From majordom Mon Mar 4 11:32:53 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA03010; Mon, 4 Mar 1996 11:32:53 +0500 Date: Mon, 4 Mar 1996 11:31:16 -0500 From: HuldrychZ@aol.com Message-Id: <960304113116_237204184@emout09.mail.aol.com> To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Gen 22 Content-Length: 320 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Status: O X-Status: Friends, In 4QGen-Exod(a) at Gen 22:14, the text has "Elohim" where BHS has YHWH. In BHS there is no note for this textual variant. This strikes me as somewhat odd. What criteria were used by BHS to determine inclusion of variants? And how could this seemingly significant variant be overlooked? Thanks, Jim West From majordom Mon Mar 4 12:03:31 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA03175; Mon, 4 Mar 1996 12:03:31 +0500 From: "GLENN WOODEN" Organization: Acadia University To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Date: Mon, 4 Mar 1996 13:00:17 AST4ADT Subject: Re: Gen 22 Priority: normal X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.21) Message-Id: <67768C410B@ace.acadiau.ca> Content-Length: 192 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Status: O X-Status: Jim, when was 4QGen-Exod(a) first published? Was it available when the Genesis fascicle of BHS was published? Glenn Wooden Acadia Divinity College Wolfville N.S. Canada wooden@acadiau.ca From majordom Mon Mar 4 12:15:48 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA03220; Mon, 4 Mar 1996 12:15:48 +0500 Date: Mon, 4 Mar 96 12:13:00 EST From: Richard Weis To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: RE: Gen 22 Message-Id: Content-Length: 672 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Status: O X-Status: 4 March, 1996, On 4 March, 1996, Jim West wrote: In 4QGen-Exod(a) at Gen 22:14, the text has "Elohim" where BHS has YHWH. In BHS there is no note for this textual variant. This strikes me as somewhat odd. What criteria were used by BHS to determine inclusion of variants? And how could this seemingly significant variant be overlooked? - - - - - - The short answer is that the readings from 4QGen-Exod(a) were probably not available to Eissfeldt when he edited Genesis for BHS in the 1960's (it came out in 1969). The Qumran citations in his apparatus are only from published materials (i.e., 1QApGen). Richard Weis New Brunswick Seminary rweis@rci.rutgers.edu From majordom Mon Mar 4 16:24:54 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA04103; Mon, 4 Mar 1996 16:24:54 +0500 From: dwashbur@nyx.net (David Washburn) Message-Id: <9603042122.AA09707@nyx.net> Subject: Re: Gen 22 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Date: Mon, 4 Mar 1996 14:22:03 -0700 (MST) In-Reply-To: <960304113116_237204184@emout09.mail.aol.com> from "HuldrychZ@aol.com" at Mar 4, 96 11:31:16 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL21] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 541 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Status: O X-Status: Jim West asked: > In 4QGen-Exod(a) at Gen 22:14, the text has "Elohim" where BHS has YHWH. In > BHS there is no note for this textual variant. This strikes me as somewhat > odd. What criteria were used by BHS to determine inclusion of variants? And > how could this seemingly significant variant be overlooked? 4QGen-Exod(a) was only published a year or two ago, and hence wasn't available to the BHS editors. -- Dave http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur/home.html Seen in a classified ad: "Parachute for sale. Used once. Never opened." From majordom Mon Mar 4 16:27:30 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA04133; Mon, 4 Mar 1996 16:27:30 +0500 Date: Mon, 4 Mar 1996 16:24:32 -0500 From: KHGrenier@aol.com Message-Id: <960304162431_340780440@emout07.mail.aol.com> To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Codices for Teaching Content-Length: 466 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Status: O X-Status: 1. I am looking for a good quality large photograph of a passage from the Book of John from a codex for use in class. I need one I can copy freely as a handout for students to work on. Does anyone have a good suggestion of where to obtain this? 2. I am also interested in people's opinions on the best text and reference books available on NT textual criticism. I would appreciate any comments. Kevin H. Grenier KHGrenier@aol.com Colorado Christian University From majordom Mon Mar 4 16:57:50 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA04301; Mon, 4 Mar 1996 16:57:50 +0500 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 4 Mar 1996 15:59:28 +0400 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net (Carlton L. Winbery) Subject: Re: Codices for Teaching Cc: KHGrenier@aol.com Content-Length: 1204 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Status: O X-Status: Kevin Grenier wrote; >1. I am looking for a good quality large photograph of a passage from the >Book of John from a codex for use in class. I need one I can copy freely as a >handout for students to work on. Does anyone have a good suggestion of where >to obtain this? > >2. I am also interested in people's opinions on the best text and reference >books available on NT textual criticism. I would appreciate any comments. > Metzger's classic text in its revised edition is still a good approach to TC of the NT. If you prefer a more hands on approach, Jack Finegan's book (more like a workbook) Encountering NT Mss. is still a good one. It will have a lot of black facsimilies in it, some from John I think. Of course, you could go with the Alands' Introduction, but many except the very brightest could get lost in the intracies of his discussion. I like the tie in with other historical developments such as the canon. I would think that the students would be free to copy pages from any book that they use as long as it is for their personal use and not for distribution. Carlton L. Winbery Prof. Religion LA College, Pineville, La winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net winbery@andria.lacollege.edu From majordom Mon Mar 4 17:03:30 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA04350; Mon, 4 Mar 1996 17:03:30 +0500 Date: Mon, 4 Mar 1996 17:00:44 -0500 From: HuldrychZ@aol.com Message-Id: <960304170043_159973883@mail06.mail.aol.com> To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Gen 22 Content-Length: 150 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Status: O X-Status: As to the publication date of 4QGen-Ex(a) I cannot ascertain it. It must have been known to Cross, who first published it under the title "4QGen". From majordom Mon Mar 4 17:03:39 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA04356; Mon, 4 Mar 1996 17:03:39 +0500 Date: Mon, 4 Mar 1996 17:00:51 -0500 From: HuldrychZ@aol.com Message-Id: <960304170050_159973987@mail04.mail.aol.com> To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Gen 22 Content-Length: 109 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Status: O X-Status: Thanks for your helpful comments regarding the relatively late publication date of 4QGen-Exod(a). Jim West From majordom Mon Mar 4 18:18:31 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA04516; Mon, 4 Mar 1996 18:18:31 +0500 Date: Mon, 4 Mar 1996 18:15:46 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Codices for Teaching In-Reply-To: <960304162431_340780440@emout07.mail.aol.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 885 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Status: O X-Status: On Mon, 4 Mar 1996 KHGrenier@aol.com wrote: > 1. I am looking for a good quality large photograph of a passage from the > Book of John from a codex for use in class. I need one I can copy freely as a > handout for students to work on. Does anyone have a good suggestion of where > to obtain this? Pages from the Codex Sinaiticus from the Kirsopp Lake publication in 1911 or thereabouts could be freely used, since that work is now totally in the public domain. The early (ca.1898) black and white photgraphic edition of Vaticanus also would be public domain and could readily be used for this purpose. > 2. I am also interested in people's opinions on the best text and reference > books available on NT textual criticism. I would appreciate any comments. I still prefer Metzger's Text of the NT and Greenlee's Intro to NT Textual Criticism for those on the beginning level. From majordom Tue Mar 5 00:20:32 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA05187; Tue, 5 Mar 1996 00:20:32 +0500 Date: Tue, 5 Mar 96 0:17:42 EST From: Richard Weis To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Gen 22 In-Reply-To: Your message of Mon, 4 Mar 1996 17:00:44 -0500 Message-Id: Content-Length: 576 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Status: O X-Status: On 4 March, 1996, Jim West wrote: As to the publication date of 4QGen-Ex(a) I cannot ascertain it. It must have been known to Cross, who first published it under the title "4QGen". - - - - - - - - - Stephen A. Reed, in _The Dead Sea Scrolls Catalogue: Documents, Photographs and Museum Inventory Numbers_ (SBLRBS, 32; Atlanta: Scholars, 1994), gives the publication history for 4QGen-Exod(a). The earliest publication was Jim Davila's 1988 dissertation. Next was an article by Davila in JBL 1991. Richard Weis New Brunswick Theological Seminary rweis@rci.rutgers.edu From majordom Tue Mar 5 01:23:28 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA05301; Tue, 5 Mar 1996 01:23:28 +0500 From: rachel@ms1.hinet.net Message-Id: <199603050619.OAA14074@hntp3.hinet.net> Date: Tue, 05 Mar 96 13:11:00 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Codices for Teaching In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: MR/2 Internet Cruiser Edition v0.99l Content-Length: 2608 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Status: O X-Status: In , on 03/04/96 at 06:15 PM, Maurice Robinson said: Although I am not in any class right now I would very enthusiastically recommend that you start with Maurice Robinson's paper and the monograph by Weiss concerning his Profile Method and then work with Sturz's book and lastly go to Aland's book or others... Why? First Robinson's and Weiss are much more READABLE! They contain VERY MUCH useful information for any beginner to advanced student.... Their tone and attitude is very very refreshing.... They both have very important concepts to introduce to the rest of the textual criticism field IMHO ;) Thirdly --- since Robinson surely cannot toot his own horn I will promptly did it for him Seriously I was just in the beginning stages of reading Aland's book and trying to digest all of it and other material and personally I was swamped... Also why try to be on the leading edge of this exciting field since everywhere else you are going to hear the same thing repeated.... In fact, I think that more work should be done in the Profile Method area. If I ever can learn enough I will try to integrate some of this with Chinese ..... On Mon, 4 Mar 1996 KHGrenier@aol.com wrote: >> 1. I am looking for a good quality large photograph of a passage fro >> Book of John from a codex for use in class. I need one I can copy fr >> handout for students to work on. Does anyone have a good suggestion >> to obtain this? >Pages from the Codex Sinaiticus from the Kirsopp Lake publication in >1911 or thereabouts could be freely used, since that work is now >totally in the public domain. >The early (ca.1898) black and white photgraphic edition of Vaticanus >also would be public domain and could readily be used for this >purpose. >> 2. I am also interested in people's opinions on the best text and re >> books available on NT textual criticism. I would appreciate any comm >I still prefer Metzger's Text of the NT and Greenlee's Intro to NT >Textual Criticism for those on the beginning level. -- Windoze 95 is just another pretty face but can it do anything? Support R.S.R. (Reduce Soap-Box Rhetoric... ) ----------------------------------------------------------- rachel@ms1.hinet.net ---- Please note the new address ;) My daughter lets me use my PC once in a while ;) Way over here and under Bejing's missile threat... :( Jim @Taiwan Team OS/2 ---- ;) ----------------------------------------------------------- From majordom Tue Mar 5 01:43:57 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA05355; Tue, 5 Mar 1996 01:43:57 +0500 Date: Sat, 09 Mar 1996 23:41:37 -0700 From: Barbara Keats Subject: Re: Codices for Teaching X-Sender: atbwk@asuvm.inre.asu.edu To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Message-Id: <199603050641.XAA15200@x1.asu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Length: 1208 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Status: O X-Status: Although only a cursory search at this point due to time limitations, a web search on "codex" revealed a number of options. At http://www.stg.brown.edu/projects/mss/overview.html produced an "interpreting ancient mss" web; the Codex Sinaitus is at www.stg.brown.edu/projects/mss/tc-codexs.html; the Vaticanus at (same address except tc-codexv.html at end of string). There are other options pointed to, and a number of other sites to browse from here; there are hypertexts to "click" on to move more deeply into the sites. Any could be printed off, and would be especially well served by a color printer. Hope this is not "old news" -- I am a relatively new kid in town. BWK. At 04:24 PM 3/4/96 -0500, you wrote: > >1. I am looking for a good quality large photograph of a passage from the >Book of John from a codex for use in class. I need one I can copy freely as a >handout for students to work on. Does anyone have a good suggestion of where >to obtain this? > > >2. I am also interested in people's opinions on the best text and reference >books available on NT textual criticism. I would appreciate any comments. > > >Kevin H. Grenier >KHGrenier@aol.com >Colorado Christian University > > From majordom Tue Mar 5 14:49:51 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA07679; Tue, 5 Mar 1996 14:49:51 +0500 Date: Tue, 5 Mar 1996 11:47:01 -0800 From: MrNyse195@eworld.com Message-Id: <960305114643_26705932@hp1.online.apple.com> To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Codices for Teaching Content-Length: 485 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Status: O X-Status: I think Norman Geisler and William Nix's "A General Introduction to the Bible" has a picture of a codice or two of John. As for a good book on Textual Criticism, you can check out practically any book by F.F. Bruce. Geisler and Nix's book go into TC a little, but not much. I'll be adding a link to some papyrus photos on line, thru my minitry's web pages shortly. The URL is listed below. In Christ, Kerry W.I.T.N.E.S.S. Ministries http://members.aol.com/blufunk195/witness.html From majordom Tue Mar 5 15:15:45 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA07902; Tue, 5 Mar 1996 15:15:45 +0500 Date: Tue, 5 Mar 1996 12:12:51 -0800 Message-Id: <199603052012.MAA01912@desiree.teleport.com> X-Sender: dalemw@mail.teleport.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: dalemw@teleport.com (Dale M. Wheeler) Subject: Re: Codices for Teaching Content-Length: 1486 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Status: O X-Status: Kevin H. Grenier wrote: >2. I am also interested in people's opinions on the best text and reference >books available on NT textual criticism. I would appreciate any comments. Barbara Keats wrote: >Although only a cursory search at this point due to time limitations, a web >search on "codex" revealed a number of options. At >http://www.stg.brown.edu/projects/mss/overview.html produced an >"interpreting ancient mss" web; The Brown site is one of the more clever uses of the Web and has some very nice things on it. One caution however, the main section which has to do with the principles of TC and the nature of "text-types" is based on a book I had never heard of before and which contains statements which are--well lets us just say as nicely as possible--debatable. For example, they confidently assert that Lucian was responsible for the Byzantine text-type, that the Cesaerean text has a certain provinence and character, etc., etc. There are several things like that which many, if not most TC scholars today, regardless of the view they hold, would not agree with. CAVEAT EMPTOR. *********************************************************************** Dale M. Wheeler, Th.D. Chair, Biblical Languages Dept Multnomah Bible College 8435 NE Glisan Street Portland, OR 97220 Voice: 503-251-6416 FAX:503-254-1268 E-Mail: dalemw@teleport.com *********************************************************************** From majordom Tue Mar 5 15:49:46 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA08138; Tue, 5 Mar 1996 15:49:46 +0500 Message-Id: <9603060347.AA0111@aqiba.abo.fi> Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 05 Mar 96 22:45:48 +0200 From: nmartola@aqiba.abo.fi To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Codices for Teaching X-Mailer: Ultimedia Mail/2 Lite, IBM T. J. Watson Research Center Content-Id: <100_68_1_826083948> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1761 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Status: O X-Status: Just out of curiosity: Why did you date the email 09 Mar? //Nils Martola //Abo Akademi University //nmartola@aqiba.abo.fi //--- forwarded letter ------------------------------------------------------- > X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 > MIME-Version: 1.0 > Date: Sat, 09 Mar 96 23:41:37 -0700 > From: "Barbara Keats" > To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu > Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu > Subject: Re: Codices for Teaching > > Although only a cursory search at this point due to time limitations, a web > search on "codex" revealed a number of options. At > http://www.stg.brown.edu/projects/mss/overview.html produced an > "interpreting ancient mss" web; the Codex Sinaitus is at > www.stg.brown.edu/projects/mss/tc-codexs.html; the Vaticanus at (same > address except tc-codexv.html at end of string). There are other options > pointed to, and a number of other sites to browse from here; there are > hypertexts to "click" on to move more deeply into the sites. Any could be > printed off, and would be especially well served by a color printer. Hope > this is not "old news" -- I am a relatively new kid in town. > > BWK. > > At 04:24 PM 3/4/96 -0500, you wrote: > > > >1. I am looking for a good quality large photograph of a passage from the > >Book of John from a codex for use in class. I need one I can copy freely as a > >handout for students to work on. Does anyone have a good suggestion of where > >to obtain this? > > > > > >2. I am also interested in people's opinions on the best text and reference > >books available on NT textual criticism. I would appreciate any comments. > > > > > >Kevin H. Grenier > >KHGrenier@aol.com > >Colorado Christian University > > > > > > > From majordom Tue Mar 5 21:06:48 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA09057; Tue, 5 Mar 1996 21:06:48 +0500 Date: Tue, 5 Mar 1996 21:05:15 -0500 From: HuldrychZ@aol.com Message-Id: <960305210515_439081453@emout09.mail.aol.com> To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: SBL Content-Length: 108 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Status: O X-Status: Will any of the TC forum folk be attending the SBL Southeastern Regional meeting in Columbia,SC? Jim West From majordom Tue Mar 5 21:27:22 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA09101; Tue, 5 Mar 1996 21:27:22 +0500 Date: Tue, 5 Mar 1996 21:24:35 -0500 (EST) From: Bart Ehrman To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: SBL In-Reply-To: <960305210515_439081453@emout09.mail.aol.