians > has to be secondary. It's also clear that you're using 20th century standards to judge a first century work, so there's not much I can say to that. On such a note, I'll let it drop. [snappity] > No one said that only one copy was made of A. (Though I think that > possible in some cases.) The claim is simply that all later copies > passed through a single manuscript. > > Of course this may not be true. Probably isn't, in at least some > cases. But it probably *is* in others. I don't see what basis there is for saying it probably is in others, unless one chooses simply to appeal to the law of averages. But since Paul's letters were considered something very special practically from the moment they were first received, I doubt the law of averages comes into play here. I think you're underestimating how excited the early church was about getting correspondence from Paul. Suppose, for the sake of > the argument, that Paul kept a copy of his letters. (I don't think > this is a given; to make a copy of 1 Corinthians would take a fair > bit of time and parchment.) Why would he ever make a copy of his > copy? It just sits there and dies out. Why would he? How about followers by the dozens coming to him and saying "This is going on, what did you tell the Corinthians?" Paul pulls out his letter and says "It's all here, my secretary will make a copy for you." Once again, I think you're underestimating these people's devotion to Paul. I'm not saying Paul did make copies, in fact I doubt it. But it's virtually certain that his recipients would have wanted copies by the cart-load, and would have made as many as they reasonably could. I don't see a single instance, in Paul or in the gospels, of a stemma going back only to a single copy of the autograph as your diagram suggests. > And, unless one assumes Providential Preservation or something equally > silly, why would you ever assume that all the original readings survived? > Just because we have a lot of variants? Partly, and partly because of the plethora of evidence we have to work from. I'm more than a little mystified here, because this is stuff that is in virtually every beginning book on textual criticism. I'm not sure what's going on here. > For that matter, suppose there were an error in the original. Suppose > Tertius wrote PAULOUS instead of PAULOS at the beginning of Romans. > All the copyists knew it was a spelling error, and changed it. Reasonable > on its face -- but it means that they don't agree with the autograph! Error, or variant spelling? There's a difference. What about itacisms? Are they errors, or are they simple spelling differences, like the difference between American "honor" and British "honour"? A spelling variation does not constitute an error, and the word is most likely the same. This seems like grasping at straws. > > > And as you ought to know, internal evidence can only work with > > > extant readings. > > > >Yep. And most reputable text critics that I know of maintain that > >virtually all, if not indeed all, of the original readings are present in > >the extant readings. I agree. > > So do I. I suspect that at least 99% of the original text is preserved > in the extant copies. > > So what? It's the 1% that matters, not the 99%. There is no variation > of any significance at all in 90% of the text; that just means it's > beyond out province. I assume you meant "our province..." I agree it's the 1% that occupies the text critic's time, but I also maintain - with most critics, I suspect - that the vast amount of evidence more than likely contains the original readings in there somewhere, and that emendation is not necessary. You keep appealing to Beowulf; how about the Apostolic Fathers? The surviving copies we have of them are pathetic compared to what we have of the NT, and both Lightfoot and K. Lake resorted to emendation rather often in their editions of the Greek text because the material they had to work with was so scant. This is not the case for the NT, and emendation becomes virtually unnecessary. > > > I repeat my claim: Since *all* extant readings are derived from > > > C, any reading found in A or B but not in C can only be recovered > > > by emendation. > > > >Again, this claim only holds if B was the only copy ever made of A. > >If B' made another copy, the stemma just gained another huge leg, > >unless you assum that B, B', B'' and everybody else made the very > >same copying error at various and sundry times in the lifetime of A. > >Again, I just don't think it holds water. > > Well, we've made progress. You'll concede, *if* the stemma has > a constriction down to one copy, that we cannot reconstruct past > that copy. > > The question is, do we ever reach that point of one manuscript > (the archetype)? > > The answer is, we don't know. That's the fact of the matter. > You are making an assumption: That the stream always gets > wider. It has to. If each church in Galatia makes a copy of the letter to them and takes it back to their town, the stream just reached Mississippi size, because each copy is going to be propagated locally. Pickering claimed that the reading in the majority of manuscripts was most likely to be original, based on a stemmatic reconstruction and mathematical probability. I don't buy it, because a fire in the library at Alexandria could throw the whole scene off. But it certainly wouldn't pinch the stream down to a single trickle. > I simply can't be comfortable with that assumption, because > there is no evidence either way. None. It is simply not > possible to tell A from C; they are the same. > > So I, with the courage of scientific conviction, claim only > to be reconstructing C. :-) And I, with equal scientific conviction, claim to be reconstructing A. As I said, you pays your money and you takes your choice. Both have a certain claim to scientific viability. > > > > > This means that, *if* the equivalent of C is an edition, such as > > > > > a collected edition of Paul, then all we can reconstruct is that > > > > > edition. We may wish to go beyond it, but we *cannot*. > > > > > > > >Not so. If this is true, then why bother? TC becomes nothing but > > > >academic exercise, and life is too short for that. > > > > > > In other words, if you can't have *the* original Bible, you don't > > > want anything? By analogy, if a book contains a single typographical > > > error, it's worthless. > > > >The analogy breaks down at once, of course, unless one views the > >NT as just another book (which I don't). > > Ignoring matters of faith -- which should not come into play in TC -- > how does the transmission of the NT differ from the Iliad or Beowulf > or any other manuscript copy? I'm not saying the NT is like any > other book. (For one thing, it isn't a single book; it's a collection. :-) > But I can't see how its *history*, as opposed to its *contents*, > are qualitatively different from other texts. Oh come on, Bob. The Iliad and Beowulf weren't revered the way the NT was from earliest times. That reverence is going to affect transmission history, obviously. Why do you suppose we have so many more manuscripts of it than we do of those other works? > > [ ... ] > > > > In practice, what you are doing is the same as what I am doing. > > > I simply label it "the earliest attainable text," while you want > > > it to be the autograph. I can't see any shame in stopping with > > > what I can reliably reconstruct. > > > >And just how reliable is that? And how do you know? > > Frankly, I *don't* know. For all I can *prove*, Marcion's canon is > right and the rest of what we see is all interpolation. > > What I know is, it's more reliable than any attempt to reconstruct > something based on non-extant materials. :-) But I maintain that's exactly what you're trying to do. You don't know if the text that Marcion canonized, or that Nicea canonized, or that anybody else canonized, is the same as the text that has been unearthed primarily in Egypt, and there's no solid documentary evidence to tell us exactly what those texts looked like. So your footing is as precarious as everyone else's. > Frankly, I find this whole discussion scary, because it implies such > an unscientific approach to the problem. Too many assumptions! I Excuse me, but we're both assuming. Unscientific? Show me an approach that can claim to be purely scientific. It can't be done, because everybody - you, me, Bruce Metzger, Zane Hodges - everybody starts with some assumptions. You're assuming a particular stemmatic history, based on what I have no idea. I'm assuming a multi-stream propagation of the works in question, long before they were gathered into a single volume. One is just as big an assumption as the other. You're assuming there's some point at which canonization took place and that canonization involved a particular form of the text that you think you can recover. I'm assuming that a combination of external and internal evidence can take me back beyond that. It's easy to label someone else's views unscientific, but in the end we all fall into that category, like it or not. > could, in point of fact, be wrong at every stage. The Alexandrian > and "Western" texts could, e.g., derive from different copies of > the autographs. But any such reconstruction relies on assumptions > where we have no data and need not make assumptions. "Need not make assumptions" is itself an assumption, Bob. You're assuming that the point where you want to stop is as far as we need to go. But I've seen no evidence as to why that should be so, hence it's an assumption on your part. > Remember that my caution is general, not specific. There probably > were multiple first-generation copies in existence of most books, > and most of those copies left at least some trace in the tradition. > But there need be only one exception.... But what's the likelihood that there was? I estimate the odds at slim and none. [snappity] Dave Washburn http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur "Ich veranlassenarbeitenworken mein Mojo." From tc-list-owner Fri Sep 10 07:19:30 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id HAA05226 for tc-list-outgoing; Fri, 10 Sep 1999 07:19:10 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Message-Id: Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 13:26:36 +0200 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu References: <199909092022.QAA01514@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> Subject: Paul's Life (was: tc-list The ultimate goal of textual criticism) 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-dialin.net 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: 3916 Dave Washburn wrote: > Ulrich wrote: [...] > > The fact that the Pauline letters were "ultimately assembled" simply is > > no quantite negligeable, for it strongly pre-determines the way in which we > are > > able to approach the question of autographs. It may even irreversebly > obscure > > the reconstruction of the autograph(s) of, e.g., the Corinthian > correspondence. > > Suppose Paul not only sent the individual letters, of which at least one > letter > > is missing among the extant two letters to the Corinthians, but he also > issued > > the first collection of his letters consisting of, e.g., Gal 1.2. Cor Rom. > In > > such a scenario Paul were not only the writer of the individual letters but > also > > the editor of the first collection. > > Considering what we know of the historical details of Paul's life, I > find this unlikely unless he had an amanuensis make two copies of > each letter and kept one for himself, later to be published. But I > see no evidence of that, either. What do we know of the historical details of Paul's life that makes it unthinkable or unlikely that Paul himself edited a selection of his correspondence? In my view, it is reasonably settled that Paul actually used an amanuensis when writing some of his letters (cf. Tertius in Rom 16:22; the "autograph" of Paul in 1. Cor 16:21; Gal 6:11; 2 Thess 3:17; Col 4:18 makes it clear that Paul did not write the body of the letter with his own hands). That Paul retained a copy of the letters he wrote is of course never explicitely stated. It is however more likely that he did than the reverse: a) It is generally speaking good practise to retain a copy of letters with broadly speaking non-private intention, in antiquity (cf. Cicero, Pliny, Cyprian, et alii) as well as today. The reason to retain copies is of course not a priori to facilitate later publication but reference purposes. b) The very nature of most of Paul's letters conveys an official "apostolic" character; "co-authors" (Sosthenes, Thimothy, etc.) certainly trancendent any notion of privacy. c) Moreover, the exchange of letters with the Corinthian community seems to imply that the various parties kept copies of the letters they wrote, because Paul refers to written documents of his own as well as the Corinthian community (e.g., 1 Cor 5:9; 7:1; etc.). [...] > > Don't think it would be unlikely that Paul himself edited the first > collection > > of (some of) his letters. There is a lot of circumstantial evidence > pointing > > towards that assumption (cf. the work of David Trobisch) > > You'll excuse me if I find said evidence lacking. a) There is evidence from antiquity that letter writers published collections of (some of) their letters (again Cicero and Cyprian, among others). b) Paul was able to perform such a task, because, in all likelyhood, he retained copies of the letters he sent (see above). c) What are the biblia and membranai mentioned in 2 Tim 4:13? We don't have information about the individual items (possible candidates are OT books, the letters Paul recieved from "his" communities and collaborators, copies of his own letters). The least one can say, I think, is that there must have been books and parchments among the personal belongings of Paul which have been carried around and considered to be very important. I may restate my initial question: What do we know of the historical details of Paul's life that makes it unthinkable or unlikely that Paul himself edited a selection of his correspondence? Again, you may want to check David Trobisch, Die Entstehung der Paulusbriefsammlung. Studien zu den Anfaengen christlicher Publizistik, Freiburg (Schweiz)-Goettingen 1989 (NTOA 10). David Trobisch, Paul's Letter Collection: Tracing the Origins, Minneapolis 1994. ------------------------------------------ Dr. Ulrich Schmid U.B.Schmid@t-online.de From tc-list-owner Fri Sep 10 07:53:22 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id HAA05271 for tc-list-outgoing; Fri, 10 Sep 1999 07:53:19 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f From: "DC PARKER" Organization: The University of Birmingham To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 13:00:38 GMT Subject: Re: Paul's Life (was: tc-list The ultimate goal of textual criticism) 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: 750 Ulrich wrote > Again, you may want to check > David Trobisch, Die Entstehung der Paulusbriefsammlung. Studien zu den Anfaengen > christlicher Publizistik, Freiburg (Schweiz)-Goettingen 1989 (NTOA 10). > David Trobisch, Paul's Letter Collection: Tracing the Origins, Minneapolis 1994. > There is a version of Chapter 1 of this book at http://www.religion-online.org/cgi- bin/relsearchd.dll?action=showitem&id=15 By the way, I was pleased to see that a discussion which began as "The Living Text" became "The ultimate goal of textual criticism" David Parker DR DC PARKER READER IN NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL CRITICISM AND PALAEOGRAPHY DEPT OF THEOLOGY UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM TEL. 0121-414 3613 FAX 0121-414 6866 E-MAIL D.C.PARKER@.BHAM.AC.UK From tc-list-owner Fri Sep 10 08:32:02 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id IAA05501 for tc-list-outgoing; Fri, 10 Sep 1999 08:31:57 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Message-Id: <199909101239.NAA25537@haymarket.ed.ac.uk> From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 13:39:20 +000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Paul's Life (was: tc-list The ultimate goal of textual criticism) Priority: normal References: 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: 409 On the production & distribution of letters (Paul's and others) and other literary matters in early Christian circles, in addition to the work by Trobisch see now Harry Y. Gamble, _Books and Readers in the Early Church_ (Yale Univ Press, 1995). L. W. Hurtado University of Edinburgh, New College Mound Place Edinburgh, Scotland EH1 2LX Phone: 0131-650-8920 Fax: 0131-650-6579 E-mail: L.Hurtado@ed.ac.uk From tc-list-owner Fri Sep 10 09:18:42 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id JAA05776 for tc-list-outgoing; Fri, 10 Sep 1999 09:18:34 -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: <199909100541.BAA03594@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> References: <199909100032.UAA02654@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> <199909100541.BAA03594@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 08:30:01 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: tc-list The ultimate goal of 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: 10887 This should be my last time through this. I did have a thought last night, though, just to give folks something to ponder.... I am not the only person on this list with scientific training, but I *do* have scientific training. And my goal is to bring a scientific approach to TC. This brings up an interesting observation: In our two most recent major arguments (this one, and the one on the degree of certainty in the UBS text), I have been the most cautious person on the entire list. And another point: Unlike TC, which is basically theoretical, the scientific method *works*. It proves its value every time you turn on your computer (which couldn't exist without solid state physics), connect to the Internet (field theory), drink a glass of clean, safe water (several areas, mostly biological). I'm not saying that TC can become a branch of the sciences. But it should take every lesson it can from them.... On 9/9/99, Dave Washburn wrote: >[snappity] > > No one said that only one copy was made of A. (Though I think that > > possible in some cases.) The claim is simply that all later copies > > passed through a single manuscript. > > > > Of course this may not be true. Probably isn't, in at least some > > cases. But it probably *is* in others. > >I don't see what basis there is for saying it probably is in others, >unless one chooses simply to appeal to the law of averages. But >since Paul's letters were considered something very special >practically from the moment they were first received, I doubt the >law of averages comes into play here. I think you're >underestimating how excited the early church was about getting >correspondence from Paul. I'm mis-speaking here. First, I am only claiming that probably there is *something* in the New Testament tradition which has gone through a narrow textual stream. And second, I claim that your assumption is just that: An *assumption*. It may be accurate. That doesn't make it justifiable. >Suppose, for the sake of > > the argument, that Paul kept a copy of his letters. (I don't think > > this is a given; to make a copy of 1 Corinthians would take a fair > > bit of time and parchment.) Why would he ever make a copy of his > > copy? It just sits there and dies out. > >Why would he? How about followers by the dozens coming to him >and saying "This is going on, what did you tell the Corinthians?" >Paul pulls out his letter and says "It's all here, my secretary will >make a copy for you." Once again, I think you're underestimating >these people's devotion to Paul. I'm not saying Paul did make >copies, in fact I doubt it. But it's virtually certain that his recipients >would have wanted copies by the cart-load, and would have made >as many as they reasonably could. I don't see a single instance, >in Paul or in the gospels, of a stemma going back only to a single >copy of the autograph as your diagram suggests. Then try it the other way: Paul writes a letter to Corinth, keeps a copy, and makes copies *of that copy*. Corinth loses the letter. Paul's *copy* then becomes the source of all later copies. Whichever way you do this, you are making assumptions. Note that the above is not an assumption. I don't *believe* either of my scenarios. I simply present them as possibilities. You cannot prove either one to be false; you can merely say you disbelieve it. I disbelieve it, too. But until I can prove it false, I *must* allow for its possibility. > > And, unless one assumes Providential Preservation or something equally > > silly, why would you ever assume that all the original readings survived? > > Just because we have a lot of variants? > >Partly, and partly because of the plethora of evidence we have to >work from. I'm more than a little mystified here, because this is >stuff that is in virtually every beginning book on textual criticism. >I'm not sure what's going on here. The multitude of materials means nothing. Have you ever studied a geometric progression? Suppose that each manuscript is copied twice in its life, and it lives 20 years. Let's assume that all began life in the year 100. So how many copies would there be in, say, the year 1000? That is 900 years, 18 generations. Two to the eighteenth power is 260,000 extant copies. Now let's suppose that the stemma started two generations later, in 140. Now that produces 65,000 copies in the year 1000. We have fewer than 2000 copies from before the year 1000. 2000 is a trivial fraction of either number. It doesn't matter if it's 65,000 or 260,000 or billions of copies. You cannot argue from large number of copies to the depth of the stemma. [ ... ] >I assume you meant "our province..." I agree it's the 1% that >occupies the text critic's time, but I also maintain - with most >critics, I suspect - that the vast amount of evidence more than >likely contains the original readings in there somewhere, and that >emendation is not necessary. It may be the opinion of most critics, but it's not universal. Michael Holmes, who is on this list, writes "That there is considerably less need for emendation of the NT text than that of comparable documents is indeed true, but we must not confuse less need with no need." (Michael W. Holmes, "Reasoned Eclecticism in New Testament Textual Criticism," in Ehrman & Holmes, _The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research_, page 348. Now I disagree with Holmes, in a way; I don't think emendation a useful activity. I don't think we can go past the archetype. But I agree fully with the implication that there are readings where the original text is lost in the tradition. >You keep appealing to Beowulf; how about the Apostolic Fathers? >The surviving copies we have of them are pathetic compared to >what we have of the NT, and both Lightfoot and K. Lake resorted to >emendation rather often in their editions of the Greek text because >the material they had to work with was so scant. This is not the >case for the NT, and emendation becomes virtually unnecessary. I'm not sure how strong "virtually unnecessary" is, but I might go along. Westcott & Hort, for instance, detected only about sixty "primitive error" candidates -- as opposed to hundreds in Beowulf, which is much shorter. (I appeal to Beowulf because I happen to have a critical edition of that. :-) But if there is need for even *one* such emendation, then my basic point is proved. [ ... ] > > The question is, do we ever reach that point of one manuscript > > (the archetype)? > > > > The answer is, we don't know. That's the fact of the matter. > > You are making an assumption: That the stream always gets > > wider. > >It has to. If each church in Galatia makes a copy of the letter to >them and takes it back to their town, the stream just reached >Mississippi size, because each copy is going to be propagated >locally. Pickering claimed that the reading in the majority of >manuscripts was most likely to be original, based on a stemmatic >reconstruction and mathematical probability. I don't buy it, >because a fire in the library at Alexandria could throw the whole >scene off. But it certainly wouldn't pinch the stream down to a >single trickle. Agreed -- from the third century on. Or even from the middle of the second century. But you are making assumptions about the very early history of the text -- its first few years. Consider: Every one of Paul's letters was situational. In some cases (Corinthians, Galatians), the churches were in effective rebellion against him. For all we *know* (as opposed to what we suspect), they could have burned his letters. We cannot possibly reconstruct the early history of any of the letters. > > I simply can't be comfortable with that assumption, because > > there is no evidence either way. None. It is simply not > > possible to tell A from C; they are the same. > > > > So I, with the courage of scientific conviction, claim only > > to be reconstructing C. :-) > >And I, with equal scientific conviction, claim to be reconstructing A. >As I said, you pays your money and you takes your choice. Both >have a certain claim to scientific viability. Your claim is obviously made with conviction. It's not made with scientific conviction. You are insisting on too many things. Again, I don't say that you are *wrong* in any of your beliefs. I say you can't prove them. Appealing to the majority of critics is not proof. :-) [ ... ] > > Ignoring matters of faith -- which should not come into play in TC -- > > how does the transmission of the NT differ from the Iliad or Beowulf > > or any other manuscript copy? I'm not saying the NT is like any > > other book. (For one thing, it isn't a single book; it's a collection. :-) > > But I can't see how its *history*, as opposed to its *contents*, > > are qualitatively different from other texts. > >Oh come on, Bob. The Iliad and Beowulf weren't revered the way >the NT was from earliest times. That reverence is going to affect >transmission history, obviously. Why do you suppose we have so >many more manuscripts of it than we do of those other works? Actually, we *don't* have that many more manuscripts of the NT than we do of the Iliad. We have something like 700 Iliad manuscripts, including hundreds of papyri. Given that we know next to nothing about most of our NT manuscripts, *in practice* we have no more NT manuscripts than Iliad manuscripts. In fact, we have more Iliad manuscripts than we have texts of the Apocalypse. And the Iliad was scripture to the Greeks. I don't see your claim that reverence would affect transmission history, except to produce more copies. Scribes would still make the same mistakes, and throw out old copies. [ ... ] > > What I know is, it's more reliable than any attempt to reconstruct > > something based on non-extant materials. :-) > >But I maintain that's exactly what you're trying to do. You don't >know if the text that Marcion canonized, or that Nicea canonized, >or that anybody else canonized, is the same as the text that has >been unearthed primarily in Egypt, and there's no solid >documentary evidence to tell us exactly what those texts looked >like. So your footing is as precarious as everyone else's. I thought that was what I said. Only difference is, I freely admit I'm on precarious ground. :-) And here I will stop. I've given every argument I can think of so far. I guess there is only one thing that this debate absolutely *proves*: That people believe what they want to believe. But we knew that.... :-) -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Fri Sep 10 09:34:03 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id JAA05883 for tc-list-outgoing; Fri, 10 Sep 1999 09:33:53 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Message-Id: Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 15:41:20 +0200 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: tc-list External and internal evidence vs. emendation 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-dialin.net 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: 458 Dave repeatedly appealed to internal and external criteria (evidence etc.), it seems, in opposition to emendation. I would be grateful to learn how a combination of internal and external criteria can rule out emendation, if that's what is intended, or how the mentioned criteria exactly contribute to getting beyond the extant textual transmission (papyrus curtain). ------------------------------------------ Dr. Ulrich Schmid U.B.Schmid@t-online.de From tc-list-owner Fri Sep 10 10:34:43 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id KAA06236 for tc-list-outgoing; Fri, 10 Sep 1999 10:34:37 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Message-Id: <199909101434.KAA06231@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> From: "Dave Washburn" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 07:36:40 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: tc-list The ultimate goal of textual criticism Priority: normal In-reply-to: References: <199909100541.BAA03594@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: 3232 Bob wrote: > This should be my last time through this. I did have a thought last > night, though, just to give folks something to ponder.... My last time as well. > I am not the only person on this list with scientific training, but > I *do* have scientific training. And my goal is to bring a scientific > approach to TC. Are you the only one? Every major textual critic I know of has made every effort to do the very same thing. Again, it's easy to write off different views as unscientific, but I don't think it's legitimate. [snip] > >Why would he? How about followers by the dozens coming to him > >and saying "This is going on, what did you tell the Corinthians?" > >Paul pulls out his letter and says "It's all here, my secretary will > >make a copy for you." Once again, I think you're underestimating > >these people's devotion to Paul. I'm not saying Paul did make > >copies, in fact I doubt it. But it's virtually certain that his recipients > >would have wanted copies by the cart-load, and would have made > >as many as they reasonably could. I don't see a single instance, > >in Paul or in the gospels, of a stemma going back only to a single > >copy of the autograph as your diagram suggests. > > Then try it the other way: Paul writes a letter to Corinth, keeps a > copy, and makes copies *of that copy*. Corinth loses the letter. Paul's > *copy* then becomes the source of all later copies. Bob, you're still assuming only ONE copy, and even though you say you aren't, look at the above paragraph. You talk about my assumptions, but you have just as many. That's my point. [snip] > But if there is need for even *one* such emendation, then my > basic point is proved. I don't think so. It's a major leap from one necessary emendation to the idea that a text centuries from the autograph is the best we can reconstruct. One emendation in a work the size of the New Testament suggests just the opposite: as Hoskier (I think it was) said, "We have not got a bad text." [snip] > >And I, with equal scientific conviction, claim to be reconstructing A. > >As I said, you pays your money and you takes your choice. Both > >have a certain claim to scientific viability. > > Your claim is obviously made with conviction. It's not made with > scientific conviction. You are insisting on too many things. Uh-uh, I can't let that go by. Yours is not the only scientific view, Bob, and it's built on at least as many insistences as mine is. This is little more than guilt by definition, and it cuts both ways. > Again, I don't say that you are *wrong* in any of your beliefs. > I say you can't prove them. Appealing to the majority of critics > is not proof. :-) As if that's the only thing I appealed to? I'm glad this thread is dying out, because I really don't like what you're doing with some of my words. [snip] > I guess there is only one thing that this debate absolutely > *proves*: That people believe what they want to believe. But > we knew that.... :-) This also cuts both ways, claims to (apparently the only) scientific validity notwithstanding. And I'm done, as well. Dave Washburn http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur "Ich veranlassenarbeitenworken mein Mojo." From tc-list-owner Fri Sep 10 13:00:15 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id NAA07227 for tc-list-outgoing; Fri, 10 Sep 1999 13:00:07 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Message-Id: <199909101700.NAA07222@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> From: "Dave Washburn" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 10:02:10 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Paul's Life (was: tc-list The ultimate goal of textual criticism) Priority: normal In-reply-to: X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01d) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Content-Length: 5306 Ulrich wrote: > Dave Washburn wrote: > > Ulrich wrote: > [...] > > > The fact that the Pauline letters were "ultimately assembled" simply is > > > no quantite negligeable, for it strongly pre-determines the way in which we > > are > > > able to approach the question of autographs. It may even irreversebly > > obscure > > > the reconstruction of the autograph(s) of, e.g., the Corinthian > > correspondence. > > > Suppose Paul not only sent the individual letters, of which at least one > > letter > > > is missing among the extant two letters to the Corinthians, but he also > > issued > > > the first collection of his letters consisting of, e.g., Gal 1.2. Cor Rom. > > In > > > such a scenario Paul were not only the writer of the individual letters but > > also > > > the editor of the first collection. > > > > Considering what we know of the historical details of Paul's life, I > > find this unlikely unless he had an amanuensis make two copies of > > each letter and kept one for himself, later to be published. But I > > see no evidence of that, either. > > What do we know of the historical details of Paul's life that makes it > unthinkable or unlikely that Paul himself edited a selection of his > correspondence? Mainly, most of the time he was rather busy. The prison epistles may be another matter, but many of the others seem to have been written during his journeys, and much of the time during those he was fleeing for his life. > In my view, it is reasonably settled that Paul actually used an amanuensis when > writing some of his letters (cf. Tertius in Rom 16:22; the "autograph" of Paul > in 1. Cor 16:21; Gal 6:11; 2 Thess 3:17; Col 4:18 makes it clear that Paul did > not write the body of the letter with his own hands). Agreed, but not much help in guessing whether he kept copies for himself. > That Paul retained a copy of the letters he wrote is of course never explicitely > stated. It is however more likely that he did than the reverse: > a) It is generally speaking good practise to retain a copy of letters with > broadly speaking non-private intention, in antiquity (cf. Cicero, Pliny, > Cyprian, et alii) as well as today. The reason to retain copies is of course not > a priori to facilitate later publication but reference purposes. How many of these authors wrote on the run? I'm not saying Paul didn't keep copies, merely that in at least some cases he may not have had time to make, much less gather and transport, such copies of his letters. > b) The very nature of most of Paul's letters conveys an official "apostolic" > character; "co-authors" (Sosthenes, Thimothy, etc.) certainly trancendent any > notion of privacy. I don't recall saying anything about privacy. Where did that come from? I'm the one who's been arguing that at least some of his letters were intended for publication, at least in a limited sense. > c) Moreover, the exchange of letters with the Corinthian community seems to > imply that the various parties kept copies of the letters they wrote, because > Paul refers to written documents of his own as well as the Corinthian community > (e.g., 1 Cor 5:9; 7:1; etc.). And he could just as easily have been quoting from memory, since memorization in his day (especially as a Pharises) was quite a different matter than it is today. > > > Don't think it would be unlikely that Paul himself edited the first > > collection > > > of (some of) his letters. There is a lot of circumstantial evidence > > pointing > > > towards that assumption (cf. the work of David Trobisch) > > > > You'll excuse me if I find said evidence lacking. > > a) There is evidence from antiquity that letter writers published collections of > (some of) their letters (again Cicero and Cyprian, among others). > b) Paul was able to perform such a task, because, in all likelyhood, he retained > copies of the letters he sent (see above). Already discussed above. > c) What are the biblia and membranai mentioned in 2 Tim 4:13? We don't have > information about the individual items (possible candidates are OT books, the > letters Paul recieved from "his" communities and collaborators, copies of his > own letters). The least one can say, I think, is that there must have been books > and parchments among the personal belongings of Paul which have been carried > around and considered to be very important. I find it interesting that you at least implicitly accept Pauline authorship of 2 Timothy (as do I), but I'll let that pass. First, it doesn't say "books and parchments," it says "books, and especially parchments." Would he call his own letters "books"? What is special about the parchments? I tend to think they were probably OT books (Septuagint-based?) and perhaps some literary works of the type that he cited on Mars Hill and in Titus. I don't see anything in that statement that hints that copies of his own letters were among the things he asked for. As well, we know that by the writing of 2 Peter his letters were called "scriptures," which suggests very, very early publication. Again, this is what I have been saying all along. I'm prepared to let this drop now. Dave Washburn http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur "Ich veranlassenarbeitenworken mein Mojo." From tc-list-owner Fri Sep 10 13:02:56 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id NAA07262 for tc-list-outgoing; Fri, 10 Sep 1999 13:02:54 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Message-Id: <199909101702.NAA07257@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> From: "Dave Washburn" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 10:04:58 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: tc-list External and internal evidence vs. emendation Priority: normal In-reply-to: X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01d) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Content-Length: 1071 > Dave repeatedly appealed to internal and external criteria (evidence etc.), it > seems, in opposition to emendation. I would be grateful to learn how a > combination of internal and external criteria can rule out emendation, if that's > what is intended, or how the mentioned criteria exactly contribute to getting > beyond the extant textual transmission (papyrus curtain). Oh, come on. Read Metzger or any other introduction to textual criticism. Are we now casting off everything that has been established, treated and dealt with by those who went before us? I'm not a professional textual critic, but I have read enough and looked at enough mss etc. to understand that an awful lot has been accomplished toward the task of getting back to the autographs. If you intend to start over from square one, building on the assumption that that "papyrus curtain" is as far back as we can get, don't expect too many to follow you. I'm letting this one drop, as well. Dave Washburn http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur "Ich veranlassenarbeitenworken mein Mojo." From tc-list-owner Fri Sep 10 14:32:49 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id OAA07787 for tc-list-outgoing; Fri, 10 Sep 1999 14:32:20 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 14:41:21 -0400 From: Jim West Subject: tc-list Re: Paul's Life X-Sender: jwest@highland.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.32.19990910184121.0067bddc@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: 3505 At 10:02 AM 9/10/99 -0700, you wrote: >Mainly, most of the time he was rather busy. The prison epistles >may be another matter, but many of the others seem to have been >written during his journeys, and much of the time during those he >was fleeing for his life. Huh? How are we to know this? Are you conflating the Acts with the epistles? That is a very dangerous procedure. >How many of these authors wrote on the run? I'm not saying Paul >didn't keep copies, merely that in at least some cases he may not >have had time to make, much less gather and transport, such >copies of his letters. Its really rather difficult to superimpose modern life's quick pace with that of Paul- who, when travelling, would have had more than ample time to write whatever he wanted to. "On the run" doesn't even really fit in the world of the first century. Travelling on foot, by donkey, or even by boat was not exactly quick! >From your comments one almost gets the picture of a frenetic Paul unable to make or dicate copies of his stuff cause the hounds are on his heels and he has a train to catch! One can hardly make a case from the sources for such a pace. Paul would have had more than enough time, again, to write whatever he wanted. Whats surprising is that we dont have MORE of his stuff! >> c) Moreover, the exchange of letters with the Corinthian community seems to >> imply that the various parties kept copies of the letters they wrote, because >> Paul refers to written documents of his own as well as the Corinthian community >> (e.g., 1 Cor 5:9; 7:1; etc.). Ulrich is simply right here. Copies were kept, the the sender and the recipient when letters were passed along. > >And he could just as easily have been quoting from memory, since >memorization in his day (especially as a Pharises) was quite a >different matter than it is today. The whole "pharisees with the faultless memories" myth has yet to be shown. >I find it interesting that you at least implicitly accept Pauline >authorship of 2 Timothy (as do I), but I'll let that pass. Surely you jest. > First, it >doesn't say "books and parchments," it says "books, and >especially parchments." Would he call his own letters "books"? >What is special about the parchments? I tend to think they were >probably OT books (Septuagint-based?) and perhaps some literary >works of the type that he cited on Mars Hill and in Titus. In Titus????? Paul wrote it too???? Hardly. > I don't >see anything in that statement that hints that copies of his own >letters were among the things he asked for. As well, we know that >by the writing of 2 Peter his letters were called "scriptures," which >suggests very, very early publication. Not at all- it merely suggests the very, very late date of the composition of 2 Peter. >Again, this is what I have >been saying all along. In all of this I have to say that Ulrich seems to have a better grasp of the historical process of writing, "publication" and preservation. In spite of grandiose comments to the contrary we shall never, ever, have an autograph of any NT document and we shall never, ever, agree on the Urtext of any NT (or OT) document. Thus, the text critic who spends his or her life on that goal will simply be wasting a lot of time. Instead, critics would do much better to pursue the history of individual texts. Best, Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD email- jwest@highland.net web page- http://web.infoave.net/~jwest From tc-list-owner Fri Sep 10 15:51:20 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id PAA08535 for tc-list-outgoing; Fri, 10 Sep 1999 15:51:02 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Message-Id: <199909101951.PAA08530@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> From: "Dave Washburn" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 12:53:04 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: tc-list Re: Paul's Life Priority: normal In-reply-to: <1.5.4.32.19990910184121.0067bddc@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: 2809 Jim West wrote: > >Mainly, most of the time he was rather busy. The prison epistles > >may be another matter, but many of the others seem to have been > >written during his journeys, and much of the time during those he > >was fleeing for his life. > > Huh? How are we to know this? Are you conflating the Acts with the > epistles? That is a very dangerous procedure. According to some, not so dangerous according to others. > >How many of these authors wrote on the run? I'm not saying Paul > >didn't keep copies, merely that in at least some cases he may not > >have had time to make, much less gather and transport, such > >copies of his letters. > > Its really rather difficult to superimpose modern life's quick pace with > that of Paul- who, when travelling, would have had more than ample time to > write whatever he wanted to. "On the run" doesn't even really fit in the > world of the first century. Travelling on foot, by donkey, or even by boat > was not exactly quick! When chased by an angry mob, any mode of transportation can be quick. I'm not about to debate this with you, Jim, because you presuppose certain things that I don't. [snip] > >And he could just as easily have been quoting from memory, since > >memorization in his day (especially as a Pharises) was quite a > >different matter than it is today. > > The whole "pharisees with the faultless memories" myth has yet to be shown. Who said "faultless"? Memorization was much more common then than it is now, since the invention of printing. > >I find it interesting that you at least implicitly accept Pauline > >authorship of 2 Timothy (as do I), but I'll let that pass. > > Surely you jest. I do not jest, and don't call me Shirley... > > First, it > >doesn't say "books and parchments," it says "books, and > >especially parchments." Would he call his own letters "books"? > >What is special about the parchments? I tend to think they were > >probably OT books (Septuagint-based?) and perhaps some literary > >works of the type that he cited on Mars Hill and in Titus. > > In Titus????? Paul wrote it too???? Hardly. Again, that's one of your more common assumptions, and you're entitled to it. But it is far from established fact, and actually has nothing to do with TC. > > I don't > >see anything in that statement that hints that copies of his own > >letters were among the things he asked for. As well, we know that > >by the writing of 2 Peter his letters were called "scriptures," which > >suggests very, very early publication. > > Not at all- it merely suggests the very, very late date of the composition > of 2 Peter. Again with the assumptions. I'm done with this thread. Dave Washburn http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur "Ich veranlassenarbeitenworken mein Mojo." From tc-list-owner Fri Sep 10 16:36:18 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id QAA08761 for tc-list-outgoing; Fri, 10 Sep 1999 16:35:35 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Message-ID: <37D98A24.75B9@orebro.mail.telia.com> Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 22:45:58 +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 The ultimate goal of textual criticism References: <199909100032.UAA02654@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> <199909100541.BAA03594@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> 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 QAA08757 