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 360 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Status: O X-Status: On Tue, 5 Mar 1996 HuldrychZ@aol.com wrote: > Will any of the TC forum folk be attending the SBL Southeastern Regional > meeting in Columbia,SC? > > > Jim West > As the Program Chair for the meeting (the pleasurable job of the Regional VP), I suppose that I for one better show up ... -- Bart D. Ehrman, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill From majordom Wed Mar 6 11:38:56 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA10966; Wed, 6 Mar 1996 11:38:56 +0500 Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 11:38:49 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Adair" X-Sender: jadair@scholar To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: SBL In-Reply-To: <960305210515_439081453@emout09.mail.aol.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 413 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Status: O X-Status: On Tue, 5 Mar 1996 HuldrychZ@aol.com wrote: > Will any of the TC forum folk be attending the SBL Southeastern Regional > meeting in Columbia,SC? > > > Jim West Jim, I plan to be at the meeting, too. Jimmy Adair Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press and Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site ---------------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu <----------------- From majordom Wed Mar 6 11:42:58 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA11012; Wed, 6 Mar 1996 11:42:58 +0500 Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 11:40:11 -0500 (EST) From: Nichael Cramer To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Cc: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: SBL In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 216 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Status: O X-Status: HuldrychZ@aol.com wrote: > > Will any of the TC forum folk be attending the SBL Southeastern Regional > > meeting in Columbia,SC? > > > > Jim West Ditto the New England regional meeting at Harvard? Nichael Cramer From majordom Wed Mar 6 12:18:35 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA11179; Wed, 6 Mar 1996 12:18:35 +0500 Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 12:17:03 -0500 From: HuldrychZ@aol.com Message-Id: <960306121658_161676814@emout09.mail.aol.com> To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Aramaic Grammar Content-Length: 167 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Status: O X-Status: Friends, can anyone recommend a good grammar of Biblical Aramaic? And if so, could you please give me the publisher info so I can contact them? Thanks, Jim West From majordom Wed Mar 6 12:41:55 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA11296; Wed, 6 Mar 1996 12:41:55 +0500 From: Sigrid Peterson Message-Id: <199603061738.MAA27367@ccat.sas.upenn.edu> Subject: Re: Aramaic Grammar To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 12:38:49 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <960306121658_161676814@emout09.mail.aol.com> from "HuldrychZ@aol.com" at Mar 6, 96 12:17:03 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23-upenn3.1] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 509 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Status: O X-Status: The authoritative grammar is FRanz Rosenthal, A Grammar of Biblical Aramaic, published in Wiesbaden by O. Harassowitz. Sigrid Peterson UPenn, Bar-Ilan University, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and The British School for Archaeology in Jerusalem petersig@ccat.sas.upenn.edu According to HuldrychZ@aol.com: > > Friends, > > can anyone recommend a good grammar of Biblical Aramaic? And if so, could > you please give me the publisher info so I can contact them? > > Thanks, > > Jim West From majordom Wed Mar 6 12:42:03 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA11302; Wed, 6 Mar 1996 12:42:03 +0500 Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 12:01:53 +0000 (GMT) From: Dr DR de Lacey To: TS-associates -- Dr DW Parry , Dr Peter Flint , Elhanan Adler , "Mark R. Cohen" , "Peter A. Batke" , Peter Van Minnen , Andrew Clarke , AIBI-L@UOTTAWA.CC, Boehmisch Franz , d.law@kcl.ac.uk, David Squire , Dr David Squires , elenchus@acadvm1.uottawa.ca, h-judaic@msu.edu, hany.eldeib@intelsat.int, humanist@brownvm.brown.edu, ioudaios-l@lehigh.edu, KLBOEH01@fsuni.rz.uni-passau.de, Meir , msorion@mscc.huji.ac.il, papy@acadvm1.uottawa.ca, Paul Mangiafico , tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Genizah Web Update news In-Reply-To: <960302222343_71033.3503_GHI60-1@CompuServe.COM> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 677 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Status: O X-Status: The Taylor-Schechter Genizah Research Unity in the University of Cambridge announces a new Web page in the GOLD project. This page covers the ben Sira fragments (including a link to Franz Boehmisch's useful site; thank you, Franz!) and we would much appreciate your comments. In our root directory there is now also a copy of the Users' Guide to the collection which, although very much in need of updating, does at least include handlists to the various collections into which the materials are divided. Douglas de Lacey Taylor-Schechter Genizah Research Unit, Cambridge University Library del2@cam.ac.uk http://www.cam.ac.uk/Libraries/Taylor-Schechter From majordom Wed Mar 6 13:10:43 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA11431; Wed, 6 Mar 1996 13:10:43 +0500 Message-Id: <199603061807.SAA19668@r02n05.cac.psu.edu> X-Sender: wlp1@email.psu.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 06 Mar 1996 10:41:27 -0500 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: wlp1@psu.edu (William L. Petersen) Subject: Aramaic Grammar Content-Length: 411 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Status: O X-Status: In response to Jim West's question: One might consider Franz Rosenthal, "A Grammar of Biblical Aramaic," in the series "Porta Linguarum orientalium", neue serie 5 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1961). --Petersen, Penn State Univ. >Friends, > >can anyone recommend a good grammar of Biblical Aramaic? And if so, could >you please give me the publisher info so I can contact them? > > >Thanks, > > >Jim West > > From majordom Wed Mar 6 13:22:01 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA11510; Wed, 6 Mar 1996 13:22:01 +0500 Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 13:21:51 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Adair" X-Sender: jadair@scholar To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Aramaic Grammar In-Reply-To: <199603061738.MAA27367@ccat.sas.upenn.edu> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 699 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Status: O X-Status: On Wed, 6 Mar 1996, Sigrid Peterson wrote: > > The authoritative grammar is FRanz Rosenthal, A Grammar of Biblical > Aramaic, published in Wiesbaden by O. Harassowitz. I have Rosenthal and have used it, but it is very brief and doesn't deal much with syntax, as I recall. Is there a reference grammar for Aramaic, or does somebody know whether someone might be working on one? I have the same question for Syriac: is there something beyond Brockelmann, Robinson, or Muraoka? Jimmy Adair Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press and Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site ---------------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu <----------------- From majordom Wed Mar 6 13:59:30 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA11689; Wed, 6 Mar 1996 13:59:30 +0500 From: "GLENN WOODEN" Organization: Acadia University To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 14:55:58 AST4ADT Subject: Re: Aramaic Grammar Priority: normal X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.21) Message-Id: <9964E771B2@ace.acadiau.ca> Content-Length: 359 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Status: O X-Status: In addition to Rosenthal, try: Bauer, Hans and Leander, Pontus. Grammatik des biblisch-Aramaeischen. Reprint ed. Hildesheim: Georg Olms; 1969. Segert, Stanislav. Altaramaeische Grammatik mit Bibliographie, Chrestomathie und Glossar. Leipzig: VEB Verlag Enzyklopaedie; 1975. Glenn Wooden Acadia Divinity College Wolfville N.S. Canada wooden@acadiau.ca From majordom Wed Mar 6 14:25:39 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA11928; Wed, 6 Mar 1996 14:25:39 +0500 Date: Wed, 06 Mar 96 14:13:01 EST From: george howard Subject: Re: Aramaic Grammar To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: MailBook 95.01.000 Message-Id: <960306.141436.EST.HOWARD@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU> Content-Length: 233 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Status: O X-Status: An extensive grammar on Syriac is Theodor Noldeke, Compendious Syriac Grammar, tr. by James A Crichton, London:Williams and Norgate, 1904. George Howard UGA From majordom Wed Mar 6 16:04:20 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA12405; Wed, 6 Mar 1996 16:04:20 +0500 Date: Wed, 06 Mar 1996 14:01:09 -0700 From: atbwk@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU (Barbara Keats) Subject: Re: Codices for Teaching X-Sender: atbwk@asuvm.inre.asu.edu To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Message-Id: <199603062101.OAA04283@x1.asu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Length: 2127 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Status: O X-Status: I had forgotten that in a moment of paranoia I changed the date on my computer to ward off the "just in case" of the Michaelangelo virus re-appearing on the 6th, as we are warned each year it might. I intend to reset the date after today. Sorry for any confusion. >Just out of curiosity: Why did you date the email 09 Mar? > >//Nils Martola >//Abo Akademi University >//nmartola@aqiba.abo.fi >//--- forwarded letter >------------------------------------------------------- >> X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 >> MIME-Version: 1.0 >> Date: Sat, 09 Mar 96 23:41:37 -0700 >> From: "Barbara Keats" >> To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu >> Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu >> Subject: Re: Codices for Teaching > >> >> Although only a cursory search at this point due to time limitations, a >web >> search on "codex" revealed a number of options. At >> http://www.stg.brown.edu/projects/mss/overview.html produced an >> "interpreting ancient mss" web; the Codex Sinaitus is at >> www.stg.brown.edu/projects/mss/tc-codexs.html; the Vaticanus at (same >> address except tc-codexv.html at end of string). There are other options >> pointed to, and a number of other sites to browse from here; there are >> hypertexts to "click" on to move more deeply into the sites. Any could be >> printed off, and would be especially well served by a color printer. Hope >> this is not "old news" -- I am a relatively new kid in town. >> >> BWK. >> >> At 04:24 PM 3/4/96 -0500, you wrote: >> > >> >1. I am looking for a good quality large photograph of a passage from the >> >Book of John from a codex for use in class. I need one I can copy freely >as a >> >handout for students to work on. Does anyone have a good suggestion of >where >> >to obtain this? >> > >> > >> >2. I am also interested in people's opinions on the best text and >reference >> >books available on NT textual criticism. I would appreciate any comments. >> > >> > >> >Kevin H. Grenier >> >KHGrenier@aol.com >> >Colorado Christian University >> > >> > >> >> >> > Dr. Barbara Keats Arizona State University Dept of Management From majordom Wed Mar 6 20:15:57 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA13249; Wed, 6 Mar 1996 20:15:57 +0500 Date: Wed, 06 Mar 1996 13:56:30 -0700 From: atbwk@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU (Barbara Keats) Subject: Re: Codices for Teaching X-Sender: atbwk@asuvm.inre.asu.edu To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Message-Id: <199603062056.NAA03981@x1.asu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Length: 1854 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Status: O X-Status: As I mentioned, I am willing to remain very humbly a "new kid on the block" -- I was only responding to the search for reproducible pages from a codex, not to the request vis. tc, which I did not pursue at the sites. Sorry if my message suggested anything beyond that. BWK >Kevin H. Grenier wrote: > >>2. I am also interested in people's opinions on the best text and reference >>books available on NT textual criticism. I would appreciate any comments. > >Barbara Keats wrote: > >>Although only a cursory search at this point due to time limitations, a web >>search on "codex" revealed a number of options. At >>http://www.stg.brown.edu/projects/mss/overview.html produced an >>"interpreting ancient mss" web; > >The Brown site is one of the more clever uses of the Web and has some very >nice things on it. One caution however, the main section which has to do >with the principles of TC and the nature of "text-types" is based on a book >I had never heard of before and which contains statements which are--well >lets us just say as nicely as possible--debatable. For example, they >confidently assert that Lucian was responsible for the Byzantine text-type, >that the Cesaerean text has a certain provinence and character, etc., etc. >There are several things like that which many, if not most TC scholars >today, regardless of the view they hold, would not agree with. CAVEAT EMPTOR. > >*********************************************************************** >Dale M. Wheeler, Th.D. >Chair, Biblical Languages Dept Multnomah Bible College >8435 NE Glisan Street Portland, OR 97220 >Voice: 503-251-6416 FAX:503-254-1268 E-Mail: dalemw@teleport.com >*********************************************************************** > > Dr. Barbara Keats Arizona State University Dept of Management From majordom Wed Mar 6 21:37:46 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA13466; Wed, 6 Mar 1996 21:37:46 +0500 Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 21:34:57 -0500 From: HuldrychZ@aol.com Message-Id: <960306213455_162162761@mail02.mail.aol.com> To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Aramaic Grammar Content-Length: 160 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Status: O X-Status: Friends, Thank you all for your good advice. Eisenbrauns has several of the Aramaic grammars mentioned. Thanks again for your recommendations. Jim West From majordom Thu Mar 7 01:28:35 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA13972; Thu, 7 Mar 1996 01:28:35 +0500 Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 22:25:40 -0800 Message-Id: <199603070625.WAA15879@desiree.teleport.com> X-Sender: dalemw@mail.teleport.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: dalemw@teleport.com (Dale M. Wheeler) Subject: Re: Codices for Teaching Content-Length: 1248 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Status: O X-Status: >As I mentioned, I am willing to remain very humbly a "new kid on the block" >-- I was only responding to the search for reproducible pages from a codex, >not to the request vis. tc, which I did not pursue at the sites. Sorry if >my message suggested anything beyond that. > >BWK > Barbara: I never intended to imply that you had done anything more than suggest a good place to look for online mss reprductions...and the Brown site it really nice for that. It was only that the original request had also mentioned TC books and so I thought that a warning about that section of an otherwise well done site was warranted, lest a beginning TC student be mislead into thinking that the summary was the final word on the subject. Again my apologies to you, if you or anyone else took it the wrong way; it certainly was not intended as a criticism of your advise. *********************************************************************** Dale M. Wheeler, Th.D. Chair, Biblical Languages Dept Multnomah Bible College 8435 NE Glisan Street Portland, OR 97220 Voice: 503-251-6416 FAX:503-254-1268 E-Mail: dalemw@teleport.com *********************************************************************** From majordom Thu Mar 7 13:21:00 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA15569; Thu, 7 Mar 1996 13:21:00 +0500 Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 10:18:09 -0800 Message-Id: <199603071818.KAA09011@desiree.teleport.com> X-Sender: dalemw@mail.teleport.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: dalemw@teleport.com (Dale M. Wheeler) Subject: Re: Codices for Teaching Content-Length: 1029 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Status: O X-Status: Several people have emailed me personally about the book mentioned at the Brown site; here is what they say at the end of the text-type discussion: This material is based on R. C. Briggs, Interpreting the New Testament Today: An Introduction to Methods and Issues in the Study of the New Testament, (Nashville:Abingdon, 1982), pp. 45-47). I've also had several ask who I think "did it," if Lucian didn't. I personally don't think anyone "did it," but I thought it would be interesting to see what those whose expertise is TC thought about whether Lucian did it or not, and why (please give data, if possible). Anyone want to respond ?? *********************************************************************** Dale M. Wheeler, Th.D. Chair, Biblical Languages Dept Multnomah Bible College 8435 NE Glisan Street Portland, OR 97220 Voice: 503-251-6416 FAX:503-254-1268 E-Mail: dalemw@teleport.com *********************************************************************** From majordom Thu Mar 7 13:55:55 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA15706; Thu, 7 Mar 1996 13:55:55 +0500 Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 13:52:54 -0500 (EST) From: Bart Ehrman To: textual criticism list Subject: Re: Codices for Teaching In-Reply-To: <199603071818.KAA09011@desiree.teleport.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 501 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Status: O X-Status: On Thu, 7 Mar 1996, Dale M. Wheeler wrote: > I've also had several ask who I think "did it," if Lucian didn't. I > personally don't think anyone "did it," but I thought it would be > interesting to see what those whose expertise is TC thought about whether > Lucian did it or not, and why (please give data, if possible). Anyone want > to respond ?? Um, sorry, but I haven't been following all of these postings. "Did" *what*? -- Bart D. Ehrman, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill From majordom Thu Mar 7 14:11:09 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA15779; Thu, 7 Mar 1996 14:11:09 +0500 Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 14:08:19 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Aramaic Grammar In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 546 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Status: O X-Status: On Wed, 6 Mar 1996, James R. Adair wrote: > I have Rosenthal and have used it, but it is very brief and doesn't deal > much with syntax, as I recall. Is there a reference grammar for Aramaic, > or does somebody know whether someone might be working on one? I have > the same question for Syriac: is there something beyond Brockelmann, > Robinson, or Muraoka? I am not in my office so I cannot check on publication data, but I believe there is a more extensive work by Alger F. Johns, coming out from Andrews University Seminary Press. From majordom Thu Mar 7 14:18:56 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA15807; Thu, 7 Mar 1996 14:18:56 +0500 Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 11:15:26 -0800 Message-Id: <199603071915.LAA14637@desiree.teleport.com> X-Sender: dalemw@mail.teleport.