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Content-Length: 2230 Robert B. Waltz wrote: > Consider: Every one of Paul's letters was situational. In >some cases (Corinthians, Galatians), the churches were in >effective rebellion against him. For all we *know* (as >opposed to what we suspect), they could have burned his >letters. We cannot possibly reconstruct the early history >of any of the letters. I think, speaking of science, that all scholars working with TC, should also take seriously the study of church history, which may shed light on the textual transmission. Regarding the Galatians, may I quote from K. Aland in his "The Text of the New Testament", p 48: "Each of the churches having one or more letters from the apostle would not only preserve them carefully, reading them when they were assembled for worship, but would also exchange copies of their letters with neighbouring churches. This is *the only possible explanation* for the preservation of the Galatian letter, since the church(es) addressed in it *did not survive for long*. In Col 4:16 we read..." (my **) Dave Washburn wrote in part >But this is only accurate if B is the only copy ever made >of A. I really doubt that's the case. A letter from Paul >himself would have been quite a prize, and you can bet that >it was copied many times, not just one. This would be >particularly true of a multiple- addressee letter like >Galatians; do we really suppose that a messenger took the >letter to church X and read it to them, then >moved on to church Y without giving X a chance to copy it? >"I don't think so, Tim." The stemma above assumes ONLY one >copy of A. Not only unlikely, but I find it frankly >inconceivable. Not only did the messenger give church Y the chance to copy it, if church Y happened to have another letter, he would certainly copy that letter. A mutual practice that I think reflect the practice of the Pauline period. So collections would start with small collections, and then grow throughout the years, but these small collections I suppose would safeguard the tradition (as I mentioned in a previous posting), when the larger collections were in circulation, am I right? Cautious, yes, and optimistic! Tommy Wasserman Swedish student of theology at Örebro Missionsskola From tc-list-owner Fri Sep 10 16:36:17 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id QAA08756 for tc-list-outgoing; Fri, 10 Sep 1999 16:35:33 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Message-Id: Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 22:43:05 +0200 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu References: <199909101700.NAA07222@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> Subject: Re: Paul's Life (was: tc-list The ultimate goal of textual criticism) 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-dialin.net 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: 4233 Dave Washburn wrote: > Ulrich wrote: > > What do we know of the historical details of Paul's life that makes it > > unthinkable or unlikely that Paul himself edited a selection of his > > correspondence? > > Mainly, most of the time he was rather busy. The prison epistles > may be another matter, but many of the others seem to have been > written during his journeys, and much of the time during those he > was fleeing for his life. Come on. This is a Sunday school image: busy Paul, touring all day and all night, the super-evangelist just dropping by, the turn-or-burn-preacher always on the run. He was neither conquering the Wild-West nor fighting Red Indians. Have you ever happened to read or even compile a chronology of the life and journeys of Paul? He spent more than a year in Corinth, more than two years in Ephesus, and some time in prison (Epesus?, Rome). Plenty of time to do the job. [...] > > > That Paul retained a copy of the letters he wrote is of course never > explicitely > > stated. It is however more likely that he did than the reverse: > > a) It is generally speaking good practise to retain a copy of letters with > > broadly speaking non-private intention, in antiquity (cf. Cicero, Pliny, > > Cyprian, et alii) as well as today. The reason to retain copies is of > course not > > a priori to facilitate later publication but reference purposes. > > How many of these authors wrote on the run? Cyprian, of course, had to go underground during the persecution in 249-50. Yet he kept writing dozens of letters during that time. Pliny, while Roman *legatus Augusti* of Pontus/Bithynia, toured his province roughly a year and wrote more than 70 letters to the emperor within that period of time. [...] > > b) The very nature of most of Paul's letters conveys an official > "apostolic" > > character; "co-authors" (Sosthenes, Thimothy, etc.) certainly trancendent > any > > notion of privacy. > > I don't recall saying anything about privacy. Where did that come > from? Dave, if you go back and read carefully my points a) and b), you will find that "privacy" is opposed to "'official' apostolic character" which corresponds with the "broadly speaking non-private intention" of letters, thereby invoking some sort of form-critical designation for letters that are not just written and sent, but kept with the author for reference purposes. Is it so hard to follow my points? > > c) Moreover, the exchange of letters with the Corinthian community seems to > > imply that the various parties kept copies of the letters they wrote, > because > > Paul refers to written documents of his own as well as the Corinthian > community > > (e.g., 1 Cor 5:9; 7:1; etc.). > > And he could just as easily have been quoting from memory, since > memorization in his day (especially as a Pharises) was quite a > different matter than it is today. Pharises memorized holy texts and holy traditions just as you may have memorized, among others, Pauline texts. But it's utterly naive to assume Pharises just memorized everything, let alone their own letters. [..] > > > c) What are the biblia and membranai mentioned in 2 Tim 4:13? We don't > have > > information about the individual items (possible candidates are OT books, > the > > letters Paul recieved from "his" communities and collaborators, copies of > his > > own letters). The least one can say, I think, is that there must have been > books > > and parchments among the personal belongings of Paul which have been > carried > > around and considered to be very important. > > I find it interesting that you at least implicitly accept Pauline > authorship of 2 Timothy (as do I), but I'll let that pass. Don't let it pass! I didn't even implicitly accept Pauline authorship of 2 Tim. I accept the information conveyed in 2 Tim 4:13 about books and parchments among the belongings of Paul regardless of who wrote 2 Tim. Either I'm unable to express myself properly or you are unable to understand (the same thing with "privacy" above). In any case, it seems worthless to me pursuing that discussion. ------------------------------------------ Dr. Ulrich Schmid U.B.Schmid@t-online.de From tc-list-owner Fri Sep 10 21:07:41 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id VAA09652 for tc-list-outgoing; Fri, 10 Sep 1999 21:07:22 -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: <37D98A24.75B9@orebro.mail.telia.com> References: <199909100032.UAA02654@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> <199909100541.BAA03594@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> <37D98A24.75B9@orebro.mail.telia.com> Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 20:19:45 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: tc-list The ultimate goal of 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: 2288 On 9/10/99, TOMMY MARKANZIA REKLAM HB wrote: >Robert B. Waltz wrote: > > > Consider: Every one of Paul's letters was situational. In >some cases (Corinthians, Galatians), the churches were in > >effective rebellion against him. For all we *know* (as > >opposed to what we suspect), they could have burned his > >letters. We cannot possibly reconstruct the early history > >of any of the letters. > >I think, speaking of science, that all scholars working with TC, should >also take seriously the study of church history, which may shed light on >the textual transmission. This is widely conceded. The obvious example being the case of the Byzantine text. Why is it predominant? Because, of all the great centers of early Christendom, *only Byzantium* was still Christian and Greek after the Arab conquests. (Rome, of course, was also still Christian, but it was dependent on Latin texts.) >Regarding the Galatians, may I quote from K. >Aland in his "The Text of the New Testament", p 48: > >"Each of the churches having one or more letters from the apostle would >not only preserve them carefully, reading them when they were assembled >for worship, but would also exchange copies of their letters with >neighbouring churches. This is *the only possible explanation* for the >preservation of the Galatian letter, since the church(es) addressed in >it *did not survive for long*. In Col 4:16 we read..." (my **) This, of course, is simply pontificating by the Alands. We don't know this. It is perfectly possible, and highly reasonable, but by no means certain. Paul might have kept a copy. If Paul didn't, his secretary might have. Or -- who knows -- highway robbers might have taken it from the messenger and carried it to some other church where it was preserved. (That last is ridiculous, but I defy you to *prove* it false.) "The only possible explanation" is usually a code phrase for "This is what I think even though there is absolutely no evidence." :-) -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From tc-list-owner Sat Sep 11 07:09:52 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id HAA11477 for tc-list-outgoing; Sat, 11 Sep 1999 07:09:11 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Message-Id: Date: Sat, 11 Sep 1999 13:16:50 +0200 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu References: <199909100032.UAA02654@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> <199909100541.BAA03594@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> <37D98A24.75B9@orebro.mail.telia.com> Subject: Re: tc-list The ultimate goal of textual criticism 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-dialin.net 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: 4420 TOMMY MARKANZIA REKLAM HB wrote: > Robert B. Waltz wrote: > > > Consider: Every one of Paul's letters was situational. In >some cases > (Corinthians, Galatians), the churches were in > >effective rebellion against him. For all we *know* (as > >opposed to what we suspect), they could have burned his > >letters. We cannot possibly reconstruct the early history > >of any of the letters. > > I think, speaking of science, that all scholars working with TC, should > also take seriously the study of church history, which may shed light on > the textual transmission. Regarding the Galatians, may I quote from K. > Aland in his "The Text of the New Testament", p 48: > > "Each of the churches having one or more letters from the apostle would > not only preserve them carefully, reading them when they were assembled > for worship, but would also exchange copies of their letters with > neighbouring churches. This is *the only possible explanation* for the > preservation of the Galatian letter, since the church(es) addressed in > it *did not survive for long*. In Col 4:16 we read..." (my **) Quite seriously, I tend to ignore the constant appeal to taking seriously the study of church history in TC, for what follows usually is a "canonized" *version* of church history without bothering to built a real case. The example taken from the Aland's book has so many intrinsic problems that I won't discuss it, safe for one point: The German 2nd edition of the book (1989, p. 57) reads: "...Nur so ist es zu erklären, daß uns der Galaterbrief erhalten ist. Denn die Gemeinde(n), an die er gerichtet war, ist (sind) *offensichtlich* [= apparently] bald danach zugrundegegangen." That version expresses more caution (see "offensichtlich") than the English version, and rightly so, even more caution is necessary in my view. Even granted the Aland's case, I have to say it's just *one* "possible explanation for the preservation of the Galatian letter", by no means the "only" one. > Dave Washburn wrote in part > > >But this is only accurate if B is the only copy ever made > >of A. I really doubt that's the case. A letter from Paul >himself would > have been quite a prize, and you can bet that >it was copied many times, not > just one. This would be > >particularly true of a multiple- addressee letter like > >Galatians; do we really suppose that a messenger took the > >letter to church X and read it to them, then > >moved on to church Y without giving X a chance to copy it? >"I don't think > so, Tim." The stemma above assumes ONLY one >copy of A. Not only unlikely, > but I find it frankly > >inconceivable. > > Not only did the messenger give church Y the chance to copy it, if > church Y happened to have another letter, he would certainly copy that > letter. A mutual practice that I think reflect the practice of the > Pauline period. So collections would start with small collections, and > then grow throughout the years, but these small collections I suppose > would safeguard the tradition (as I mentioned in a previous posting), > when the larger collections were in circulation, am I right? How would smaller collections safeguard the tradition when larger collections were out? In a sense that there are a lot of back-ups "out there", that may individuals (or individual communities) prevent from doing harm to the tradition? Well, it simply didn't work. Consider, e.g., the textual history of the letter to the Romans, especially with respect to the concluding doxology. Whatever version you favour as being *the* "original" version, considerable parts of the textual tradition deviate, presenting a huge variety of forms. You may say: 'I'm happy that among the many versions the original version survived. It's enough to support my point.' Well, if you are inclined to put it that way, I would like you to carefully select your original version, for the dominant contemporary version (Rom 1:1-16:23, without 16:24 and 16:25-27) isn't found in a single Greek NT manuscript, i.e. it's reconstructed by means of *emendation*. You want to consult Kurt Aland, Der Schluß und die ursprüngliche Gestalt des Römerbriefes; in: idem, Neutestamentliche Entwürfe, 1972, 284sq., and you will find that Aland's "original" version of Romans is not found in a single manuscript. ------------------------------------------ Dr. Ulrich Schmid U.B.Schmid@t-online.de From tc-list-owner Sat Sep 11 13:01:12 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id NAA12897 for tc-list-outgoing; Sat, 11 Sep 1999 13:01:01 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Message-ID: <37DAA96B.519E@orebro.mail.telia.com> Date: Sat, 11 Sep 1999 19:11:40 +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 The ultimate goal of textual criticism References: <199909100032.UAA02654@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> <199909100541.BAA03594@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> <37D98A24.75B9@orebro.mail.telia.com> 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 NAA12893 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Content-Length: 1832 U.B.Schmid wrote: > >How would smaller collections safeguard the tradition when >larger collections were out? In a sense that there are a >lot of back-ups "out there", that may individuals (or >individual communities) prevent from doing harm to the >tradition? My main point here is that it is very likely that copies were made of single letters very early and that this fact increases the probability that in all our available manuscripts we have the original readings (what Paul and his friends really wrote). And additionaly we have well-reasoned and cautious scholars like yourself, that will work with the reconstruction of the text. That´s why I am optimistic. Bob wrote in part: >Or -- who knows -- highway robbers might have taken it from >the messenger and carried it to some other church where it >was preserved. (That last is ridiculous, but I defy you to >*prove* it false.) Okey Bob, You have convinced me. Hypothetically speaking, the Pauline corpus might be mere pseudigraphs written by a martian (Christian, of course) :-) But since You appealed to science, I think we can agree that there are bad and better hypotheses respectively and my starting-point (which cannot be proved, but I believe, corroborated) is that, what the NT-authors once wrote is "out there" in the manuscript that have survived. Thank You for this discussion, with my limited knowledge I don´t think I can pursue it further (for now). Therefore I´d like to change topic and ask You scholars in Europe, on this list, if there is a possibility for me to come and participate in a course on Textual Criticism at Your university for a limited time? I´m on my third year (theology) now, and intend to work the rest of my career, with biblical languages, NT-exegesis and related... Tommy Wasserman Swedish student at Örebro Missionsskola From tc-list-owner Sat Sep 11 14:11:36 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id OAA13056 for tc-list-outgoing; Sat, 11 Sep 1999 14:11:23 -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: <37DAA96B.519E@orebro.mail.telia.com> References: <199909100032.UAA02654@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> <199909100541.BAA03594@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> <37D98A24.75B9@orebro.mail.telia.com> <37DAA96B.519E@orebro.mail.telia.com> Date: Sat, 11 Sep 1999 13:24:27 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: tc-list The ultimate goal of 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: 1938 On 9/11/99, TOMMY MARKANZIA REKLAM HB wrote: >Bob wrote in part: > >Or -- who knows -- highway robbers might have taken it from >the messenger and carried it to some other church where it >was preserved. (That last is ridiculous, but I defy you to >*prove* it false.) > >Okey Bob, You have convinced me. Hypothetically speaking, the Pauline >corpus might be mere pseudigraphs written by a martian (Christian, of >course) :-) No, no, no. There are no sentient Martian. The planet doesn't support life. Of course, the *real* truth is that the Pauline letters were written by exiled inhabitants of the second planet of Barnard's Star. :-) (The chances of inhabitants of Alpha Centauri is slight; if present theories of star formation are correct, a star such as Alpha Centauri won't have planets.) >But since You appealed to science, I think we can agree that there are >bad and better hypotheses respectively and my starting-point (which >cannot be proved, but I believe, corroborated) is that, what the >NT-authors once wrote is "out there" in the manuscript that have >survived. This is not the best way to express this. Hypothesis are not bad or good; they fit the facts or they don't. In the absence of facts, we can't say much about how good our hypothesis are. And facts about the second half of the first century are almost totally non-existant. Of course one can say that a hypothesis doesn't fit the facts of the Roman period (that criticism could be levelled, e.g., at my highway robbery theory), but we really can't say much about the behavior of the church in that period, because we just don't *know*. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Sat Sep 11 15:06:48 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id PAA13193 for tc-list-outgoing; Sat, 11 Sep 1999 15:06:44 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Date: Sat, 11 Sep 1999 14:50:21 -0400 From: "David C. Hindley" Subject: tc-list-digest V4 #120 To: "INTERNET:tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu" Message-ID: <199909111450_MC2-846D-4DBE@compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu id PAA13189 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Content-Length: 5335 Message text written by Dr. Ulrich Schmid: >>a) There is evidence from antiquity that letter writers published collections of (some of) their letters (again Cicero and Cyprian, among others). b) Paul was able to perform such a task, because, in all likelyhood, he retained copies of the letters he sent (see above). c) What are the biblia and membranai mentioned in 2 Tim 4:13? We don't have information about the individual items (possible candidates are OT books, the letters Paul recieved from "his" communities and collaborators, copies of his own letters). The least one can say, I think, is that there must have been books and parchments among the personal belongings of Paul which have been carried around and considered to be very important. I may restate my initial question: What do we know of the historical details of Paul's life that makes it unthinkable or unlikely that Paul himself edited a selection of his correspondence? Again, you may want to check David Trobisch, Die Entstehung der Paulusbriefsammlung. Studien zu den Anfaengen christlicher Publizistik, Freiburg (Schweiz)-Goettingen 1989 (NTOA 10). David Trobisch, Paul's Letter Collection: Tracing the Origins, Minneapolis 1994.<< Luckily an online version of the (slightly modified) introduction to _Paul's Letter Collection: Tracing the Origins_ is available online at: http://www.religion-online.org/cgi-bin/relsearchd.dll?action=showitem&id=15 #_Toc439066036 I quote from it the following excerpts; >>I [Trobisch] grew up with a picture of Paul traveling through Asia and Europe, founding congregations, counseling and teaching the men and women who had given their life to Jesus. If he could not visit them, he sent letters. When Paul died, his letters were kept as treasures. Each church that had received one of his letters saved it, had it read during worship services, and exchanged copies of the letter with other congregations close by. Later the congregations tried to complete their collection. But this view does not match the uniformity of manuscript evidence. I will have to explain this more closely. Today, before a book is published, the author presents a manuscript to the publisher. The publisher very often will suggest changes and will have the manuscript edited by professional editors. After author and publisher agreed on the final version, one single manuscript only is forwarded to the printer. This manuscript becomes the ancestor of the whole edition or, in other words, this manuscript is the archetype of the text tradition. The view I grew up with does not suggest that there was any archetype of the letters of Paul. [Instead, t]here were several collections and different editors combined these collections at different places until all known letters were included.<< [snip] >>If the view I grew up with was right, that Christian congregations started out with some letters and gradually tried to complete their collection of Paul's letters independently from each other, then each editor of the collection would face the problem of arranging the letters. And how likely is it that each one came up with exactly the same arrangement as is given in the New Testament? [In other words, Trobisch does not think this is likely]<< [snip] >>There is no manuscript evidence to prove that the letters of Paul ever existed in an edition containing only some of the thirteen letters.<< [snip] >>Let me sum up the two points I wanted to make so far. First, the complete manuscript evidence can be interpreted to testify to an edition of thirteen letters of Paul with the order Romans 1 Corinthians 2 Corinthians Galatians Ephesians Philippians Colossians 1 Thessalonians 2 Thessalonians 1 Timothy 2 Timothy Titus Philemon. Second, it is very unlikely that two editors would arrange the letters of Paul in this way independently of each other. These two assumptions lead me to conclude that the canonical edition of the fourteen letters of Paul as it is presented in the New Testament today goes back to one single copy of thirteen letters of Paul, and that only the letter to the Hebrews was added at a later stage of the text-tradition. << Trobisch's analysis appears, to me, to be saying that the 13 Pauline epistles were *not* circulating independently prior to their publication as a collection! While this does not negate your points (b) & (c) above, I think point (a) is open to question. That Roman and Greek writers of means could afford to publish collections of their letters does not easily translate into Paul, a man of modest means, doing so. You have assumed that this archtype collection proposed by Trobisch was published by Paul or his immediate circle. There are other possibilities. What if they were published much later? And if later, to what extant might they have been redacted? Then there would *be* no autograph to go back to, only an edited archtype! As for where the original letters came from, if not drawn from letters in general circulation, then I would suggest that the editor was able to get ahold of one of those trunks like the one left at Troas. He was then free to mold Paul into the image that he held him to be, regardless of what the original texts said. What a publicity, or recruitment, coup that would have been! Regards, Dave Hindley Cleveland, Ohio, USA From tc-list-owner Sat Sep 11 18:54:59 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id SAA13549 for tc-list-outgoing; Sat, 11 Sep 1999 18:54:21 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f From: dhindley@compuserve.com Date: Sat, 11 Sep 1999 16:02:03 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: tc-list Pauline Corpus & Autographs Message-ID: <7ren1b$bp93@eGroups.com> In-Reply-To: <199909111450_MC2-846D-4DBE@compuserve.com> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.76 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Content-Length: 444 My apologies to the list for the double post, with the bum subject header, on David Traubisch's effect on the Pauline autograph/archtype issue. I had a nasty HDD crash 5 weeks ago, and am just starting to recover. Cannot seem to reactivate my POP3 mailbox, forcing me to revert to using my ISP's built-in (but not very intuitive) mail features. It kept telling me it didn't send any message. Regards, Dave Hindley Cleveland, Ohio, USA From tc-list-owner Sun Sep 12 05:39:00 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id FAA15648 for tc-list-outgoing; Sun, 12 Sep 1999 05:38:19 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Message-Id: Date: Sun, 12 Sep 1999 11:45:50 +0200 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu References: <199909111450_MC2-846D-4DBE@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: tc-list-digest V4 #120 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-dialin.net 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: 4118 David C. Hindley wrote: > [quoting Schmid]: > > >>a) There is evidence from antiquity that letter writers published > collections of > (some of) their letters (again Cicero and Cyprian, among others). > b) Paul was able to perform such a task, because, in all likelyhood, he > retained > copies of the letters he sent (see above). > c) What are the biblia and membranai mentioned in 2 Tim 4:13? We don't > have > information about the individual items (possible candidates are OT books, > the > letters Paul recieved from "his" communities and collaborators, copies of > his > own letters). The least one can say, I think, is that there must have been > books > and parchments among the personal belongings of Paul which have been > carried > around and considered to be very important. > > I may restate my initial question: > What do we know of the historical details of Paul's life that makes it > unthinkable or unlikely that Paul himself edited a selection of his > correspondence? [omitting long quote from Trobisch] [Hindley] > Trobisch's analysis appears, to me, to be saying that the 13 Pauline > epistles were *not* circulating independently prior to their publication as > a collection! While this does not negate your points (b) & (c) above, I > think point (a) is open to question. That Roman and Greek writers of means > could afford to publish collections of their letters does not easily > translate into Paul, a man of modest means, doing so. Trobisch is *not* saying "that the 13 Pauline epistles were *not* circulating independently prior to their publication as a collection." Trobisch is not making assumptions about circulation of individual letters neither positive nor negative. He is saying that the extant textual transmission of the Pauline letters started with the publication of the 13-letter-collection. BTW-- It was Trobisch who argued that Paul himself started to publish (some of) his letters as an "authors recensension"; read his 1989 dissertation. > You have assumed that this archtype collection proposed by Trobisch was > published by Paul or his immediate circle. No. I don't agree with Trobisch on the 13-letter-collection as archetype of the extant textual transmission. In my view, another 10-letter-collection (= pre-marcionite collection) was extant, possibly earlier than the 13-letter-collecction. The textual transmission, especially of Romans and Ephesians, is best interpreted as a result of contamination between the two editions. You will find my analysis, discussing Trobisch and Gamble, in my book *Marcion und sein Apostolos*, deGruyter: 1995 (ANTF 25), pp. 284-303. > There are other possibilities. > What if they were published much later? And if later, to what extant might > they have been redacted? Then there would *be* no autograph to go back to, > only an edited archtype! As for where the original letters came from, if > not drawn from letters in general circulation, then I would suggest that > the editor was able to get ahold of one of those trunks like the one left > at Troas. He was then free to mold Paul into the image that he held him to > be, regardless of what the original texts said. What a publicity, or > recruitment, coup that would have been! In the 19th century cholars had been much bolder. F.C. Baur and his school argued that only Gal 1/2 Cor Rom are from Paul. The rest of his letters are documents of an "early-catholic" compromise accounting for the new 2nd century church situation. There was an even more radical approach (Bruno Bauer, W.C. van Manen, G.A. van den Bergh van Eysinga, among others) arguing that all of Paul's letters were the product of antinomistic quarrels around 140 CE. Some still argue today that Paul had to be domesticated because of the marcionite threat to Christianity; therefore the Pastorals had been invented. To sum up: There is a great variety of ideas concerning the inception of the Pauline letters. The most radical ones have been expressed more than a century ago. ------------------------------------------ Dr. Ulrich Schmid U.B.Schmid@t-online.de From tc-list-owner Sun Sep 12 21:01:45 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id VAA17584 for tc-list-outgoing; Sun, 12 Sep 1999 21:00:52 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f From: dhindley@compuserve.com Date: Sun, 12 Sep 1999 18:08:34 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list-digest V4 #120 Message-ID: <7rhiqi$bjpn@eGroups.com> In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.76 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Content-Length: 4012 Dr. Ulrich Schmid said: >> ... read [Trobisch's] 1989 dissertation. [...] You will find my analysis, discussing Trobisch and Gamble, in my book *Marcion und sein Apostolos*, deGruyter: 1995 (ANTF 25), pp. 284-303.<< I wish I could. Alas, I am not a reader of German, much less a professional academic. But in my my own profession I must always be asking questions and following logical progressions, and I felt that the question of a non-Pauline origin for the archtype was not adequately addressed. >>Trobisch is *not* saying "that the 13 Pauline epistles were *not* circulating independently prior to their publication as a collection." Trobisch is not making assumptions about circulation of individual letters neither positive nor negative. He is saying that the extant textual transmission of the Pauline letters started with the publication of the 13-letter-collection. BTW-- It was Trobisch who argued that Paul himself started to publish (some of) his letters as an "authors recensension"<< Trobisch's wording in regard to the assumptions he grew up with, and in the way he concluded that the extant Pauline corpus originated with a 13 letter archtype, strongly suggested to me that he was mooting the idea that the letters circulated independently just as much as the idea that the 13 letter corpus was compiled from smaller collections of independently circulating letters. >>No. I don't agree with Trobisch on the 13-letter-collection as archetype of the extant textual transmission. In my view, another 10-letter-collection (= pre-marcionite collection) was extant, possibly earlier than the 13-letter-collecction. The textual transmission, especially of Romans and Ephesians, is best interpreted as a result of contamination between the two editions. << I would have to ask, then, what ever happened to these earlier independently circulating letters? In other words, why did they not affect the textual transmission? >>To sum up: There is a great variety of ideas concerning the inception of the Pauline letters. The most radical ones have been expressed more than a century ago. << Yes, I am quite aware of the 19th century "radical" interpretations, at least in summary, and that these are today quite out of vogue. However, they all appear to have taken the approach that the Christology was the heart of Paul's message and the doctrine of justification of Gentiles was secondary or interpolated. Considering that no one has been able to reconstruct plausible "original" letters under this model, this approach has been abandoned for good reason. For what it is worth, I have been studying these epistles for close to 20 years as an amature in an attempt to reconcile the seemingly incompatable ideas that often sit side by side one another in the Pauline letters. My current model proposes a core of 13 epistles concerned solely with the justification of Gentiles, into which Christological material (among some other themes) had been interpolated by means of individual words, short phrases, comments and full homilies. The core material knew nothing of Jesus or Christology. To account for a relative lack of variants at the places I identify as interpolations (about 1/3 of the text) I had resorted to proposing that an editor made use of more or less genuine unpublished materials, redacting them to make Paul a Christian of his period. These were then published in order to capitalize on the good name of Paul among certain Gentile God-fearers for the purposees of recruiting them to Gentile Christianity. This was formulated before I had ever heard of David Trobisch. Perhaps you can see why I was interested in the idea that the 13 epistles were published as a corpus with no earlier competing archtypes. This could be compatible with my proposal, and I was curious as to why the idea of a late publication was not being considered in the posts I had encountered here on TC-list. Sorry if I did not seem "with it". Dave Hindley Cleveland, Ohio, USA From tc-list-owner Tue Sep 14 17:22:05 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id RAA02757 for tc-list-outgoing; Tue, 14 Sep 1999 17:20:57 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19990914162342.00817a70@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> X-Sender: Joseph.Crea@postoffice.worldnet.att.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 14 Sep 1999 16:23:42 -0500 To: TC List From: Joseph Crea Subject: tc-list Psalms 40:7/39:6 -- MT or LXX better attested? 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: 1462 Hello everyone! I know this sounds like a really simple question, but I'm stumped. I ran into an individual who champions the superiority of the LXX over the MT and claims that the citation of Psalms 40:7/39:6 at Hebrews 10:5 is just icing on the cake since the "inspired" author would have cited the better rendition. He also asserted that the LXX rendering is both better attested and the earlier reading, mentioning the DSS in passing but providing no details. I thought that debunking this would be a piece of cake -- but when I pulled out my copy of BHS and looked up the passage in question I couldn't find a mention of the LXX version, or of any variants whatsoever. Since the LXX reading quite definitely is different from the MT, I'm leery of accepting the claim of the apparatus that there are no other variant readings out there. I managed to locate an online Vulgate and was happy to see that it supports the MT (at least in the Gallican Psalter), but what about all the other early versions like the Roman Psalter, the Old Latin, the Peshitta, etc.? I'm on a student's budget so getting copies of Rahlf's LXX or the Stuttgart Vulgate has to be as I can afford them and up to now that hasn't been possible -- and ordering a copy of the Peshitta from the ABS, while affordable, won't arrive in time to be of use. Can anyone shed some light on this for me? Thanks in advance. With Mettaa, Joseph Crea From tc-list-owner Tue Sep 14 23:34:33 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id XAA04301 for tc-list-outgoing; Tue, 14 Sep 1999 23:34:08 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Message-ID: <19990915034202.84609.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [208.253.126.41] From: "Bruce Prior" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: tc-list Wanted: Part One of IGNT St. Luke Date: Tue, 14 Sep 1999 20:42:02 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: 496 TCers -- With help from Larry Hurtado, I was able to purchase from a used bookstore in Edinburgh: Part Two of The New Testament in Greek: The Gospel According to St. Luke, edited by the American and British Committees of the International Greek New Testament Project. Could anybody offer advice about how I could obtain Part One? Thanks. J. Bruce Prior in Blaine, WA USA ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From tc-list-owner Wed Sep 15 11:43:11 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id LAA07524 for tc-list-outgoing; Wed, 15 Sep 1999 11:42:36 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Message-Id: <199909151550.QAA03449@haymarket.ed.ac.uk> From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 16:49:58 +000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: tc-list Original Text Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01d) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Content-Length: 896 RE: the recent discussions here on what we mean by "original text" and whether/how we think we can address them, all serious readers are directed to the newly published article by E. J. Epp, "The Multivalence of the Term 'Original Text' in New Testament Textual Criticism," _Harvard Theol. Review_ 92(1999): 245-81. I responded to a slightly earlier version of this essay at the 1998 SBL session on NT textual criticism, and indicated then where I have reservations about this or that in Eldon's discussion (e.g., I think he is *far* too accepting of Koester's datings, & arguments). But, as with anything else by him I've read, Eldon has again given us all some well-researched and thoughtful analysis of a major question. L. W. Hurtado University of Edinburgh, New College Mound Place Edinburgh, Scotland EH1 2LX Phone: 0131-650-8920 Fax: 0131-650-6579 E-mail: L.Hurtado@ed.ac.uk From tc-list-owner Wed Sep 15 11:57:42 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id LAA07634 for tc-list-outgoing; Wed, 15 Sep 1999 11:57:40 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list The ultimate goal of textual criticism Message-ID: <19990915.115233.5463.3.seventh.guardian@juno.com> References: <199909100032.UAA02654@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> X-Mailer: Juno 1.49 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0,2-9,13-14,23-24,28-36 From: "Maurice A. Robinson" Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 11:56:47 EDT Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Content-Length: 1720 On Fri, 10 Sep 1999 20:19:45 -0500 "Robert B. Waltz" writes: >The obvious example being the case of the >Byzantine text. Why is it predominant? Because, of all the great >centers of early Christendom, *only Byzantium* was still Christian >and Greek after the Arab conquests. (Rome, of course, was also >still Christian, but it was dependent on Latin texts.) Bob, are you saying that by the time of the Arab Conquest the Byzantine Textform had achieved virtually exclusive dominance in the Eastern empire in the regions outside of Egypt and Palestine and was thus more than the merely "local" text which otherwise existed in those latter regions? Seems that to achieve such a dominance, this textform would have had to precede the Arab conquest by centuries in a widespread, generally dominant, and relatively unified and stable form, since an upstart localized text created over time by a slow "process" would have had serious difficulty gaining such an overwhelming dominance and overtaking that held by the various non-Byzantine texts which (supposedly) had previously held utter dominance not only over their local regions, but equally over that same Eastern portion of the empire prior to the development of the Byzantine Textform. So are you claiming an extensive formal existence and pre-existing dominance of the Byzantine Textform for centuries in the Eastern Empire outside of the regions of Egypt and Palestine from a very early time? If so, how interesting.... But somehow I doubt this is what you intend. :-) ============================================== Maurice A. Robinson Professor of NT and Greek Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina From tc-list-owner Wed Sep 15 13:13:51 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id NAA08145 for tc-list-outgoing; Wed, 15 Sep 1999 13:13:30 -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: <19990915.115233.5463.3.seventh.guardian@juno.com> References: <199909100032.UAA02654@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> <19990915.115233.5463.3.seventh.guardian@juno.com> Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 12:18:34 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: tc-list The ultimate goal of 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: 2850 On 9/15/99, Maurice A. Robinson wrote: >On Fri, 10 Sep 1999 20:19:45 -0500 "Robert B. Waltz" > writes: > > >The obvious example being the case of the > >Byzantine text. Why is it predominant? Because, of all the great > >centers of early Christendom, *only Byzantium* was still Christian > >and Greek after the Arab conquests. (Rome, of course, was also > >still Christian, but it was dependent on Latin texts.) > >Bob, are you saying that by the time of the Arab Conquest the Byzantine >Textform had achieved virtually exclusive dominance in the Eastern empire >in the regions outside of Egypt and Palestine and was thus more than the >merely "local" text which otherwise existed in those latter regions? I did make one small mis-statement here, which you've blown all out of proportion. :-) Instead of "Arab conquests," I should have said "Arab and Turkish conquests." Let's distinguish two points here: The later history of the text and the original text. The argument I offer says nothing about the original text; it could (as far as this argument is concerned) be effectively identical to the Byzantine text or completely different. All we need to assume is that, from the time of the Arab conquests, the Byzantine text was the text of Byzantium. Christianity had a variety of important early centers: Alexandria, Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, perhaps Jerusalem. Rome adopted the Latin Bible. Alexandria was conquered by the Arabs, and turned to the Coptic versions anyway. Jerusalem was conquered by the Arabs. Antioch held out until Manzikert in 1071, but it did fall to the Turks, and was damaged by earthquakes. Thus, by the beginning of the twelfth century (i.e. *before* the bulk of our manuscripts were written), the only major Christian center still in Greek hands was Byzantium and its environs -- mostly in Greece, though of course it also held a small part of Asia. That is, in my book, a pretty small region -- small enough that it could have its own "local" text. I repeat, this tells us nothing about the original text. All it says is that the local text of Byzantium, *whatever* its nature, could for historical reasons be expected to be dominant in the tradition. Of course manuscripts continued to be preserved, and even copied, in other areas -- but many old copies would have been destroyed, and new copies would be fewer (not so much because Christians were fewer in the conquered areas -- they weren't. But they were much, much poorer, and couldn't afford as many copies). -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Wed Sep 15 15:05:42 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id PAA08936 for tc-list-outgoing; Wed, 15 Sep 1999 15:05:31 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Message-ID: From: "Lund, Jerome" To: "'tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu'" Subject: RE: tc-list Psalms 40:7/39:6 -- MT or LXX better attested? Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 15:13:23 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1460.8) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Content-Length: 2358 This is a difficult problem about which there is no consensus solution. It is not of question of whether the MT has better readings than the LXX in general, but a question specific to the phrase in question. Neither the MT nor the LXX make a lot of sense in the context. Furthermore, it is difficult to retrovert the LXX to Hebrew close to the Hebrew preserved by the MT so as to explain how the one Hebrew reading derived from the other. The particular phrase in question ("a body hast thou prepared for me") does not play a major role in the argument of Hebrews as far as I see. > ---------- > From: Joseph Crea[SMTP:Joseph.Crea@worldnet.att.net] > Reply To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu > Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 1999 2:23 PM > To: TC List > Subject: tc-list Psalms 40:7/39:6 -- MT or LXX better attested? > > Hello everyone! > > I know this sounds like a really simple question, but I'm stumped. I > ran into an individual who champions the superiority of the LXX over the > MT and claims that the citation of Psalms 40:7/39:6 at Hebrews 10:5 is > just > icing on the cake since the "inspired" author would have cited the better > rendition. He also asserted that the LXX rendering is both better > attested > and the earlier reading, mentioning the DSS in passing but providing no > details. > > I thought that debunking this would be a piece of cake -- but when I > pulled out my copy of BHS and looked up the passage in question I couldn't > find a mention of the LXX version, or of any variants whatsoever. Since > the LXX reading quite definitely is different from the MT, I'm leery of > accepting the claim of the apparatus that there are no other variant > readings out there. I managed to locate an online Vulgate and was happy > to > see that it supports the MT (at least in the Gallican Psalter), but what > about all the other early versions like the Roman Psalter, the Old Latin, > the Peshitta, etc.? I'm on a student's budget so getting copies of > Rahlf's > LXX or the Stuttgart Vulgate has to be as I can afford them and up to now > that hasn't been possible -- and ordering a copy of the Peshitta from the > ABS, while affordable, won't arrive in time to be of use. Can anyone shed > some light on this for me? Thanks in advance. > > > With Mettaa, > > Joseph Crea > > From tc-list-owner Fri Sep 17 03:44:38 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id DAA17127 for tc-list-outgoing; Fri, 17 Sep 1999 03:43:33 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Message-ID: <001001bf00e1$2ad05080$2446d8cc@yhwh3in1> From: "Mr. Gary S. Dykes" To: "tc-list" Subject: tc-list A Lamentation and A Warning Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 00:49:26 -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: 7186 Dear TC list readers: I do not know how many of you have used or have visited the Ancient Biblical Manuscript Center here in California. Nor do I know how many of you are cognizant of the proper archiving of films: so I shall inform you of some major problems facing every TC type scholar in America. I have been following the ABMC's history ever since its inception (in about 1978). I have personally visited the facility numerous times over the years, especially during 1992 - 1994. I have donated several hundreds of dollars to the ABMC, and still support its mission. I have had several nice long conversations with its original director (James Sanders, though he may not remember me). I have used their services ever since 1990 -1991. There are two distinct "departments" to the ABMC. One concerns their own personal holdings (the Claremont films, and Qumran material). The other is the IGNTP films. The ABMC is the designated curator for ALL of the IGNTP films. It is with this fairly large collection of films of Biblical MSS, that the most problems are occurring. According to the policies (enumerated by a former director, Ms. Lundberg) of the IGNTP, their films are to be sent out to qualified users, and no circulation copies need be made. This is disastrous! I, and perhaps some of you, have actually received original 35mm films from the ABMC's IGNTP holdings. Instead of having the necessary funds to provide a circulation copy, the originals are sometimes sent out. These originals are in many cases now damaged beyond repair. I cite the original films of minuscule 1175, and 104 as examples. The ABMC, needs to be told by the SBL (nee, the IGNTP folks) to safeguard the originals, and to only send out circulation copies. If a researcher needs to use an original he/she should then go on site. But this is only part of the problem. True, the films are kept in a vault, and are somewhat temperature and humidity controlled. But these measures are a waste of time if you place on the films -- rubber bands, which emit acids and noxious fumes which will slowly corrode the film. These measures are a waste of time if the tattered films are patched together with acidic scotch tape, which some are. They are a waste of time when films, (originals mind you!) are being fed into automatic film spooling machines and having scratches and gauges put into the films for many feet in some cases. Several films have been torn into several pieces, and taped back together upside down! The films should each be covered with an acid-free paper stock, like the British Library provides, not rubber bands. I have also gotten films which were copies of copies of copies which were practically useless! Look at their copy of 2197 for example, and their copies of 020, 330 are in shambles. When the ABMC mails out copies of microfiche and actual photos, the packing is not sufficient, and these precious originals are subject to damage just by simply mailing them in shabby envelopes. Imagine the cost of replacing these films!! Has the SBL and the IGNTP money to throw away? These precious films are all we now presently have access to (thankfully the Library of Congress is much more of a proper curator of their film collections). Until all Biblical manuscripts are available in sharp living color (24 bit) images on the internet (and this may never happen), we in America must rely on facilities such as the ABMC. And we are slowly losing a national treasure. Mr. Phelps, seems to be aware (the current director) of some of the problems. I know because I told him in numerous letters. But I have seen no remedial actions, and I was just there on September 16, 1999. He usually says that he has no funds and is understaffed. If so, then the IGNTP portion should look for a proper custodian. The Claremont holdings, on the other hand, are kept safe, no originals are sent out, and circulation copies are kept. A fee is usually charged also when Claremont films are copied. Not so with the SBL/IGNTP holdings. Today, when a researcher receives films form the ABMC, he/she may be getting films of very poor quality. Films so degraded that much pertinent information is lost: films so scratched and dirty that they are truly defaced. Another surprise is getting a film which is not a photograph (negative) of the original manuscript, rather it is of a facsimile edition. This is a shame, for now the researcher is put at a further disadvantage, he/she is several steps away from what the original actually looked like. The ABMC needs to inform researchers that the film is of a facsimile edition, and not taken directly from the actual MSS. Such is the case for these manuscripts, codices 01, 02, 03, 012, 032, et cetera. These need to be marked as such and not just mailed out as a surprise to the ignorant researcher. This is a poor scenario for critical research. But this is the lot of all those in America which rely upon the SBL/IGNTP films. The library at Claremont is just now becoming the curator of the ABMC, will this include the SBL films too? Will their miserable conditions improve? Or will only the Claremont films be properly cared for? I wrote Dr. Gordon Fee in 1996 and informed him of the problem. He kindly directed me to the secretary of the IGNTP, Dr. Paul McReynolds. In a letter, dated May 12, 1996, I carefully informed Paul of the problem. Perhaps McReynolds had died back then in 1996, as he totally ignored me. If he is still alive he has some answering to do. The IGNTP films NOW need emergency repair. A true archivist needs to inspect and repair each film. Copies need to be identified, and originals indicated as such. Funding for replacements will be needed. Many of the films from Europe go for $100 each and higher. Until repairs are done and until changes are implemented, American scholars will suffer. I am aware that many TC users may never even know what it is/was like to see a truly sharp copy of some manuscript film. Instead they naively put up with a terrible copy, and their research suffers accordingly, and hence the entire Body of believers may suffer in time. The imperialistic tendencies of the Institute in Munster forbid practical use of their films (and they too have some very poor films!). Americans are told to "come" to Munster to see a few images. Munster guards their vast collection like a starving dog guards its only bone. Nor are they interested in sharing their films, they have formed "contracts" with the holding institutions which effectively lock out American users. Hopefully the Internet and the many on-going digitizing projects will make Munster obsolete. Until then we must protect what we have, and I am stating that the collection at the ABMC is in poor shape. It is all we have. (Other than the Library of Congress and nice places like the U. of Michigan). As a soldier, I still fight. And as a child of God, I still dream and hope. I believe we can save our precious films. The SBL can find the funds, and proper archiving methods can be forced upon the curators. Curators who sit back and watch a treasure rot!! Paul are you listening now?? at your service, Mr. Gary S. Dykes From tc-list-owner Sat Sep 18 04:16:18 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id EAA25094 for tc-list-outgoing; Sat, 18 Sep 1999 04:15:42 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Message-Id: Date: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 10:23:34 +0200 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu References: <001001bf00e1$2ad05080$2446d8cc@yhwh3in1> Subject: Re: tc-list A Lamentation and A Warning 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-dialin.net 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: 1288 Mr. Gary S. Dykes wrote: [...] > > The imperialistic tendencies of the Institute in Munster forbid practical > use of their films (and they too have some very poor films!). Americans are > told to "come" to Munster to see a few images. Gary, you sound as if you've acquired first hand knowledge. Did you actually go to Munster to only "see a few images" without having access to complete films from the entire collection? > Munster guards their vast collection like a starving dog guards its only > bone. Nor are they interested in sharing their films, they have formed > "contracts" with the holding institutions which effectively lock out > American users. Are you insinuating the notion that Munster deliberately set up contracts with the holding institutions in order to "lock out American users"? And, if so, do you have any serious information to support your charge? BTW-- Your complaints about Munster sound a little bit strange to my ears. Why do you lay so much emphasize on "Americans" or "American users"? Given the Munster Institute's policy, it's the same for every user, whether Norwegian, British, South African, or German. Is there another conspiracy theory lurking...? ------------------------------------------ Dr. Ulrich Schmid U.B.Schmid@t-online.de From tc-list-owner Sat Sep 18 09:21:01 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id JAA26341 for tc-list-outgoing; Sat, 18 Sep 1999 09:20:51 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Message-ID: <000a01bf01d9$747c56e0$2b46d8cc@yhwh3in1> From: "Mr. Gary S. Dykes" To: References: <001001bf00e1$2ad05080$2446d8cc@yhwh3in1> Subject: Re: tc-list A Lamentation and A Warning Date: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 06:26:45 -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: 3218 > Mr. Gary S. Dykes wrote: > [...] > > > > The imperialistic tendencies of the Institute in Munster forbid practical > > use of their films (and they too have some very poor films!). Americans are > > told to "come" to Munster to see a few images. > > Gary, you sound as if you've acquired first hand knowledge. Did you actually go > to Munster to only "see a few images" without having access to complete films > from the entire collection? > > > Munster guards their vast collection like a starving dog guards its only > > bone. Nor are they interested in sharing their films, they have formed > > "contracts" with the holding institutions which effectively lock out > > American users. > > Are you insinuating the notion that Munster deliberately set up contracts with > the holding institutions in order to "lock out American users"? And, if so, do > you have any serious information to support your charge? > > BTW-- Your complaints about Munster sound a little bit strange to my ears. Why > do you lay so much emphasize on "Americans" or "American users"? Given the > Munster Institute's policy, it's the same for every user, whether Norwegian, > British, South African, or German. Is there another conspiracy theory > lurking...? > > I have been invited to Munster to views any of their films. However, I cannot afford to view them. And I know that some (such as 1115) are not worth viewing, so who would reimburse (for travel costs) me after I got there and saw poor films?? However, they should send the films directly to me. Do you not agree?? Anybody is "locked out" who lives far away, come on man where are your senses? They will not send out their films due to contractual agreements. And scholars who are some distance from them have little chance of seeing their films, especially those far away in America. American scholars need to focus on their own resources and not look to Munster, who is protecting their "investment" according to Barabra Aland (from TWO reliable sources, whom I shall not name). I can perceive that you sir, are not restricted to relying upon American resources for your MS film needs. If you were you would lose your innocence and face a reality we face every day. I do not want to make this a political issue, however the Germans do, as they will not send their films out to anyone outside their institutions. Why not share? I believe you know why. I used the word "American" often as we need to shore up our resources, and we will share with the entire world, as we have been. A number of the films in Germany were filmed by Americans, and now the Americans are forbidden to view them, unless we spend lots of cash. However, the real point of my original post, is that we Americans need to take care of what we have, and this may not involve you. As far as "contracts" are concerned, we allow for others to use the films, we circulate them, that is how contracts were arranged here. Why not there? For more go off line, as I do not want to become too obsessed with Munster's monopoly, to me it is a crime. I think perhaps you ought to question your own institutions, they may share the truth with you, or they may not. at your service, Mr. Gary S. Dykes From tc-list-owner Sat Sep 18 09:25:08 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id JAA26364 for tc-list-outgoing; Sat, 18 Sep 1999 09:25:03 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Message-Id: <199909181325.JAA26359@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> From: "Dave Washburn" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 06:26:35 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: tc-list A Lamentation and A Warning Priority: normal In-reply-to: X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01d) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Content-Length: 1953 Ulrich wrote: > Mr. Gary S. Dykes wrote: > [...] > > > > The imperialistic tendencies of the Institute in Munster forbid practical > > use of their films (and they too have some very poor films!). Americans are > > told to "come" to Munster to see a few images. > > Gary, you sound as if you've acquired first hand knowledge. Did you actually go > to Munster to only "see a few images" without having access to complete films > from the entire collection? That was his point! To see anything one has to travel across the ocean. > > Munster guards their vast collection like a starving dog guards its only > > bone. Nor are they interested in sharing their films, they have formed > > "contracts" with the holding institutions which effectively lock out > > American users. > > Are you insinuating the notion that Munster deliberately set up contracts with > the holding institutions in order to "lock out American users"? And, if so, do > you have any serious information to support your charge? Ulrich, the point is that it takes a LOT for an American to be able to travel there. The lock-out is economic, because it costs me several times what it might cost you to travel to Munster. If they would make the images available in other ways, this wouldn't be a problem. But for now, their policy effectively locks out people like me (and apparently like Gary). > BTW-- Your complaints about Munster sound a little bit strange to my ears. Why > do you lay so much emphasize on "Americans" or "American users"? Given the > Munster Institute's policy, it's the same for every user, whether Norwegian, > British, South African, or German. Is there another conspiracy theory > lurking...? No, just an excessive measure of attitude on Munster's part. Gary, I hope I've represented you accurately. If not, feel free to throw something at me. Dave Washburn http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur "Ich veranlassenarbeitenworken mein Mojo." From tc-list-owner Sat Sep 18 10:21:26 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id KAA26505 for tc-list-outgoing; Sat, 18 Sep 1999 10:21:17 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Date: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 10:30:34 -0400 From: Jim West Subject: Re: tc-list A Lamentation and A Warning X-Sender: jwest@highland.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.32.19990918143034.00683a9c@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: 1778 At 06:26 AM 9/18/99 -0700, you wrote: >However, the real point of my original post, is that we Americans need to >take care of what we have, and this may not involve you. As far as >"contracts" are concerned, we allow for others to use the films, we >circulate them, that is how contracts were arranged here. Why not there? For >more go off line, as I do not want to become too obsessed with Munster's >monopoly, to me it is a crime. I think perhaps you ought to question your >own institutions, they may share the truth with you, or they may not. > >at your service, >Mr. Gary S. Dykes How odd. I thought the days of American "Splendid Isolationism" had died decades ago. The tone of Gary's post borders on the near offensive- as it denotes a sort of arrogance which we can ill afford in today's world. Nationalism and the like are fine so far as they go- but utterly unproductive when it comes to sharing scholarly resources. Munster has EVERY right to refuse to mail things!!! I wouldnt mail a valuable manuscript film to the next town! In illustration- I was sent a book by a colleague in Canada. The package arrived- with some book I had never heard of in it!!! After putting a trace on the book, we discovered that envelopes had been opened at the postal service and my book and another had been put back in the wrong pacakages!!!! Can you imagine some slack jawed mouth breather in upper slobonia getting a Munster film by mistake while Mr Gary gets the latest issue of Field and Stream with the expanded hunters guide to wild duck.... Munster has every right to do with its holdings what it pleases. It is ridiculous to claim otherwise. Best, Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD email- jwest@highland.net web page- http://web.infoave.net/~jwest From tc-list-owner Sat Sep 18 10:47:08 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id KAA26613 for tc-list-outgoing; Sat, 18 Sep 1999 10:47:05 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Message-ID: <000b01bf01e5$811a8280$2b46d8cc@yhwh3in1> From: "Mr. Gary S. Dykes" To: "tc-list" Subject: tc-list More on American Responsibilities Date: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 07:53:00 -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: 2740 Jim West wrote: How odd. I thought the days of American "Splendid Isolationism" had died decades ago. The tone of Gary's post borders on the near offensive- as it denotes a sort of arrogance which we can ill afford in today's world. Nationalism and the like are fine so far as they go- but utterly unproductive when it comes to sharing scholarly resources. Munster has EVERY right to refuse to mail things!!! I wouldnt mail a valuable manuscript film to the next town! In illustration- I was sent a book by a colleague in Canada. The package arrived- with some book I had never heard of in it!!! After putting a trace on the book, we discovered that envelopes had been opened at the postal service and my book and another had been put back in the wrong pacakages!!!! Can you imagine some slack jawed mouth breather in upper slobonia getting a Munster film by mistake while Mr Gary gets the latest issue of Field and Stream with the expanded hunters guide to wild duck.... Munster has every right to do with its holdings what it pleases. It is ridiculous to claim otherwise. Mr. Dykes' reply is: Materials which are of great importance for humanity should never be hoarded. Your isolationist views regarding Biblical films is depressing. What you mistake for nationalism, is just a simple reality. Do you expect Biblical scholars in Germany to support the ABMC's collection and to build it up? Would you expect the folks in Chile to support it with their hard earned incomes? The ABMC is an American tax deductible institution, existing on American soil. However it benefits all humans. You too can help all peoples access their films when you send in your donations to the ABMC (especially with their new Mt. Athos digitizing project). No one is asking you to mail any films. Mr. Phelps can only work with what he has, and if the IGNTP does not provide for the care of their films then where, Jim will you turn to?? The institutions which do mail out films via Inter Library Loans have the proper insurances and protective measures in place so that all peoples can access what you wish they could not. I for one am glad you are not a librarian! But then again have you any need for Biblical films, as I know some scholars could care less if the Bible is preserved in any format. Surely you must be aware that the originals (the master negatives) should never be mailed out, or did you only read part of my original post. I do not think Munster would act as foolishly as you would, they would surely only mail out a circulation copy. You too are in need of new eye glasses. I would not mail an original (master negative) to just anybody either, on this we may agree. at your service, Mr. Gary S. Dykes telling it like it is From tc-list-owner Sat Sep 18 11:54:47 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id LAA26800 for tc-list-outgoing; Sat, 18 Sep 1999 11:54:42 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f From: CleonLR@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 12:02:36 EDT Subject: Re: tc-list A Lamentation and A Warning 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 4.0.i for Windows 95 sub 41 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Content-Length: 265 Dear List The Muenster institute has a fine reputation and is open to all who would like to visit. While it is true that they are not open 24 hours a day seven days a week I would not expect this either. Sincerely, Dr. Cleon L. Rogers An American in Germany From tc-list-owner Sat Sep 18 12:29:40 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id MAA26895 for tc-list-outgoing; Sat, 18 Sep 1999 12:29:33 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Date: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 12:39:02 -0400 From: Jim West Subject: Re: tc-list More on American Responsibilities X-Sender: jwest@highland.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.32.19990918163902.0066b454@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: 3289 At 07:53 AM 9/18/99 -0700, you wrote: >Mr. Dykes' reply is: > > Materials which are of great importance for humanity should never be >hoarded. Your isolationist views regarding Biblical films is depressing. I have no such views. I am simply saying that those who hold films have the right to do as they please. >What you mistake for nationalism, is just a simple reality. Do you expect >Biblical scholars in Germany to support the ABMC's collection and to build >it up? Would you expect the folks in Chile to support it with their hard >earned incomes? ABSOLUTELY NOT!!! Thats just the point Gary- so why do you want Munster to send you some films when German tax payers have made it possible for them to possess them????? You want to get- but you dont want to send. Rather selfish. >The ABMC is an American tax deductible institution, existing >on American soil. However it benefits all humans. You too can help all >peoples access their films when you send in your donations to the ABMC >(especially with their new Mt. Athos digitizing project). No one is asking >you to mail any films. Mr. Phelps can only work with what he has, and if the >IGNTP does not provide for the care of their films then where, Jim will you >turn to?? Umm.. I dont know if you are aware of it or not but nearly every ms of the Bible has been published in something we like to call books. These books are useufl because you can go to them and read them and view the excellent photos in them without having to ask anyones permission. >The institutions which do mail out films via Inter Library Loans >have the proper insurances and protective measures in place so that all >peoples can access what you wish they could not. Thank God for the infallible mail system where you live. > I for one am glad you are >not a librarian! But then again have you any need for Biblical films, as I >know some scholars could care less if the Bible is preserved in any format. :-) This is funny. I would suggest, however, that you are unfamiliar with a number of facts: 1) I have in fact made use of the ABMC's holdings (when doing some research some time back on a particular topic). 2) that your effort to goad or insult or insinuate or whatever it is has fallen on deaf ears; as it is impossible to do so. > > Surely you must be aware that the originals (the master negatives) >should never be mailed out, or did you only read part of my original post. No- I read the whole thing. >I do not think Munster would act as foolishly as you would, as I would? What can you be here implying as I own no films at all and would never mail them to anyone if I did- under ANY circumstances. >they would >surely only mail out a circulation copy. You too are in need of new eye >glasses. You are quite an insulting fellow Gary. One must wonder how you learned such behavior from your Savior. > I would not mail an original (master negative) to just anybody >either, on this we may agree. Its not just original's I would not mail- but any copy. Im glad the ABMC does- but I wouldn't- and Im glad Munster doesn't. > >at your service, not really true- is it? >Mr. Gary S. Dykes Best, Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD email- jwest@highland.net web page- http://web.infoave.net/~jwest From tc-list-owner Sat Sep 18 16:48:46 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id QAA27998 for tc-list-outgoing; Sat, 18 Sep 1999 16:48:35 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Message-ID: <37E3FC79.2417689D@atl.mediaone.net> Date: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 16:56:25 -0400 From: Patrick Durusau X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list More on American Responsibilities References: <1.5.4.32.19990918163902.0066b454@highland.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Content-Length: 2787 Greetings, I am curious why Jim West has taken the position that he would not mail even copies of orginal negatives. If these are only copies and the person requesting the copies has paid a reasonable reproduction fee and postage/handling charges I can't see through the smoke of this debate any reason to not send them. It would be simpler to have high-resolution scans of the originals in digital format so they could be transmitted upon request across the Internet but one could also scan the negatives (with some degradation in the image) for similar delivery. Jim West wrote: > > I would not mail an original (master negative) to just anybody > >either, on this we may agree. > > Its not just original's I would not mail- but any copy. Im glad the ABMC > does- but I wouldn't- and Im glad Munster doesn't. As for the rest the charges and counter-charges I think scholarly hoarding of material is quite common, particularly in the humanities without regard to national origin or other external characteristic. A first step in changing that behavior would be to approach funding agencies with the request that they adopt policies that deny funding to projects that do (will) not openly share the information/images developed as part of a project for the cost of reproduction. That would allow Jim to support a non-sharing institution's right to act as it pleased and allow foundations to encourage applicants who will make resources available to a wider audience. While examples of open sharing of data may be rare in the humanities that is not the case in some scientific projects. The projects managed by the NRAO (National Radio Astronomy Observatory), share raw data freely over the Internet since it is recognized that such costly instruments can only be used by a few even if kept online as much as humanly possible. I don't have the reference here at home but on Monday of next week I can post the reference to the operational manual where that goal is expressly stated. The shortage of access sounds quite similar to the situation that prevails with regard to original source materials under discussion here. Does anyone have a calm and reasoned explanation for why material should not be openly shared with others? Yes owners have the right to restrict access, yes scholars can create contracts to restrict access, yes the provincials of every stripe can restrict access, BUT is there any reason related to actual scholarly inquiry that supports restricting access to scarce material? To put it another way, how is my use of a resource diminished by Jim West or Gary Dykes also having a copy of the material I am reading? Patrick Patrick Durusau Information Technology Services Scholars Press Manager, ITS pdurusau@atl.mediaone.net (home) pdurusau@emory.edu (work) From tc-list-owner Sat Sep 18 17:01:36 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id RAA28057 for tc-list-outgoing; Sat, 18 Sep 1999 17:01:28 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list Wanted: Part One of IGNT St. Luke Message-ID: <19990918.170330.5463.3.seventh.guardian@juno.com> References: <19990915034202.84609.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.49 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-15 From: "Maurice A. Robinson" Date: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 17:08:34 EDT Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Content-Length: 588 On Tue, 14 Sep 1999 20:42:02 PDT "Bruce Prior" writes: >TCers -- > With help from Larry Hurtado, I was able to purchase from a used >bookstore in Edinburgh: Part Two of The New Testament in Greek: The >Gospel >According to St. Luke, edited by the American and British Committees >of the >International Greek New Testament Project. Could anybody offer advice >about >how I could obtain Part One? Thanks. > >J. Bruce Prior in Blaine, WA USA > >______________________________________________________ >Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From tc-list-owner Sat Sep 18 19:29:09 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id TAA28440 for tc-list-outgoing; Sat, 18 Sep 1999 19:29:03 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Date: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 19:38:33 -0400 From: Jim West Subject: Re: tc-list More on American Responsibilities X-Sender: jwest@highland.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.32.19990918233833.006723e4@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: 3592 At 04:56 PM 9/18/99 -0400, you wrote: >Greetings, > >I am curious why Jim West has taken the position that he would not mail even >copies of orginal negatives. If these are only copies and the person requesting >the copies has paid a reasonable reproduction fee and postage/handling charges I >can't see through the smoke of this debate any reason to not send them. It would Because one simply cannot trust the mail. Even copies are of great value- so far as I am concerned. In the worst case scenario if a fire or some flood or such destroyed the archives- the copy would be the only film left. I would not want to see it floating around in the postal service. And, interestingly, you alone have introduced the caveat about paying a reproduction fee. That puts an important spin on it... >be simpler to have high-resolution scans of the originals in digital format so >they could be transmitted upon request across the Internet but one could also >scan the negatives (with some degradation in the image) for similar delivery. There is a great difference between sending a digital image versus film. Digital images are reproducable with such ease that every user could have a copy. This is just not so with film. >Does anyone have a calm and reasoned explanation for why material should not be >openly shared with others? First, if a research institution buys the rights to film a certain ms, or if they have purchased a ms, or have been given a ms, then they have the right to control access. Second, sharing implies a two way street. Is the SBL publication office, for instance, willing to send all of us pre-publication copies of forthcoming TC books at no charge? Why not if not? The information will be - in fact- restricted- to those who wish to pay for it, right? Why should ms films be any different- whether payment comes as a fee or as travel expenses to the place where the films are safely archived. So- if Munster shares its films with scholars elsewhere, it is only right that others do so as well. In other words, why should Munster alone be singled out? >Yes owners have the right to restrict access, yes >scholars can create contracts to restrict access, yes the provincials of every >stripe can restrict access, BUT is there any reason related to actual scholarly >inquiry that supports restricting access to scarce material? Yes, its called the right of publication and dissemination. Again I recall to you a simple fact... if folk are interested in the free dissemination of the fruits of scholarship (for instance- a list of internet web sites having to do with the study of religion published in paperback) then why is such information sold (as a book) when it could be freely given away? In short what we have here is a bit of a double standard. Its ok for me (or any author/scholar) to sell my ideas and materials- but I want you (the holder of some ms or film I want to see) to give it away for free. Odd, isnt it? > To put it another >way, how is my use of a resource diminished by Jim West or Gary Dykes also having >a copy of the material I am reading? It is not diminished at all... and in fact it becomes more widespread and available. So if you wish others to send their stuff freely no less can be asked of you. Right? What are you reading this week? I am sure I would be benefitted by a copy. Please send it at your earliest convenience. I hope you see my point- though I have had to make it rather dryly. Best, Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD email- jwest@highland.net web page- http://web.infoave.net/~jwest From tc-list-owner Sat Sep 18 19:43:05 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id TAA28520 for tc-list-outgoing; Sat, 18 Sep 1999 19:43:02 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Message-Id: <199909182343.TAA28515@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> From: "Dave Washburn" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 16:44:33 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: tc-list A Lamentation and A Warning Priority: normal In-reply-to: X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01d) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Content-Length: 577 > The Muenster institute has a fine reputation and is open to all who would > like to visit. While it is true that they are not open 24 hours a day seven > days a week I would not expect this either. > > Sincerely, > > Dr. Cleon L. Rogers > An American in Germany And it costs more than I make in a month to travel from Arizona to Munster to look at their stuff, so that means that the materials should only be available to a specific elite, right? An American not in Germany Dave Washburn http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur "Ich veranlassenarbeitenworken mein Mojo." From tc-list-owner Sat Sep 18 21:50:56 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id VAA28771 for tc-list-outgoing; Sat, 18 Sep 1999 21:50:37 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Date: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 21:59:40 -0400 From: Jim West Subject: Re: tc-list A Lamentation and A Warning X-Sender: jwest@highland.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.32.19990919015940.00668418@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: 487 At 04:44 PM 9/18/99 -0700, you wrote: >And it costs more than I make in a month to travel from Arizona to >Munster to look at their stuff, so that means that the materials >should only be available to a specific elite, right? Yes, but Dave, lots of things cost money. Like any book from Brill!!!! Its always the "elite" who have their hands on things. Always. Best, Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD email- jwest@highland.net web page- http://web.infoave.net/~jwest From tc-list-owner Sat Sep 18 23:24:12 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id XAA29041 for tc-list-outgoing; Sat, 18 Sep 1999 23:24:03 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Message-ID: <001701bf024f$40143000$9c46d8cc@yhwh3in1> From: "Mr. Gary S. Dykes" To: References: <1.5.4.32.19990918163902.0066b454@highland.net> Subject: Re: tc-list More on American Responsibilities Date: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 20:29:57 -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: 5269 > >Mr. Dykes' reply is: > > > > Materials which are of great importance for humanity should never be > >hoarded. Your isolationist views regarding Biblical films is depressing. > > I have no such views. I am simply saying that those who hold films have the > right to do as they please. > > >What you mistake for nationalism, is just a simple reality. Do you expect > >Biblical scholars in Germany to support the ABMC's collection and to build > >it up? Would you expect the folks in Chile to support it with their hard > >earned incomes? > > ABSOLUTELY NOT!!! Thats just the point Gary- so why do you want Munster to > send you some films when German tax payers have made it possible for them to > possess them????? > You want to get- but you dont want to send. Rather selfish. Dykes replies: Apparently you do not know where many films in Munster came from, many were sent there from America paid for by joint US and British groups. The Institute in Munster did receive much money from corporations (German corporations) lke Volkswagon, et cetera, NOT its taxpayers. You are blowing hot air. Who are you trying to fool? Why this petty arguing? The real issue is taking care of films near us here in this country, that is THE issue. Not your petty agruing. > > >The ABMC is an American tax deductible institution, existing > >on American soil. However it benefits all humans. You too can help all > >peoples access their films when you send in your donations to the ABMC > >(especially with their new Mt. Athos digitizing project). No one is asking > >you to mail any films. Mr. Phelps can only work with what he has, and if the > >IGNTP does not provide for the care of their films then where, Jim will you > >turn to?? > > Umm.. I dont know if you are aware of it or not but nearly every ms of the > Bible has been published in something we like to call books. These books > are useufl because you can go to them and read them and view the excellent > photos in them without having to ask anyones permission. > Dykes replies: Again your hot air: many facsimile editions leave a lot to be desired as far as critical work is concerned. Films can be better in some cases, and I can prove this as I have a photograph which we can compare with a color facsimile edition. Show me a book of minuscule 1424. It is obvious that you are not a professional (or serious critic of Biblical mss), else you would be aware of the limitation imposed by facsimile editions, (of which I own numerous editions of). > >The institutions which do mail out films via Inter Library Loans > >have the proper insurances and protective measures in place so that all > >peoples can access what you wish they could not. > > Thank God for the infallible mail system where you live. > > > I for one am glad you are > >not a librarian! But then again have you any need for Biblical films, as I > >know some scholars could care less if the Bible is preserved in any format. > > :-) This is funny. I would suggest, however, that you are unfamiliar with > a number of facts: 1) I have in fact made use of the ABMC's holdings (when > doing some research some time back on a particular topic). 2) that your > effort to goad or insult or insinuate or whatever it is has fallen on deaf > ears; as it is impossible to do so. > > > > > Surely you must be aware that the originals (the master negatives) > >should never be mailed out, or did you only read part of my original post. > > No- I read the whole thing. > > >I do not think Munster would act as foolishly as you would, > > as I would? What can you be here implying as I own no films at all and > would never mail them to anyone if I did- under ANY circumstances. > Dykes replies: No, but that you imply that they or anyone would mail out their original films. Again you seem to want to engender strife. The ABMC is wrong to mail out its original films (master copies) and this is a point which needs to be considered. Not these petty gripes. > >they would > >surely only mail out a circulation copy. You too are in need of new eye > >glasses. > > You are quite an insulting fellow Gary. One must wonder how you learned > such behavior from your Savior. > Dykes replies: If you take the time to actually read (and think about what you read) the NT, you would note that Jesus (my Saviour, not Mary) was branded as a heretic and cast out from the main religion of his own peoples. Many consider his language as inflammatory, language which would hurt your demure pretensions. In fact they wanted to kill Him for many things which He SAID. > > I would not mail an original (master negative) to just anybody > >either, on this we may agree. > > Its not just original's I would not mail- but any copy. Im glad the ABMC > does- but I wouldn't- and Im glad Munster doesn't. > Dykes replies, Sounds schizophrenic. You would not be "glad" if you needed materials which only Munster can provide. I am not a world traveller, and perhaps unlike you, I have not the funds to go to Germany and spends weeks there in hotels which collating numerous important manuscripts. If you wish to pursue this type of arguing, I suggest you go off line to me with your insults. at your service, Mr. Gary S. Dykes From tc-list-owner Sun Sep 19 08:17:37 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id IAA00883 for tc-list-outgoing; Sun, 19 Sep 1999 08:16:54 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Message-ID: <37E4D60D.121A59B4@atl.mediaone.net> Date: Sun, 19 Sep 1999 08:24:45 -0400 From: Patrick Durusau X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu, jwest@highland.net Subject: tc-list Open Access, Was: More on American Responsibilities References: <1.5.4.32.19990918233833.006723e4@highland.net> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------5B4F53159565CB38DA24DB33" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Content-Length: 10444 --------------5B4F53159565CB38DA24DB33 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jim, I have reordered some of the remarks in our exchange for clarity and to emphasize certain issues. Free versus Open Access: The term "free" seems to be a hot button when discussing access to ancient manuscripts so I would suggest that we use the phrase "open access" instead. By "open access" I mean the availability of ancient manuscripts in a digital or film replica providing the requester pays a reasonable fee for duplication, postage and handling. Your remarks on a "double standard" > Second, sharing implies a two way street. Is the SBL publication office, > for instance, willing to send all of us pre-publication copies of > forthcoming TC books at no charge? Why not if not? The information will be > - in fact- restricted- to those who wish to pay for it, right? Why should > ms films be any different- whether payment comes as a fee or as travel > expenses to the place where the films are safely archived. So- if Munster > shares its films with scholars elsewhere, it is only right that others do so > as well. In other words, why should Munster alone be singled out? > > In short what we have here is a bit of a double standard. Its ok for me (or > any author/scholar) to sell my ideas and materials- but I want you (the > holder of some ms or film I want to see) to give it away for free. Odd, > isnt it? > confuse the categories of ancient manuscripts and contemporary publications. Ancient manuscripts are items that are owned by historical accident (preservation, chain of purchasers, etc.) to which the holder has made no intellectual contribution. Contemporary publications are items that represent the intellectual output of scholars and to which the author has made an intellectual contribution. The key to resolving the "double standard" is in your statement is that your are free to "sell my ideas and materials." The manuscripts in question are not the ideas of any of their holders, they only own the manuscript as object and have no claim to the intellectual content of the manuscript. As I noted before they can certainly restrict access to the physical object as its "owner" but is that a decision that hinders or promotes scholarship? Publication and Dissemination When I asked for "any reason related to actual scholarly inquiry that supports restricting access to scarce material" you responded: > Yes, its called the right of publication and dissemination. Again I recall > to you a simple fact... if folk are interested in the free dissemination of > the fruits of scholarship (for instance- a list of internet web sites having > to do with the study of religion published in paperback) then why is such > information sold (as a book) when it could be freely given away? > I understand the right of publication and dissemination to apply to my original intellectual content, not information I have gained by accident of history or access. Recall that I used the example of the NRAO (National Radio Astronomy Observatory) sharing raw data as soon as it was available with all researchers which forms the basis for a large number of publications in that field. Ancient manuscripts are the raw data in many fields of academic study and you have yet to distinguish ancient manuscripts as "raw data" from scientific "raw data" in a way that implies one should have more open access than the other. I would appreciate your addressing the issue of why radio astronomers can share raw data and yet biblical scholars commonly do not. (Please no flames from those who share! I am aware of many such efforts, including the electronic ones and fully support such efforts. Sadly this century has seen any number of cases of non-sharing of biblical and biblical related materials, some of which continues to this day.) Digital Images On my suggestion that digital images could be sent across the Internet you noted: > There is a great difference between sending a digital image versus film. > Digital images are reproducable with such ease that every user could have a > copy. This is just not so with film. Sorry, I miss the danger of "every user could have a copy." That would seem to be a distinct advantage to scholarship since time would not be wasted on travel, grants on travel expenses and other expenses while providing scholars with the "raw data" that leads (hopefully) to intellectual output. Does this sharpen the issues to move away from the "free" debate and onto the questions of "Does restricted access to manuscripts further the work scholars?" and if no, "What policies should we urge (support) in institutions regarding access to manuscripts that further scholarship?" Patrick Patrick Durusau Information Technology Services Scholars Press Manager, ITS pdurusau@atl.mediaone.net (home) pdurusau@emory.edu (work) --------------5B4F53159565CB38DA24DB33 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jim,