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: dalemw@teleport.com (Dale M. Wheeler) Subject: Re: Codices for Teaching Content-Length: 837 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Status: O X-Status: Bart D. Ehrman wrote: > Um, sorry, but I haven't been following all of these postings. "Did" >*what*? This is the statement from the Brown mss site about Lucian's work: "It is called Byzantine because it was adopted in Constantinople and used as the common text in the Byzantine world. It was produced in Antioch, Syria, under the direction of Lucian near the beginning of the fourth century and has been called the Syrian or Antiochene text." *********************************************************************** Dale M. Wheeler, Th.D. Chair, Biblical Languages Dept Multnomah Bible College 8435 NE Glisan Street Portland, OR 97220 Voice: 503-251-6416 FAX:503-254-1268 E-Mail: dalemw@teleport.com *********************************************************************** From majordom Thu Mar 7 15:10:58 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA16084; Thu, 7 Mar 1996 15:10:58 +0500 Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 15:08:09 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Codices for Teaching In-Reply-To: <199603071818.KAA09011@desiree.teleport.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 1644 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Status: O X-Status: On Thu, 7 Mar 1996, Dale M. Wheeler wrote: > I've also had several ask who I think "did it," if Lucian didn't. I > personally don't think anyone "did it," but I thought it would be > interesting to see what those whose expertise is TC thought about whether > Lucian did it or not, and why (please give data, if possible). Anyone want > to respond ?? I would here agree with Dale, i.e., that no one "did it." Of course I do not view the Byzantine Textform as the product of a recension or even of a "process" method such as Colwell proposed. But even if Hort and others were correct that a "Syrian recension" had occurred, Lucian would probably be the least likely person to have been involved in such, since he died ca.314, and condemnation rather than acceptance was made regarding the "codices which Lucian falsified" (which from all indications were of the OT LXX and not the NT at all). I would suggest (contra Fee) that a better case can be made for the Alexandrian text as the product of second-century recensional activity than for the Byzantine; but even in that case Lucian would have had nothing to do with any NT recension, and the archetype Alexandrian text likely would antedate Lucian in any case. ========================================================================= Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ========================================================================= From majordom Thu Mar 7 15:45:08 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA16238; Thu, 7 Mar 1996 15:45:08 +0500 Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 15:42:05 -0500 (EST) From: Bart Ehrman To: textual criticism list Subject: Lucian and the Byzantine text In-Reply-To: <199603071915.LAA14637@desiree.teleport.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 1121 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Status: O X-Status: In response to D. Wheeler's query: Very few people who actually work in this material, of course, pin the Byzantine text on Lucian (though there are still a few "Hug-ians" among us...). The most important recent treatment is K. Wachtel, _Der Byzantinische Text der Katholischen Briefe_ ANTF 24; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1995. Wachtel makes a strong case that the Byzantine text, while having its roots in the fourth century, was a slow train coming (I'm paraphrasing); the process continued up to the ninth century, when it was more or less brought to a conclusion with the introduction of the minuscule script. The data he uses, of course, apply to the Catholic epistles; they are, in fact, the _Teststellen_ used by the Institut fuer neutestamentliche Textforschung (the Institute founded by Kurt Aland and now directed by Barbara Aland in Muenster). Now that I think of it, isn't Klaus on this list? If so, I hope he can say a few things about it (like, whether I've got the basic thrust right on the basis of a quick perusal). -- Bart D. Ehrman, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill From majordom Thu Mar 7 17:03:23 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA16569; Thu, 7 Mar 1996 17:03:23 +0500 From: "GLENN WOODEN" Organization: Acadia University To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 15:55:32 AST4ADT Subject: Re: Aramaic Grammar Priority: normal X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.21) Message-Id: Content-Length: 371 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Status: O X-Status: Johns's book is not a reference grammar. It is an intro. with sentences made up for teaching purposes. > I am not in my office so I cannot check on publication data, but I > believe there is a more extensive work by Alger F. Johns, coming out from > Andrews University Seminary Press. Glenn Wooden Acadia Divinity College Wolfville N.S. Canada wooden@acadiau.ca From majordom Thu Mar 7 17:46:15 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA16735; Thu, 7 Mar 1996 17:46:15 +0500 Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 17:43:26 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Aramaic Grammar In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 266 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Status: O X-Status: On Thu, 7 Mar 1996, GLENN WOODEN wrote: > Johns's book is not a reference grammar. It is an intro. with > sentences made up for teaching purposes. Thanks for the clarification. I just happened to remember Johns' name and thought it might be what was needed. From majordom Sat Mar 9 02:37:01 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA22145; Sat, 9 Mar 1996 02:37:01 +0500 X-Sender: kmcgrew@mail.halcyon.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 8 Mar 1996 23:36:01 -1200 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: kmcgrew@halcyon.com (Kelly McGrew) Subject: Re: Aramaic Grammar Cc: HuldrychZ@aol.com Content-Length: 618 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Status: O X-Status: Here are some other grammars of Aramaic: David Marcus. A Manual of Babylonian Jewish Aramaic. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, Inc., 1981. Alger F. Johns. A Short Grammar of Biblical Aramaic. Berrien Springs, MI: Anders University Press, 1972 W. B. Stevenson. Grammar of Palestinian Jewish Aramaic. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1962. Kelly McGrew --------------------------------------------------------------------- "The world is preserved for mercy's sake." Rashi, on Pirkei Avot 1. --------------------------------------------------------------------- kmcgrew@halcyon.com Olympia, Washington, USA From majordom Sat Mar 9 05:23:50 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA22427; Sat, 9 Mar 1996 05:23:50 +0500 Date: Sat, 9 Mar 96 11:20:01 CET Message-Id: X-Priority: 3 (Normal) To: From: Subject: Undeliverable Message Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 1612 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Status: O X-Status: To: Cc: Subject: Re: Aramaic Grammar Message not delivered to recipients below. Press F1 for help with VNM error codes. VNM3043: Johan Lust@AP@THEO VNM3043 -- MAILBOX IS FULL. The message cannot be delivered because the recipient's mailbox contains the maximum number of messages, as set by the system administrator. The recipient must delete some messages before any other messages can be delivered. The default limit is 1000 messages. Administrators can set lower limits if required using the Change mailbox settings function available in the Manage User menu (MUSER). The 1000 message limit is the maximum allowed by the Mail program. If this limit is reached, the recipient must delete some of the messages before the mailbox can accept any more incoming messages. ---------------------- Original Message Follows ----------------------Here are some other grammars of Aramaic: David Marcus. A Manual of Babylonian Jewish Aramaic. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, Inc., 1981. Alger F. Johns. A Short Grammar of Biblical Aramaic. Berrien Springs, MI: Anders University Press, 1972 W. B. Stevenson. Grammar of Palestinian Jewish Aramaic. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1962. Kelly McGrew --------------------------------------------------------------------- "The world is preserved for mercy's sake." Rashi, on Pirkei Avot 1. --------------------------------------------------------------------- kmcgrew@halcyon.com Olympia, Washington, USA From majordom Sat Mar 9 19:55:38 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA24297; Sat, 9 Mar 1996 19:55:38 +0500 Date: Sat, 9 Mar 1996 19:52:40 -0500 From: HuldrychZ@aol.com Message-Id: <960309195240_442347212@emout07.mail.aol.com> To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Tel-Dan Content-Length: 255 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Status: O X-Status: Friends, I am very interested in any bibliographic information concerning the Tel-Dan excavations and the "house of David" reference found there. I hope someone can help me with references (though this might not be the right forum!) Thanks, Jim West From majordom Sat Mar 9 23:41:31 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA24612; Sat, 9 Mar 1996 23:41:31 +0500 Date: Sat, 09 Mar 1996 23:38:41 -0500 (EST) From: "VCBROWN@DELPHI.COM" Subject: Tel-Dan To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Message-Id: <01I25IHMYC0I985CZ3@delphi.com> X-Vms-To: INTERNET"tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Length: 1055 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Status: O X-Status: Jim, On 9-MAR-1996 19:56:32.5 tc-list said to VCBROWN > I am very interested in any bibliographic information concerning the > Tel-Dan excavations and the "house of David" reference found there. Try these: 1) "An Aramaic Stele Fragment from Tel Dan" by Avraham Biram and Joseph Naveh, IEJ 43:81-98 (1993) 2) "The Tel Dan Inscription: A New Fragment" by Avraham Biram and Joseph Naveh, IEJ 45:1-18 (1995) 3) "The Stela from Dan: Epigraphic and Historical Considerations" by Baruch Halpern BASOR 296:63-80 4) "The Prefix Preterite in Old Aramaic Tell Dan Inscription and the Emer- gence of Northwest Semitics Dialects" by William Schniedewind, SBL paper Philadelphia (11-19-95) 5) "On the Recently Discovered `House of David' Inscription" by Frederick H. Cryer, SJOT, 8.1:3-19 (1994) 6) "A `BETDAWD' Miscellany: DWD, DWD', or DWHD?" by Frederick H Cryer, SJOT, 9.1:52-58 (1995) 7) " `House of David': An Epynomic Referent to Yahweh as Godfather" by Thomas L. Thompson, SJOT 9.1:59-74 (1995) Best wishes. Virgil Brown From majordom Sun Mar 10 00:09:34 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA24742; Sun, 10 Mar 1996 00:09:34 +0500 Date: Sat, 9 Mar 1996 21:06:41 -0800 From: SoHNcoM@eworld.com Message-Id: <960309210206_27465325@hp1.online.apple.com> To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Strangeness in my mailbox Content-Length: 12313 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Status: O X-Status: Dear Mr. Jimmy Adair, The following message appeared in my mailbox twenty times! I think it resulted in my being UNSUBSCRIBED to the B-Hebrew List for some strange reason. Was I the only one this happened to? If not I am sure you are by now swamped with messages similar to this one. If I was the only one, if you can render assistance to prevent re- occurence it would be truly appreciated. Also if I am sending this to the wrong place please accept my apology. I really enjoy the TC List and want to do nothing to jeopardize my standing. Thanks for you time and attention to this matter. Here is the message: Subj: Undeliverable Message Date: Sat, Mar 9, 1996 7:02 AM EST From: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu X-From: MAILER-DAEMON@vinip.cc.kuleuven.ac.be Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Reply-to: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu To: Cc: Subject: Undeliverable Message Message not delivered to recipients below. Press F1 for help with VNM error codes. VNM3043: Johan Lust@AP@THEO VNM3043 -- MAILBOX IS FULL. The message cannot be delivered because the recipient's mailbox contains the maximum number of messages, as set by the system administrator. The recipient must delete some messages before any other messages can be delivered. The default limit is 1000 messages. Administrators can set lower limits if required using the Change mailbox settings function available in the Manage User menu (MUSER). The 1000 message limit is the maximum allowed by the Mail program. If this limit is reached, the recipient must delete some of the messages before the mailbox can accept any more incoming messages. ---------------------- Original Message Follows ----------------------To: Cc: Subject: Undeliverable Message Message not delivered to recipients below. Press F1 for help with VNM error codes. VNM3043: Johan Lust@AP@THEO VNM3043 -- MAILBOX IS FULL. The message cannot be delivered because the recipient's mailbox contains the maximum number of messages, as set by the system administrator. The recipient must delete some messages before any other messages can be delivered. The default limit is 1000 messages. Administrators can set lower limits if required using the Change mailbox settings function available in the Manage User menu (MUSER). The 1000 message limit is the maximum allowed by the Mail program. If this limit is reached, the recipient must delete some of the messages before the mailbox can accept any more incoming messages. ---------------------- Original Message Follows ----------------------To: Cc: Subject: Undeliverable Message Message not delivered to recipients below. Press F1 for help with VNM error codes. VNM3043: Johan Lust@AP@THEO VNM3043 -- MAILBOX IS FULL. The message cannot be delivered because the recipient's mailbox contains the maximum number of messages, as set by the system administrator. The recipient must delete some messages before any other messages can be delivered. The default limit is 1000 messages. Administrators can set lower limits if required using the Change mailbox settings function available in the Manage User menu (MUSER). The 1000 message limit is the maximum allowed by the Mail program. If this limit is reached, the recipient must delete some of the messages before the mailbox can accept any more incoming messages. ---------------------- Original Message Follows ----------------------To: Cc: Subject: Undeliverable Message Message not delivered to recipients below. Press F1 for help with VNM error codes. VNM3043: Johan Lust@AP@THEO VNM3043 -- MAILBOX IS FULL. The message cannot be delivered because the recipient's mailbox contains the maximum number of messages, as set by the system administrator. The recipient must delete some messages before any other messages can be delivered. The default limit is 1000 messages. Administrators can set lower limits if required using the Change mailbox settings function available in the Manage User menu (MUSER). The 1000 message limit is the maximum allowed by the Mail program. If this limit is reached, the recipient must delete some of the messages before the mailbox can accept any more incoming messages. ---------------------- Original Message Follows ----------------------To: Cc: Subject: Undeliverable Message Message not delivered to recipients below. Press F1 for help with VNM error codes. VNM3043: Johan Lust@AP@THEO VNM3043 -- MAILBOX IS FULL. The message cannot be delivered because the recipient's mailbox contains the maximum number of messages, as set by the system administrator. The recipient must delete some messages before any other messages can be delivered. The default limit is 1000 messages. Administrators can set lower limits if required using the Change mailbox settings function available in the Manage User menu (MUSER). The 1000 message limit is the maximum allowed by the Mail program. If this limit is reached, the recipient must delete some of the messages before the mailbox can accept any more incoming messages. ---------------------- Original Message Follows ----------------------To: Cc: Subject: Undeliverable Message Message not delivered to recipients below. Press F1 for help with VNM error codes. VNM3043: Johan Lust@AP@THEO VNM3043 -- MAILBOX IS FULL. The message cannot be delivered because the recipient's mailbox contains the maximum number of messages, as set by the system administrator. The recipient must delete some messages before any other messages can be delivered. The default limit is 1000 messages. Administrators can set lower limits if required using the Change mailbox settings function available in the Manage User menu (MUSER). The 1000 message limit is the maximum allowed by the Mail program. If this limit is reached, the recipient must delete some of the messages before the mailbox can accept any more incoming messages. ---------------------- Original Message Follows ----------------------To: Cc: Subject: Undeliverable Message Message not delivered to recipients below. Press F1 for help with VNM error codes. VNM3043: Johan Lust@AP@THEO VNM3043 -- MAILBOX IS FULL. The message cannot be delivered because the recipient's mailbox contains the maximum number of messages, as set by the system administrator. The recipient must delete some messages before any other messages can be delivered. The default limit is 1000 messages. Administrators can set lower limits if required using the Change mailbox settings function available in the Manage User menu (MUSER). The 1000 message limit is the maximum allowed by the Mail program. If this limit is reached, the recipient must delete some of the messages before the mailbox can accept any more incoming messages. ---------------------- Original Message Follows ----------------------To: Cc: Subject: Undeliverable Message Message not delivered to recipients below. Press F1 for help with VNM error codes. VNM3043: Johan Lust@AP@THEO VNM3043 -- MAILBOX IS FULL. The message cannot be delivered because the recipient's mailbox contains the maximum number of messages, as set by the system administrator. The recipient must delete some messages before any other messages can be delivered. The default limit is 1000 messages. Administrators can set lower limits if required using the Change mailbox settings function available in the Manage User menu (MUSER). The 1000 message limit is the maximum allowed by the Mail program. If this limit is reached, the recipient must delete some of the messages before the mailbox can accept any more incoming messages. ---------------------- Original Message Follows ----------------------To: Cc: Subject: Undeliverable Message Message not delivered to recipients below. Press F1 for help with VNM error codes. VNM3043: Johan Lust@AP@THEO VNM3043 -- MAILBOX IS FULL. The message cannot be delivered because the recipient's mailbox contains the maximum number of messages, as set by the system administrator. The recipient must delete some messages before any other messages can be delivered. The default limit is 1000 messages. Administrators can set lower limits if required using the Change mailbox settings function available in the Manage User menu (MUSER). The 1000 message limit is the maximum allowed by the Mail program. If this limit is reached, the recipient must delete some of the messages before the mailbox can accept any more incoming messages. ---------------------- Original Message Follows ----------------------To: Cc: Subject: Re: Aramaic Grammar Message not delivered to recipients below. Press F1 for help with VNM error codes. VNM3043: Johan Lust@AP@THEO VNM3043 -- MAILBOX IS FULL. The message cannot be delivered because the recipient's mailbox contains the maximum number of messages, as set by the system administrator. The recipient must delete some messages before any other messages can be delivered. The default limit is 1000 messages. Administrators can set lower limits if required using the Change mailbox settings function available in the Manage User menu (MUSER). The 1000 message limit is the maximum allowed by the Mail program. If this limit is reached, the recipient must delete some of the messages before the mailbox can accept any more incoming messages. ---------------------- Original Message Follows ----------------------Here are some other grammars of Aramaic: David Marcus. A Manual of Babylonian Jewish Aramaic. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, Inc., 1981. Alger F. Johns. A Short Grammar of Biblical Aramaic. Berrien Springs, MI: Anders University Press, 1972 W. B. Stevenson. Grammar of Palestinian Jewish Aramaic. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1962. Kelly McGrew --------------------------------------------------------------------- "The world is preserved for mercy's sake." Rashi, on Pirkei Avot 1. --------------------------------------------------------------------- kmcgrew@halcyon.com Olympia, Washington, USA ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- From majordom Sun Mar 10 02:10:45 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA24900; Sun, 10 Mar 1996 02:10:45 +0500 Date: Sat, 9 Mar 1996 23:07:55 -0800 From: SoHNcoM@eworld.com Message-Id: <960309230752_27473083@hp1.online.apple.com> To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Strangeness in my mailbox Content-Length: 196 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Status: O X-Status: My apologies to the list for the previous message "Strangeness in my mailbox." I thought I had sent it directly to jadair@emory rather than to the entire list. soHNcoM@eworld.com Dexter Garnier From majordom Sun Mar 10 06:23:13 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA25286; Sun, 10 Mar 1996 06:23:13 +0500 Date: Sun, 10 Mar 1996 06:20:14 -0500 (EST) From: Patrick Durusau X-Sender: pdurusau@curly.cc.emory.edu To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Cc: soHNcoM@eworld.com Subject: Apologies: Undeliverable Mail In-Reply-To: <960309230752_27473083@hp1.online.apple.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 1168 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Status: O X-Status: TC-List members and Dexter Garnier: Our apologies for the looping mail message that was sent from the TC-List on Saturday, March 9, 1995. The problem arose from a user (Not Dexter Garnier!) whose mailbox was full and the mail daemon at the other site was bouncing the mail from the list back to TC-List and the TC-List would dutifully send it out to the list members, including the one with a full mailbox. I did not see the problem until late Saturday morning and I deleted that user from the distribution list to break the loop of mail sent and mail bounce. I have not seen any of the looping messages since that time and I think that has resolved the problem. We appreciate your interest and participation in the TC-List and look forward to your contributions to the topics of concern to scholars of textual criticism. If you have or are writing an article on textual criticism, please contact James Adair, jadair@emory.edu, Editor, TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism, to discuss publication of your article in electronic format. Patrick Patrick Durusau Technical Editor, TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism pdurusau@emory.edu From majordom Tue Mar 12 01:29:33 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA02187; Tue, 12 Mar 1996 01:29:33 +0500 Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 22:26:36 -0800 From: MrNyse195@eworld.com Message-Id: <960311222634_27597354@hp1.online.apple.com> To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Different dating systems Content-Length: 612 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Status: O X-Status: I don't know if it's relevant to this list, but I'm curious as to what everyone has to say on this issue- If papryologists come to a set date on a particular manuscript or set of mss. (say for example, p52 being around 110-138 A.D.), then how do liberal scholars come to their own conclusions (example- John being written later than 100 A.D. by someone other than John) and still consider themselves to be looking "honestly" at the evidence? In Christ, Kerry Gilliard Director and Founder W.I.T.N.E.S.S. Ministries http://members.aol.com/blufunk195/witness.html "God has a great sense of humor. He made me." From majordom Tue Mar 12 08:45:21 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA02943; Tue, 12 Mar 1996 08:45:21 +0500 Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 08:43:32 -0500 From: HuldrychZ@aol.com Message-Id: <960312084332_444313263@emout08.mail.aol.com> To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Different dating systems Content-Length: 386 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Status: O X-Status: Baur and some of his colleagues dated John late simply because of its theological development (which they viewed as more advanced than the Synoptics). But, in their defense, they did not know of the existence of the earlier papyri fragments. Thus, they dated the material according to a set of criteria- and they would CERTAINLY adjust their views according to new findings. Jim West From majordom Tue Mar 12 10:03:07 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA03194; Tue, 12 Mar 1996 10:03:07 +0500 Message-Id: <9603121500.AA12892@osf1.gmu.edu> Subject: Re: Different dating systems To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 10:00:17 -0500 (EST) From: "Stephen C Carlson" In-Reply-To: <960311222634_27597354@hp1.online.apple.com> from "MrNyse195@eworld.com" at Mar 11, 96 10:26:36 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 796 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Status: O X-Status: MrNyse195@eworld.com wrote: >If papryologists come to a set date on a particular manuscript or set of mss. >(say for example, p52 being around 110-138 A.D.), then how do liberal >scholars come to their own conclusions (example- John being written later >than 100 A.D. by someone other than John) and still consider themselves to be >looking "honestly" at the evidence? A late date (after 95) for the composition of John has the support of Church Fathers like Irenaeus (c. 130 - 200). I don't know if Irenaeus can be considered a "liberal scholar." Stephen Carlson -- Stephen C. Carlson, George Mason University School of Law, Patent Track, 4LE scarlso1@osf1.gmu.edu : Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs http://osf1.gmu.edu/~scarlso1/ : chant the words. -- Shujing 2.35 From majordom Tue Mar 12 13:00:04 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA04057; Tue, 12 Mar 1996 13:00:04 +0500 Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 12:58:47 -0500 From: HuldrychZ@aol.com Message-Id: <960312125847_244151353@emout09.mail.aol.com> To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Is 7:14 Content-Length: 551 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Status: O X-Status: It is well known that the LXX of Is 7:14 uses the word "parthenos"; while the MT has "almah" and not "bethulah". My question, particularly to Dr. Ehrman is, is this an example of scribal corruption to make the LXX conform with the orthodox viewpoint concerning the messiahship of Jesus? It seems that several other versions of the LXX, which have a different rendering, would support this view. And, if alteration (rather than corruption!!) has occured in this text, is it fairly certain that it has occured elsewhere as well? Thanks, Jim West From majordom Tue Mar 12 13:22:13 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA04199; Tue, 12 Mar 1996 13:22:13 +0500 Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 13:19:19 -0500 (EST) From: Andrew Gross To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Cc: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Is 7:14 In-Reply-To: <960312125847_244151353@emout09.mail.aol.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 1326 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Status: O X-Status: On Tue, 12 Mar 1996 HuldrychZ@aol.com wrote: > It is well known that the LXX of Is 7:14 uses the word "parthenos"; while the > MT has "almah" and not "bethulah". > > My question, particularly to Dr. Ehrman is, is this an example of scribal > corruption to make the LXX conform with the orthodox viewpoint concerning the > messiahship of Jesus? > > It seems that several other versions of the LXX, which have a different > rendering, would support this view. Because I'm on vacation right now, I am unfortunately away from my library. Would you be able to post these different renderings for my (and hopefully, others') benefit? Also, how is "`almah" usually rendered in the LXX. I realize that I should probably know this one, but I unfortunately don', and I did not bring Hatch & Redpath with me on vacation. > And, if alteration (rather than corruption!!) has occured in this text, is it > fairly certain that it has occured elsewhere as well? Well, here's a can of worms, if I ever saw one. However, I must say that the traffic has been low on this list, and an "Isaiah 7:14" discussion is always a good way to liven things up. I think soc.religion.christian.bible-study even has a FAQ on this subject, though I don't believe it goes into textual issues too much, just the semantic ones. andrew gross From majordom Tue Mar 12 14:07:06 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA04391; Tue, 12 Mar 1996 14:07:06 +0500 Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 14:06:56 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Adair" X-Sender: jadair@scholar To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Is 7:14 In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 1350 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Status: O X-Status: I will be presenting a paper this weekend at the Southeast regional SBL meetings in South Carolina in which I argue that Isa 7:14 can be viewed as an "orthodox corruption" from two different points of view! First, Isaiah LXX is a fairly free translation, so PARQENOS (parthenos) is almost surely original to the translator (the Hebrew word that most closely corresponds would be B:TULFH [betulah]). However, the translation didn't run into any major opposition until Matthew picked it up and used it as a proof-text for the virgin birth (Mt 1:23). After this, many Jews rejected the LXX reading and opted for NEANIS (used by Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion), which is closer in meaning to the MT of Isa 7:14, (FLMFH (almah). For Christian scribes, then, PARQENOS suddenly became a doctrinally important reading, and they accused the Jews of altering texts in order to refute the doctrine of the virgin birth. Jews, on the other hand, felt that their reading NEANIS was a justified correction of the errant LXX reading. Thus, both PARQENOS and NEANIS could be viewed as orthodox corruptions/corrections from different points of view. Jimmy Adair Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press and Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site ---------------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu <----------------- From majordom Tue Mar 12 14:38:14 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA04513; Tue, 12 Mar 1996 14:38:14 +0500 Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 14:35:22 -0500 From: HuldrychZ@aol.com Message-Id: <960312143521_244218878@emout04.mail.aol.com> To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Tiq. Soph. Content-Length: 452 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Status: O X-Status: Following up on my last question (about Is 7:14)- we know that the copyists of the MT altered what they found when they considered it objectionable. They marked them with the so called "tiqqune sopherim". Does it not stand to reason, therefore, that there are other alterations of the Hebrew Bible which are not noted? And does it not stand to reason, further, that the scribes of the Greek Testament did the same? Thanks for your help, Jim West From majordom Tue Mar 12 15:49:18 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA04857; Tue, 12 Mar 1996 15:49:18 +0500 Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 12:46:25 -0800 From: MrNyse195@eworld.com Message-Id: <960312124454_27634307@hp1.online.apple.com> To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Different dating systems Content-Length: 501 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Status: O X-Status: ----------------------------- Begin Original Text ----------------------------- A late date (after 95) for the composition of John has the support of Church Fathers like Irenaeus (c. 130 - 200). I don't know if Irenaeus can be considered a "liberal scholar." ----------------------------- End Original Text ----------------------------- Really? Can you provide some refs for me to look up? I'm currently expanding my early church father's library and this will do well for me to check out. Kerry From majordom Tue Mar 12 16:00:19 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA04912; Tue, 12 Mar 1996 16:00:19 +0500 Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 15:57:28 -0500 (EST) From: Andrew Gross To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Tiq. Soph. In-Reply-To: <960312143521_244218878@emout04.mail.aol.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 1672 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Status: O X-Status: On Tue, 12 Mar 1996 HuldrychZ@aol.com wrote: > Following up on my last question (about Is 7:14)- we know that the copyists > of the MT altered what they found when they considered it objectionable. > They marked them with the so called "tiqqune sopherim". Does it not stand > to reason, therefore, that there are other alterations of the Hebrew Bible > which are not noted? > And does it not stand to reason, further, that the scribes of the Greek > Testament did the same? Well, yes, this is certainly all reasonable. However, if you are trying to build an argument from such suppositions, you should make sure that these suppositions have undergone an appropriate degree of methodological rigor. More specifically, in order to prove that the MT has been altered, you would first have to produce an attestation of the supposed original rendering -- and preferably, one that is in the original language. Obviously, you would then have to somehow demonstrate that the supposed original rendering was in fact the "original" one. Beyond that, you would have to demonstrate that this change was brought about intentionally for ideological reasons and not just through simple scribal error. As for the Greek Testament (assuming that you are referring to the LXX and/or other Greek translations of the Hebrew Bible), you also would have to take into account the strong possibility that the translator did not have the MT as his Vorlage. So, in short, what you postulate is certainly reasonable, but if you ever wanted to demonstrate that alterations had occurred in specific instances, you face a heavy burden of proof. hope this helps, andrew gross From majordom Tue Mar 12 16:26:55 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA05089; Tue, 12 Mar 1996 16:26:55 +0500 Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 16:24:01 -0500 From: Orthopodeo@aol.com Message-Id: <960312162400_349174397@emout06.mail.aol.com> To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Is 7:14 Content-Length: 1431 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Status: O X-Status: In a message dated 96-03-12 13:27:20 EST, you write: >> It is well known that the LXX of Is 7:14 uses the word "parthenos"; while >the >> MT has "almah" and not "bethulah". >> >> My question, particularly to Dr. Ehrman is, is this an example of scribal >> corruption to make the LXX conform with the orthodox viewpoint concerning >the >> messiahship of Jesus? >> >> It seems that several other versions of the LXX, which have a different >> rendering, would support this view. I have always been of the opinion that Matthew and Luke followed the LXX here, not the other way around. A quick scan with BibleWorks revealed the following Hebrew terms being translated by "parthenos" specifically: ha'nar, bethulah, ha'almah (Gen 24:43); ha'bethulah, bethulah Israel being quite common especially in Jeremiah. The Genesis 24:43 follows Isaiah 7:14 closely---but I see no reason why the LXX would have been corrupted to an "orthodox" reading at this point. ********************************************************** * James White, B.A., M.A., Th.M., Orthopodeo@aol.com * * College of Christian Studies-Grand Canyon University * * Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary-AZ Campus * * Professor of Apologetics-Faraston Theological Seminary * * Director, Alpha and Omega Ministries * * http://net387.texas.net/ao.html * ********************************************************** From majordom Tue Mar 12 16:26:48 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA05087; Tue, 12 Mar 1996 16:26:48 +0500 Message-Id: <199603122123.QAA32338@r02n05.cac.psu.edu> X-Sender: wlp1@email.psu.