I have reordered some of the remarks in our exchange for clarity and to emphasize certain issues.

Free versus Open Access:

The term "free" seems to be a hot button when discussing access to ancient manuscripts so I would suggest that we use the phrase "open access" instead. By "open access" I mean the availability of ancient manuscripts in a digital or film replica providing the requester pays a reasonable fee for duplication, postage and handling.

Your remarks on a "double standard" 

  Second, sharing implies a two way street.  Is the SBL publication office,
  for instance, willing to send all of us pre-publication copies of
  forthcoming TC books at no charge?  Why not if not?  The information will be
  - in fact- restricted- to those who wish to pay for it, right?  Why should
  ms films be any different- whether payment comes as a fee or as travel
  expenses to the place where the films are safely archived.  So- if Munster
  shares its films with scholars elsewhere, it is only right that others do so
  as well.  In other words, why should Munster alone be singled out?
<snip in middle of quoted material> 
In short what we have here is a bit of a double standard.  Its ok for me (or
any author/scholar) to sell my ideas and materials- but I want you (the
holder of some ms or film I want to see) to give it away for free.  Odd,
isnt it?


confuse the categories of ancient manuscripts and contemporary publications.

Ancient manuscripts are items that are owned by historical accident (preservation, chain of purchasers, etc.) to which the holder has made no intellectual contribution.

Contemporary publications are items that represent the intellectual output of scholars and to which the author has made an intellectual contribution.

The key to resolving the "double standard" is in your statement is that your are free to "sell my ideas and materials." The manuscripts in question are not the ideas of any of their holders, they only own the manuscript as object and have no claim to the intellectual content of the manuscript. As I noted before they can certainly restrict access to the physical object as its "owner" but is that a decision that hinders or promotes scholarship?

Publication and Dissemination

When I asked for "any reason related to actual scholarly inquiry that supports restricting access to scarce material" you responded: 

    Yes, its called the right of publication and dissemination.  Again I recall
    to you a simple fact...  if folk are interested in the free dissemination of
    the fruits of scholarship (for instance- a list of internet web sites having
    to do with the study of religion published in paperback) then why is such
    information sold (as a book) when it could be freely given away?


I understand the right of publication and dissemination to apply to my original intellectual content, not information I have gained by accident of history or access. Recall that I used the example of the NRAO (National Radio Astronomy Observatory) sharing raw data as soon as it was available with all researchers which forms the basis for a large number of publications in that field. Ancient manuscripts are the raw data in many fields of academic study and you have yet to distinguish ancient manuscripts as "raw data" from scientific "raw data" in a way that implies one should have more open access than the other. I would appreciate your addressing the issue of why radio astronomers can share raw data and yet biblical scholars commonly do not. (Please no flames from those who share! I am aware of many such efforts, including the electronic ones and fully support such efforts. Sadly this century has seen any number of cases of non-sharing of biblical and biblical related materials, some of which continues to this day.)

Digital Images

On my suggestion that digital images could be sent across the Internet you noted:

There is a great difference between sending a digital image versus film.
Digital images are reproducable with such ease that every user could have a
copy.  This is just not so with film.
Sorry, I miss the danger of "every user could have a copy." That would seem to be a distinct advantage to scholarship since time would not be wasted on travel, grants on travel expenses and other expenses while providing scholars with the "raw data" that leads (hopefully) to intellectual output.

Does this sharpen the issues to move away from the "free" debate and onto the questions of "Does restricted access to manuscripts further the work scholars?" and if no, "What policies should we urge (support) in institutions regarding access to manuscripts that further scholarship?"

Patrick

Patrick Durusau
Information Technology Services
Scholars Press
Manager, ITS
pdurusau@atl.mediaone.net (home)
pdurusau@emory.edu (work) --------------5B4F53159565CB38DA24DB33-- From tc-list-owner Sun Sep 19 09:36:03 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id JAA01232 for tc-list-outgoing; Sun, 19 Sep 1999 09:35:49 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Message-Id: <199909191335.JAA01227@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> From: "Dave Washburn" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Sun, 19 Sep 1999 06:37:18 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: tc-list A Lamentation and A Warning Priority: normal In-reply-to: <1.5.4.32.19990919015940.00668418@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: 509 > At 04:44 PM 9/18/99 -0700, you wrote: > > >And it costs more than I make in a month to travel from Arizona to > >Munster to look at their stuff, so that means that the materials > >should only be available to a specific elite, right? > > Yes, > but Dave, lots of things cost money. Like any book from Brill!!!! > Its always the "elite" who have their hands on things. Always. To coin a phrase, what's your point? Dave Washburn http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur "Ich veranlassenarbeitenworken mein Mojo." From tc-list-owner Sun Sep 19 14:03:37 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id OAA01945 for tc-list-outgoing; Sun, 19 Sep 1999 14:02:16 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Date: Sun, 19 Sep 1999 14:11:47 -0400 From: Jim West Subject: Re: tc-list Open Access, Was: More on American Responsibilities X-Sender: jwest@highland.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.32.19990919181147.00681cbc@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: 2120 At 08:24 AM 9/19/99 -0400, you wrote: >Free versus Open Access: > >The term "free" seems to be a hot button when discussing access to ancient >manuscripts so I would suggest that we use the phrase "open access" instead. By >"open access" I mean the availability of ancient manuscripts in a digital or film >replica providing the requester pays a reasonable fee for duplication, postage and >handling. Ok- we are at one here. >The key to resolving the "double standard" is in your statement is that your are >free to "sell my ideas and materials." The manuscripts in question are not the ideas >of any of their holders, they only own the manuscript as object and have no claim to >the intellectual content of the manuscript. As I noted before they can certainly >restrict access to the physical object as its "owner" but is that a decision that >hinders or promotes scholarship? It promotes scholarship and hinders dilettantism for one simple reason-- people only value what they have to pay for. And people only pay for something they really value. By "pricing" such objects one insures that only those genuinely interested in them will bother with them. But why should not everyone be free to "bother with them"? Again, to put it simply, not everyone is equally qualified to know enough in order to properly assess and utilize materials. To be brief- those who have devoted their lives, education, and resources to the study of a certain thing should make use of whatever resources they wish to; those who are mere dabblers should not. Elitist? Absolutely. Practical? Again, absolutely. Let the rest be sastisifed with the distillations- because, frankly, they cant make use of the more important resources anyway. To put it perfectly bluntly- why should someone who cannot read Hebrew be allowed to receive a film of Leningrad? What can they possibly do with it? Why should a person who cannot read Greek receive a film of P52 (or whatever)? And why should they have access to it? Best, Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD email- jwest@highland.net web page- http://web.infoave.net/~jwest From tc-list-owner Sun Sep 19 14:05:47 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id OAA01974 for tc-list-outgoing; Sun, 19 Sep 1999 14:05:45 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Date: Sun, 19 Sep 1999 14:14:44 -0400 From: Jim West Subject: Re: tc-list A Lamentation and A Warning X-Sender: jwest@highland.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.32.19990919181444.00668204@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: 357 At 06:37 AM 9/19/99 -0700, you wrote: >To coin a phrase, what's your point? My point, Dave, is that it has always been the case that folk with resources have access to things that folk without resources dont have. Is this fair? Yes. Best, Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD email- jwest@highland.net web page- http://web.infoave.net/~jwest From tc-list-owner Sun Sep 19 16:03:35 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id QAA02487 for tc-list-outgoing; Sun, 19 Sep 1999 16:03:17 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 1999 16:03:15 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199909192003.QAA02481@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: jadair set sender to jgibson000@mpdr0.chicago.il.ameritech.net using -f >Date: Thu, 09 Sep 1999 14:20:55 -0500 From: "Jeffrey B. Gibson" To: Synoptic-L Cc: TC-List , graphai , classics , crosstalk2 , Biblical Greek , ioudaios-l Subject: tc-list A new E-List dedicated to GMark Content-Type: text Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Content-Length: 1150 With apologies for duplications and crosspostings: I am pleased to announce the launching of a new discussion List called Kata Markon. Kata Markon (The Gospel of Mark Discussion List) is a moderated academic e-list dedicated to the scholarly discussion and evaluation of critical questions surrounding the Gospel according to Mark. The purpose of the List is to provide a forum outside of the usual arenas of printed journals and monographs where these questions may be raised, entertained, and debated . Additionally, Kata Markon is intended to be a venue in which those working professionally in the field of Markan studies may post and receive critical responses to papers or ideas that are in the process of development. For a further description of the List, its aim and scope, its protocols, names of moderators, and instructions for subscribing, go to http://metalab.unc.edu/GMark I look forward to your participation on the Kata Markon List. Yours, Jeffrey Gibson -- Jeffrey B. Gibson 7423 N. Sheridan Road #2A Chicago, Illinois 60626 e-mail jgibson000@ameritech.net [Part 2, Text/HTML 27 lines] [Unable to print this part] From tc-list-owner Sun Sep 19 21:28:58 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id VAA03635 for tc-list-outgoing; Sun, 19 Sep 1999 21:28:36 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19990920033635.00f1d100@mclink.it> X-Sender: mc2499@mclink.it X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 03:36:35 +0200 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: Ian Hutchesson Subject: Re: tc-list Open Access, (Jim) In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19990919181147.00681cbc@highland.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Content-Length: 4761 Warning, not a particularly nice letter. ---------------------------------------- Jim West responding to: >>the intellectual content of the manuscript. As I noted before they can >>certainly restrict access to the physical object as its "owner" but is >>that a decision that hinders or promotes scholarship? wrote: >It promotes scholarship and hinders dilettantism for one simple reason-- >people only value what they have to pay for. This is *pure mindless stupidity*, Jim. It is only for those people, who think the way you profess to, that your pronouncement is true. It is anti-scholarly: it's not important where the information comes from or how much it costs; all information that is pertanent is to be valued. >And people only pay for >something they really value. (And this is pretty incredible as well for you living in the home of persuasive advertising. It's often only after you've forked out the cash and seen the product close-up that you learn that it was not worth buying -- after people raved to me about Morton Smith's book on Palestinian Parties, I bought it only to find that it was an over-trusting rehashing of undatable sources and as such worthless.) >By "pricing" such objects one insures that >only those genuinely interested in them will bother with them. This of course does not cover the full story: by '"pricing" such objects one insures that' many of 'those genuinely interested in them' *can't* 'bother with them'. >But why should not everyone be free to "bother with them"? Again, to put it >simply, not everyone is equally qualified to know enough in order to >properly assess and utilize materials. Put documents in the hands of those who know what to do with them, like the international team who sat on the scrolls for forty years causing so much unintended damage that it would have been better to allow the information out from the beginning and risk what the international team attempted to save the documents from. The logic you outline is merely a means of protecting the institutionalisation of scholarship at the expense of scholarship itself. I guess you mind that a patents clerk from Ulm stuck his nose into the field of subatomic physics and developed some silly theory of relativity. What about the nerve of the ex-air force navigator with an architectural background who dared to claim to have deciphered Linear-B? >To be brief- those who have devoted their lives, education, and resources to >the study of a certain thing should make use of whatever resources they wish >to; those who are mere dabblers should not. Elitist? Absolutely. >Practical? Again, absolutely. Oh, come off it, Jim. Easy? Yes. One doesn't have to think. Practival? Yes. One doesn't have to think. Elitist? Not really: elitism I would think guarantees quality -- just think of how much rubbish has made it into print over the DSS. One of the things about dabbling, Jim, is that there is more likelihood of the lateral thought necessary to overcome the confines of current problems. The linguist and educationalist in me asks if one who dabbles in numerous languages can ever really become proficient in any. The answer is: probably not. >Let the rest be sastisifed with the >distillations- because, frankly, they cant make use of the more important >resources anyway. If you're a serious scholar, it doesn't matter where the ideas and analyses come from, just as long as they are valid and useful. ----------------------- Thus far, I have been contrary to almost everything you have said. If you had saved your breath a bit and written just the following paragraph, I would have been much more content. >To put it perfectly bluntly- why should someone who cannot read Hebrew be >allowed to receive a film of Leningrad? What can they possibly do with it? >Why should a person who cannot read Greek receive a film of P52 (or >whatever)? And why should they have access to it? Important materials should be available to those who can use them (which make me remember, have the Wadi ed-Daliyeh texts been published yet?). But naturally there are problems of locations and consequent costs of travel. These are the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, which may some day be overcome when educational institutions eventually get onto the information "revolution". When access to digital photo reproduction seriously hits this business, then the film will end up in a museum itself and there will be no need to worry about access at all. Cheers, Ian (I would be interested to know if the rundown of the situation regarding materials from Muenster as portrayed by Gary Dykes is actually representative of the current state of affairs and not just an unfortunate isolated occurrence or two.) From tc-list-owner Mon Sep 20 01:16:48 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id BAA04362 for tc-list-outgoing; Mon, 20 Sep 1999 01:16:28 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 01:16:27 -0400 (EDT) From: "James R. Adair" To: TC List Subject: Re: tc-list Psalms 40:7/39:6 -- MT or LXX better attested? In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.19990914162342.00817a70@postoffice.worldnet.att.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: 2741 Rahlfs prints the reading of the Gallican Psalter in the text: wtia de kathrtisw moi, and this reflects the reading of MT, but BSA read swma for wtia, agreeing with Heb 10:5. Were BSA all influenced by the NT reading here? Rahlfs seems to think so, but then where does the reading originate? Jerome Lund says that there is no obvious way to derive the Greek reading swma from a Hebrew reading similar to what we have in MT [)znym], so probably we're looking at an inner-Greek corruption. The previous word is hqelhsas, which ends with s, so maybe a scribe (or the author of Hebrews?--I suspect that the reading arose in the LXX) combined the final s from hqelhsas with the following word, wtia, in which the ti had been smudged to resemble a mu (both have two downstrokes in the uncial form of the letters), hence swma. Of course this is just a guess, but it seems plausible. (Cf. Plate VIII in Metzger's Text of the New Testament. It doesn't take too much of an imagination to see how the TI in AMARTIAS [line 7] could be mistaken for M if the left part of the crossbar of the T was missing or faint.) Another possibility is that the author of Hebrews invented the reading because it made his(?) point better. Look at Heb 10:10: "... we have been sanctified through the offering of the body (swma) of Jesus Christ once for all." Whether through chance misreading in the tradition or intentional adjustment on the part of the author, the reading swma is clearly a "better" reading for the author of Hebrews, because it helps him make his point about the superiority of Christ's sacrifice to those required by the law. As to the question of the inspired author's use of the better text, this is clearly a point of view based on theological presuppositions rather than a study of the text. NT writers tend to quote the LXX rather than the MT (where they disagree) because it was more familiar to them or, as in the present case, occasionally because one version or another was more helpful in supporting the point they were trying to make (maybe Matthew's citation of Isa 7:14 falls into this category). There are several occasions in the NT where a verse is cited in one way here and in another way there. These are usually just minor differences, but if the theory of inspiration is taken to the extreme of having the authors (or God) pick the "correct" rendering, shouldn't the proponents of this view have to explain even minor differences in the readings? Jimmy *********************************************************************** James R. Adair, Jr. Director, ATLA Center for Electronic Resources in Theology and Religion http://purl.org/CERTR *********************************************************************** From tc-list-owner Mon Sep 20 02:07:34 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id CAA04557 for tc-list-outgoing; Mon, 20 Sep 1999 02:07:31 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 02:07:30 -0400 (EDT) From: "James R. Adair" To: TC List Subject: tc-list Baker withdraws COMFORT book 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: 1496 In light of our recent discussion of Comfort and Barrett's book, as well as David Parker's review of the volume in TC, I think all on the list will be interested in this letter from the publisher sent to our book review editor, Leonard Greenspoon (forwarded with his permission, of course). Jimmy *********************************************************************** 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 <------------------- *********************************************************************** ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 12:53:39 -0700 From: Leonard Greenspoon To: "James R. Adair" Subject: Baker withdraws COMFORT book Jimmy, I have received the following letter, dated 7 September 1999. Dear Book Review Editor: Our recently published volume THE COMPLETE TEXT OF THE EARLIEST NEW TESTAMENT MANUSCRIPTS [in italics in original letter], by Philip W. Comfort and David P. Barrett, has been permanently withdrawn from publication due to serious content flaws. In light of this, we ask that all reviews of this book be halted. We regret any inconvenience this may cause you. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, Jim Kinney Director Baker Academic From tc-list-owner Mon Sep 20 04:12:30 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id EAA05042 for tc-list-outgoing; Mon, 20 Sep 1999 04:12:21 -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: Open Access Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 10:15:55 +0200 Message-Id: <000101bf0340$5cd7cca0$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: 1609 About Muenster: I think the main problem here is money. This is not a BIG INSTITUTE. It is some people with fixed-term contracts doing their work. They don't have the time and money to process world-wide requests. If you need mss photos, go and get them. Nobody has the duty to provide you with them. Of course, getting a high-res. scan via internet is cool, but not every institution has the adequate means to do so. But the main point was: The bad condition of the material itself. I think this is a problem of the world-wide church. It is their job to safe the originals. I think the money is there to do this, but it needs a good manager to carry this out in a big joint-venture. And please call it: THE BIBLE GENOM PROJECT. (Fill in the empty spaces) Begun in ______, the Bible Genome Project is a ___-year effort coordinated by the _____________________. The project originally was planned to last ___ years, but rapid technological advances have accelerated the expected completion date to ______. Project goals are to - identify all the estimated ________ manuscripts of the Greek New Testament - determine the exact content of all these manuscripts and specify their differences. - store this information in databases, - develop tools for data analysis, and - address the ethical, legal, and social issues (ELSI) that may arise from the project. (It is quite simple to copy and paste more stuff from the HGP and replace Human with Bible, DNA with manuscript etc...) Best wishes Wieland <>< -------------------- mailto:willker@chemie.uni-bremen.de http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/ From tc-list-owner Mon Sep 20 07:40:17 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id HAA06063 for tc-list-outgoing; Mon, 20 Sep 1999 07:40:06 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 07:49:40 -0400 From: Jim West Subject: Re: tc-list Baker withdraws COMFORT book X-Sender: jwest@highland.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.32.19990920114940.00673ff4@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: 449 At 02:07 AM 9/20/99 -0400, you wrote: >In light of our recent discussion of Comfort and Barrett's book, as well >as David Parker's review of the volume in TC, I think all on the list will >be interested in this letter from the publisher sent to our book review >editor, Leonard Greenspoon (forwarded with his permission, of course). :-( +++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD email- jwest@highland.net web page- http://web.infoave.net/~jwest From tc-list-owner Mon Sep 20 09:13:15 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id JAA06436 for tc-list-outgoing; Mon, 20 Sep 1999 09:12:44 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Message-ID: <19990920132043.35166.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [207.76.127.199] From: "Steve Puluka" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: tc-list Re: Greek Texts prior to 12th Century Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 06:20:43 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: 5451 As an Eastern Christian educator joining a scholarly list on tc issues I am horrified by the gross oversimplification of the history of the Eastern Christian Centers quoted below. I hope we can raise the level of discourse on the list to more specifics and less broad generalizations. At the risk of continuing a generalized view of TC issues, but I must make a few general points for the record. But I will not attempt to present a general history here. Please see the source works listed below. >Let's distinguish two points here: The later history of the text >and the original text. The argument I offer says nothing about >the original text; it could (as far as this argument is concerned) >be effectively identical to the Byzantine text or completely >different. All we need to assume is that, from the time of the Arab >conquests, the Byzantine text was the text of Byzantium. > By the time of the Early Christian use of the text there is no single "original text". The textual varients and traditions are already in place. We see a textual difference along the Antiochian/Alexandrian line in the liturgical and Patristic texts. Further, Byzantium was not a central authority dictating text usage in the empire but a cosmapolitan culture that collects everything. As the final forms of our liturgical services developed between the 9th and 12th centuries a synthesis of **these texts** took place but not of the **source scriptures** themselves. This synthesis was indeed a cosmopolitan operation that has given us texts from all the collected traditions at different points in the hymography and liturgical pericopies in use. This is a far cry from the "Byzantine Text version" being the only one preserved. Rather a liturgical based reworking of the various options is at work. Finally, what we dismiss out of hand as mere "local versions" are the Coptic, Geez and Syriac witnesses to the text that are are terribly important in tc issues. I hope we can keep the list on specific issues in tc and scholarly debate. A rich and complex history of text usage and preservation is ill served by short messages containing broad generalizations. Sincerely, Steve Puluka Adult Education Instructor Byzantine Catholic Archeparchy of Pittsburgh Sources: Schmemann, Introduction to Liturgical Theology Jelicoe, The Spetuagint in Modern Study Metzger, Early Texts of the NT >On 9/15/99, Maurice A. Robinson wrote: > > >On Fri, 10 Sep 1999 20:19:45 -0500 "Robert B. Waltz" > > writes: > > > > >The obvious example being the case of the > > >Byzantine text. Why is it predominant? Because, of all the great > > >centers of early Christendom, *only Byzantium* was still > >Christian > > >and Greek after the Arab conquests. (Rome, of course, was also > > >still Christian, but it was dependent on Latin texts.) > > > >Bob, are you saying that by the time of the Arab Conquest the Byzantine > >Textform had achieved virtually exclusive dominance in the Eastern empire > >in the regions outside of Egypt and Palestine and was thus more than the > >merely "local" text which otherwise existed in those latter regions? > >I did make one small mis-statement here, which you've blown all out >of proportion. :-) > >Instead of "Arab conquests," I should have said "Arab and Turkish >conquests." > >Let's distinguish two points here: The later history of the text >and the original text. The argument I offer says nothing about >the original text; it could (as far as this argument is concerned) >be effectively identical to the Byzantine text or completely different. >All we need to assume is that, from the time of the Arab conquests, >the Byzantine text was the text of Byzantium. > >Christianity had a variety of important early centers: Alexandria, >Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, perhaps Jerusalem. Rome adopted >the Latin Bible. Alexandria was conquered by the Arabs, and turned to >the Coptic versions anyway. Jerusalem was conquered by the Arabs. >Antioch held out until Manzikert in 1071, but it did fall to the >Turks, and was damaged by earthquakes. Thus, by the beginning of >the twelfth century (i.e. *before* the bulk of our manuscripts >were written), the only major Christian center still in Greek >hands was Byzantium and its environs -- mostly in Greece, though >of course it also held a small part of Asia. > >That is, in my book, a pretty small region -- small enough that >it could have its own "local" text. > >I repeat, this tells us nothing about the original text. All it >says is that the local text of Byzantium, *whatever* its nature, >could for historical reasons be expected to be dominant in the >tradition. > >Of course manuscripts continued to be preserved, and even copied, >in other areas -- but many old copies would have been destroyed, >and new copies would be fewer (not so much because Christians were >fewer in the conquered areas -- they weren't. But they were much, >much poorer, and couldn't afford as many copies). > >-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- > > 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) ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From tc-list-owner Mon Sep 20 10:14:09 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id KAA06812 for tc-list-outgoing; Mon, 20 Sep 1999 10:13:59 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Message-ID: <37E64309.5121CD46@emory.edu> Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 10:22:01 -0400 From: Patrick Durusau X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc , jwest@highland.net Subject: Re: tc-list Open Access, (Jim) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------FEB31CC5B311C4DB1B4E133B" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Content-Length: 9573 --------------FEB31CC5B311C4DB1B4E133B Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jim, I am not overly troubled by elitism, particularly if it is based upon merit, but the barriers of distance and funding have little to do with scholarly merit. And I don't think there is a correlation between physical location or resources and being "qualified to know enough in order to properly assess and utilize materials." But I would also argue that "elitist" is not the term to use for those who would restrict access to materials they did not author, in most cases which they did not film or preserve, and for which they play no scholarly role but only that of guardian. > It promotes scholarship and hinders dilettantism for one simple reason-- > people only value what they have to pay for. And people only pay for > something they really value. By "pricing" such objects one insures that > only those genuinely interested in them will bother with them. > > But why should not everyone be free to "bother with them"? Again, to put it > simply, not everyone is equally qualified to know enough in order to > properly assess and utilize materials. > > To be brief- those who have devoted their lives, education, and resources to > the study of a certain thing should make use of whatever resources they wish > to; those who are mere dabblers should not. Elitist? Absolutely. > Practical? Again, absolutely. Let the rest be sastisifed with the > distillations- because, frankly, they cant make use of the more important > resources anyway. > > To put it perfectly bluntly- why should someone who cannot read Hebrew be > allowed to receive a film of Leningrad? What can they possibly do with it? > Why should a person who cannot read Greek receive a film of P52 (or > whatever)? And why should they have access to it? > Contrast your position with "The NRAO VLA Sky Survey" (Condon, Cotton, Greisen, Yin, Perley, Taylor, Broderick, p.2) access policy which reads in full: **** All NVSS results are available to the entire astronomical community. The survey team reserves no proprietary rights to either the raw data or the final data products because we believe that the scientific potential of large surveys can be realized only if all astronomers have full and immediate access to them. To encourage use of the NVSS, we have adopted the following policies for NVSS results: (1) Any astronomer may access the uncalibrated VLA "archive" data immediately, without waiting for the usual one year proprietary-data period to end. (2) Our calibrated (u, v) data and uncorrected snapshot images are likewise available for copying at any time. (3) The principal data products of interest to most users - the corrected 4" x 4" images, the catalog of sources found on them, plus software for their use and any updates - are being released via the World Wide Web (Condon et. al. 1998) as soon as they are made and verified. The NVSS team members have agreed to use only these electronically released results for their own research. (Note that I replaced the degree symbol in the original with the double quote mark for email purposes.) This entire document can be found in postscript format (68 pages) at: http://www.cv.nrao.edu/~jcondon/nvss.html.) **** I am sure that dabblers will access this data, and in fact the site offers software for non-serious (in a serious number crunching sense) platforms such as Macintosh and Windows 95 to view this data. Dabblers don't hurt serious research and when the data is made available over the WWW there is not even the argument of inconvenience to sustain a restriction on access. The question of access is not "And why should they have access to it?" but does denying anyone, dabbler or not, serve the ends of scholarship? I suspect that those concerned with being denied access are not mere dabblers (since dabblers would not particularly care) but actual scholars interested in the materials. I can't help but feel your position, perhaps unintentionally, tends to support those who would make access to materials a matter of status rather than scholarly merit. As is evident from my posts I prefer open access as I defined it earlier and to let the scholarly community decide through its normal peer review practices what is or is not serious scholarship. That position allows the merit of research, analysis or presentation to come to the fore whereas now scholarship sometimes depends upon the whim and caprice of the inheritors of scholarly data. Patrick -- Patrick Durusau Information Technology Services Scholars Press pdurusau@emory.edu Manager, ITS --------------FEB31CC5B311C4DB1B4E133B Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jim,

I am not overly troubled by elitism, particularly if it is based upon merit, but the barriers of distance and funding have little to do with scholarly merit. And I don't think there is a correlation between physical location or resources and being "qualified to know enough in order to properly assess and utilize materials." But I would also argue that "elitist" is not the term to use for those who would restrict access to materials they did not author, in most cases which they did not film or preserve, and for which they play no scholarly role but only that of guardian. 

It promotes scholarship and hinders dilettantism for one simple reason--
people only value what they have to pay for.  And people only pay for
something they really value.  By "pricing" such objects one insures that
only those genuinely interested in them will bother with them.

But why should not everyone be free to "bother with them"?  Again, to put it
simply, not everyone is equally qualified to know enough in order to
properly assess and utilize materials.

To be brief- those who have devoted their lives, education, and resources to
the study of a certain thing should make use of whatever resources they wish
to; those who are mere dabblers should not.  Elitist?  Absolutely.
Practical?  Again, absolutely.  Let the rest be sastisifed with the
distillations- because, frankly, they cant make use of the more important
resources anyway.

To put it perfectly bluntly- why should someone who cannot read Hebrew be
allowed to receive a film of Leningrad?  What can they possibly do with it?
Why should a person who cannot read Greek receive a film of P52 (or
whatever)?  And why should they have access to it?


Contrast your position with "The NRAO VLA Sky Survey" (Condon, Cotton, Greisen, Yin, Perley, Taylor, Broderick, p.2) access policy which reads in full:

****

All NVSS results are available to the entire astronomical community. The survey team reserves no proprietary rights to either the raw data or the final data products because we believe that the scientific potential of large surveys can be realized only if all astronomers have full and immediate access to them. To encourage use of the NVSS, we have adopted the following policies for NVSS results: (1) Any astronomer may access the uncalibrated VLA "archive" data immediately, without waiting for the usual one year proprietary-data period to end. (2) Our calibrated (u, v) data and uncorrected snapshot images are likewise available for copying at any time. (3) The principal data products of interest to most users - the corrected 4" x 4" images, the catalog of sources found on them, plus software for their use and any updates - are being released via the World Wide Web (Condon et. al. 1998) as soon as they are made and verified. The NVSS team members have agreed to use only these electronically released results for their own research. (Note that I replaced the degree symbol in the original with the double quote mark for email purposes.) This entire document can be found in postscript format (68 pages) at: http://www.cv.nrao.edu/~jcondon/nvss.html.)

****

I am sure that dabblers will access this data, and in fact the site offers software for non-serious (in a serious number crunching sense) platforms such as Macintosh and Windows 95 to view this data. Dabblers don't hurt serious research and when the data is made available over the WWW there is not even the argument of inconvenience to sustain a restriction on access.

The question of access is not "And why should they have access to it?" but does denying anyone, dabbler or not, serve the ends of scholarship? I suspect that those concerned with being denied access are not mere dabblers (since dabblers would not particularly care) but actual scholars interested in the materials. I can't help but feel your position, perhaps unintentionally, tends to support those who would make access to materials a matter of status rather than scholarly merit.

As is evident from my posts I prefer open access as I defined it earlier and to let the scholarly community decide through its normal peer review practices what is or is not serious scholarship. That position allows the merit of research, analysis or presentation to come to the fore whereas now scholarship sometimes depends upon the whim and caprice of the inheritors of scholarly data.
 