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 13:51:57 -0500 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: wlp1@psu.edu (William L. Petersen) Subject: Is 7:14 Content-Length: 5228 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Status: O X-Status: Regarding the recent exchange on Is. 7.14, Jimmy Adair wrote: >I will be presenting a paper this weekend at the Southeast regional SBL >meetings in South Carolina in which I argue that Isa 7:14 can be viewed as >an "orthodox corruption" from two different points of view! First, Isaiah >LXX is a fairly free translation, so PARQENOS (parthenos) is almost surely >original to the translator (the Hebrew word that most closely corresponds >would be B:TULFH [betulah]). However, the translation didn't run into any >major opposition until Matthew picked it up and used it as a proof-text >for the virgin birth (Mt 1:23). After this, many Jews rejected the LXX >reading and opted for NEANIS (used by Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion), >which is closer in meaning to the MT of Isa 7:14, (FLMFH (almah). For >Christian scribes, then, PARQENOS suddenly became a doctrinally important >reading, and they accused the Jews of altering texts in order to refute >the doctrine of the virgin birth. Jews, on the other hand, felt that >their reading NEANIS was a justified correction of the errant LXX reading. >Thus, both PARQENOS and NEANIS could be viewed as orthodox >corruptions/corrections from different points of view. > >Jimmy Adair This whole area (the LXX, its base text in Hebrew, and the evolution of the LXX's own text [that is, its own transmission history]) is fraught with pitfalls, for it is still an evolving area of research. F.G. Kenyon, _The Text of the Greek Bible_, 3rd ed, rev. and augmented by A. Adams (1975 [1st ed. was 1936--sixty years ago, and this may be in the original edition!), p. 17 foot, gives exactly the same argument as Jimmy Adair. (Reading old scholarship is not only invaluable, it is essential... I'm sure this argument antedates Sir Frederick.) On the whole matter of the LXX's history, see S. Jellicoe, _The Septuagint and Modern Study_ (OUP 1968; Eisenbrauns 1989). Extreme care must be taken in evaluating these readings, for--as the study of Justin's text of the Hebrew Bible has shown--Justin's citations may not agree with the LXX or MT, but they often DO agree with OTHER (often fragmentary) Greek stuff current in his time! (See, e.g., the study of J. Smit Sibinga, _The OT Text of Justin Martyr, I. The Pentateuch_ {Brill 1963], which demonstrated that what were once thought to be "loose" paraphrases of the MT or LXX by Justin, now are seen to have agreements with early Greek fragments, the Hebrew Micah, etc., etc., and thus are NOT free "paraphrases" or "loose" quotations. Another example such work is D. Barthelmey, "Redecouverte d'un chainon manquant...," RB 60 (1953), 18-29].) To acknowledge this "proto-LXX" Greek text, scholarship now speaks of an "Old Greek" (see E. Tov, _Textual Criticism of the HB_ (1992), p. 135, etc.; E. Ulrich, "Origen's OT Text," in _Origen of Alexandria. His World and His Legacy_, edd. C. Kannengiesser & W.L. Petersen [U Notre Dame, 1988]). The question, therefore, is much more complex, IMHO, than "LXX or corruption of LXX". Rather, the matter is "mistranslation OR corruption, yes; which, I'm not sure; where in the transmission history, I'm also not sure." That PARQENOS is a corruption is not certain, for the evidence is too fragile. To wit: (1) If corrupted, then why only here? Such a bold hand certainly would not have hesitated to have messed with the LXX elsewhere. (Contra: Perhaps it did, in Ps. 22 for example?) (2) Why corrupt Is. 7.14, when the whole CONTEXT of 7.14 shows (i) that it is not messianic, and (ii) that its chronological time-frame is fixed by 7.16? (3) In the NT itself, there is too much evidence which contradicts the virgin birth: (i) "this day I have begotten/generated you", which is the standard reading of the _New Jerusalem Bible_ and also of the Huck-Greeven _Synopse_ at Lk. 3.22; (ii) why do Mary and Joseph worry over the young Jesus missing in Jerusalem at age 12 (Luke 2.41-50)? After all, THEY, at least, KNOW that he is will hold the "throne of his ancestor David" and rule without end (Luke 1.32-33)! (iii) Etc., etc., etc. Why not "correct" these NT passages first? Even more significant, however, is the testimony of the early church, which has Ebionites and other Judaic Christians rejecting the virgin birth--yet they are Christians (cp. Epiphanius, Pan. 28.1.2; 30.2.1). Also the whole NT ignores the issue (save for the VB stories themselves in Matt & Luke). This corroborates the NON-v.b. passages in the NT. One must not forget the religious context either, in which humans were regularly divinized, and virgin births were attributed to "great men" (Alexander the Gt., etc.: see the _ERE_ under "VB"). Thus, the question of WHERE the mistranslation/corruption took place is a very dicey issue. It could have been (1) in a pre-LXX rendering (in the "Old Greek" ?), (2) it could have been nothing more than a "free" rendering (as Jimmy argues) by a Jew who didn't know his Greek-Hebrew equivalencies that well, or (3) it could have been a Christian corruption. All in all, a rather "stickey wicket," as they say. I am willing to bet on sure things, or even when the odds are in my favor; here, however, I would not wager. --Petersen, Penn State Univ. From majordom Tue Mar 12 16:45:36 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA05191; Tue, 12 Mar 1996 16:45:36 +0500 Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 16:45:25 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Adair" X-Sender: jadair@scholar To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Tiq. Soph. In-Reply-To: <960312143521_244218878@emout04.mail.aol.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 1788 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Status: O X-Status: On Tue, 12 Mar 1996 HuldrychZ@aol.com wrote: > Following up on my last question (about Is 7:14)- we know that the copyists > of the MT altered what they found when they considered it objectionable. > They marked them with the so called "tiqqune sopherim". Does it not stand > to reason, therefore, that there are other alterations of the Hebrew Bible > which are not noted? There are traditionally only 18 tiqqune sopherim, but other scribal changes are evident. The most obvious ones I know of are in the first two chapters of Job, where the original words "curse God" (or their equivalent pronouns) have been replaced by "bless God" in the MT. Then there are also scribal omissions, puncta extraordinaria, inverted and suspended nuns, .... Fishbane discusses numerous passages in which he detects unmarked (by the Masora) scribal changes in _Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel_. > And does it not stand to reason, further, that the scribes of the Greek > Testament did the same? The obvious example here is Origen, who "corrected" the LXX in the direction of the proto-MT in the fifth column of his Hexapla. Actually he just marked the differences and inserted Greek material for the LXX minuses, but the effect on the LXX tradition was drastic. As I recall, Koster (?) wrote a book on the Peshitta of Exodus in which he argued that later manuscripts of P tended to "correct" the text in the direction of Hebrew manuscripts. So I think that it can be argued that scribal "correction/corruption" was common in most, if not all, manuscript traditions. Jimmy Adair Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press and Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site ---------------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu <----------------- From majordom Tue Mar 12 17:48:59 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA05442; Tue, 12 Mar 1996 17:48:59 +0500 From: Sigrid Peterson Message-Id: <199603122245.RAA39355@ccat.sas.upenn.edu> Subject: Re: Tiq. Soph. To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 17:45:54 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <960312143521_244218878@emout04.mail.aol.com> from "HuldrychZ@aol.com" at Mar 12, 96 02:35:22 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23-upenn3.1] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 495 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Status: O X-Status: According to HuldrychZ@aol.com: > > Following up on my last question (about Is 7:14)- we know that the copyists > of the MT altered what they found when they considered it objectionable. > They marked them with the so called "tiqqune sopherim". How do we know this? It's something I haven't learned. [...] > > Jim West > Sigrid Peterson UPenn, Bar-Ilan University, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and The British School for Archaeology in Jerusalem petersig@ccat.sas.upenn.edu From majordom Tue Mar 12 19:07:01 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA05641; Tue, 12 Mar 1996 19:07:01 +0500 Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 19:04:08 -0500 From: HuldrychZ@aol.com Message-Id: <960312190407_349348081@emout06.mail.aol.com> To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Tiq. Soph. Content-Length: 233 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Status: O X-Status: A question was asked concerning the Tiqqune Sopherim. The best easily accesible resource is E. Wurthwein's "Text of the Old Testament". In this book he briefly discusses the Tiq. Soph. and lists the Biblical references. Jim West From majordom Tue Mar 12 19:06:53 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA05639; Tue, 12 Mar 1996 19:06:53 +0500 Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 19:04:01 -0500 From: HuldrychZ@aol.com Message-Id: <960312190400_349347943@mail06.mail.aol.com> To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Tiq. Soph. Content-Length: 94 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Status: O X-Status: But, isn't it so that the Tiq. Soph. ARE demonstrable evidence of scribal changes? Jim West From majordom Tue Mar 12 20:36:05 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA05839; Tue, 12 Mar 1996 20:36:05 +0500 Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 20:35:54 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Adair" X-Sender: jadair@scholar To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Tiq. Soph. In-Reply-To: <199603122245.RAA39355@ccat.sas.upenn.edu> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 2029 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Status: O X-Status: On Tue, 12 Mar 1996, Sigrid Peterson wrote: > > According to HuldrychZ@aol.com: > > > > Following up on my last question (about Is 7:14)- we know that the copyists > > of the MT altered what they found when they considered it objectionable. > > They marked them with the so called "tiqqune sopherim". > > How do we know this? It's something I haven't learned. "Know" is probably too strong a word, and the tradition of only 18 tiqqune sopherim suggests that the practice was only sporadic, but Jim's statement does follow the common wisdom, as I understand it. Wuerthwein, _The Text of the Old Testament_, says that the primary purpose of the tiqqune sopherim "was to remove objectionable expressions referring to God" (p. 18). Yeivin, _Introduction to the Tiberian Masorah_, is somewhat more curcumspect in his opinion: "Two similar opinions are held today. Some argue that the original text showed the received readings, and the list of _tiqqunim_ represents midrashic interpretation, not text history. Others believe that these corrections were indeed made by the scribes, and they ascribe the same origin to other corrections, not mentioned in the Masorah, which were also intended to avoid profanation of the name of God, such as the use of the root BRK with reference to God as a substitute for some offensive term (e.g. in Job 2:9)" (pp. 50-51). The first option mentioned by Yeivin seems to me to reflect an uncritical (or perhaps, precritical) predeliction for the MT in which the consonantal text is looked upon as immutable. The biblical manuscripts found among the Dead Sea Scrolls would seem to mitigate against this view, as would numerous other arguments that come to mind. I would, however, be interested to hear if others had arguments that they could advance in favor of this opinion. Jimmy Adair Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press and Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site ---------------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu <----------------- From majordom Tue Mar 12 23:35:36 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA06108; Tue, 12 Mar 1996 23:35:36 +0500 Date: Tue, 12 Mar 96 23:32:42 EST From: Richard Weis To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Tiqqune Sopherim Message-Id: Content-Length: 783 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Status: O X-Status: On 12 March Jim West wrote: A question was asked concerning the Tiqqune Sopherim. The best easily accessible resource is E. Wurthwein's "Text of the Old Testament". In this book he briefly discusses the Tiq. Soph. and lists the Biblical references. - - - - - - - - One of the best, if not the best, full treatments of the phenomenon of the Tiqqune Sopherim is the following: McCarthy, Carmel. The Tiqqune Sopherim and Other Theological Corrections of the O.T.. OBO, 36. Fribourg: Universitaires, 1981. McCarthy assesses both the loci mentioned in the traditional lists of Tiqqune Sopherim, and other cases which might qualify as examples of this phenomenon, but which are not included in those lists. Richard Weis New Brunswick Theological Seminary rweis@rci.rutgers.edu From majordom Wed Mar 13 01:39:29 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA06409; Wed, 13 Mar 1996 01:39:29 +0500 Message-Id: <9603130636.AA08716@osf1.gmu.edu> Subject: Re: Different dating systems To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 01:36:39 -0500 (EST) From: "Stephen C Carlson" In-Reply-To: <960312124454_27634307@hp1.online.apple.com> from "MrNyse195@eworld.com" at Mar 12, 96 12:46:25 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1526 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Status: O X-Status: MrNyse195@eworld.com wrote: >A late date (after 95) for the composition of John has the support of >Church Fathers like Irenaeus (c. 130 - 200). I don't know if Irenaeus >can be considered a "liberal scholar." >----------------------------- End Original Text ----------------------------- >Really? Can you provide some refs for me to look up? I'm currently expanding >my early church father's library and this will do well for me to check out. Irenaeus places (a) John alive in Ephesus until sometime during the reign of Trajan, 98-117 [AH 3.3.34], (b) the composition of Revelation at Patmos where John was until the death of Domitian in 96 [5.30.3], and (c) publication after Mark and Luke while he was in Ephesus [3.1.1]. The final piece of tradition that indicates a late date for John is the testimony of the Old Latin Prologues to John, Victorinus, and Epiphanius (4th cen.) that John wrote his Gospel after Revelation as an old man. The value of tradition is difficult to properly analyze, but for my purposes it is enough to show that it is not the exclusive province for "liberal scholars" to call for a late date of John. In fact, there is remarkable agreement among conservatives and liberals over dating John to c.90-100. J.A.T.Robinson is the major exception. Stephen Carlson -- Stephen C. Carlson, George Mason University School of Law, Patent Track, 4LE scarlso1@osf1.gmu.edu : Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs http://osf1.gmu.edu/~scarlso1/ : chant the words. -- Shujing 2.35 From majordom Wed Mar 13 02:09:09 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA06509; Wed, 13 Mar 1996 02:09:09 +0500 Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 02:06:19 -0500 (EST) From: Andrew Gross To: HuldrychZ@aol.com Cc: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Tiq. Soph. In-Reply-To: <960312190400_349347943@mail06.mail.aol.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 967 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Status: O X-Status: On Tue, 12 Mar 1996 HuldrychZ@aol.com wrote: > But, isn't it so that the Tiq. Soph. ARE demonstrable evidence of scribal > changes? > > Jim West Hello Jim, I'm not sure if this particular response is specifically in response to my message about methodological considerations, but I will assume that it is. (I hope that's not too egocentric (-:). I was not saying that there was no demonstrable evidence of scribal change in Biblical manuscripts. I simply assumed that your question was trying to examine how widespread scribal manipulation of the text was. If you have something like the Tiq. Soph., where someone comes out and says, "This is where we changed the text...", the answer would be pretty clear for those instances. However, evidence as clear as that is the rare exception. Most of the time, demonstrating deliberate scribal manipulation is a more formidable task. Nonetheless, I certainly would not deny that it occurred. andrew gross From majordom Wed Mar 13 02:26:18 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA06567; Wed, 13 Mar 1996 02:26:18 +0500 Date: Wed, 13 Mar 96 09:16 +0200 From: fed@maties.sun.ac.za To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Message-Id: <0154865982492419@maties.sun.ac.za> Subject: Tiq. Sopherim X-Mailer: Netmail V3.17 Content-Length: 1652 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Status: O X-Status: ALTERATIONS BY SCRIBES That the Massoretes (and most probably scribes before their time) altered the text of the "Hebrew Bible" is, of course, an accepted fact. I think one has to accept, first of all, that the ancients viewed texts different from what we do today (especially in conservative circles). In the pre-Common Era, and perhaps well into the Common Era, the spoken word, and therefore tradition, carried more weight than the written word. Texts reflected and served tradition, not the other way round. Therefore texts HAD to be brought in line with the developing tradition from time to time. If this argument holds water, scribes would mark changes to texts only AFTER the written word had become more important than the spoken word, i.e. when written texts came to serve as the standard for the preservation of tradition. The scribal INDICATIONS of tiqqune sopherim in manuscripts would then be of relatively recent date, i.e. medieval. In my book "Witnesses to the Old Testament" I argued (in the section on Samaritan texts) in relation to the classic dispute over the phrase "hammaq“m 'asher bahar/yibhar 'adonay" in Deuteronomy, that Jewish scribes added the "yod" for ideological reasons, rather than that Samaritan scribes dropped a "yod" - as is commonly held. Whether or not this conclusion is acceptable, I think that the variant readings "bahar/yibhar" represent an early instance of a "tiqqun" and had been inspired by religious disputes. If this is true, there may be many more small alterations of which we will, because of a lack of comparative material, never become aware of. Greetings, Ferdinand Deist From majordom Wed Mar 13 03:51:54 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA06671; Wed, 13 Mar 1996 03:51:54 +0500 Message-Id: <314699EE.15AD@uni-muenster.de> Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 09:48:30 +0000 From: Klaus Wachtel Organization: Institut f. neutestamentliche Textforschung X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Macintosh; I; PPC) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: MT/BT References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Length: 1884 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Status: O X-Status: In response to Bart Ehrman´s kind invitation to say something about the Byzantine text: One thing I learned about the Byzantine text (BT) is that there is a difference between it and the Majority text (MT). The MT consists of all passages without any variation AND all those readings which are found in the majority of witnesses, no matter which and how many mss. differ from it in the same variation unit. As most of all deviations from the mainstream of the NT tradition are singular or subsingular readings, one cannot deny that the original text normally is preserved as MT ­ as e. g. swans normally are white. But there are numerous exceptions: swans with a black head and neck, or the Australian kind which is entirely black except for the wings, or, back to TC, majority readings which are not original according to the canons of textual criticism. Those readings I regard as Byzantine in the textcritical sense of the word, being the distinctive readings of the BT. I think that two kinds of Byzantine readings should be distinguished: typical ones fitting Hort´s famous description ("smooth and attractive, but appreciably impoverished in sense and force" [Introduction, 135]), and untypical ones, harder majority readings which nevertheless can hardly be judged as original. I would like to suggest one untypical Byzantine reading for discussion. In James 2,18 the majority of witnesses has EK instead of XWRIS. I think that a) this reading can´t be original as it results in nonsense; b) this reading is an error pointing to community of origin; c) readings of this kind make it unlikely that the BT is the result of a recension aiming at lucidity and smoothness. By the way, Bart, did I really say that the BT had "its roots in the fourth century"? If so I have to apologize. I meant "_before_ the fourth century". Klaus Wachtel, INTF Muenster From majordom Wed Mar 13 10:04:21 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA07662; Wed, 13 Mar 1996 10:04:21 +0500 Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 10:02:41 -0500 From: HuldrychZ@aol.com Message-Id: <960313100240_349900741@emout10.mail.aol.com> To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: James 2:18 Content-Length: 755 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Status: O X-Status: It was stated earlier that James 2:18 reads, in the "Alexandrian" texts "choris" while in the Maj. text "ek" is the reading. And, if I understood the comment correctly, "ek makes no sense here". My question is- why doesn't it? Dana and Mantey, in their Grammar, state that "ek" can be translated "by means of", and they give Rom 1:17, Jas 2:18, 2:22, and I John 4:6 as examples. "ek" and "choris" are synonymous and thus either one will fit here. The variant seems to have arisen because (back to Matthew Black!!!!