Patrick

--
Patrick Durusau
Information Technology Services
Scholars Press
pdurusau@emory.edu
Manager, ITS
  --------------FEB31CC5B311C4DB1B4E133B-- From tc-list-owner Mon Sep 20 11:31:49 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id LAA07407 for tc-list-outgoing; Mon, 20 Sep 1999 11:31:44 -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: <19990920132043.35166.qmail@hotmail.com> References: <19990920132043.35166.qmail@hotmail.com> Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 10:38:32 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: tc-list Re: Greek Texts prior to 12th Century 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: 3587 On 9/20/99, Steve Puluka wrote: >As an Eastern Christian educator joining a scholarly list on tc issues I am horrified by the gross oversimplification of the history of the Eastern Christian Centers quoted below. I hope we can raise the level of discourse on the list to more specifics and less broad generalizations. > >At the risk of continuing a generalized view of TC issues, but I must make a few general points for the record. But I will not attempt to present a general history here. Please see the source works listed below. Question: If you think the general histories are sufficient in and of themselves, what is the point of discussing anything? This is serious: The assumption I make is that not all the work has been done in this field. Therefore I feel the urge to discuss it. Not every discussion can be extremely detailed; we have to agree on our general language first. >>Let's distinguish two points here: The later history of the text >>and the original text. The argument I offer says nothing about >>the original text; it could (as far as this argument is concerned) >>be effectively identical to the Byzantine text or completely >>different. All we need to assume is that, from the time of the Arab >>conquests, the Byzantine text was the text of Byzantium. >> > >By the time of the Early Christian use of the text there is no single "original text". The textual varients and traditions are already in place. We see a textual difference along the Antiochian/Alexandrian line in the liturgical and Patristic texts. Not this again. :-) We did this last month. :-) We need to distinguish here: There was an original text of most if not all documents of the New Testament. Surely we all agree on this. So we would like to reconstruct this if we possibly can. (Whether we can do so is another matter.) The fact is, however, that different textual traditions exist. So I think we can refer to them. :-) >Further, Byzantium was not a central authority dictating text usage in the empire but a cosmapolitan culture that collects everything. Of course. However, a text-type which is generally called Byzantine *does* exist. Moreover, the witnesses to the Byzantine type are generally from Byzantium. This is a valid historical link. We are not discussing the reason for that link. (Or, at least, I wasn't.) >As the final forms of our liturgical services developed between the 9th and 12th centuries a synthesis of **these texts** took place but not of the **source scriptures** themselves. This synthesis was indeed a cosmopolitan operation that has given us texts from all the collected traditions at different points in the hymography and liturgical pericopies in use. This is a far cry from the "Byzantine Text version" being the only one preserved. Rather a liturgical based reworking of the various options is at work. I don't follow this. The text of the Byzantine liturgy is not at issue. What is at issue is that which is found in the mass of witnesses which we call "Byzantine" both textually and geographically. I suppose, if you're going to disagree with what I said, you'll need to tell me what you disagree with. I can't see that what you are talking about and what I am talking about have anything to do with each other. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Sep 20 20:20:17 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id UAA10751 for tc-list-outgoing; Mon, 20 Sep 1999 20:20:05 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list The ultimate goal of textual criticism Message-ID: <19990920.151955.13271.25.seventh.guardian@juno.com> References: <199909100032.UAA02654@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> X-Mailer: Juno 1.49 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0,2-25,30-34,38-43,52-59,66-74 From: "Maurice A. Robinson" Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 15:26:20 EDT Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Content-Length: 3162 On Wed, 15 Sep 1999 12:18:34 -0500 "Robert B. Waltz" writes: >I did make one small mis-statement here, which you've blown all out >of proportion. :-) But thank you for the open door. :-) >Let's distinguish two points here: The later history of the text >and the original text. The argument I offer says nothing about >the original text Agreed; neither did mine. >Christianity had a variety of important early centers: Alexandria, >Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, perhaps Jerusalem. [etc. etc. -- all granted] >Thus, by the beginning of >the twelfth century (i.e. *before* the bulk of our manuscripts >were written), the only major Christian center still in Greek >hands was Byzantium and its environs -- mostly in Greece, though >of course it also held a small part of Asia. The twelfth century is an irrelevant date as regards what I was discussing, which was the impact of the initial Arab conquest during the 8th and subsequent centuries in basically eliminating or at least removing from dominance the Alexandrian and (possibly) Caesarean texttypes at a time long before century 12. >That is, in my book, a pretty small region -- small enough that >it could have its own "local" text. Again, granting the "local text" theory regarding Byzantium, are you also saying that the Alexandrian, Western, and perhaps the Caesarean texts were similarly "local" and did _not_ hold more than a regional dominance from ancient times? >the local text of Byzantium, *whatever* its nature, >could for historical reasons be expected to be dominant in the >tradition. But if the Byzantine were only a local minority text with no real dominance, and if another texttype or texttypes had been previously dominant in the Eastern Empire up to the point of the Arab Conquest, how under the normally slow process of transmissional growth and acceptance could such a localized minority text from Constantinople and environs rapidly grow to a position of utter dominance and bypass the normally slow process of transmissional growth? Of course if the other texttypes were minority and localized rather than dominant, the Byzantine dominance becomes easier to explain. >Of course manuscripts continued to be preserved, and even copied, >in other areas -- but many old copies would have been destroyed, >and new copies would be fewer (not so much because Christians were >fewer in the conquered areas -- they weren't. But they were much, >much poorer, and couldn't afford as many copies). Certainly St. Catherine's monastery at Sinai and even the Jerusalem Saba monasteries managed to survive the Arab conquest with a large number of MSS intact. Even granting that most MSS contained therein are late, how come most of their preserved MSS are Byzantine rather than Alexandrian or Caesarean if the exigencies of the Arab (and/or Turkish) conquests basically cut them off from the contact they previously had enjoyed within the entire Eastern Empire? Just asking a few questions.... ============================================== Maurice A. Robinson Professor of NT and Greek Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina From tc-list-owner Mon Sep 20 21:31:12 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id VAA10896 for tc-list-outgoing; Mon, 20 Sep 1999 21:30:55 -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: <19990920.151955.13271.25.seventh.guardian@juno.com> References: <199909100032.UAA02654@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> <19990920.151955.13271.25.seventh.guardian@juno.com> Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 20:38:02 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: tc-list The ultimate goal of 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: 5556 On 9/20/99, Maurice A. Robinson wrote: [ ...Lots of nice agreement, not that that helps any :-)... ] > >Thus, by the beginning of > >the twelfth century (i.e. *before* the bulk of our manuscripts > >were written), the only major Christian center still in Greek > >hands was Byzantium and its environs -- mostly in Greece, though > >of course it also held a small part of Asia. > >The twelfth century is an irrelevant date as regards what I was >discussing, And I'll admit that I've forgotten my own point. :-) >which was the impact of the initial Arab conquest during the >8th and subsequent centuries in basically eliminating or at least >removing from dominance the Alexandrian and (possibly) Caesarean >texttypes at a time long before century 12. Agreed. So what are we arguing about? :-) > >That is, in my book, a pretty small region -- small enough that > >it could have its own "local" text. > >Again, granting the "local text" theory regarding Byzantium, are you also >saying that the Alexandrian, Western, and perhaps the Caesarean texts >were similarly "local" and did _not_ hold more than a regional dominance >from ancient times? Yes. Or, at least, I see no reason to think otherwise. (I'm not going to go out too far on a limb here. :-) > >the local text of Byzantium, *whatever* its nature, > >could for historical reasons be expected to be dominant in the > >tradition. > >But if the Byzantine were only a local minority text with no real >dominance, and if another texttype or texttypes had been previously >dominant in the Eastern Empire up to the point of the Arab Conquest, how >under the normally slow process of transmissional growth and acceptance >could such a localized minority text from Constantinople and environs >rapidly grow to a position of utter dominance and bypass the normally >slow process of transmissional growth? Of course if the other texttypes >were minority and localized rather than dominant, the Byzantine dominance >becomes easier to explain. I'm missing something here. I never said that *any* text-type was dominant at an early date. But I maintain that, *if* all areas had a local text (and the assumption is that they would, even though different areas might have local texts that were practically identical), and if all but one of those areas were wiped out, we would expect that local text to become dominant. Thus, one would expect the local text-type of Byzantium to be the dominant one in later centuries. Doesn't matter what its earlier history was. One could even make an Old Testament analogy. Prior to the Flood, most people were not descended from Noah. After it, if one believes the Biblical account, they all were descended from Noah. Doesn't mean Noah was the first man, just the first man to survive. Archetype, not autograph. :-) > >Of course manuscripts continued to be preserved, and even copied, > >in other areas -- but many old copies would have been destroyed, > >and new copies would be fewer (not so much because Christians were > >fewer in the conquered areas -- they weren't. But they were much, > >much poorer, and couldn't afford as many copies). > >Certainly St. Catherine's monastery at Sinai and even the Jerusalem Saba >monasteries managed to survive the Arab conquest with a large number of >MSS intact. Even granting that most MSS contained therein are late, how >come most of their preserved MSS are Byzantine rather than Alexandrian or >Caesarean if the exigencies of the Arab (and/or Turkish) conquests >basically cut them off from the contact they previously had enjoyed >within the entire Eastern Empire? The following example refers specifically to Sinai, but it could be anywhere.... This is where data on manuscript origins would be really interesting. However, I believe that you are making an unwitting assumption here. The assumption being that most manuscripts were copied from old exemplars. The evidence seems to indicate, if anything, the contrary. So suppose someone showed up from Constantinople (not impossible by any means, even *after* the Arab conquest; immigration controls are a modern invention) with a nice fancy new manuscript of the Kx recension, in this beautiful minuscule script, with accents and breathings and spaces between words and Eusebian apparatus and all that great stuff. And your alternative is to copy from something like Sinaiticus, and try to add the accents yourself, and figure out what all those correctors wrote. Which do you pick? Unless you're an early version of Hort, you're likely to pick the Kx manuscript. So texts of this type could easily become widespread *even in a place where the Byzantine text wasn't originally dominant.* Now this is just a hypothetical; I don't know what happened. But one can't argue from Byzantine manuscripts (and not all recent manuscripts at Sinai are Byzantine!) that the Byzntine text was dominant there. For that matter -- where and when was Sinai founded? I will admit that I don't know. But I doubt it was founded from Alexandria. That's not based on textual theories; it's based on the fact that Egyptian monks tended to go into the desert, not to Sinai, to meditate. Sinai seems, from what little I know, to have been a Byzantine foundation.... -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Sep 20 21:49:02 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id VAA10976 for tc-list-outgoing; Mon, 20 Sep 1999 21:48:55 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 21:57:11 -0400 From: Jim West Subject: tc-list Re: Baker withdraws Comfort book X-Sender: jwest@highland.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Cc: b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.32.19990921015711.0066c13c@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: 1381 At 09:36 PM 9/20/99 +0000, you wrote: >Dear Book Review Editor: > >Our recently published volume THE COMPLETE TEXT OF THE EARLIEST NEW >TESTAMENT MANUSCRIPTS [in italics in original letter], by Philip W. >Comfort and David P. Barrett, has been permanently withdrawn from >publication due to serious content flaws. In light of this, we ask that >all reviews of this book be halted. > >We regret any inconvenience this may cause you. Thank you for your >cooperation. > >Sincerely, > >Jim Kinney One of the saddest facts of modern academic life is that the grumbling and carping of a few can see to it that a text of worth and extraordinary significance is discontinued. It is shameful that Baker pulled this book. And it is shameful, purely shameful, that instead of correcting the minor errors that do exist in the book, the editors there have decided to bow to the pressure of some folk who simply dislike the author and have done their best to discredit him and his work. Finally, those who are gleeful about this disgraceful action should be ashamed of themselves, really and genuinely ashamed. Their reprehensible with hunt is over. Nevertheless hopefully a publisher which has the courage to publish this fine volume in a revised edition will be found. Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD email- jwest@highland.net web page- http://web.infoave.net/~jwest From tc-list-owner Mon Sep 20 22:44:28 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id WAA11118 for tc-list-outgoing; Mon, 20 Sep 1999 22:44:21 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list A Lamentation and A Warning Message-ID: <19990920.151955.13271.28.seventh.guardian@juno.com> References: X-Mailer: Juno 1.49 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-3,5-7,10,15-16,24-25,38-39,44-45,56-57,59-66 From: "Maurice A. Robinson" Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 15:26:20 EDT Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Content-Length: 3623 On Sat, 18 Sep 1999 12:02:36 EDT CleonLR@aol.com writes: >The Muenster institute has a fine reputation and is open to all who >would like to visit. While it is true that they are not open 24 hours a day >seven days a week I would not expect this either. I would have to concur with Cleon Rogers on this point, since I have had ample opportunity to make use of the Muenster facilities and plan to do so in the future. Dr Aland and the entire staff were always courteous and extremely helpful in regard to supplying any films I needed while there, as well as providing a guest study room with microfilm reader, along with the use of their extensive text-critical library. The Institute is available within a normal 40-hour work week schedule for such research. To be sure, the Institute has restrictions imposed which prohibit the loan or duplication of its film holdings. Many of these restrictions were imposed upon Muenster by the libraries or monasteries holding the original manuscripts in question. In such a case one should better appreciate the often complex negotiations which at least allowed Muenster to obtain a copy of such MSS rather than to tell interested scholars that they would have to travel to who knows how many places and make their own negotiations with the owners of such MSS in order to work with them. And yes, it is expensive to travel to Muenster to perform collation research, and in most cases too expensive for most American researchers. The options available in this country through IGNTP and AMBC, the Library of Congress, as well as other sources are helpful, but certainly nowhere near as exhaustive as what can be found in Muenster, and for extensive projects there remains no other alternative. Certainly it would be desirable to have equivalent holdings available for interlibrary loan in the US, but unless someone will fund more expeditions such as those of Clark in the late 40s and early 50s with an intent to increase the number of MSS currently available in the US, we are limited to the resources available, like it or not. Muenster simply cannot duplicate or share its holdings due to various contractual restrictions, so there is no point in arguing over or making demands regarding what they cannot change. Perhaps one day the trustees may consider opening a North American branch of the Institute (still under their control) with full copies of their holdings. Such would be extremely helpful to American scholars and far less expensive, even with travel and study on-site still required under the contractual arrangements. It probably is time to eliminate the Muenster-bashing and offer concrete proposals for increasing the number of MSS available for interlibrary loan in the US, especially in regard to those which currently have problems relating to their film condition. Seems like a center obtaining copies of all holdings at basically public museums which are willing to share their resources for scholarly purposes (e.g., the British Museum, the Bibliotheque Nationale, the Vatican library) would be a good place to start, with other sources added as funding becomes available. Of course "funding" is the key word, and this one problem will likely prevent our current holdings from increasing significantly over the next 50 years or more. Time to go back to Muenster! The matter of the care taken with the AMBC MSS is another issue, and perhaps the only pertinent one remaining. ============================================== Maurice A. Robinson Professor of NT and Greek Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina From tc-list-owner Tue Sep 21 01:21:09 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id BAA11957 for tc-list-outgoing; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 01:20:54 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Message-ID: <001501bf03f1$e87beaa0$4146d8cc@yhwh3in1> From: "Mr. Gary S. Dykes" To: References: <199909100032.UAA02654@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> <19990920.151955.13271.25.seventh.guardian@juno.com> Subject: Re: tc-list The ultimate goal of textual criticism Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 22:26:50 -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: 4218 M. Robinsion wrote: Certainly St. Catherine's monastery at Sinai and even the Jerusalem Saba monasteries managed to survive the Arab conquest with a large number of MSS intact. Even granting that most MSS contained therein are late, how come most of their preserved MSS are Byzantine rather than Alexandrian or Caesarean if the exigencies of the Arab (and/or Turkish) conquests basically cut them off from the contact they previously had enjoyed within the entire Eastern Empire? Just asking a few questions.... ============================================== Maurice A. Robinson Professor of NT and Greek Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina Mr. Dykes replies: First greetings dear sir, I am honored to correspond mit you, as I have studied much of your earlier materials and respect your insights. St. Catherines, built under Justinian's reign and St. Saba both were normally under Byzantine control. Even when the Latins controlled Jerusalem (circa 12th and again in the 13th centuries as Outremer kingdom) St. Saba maintained it Greek "orthodox" status and produced Greek minuscules, distinct from the Latin MSS produced in the Latin Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem. Both also display differing archetypes (by both means the Latin Outremer, and the St. Saba materials). However, as you note, both monasteries were shepharded by the Byzantine authorities and the theological position of the "board of trustees" in Constantinople. Hence MOST MSS which remain are very close to the standard Byzantine Ecclesiastical Recension, as I refer to it. But interestingly, and the point of my response, is that there are a number of MSS which are not of the standard Byzantine text-type from these monasteries. Many of these minuscules have only (and I am referring to the minuscules as opposed to the uncials) been scanned for certain readings, according to some profile, Munster uses one which uses a few hundred variants for the NT text, and they then base their text-type evaluation on this brief survey, and they do indicate that it is often tentative. But further analysis will uncover more MSS with Syro-Latin readings, and other independent readings. For example 1874 (from Jerusalem, or even St. Cartherines) is clearly Egyptian (or Alexandrine) in its text-type. Its sister MS, 1875 is also clearly of the Egyptian text-type, but made in Calabria. In fact a number of the Jerusalem MSS have a Calabrian connection, according to my preliminary research in the text of I Corinthians. Note I said "preliminary", but the evidence is growing. MS 1319 also produced in Jerusalem (or Jerusalem controlled monasteries) has an interesting text-type. Other examples can be shown. So, yes, most minuscules in both the St. Catherines and Jersusalem-area monasteries are of the Byzantine text-type, but numerous ones differ. This is typical for provincial ateliers, as most had not the facilities which Constantinople had, and most still had old uncials (and papyri?) lying about in them, useful as possible exemplars. Being provincial (and often separated from Byzantine oversight from Constantinople) they had a bit more freedom in forming their copies, as they were at some distance from the "board of trustees" in Constantinople. Much more research is needed before final definitive results can be given, but I have made a start as have some others. Part of the preparation is being able to recognize the clues which the scripts and illuminations and ornaments give which can identify the geographical origins (tentatively). I have noticed that generally speaking the MSS produced within Constantinople itself (and often in Nicaea (during the Palaiologos)) were strictly of a Byzantine Ecclesiastical Standard, as yet I have not found any MSS circa 900 - 1300 written in Constantinople which are not conformed to this standard. But I look, and if you have any interesting findings, perhaps you could share them with me. Most which claim to be of a differing text-type probably (note "probably") were not produced in Constantinople proper. But I am not laying down some sort of a rule here, just a temporary guideline. at your service, Mr. Gary S. Dykes From tc-list-owner Tue Sep 21 04:32:19 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id EAA12580 for tc-list-outgoing; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 04:30:57 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Message-ID: <000901bf040c$723d4580$2046d8cc@yhwh3in1> From: "Mr. Gary S. Dykes" To: "tc-list" Subject: tc-list More to M. Robinson, correction Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 01:36:47 -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: 1596 Alas, I did not check my charts before I sent the last post. MS 1875 was probably written in Macedonia, by a monk who was familiar with Slavic, however it is still a sister MS to 1874. Minuscule 1837 is the one which was written in Calabria (not 1875 as I wrongly declared earlier). MS 1319 agrees with MS 1837 at 73 % that is in 118 out of 225 readings in just I Corinthians. (This according to my original research, and my own charts). This is a relatively high agreement for this manuscript (1319) made in Jerusalem, but it also agrees with P15 at 77 percent (10 out of 13 readings). 1319 agrees about 65 % with the Byzantine standard and 62 % with codex 06. Hence it is very mixed, but this is typical of this group from Jerusalem. I would like to be able to compare it with a Caesarean text-type but have not gotten that far along yet. Finally, my theory is that the Byzantine Standard Ecclesiastical text-type was enforced early on in most areas of the Byzantine empire. This assured unity. After the Arab invasions, outlying monasteries remained true to this standard, but did (apparently) refer to old MSS in their possession when copying or preserving them. Some of these preserved MSS could actually give us a window into the EARLY Byzantine text-type, before it was standardized in Constantinople. This early text should probably be referred to as the proto-text, the one behind all of the 3 or 4 major text-types. I believe this better answers your question, and I apologize for the error concerning MS 1875. at your service, Mr. Gary S. Dykes yhwh3in1@lightspeed.net From tc-list-owner Tue Sep 21 07:41:24 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id HAA13616 for tc-list-outgoing; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 07:41:02 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Message-Id: <199909211149.HAA08089@pike.sover.net> Comments: SoVerNet Verification (on pike.sover.net) newdell from st232.virt.sover.net [207.136.205.232] 207.136.205.232 Tue, 21 Sep 1999 07:49:02 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender: nichael@sover.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0.1 Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 07:49:19 -0400 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: Nichael Cramer Subject: Re: tc-list Re: Baker withdraws Comfort book Cc: b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19990921015711.0066c13c@highland.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Content-Length: 2397 At 09:57 PM 9/20/99 -0400, Jim West wrote: >One of the saddest facts of modern academic life is that the grumbling and >carping of a few can see to it that a text of worth and extraordinary >significance is discontinued. It is shameful that Baker pulled this book. >And it is shameful, purely shameful, that instead of correcting the minor >errors that do exist in the book, the editors there have decided to bow to >the pressure of some folk who simply dislike the author and have done their >best to discredit him and his work. Finally, those who are gleeful about >this disgraceful action should be ashamed of themselves, really and >genuinely ashamed. Their reprehensible with hunt is over. Nevertheless >hopefully a publisher which has the courage to publish this fine volume in a >revised edition will be found. At the risk of boring the majority of the list by simply restating what I trust is obvious... 1] Setting aside the issue as to the actual source of "grumbling and carping" throughout this discussion, the claim of the "carping of a few" is simply not factual. Jim, without exception, every review by any knowledgable scholar of this book that I've seen has pointed out significant and deep problems with the book. But beyond that the publisher --for heaven's sake the *publisher*, Jim, who second only to the author could be said to have an interest in the book succeeding-- the publisher has withdrawn the book citing "serious content flaws". 2] If the problems that have been --repeatedly-- demonstrated with this book are simply "minor errors", each reader can only be left to themselves to decide what, in the name of all that's good, would constitute _serious_ errors. 3] Finally, as much as it pains me to say this, if anything can be described as "reprehensible" here it is the behavior that has characterized your conduct throughout this whole discussion. Every question and point you have raised has been patiently and politely addressed and has been responded to with silly name-calling and attacks on the integrity and intelligence of anyone who has disagreed with you. In short, Jim --please-- give it up. You're doing nothing but embarrassing yourself. Nichael -- Nichael Cramer Gather the folks, tell the stories nichael@sover.net break the bread. -- John Shea http://www.sover.net/~nichael/ From tc-list-owner Tue Sep 21 11:42:53 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id LAA15300 for tc-list-outgoing; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 11:41:13 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 11:41:12 -0400 (EDT) From: "James R. Adair" To: TC List Subject: tc-list reminder concerning ad hominem attacks 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: 816 Some recent posts to the list have wandered from dealing with issues and have included ad hominem attacks on list members on the other side of the argument. Ad hominem attacks are not appropriate on the list and will not be tolerated--and it doesn't matter if someone did it to you first! Violators will be warned and then removed from the list. If list members want to engage in this level of discussion, they are free to do it off list. On the list, stick to discussing issues. *********************************************************************** 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 Tue Sep 21 11:59:18 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id LAA15496 for tc-list-outgoing; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 11:59:15 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Message-Id: <9909211607.AA32263@news1.infoave.net> From: MINTONR@pbc.edu (Dr. Ron Minton) To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu, tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 12:00:05 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Subject: tc-list OT Hebrew mss # Priority: normal In-Reply-To: <035C0F6701082600@mail.tyndale.com> X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v3.12a) Organization: Piedmont Baptist College Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Content-Length: 282 I understand there are about 3,000 extant mss. of the Hebrew OT (Brotzman OT Text Crit, p.58). Is this correct? The reason I ask is I have read two comments this past week that there are only about 300. Is there a list that mentions a more precise number? thanks, Ron Minton From tc-list-owner Tue Sep 21 11:59:37 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id LAA15512 for tc-list-outgoing; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 11:59:20 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Message-Id: <9909211607.AA32169@news1.infoave.net> From: MINTONR@pbc.edu (Dr. Ron Minton) To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu, tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 12:00:04 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Subject: tc-list OT Hebrew mss # Priority: normal In-Reply-To: <035C0F6701082600@mail.tyndale.com> X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v3.12a) Organization: Piedmont Baptist College Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Content-Length: 282 I understand there are about 3,000 extant mss. of the Hebrew OT (Brotzman OT Text Crit, p.58). Is this correct? The reason I ask is I have read two comments this past week that there are only about 300. Is there a list that mentions a more precise number? thanks, Ron Minton From tc-list-owner Tue Sep 21 12:46:07 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id MAA15893 for tc-list-outgoing; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 12:45:47 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list Baker withdraws COMFORT book Message-ID: <19990921.124133.16231.5.seventh.guardian@juno.com> References: <1.5.4.32.19990920114940.00673ff4@highland.net> X-Mailer: Juno 1.49 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-6,16-17,29-30,39-40,50-51,63-64,72-73,83-89 From: "Maurice A. Robinson" Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 12:46:53 EDT Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Content-Length: 5100 On Mon, 20 Sep 1999 07:49:40 -0400 Jim West writes: >At 02:07 AM 9/20/99 -0400, you wrote: >:-( >In light of this, we ask that all reviews of this book be halted. At least one review is still be forthcoming, and will be in part favorable. Granting a non-specialist and classroom-based market for basic NT textual criticism courses, I suggest that the book indeed remains useful on a limited basis which would increase dramatically if only the basic errors involving specific readings were resolved. Such of course should have been done from the beginning, but generating an errata list still could be accomplished (how long it might take would be another matter). Once the main problems are resolved, a mailout prepared and distributed free from Baker, perhaps via the internet, would serve to mitigate the problem. As noted by Jim West and others (and to which I concurred regarding 98%+ of the transcriptions), "most of the text is ok". Indeed, most of the text, as verified by my continuing sample collations (including all of Rom and 1 Cor in P46) _IS_ ok, and needs no fixing, despite the fact that we might like dots under the letters, more accurate placement of brackets, verse numbers in the margins, line numbers, variants from NA27, etc.; but for a classroom-based market intended for beginning text-critical students, this would not be as much of a problem as with the specialist market for text-critical scholars. The problem was and remains that unknown errors (of which there were too many) destroyed the trustworthiness of any reading unless independently verified, which hurt even the market for classroom use. In my P46 sample collations of Rom and 1Cor, the number of variations (errors) from the original seems to run at around 3 or 4 per book of that length; this is certainly not up to the level one should expect in an "exact" transcription, but it also is not so far from the mark that it could not have been corrected via an errata sheet (the question as to _why_ such errors -- especially the obvious ones -- should ever have occurred is quite another matter). If the same proportion of error versus correct transcription holds throughout, the errata list would not run more than 20 pages, I would guess, and possibly even less. Suspicion arose in regard to Comfort and Barrett's promise to produce an accurate list of errata in light of the inaccuracies already noted. Maybe it could be done properly; maybe not, but doubts would always remain unless independently verified. (I planned to keep my more recent errata notations to myself until C/B produced their own list, just to check their accuracy once their list appeared). Someone still needs to recollate and work through the C/B data _independently_ in order to produce an errata list which will overcome any further suspicion of inaccuracy (which is basically the intent of my statement regarding the need for the work to be re-done from scratch). I am continuing the collation of various MSS against C/B's transcriptions and making my own notations of errata so I can USE the book as a convenient resource -- why not? I then will have personal verification of its accuracy as well as its errors, and eventually will have for my own purposes a number of significant MSS accurately presented in a handy single-volume transcription. The C/B book then becomes what it originally purported to be, and what I stated previously I would have heartily welcomed: a handy compendium of biblical MS data which spares the casual user from having to track down a plethora of source material and collate from scratch (even though that is precisely what I am having to do in order to make it useful). Just a pity it wasn't done right from the beginning. What now will become of the withdrawn volumes? I doubt that Baker will simply grind them into confetti; too much investment is at stake. CBD? Possibly, though the market remains limited. I still suggest that Baker offer some of them to students in textual criticism classes for recollation against original photos or facsimiles and thus generate independent errata sheets which could be compared and verified against each other in order to produce a near-complete and correct list of actual errors in the C/B volume. So a peculiar situation exists: I actually found the book serviceable, once I was able to trust any given portion of text after personal verification. I only wish I could have had that same trust in the work as published and saved a lot of (still-ongoing) collation time.Whether the book should be totally withdrawn from circulation is another matter; perhaps Baker will simply hold the copies in stock until C/B or someone else generates that complete errata list, and then re-release? Either way, there is no good or easy solution to the problem, but I am not convinced that a total destruction of the existing volumes is the best manner in which to proceed. ============================================== Maurice A. Robinson Professor of NT and Greek Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina From tc-list-owner Tue Sep 21 15:54:32 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id PAA17254 for tc-list-outgoing; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 15:54:16 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Message-ID: <03F40A4BFEFAD111B55E0000F81E4FB160335E@VHAISFEXC1> From: "Woodhouse, Gregory J." To: "'tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu'" Subject: RE: tc-list Baker withdraws COMFORT book Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 13:11:33 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Content-Length: 1041 Speaking as an interested non-specialist, I was looking forward to Comfort/Barrett as a means of obtaining access to a wider range of mss at a reasonable cost. Of course, I realize that the problems with the book we have discussed here render the book not very useful for serious research, but I really have no allusions that any investigations I might pursue qualify as serious research. In many ways, I had hoped this would something like a 16" reflector (a wonderful instrument) for an amateur astronomer. Perhaps not in the same category as the telescopes used by professional astronomers, but something that would be a real leap forward for most amateurs. Unfortunately, many of the errors seem to be, well, errors, not inadequacies. All I can say is that I do hope that there will be a corrected version or a similar work forthcoming at some point. == Gregory Woodhouse San Francisco CIO Field Office - Universal Billing +1 415 744 6362 Standards are wonderful; everyone should have one of their own. From tc-list-owner Tue Sep 21 16:13:07 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id QAA17374 for tc-list-outgoing; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 16:13:00 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f From: DrJDPrice@aol.com Message-ID: <67872f2a.251942a7@aol.com> Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 16:20:55 EDT Subject: Re: tc-list OT Hebrew mss # 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 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 26 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Content-Length: 555 Hi Ron: << I understand there are about 3,000 extant mss. of the Hebrew OT (Brotzman OT Text Crit, p.58). Is this correct? The reason I ask is I have read two comments this past week that there are only about 300. Is there a list that mentions a more precise number? thanks, >> The way I understand the evidence, there are about 3,000 extant mss; however, most are not complete copies of the OT. Many are limited to the Torah or parts of it. For individual books outside of the Torah, there are about 300 mss per book. Blessings, Jim Price From tc-list-owner Tue Sep 21 18:19:14 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id SAA19200 for tc-list-outgoing; Tue, 21 Sep 1999 18:19:02 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Message-Id: <199909212227.AAA21143@carno.brus.online.be> Subject: Re: tc-list OT Hebrew mss # Date: Mer, 22 Sep 99 00:34:51 +0200 x-sender: vale5655@pop3.brus.online.be x-mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1 From: Jean Valentin To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu id SAA19196 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Content-Length: 1129 Is there for the OT something similar to the "Kurzgefasste Liste" that exists for the NT? Just wondering if anybody centralizes a list of manuscript (in which case I probably should tell him about my scrolls :-) Jean V. >Hi Ron: ><< I understand there are about 3,000 extant mss. of the Hebrew OT > (Brotzman OT Text Crit, p.58). Is this correct? The reason I ask is > I have read two comments this past week that there are only about > 300. Is there a list that mentions a more precise number? > thanks, > >> > >The way I understand the evidence, there are about 3,000 extant mss; >however, most are not complete copies of the OT. Many are limited to >the Torah or parts of it. For individual books outside of the Torah, there >are about 300 mss per book. >Blessings, >Jim Price _______________________________________________________________ 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 Wed Sep 22 07:41:24 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id HAA22441 for tc-list-outgoing; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 07:41:01 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f From: "DC PARKER" Organization: The University of Birmingham To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 12:48:33 GMT Subject: tc-list Re: Munster 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: 692 A number of claims have been made concerning the Munster policy with regard to the use of microfilms. Perhaps it is worth stating the obvious, by suggesting that the claims overlook the Institut's function, which is to be a centre for research, not a distribution centre serving the needs of NT manuscript researchers world-wide. The fact that those who work in the Institut are as welcoming to visitors as they are, in the midst of the demands of running the place, doing their research, and teaching, demonstrates how unjust the accusations of imperialism etc are. For the rest, I concur with the sentiments in Maurice Robinson's message of Monday afternoon. David Parker From tc-list-owner Wed Sep 22 09:28:46 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id JAA22894 for tc-list-outgoing; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 09:28:25 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Glen Thompson" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 08:36:30 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: tc-list Re: Munster and others Priority: normal References: In-reply-to: X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.54) Message-Id: <19990922083807.4e6c2bdc6ff411d39d760080c8678d5f.in@mailhost.mlc-wels.edu> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Content-Length: 1647 I can remember beey warmly received as a young student by the people at Muenster, and from all I hear they are still as helpful as possible. In the past decade I have visited dozens of manuscript libraries across Europe, and with very few exceptions, they have all been quite willing to allow perusal of their manuscripts and/or microfilms. At times the Laurenziana in Florence gets overly protective and you need letters of introduction to get in (a good idea for any research trip), and that might happen anywhere. The only places that is truly difficult to get into are the monasteries of Mt. Athos (and probably the other monasteries farther east, but I have not attempted them.). Some libraries, like the Bibl. Nationale in Paris are increasingly asking visiting scholars to use their microfilms rather than the manuscripts themselves, and I hope that these places remain reasonable about making exceptions when it is important for the scholar to see the actual document. But these measures are being forced on libraries because of the theft that continues to occur even under very strict policies (as at the Vatican several years ago). My own experience has been that most libraries will arrange to make microfilm copies for you, if requested, but that quickly becomes expensive. So once again you get back to the dollar issues. Increased funding for the IGNTP would help solve many of the issues there, although I believe a change in location to a better endowed sight (such as the Hill Monastic Microfilm Library in Collegeville MN) would produce a more stable atmosphere for future work. Glen Thompson From tc-list-owner Wed Sep 22 12:09:21 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id MAA24094 for tc-list-outgoing; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 12:08:50 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list, correction Message-ID: <19990922.115014.8663.2.seventh.guardian@juno.com> References: <000901bf040c$723d4580$2046d8cc@yhwh3in1> X-Mailer: Juno 1.49 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0,2-7,21-23,25-27,33-38,49-50,53-59 From: "Maurice A. Robinson" Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 11:55:28 EDT Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Content-Length: 3052 On Tue, 21 Sep 1999 01:36:47 -0700 "Mr. Gary S. Dykes" writes: >Finally, my theory is that the Byzantine Standard Ecclesiastical >text-type was enforced early on in most areas of the Byzantine empire. >This assured unity. Of course, as Colwell asked, "who imposed controls, and when?" And if so, why was not a greater uniformity produced by the elimination of non-Byzantine readings? I suspect the concept of "control" is a nebulous term which in practice really did not exist, except in its psychological form as a result of reproducing basically the text which was familiar from personal and liturgical reading and hearing. The weakness of this line of argument, however, lies in the numerous cases where the lectionary form of the text differs dramatically from that found in the continuous text MSS. This leads me to suggest that the "real" text which should be termed "Byzantine" is that which predominates in the lectionary and liturgical material rather than what is found in the continuous-text MSS. The relation of such to the actual text of the Byzantine archetype (which then should be reconstructed primarily from the continuous-text MSS) is quite a different matter. > After the Arab invasions, outlying monasteries remained true to >this standard, but did (apparently) refer to old MSS in their possession >when copying or preserving them. Not exactly, since we find generally-Alexandrian MSS being copied in the 12th century at Sinai (e.g. MS 1241), with little or no attempt to "standardize" its text by alteration from whatever had been its exemplar. Either a standard is a standard or it is not; if the scribes were free to bring in readings from any other "old MSS" then in fact there was _no_ standard which consciously had to be preserved. >the EARLY Byzantine text-type, before it was standardized >in Constantinople. This early text should probably be referred to as >the proto-text, the one behind all of the 3 or 4 major text-types. One then wonders what this "proto-Byzantine" type looked like. Was it like Codex Alexandrinus (which was not apparently tied to Constantinople)? Or more like that found in the Byzantine portions of MS W (also without ties to Constantinople)? In fact, what MSS can with any degree of certainty be claimed as proto-Byzantine rather than as a Byzantine MSS with a mixture of non-Byzantine readings? It well may be the case that the Kx group categorized by von Soden can better serve as the source from which all sub-Byzantine varieties arise, since it often is easier to explain readings in the so-called K1, Kc, or Kr groups as localized revisions away from the Kx standard which tended in its various degrees to dominate the Eastern Empire. All this however strays far afield from Bob's discussion of the Arab Conquest, so I will try to refrain from further speculation at this point. ============================================== Maurice A. Robinson Professor of NT and Greek Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina From tc-list-owner Wed Sep 22 12:13:45 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id MAA24173 for tc-list-outgoing; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 12:13:42 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list The ultimate goal of textual criticism Message-ID: <19990922.115014.8663.3.seventh.guardian@juno.com> References: <199909100032.UAA02654@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> <19990920.151955.13271.25.seventh.guardian@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.49 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0,2-5,8-9,17-19,21-23,27-31,34-37,39-40,42-43,48-51, 53-55,63-68,71-73,75-77,82-89 From: "Maurice A. Robinson" Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 11:55:28 EDT Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Content-Length: 4254 On Mon, 20 Sep 1999 22:26:50 -0700 "Mr. Gary S. Dykes" writes: >St. Catherines, built under Justinian's reign and St. Saba both were >normally under Byzantine control. >Even when the Latins controlled Jerusalem (circa 12th and again in the 13th >centuries as Outremer kingdom) St. Saba maintained it Greek "orthodox" status and >produced Greek minuscules, This addresses Bob's point: if the Arab Conquest effectively shut off communication as to squash the Alexandrian and/or Caesarean texttypes in order to allow the Byzantine to achieve dominance, it seems peculiar that such a conquest neither stopped communication with these two significant monasteries nor prevented copying and (apparently) exchange and distribution of MSS with other localities within the non-conquered Eastern Empire, resulting (somehow) in a dominance of Byzantine MSS even in these "isolated" source monasteries. >However, as you note, both monasteries were shepharded by the >Byzantine authorities and the theological position of the "board of trustees" in >Constantinople. I am not confident that maintaining orthodox _theology_ in accordance with the Constantinopolitan standard has anything to do with preserving a specific form of text in accordance with any similar standard. If so, the scribes seem to have done a poor job of maintaining quality control. >the point of my response, is that there are a number of MSS which are >not of the standard Byzantine text-type from these monasteries. Absolutely. And these MSS in many cases are recent representatives of older differing texttypes which were preserved and copied anew, despite their not matching a pre-determined standard text of the later centuries. >other independent readings. For example 1874 (from Jerusalem, or even >St. Cartherines) is clearly Egyptian (or Alexandrine) in its text-type. >Its sister MS, 1875 is also clearly of the Egyptian text-type, but made >in Calabria. In fact a number of the Jerusalem MSS have a Calabrian >connection, according to my preliminary research in the text of I Corinthians. Since I have not worked with those MSS, I am not qualified to speak on this point; but certainly there are many minuscules preserved at these monasteries which have non-Byzantine texts or Byzantine texts with significant variances and which in many cases may have come from other localities. Cf. Silva New's "Patmos Family" (HTR 1932) as an example. >Being provincial (and often separated >from Byzantine oversight from Constantinople) they had a bit more >freedom in forming their copies, as they were at some distance from the "board of >trustees" in Constantinople. I doubt this scenario, since even at Mt Athos or in monasteries in and around Constantinople, I see little evidence of any "control" imposed upon the copying of MSS and apparently an equal degree of "freedom" exemplified in copying. The data which we have shows the abbots being more concerned with good scribal deportment, orthography, and grammar than with the precise form and content of the text they copied. Their primary concern was to faithfully copy the text of the exemplar without alteration, save in plain and clear cases of error. >Part of the preparation is being able to recognize the clues which >the scripts and illuminations and ornaments give which can identify >the geographical origins (tentatively). This indeed is an important criterion, and needs much more work. Were the provenance of all MSS known, much more could be said about the processes of transmission. >strictly of a Byzantine Ecclesiastical Standard, as yet I have not >found any MSS circa 900 - 1300 written in Constantinople which are not conformed >to this standard. I have not found any MSS copied within this same period which reflect any such "standard"; so we differ on this point (note that the "general" Byzantine text found in most MSS of this period is not itself evidence of any standard being imposed; the differences in the MSS themselves serve as evidence against such a control ever having been made). ============================================== Maurice A. Robinson Professor of NT and Greek Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina From tc-list-owner Wed Sep 22 12:15:33 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id MAA24194 for tc-list-outgoing; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 12:15:30 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list The ultimate goal of textual criticism Message-ID: <19990922.115014.8663.1.seventh.guardian@juno.com> References: <199909100032.UAA02654@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> X-Mailer: Juno 1.49 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0,2-10,18-20,22-25,27-32,35-42,44-53,65-75,88-92, 97-101,105-111,115-123,125,131-137 From: "Maurice A. Robinson" Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 11:55:28 EDT Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Content-Length: 6683 On Mon, 20 Sep 1999 20:38:02 -0500 "Robert B. Waltz" writes: >[ ...Lots of nice agreement, not that that helps any :-)... ] But it makes us feel good. :-) >I'm missing something here. I never said that *any* text-type was >dominant at an early date. Agreed, you did not. But it seems an either/or hypothesis. If all texts were local in nature, then how would dominance be rapidly achieved, even with the Arab conquest, since an amalgam of "local text" MSS should have dominated the Empire if there was no one dominant text. Even allowing the Arab conquest to remove two or three "localities," this would not under normal transmissional processes wipe out the otherwise-extant amalgam permeating the remainder of the Empire in such a way as to allow the rapid growth and dominance of a single remaining local text. >But I maintain that, *if* all areas had a local text (and the >assumption is that they would, even though different areas might have local texts >that were practically identical), and if all but one of those areas >were wiped out, we would expect that local text to become dominant. But how would this be accomplished _quickly_ under the slow "process" view of transmission? >Thus, one would expect the local text-type of Byzantium to be the >dominant one in later centuries. Doesn't matter what its earlier >history was. Except that one hardly has to wait till the 12th century to find this dominance already existing. Basically the history after the 10th century is irrelevant to the point. >One could even make an Old Testament analogy. Prior to the Flood, >most people were not descended from Noah. After it, if one believes >the Biblical account, they all were descended from Noah. Doesn't >mean Noah was the first man, just the first man to survive. Archetype, >not autograph. :-) Certainly. But I was talking transmission and neither archetype nor autograph. >The following example refers specifically to Sinai, but it could >be anywhere.... > >This is where data on manuscript origins would be really interesting. >However, I believe that you are making an unwitting assumption here. >The assumption being that most manuscripts were copied from old >exemplars. The evidence seems to indicate, if anything, the contrary. So far as I know, all extant MSS were copied from older exemplars. :-) _How_ old is another question, but they still are all in a line of transmission which stretches back for centuries. The problem is reflected in the Lake, Blake, and New study of the MSS at Sinai, Jerusalem, and Athos, which was somewhat frustrating to them since they saw no real signs of genealogical connection between the existing MSS preserved in each individual location (whether they were overly-pessimistic on this point is another matter). This implied clearly that the lines of transmission stemmed from what were apparently earlier exemplars which similarly preserved their relative genealogical autonomy, even within a basic Byzantine Textform. How far back this relative autonomy went, of course, no one knows. >So suppose someone showed up from Constantinople (not impossible by >any means, even *after* the Arab conquest; immigration controls are >a modern invention) with a nice fancy new manuscript of the Kx >recension, in this beautiful minuscule script, with accents and >breathings and spaces between words and Eusebian apparatus and all >that great stuff. And your alternative is to copy from something >like Sinaiticus, and try to add the accents yourself, and figure >out what all those correctors wrote. Which do you pick? Wait a minute -- first you have to explain how those isolated Sinai monks who were totally used to uncial MSS became attracted to and adopted the minuscule script (which only arises relative to NT MSS in the 8th century), long after the Muslim conquest of that region. And what would make them decide to abandon their centuries-long practice of copying in uncials (which for those who used such were _easier_ to read than minuscule (ask modern student collators), just as later on the minuscule became easier to read than uncial for those trained in such). And why would they use an upstart "new" MS of (say) Kx type as the basis for all their new copying endeavors when it differed so radically from what they had been supposedly been used to for centuries? Tradition is a difficult thing to overcome, but with a change of script added as well, it would seem well-nigh impossible. >Unless you're an early version of Hort, you're likely to pick the >Kx manuscript. Actually, I think the Sinai monks might well have been early versions of Hort, and would prefer the older uncials to which they had been used rather than any "new" and upstart differing text, especially assuming relative isolation caused by the Arab conquest as a preserving factor within their tradition. >So texts of this type could easily become widespread >*even in a place where the Byzantine text wasn't originally dominant.* If so, then what precisely did the Arab conquest damage in regard to MS transmission? Are you suggesting that MSS of a given texttype could flow _in_ to the isolated areas, but that those of a different texttype would not flow _out_? >Now this is just a hypothetical; I don't know what happened. But >one can't argue from Byzantine manuscripts (and not all recent >manuscripts at Sinai are Byzantine!) that the Byzantine text was >dominant there. The Byz MSS do dominate the collection at Sinai, as well as at Jerusalem. Whether such dominance existed from ancient times is a different matter, but quite clearly the Byztxt was dominant in those locations for most of the time following the Arab conquest. >For that matter -- where and when was Sinai founded? I will admit >that I don't know. But I doubt it was founded from Alexandria. That's >not based on textual theories; it's based on the fact that Egyptian >monks tended to go into the desert, not to Sinai, to meditate. >Sinai seems, from what little I know, to have been a Byzantine >foundation.... There are histories, but separating pious tradition from actual fact might be difficult. Probably no real reason to reject at least the Justinian-era foundation for some form of monastic activity in that area, and (if various traditions be correct) it may be likely that those MSS (including Aleph) which were found in that monastery may well have been there from close to the time they were written. But again, all is speculation on these points. ============================================== Maurice A. Robinson Professor of NT and Greek Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina From tc-list-owner Wed Sep 22 12:26:11 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id MAA24241 for tc-list-outgoing; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 12:26:03 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Message-ID: <01BF04DE.0BA0C680.kristin.detroyer@cst.edu> From: Kristin De Troyer To: "tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu" Subject: tc-list ABMC and IGNTP: A Response Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 09:37:09 -0700 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: 3649 To the TC List Membership, a Response to Gary Dykes: On Friday, September 17, Mr. Gary Dykes posted a message to the TC List entitled "A Lamentation and a Warning," which was critical of the Ancient Biblical Manuscript Center (ABMC), especially in terms of its role as repository of the microfilm collection of the International Greek New Testament Project (IGNTP). As Director of the ABMC, I offer the following response. The ABMC is a non-profit research organization which preserves and provides access to photographic and digital images of manuscripts from Jewish and Christian antiquity. At its office on the campus of the Claremont School of Theology, Claremont, CA, the ABMC maintains a climate-controlled vault which is home to an extensive collection of copy images of manuscripts. The ABMC is official repository of the microfilm collection of the International Greek New Testament Project. The ABMC serves the IGNTP by circulating films from its collection to IGNTP collators, and in turn is able to provide access to other qualified researchers. In his remarks, Mr. Dykes describes the poor condition of many films from the IGNTP collection. While in general most films of the IGNTP collection are sufficient for the needs of most users, there is no reason to deny that the problems noted by Mr. Dykes exist in the collection. Unfortunately, Mr. Dykes is unaware that steps to remedy these problems are underway, and his remarks do not recognize the history of the IGNTP collection. The IGNTP film collection has a long history. A large percentage of the films are celebrating their fiftieth birthday. It is important to emphasize that the collection was developed as a use and circulation collection to support a specific project. The problems described by Mr. Dykes result from fifty years of use by scholars. During its history the collection has also been maintained by four different institutions. The ABMC is the first facility providing the films a proper storage environment. With hindsight, we can lament the fact that early strategists of the IGNTP did not take steps to ensure the existence of an archival set of films, at least for those items of the IGNTP collection which would be most difficult to replace. However, the task now is to ensure the integrity of the collection as a resource for present and future scholars. Happily, in the last two years, members of the IGNTP have initiated such a program. A complete review of the films is underway. Problems are being recorded, and damaged films are being repaired. Probably most important, the generosity of several individuals has made possible new acquisitions. These acquisitions are being used both to replace damaged films and expand the collection. During the collection's tenure at the ABMC, limited efforts have been undertaken to address problems in parts of the collection. Funding and staff resources have not been adequate to initiate a comprehensive program. It is a great pleasure for ABMC staff to be able to work with the IGNTP to effect a review, repair, and acquisitions program. Even now, the work needs greater support. But at this time the talents of individuals of both IGNTP and ABMC are being brought to bear. As Mr. Dykes stated in his posting, he visited the ABMC on 9/16/99. During his visit he did not ask about the status of the IGNTP collection or efforts to conserve it. I am pleased to report these good things to him and all the participants on this list at this time. Michael B. Phelps Director, ABMC email: mphelps@abmc.org phone: 909-621-6451 fax: 909-621-1481 From tc-list-owner Wed Sep 22 17:47:26 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id RAA26557 for tc-list-outgoing; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 17:47:16 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f From: "Vinton A. Dearing" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 14:55:08 PST MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: tc-list Munster and others X-Confirm-Reading-To: "Vinton A. Dearing" X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) Message-ID: Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Content-Length: 857 My experience at Munster was similar to Glen Thompson's, and I have very happy memories of the kindnesses extended to me by Kurt Aland and his staff. I remember Dr. Aland saying more than once in our conversations "but, but, but," and have always wondered if he would have said "aber, aber, aber" if I had been at all fluent in German (obviously I still am not). I do not tell this to criticize his English, as I hope you will recognize. I also remember that he asked me specially to be careful to return material I had taken from the shelves to its proper place and when I almost at once put something back wrongly left my internal shame to be my only reprimand. The staff at Munster arranged for a local film shop to make copies of their films when they were not restricted by the holders of the original manuscripts. Vinton A. Dearing From tc-list-owner Wed Sep 22 19:12:15 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id TAA27068 for tc-list-outgoing; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 19:12:09 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 19:19:11 -0400 From: "Harold P. Scanlin" Subject: tc-list OT Hebrew mss # To: TC-List Message-ID: <199909221919_MC2-85E8-6A63@compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu id TAA27064 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Content-Length: 1894 Brotzman's estimate of 3,000 manuscripts refers only to the number of post-1100 manuscripts that were collated and studied by Kennicott and de Rossi. The total number would be signifcantly larger, including the 200+ Qumran biblical mss, the very extensive Cairo geniza mss, and the other pre-1100 mss. In his _Manuscritos hebreos y arameos de la Biblia_ (Rome: "Augustinianum", 1971) Alejandro Diez Macho offers the following guesstimate: 59,000 Hebrew mss, both biblical and non-biblical, and there may be as many as 207,000 fragments of Hebrew mss [the bulk of which would undoubtedly be the Geniza material]. Diez Macho then estimates that about 10% are biblical mss. In attempting to come up with a total, one needs to remember that the religious practice of producing torah scrolls is still active. Undoubtedly the vast majority of these torah scrolls are copies of the Rabbinic Bible text, although there is a project in Paris under the direction of C. Sirat and G. Biezunski to study the typology of torah scrolls. There is a great deal of information out there, though with significant gaps, regarding Hebrew manuscript collections. Unfortunately, there is nothing as yet approaching the thoroughness of the Gregory-Aland list. A good starting point for anyone interested in obtaining an overview of Hebrew mss is Benjamin Richler's _Guide to Hebrew Manuscript Collections_ (Jerusalem: Israel Academy, 1994, with at least one update on their website). Richler's guide is related to the extensive work that JNUL is undertaking. Of course, none of this covers the Old Greek mss. For these we have the old Rahlfs list, but the Goettingen edition project maintains an up to date list, with reference numbers. I have heard rumors that they may be planning to publish a new list. Harold P. Scanlin United Bible Societies 1865 Broadway New York, NY 10023 scanlin@compuserve.com From tc-list-owner Wed Sep 22 21:12:32 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id VAA27583 for tc-list-outgoing; Wed, 22 Sep 1999 21:12:17 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19990922201851.00814520@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> X-Sender: Joseph.Crea@postoffice.worldnet.att.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 20:18:51 -0500 To: tc-list From: Joseph Crea Subject: tc-list Josephus: The Slavonic Additions? In-Reply-To: <199909221919_MC2-85E8-6A63@compuserve.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Content-Length: 1071 Hello everyone! Here I am again showing off my ignorance (and lack of manners by asking off-topic questions). I recently encountered a couple of gentlemen who mentioned that, besides the customary references to the Testimonium Flavium (Antiq. xviii.iii.3) and the passing reference to James (Antiq. xx.ix.1), Josephus had written a statement to the effect that a plaque had been attached to the Temple walls proclaiming that "JESUS OF NAZARETH WAS PUT TO DEATH FOR PROPHESYING THE DESTRUCTION OF THIS HOLY PLACE". When queried as to the location of this remarkable bit of evidence they told me it was to be found in the "Slavonic Additions" to the __Jewish Wars__ of Josephus. I'll freely admit that until this point in time I had never even heard of these "Additions", and am at a loss to locate any references to this extraordinary addendum -- a quick search of the 'Net has turned up zilch. Can anyone enlighten me as to the status and bona fides of this document? Thanks in advance. With Mettaa, Joseph Crea With Mettaa From tc-list-owner Thu Sep 23 01:17:43 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id BAA28303 for tc-list-outgoing; Thu, 23 Sep 1999 01:17:32 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Message-ID: <000701bf0583$c4794600$b546d8cc@yhwh3in1> From: "Mr. Gary S. Dykes" To: References: <01BF04DE.0BA0C680.kristin.detroyer@cst.edu> Subject: Re: tc-list ABMC and IGNTP: A Response Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 22:23:27 -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: 2716 Mr. Michael B. Phelps wrote (in part) > > As Mr. Dykes stated in his posting, he visited the ABMC on 9/16/99. During > his visit he did not ask about the status of the IGNTP collection or > efforts to conserve it. I am pleased to report these good things to him > and all the participants on this list at this time. Good to hear from you! I did not ask because I supposed that the good news would have been announced in one of your "THE FOLIO" editions, if it was I missd it. But I just assumed that the collection was still in its state as it had been. Indeed this is good news! Mr Phelps also wrote: Happily, in the last two years, members of the IGNTP have initiated such a program. A complete review of the films is underway. Problems are being recorded, and damaged films are being repaired. Probably most important, the generosity of several individuals has made possible new acquisitions. These acquisitions are being used both to replace damaged films and expand the collection. Mr. Dykes replies: That would be months after I contacted the secretary of the IGNTP. (after May 1996). Would you mind being more specific, did McReynolds himself suggest improvements? (You may respond off line). I would be honored to know that my concern may have contributed to the on-going improvements. But you did not mention if any policy changes were also implemented. Does the IGNTP still send out its original (master film) to inquirers? Or are they insuring that they are kept safe by NOT sending them out. And those who are checking the present films and their status, are they newly 'hired" by the IGNTP, or is there no new personnel involved? I hope the collection forever remains there, and I hope you continue to preserve it, but I am encouraged by your post, I was not so critical of the ABMC, it is/was the IGNTP peoples who seemed to have formed the archiving policies, you could only work with what you have. In closing, ALL TC-list pastors, here is a splendid opportunity to be of service. Consider taking up an occasional donation for the ABMC!!! It really holds a national and Judeo-Christian treasure. Support is also needed for the Mt. Athos digitizing project. As mentioned earlier, it is not easy to enter the Mt. Athos complexes and to view and collate their holdings. But imagine 20,000 plus manuscripts being digitized and placed in all of their glory on the Internet for ALL to see!!! A dream, yes. The ABMC is now beginning this process, and they need help in doing so. Mr. Phelps is of course the source for more detailed information on this exciting project of great importance to all NT scholars in the whole world. at your service, Mr. Gary S. Dykes yhwh3in1@lightspeed.net From tc-list-owner Thu Sep 23 01:36:51 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id BAA28334 for tc-list-outgoing; Thu, 23 Sep 1999 01:36:48 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Message-ID: <001501bf0586$75f96b60$b546d8cc@yhwh3in1> From: "Mr. Gary S. Dykes" To: References: <199909221919_MC2-85E8-6A63@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: tc-list OT Hebrew mss # Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 22:42:42 -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: 1422 Scanlin wrote (in part): > Brotzman's estimate of 3,000 manuscripts refers only to the number of > post-1100 manuscripts that were collated and studied by Kennicott and de > Rossi. The total number would be signifcantly larger, including the 200+ > Qumran biblical mss, the very extensive Cairo geniza mss, and the other > pre-1100 mss. > > In his _Manuscritos hebreos y arameos de la Biblia_ (Rome: "Augustinianum", > 1971) Alejandro Diez Macho offers the following guesstimate: 59,000 Hebrew > mss, both biblical and non-biblical, and there may be as many as 207,000 > fragments of Hebrew mss [the bulk of which would undoubtedly be the Geniza > material]. Diez Macho then estimates that about 10% are biblical mss. > Yes, the Brotzman estimate needed defining, and your post prompted me to reply, perhaps I can add to your knowledgeable input. E. Tov suggest 6,000 Hebrew manuscripts of just the MT tradition. Of these about 2,700 are dated, all being prior to 1540. He mentions an additional 100 or so "oriental" type codices of the Hebrew OT. Add to this number the Qumran material, and we have a large number. Yes, it would be nice to see an exhaustive list of all extant Hebrew MSS of the Bible made before the printing press era, and a complete one, not just the MT MSS. at your service, Mr. Gary S. Dykes yhwh3in1@lightspeed.net Tov's estimates from his, TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE HEBREW BIBLE, 22ff. From tc-list-owner Thu Sep 23 03:25:05 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id DAA28631 for tc-list-outgoing; Thu, 23 Sep 1999 03:24:56 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Message-ID: <000f01bf0595$919fd3e0$0f46d8cc@yhwh3in1> From: "Mr. Gary S. Dykes" To: "tc-list" Subject: tc-list More to M. Robinson Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 00:30:52 -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: 6177 Greetings, Thank you for your input, it is exciting to meet others who are specialized in these areas of research. Much work yet needs to be done, and I would think that the younger scholars will find much room for numerous life-long projects here! Much of my work is cutting edge, and I see a cutting edge in your thoughts and queries as well. I am not going to begin a lengthy debate with you on line, but I would like to add a few more thoughts to your prior posts. M. Robinson wrote: Dykes wrote: > After the Arab invasions, outlying monasteries remained true to >this standard, but did (apparently) refer to old MSS in their possession >when copying or preserving them. Not exactly, since we find generally-Alexandrian MSS being copied in the 12th century at Sinai (e.g. MS 1241), with little or no attempt to "standardize" its text by alteration from whatever had been its exemplar. Either a standard is a standard or it is not; if the scribes were free to bring in readings from any other "old MSS" then in fact there was _no_ standard which consciously had to be preserved. Dykes replies: Interesting. First one must determine why a certain minuscule was "copied". If it was for liturgical purposes then I suggest it adheres to the liturgy of the folks for whom it was copied. If it is a copy (for preservation purposes) then it can contain any type of text at hand. If the copy was one which was paid for by someone, then they may have imposed stipulations, and it may then conform to any type or be a complete deviation from any standard. I find, in my research, that a true standard Constantinopolitan text reigns supreme at the Sinai monastery. Of course they copy other materials as well. I present minuscule 1878 and 1879 as a sample of a MS possibly written at St. Catherine's but preserving the Byzantine standard. It seems to me (and further research is ongoing) that most surviving minuscules at St. Catherine's are of this standard. K. Weitzmann's work is a fine initial resource for preliminary investigations in this area. Manuscripts were also made for training purposes, and numerous manuscripts show the use of numerous exemplars, such as minuscule 1243, possibly written at Sinai. In the Pauline corpus, I have discovered that it (1243) radically changes its "text-type", probably due to using another exemplar. Most of it is of the Ecclesiastical Byzantine standard. M. Robinson wrote in part: Dykes wrote: >strictly of a Byzantine Ecclesiastical Standard, as yet I have not >found any MSS circa 900 - 1300 written in Constantinople which are not >conformed to this standard. I have not found any MSS copied within this same period which reflect any such "standard"; so we differ on this point (note that the "general" Byzantine text found in most MSS of this period is not itself evidence of any standard being imposed; the differences in the MSS themselves serve as evidence against such a control ever having been made). Dykes replies: Note that I said "written in Constantinople". Careful preliminary research is required before one can state the provenance of manuscripts which have no written declarations of origin. In my research I suggest that these minuscules were written in Constantinople (or Nicaea), others must prove otherwise: I present: minuscule 1315 minuscule 421 minuscule 796 minuscule 712 (at UCLA) minuscule 1424 (in Illinois) in the Pauline portion, I have not fully examined its gospel text as yet. This is just a sampling, these decisions are somewhat tentative, but they are based upon numerous factors. Minuscules 1878/1879 and 226 "could" have been written in Constantinople. St. Saba, and other Palestinian monasteries did stay in contact with Constantinople throughout the Arab rule. But they did so by way of Calabria, Sicily and probably the Grotta Ferrata. Many of the styles seen in numerous Palestinian MSS suggest a Calabrian influence, even the Sassnian art work (per Buchthal). So a fresh influx of Byzantine MSS into the Palestinian monastery St. Sabas seems to be a real possibility. Yet I am fairly certain that they also possessed older "proto-Byzantine" materials, which survived the iconoclast revolt. The folks at Dumbarton Oaks offer vast resources for Byzantine history, for texts and illuminations. Henry and Renee Kahane in an article "The Western Impact on Byzantium" DOP #36, page 133, offer this tidbit as to the lexical influence of Latin upon the outlying Byzantine institutions (monasteries): "...the lexicon of this monastic literature displayed a correlation between the density of Latinisms and the distance of the a text's origin from the capital: the closer to the Polis, to Constantinople, the fewer the Latin elements." They go on to suggest that these implications and others, show that any standard was more enforced the closer it was to Constantinople. I tend to agree. The antiquity of the Byzantine text-type can be validated by careful research, but as Von Soden pointed out, there are sub-groups, I would term them as temporal layers. I believe the oldest stratum was the archetype for the Alexandrine text-type BEFORE the Alexandrine grammarians adjusted it. I also believe it was the archetype for the Syro-Latin recensions as well. And finally, yes mediaeval scribes did a fine job, but my research (and Ehrman's) show that intentional changes were made to the text. Reuben Swanson's work (his Greek text apparatus) can validate this in many cases. So a fidelity existed, but so did other factors, and each manuscript needs careful analysis before it can yield fruit. Hence the need for open unrestricted access for those who do this laborious research. Recall my correction, that minuscule 1837 was written in Calabria, and is by the same scribe as the Ferrar 124. (another revelation stemming from my original research) thus minuscule 1837 presents a praxapostolos witness to the Pauline Caesarean text (so my research indicates). Fascinating. at your service, Mr. Gary S. Dykes (perhaps if you wish to continue this potentially long dialog and discussion, we could go off-line). From tc-list-owner Thu Sep 23 07:35:15 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id HAA29927 for tc-list-outgoing; Thu, 23 Sep 1999 07:34:53 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 07:44:22 -0400 From: Jim West Subject: Re: tc-list Josephus: The Slavonic Additions? X-Sender: jwest@highland.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.32.19990923114422.0067a148@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: 1437 At 08:18 PM 9/22/99 -0500, you wrote: >Hello everyone! > > Here I am again showing off my ignorance (and lack of manners by asking >off-topic questions). I recently encountered a couple of gentlemen who >mentioned that, besides the customary references to the Testimonium Flavium >(Antiq. xviii.iii.3) and the passing reference to James (Antiq. xx.ix.1), >Josephus had written a statement to the effect that a plaque had been >attached to the Temple walls proclaiming that "JESUS OF NAZARETH WAS PUT TO >DEATH FOR PROPHESYING THE DESTRUCTION OF THIS HOLY PLACE". When queried as >to the location of this remarkable bit of evidence they told me it was to >be found in the "Slavonic Additions" to the __Jewish Wars__ of Josephus. >I'll freely admit that until this point in time I had never even heard of >these "Additions", and am at a loss to locate any references to this >extraordinary addendum -- a quick search of the 'Net has turned up zilch. >Can anyone enlighten me as to the status and bona fides of this document? >Thanks in advance. Etienne Nodet is the fellow you need to ask about this. He knows Josephus better than any human alive and he has done extensive work on the slavonic text of Josephus. If you want to pursue this contact me offlist and I will send along his email address to you. Best, Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD email- jwest@highland.net web page- http://web.infoave.net/~jwest From tc-list-owner Thu Sep 23 09:22:08 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id JAA00384 for tc-list-outgoing; Thu, 23 Sep 1999 09:20:39 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Message-ID: <004501bf05e8$324382e0$1a6829a4@vicente.unb.br> From: "Vicente Dobroruka" To: Subject: tc-list Josephus Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 10:22:11 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3612.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3612.1700 X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by mail.unb.br id KAA03035 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu id JAA00380 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Content-Length: 963 Dear Joseph, Josephus has a completely different rendering of the Testimonium in Slavonic. Spurious or not, the text reads Jesus' story quite differently, even if I have never seen the mss. myself. I know they are dealt with in P.Pascal. La prise de Jérusalem. Paris, 1961, and there is also a book that is soon to be released called Josephus' Jewish War and Its Slavonic Version : A Synoptic Comparison (Arbeiten Zur Geschichte Des Antiken Judentums Und Des Urchristentums, Bd. 46.), by Lyubov V. Osinkina (Editor) and Bernard Orchard (Editor). However, this will cost US$ 212.00. If the Testimonium interests you that much, you can also look up the account of the Testimonium in the Arabic version of Agapius (10th century, I think). This can be found in a most profound analysis in Shlomo Pines. An Arabic Version of the Testimonium Flavianum. Jerusalem. Isareli Academy for the Sciences and Humanities, 1971. Be well, Prof. Vicente Dobroruka From tc-list-owner Thu Sep 23 09:30:45 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id JAA00431 for tc-list-outgoing; Thu, 23 Sep 1999 09:29:14 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 09:36:52 -0400 From: "Harold P. Scanlin" Subject: tc-list Josephus: The Slavonic Additions? To: "INTERNET:tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu" Message-ID: <199909230936_MC2-85FA-F4CD@compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu id JAA00427 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Content-Length: 1241 Joseph Crea asked about the Slavonic Josephus. > I recently encountered a couple of gentlemen who > mentioned that, besides the customary references to the Testimonium Flavium > (Antiq. xviii.iii.3) and the passing reference to James (Antiq. xx.ix.1), > Josephus had written a statement to the effect that a plaque had been > attached to the Temple walls proclaiming that "JESUS OF NAZARETH WAS PUT TO > DEATH FOR PROPHESYING THE DESTRUCTION OF THIS HOLY PLACE". When queried as > to the location of this remarkable bit of evidence they told me it was to > be found in the "Slavonic Additions" to the __Jewish Wars__ of Josephus. > Can anyone enlighten me as to the status and bona fides of this document? It is a late expansionistic version, perhaps with additions intended to add to the paucity of references to the historical Jesus. In addition to Nodet, you may want to check Solomon Zeitlin's _Josephus on Jesus, with particular reference to the Slavonic Josephus and the Hebrew Josippon_ (Philadelphia: Dropsie, 1931). Zeitlin was (in)famous for his view that the DSS were forgeries, but his work on Josephus might be helpful. Harold P. Scanlin United Bible Societies 1865 Broadway New York, NY 10023 scanlin@compuserve.com From tc-list-owner Thu Sep 23 16:34:11 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id QAA03268 for tc-list-outgoing; Thu, 23 Sep 1999 16:33:12 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Message-ID: X-SMF-Message-ID: E423C9330100A0AA X-SMF-Hop-Count: 2 Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 16:37:00 -0400 From: Gerald Lincoln To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu X-EXP32-SerialNo: 00102900 Subject: RCPT: tc-list Munster and others 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: 59 Return Receipt Notification --------------------------- From tc-list-owner Fri Sep 24 10:56:51 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id KAA07469 for tc-list-outgoing; Fri, 24 Sep 1999 10:55:12 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list Munster and others Message-ID: <19990924.105607.13447.0.seventh.guardian@juno.com> References: X-Mailer: Juno 1.49 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0,2-7,17 From: "Maurice A. Robinson" Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 11:01:34 EDT Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Content-Length: 1132 On Wed, 22 Sep 1999 14:55:08 PST "Vinton A. Dearing" writes: >The staff at Munster arranged for a local film shop to make copies of >their films when they were not restricted by the holders of the >original manuscripts. Does this policy still hold? It had not been mentioned to me while there, but if so, this would go a long way to help scholars who might require copies of MSS which are otherwise freely available (cost of duplication and mailing would still be a factor, of course). My understanding was that, as a general policy, no copies of any films were being made, regardless of restriction, but what Dr Dearing mentions would seem a more proper course, at least in regard to those films which have no restrictions attached (I would assume that there would be some list which clearly identifies files as being with or without restriction regarding duplication). ___________________________________________________________________ Get the Internet just the way you want it. Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month! Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj. From tc-list-owner Fri Sep 24 10:58:13 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id KAA07491 for tc-list-outgoing; Fri, 24 Sep 1999 10:56:52 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list More Message-ID: <19990924.105608.13447.2.seventh.guardian@juno.com> References: <000f01bf0595$919fd3e0$0f46d8cc@yhwh3in1> X-Mailer: Juno 1.49 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0,2-4,6-8,13-14,16-18,20,22-23,31-35,40-43,45-47, 55-57,60,62-64,70-72,74,76-79,86,90-91,93-95,97-99,103-108, 112-116,123-128 From: "Maurice A. Robinson" Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 11:01:34 EDT Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Content-Length: 6334 On Thu, 23 Sep 1999 00:30:52 -0700 "Mr. Gary S. Dykes" writes: >Interesting. First one must determine why a certain minuscule was >"copied". If it was for liturgical purposes then I suggest it adheres to the >liturgy of the folks for whom it was copied. Not necessarily. The Kr MSS are specifically those which were customized for lectionary use, even though continuous text in format, yet they did _not_ conform or adhere to the "standard" lectionary text pattern, but generally retained their own "distinctive" (Cf. Voss) continuous-text sub-type of the Byzantine. >If it is a copy (for preservation purposes) then it can contain any type of text at hand. Most copies found in monasteries probably qualify under this heading. >If the copy was one which was paid for by someone, then they may have imposed >stipulations, and it may then conform to any type or be a complete deviation from >any standard. Very doubtful as regards text. The format, handwriting, and decoration of commissioned MSS certainly differs in magnificence and quality from other more "normal" MSS, but the text is not itself significantly different than that found in run-of-the-mill MSS of the same period. Very doubtful if any one rich enough to commission a copy of the Scriptures (often intended as a gift to a specific monastic institution) would have had any say, let alone concern with the type of text or readings to be inserted into such MSS. >I find, in my research, that a true standard Constantinopolitan >text reigns supreme at the Sinai monastery. Pray tell then _which_ MS is the "standard" among the Sinai MSS? Answer: there is none, despite a general Byzantine Textform seen among most of the minuscules there. Otherwise, even these differ significantly enough among themselves to rule out any "true standard" text to which they were obligated to conform. >materials as well. I present minuscule 1878 and 1879 as a sample of a >MS possibly written at St. Catherine's but preserving the Byzantine >standard. It seems to me (and further research is ongoing) that most surviving >minuscules at St. Catherine's are of this standard. If so, then how many other MSS (even at Sinai) _really_ preserve and conform to such a "standard", and what are the evidences for "control" in this regard? I doubt that very many other MSS at Sinai or elsewhere will qualify as "standard exemplars", and if they do, then it remains obvious that few scribes ever were concerned with maintaining or perpetuating such a "standard." This basically means there was no _de facto_ "standard," even if a generally Byzantine text is preserved in the majority of MSS. >Manuscripts were also made for training purposes, and numerous >manuscripts show the use of numerous exemplars, such as minuscule 1243, >possibly written at Sinai. In the Pauline corpus, I have discovered that it (1243) >radically changes its "text-type", probably due to using another exemplar. Most >of it is of the Ecclesiastical Byzantine standard. But you think such was only a "training MS" and not a legitimately-intended product? I seriously doubt this. Not much different from the situation of MS 33 in Acts (cf Geer), which also changes textual alignment midstream, but which certainly was _not_ a "training" device. Ditto for MS W in the Gospels which leaps back and forth among texttypes due to different exemplars being used. >Note that I said "written in Constantinople". Careful preliminary >research is required before one can state the provenance of manuscripts which >have no written declarations of origin. In my research I suggest that these >minuscules were written in Constantinople (or Nicaea), others must prove >otherwise A suggestion is not proof, and even if the MSS you list were all copied in Constantinople and have a similar text, what about their differences among themselves which would negate the concept of a "standard" as well as what about other MSS copied at Constantinople which would have a differing text from the ones you list? Since provenance is highly questionable in the absence of clear proof (via a colophon or other notation), so will be conclusions based upon supposition. (Since I am not working with Pauline MSS, I cannot comment further on your claims; full collations of course would allow interested parties to examine such, but in their absence I suspect no one can say much in any direction on this point). >[re:] the lexical influence of Latin upon the outlying Byzantine institutions >(monasteries) >They go on to suggest that these implications and others, show that >any standard was more enforced the closer it was to Constantinople. I tend >to agree. This is apples and oranges as far as NT text and MS copying is involved, especially when it concerns Latin usage in Greek speaking areas. Sorry, but I am not exactly sympathetic with conclusions drawn from this line of argument. >I believe the oldest stratum was the archetype for >the Alexandrine text-type BEFORE the Alexandrine grammarians adjusted >it. I have strong reservations about this as well, especially since I have a paper in the works on "The Search for the Alexandrian Archetype" which suggests that such would have to be distinctly different from whatever had been the archetype of the Byzantine Textform. >And finally, yes mediaeval scribes did a fine job, but my research >(and Ehrman's) show that intentional changes were made to the text. Few and far between as compared to accidental causes of variation (contrary to Colwell's exaggerated claim that "the majority of changes were made for doctrinal or dogmatic reasons"). Also Ehrman refers specifically to doctrinal variations as opposed to other intentional changes such as correcting grammar, resolving difficulties, smoothing readings etc., which probably predominate over doctrinal changes by a wide margin. More apples and oranges. >Mr. Gary S. Dykes (perhaps if you wish to continue this potentially >long dialog and discussion, we could go off-line). Preferably not; too much to do and too little time.... ___________________________________________________________________ Get the Internet just the way you want it. Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month! Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj. From tc-list-owner Sat Sep 25 00:16:00 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id AAA10809 for tc-list-outgoing; Sat, 25 Sep 1999 00:15:32 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Message-ID: <000701bf070d$704e1d40$1c46d8cc@yhwh3in1> From: "Mr. Gary S. Dykes" To: References: <000f01bf0595$919fd3e0$0f46d8cc@yhwh3in1> <19990924.105608.13447.2.seventh.guardian@juno.com> Subject: Re: tc-list More Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 21:21:26 -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: 8927 ----- From: Maurice A. Robinson > Not necessarily. The Kr MSS are specifically those which were customized > for lectionary use, even though continuous text in format, yet they did > _not_ conform or adhere to the "standard" lectionary text pattern, but > generally retained their own "distinctive" (Cf. Voss) continuous-text > sub-type of the Byzantine. Dykes replies: (briefly) Apples and oranges, lectionaries were predisposed to sectarian manipulations much more so that the accepted Biblical text. Dykes wrote: > >If the copy was one which was paid for by someone, then they may have > imposed > >stipulations, and it may then conform to any type or be a complete > deviation from >any standard. Robinson replies: >Very doubtful as regards text. The format, handwriting, and decoration of > commissioned MSS certainly differs in magnificence and quality from other > more "normal" MSS, but the text is not itself significantly different > than that found in run-of-the-mill MSS of the same period. Very doubtful > if any one rich enough to commission a copy of the Scriptures (often > intended as a gift to a specific monastic institution) would have had any > say, let alone concern with the type of text or readings to be inserted > into such MSS. Dykes replies: Not all MSS written for private use or for sale were commissioned, and you cite no evidence to verify your theory. Several MSS produced in Latin Jerusalem were commissioned, and they had to confrom to a particular text-type, which was NOT the text-type which was predominate in Palestine, I present ms Vatican lat 5974, written circa A. D. 1180. You must discount this proof. I agree that numerous commissioned MSS adhere to the particular belief system under which they were produced. Robinson wrote: Dykes wrote > >I find, in my research, that a true standard Constantinopolitan > >text reigns supreme at the Sinai monastery. > > Pray tell then _which_ MS is the "standard" among the Sinai MSS? Answer: > there is none, despite a general Byzantine Textform seen among most of > the minuscules there. Otherwise, even these differ significantly enough > among themselves to rule out any "true standard" text to which they were > obligated to conform. Dykes replies: Your answer gives no proof. I presented 1879 and 1878 as examples of the Ecclesiastical Byzantine Standard at Mt. Sinai (St. Catherines). This text served also in many of their liturgical commentaries by monks known to have spent years at Sinai (John Klimax, was an early one, his works evoke numerous Byzantine concepts which later became traditions, such as the necessity for good works, water baptism, yet he also dealt very little upon the Virgin Mary). The standard is clearly preserved in numerous MSS still at St. Catherines. If your study (I am amazed that your study of it proved otherwise!) of 1878 did not convince you then also study: ms 1243 (most of its text) ms. 1245 ms. 2492 (all except I and II Thessalonians which revert to a SL text-type) After you have carefully studied these, you should come to the conclusion that a singular text is present in all of these (plus 1878, 1879). Interestingly, these particular MSS also agree extremely close with many many other Byzantine era MSS produced in the Stoudious scriptorium, and at Mt. Athos, and in Jerusalem, and in Cappadocia, and in Macedonia, and on Crete, et cetera. Are all of these coincidences? Robinson asks: > But you think such was only a "training MS" and not a > legitimately-intended product? NO Robinson wrote: > A suggestion is not proof, and even if the MSS you list were all copied > in Constantinople and have a similar text, what about their differences > among themselves which would negate the concept of a "standard" as well > as what about other MSS copied at Constantinople which would have a > differing text from the ones you list? Since provenance is highly > questionable in the absence of clear proof (via a colophon or other > notation), so will be conclusions based upon supposition. > (Since I am not working with Pauline MSS, I cannot comment further on > your claims; full collations of course would allow interested parties to > examine such, but in their absence I suspect no one can say much in any > direction on this point). Dykes replies: The differences are very minor, much like those which exist between the various editions of the KJ Versions -- some accidental, some editorial, some in an effort to improve. Without colophon(s), special research is required, of which you are apparently naive of. The results are not always final, nor can a complete palaeographical, liturgical, codicological, lexical, linguistic, gesture/symbol analysis, tachyographical analysis, pigment analysis, illumination style, atelier ID's, menologians, synaxarion, notes, stichoi readings, corrections, and many many other factors prove conclusive, but when they ALL agree, one is rash to ignore the overall evidence. In fact I have seen a colophon date written in in the original hand which was wrong! This research takes time, and has not been done for many Byzantine era MSS. But via my preliminary investigations, your suppositions are suspect. Robinson wrote: Dykes wrote: >[re:] the lexical influence of Latin upon the outlying Byzantine > institutions >(monasteries) > > >They go on to suggest that these implications and others, show that > >any standard was more enforced the closer it was to Constantinople. I > tend to agree. > > This is apples and oranges as far as NT text and MS copying is involved, > especially when it concerns Latin usage in Greek speaking areas. Sorry, > but I am not exactly sympathetic with conclusions drawn from this line > of argument. Dykes replies: You apparently failed to make the connection. I used their research (which you must read before you can grasp it), to show that my research is similar, for the Byzantine standard text rules supreme, but seems to be subject to more and more dilution the farther it is away from Constantinople's control (geographically). Thus a MS like 1241 could be found at St. Catherine's (if indeed it is as you say it is), and a MS like 124 can be made in Calabria. recall that not all peoples and scribes in the Provincial areas were sympathetic with the Byzantine theology, major disputes often occurred, and the MS survivors mirror this, in subtle ways. Also must I inform you that the surviving monasteries became the places into which many outlying MSS were later deposited for safekeeping, MSS which may have had very little to do with that monasteries scribal activities? Dykes wrote: > >And finally, yes mediaeval scribes did a fine job, but my research > >(and Ehrman's) show that intentional changes were made to the text. Robibnson replies: > Few and far between as compared to accidental causes of variation > (contrary to Colwell's exaggerated claim that "the majority of changes > were made for doctrinal or dogmatic reasons"). Also Ehrman refers > specifically to doctrinal variations as opposed to other intentional > changes such as correcting grammar, resolving difficulties, smoothing > readings etc., which probably predominate over doctrinal changes by a > wide margin. More apples and oranges. Dykes replies: Doctrinal errors (or intentional changes) are probably more subtle than you suspect. Often it can be seen as a phonetic error (a simple change in tense), or a punctuation change, or even a minor accent change. Note I am NOT saying that all changes are doctrinal, but I am suggesting that more are than you are apparently aware of. Yes Ehrman focuses upon doctrinal changes, but they are ALL textual, usually he points the reader to obvious ones which exhibit omissions and additions. But Ehrman has just touched the tip of the iceberg. His brief introduction cannot fully show all of the textual (grammatical et cetera) changes. He states as much in his conclusion. Ehrman and I agree, scribes did intentionally alter their texts. John 1:18 is a good one for practice, by studying it, you may begin to see a pattern, and after studying thousands of such variations you may then be able to speak with authority. I look forward to your new work, how and where and when can I obtain it? I am not sure where you expertise is (teaching ?), so please inform me of your specialties. It is hard to share certain new materials with anyone who is not famaliar with the specialized techniques involved. Knowing more about your expertise can assist with my answering of your questions, and dealing better with your input. And again, my next reply to you will be off-line, as I do not wish to further bore the TC list with my preliminary researches or specializations. Though I am always available for questions, or discussion. at your service, Mr. Gary S. Dykes yhwh3in1@lightspeed.net From tc-list-owner Mon Sep 27 08:52:57 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id IAA21215 for tc-list-outgoing; Mon, 27 Sep 1999 08:52:07 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Message-ID: <37EF788C.42B61410@uni-muenster.de> Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 15:00:48 +0100 From: Klaus Wachtel X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [de] (Macintosh; I; PPC) X-Accept-Language: de MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list Munster and others References: <19990924.105607.13447.0.seventh.guardian@juno.