- but I don't think he would ever say this!!) the original James was an Aramaic document (written about 40 C.E.) and when translated into Greek the scribes had several options- some chose "ek" while others chose "choris". Jim West From majordom Wed Mar 13 11:01:48 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA08078; Wed, 13 Mar 1996 11:01:48 +0500 Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 11:01:39 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Adair" X-Sender: jadair@scholar To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: James 2:18 In-Reply-To: <960313100240_349900741@emout10.mail.aol.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 1133 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Status: O X-Status: On Wed, 13 Mar 1996 HuldrychZ@aol.com wrote: > It was stated earlier that James 2:18 reads, in the "Alexandrian" texts > "choris" while in the Maj. text "ek" is the reading. And, if I understood > the comment correctly, "ek makes no sense here". > > My question is- why doesn't it? Dana and Mantey, in their Grammar, state > that "ek" can be translated "by means of", and they give Rom 1:17, Jas 2:18, > 2:22, and I John 4:6 as examples. > > "ek" and "choris" are synonymous and thus either one will fit here. EK can mean "by means of," as it does later in the same verse! However, XWRIS means "apart from, without." In the context of the argument, the author is challenging his hypothetical opponent to demonstrate his faith _without_ works, while he would demonstrate his _by_ his works. So while either EK or XWRIS will fit at the phrase level, only XWRIS makes sense in the context of the whole argument. Jimmy Adair Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press and Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site ---------------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu <----------------- From majordom Wed Mar 13 18:40:37 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA10508; Wed, 13 Mar 1996 18:40:37 +0500 Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 18:37:44 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: MT/BT In-Reply-To: <314699EE.15AD@uni-muenster.de> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Content-Length: 6980 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Status: O X-Status: On Wed, 13 Mar 1996, Klaus Wachtel wrote: > One thing I learned about the Byzantine text (BT) is that there is a=20 > difference between it and the Majority text (MT). The MT consists of all= =20 > passages without any variation AND all those readings which are found in= =20 > the majority of witnesses, no matter which and how many mss. differ from= =20 > it in the same variation unit. As most of all deviations from the=20 > mainstream of the NT tradition are singular or subsingular readings, one= =20 > cannot deny that the original text normally is preserved as MT =AD as e.= =20 > g. swans normally are white. But there are numerous exceptions: swans=20 > with a black head and neck, or the Australian kind which is entirely=20 > black except for the wings, or, back to TC, majority readings which are= =20 > not original according to the canons of textual criticism. Those=20 > readings I regard as Byzantine in the textcritical sense of the word,=20 > being the distinctive readings of the BT. I would agree with Klaus on this point, speaking from a Byzantine-priority standpoint: mere numerical majority does not a "Byzantine" reading make.= =20 However, in almost all cases where a 70%+ majority of pre-10th century=20 MSS read a certain way, I think in those cases the Byzantine text is well= =20 determined and has a certain claim toward autograph originality. The=20 overwhelming majority of post-10th century minuscules are secondary in=20 cases such as 1 Jn.2:23 and 1 Jn.3:1, since that mere numerical majority=20 is not supported by the earlier testimony. This is probably a reason why= =20 no "majority text" advocate I know actually holds to a strict numerical=20 majority principle, but either applies a stemmatic approach (as=20 Hodges/Farstad in Revelation or the Pericope Adultera) or favors a=20 specific Byzantine group or sub-group (Pickering favors Kr; I tend to=20 favor Kx). > I think that two kinds of Byzantine readings should be distinguished:=20 > typical ones fitting Hort=B4s famous description ("smooth and attractive,= =20 > but appreciably impoverished in sense and force" [Introduction, 135]),=20 > and untypical ones, harder majority readings which nevertheless can=20 > hardly be judged as original. I would differ with Klaus here, since I tend to find upon closer=20 examination the very Byzantine readings which are considered to fit=20 Hort's description often turn out to be part of a far more complex=20 textual situation which cannot be dismissed in a paragraph or two (as=20 does Metzger in his Textual Commentary). > I would like to suggest one untypical Byzantine reading for discussion.= =20 > In James 2,18 the majority of witnesses has EK instead of XWRIS. I think= =20 > that > a) this reading can't be original as it results in nonsense; > b) this reading is an error pointing to community of origin; > c) readings of this kind make it unlikely that the BT is the result of a= =20 > recension aiming at lucidity and smoothness. This is interesting indeed, coming from Klaus. I think that his point=20 (c) is quite significant, and I too have maintained such a point. =20 However, at the variant unit in question, my own edition of the Greek=20 text does read EK, following an unquestioned "K" designation from Von=20 Soden, and also happening to be the majority or "M" reading as reported=20 in N27 (but of course "M" does NOT always mean "Byzantine", as Klaus=20 pointed out).=20 I do not think that points (a) and (b) above will hold, though I would=20 agree that the reading does imply a "community of origin", which I would=20 localize in the autograph. But whether the EK reading is in fact an=20 "error" which "results in nonsense" is unclear. =20 Had this been an error, producing a clearly "more difficult" reading, the= =20 question still remains as to why scribes would not act in accordance with= =20 their supposed tendencies and correct the reading to the "easier" and=20 certainly clearer XWRIS. I still maintain that difficulty of=20 interpretation would be a primary cause for scribes to alter the text to=20 an easier reading, and for them to leave in one so obviously difficult of= =20 interpretation as EK could only imply continuance of the autograph=20 reading coupled with a general scribal faithfulness, even in the face of=20 difficult hermeneutics. =20 Certainly the final clause containing EK caused no difficulty (DEICW SOI=20 EK TWN ERGWN MOU THN PISTIN MOU; Byztxt); why then should it be thought=20 nonsense to preface that clause with DEICON MOI THN PISTIN SOU EK TWN=20 ERGWN SOU (again, Byztxt). I would read it thus, allowing for the=20 interpretative difficulty, with emphasis indicated by _ _: "Show me _your_ faith from _your_ works, and I will show you _my_ faith=20 from _my_ works." If read with this emphasis, I see no interpretative problem. On the=20 other hand, a scribe could easily fail to see the intended emphasis (as=20 witnessed by various scribes omitting the first SOU, changing EK to=20 XWRIS, reversing the word order to SOI DEICW, and omitting the final MOU,= =20 as reported in the N27 text), and thus change the text dramatically from=20 what appeared above to the following (according to N27): "Show me your faith _apart from_ works, and I will show _you_ the faith fro= m=20 my works." There is no question that the alternative Byzantine and N27 texts provide= =20 a dramatically different interpretation of the passage. However, I=20 suggest that the Byzantine reading is not at all "nonsense," but quite=20 sensible when read properly; also that the current critical text actually= =20 favors the "easier" reading, which could only have come about as a=20 reaction to the "more difficult" Byzantine reading. If the principle of=20 favoring the reading which best explains the rise of all the others has=20 any merit at all (which I think extremely likely), then there should be=20 no reason in the present case not to favor the Byzantine reading in this=20 passage. > By the way, Bart, did I really say that the BT had "its roots in the=20 > fourth century"? If so I have to apologize. I meant "_before_ the fourth= =20 > century". I concur here also, but I'll wager I place its roots earlier than does=20 Klaus *:-) =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D From majordom Wed Mar 13 19:09:47 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA10585; Wed, 13 Mar 1996 19:09:47 +0500 Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 19:06:51 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: James 2:18 In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 1612 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Status: O X-Status: On Wed, 13 Mar 1996, James R. Adair wrote: > XWRIS means "apart from, without." In the context of the argument, the > author is challenging his hypothetical opponent to demonstrate his faith > _without_ works, while he would demonstrate his _by_ his works. So > while either EK or XWRIS will fit at the phrase level, only XWRIS makes > sense in the context of the whole argument. I would question this assertion, since from a rhetorical standpoint (if the Byztxt is followed) XWRIS has NOT been used before verse 20, though the use of XWRIS does become a dominant issue in verses 20-26. Up until that point, the discussion does not center on the issue of faith WITHOUT or APART FROM works, but differs rhetorically and semantically, i.e., the topic under discussion in 2:14-19 is "if someone should claim to have faith, but does not have works" -- this is an entirely different matter, and does not concern the XWRIS discussion of 2:20-26. The likelihood of importing XWRIS from its first (Byztxt) appearance in 2:20 to ease the interpretative difficulty in 2:18 a few lines above still seems to be the best explanation of how other readings all stem from the Byzantine variant. ========================================================================= Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ========================================================================= From majordom Fri Mar 15 08:27:27 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA05111; Fri, 15 Mar 1996 08:27:27 +0500 Message-Id: <31497D7A.E35@uni-muenster.de> Date: Fri, 15 Mar 1996 14:23:54 +0000 From: Klaus Wachtel Organization: Institut f. neutestamentliche Textforschung X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Macintosh; I; PPC) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: James 2:18 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1508 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Status: O X-Status: Maurice Robinson wrote: > ...(if the Byztxt is followed) XWRIS has NOT been used before verse 20, though > the use of XWRIS does become a dominant issue in verses 20-26. Up until > that point, the discussion does not center on the issue of faith WITHOUT > or APART FROM works, but differs rhetorically and semantically, i.e., the > topic under discussion in 2:14-19 is "if someone should claim to have > faith, but does not have works" -- this is an entirely different matter, > and does not concern the XWRIS discussion of 2:20-26. That's exactly how Byzantine scribes and readers may have tried to explain the opposition with double EK in 2,18. They seem to have separated v. 18 from 20-26 as well as from 14-17. But in 14-17 the author points out that "faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead" (17). In 20-26 he shows that "faith apart from works is dead" (26). In my opinion the statements in 17 and 26 have the same meaning, though the author uses XWRIS only in 26. Thus it seems very unlikely to me that in v. 18 he might confront a challenge to show faith by means of works with his own promise to show his faith by means of his works. A competition of works showing faith doesn't make sense in a context which opposes the dead faith that bears no fruit to the faith that shows its being alive by works. Thus I conclude that the first EK in the Byz. text of 2,18 is an error, presumably caused by parablepsis (EK before TWN ERGWN in the next sentence). Klaus Wachtel, INTF Muenster From majordom Fri Mar 15 08:43:39 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA05145; Fri, 15 Mar 1996 08:43:39 +0500 Message-Id: <31498150.1BE4@uni-muenster.de> Date: Fri, 15 Mar 1996 14:40:16 +0000 From: Klaus Wachtel Organization: Institut f. neutestamentliche Textforschung X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Macintosh; I; PPC) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: MT/BT References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 2643 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Status: O X-Status: On Wednesday 13 Mar, Maurice Robinson wrote: > The overwhelming majority of post-10th century minuscules are secondary in > cases such as 1 Jn.2:23 and 1 Jn.3:1, since that mere numerical majority > is not supported by the earlier testimony. May I ask, then, on which earlier testimony the decision for the Byz. text EK instead of XWRIS is based in James 2,18 (except the doubtful evidence of P54)? > Had this been an error, producing a clearly "more difficult" reading, the > question still remains as to why scribes would not act in accordance with > their supposed tendencies and correct the reading to the "easier" and > certainly clearer XWRIS. This is a most interesting question, although I doubt that XWRIS is "easier"; I would say that it -in contrast with EK- fits the context. I think, there are three reasons, why EK was not replaced with XWRIS. 1) Medieval Byzantine scribes were copyists, not editors in the modern sense of the word. Normally they effectively controlled themselves and were controlled by others, as is shown most convincingly by Kr. Besides, how can we be sure that scribes were able to compare mss. which had XWRIS in 2,18? 2) EK was in the right manuscripts, namely in the exemplars of the Byz. text minuscules. 3) EK doesn't offend a reader who doesn't attend to the context beyond 2,18, -what of course might happen to a scribe as well. > I still maintain that difficulty of interpretation would be a primary cause > for scribes to alter the text to an easier reading, ... Mere difficulty of a reading, of course, doesn't suffice to prove its originality. For example, the reading of codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus in Js 1,17 results in an extremely difficult text, as is frequently the case with errors. > Certainly the final clause containing EK caused no difficulty (DEICW SOI > EK TWN ERGWN MOU THN PISTIN MOU; Byztxt); why then should it be thought > nonsense to preface that clause with DEICON MOI THN PISTIN SOU EK TWN > ERGWN SOU (again, Byztxt). I admit that "nonsense" is too harsh a word. More attentive readers may have understood 2,18a as a concession: "[I concede that] you have faith, [if you concede that] I have works [and now let's part as friends]". Under this condition 2,18b seems to make sense in spite of EK. But what about 2,19? V. 19 is clearly directed against someone whose faith consists in nothing but an unclear notion of God. In my opinion it is very unlikely that the author could have urged the same person in 2,18b to show his faith by his works. V. 19 requires an opponent who relies on nothing but his faith. Klaus Wachtel, INTF Muenster From majordom Fri Mar 15 14:09:48 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA06048; Fri, 15 Mar 1996 14:09:48 +0500 Date: Fri, 15 Mar 1996 11:06:52 -0800 Message-Id: <199603151906.LAA03328@desiree.teleport.com> X-Sender: dalemw@mail.teleport.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: dalemw@teleport.com (Dale M. Wheeler) Subject: Re: James 2:18 Content-Length: 6834 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Status: O X-Status: Klaus Wachtel wrote: >Maurice Robinson wrote: > >> ...