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Content-Length: 1434 "Maurice A. Robinson" wrote: > On Wed, 22 Sep 1999 14:55:08 PST "Vinton A. Dearing" > writes: > > >The staff at Munster arranged for a local film shop to make copies of > >their films when they were not restricted by the holders of the > >original manuscripts. > > Does this policy still hold? It had not been mentioned to me while there, > but if so, this would go a long way to help scholars who might require > copies of MSS which are otherwise freely available (cost of duplication > and mailing would still be a factor, of course). My understanding was > that, as a general policy, no copies of any films were being made, > regardless of restriction, but what Dr Dearing mentions would seem a more > proper course, at least in regard to those films which have no > restrictions attached (I would assume that there would be some list which > clearly identifies files as being with or without restriction regarding > duplication). > > ___________________________________________________________________ > 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. The 'policy' is not to copy microfilms for use outside of the institute. The reasons have all been mentioned before, above all restrictions by the owners of the originals. Klaus Wachtel Institut f. neutestamentliche Textforschung From tc-list-owner Mon Sep 27 11:59:14 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id LAA22614 for tc-list-outgoing; Mon, 27 Sep 1999 11:58:44 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Message-ID: <37EF961D.5280C0CC@emory.edu> Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 12:06:53 -0400 From: Patrick Durusau X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: tc-list XPentateuch (.01) 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: 1424 Greetings, Just a short note to announce the release of XPentateuch (.01). The release consists of the King James and Vulgate versions of the Pentateuch encoded at the word level in XML markup with a container element surrounding each "book" as a corpus of words. Each word bears a unique ID to facilitate the addition of annotations to the text or for imposing verse/chapter or other divisions onto these materials. These should not be considered canonical versions of either text and should be used for experimental purposes only. (Please see the Readme file for further information.) I hope to include examples with future releases of this material, including demonstrations of constructing XML documents using XLinks and XSL stylesheets for transforming as well as displaying the text for various purposes. All contributions of XLink/XSL materials will be acknowledged in the Readme file as well as in any future release announcements. The distribution is available at: ftp://shemesh.scholar.emory.edu/pub/XPentateuch.tar.gz The file XPentateuch.tar.gz consists of: FileList Readme deuteronomy-kjv.xml deuteronomy-vul.xml exodus-kjv.xml exodus-vul.xml genesis-kjv.xml genesis-vul.xml leviticus-kjv.xml leviticus-vul.xml numbers-kjv.xml numbers-vul.xml Comments, suggestions and contributions are welcome. Patrick -- Patrick Durusau Information Technology Services Scholars Press pdurusau@emory.edu Manager, ITS From tc-list-owner Mon Sep 27 16:04:42 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id QAA24342 for tc-list-outgoing; Mon, 27 Sep 1999 16:04:28 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 16:04:27 -0400 (EDT) From: "James R. Adair" To: TC List Subject: tc-list Marcus article in TC 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: 1407 A new article has been published in TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism. The author is David Marcus of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, and the title of the article is "Aramaic Mnemonics in Codex Leningradensis." Abstract: This article outlines the nature and extent of the Aramaic mnemonics which occur in some Masorah magna notes in Codex Leningradensis. The various problems involved in the interpretation of these mnemonics are discussed, and a practical suggestion is offered concerning how these mnemonics may be useful for modern scholars. A complete list of the Aramaic mnemonics--along with translations, references to the biblical text, and notes--is given in the Appendix. More articles and reviews will appear in TC shortly. People interested in contributing to TC are welcome to send me a copy of your article. Those interested in writing a book review can contact Leonard Greenspoon, the TC book review editor, at ljgrn@creighton.edu. *********************************************************************** 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 Sep 28 01:57:00 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id BAA26196 for tc-list-outgoing; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 01:55:12 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Message-ID: <37F05207.1272@oneimage.com> Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 23:28:39 -0600 From: "robert s. morse" X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list Subject: tc-list Muenster Institute 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: 830 Dear tc-ers: In catching up on the past few weeks' messages, it appears that the Muenster Institute has taken quite some flak. My several inquiries to the Institut have received very gracious and professional responses. It would seem not to be the Germans' fault that we Americans live three to six thousand miles from Muenster. Our Pilgrim Fathers could have remained in Leiden and been within driving distance of the Institut! The information the Institut shares I see as "of grace and not of works", and it is up to them how they handle their treasures. I, for one, am tickled pink that such an institute exists and makes the enormous contributions that it does. I'm also glad to put in a plug for the Ancient Biblical Manuscript Center, which has been most helpful to me in its film-sharing. Best wishes to all, Bob Morse From tc-list-owner Tue Sep 28 10:55:52 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id KAA28609 for tc-list-outgoing; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 10:53:57 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: tc-list End of the Tunnel Message-ID: <19990928.105022.11215.2.seventh.guardian@juno.com> References: <000f01bf0595$919fd3e0$0f46d8cc@yhwh3in1> <19990924.105608.13447.2.seventh.guardian@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.49 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0,2-6,8-12,16-17,21-22,25-31,33-34,36-41,44-47, 49-51,59-65,69-78,82-83,92-94,96-100,102,104-106,114-118, 122-126,130-139,143-144,147,149-150,152-153,158-163,165-173 From: "Maurice A. Robinson" Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 10:56:25 EDT Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Content-Length: 7987 On Fri, 24 Sep 1999 21:21:26 -0700 "Mr. Gary S. Dykes" writes: >Apples and oranges, lectionaries were predisposed to sectarian >manipulations much more so that the accepted Biblical text. Since my point cannot be grasped, further discussion is futile. The remainder of this response proves it. >Not all MSS written for private use or for sale were commissioned, and >you cite no evidence to verify your theory. The point under discussion concerned commissioned MSS. There certainly are known commissioned MSS, with no evidence those commissioning such ever dictated the type of text to be followed. That alone was the original point, with no evidence extant to support the contrary. >Several MSS produced in Latin Jerusalem were commissioned, and they had to >confrom to a particular text-type, which was NOT the text-type which was >predominate in Palestine, I present ms Vatican lat 5974, written circa A. D. 1180. >You must discount this proof. Since this "proof" does not concern Greek NT MSS at all, it is irrelevant. The transmissional history of the Latin versions, including the Vulgate, is a wholly different matter. > Dykes wrote >> >I find, in my research, that a true standard Constantinopolitan >> >text reigns supreme at the Sinai monastery. >> >> Pray tell then _which_ MS is the "standard" among the Sinai MSS? >>Answer: there is none, despite a general Byzantine Textform seen among most >>of the minuscules there. Otherwise, even these differ significantly >>enough among themselves to rule out any "true standard" text to which they >>were obligated to conform. > >Dykes replies: >Your answer gives no proof. Actually, I (and who knows who else) despair of ever getting to the point of providing "proof" which you could recognize or accept. The point was clear in the statement above. >I presented 1879 and 1878 as examples of the >Ecclesiastical Byzantine Standard at Mt. Sinai (St. Catherines). This >text served also in many of their liturgical commentaries by monks known to >have spent years at Sinai As noted, I am not working with the Pauline MSS, and will not attempt to address that with which I am not personally familiar. I still would ask _why_, if those two MSS were the "Ecclesiastical Byzantine Standard" (whether at Sinai or elsewhere), other MSS containing the same portions of text found at those same institutions do _not_ conform to such a standard, if indeed there ever was such a standard with "controls" imposed? The MSS simply differ among themselves, and vary widely, from any supposed enforced "standard". >(John Klimax, was an early one, his works evoke >numerous Byzantine concepts which later became traditions, such as the >necessity for good works, water baptism, yet he also dealt very >little upon the Virgin Mary). What this has to do with Byzantine continuous-text MSS and a "standard" text is beyond me. Do you have a monograph prepared on "The NT text of John Climacus?" with its textual alignments established by a recognized method? I didn't think so. >The standard is clearly preserved in numerous MSS still at >St. Catherines. If your study (I am amazed that your study of it >proved otherwise!) of 1878 did not convince you then also study: >ms 1243 (most of its text) ] >ms. 1245 >ms. 2492 (all except I and II Thessalonians which revert to a SL >text-type) As I stated (how many times before??), I am _not_ working with MSS in the Pauline Epistles and thus have _no_ comment to make either way in that regard. Thus I have _no_ "study" to cite regarding MS 1878. Let others comment on this point (if they dare). HOWEVER, you now add in two MSS which contain the gospels as well as Paul (MSS 1243, of cent. xi, and MS 2492, of cent. xiv), and I can give you clear and definite information regarding the performance of those two MSS in the portion Jn 7:51-8:13: in that portion of text, these two MSS differ **significantly** from one another -- even in the portions of text _surrounding_ and _not_ including the Pericope Adulterae! They simply are _not_ textually alike or related to each other in _any_ way when their variant readings are examined in this gospel portion. So much for "standards". >After you have carefully studied these, you should come to the >conclusion that a singular text is present in all of these (plus 1878, 1879). On the basis of that stated above, I have serious doubts. >Interestingly, these particular MSS also agree extremely close with >many many other Byzantine era MSS produced in the Stoudious scriptorium, >and at Mt. Athos, and in Jerusalem, and in Cappadocia, and in Macedonia, and >on Crete, et cetera. Are all of these coincidences? Since I don't concur (on the basis of the hard evidence cited), I doubt very much that these same MSS agree any more than typical Byzantine MSS happen to agree as regards a non-enforced common text. Why didn't those two agree in the gospel portion cited if they as a complete product were intended to reflect a standardized text of any sort? Cite any other MSS which also are extant in that portion of John's gospel, and I can speak definitively; otherwise, continued discussion of these points as regards only the Paulines is merely talking past each other, and a waste of time. >Without colophon(s), special research is required, >of which you are apparently naive of. It seems I already addressed this point, and agreed on the importance of determining provenance by colophons, palaeography, and a multitude of other means. Did you miss that point? *Me* naive? I suppose I am; I'm responding to this discussion, right? I give up.... >I have seen a colophon date written in in the original hand which >was wrong! Amazing. So have I. But many colophons are written by a hand much later than that of the original scribe (cf. Clark's _Descriptive Catalog_ for specific instances). What is the point, except that colophons alone do not determine either date or provenance, and on this we agree. >But via my preliminary investigations, your suppositions are suspect. Good. And by my investigations, so are yours. Welcome to the club. >Thus a MS like 1241 could be found at St. Catherine's (if >indeed it is as you say it is), and a MS like 124 can be made in >Calabria. I fail to see the point. As for MS 1241 it has long been available in collation form (Lake and New, _Six Collations_, 1932), and the conclusions regarding its text are hardly "my" say-so. That f13 MSS have an ultimate Calabrian origin is also old news. >Ehrman and I agree, scribes did intentionally alter their texts. John 1:18 is a good >one for practice, by studying it, you may begin to see a pattern, and after studying >thousands of such variations you may then be able to speak with authority. Right. Thanks for the tip. One day I hope to actually begin studying some variants. :-) As an aside: Bart, I'm glad you have a friend on this point, especially when (as I recall) you defend as original the Byzantine text at Jn 1:18 while other modern eclectics favor the Alexandrian reading. It must have been your studying those thousands of variants which got you on the right track at that point. (And yes I _am_ being sarcastic). :-) >And again, my next reply to you will be off-line, as I do not wish to >further bore the TC list with my preliminary researches or >specializations. Don't worry. I have ended the off-line discussion before it begins. There happen to be certain limits, and mine have been reached. My contribution to this thread is now (mercifully) ended. :-) ============================================== Maurice A. Robinson Professor of NT and Greek Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ___________________________________________________________________ Get the Internet just the way you want it. Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month! Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj. From tc-list-owner Tue Sep 28 12:53:56 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id MAA29638 for tc-list-outgoing; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 12:52:33 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 13:01:18 -0400 From: Jim West Subject: Re: tc-list End of the Tunnel X-Sender: jwest@highland.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.32.19990928170118.0067dba4@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: 1053 At 10:56 AM 9/28/99 -0400, you wrote: Dykes opines.... >>Without colophon(s), special research is required, >>of which you are apparently naive of. > Maurice responds... >It seems I already addressed this point, and agreed on the importance of >determining provenance by colophons, palaeography, and a multitude of >other means. Did you miss that point? *Me* naive? I suppose I am; I'm >responding to this discussion, right? I give up.... Just one thing. Maurice and I have disagreed on more than one issue- but his abilities in matters TC exceed nearly every person I know. In fact, only Kurt Aland was as good as Maurice at the actual practice of textual criticism. So for Dykes (whos abilities are unknown) to say that Maurice is naive exceeds the limits of decency. What Maurice says carries great weight with me (and Im sure he is surprised to hear it). Far greater indeed than anything Dykes could hope to say. Best, Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD email- jwest@highland.net web page- http://web.infoave.net/~jwest From tc-list-owner Tue Sep 28 15:56:58 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id PAA02060 for tc-list-outgoing; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 15:55:35 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Message-Id: <199909282003.QAA15342@smtp4.fas.harvard.edu> X-Sender: saley@pop.fas.harvard.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0.2 Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 16:02:01 -0400 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: Richard J Saley Subject: tc-list LXX of the Orthodox Church 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: 681 Does anyone know of a study of the textual characteristics (e.g., OG, kaige, Lucianic, hexaplaric, etc.) of the version of the LXX used by the Orthodox Church? Any information be much appreciated. Thanks, Dick Saley ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Richard J. Saley, Ph.D. Tel: 617-495-4239 | | The Semitic Museum Fax: 617-496-8904 | | Harvard University saley@fas.harvard.edu | | Six Divinity Avenue | | Cambridge, MA 02138 USA | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- From tc-list-owner Tue Sep 28 17:17:28 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id RAA02571 for tc-list-outgoing; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 17:16:00 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Message-ID: <19990928212403.39375.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [207.76.127.220] From: "Steve Puluka" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list LXX of the Orthodox Church Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 14:24:01 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: 2023 >From: Richard J Saley >To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu >Subject: tc-list LXX of the Orthodox Church >Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 16:02:01 -0400 > >Does anyone know of a study of the textual characteristics (e.g., OG, >kaige, Lucianic, hexaplaric, etc.) of the version of the LXX used by >the Orthodox Church? > >Any information be much appreciated. > >Thanks, >Dick Saley In my own study of my Eastern Churches tradition, Jellicoe, The Septuagint in Modern Study has proved useful. I am not aware of a study that details what text traditions are used in the lectionary of our various churches. In the United States my jurisdiction is currently undergoing a complete review of English translations in our Liturgical services. I have heard from a member of this Liturgical Commission that the scripture quotations used in various services, and even different parts of the same service, can be traced to different text sources. This can also occur in the Lectionary itself. You will note from Jellicoe's study (and Metzgers Early Versions of the New Testament) that much of the Slavonic translation of scripture is based on the Vulgate rather than the Septuagint directly. Therefore, Eastern Churches from slavic countries have a different text usage than those from Greece, the middle east or Egyptian varieties. Since the use of the Septuagint over the MT was not seriously challanged in the East before the Reformation, the official declaration of preference for the Septuagint text did not occur until the Council of Jerusalem in the mid-1600's (1647 if memory serves). The text variants in use by the various jurisdictions have never been officially addressed. Perhaps this adds more confusion than clarification, but I'll try again if you have more questions. Sincerely, Steve Puluka Adult Education Instructor Byzantine Catholic Archeparchy of Pittsburgh ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From tc-list-owner Tue Sep 28 17:34:03 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id RAA02620 for tc-list-outgoing; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 17:32:41 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Message-ID: <37F136D3.D82AD064@flash.net> Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 16:44:51 -0500 From: Andrew Payne Organization: Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list Subject: tc-list Philosophical Approaches? Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------3B39E4472A8A8138201CEB89" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Content-Length: 1938 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------3B39E4472A8A8138201CEB89 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Andrew Payne here, I am currently studying to take oral exams in October. As part of my studies I have reviewed both the philosophical and practical approaches to doing New Testament textual criticism. I have a question, and if anyone would prefer to respond off-list that would be fine. My teacher in textual criticism laid out the underpinnings for a critical text very well and in my reading of Metzger and Aland I find myself largely in agreement with them. However, those proponents I have looked at that argue for the Majority Text (starting with Burgon and others) are older advocates and appear to come from a faith-oriented don't-mess-with-my-text standpoint than from a scientific perspective. I find myself agreeing with Sturz, Colwell, Wisse, McReynolds and others that argue that NT textual criticism needs to take the Byzantine witness seriously. I have looked at Daniel Wallace's article in the monograph edited by Bart Ehrman and Michael Holmes, but.... I feel as though I'm missing something. What are the modern philosophical (and for that matter practical) approaches for those who hold to the Majority Text? Any response you could give me would be greatly appreciated. Andrew Payne --------------3B39E4472A8A8138201CEB89 Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="andrew11.vcf" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Description: Card for Andrew Payne Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="andrew11.vcf" begin:vcard n:Payne;Andrew x-mozilla-html:FALSE adr:;;;;;; version:2.1 email;internet:andrew11@flash.net note;quoted-printable:"Even if you are on the right track,=0D=0Ayou'll get run over if you just sit there."=0D=0A Mark Twain fn:Andrew end:vcard --------------3B39E4472A8A8138201CEB89-- From tc-list-owner Tue Sep 28 18:28:22 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id SAA02909 for tc-list-outgoing; Tue, 28 Sep 1999 18:26:58 -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: <37F136D3.D82AD064@flash.net> References: <37F136D3.D82AD064@flash.net> Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 17:33:10 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: tc-list Philosophical Approaches? 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: 4805 On 9/28/99, Andrew Payne wrote: >My teacher in textual criticism laid out the underpinnings for a >critical text very well and in my reading of Metzger and Aland I find >myself largely in agreement with them. However, those proponents I have >looked at that argue for the Majority Text (starting with Burgon and >others) are older advocates and appear to come from a faith-oriented >don't-mess-with-my-text standpoint than from a scientific perspective. >I find myself agreeing with Sturz, Colwell, Wisse, McReynolds and others >that argue that NT textual criticism needs to take the Byzantine witness >seriously. I have looked at Daniel Wallace's article in the monograph >edited by Bart Ehrman and Michael Holmes, but.... > >I feel as though I'm missing something. What are the modern >philosophical (and for that matter practical) approaches for those who >hold to the Majority Text? You don't think small, do you? :-) Let's tackle this in slightly smaller pieces. First, there is the matter of "taking the Byzantine witnesses seriously." This is a very vague statement. By it does one mean "Know the nature of the Byzantine text," or "Give the Byzantine text equal weight," or "Give the Byzantine text predominant weight." These are three different viewpoints, but all could fit your description. Now any sane critic will admit that we need to know the nature of the Byzantine text. It's too pervasive to ignore. Even if one were to say that it is entirely late and valueless (and no one -- not even Hort -- would have said that), it has still influenced just about every witness from the fifth century on. That means we absolutely have to know its readings, its subtypes, its history. This is what Wisse and McReynolds are calling for, and they are absolutely right, and it is to the shame of the text-critical community that there is no critical apparatus of the Byzantine text (the apparatus of Hodges & Farstad is inadequate and based on Von Soden). The other two viewpoints are rather different. The need to know the Byzantine text is a technical need; whatever we think of its origins, we need to deal with it. But to maintain either the equality or the priority of the Byzantine text is, fundamentally, a philosophical issue. Maurice Robinson is, of course, the most able defender of the Byzantine text, and since I imagine he will respond, I won't try to state his case. (He probably wouldn't like my statement anyway. :-) But there is a difference between the Hills/Pickering school that says, more or less, that the KJV/TR/Byzantine Text is divinely inspired as given and the Robinson school that says that the Byzantine text is original but not precisely preserved in any one place. (The irony is that both claim to go back to Burgon. There is, actually, some truth in this -- except that Robinson got all the good parts and Pickering insisted on using only the bad.) The difference is that Robinson and the like *know* the manuscripts (as Jim West stated earlier today, Robinson knows his materials very well. The same was true of Burgon, though he expressed it rather badly. It's *not* true of Pickering). These critics simply view the critical rules differently. They write a different history of the text. This is, in fact, a point where no absolute proof can be brought forward; Robinson has constructed a logically different system which simply rests on different premises than that of ordinary critics. They place less weight on age and pedigree than on numbers; they use different canons of criticism (e.g. they correctly point out that "prefer the shorter reading" is much too simplistic). There is a middle ground here, though it's sort of mushy. The middle ground is occupied by people like Von Soden, Scrivener, and Sturtz -- all of whom have respect for the Byzantine text, but have respect for other text-types too. To them, the Byzantine is allowed a vote, even a casting vote, but not the only vote. Details vary widely, though, which is why this is a mushy area. :-) Again, there is no "scientific" answer here -- indeed, other than Deering, almost no one practices an absolutely rigorous criticism, in which some sort of formula determines the reading adopted for the text. (Personally, I think this very bad, but that's another issue.) Robinson et al have created a different philosophical system -- one which I think wrong :-), but which is applied as thoroughly and rationally as the other camp. I hope this helps at least a little.... -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Wed Sep 29 15:44:10 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id PAA08886 for tc-list-outgoing; Wed, 29 Sep 1999 15:42:32 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Message-ID: <19990929195040.35154.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [200.44.7.140] From: "James A. Gehman" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: tc-list Scholarship Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 12:50:18 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: 2823 TC-List: I would like to bring before this forum a few questions about scholarship. Please see below concerning my reasoning for these questions and their relationship to textual criticism. What is the essence of scholarship? (or, Is there a sine qua non of scholarship? If so, what is it?) What are the inherent values of scholarship? (I am not referring here to methodology but its constituent elements). What are the requirements to be a scholar? (educational background, formal training in the subject area, record of publication, adherence to one of the standard theories of the discipline, etc.). What makes scholarship scholarship? What are the criteria which distinguish between good and bad scholarship? Do you know of any articles/books which deal with these issues? <>< <>< Reason for questions: I am researching an aspect of Venezuelan culture as a missionary in a course via Internet called Applied Research Techniques offered by Dr. Stan Nussbaum of Global Mapping International in Colorado Springs. Since I am involved in theological education through a local seminary and the Latin American Theological Fraternity, this aspect (which is the lukewarm reception of the Latin American Theological Fraternity in Venezuela) causes a great amount of consternation on my part. On the one hand, I agree with many Latin American scholars that what we need is not more scholarship but praxis or concrete action in the here and now (see for example the writings of Gutierrez, Segundo, L. Boff, C. Boff, among many others). On the other hand, I am not willing to give up my Hatch and Redpath, Patristic Greek Lexicon, etc. and hit the streets (caution: I am not saying that the scholars mentioned above would give up their books either). I am looking for a different approach to the problem by trying to identify the values of scholarship in the world-wide community and interfacing that with Venezuelan culture (by means of field research in this course). I would like to see what values of scholarship are already valued in Venezuelan culture. Relation to TC: While these questions do not apply directly to TC, I approach this forum for a specific purpose. Of all the disciplines associated with Biblical Studies, perhaps TC can claim to be the most scientific (i.e., empirical, repeatable, verifiable, susceptible to falsification, etc). Either a certain variant exists or it doesn't. Therefore, it seems to me to be most appropriate to bring these questions to this list. Thanks for your time and cooperation. James A. Gehman, M.A. Apartado 75304, El Marques Caracas D.F., 1070-A Venezuela jagehman@hotmail.com jbgehman@cantv.net 011 (582) 241-2834 ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From tc-list-owner Thu Sep 30 09:10:12 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id JAA12719 for tc-list-outgoing; Thu, 30 Sep 1999 09:08:38 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Message-ID: <37F37FCE.5406@orebro.mail.telia.com> Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 15:20:49 +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 LXX of the Orthodox Church References: <199909282003.QAA15342@smtp4.fas.harvard.edu> 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 JAA12715 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Content-Length: 659 Richard J Saley wrote: > > Does anyone know of a study of the textual characteristics (e.g., OG, kaige, Lucianic, hexaplaric, etc.) of the version of the LXX used by the Orthodox Church? > > Any information be much appreciated. > "Web.information" This is not what You specifically look for but anyway. For the study of the textual characteristics of the Septuagint in general, I have found some interesting articles on the homepage of Prof. Robert A. Kraft (The University of Pennsylvania) under the heading "Kraft Publications". http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/kraft.html Good luck! Tommy Wasserman Swedish student of theology Örebro Missionsskola From tc-list-owner Thu Sep 30 13:14:23 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id NAA14247 for tc-list-outgoing; Thu, 30 Sep 1999 13:12:44 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list End of the Tunnel Message-ID: <19990930.131233.11871.2.seventh.guardian@juno.com> References: <1.5.4.32.19990928170118.0067dba4@highland.net> X-Mailer: Juno 1.49 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-9,15-19,21 From: "Maurice A. Robinson" Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 13:18:52 EDT Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Content-Length: 1116 On Tue, 28 Sep 1999 13:01:18 -0400 Jim West writes: >At 10:56 AM 9/28/99 -0400, you wrote: >Just one thing. Maurice and I have disagreed on more than one issue- An understatement :-) [Extremely excessive egregious/erroneous encomium eliminated] Some things are quite surprising. For once Jim speaks well (too well) of me, and exceeds all bounds of reality. I don't know half as much about textual criticism as I should, and no comparison should be made among any of us who are working in this field. Knowing that I know far less than I should (or ever will), I remain only one who trudges along, breaking up some ground.... >What Maurice says carries great weight with me (and Im sure he is >surprised to hear it). There are more surprises in heaven and earth, Horatio, than I have dreamed of in my philosophy....The end of the world must be near. :-) ___________________________________________________________________ Get the Internet just the way you want it. Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month! Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj. From tc-list-owner Thu Sep 30 13:16:26 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id NAA14284 for tc-list-outgoing; Thu, 30 Sep 1999 13:15:05 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list Philosophical Approaches? Message-ID: <19990930.131233.11871.3.seventh.guardian@juno.com> References: <37F136D3.D82AD064@flash.net> X-Mailer: Juno 1.49 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-3,6-8,23,27-28,30-31,46-47,49-55,66-71,75-76, 91-96,104-111,123-126,136-142 From: "Maurice A. Robinson" Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 13:18:53 EDT Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Content-Length: 8065 Answering two comments from the same feeder: >On 9/28/99, Andrew Payne wrote: >those proponents I have looked at that argue for the Majority Text (starting with >Burgon and others) are older advocates and appear to come from a faith-oriented >don't-mess-with-my-text standpoint than from a scientific perspective. While for some a supposed theological agenda reigns supreme, I would not consider the Majority Text position to be divorced from a scientific perspective, even if I don't happen to share the theological portion of other proponents' arguments and methodology. The "theological argument" cannot bolster any position, since special pleading is generally irrelevant to most points under consideration in any form of debate (this does not rule out, however, the attempt to understand variations which might have theological concerns or causes). I don't happen to make a case based on faith presumptions (which I have in other areas, but which do not particularly concern NT textual criticism), since I long ago learned that weak arguments have no value. I thus happen to differ on many points from Burgon, Hodges, Farstad, Pickering et al., since I don't accept the portions of their line of argument which appeal to divine providence (obviously, the same divine providence permitted the preservation of _all_ extant witnesses to the text of the NT, regardless of texttype). But I can accept and/or appreciate their remaining non-theological arguments when scientifically based. This is the only proper approach to take in regard to textual criticism: separate the wheat from the chaff and keep that which is of value. >>What are the modern philosophical (and for that matter practical) approaches for >>those who hold to the Majority Text? Good question. I wish I knew. All I know is that I was trained in modern reasoned eclecticism (e,g, Metzger, Colwell, etc.) and had no problem with that approach until I studied with Clark, who suggested the possibility of the Byzantine Textform as the most likely candidate for original text. My entire approach has been within a "normative" scientifically-based methodology of text-critical praxis. I don't have an agenda as to what the Byzantine Textform must include or omit, but depend on a thorough examination of the evidence. I also don't really know what underpins the theory of other Majority Text advocates, although it is obvious that the theological factor plays a significant role for them in a way which it does not for me (not to say that I or anyone else doesn't have theological views and biases which probably color one's thoughts in many areas). So what the "philosophical approach" happens to be in my own case, I simply don't know, except the ultimate "quest for truth" concept which might impel anyone to engage in any type of serious inquiry. On Tue, 28 Sep 1999 17:33:10 -0500 "Robert B. Waltz" writes: >it is to the shame of the text-critical >community that there is no critical apparatus of the Byzantine >text (the apparatus of Hodges & Farstad is inadequate and based >on Von Soden). Actually, Von Soden should not be so deprecated in regard to his major text-critical groups (i.e. his bold "K" for the basic Byzantine Textform and the accompanying sub-groups). Wisse has stated clearly that the major _groups_ cited by Von Soden appear to stand up to scrutiny while his errors primarily tend to involve the citation of individual witnesses (so also Voss as regards the Kr group in particular). The H/F text plus apparatus can be accepted as reflecting a reasonable primary Byzantine Textform with sub-Byzantine variation noted in their apparatus (this even though I differ from their main text 220 times in Revelation and probably about 100x or so in the remainder of the NT, due to differing principles and opinions). >[Robinson] ... probably wouldn't like my statement anyway. :-) Of course not. Only natural. :-) >the Hills/Pickering school that says, more or less, that the KJV/TR/Byzantine Text is >divinely inspired as given and the Robinson school that says that the Byzantine text >is original but not precisely preserved in any one place. I suspect some oversimplification in the statement, especially in putting Pickering into the Hills/KJV/TR school merely because they both use theological arguments within their respective cases. Even I consider the NT as "divinely inspired as given"; but I just want to determine first which form was the "given"; so also does Pickering. The Hills/KJV school already "knows" that the TR underlying the KJV is the "original" form of the text, while Pickering, Hodges/Farstad and even myself have quite a different opinion. However (maybe only for me), the matter of "divinely inspired as given" is actually not relevant to the matter of determining the original form of the text, any more than it would be for were I to seek to determine the original form of the text of, say, the Protevangelium Jacobi; my methodology would basically be similar, though adjusted to fit the quantity and quality of the witnesses in each situation, taking into account the value assigned to such documents by those who copied them through the centuries. [re: "knowing" the MSS well] >The same was true of Burgon, though he expressed it rather badly. Burgon could not write calmly about anything, it seems, and spoiled much of his case by his bombast. Yet Burgon along with Scrivener in the 19th century probably represent the two British scholars who did the most in regard to locating and recording information about previously unknown MSS, not to mention collating a good number of these. One need only scan through Gregory's _Textkritik_ volumes to see how often Burgon put Gregory on the trail of certain MSS, as well as mentioning a good number which Gregory "sah mit Burgon" on various dates. >Robinson has constructed a logically different system >which simply rests on different premises than that of ordinary >critics. They place less weight on age and pedigree than on >numbers; they use different canons of criticism (e.g. they correctly >point out that "prefer the shorter reading" is much too simplistic). The rejection of the "shorter reading" is not argued only by pro-Byzantine critics, but by various reasoned eclectics as well. Also, the advocacy of Byzantine priority is not so heavily based on number as the pejorative term "majority text" might suggest (which is one reason why I don't like that term). While "number" (as Burgon noted) is an element of what might constitute "weight", it is not the only factor (even Burgon's "seven canons" of criticism were not merely "seven ways of saying the majority is always right", as Fee caricatured it). Were the Byzantine, Alexandrian, Western, and Caesarean texts all represented by an equal number of extant MSS, a pro-Byzantine case could still be made on internal and transmissional grounds, with "number" being at that point a meaningless concept. [re: one comment regarding Sturz' method]. Sturz advocated the early existence of the Alexandrian, Western, and Byzantine texttypes. His method of determining the "second century text" (which is as far back as he was willing to go) was to take the 2 out of 3 texttype approach, giving each texttype a single vote. The weakness of this method (apart from the fact that it is wholly unscientific) is that Alex+Byz or West+Byz become the favored text except when Alex+West happen to agree (and most people know how rarely that scenario occurs). So _de facto_ Sturz ends up advocating a primarily Byzantine text, but based on what I would consider wholly inadequate and unacceptable principles. ============================================== Maurice A. Robinson Professor of NT and Greek Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ___________________________________________________________________ Get the Internet just the way you want it. Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month! Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj. From tc-list-owner Thu Sep 30 14:51:13 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id OAA14806 for tc-list-outgoing; Thu, 30 Sep 1999 14:49:40 -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: <19990930.131233.11871.3.seventh.guardian@juno.com> References: <37F136D3.D82AD064@flash.net> <19990930.131233.11871.3.seventh.guardian@juno.com> Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 13:55:45 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: tc-list Philosophical Approaches? 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: 6466 On 9/30/99, Maurice A. Robinson wrote, in part: [ the quotes of quotes are from me ] > >it is to the shame of the text-critical > >community that there is no critical apparatus of the Byzantine > >text (the apparatus of Hodges & Farstad is inadequate and based > >on Von Soden). > >Actually, Von Soden should not be so deprecated in regard to his major >text-critical groups (i.e. his bold "K" for the basic Byzantine Textform >and the accompanying sub-groups). Wisse has stated clearly that the major > _groups_ cited by Von Soden appear to stand up to scrutiny while his >errors primarily tend to involve the citation of individual witnesses (so >also Voss as regards the Kr group in particular). The H/F text plus >apparatus can be accepted as reflecting a reasonable primary Byzantine >Textform with sub-Byzantine variation noted in their apparatus (this even >though I differ from their main text 220 times in Revelation and probably >about 100x or so in the remainder of the NT, due to differing principles >and opinions). For that matter, we shouldn't criticise von Soden's accuracy as much as we do; while there are witnesses for which his edition is spectacularly inaccurate (a spot check makes it appear that he determined the readings of 330 by throwing darts or something like that), his citations of the uncials are pretty good. And in some ways von Soden actually appears to have the edge on Wisse, since (despite Wisse) Ki and Kx do look a bit different. And they certainly appear in different eras. Problem is, with single-sample chapters, the difference between Ki and Kx wasn't big enough for Wisse to see clearly. But that's not quite what I was getting at. Von Soden didn't give us a real apparatus of the Byzantine text, just an apparatus with a lot of information about the Byzantine manuscripts (and, of course, very hard to read). H&F converted this to an actual apparatus of the Byzantine text, but threw away so much detail that you cannot, e.g., determine the text of Family Pi, even approximately, from their apparatus. [ ... ] > >the Hills/Pickering school that says, more or less, that the >KJV/TR/Byzantine Text is >divinely inspired as given and the Robinson >school that says that the Byzantine text >is original but not precisely >preserved in any one place. > >I suspect some oversimplification in the statement, especially in putting >Pickering into the Hills/KJV/TR school merely because they both use >theological arguments within their respective cases. There is truth in this, as they do argue for different texts (and Pickering has "evolved" his thoughts, though clearly not under the pressure of natural selection :-). However, all work largely from a philosophical base of providential preservation. Anyone who reads Pickering realizes that the rest is all mumbo-jumbo. So, philosophically, Hills and Pickering are at one, even though they don't use the same text. >Even I consider the >NT as "divinely inspired as given"; but I just want to determine first >which form was the "given"; so also does Pickering. The Hills/KJV school >already "knows" that the TR underlying the KJV is the "original" form of >the text, while Pickering, Hodges/Farstad and even myself have quite a >different opinion. However (maybe only for me), the matter of "divinely >inspired as given" is actually not relevant to the matter of determining >the original form of the text, any more than it would be for were I to >seek to determine the original form of the text of, say, the >Protevangelium Jacobi; my methodology would basically be similar, though >adjusted to fit the quantity and quality of the witnesses in each >situation, taking into account the value assigned to such documents by >those who copied them through the centuries. Which is the point I was trying to make: You have a method. It's not the standard method, but it is a method, based on the actual materials rather than some philosophical ideal. >[re: "knowing" the MSS well] > > >The same was true of Burgon, though he expressed it rather badly. > >Burgon could not write calmly about anything, it seems, and spoiled much >of his case by his bombast. Yet Burgon along with Scrivener in the 19th >century probably represent the two British scholars who did the most in >regard to locating and recording information about previously unknown >MSS, not to mention collating a good number of these. One need only scan >through Gregory's _Textkritik_ volumes to see how often Burgon put >Gregory on the trail of certain MSS, as well as mentioning a good number >which Gregory "sah mit Burgon" on various dates. Or we might simply observe that what are often called "Old Gregory" or "Tischendorf" numbers are, to a significant extent, actually Burgon numbers. There is, actually, a scientific analogy to all this. Tycho Brahe did not believe in the heliocentric solar system. But he gathered the data which allowed Kepler to make the heliocentric system rigorous. Similarly, Burgon was the greatest source of information about nineteenth century manuscripts. The fact that others don't agree with his theories of the text does not mean that he did not provide a great deal of useful information (of which critics have made far too little use). Good grief, and that sentence is inverted enough to have come from his pen. :-) > >Robinson has constructed a logically different system > >which simply rests on different premises than that of ordinary > >critics. They place less weight on age and pedigree than on > >numbers; they use different canons of criticism (e.g. they correctly > >point out that "prefer the shorter reading" is much too simplistic). > >The rejection of the "shorter reading" is not argued only by >pro-Byzantine critics, but by various reasoned eclectics as well. Of course. That's why I say that pro-Byzantine critics *correctly* point this out. This canon still shows up in the lists, but it is increasingly falling into disrepute. For the record: I don't think Maurice Robinson and I are really disagreeing on anything here (other places, yes, but not here :-). I'm just trying to clarify what we're both saying. :-) -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 Thu Sep 30 22:10:42 1999 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id WAA16908 for tc-list-outgoing; Thu, 30 Sep 1999 22:08:41 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shemesh.scholar.emory.edu: majordom set sender to owner-tc-list using -f Message-ID: <37F41A96.E413D9AD@flash.net> Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 21:21:11 -0500 From: Andrew Payne Organization: Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list Subject: tc-list Philosophical? Approaches Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------CCF9C965E4A92A627FF4E7B3" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Content-Length: 1370 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------CCF9C965E4A92A627FF4E7B3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Andrew Payne here, I realize that my use of the term "philosophical" in my previous post may have been a bit broad. My main concern on trying to understand the different approaches to a critical text and what is popularly known as the Majority Text is simply a lack of knowledge concerning the approach of those who advocate a "Majority Text." Most of what I've read concerning the Majority Text, or perhaps better the Byzantine sigla in the NA27 or UBS4, relegated things to a theological-based approach to TC which I just never felt comfortable with. Many thanks to both Robert Waltz and Maurice Robinson for their replies. Andrew Payne --------------CCF9C965E4A92A627FF4E7B3 Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="andrew11.vcf" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Description: Card for Andrew Payne Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="andrew11.vcf" begin:vcard n:Payne;Andrew x-mozilla-html:FALSE adr:;;;;;; version:2.1 email;internet:andrew11@flash.net note;quoted-printable:"Even if you are on the right track,=0D=0Ayou'll get run over if you just sit there."=0D=0A Mark Twain fn:Andrew end:vcard --------------CCF9C965E4A92A627FF4E7B3--