(if the Byztxt is followed) XWRIS has NOT been used before verse 20, though >> the use of XWRIS does become a dominant issue in verses 20-26. Up until >> that point, the discussion does not center on the issue of faith WITHOUT >> or APART FROM works, but differs rhetorically and semantically, i.e., the >> topic under discussion in 2:14-19 is "if someone should claim to have >> faith, but does not have works" -- this is an entirely different matter, >> and does not concern the XWRIS discussion of 2:20-26. > >That's exactly how Byzantine scribes and readers may have tried to explain the >opposition with double EK in 2,18. They seem to have separated v. 18 from 20-26 >as well as from 14-17. But in 14-17 the author points out that "faith by itself, >if it has no works, is dead" (17). In 20-26 he shows that "faith apart from >works is dead" (26). In my opinion the statements in 17 and 26 have the same >meaning, though the author uses XWRIS only in 26. Thus it seems very unlikely to >me that in v. 18 he might confront a challenge to show faith by means of works >with his own promise to show his faith by means of his works. A competition of >works showing faith doesn't make sense in a context which opposes the dead faith >that bears no fruit to the faith that shows its being alive by works. >Thus I conclude that the first EK in the Byz. text of 2,18 is an error, >presumably caused by parablepsis (EK before TWN ERGWN in the next sentence). > This discussion is, in my mind, a classic example of why many people look at the process of TC as generally practiced today as hopelessly subjective. It appears (and since the following has been their primary discussed basis for decision-making, the following would seem to be a valid conclusion) Klaus (and Jimmy Adair in another post) hold to an argument structure in this passage which then informs their TC choice (I think its fair to say that there is another presupposition at work in their decision--if not I would gladly stand corrected--they both think the Byz text form to be in general inferior to the Alexandrian, but that is not the one brought forth to demonstrate the point). The reason that this is important to me is that when I teach TC in Exegesis and my students read a section from Metzger's TCCommentary, they see this exact pattern constantly repeated. While some might say that the TCCom simply has external followed by internal data, the problem arises when the data is somewhat equally divided (and for those who are not committed to an Alexandrian priority, the problem stands in even starker relief). The internal decisions are made on the basis of (1) what scribes do--but we all know that the paprylogical studies of what early Alexandrian scribes did doesn't match what Westcott-Hort proposed, and which is in general still followed today (as evidenced by the discussion on this verse) and that the current studies on the Byz text is showing a different picture of scribal activity than has been heretofor presupposed--, and (2) the argument structure presupposed by the decision makers. Leaving the issue of what scribes do aside for the moment, I would suggest that my study of James leads me to a completely different conclusion about the argument structure in the passage, and that EK, not XWRIS is the only word which makes sense (I hasten to add that I have no idea at all what Maurice Robinson thinks about the argument of this passage; so far his posts have not tipped his hand; thus I speak only for myself here, not him). Specifically, (contra to what Jimmy Adair said in one of his posts about the author making a point in v. 18) it is not the author at all who is making a point in v. 18 but rather an (real or rhethorical, though I'm inclined that James is answering a real objection he has heard to his argument) objector is making a counterpoint to James' statment, thus the verse starts ALL' EREI TIS, with the objector's counterstatments running through v. 19 (note Klaus' statement above about the fact that vv 18, 19, stand apart from the preceding and following verses). James resumes at v. 20 with the standard rhetorical response to an objector of "you numbskull..." (cf., for NT examples Rom 4:19,20; 1Cor 15:35,36). The objector's point is quite simple (though I would say, an attempt to deliberately confuse the argument): It doesn't make any different whether you start from faith or from works, there is no demonstrable and intrinsic link between the two; just look at the fact that both you and the demons believe the same thing and yet you do exactly the opposite of each other; you James do good works (=POIEW KALWS [BAGD sv "KALWS," 4.a. "K. POIEIN do what is right, act rightly, do well]), the demons on the other hand just keep on resisting God even though they have heard the message of their doom for this rebellion. James' response then, with his introduction of XWRIS, makes perfect sense, because he then returns to demostrate from two OT heros (one Jewish, the other Gentile...note the shift to plural in v. 24 when the turns from the objector to the audience) that there is indeed such an intrinsic link between faith and practice, if that faith is to benefit the believer. My point is not the exegesis of James here, but that there is another reasonable (I hope you all will at least grant that the above is a reasonable reconstruction of the argument, though you might disagree...) approach to the structure of James' argument, which in fact does not render the EK nonsense, but demands that it stand in the text as the only possible way to understand it. And if this construction is correct, then it is the Alexandrian scribes who have corrected the text. I hasten to add that I feel just as uncomfortable arguing such a correction on the sole basis of my argument reconstruction as I do about Klaus' argument. The real problem for TC, as I see it, is that passages like this, linked together in a chain, form the basis for the characterizations of what Byzantine scribes must have done, and then subsequent decisions are based on those generalizations. Many more studies, like what Colwell did for the papyrii, are needed on the Byz material, so that we can formulate an accurate, rather than anecdotal picture of the Byz scribal process...I would suggest that the newest studies are not all that flattering to the anecdotal picture. *********************************************************************** Dale M. Wheeler, Th.D. Chair, Biblical Languages Dept Multnomah Bible College 8435 NE Glisan Street Portland, OR 97220 Voice: 503-251-6416 FAX:503-254-1268 E-Mail: dalemw@teleport.com *********************************************************************** From majordom Fri Mar 15 14:09:49 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA06049; Fri, 15 Mar 1996 14:09:49 +0500 Date: Fri, 15 Mar 1996 11:06:58 -0800 Message-Id: <199603151906.LAA03399@desiree.teleport.com> X-Sender: dalemw@mail.teleport.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: dalemw@teleport.com (Dale M. Wheeler) Subject: Re: MT/BT Content-Length: 985 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Status: O X-Status: Klaus Wachtel wrote: >On Wednesday 13 Mar, Maurice Robinson wrote: > >> The overwhelming majority of post-10th century minuscules are secondary in >> cases such as 1 Jn.2:23 and 1 Jn.3:1, since that mere numerical majority >> is not supported by the earlier testimony. > >May I ask, then, on which earlier testimony the decision for the Byz. text EK >instead of XWRIS is based in James 2,18 (except the doubtful evidence of P54)? I wonder if you could elaborate on why YOU think the p54 evidence is so doubtful (which no doubt corresponds to why the listing changed from NA26 to p54vid in NA27). *********************************************************************** Dale M. Wheeler, Th.D. Chair, Biblical Languages Dept Multnomah Bible College 8435 NE Glisan Street Portland, OR 97220 Voice: 503-251-6416 FAX:503-254-1268 E-Mail: dalemw@teleport.com *********************************************************************** From majordom Sun Mar 17 01:06:34 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA09997; Sun, 17 Mar 1996 01:06:34 +0500 Date: Sun, 17 Mar 1996 01:03:49 -0500 From: MrNyse195@aol.com Message-Id: <960317010349_247979372@emout04.mail.aol.com> To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Different dating systems Content-Length: 568 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Status: O X-Status: >>>In fact, there is remarkable agreement among conservatives and liberals over dating John to c.90-100. J.A.T.Robinson is the major exception.<<< This is true- most of the material I read up on places John around 90-100 C.E. Perhaps my intial comment (after 95) was a bit too hasty-more of an average I should say.... In any case, back to my original question-what do folks who tend to date materials late, do in light of parylogical and (in some cases) strong internal evidence toward the contrary? Kerry Gilliard http://member.aol.com/blufunk195/witness.html From majordom Mon Mar 18 17:39:42 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA16812; Mon, 18 Mar 1996 17:39:42 +0500 Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 17:36:54 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: MT/BT In-Reply-To: <31498150.1BE4@uni-muenster.de> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 10528 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Status: O X-Status: On Fri, 15 Mar 1996, Klaus Wachtel wrote: > On Wednesday 13 Mar, Maurice Robinson wrote: > > > The overwhelming majority of post-10th century minuscules are secondary in > > cases such as 1 Jn.2:23 and 1 Jn.3:1, since that mere numerical majority > > is not supported by the earlier testimony. > > May I ask, then, on which earlier testimony the decision for the Byz. text EK > instead of XWRIS is based in James 2,18 (except the doubtful evidence of P54)? Since I am willing to include in my count minuscules of the 9th and 10th centuries, they would be considered of weight in the 2:18 variant. The MSS of the 11th and later centuries are not essential toward establishing the Byzantine reading. According to Tischendorf's 8th edition, EK is supported by K and L among the uncials as well as virtually all the minuscules. Versional testimony admittedly supports XWRIS, though I suspect this might be due to the difficulty inherent in interpreting EK in context and opting for an "easier" reading when the process of translation occurred. Von Soden offers a few more details, but I would not want to try to extract the evidence therefrom with all his "gg" etc. P54 may support the EK reading, but I would not attempt to build a case from an uncertain papyrus reading. The "M" in N27 must be broken into its component parts by century to determine which "M" minuscule MSS might be of the 9th and 10th century; there should be a sufficient quantity in any case. If the Text und Textwert series has this variant noted (I am not able to access library material at present), the full conspectus of Greek manuscript evidence would be observable. > > Had this been an error, producing a clearly "more difficult" reading, the > > question still remains as to why scribes would not act in accordance with > > their supposed tendencies and correct the reading to the "easier" and > > certainly clearer XWRIS. > > This is a most interesting question, although I doubt that XWRIS is "easier"; > I would say that it -in contrast with EK- fits the context. "Easier" of course is not in regard to our mindset, but to that of the scribes. A smooth and readily-understandable reading like XWRIS is certainly far "easier" in the context than is EK, and "fitting the context" is the precise definition of "easier" when related to a scribe's mind. > I think, there are > three reasons, why EK was not replaced with XWRIS. > 1) Medieval Byzantine scribes were copyists, not editors in the modern sense > of the word. Normally they effectively controlled themselves and were > controlled by others, as is shown most convincingly by Kr. Besides, how can > we be sure that scribes were able to compare mss. which had XWRIS in 2,18? Agreed that most scribes were faithful copyists and not editors. I suspect that "control" was evinced more by their faithfulness to duty and the accurate reproduction of their exemplars (e.g., the various imprecatory curses which might apply to those "falsifying" or "corrupting" the word of God) than from abbot-oriented or peer control, let alone from orthodoxy in general. In view of the scribes' normal faithfulness in copying, it becomes quite peculiar then to assume that this mass of medieval scribes would by and large all become "editorial" and make the text more difficult by changing XWRIS to EK. Even allowing that one or two scribes were "editorial" in their technique, why would (or should) the mass of other scribes then choose to accept and follow the editorial change emanating from a single scriptorium which created a reading which was clearly _more_ difficult than the simple XWRIS ? Scribes certainly would have been able to compare MSS and to insert corrections when necessary. Merely because none of the XWRIS manuscripts cited in N27 have a correction noted does not establish the non-existence of cross-comparison and correction in any given variant unit. From the extant evidence of MSS and comments by various Fathers, the normal practice was always to compare at least against the exemplar and preferably to have a diorthotes proof and correct the copy against a different exemplar. Tischendorf's 8th edition shows his MS 78 was corrected to XWRIS from an original EK (I can't convert to Gregory-Aland numbers right now), which demonstrates at least one scribe altering the text in the "easier" direction, as I would claim. > 2) EK was in the right manuscripts, namely in the exemplars of the Byz. text > minuscules. Agreed that EK was in the "right" manuscripts -- but I define that as the line stemming from the autograph. Since you would claim otherwise, you need to provide an explanation as to _which_ MS or MSS were the archetypes of the supposedly "later" Byzantine texttype, and also explain how supposedly "erroneous" and "difficult" readings in such MSS were allowed to remain, when such goes against the claimed nature of scribes to smooth out such difficulties, either by glosses in the margin or by altering the text itself. Basically I am asking for a demonstration of how the easier XWRIS reading could have given rise to a more difficult EK. EK does occur in the next clause; however, attraction cannot be assumed when such is supposed to produce an erroneous reading which appears in the vast mass of MSS. Attraction or assimilation will always be limited to a small handful of unrelated MSS or those of a sub-type or family. Further, XWRIS itself appears in the next verse, and offered scribes a simple escape from what might have appeared to have been an interpretative difficulty; that a minority of scribes might choose that option fits the pattern of assimilation quite well. > 3) EK doesn't offend a reader who doesn't attend to the context beyond 2,18, > -what of course might happen to a scribe as well. Some scribes copied letter by letter; others syllable by syllable or word by word. Certainly in such situations scribal errors could occur. However, when the scribe himself/herself completed the copying of a book or chapter and re-read that portion against the original exemplar, context then would be of primary importance, and simple errors such as EK for XWRIS or vice versa would readily be caught. Also, if the error were made apart from the exemplar, then correction would be made. Still further, if the proofreading diorthotes were comparing the finished product against a different exemplar, there would be even less reason to suppose an erroneous reading would have much chance to be perpetuated. Only MSS and versions from a local-text and minority texttype situation would be expected to perpetuate such an error beyond more than one or two copying generations. The chances of an erroneous EK permeating the entire mass of Greek minuscules merely because P54, K and L may have read thus seems impossible if the sensible XWRIS as found in the earlier minority MSS and versions were the original reading. There still needs to be a _good_ transmissional history which can account for the dominance of the Byzantine reading here as well as for the entire Byzantine Textform. > > I still maintain that difficulty of interpretation would be a primary cause > > for scribes to alter the text to an easier reading, ... > > Mere difficulty of a reading, of course, doesn't suffice to prove its > originality. For example, the reading of codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus in > Js 1,17 results in an extremely difficult text, as is frequently the case > with errors. I would suggest that the explanation in 1:17 is simply error in Aleph* B. Similar error also occurs in the other minority groups cited there in N27 (614, 1505 pc; 1832, 2138 pc; p23, etc.). The error is brought about because the Byzantine reading itself there (favored by N27) remains difficult of interpretation, as even the proffered conjectures demonstrate. Difficult readings which arise from a difficult reading hardly parallel the case of a difficult reading supposedly arising from an easier reading as is the case with James 2:18. > have understood 2,18a as a concession: "[I concede that] you have faith, > [if you concede that] I have works [and now let's part as friends]". > Under this condition 2,18b seems to make sense in spite of EK. But what > about 2,19? V. 19 is clearly directed against someone whose faith > consists in nothing but an unclear notion of God. There is actually a difference of opinion regarding the interpretation of 2:19, which may affect how one then reads 2:18. Has the comment of the objector ceased at the end of the first clause of 2:18? Does the objector continue through all of 2:18? Or does the objector continue to speak even in 2:19? If so, the complaint might be directed against James himself, e.g., [James speaking:] "Someone might say: [objector:] "You have faith and I have works. Show me _your_ faith out of _your_ works, and I will show you _my_ faith out of _my_ works. You believe that God is one; you do well. (But) even the demons `believe' -- and they tremble." [James resumes:] But do you want to know, O empty man, that faith apart from (XWRIS) works is _dead_?...... This interpretation is just as valid as any other, and can make sense with the Byzantine reading in place, without producing nonsense. There are also other places where the objector's statement can begin and end which does not make the Byzantine reading invalid. > In my opinion it is > very unlikely that the author could have urged the same person in 2,18b > to show his faith by his works. V. 19 requires an opponent who relies > on nothing but his faith. Exegetically noteworthy in v.19 is that the faith spoken of is only in God, and not related to Christ. Hence we may have a hyperbole in bringing in the demons, merely as an extreme example. Either way, if there is even a remote possibility of interpretative difficulties in v.19 (where the textual variation is not serious), the likelihood of v.18 having an alteration to help alleviate such difficulties becomes more probable. ========================================================================= Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ========================================================================= From majordom Mon Mar 18 18:05:19 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA17090; Mon, 18 Mar 1996 18:05:19 +0500 Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 18:02:30 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: James 2:18 In-Reply-To: <31497D7A.E35@uni-muenster.de> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 3699 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Status: O X-Status: On Fri, 15 Mar 1996, Klaus Wachtel wrote: > In my opinion the statements in 17 and 26 have the same > meaning, though the author uses XWRIS only in 26. I see the non-use of XWRIS before verse 20 indicating a clearly different angle. "Faith _not having_ works" versus "faith _apart from_ works" -- both may be "dead", but for different reasons. James is speaking to and about believers in any case: the illustration given in v.15 is of a believer seeing a brother or sister in need and doing nothing but offering kind platitudes. "Faith not having works" appears to indicate doctrinal orthodoxy but no praxis when the proper opportunity to demonstrate such arrives. Failure to produce good works in such a circumstance entails NO risk to the one "having faith" but not exercising it, nor does loss of life necessarily occur as a result. The illustration given of "faith without works" in vv.20-26 applies to a time of severe testing where clear risk is involved to either the one "having faith" or his or her intended recipients of the action in cases where loss of life can result (Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac and Rahab's protecting the spies from death at the risk of her own life). Rhetorically, I see two very distinct sequences here, each with a specific guiding term ("faith not having works" versus "faith apart from works"), and the terms need not overlap and, according to rhetorical structure, should not overlap. > it seems very unlikely to > me that in v. 18 he might confront a challenge to show faith by means of > works with his own promise to show his faith by means of his works. Again, this may be the objector making the challenge and not James. > A competition of > works showing faith doesn't make sense in a context which opposes the dead > faith that bears no fruit to the faith that shows its being alive by works. The issue in vv.14-19 is not competition, but the question of acting when opportunity presents itself. No matter how you read it, vv.14-17 clearly show the need for active works to illustrate inward faith, and not the mere proclamation of goodwill to those in need. Why in light of vv.14-17 would either an objector or James (depending on where the quote ends) demand to be shown an opponent's faith _apart from_ works, when the illustration makes sense ONLY when faith HAVING works seems valid? It is far better to see v.18 as a continuation of the objector saying "Let's both demonstrate our faith by our works, you to yours, and I to mine" The further issue of faith in God and the demons also believing then would provoke the discussion of action or inaction in time of personal testing and trial, as opposed to mere inaction when the opportunity to do good arises. Rhetorically, there seems to be clear progress from vv.14-19 into 20-26, with the topic being developed on two fronts. > Thus I conclude that the first EK in the Byz. text of 2,18 is an error, > presumably caused by parablepsis (EK before TWN ERGWN in the next sentence). And I conclude that parablepsis might produce error in a single MS and a few others copied therefrom, but I cannot see such error growing to a dominant position within transmissional history without a word of protest or numerous corrections by scribes. ========================================================================= Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ========================================================================= From majordom Tue Mar 19 06:21:02 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA19732; Tue, 19 Mar 1996 06:21:02 +0500 Message-Id: <314EA5E1.6E82@uni-muenster.de> Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 12:17:37 +0000 From: Klaus Wachtel Organization: Institut f. neutestamentliche Textforschung X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Macintosh; I; PPC) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: James 2:18 References: <199603151906.LAA03328@desiree.teleport.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Length: 4248 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Status: O X-Status: On Friday, 15 March 1996, Dale M. Wheeler wrote: > Leaving the issue of what scribes do aside for the moment, I would suggest > that my study of James leads me to a completely different conclusion about > the argument structure in the passage, and that EK, not XWRIS is the only > word which makes sense [...] > Specifically, (contra to what Jimmy Adair said in one of his posts about the > author making a point in v. 18) it is not the author at all who is making a > point in v. 18 but rather an (real or rhethorical, though I'm inclined that > James is answering a real objection he has heard to his argument) objector > is making a counterpoint to James' statment, thus the verse starts ALL' EREI > TIS, with the objector's counterstatments running through v. 19 (note Klaus' > statement above about the fact that vv 18, 19, stand apart from the > preceding and following verses). James resumes at v. 20 with the standard > rhetorical response to an objector of "you numbskull..." (cf., for NT > examples Rom 4:19,20; 1Cor 15:35,36). The objector's point is quite simple > (though I would say, an attempt to deliberately confuse the argument): It > doesn't make any different whether you start from faith or from works, there > is no demonstrable and intrinsic link between the two; just look at the fact > that both you and the demons believe the same thing and yet you do exactly > the opposite of each other; you James do good works (=POIEW KALWS [BAGD sv > "KALWS," 4.a. "K. POIEIN do what is right, act rightly, do well]), the > demons on the other hand just keep on resisting God even though they have > heard the message of their doom for this rebellion. Even presupposing that POIEIN KALWS can really mean "to do good works" (which I doubt, because this rendering ignores that KALWS is an adverb), Dales paraphrase of Js. 2,18sq. doesn't seem plausible to me. I think a more literal rendering according to his interpretation will make clear why: JAMES: ...17 So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead. OBJECTOR: 18 You have faith and I have works. Show me your faith by your works, and I by my works will show you my faith. 19 You believe that God is one, you do what is good (=act rightly). Even the demons believe and shudder. JAMES: 20 Do you want to be shown, vain man, that faith apart from works is barren? In v.19 some one is said to believe (and thereby act) as demons do. I still cannot see that an objector could reproach James with this kind of faith, because this cannot but be a faith without works: the kind of faith that even demons have, which James himself points out to be useless, dead, barren. Although I must admit not to have the one and only solution to the exegetical problems of Js. 2,18sq, to me it still seems most probable that the TIS in v.18 says nothing but "You have faith, and I have works" ­ as if there could be faith without acting in accord with it, or a Christian way of life without faith. Neither does SY refer to James nor EGW to the objector. The pronouns rather have the meaning of O MEN ... O DE or EIS ... ETEROS (cp. J. H. Ropes, ICC on the Epistle of St. James, Edinburgh: Clark 1916, p. 208-210; M. Dibelius, Brief des Jakobus, KEK 15, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck&Ruprecht, 12/1984, p. 191-193). The supposed objector, according to this interpretation, tries to offer a compromise, which is rejected by James, who at once urges him to point out, what that could possibly be, a faith without works. Other divisions of Js. 2,18sq are possible, but I still maintain that it makes very poor sense, if any, to place something like a competition of works showing faith between 2,14-17 and 2,20-26. I further maintain that this conclusion is based on the argument structure of the whole passage, and not on a presupposition as to the reliability of Byzantine readings. What makes the Byzantine EK in Js. 2,18 so interesting is the fact that it doesn't fit the Hortian pattern. Nobody was surprised that Bart Ehrman found a lot of orthodox corruptions in the Byzantine text, ­ but by scribal blunders like this one we are forced to revise Hort's classical description of the Byzantine text and his reconstruction of its history. K. Wachtel, INTF Muenster From majordom Tue Mar 19 06:38:17 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA19776; Tue, 19 Mar 1996 06:38:17 +0500 Message-Id: <314EA80D.793D@uni-muenster.de> Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 12:26:53 +0000 From: Klaus Wachtel Organization: Institut f. neutestamentliche Textforschung X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Macintosh; I; PPC) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: MT/BT References: <199603151906.LAA03399@desiree.teleport.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 459 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Status: O X-Status: On Friday, 15 March, Dale M. Wheeler wrote: > I wonder if you could elaborate on why YOU think the p54 evidence is so > doubtful (which no doubt corresponds to why the listing changed from NA26 to > p54vid in NA27). In P54, fr. a, recto, line 6, the second PISTIN in 2,18 seems to be followed by an epsilon and faint traces of a kappa, although Schofields reading XW[RIS] (no dots below XW) cannot be ruled out with certainty. K. Wachtel, INTF Muenster From majordom Tue Mar 19 07:32:59 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA20053; Tue, 19 Mar 1996 07:32:59 +0500 Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 07:30:05 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: MT/BT In-Reply-To: <314EA80D.793D@uni-muenster.de> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 1333 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Status: O X-Status: On Tue, 19 Mar 1996, Klaus Wachtel wrote: > In P54, fr. a, recto, line 6, the second PISTIN in 2,18 seems to be followed by > an epsilon and faint traces of a kappa, although Schofields reading XW[RIS] (no > dots below XW) cannot be ruled out with certainty. That papyrus is at Princeton, and perhaps some of the TC-list subscribers are from there and can check the original. Barring that, might anyone have information as to where a photograph of that papyrus leaf might be found? (Elliott's book might give some clues). >From using Schofield previously, I would suspect his reading might be correct. Even though I favor the Byzantine text, I harbor no suspicions that Byzantine readings will always or even frequently be found in Egyptian papyri. In light of the remainder of the Alexandrian witnesses (not to mention the Latin and Coptic versional evidence), the reading XWRIS would fit p54 best. ========================================================================= Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ========================================================================= From majordom Tue Mar 19 10:10:33 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA20939; Tue, 19 Mar 1996 10:10:33 +0500 Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 10:10:27 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Adair" X-Sender: jadair@scholar To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: James 2:18 In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 3629 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Status: O X-Status: On Mon, 18 Mar 1996, Maurice Robinson wrote: > The illustration given of "faith without works" in vv.20-26 applies to a > time of severe testing where clear risk is involved to either the one > "having faith" or his or her intended recipients of the action in cases > where loss of life can result (Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac and Rahab's > protecting the spies from death at the risk of her own life). > > Rhetorically, I see two very distinct sequences here, each with a specific > guiding term ("faith not having works" versus "faith apart from works"), > and the terms need not overlap and, according to rhetorical structure, > should not overlap. Despite my attempts to do so, I can still see no difference in emphasis between "faith not having works" and "faith without works." Of course the examples are different, and the wording changes slightly, but the variation is just for rhetorical effect, it seems to me. > > Again, this may be the objector making the challenge and not James. According to UBS4, the French version Traduction Oecumenique de la Bible treats Jas 2:18-19 as one quotation, although I don't know if it reads XWRIS or EK. Maybe someone on the list knows. I can see how these verses might be a single extended quotation, but I can't see how the hypothetical person can be considered an objector, regardless of how long the quote is. The hypothetical person is claiming to have works, the _same_ position that James is taking. Furthermore, if EK is read, the argument of this person, whether an opponent or not, seems to go nowhere. I suppose it could be argued that James just didn't make his point very well, but I like to think that clarity rather than obfuscation was an important concern of the author. > > Thus I conclude that the first EK in the Byz. text of 2,18 is an error, > > presumably caused by parablepsis (EK before TWN ERGWN in the next sentence). > > (K.W.) > > And I conclude that parablepsis might produce error in a single MS and a > few others copied therefrom, but I cannot see such error growing to a > dominant position within transmissional history without a word of protest > or numerous corrections by scribes. Now this is the classic majority text argument (in this form of the majority text theory, as Maurice has differentiated them): errors introduced in mss will tend to be corrected by the overall process of cross-checking with other mss, especially when the diorthotes is involved. This view assumes a controlled ms copying process from almost the beginning of the period of ms transmission, and I don't think that this was the case. It certainly does explain, however, why there is such agreement among later Byzantine mss. I have asked before whether Maurice (or anyone) can give me some examples in which the majority text (in the 9th/10th centuries) does _not_ contain what he considers to be the "original" reading. If there are no examples, it leads me to suspect that the real criterion is the authority of the Byzantine text-type. Those who see the Alexandrian text-type as generally superior are often accused (and not entirely unjustly, in my opinion) of twisting their arguments to make the Alexandrian reading appear to be original. The same charge can be made against the Byzantine priority approach, unless, as I say, examples of "original" non-Byzantine readings can be produced. Jimmy Adair Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press and Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site ---------------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu <----------------- From majordom Tue Mar 19 11:24:37 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA21723; Tue, 19 Mar 1996 11:24:37 +0500 Message-Id: <314EED08.5B9C@uni-muenster.de> Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 17:21:12 +0000 From: Klaus Wachtel Organization: Institut f. neutestamentliche Textforschung X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Macintosh; I; PPC) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: MT/BT References: <199603151906.LAA03399@desiree.teleport.com> <314EA80D.793D@uni-muenster.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 425 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Status: O X-Status: This morning I wrote: > In P54, fr. a, recto, line 6, the second PISTIN in 2,18 seems to be followed by > an epsilon and faint traces of a kappa, although Schofields reading XW[RIS] (no > dots below XW) cannot be ruled out with certainty. Sorry, I forgot to specify my source as to Schofield's reading: E.H. Kase, Papyri in the Princeton University Collections, vol. II, Princeton 1936, No. 15. K. Wachtel, INTF Muenster From majordom Tue Mar 19 11:45:58 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA22073; Tue, 19 Mar 1996 11:45:58 +0500 Message-Id: <9603191643.AA25414@osf1.gmu.edu> Subject: Re: Different dating systems To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 11:43:11 -0500 (EST) From: "Stephen C Carlson" In-Reply-To: <960317010349_247979372@emout04.mail.aol.com> from "MrNyse195@aol.com" at Mar 17, 96 01:03:49 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1310 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Status: O X-Status: MrNyse195@aol.com wrote: > >liberals over dating John to c.90-100. J.A.T.Robinson is the major >exception.<<< > >This is true- most of the material I read up on places John around 90-100 >C.E. Perhaps my intial comment (after 95) was a bit too hasty-more of an >average I should say.... > >In any case, back to my original question-what do folks who tend to date >materials late, do in light of parylogical and (in some cases) strong >internal evidence toward the contrary? First, the papyrological evidence does not help to inform us whether John was written 30 years earlier (c.95) or 80 years earlier (c.45) than the earliest extant MS. Second, although some parts of John seem very early, other parts, esp. ch. 21 appear to be written (shortly) after the death of the beloved disciple. Perhaps John was originally published in two versions, a twenty chapter and a twenty-one chapter version, but the evidence of P5 and P75 for this is unclear. I'd be interested in hearing other's opinions on whether P5 and P75 reflect a twenty-chapter version of John. Stephen Carlson -- Stephen C. Carlson, George Mason University School of Law, Patent Track, 4LE scarlso1@osf1.gmu.edu : Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs http://osf1.gmu.edu/~scarlso1/ : chant the words. -- Shujing 2.35 From majordom Tue Mar 19 12:07:50 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA22241; Tue, 19 Mar 1996 12:07:50 +0500 Message-Id: <314EF57C.1438@uni-muenster.de> Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 17:57:16 +0000 From: Klaus Wachtel Organization: Institut f. neutestamentliche Textforschung X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Macintosh; I; PPC) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: James 2:18 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 586 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Status: O X-Status: On Mon, 18 Mar, Maurice Robinson wrote: > > On Fri, 15 Mar 1996, Klaus Wachtel wrote: > > Thus I conclude that the first EK in the Byz. text of 2,18 is an error, > > presumably caused by parablepsis (EK before TWN ERGWN in the next sentence). > > And I conclude that parablepsis might produce error in a single MS and a > few others copied therefrom, but I cannot see such error growing to a > dominant position within transmissional history without a word of protest > or numerous corrections by scribes. What about the Byzantine omissions in 1Jn 2,23 and 3,1, then? K. Wachtel From majordom Tue Mar 19 13:24:02 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA22927; Tue, 19 Mar 1996 13:24:02 +0500 Message-Id: <314EF46C.6EA4@uni-muenster.de> Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 17:52:44 +0000 From: Klaus Wachtel Organization: Institut f. neutestamentliche Textforschung X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Macintosh; I; PPC) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: MT/BT References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1145 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Status: O X-Status: On Mon, 18 Mar, Maurice Robinson wrote: > > On Fri, 15 Mar 1996, Klaus Wachtel wrote: > > > On Wednesday 13 Mar, Maurice Robinson wrote: > > > > > The overwhelming majority of post-10th century minuscules are secondary in > > > cases such as 1 Jn.2:23 and 1 Jn.3:1, since that mere numerical majority > > > is not supported by the earlier testimony. > > > > May I ask, then, on which earlier testimony the decision for the Byz. text EK > > instead of XWRIS is based in James 2,18 (except the doubtful evidence of P54)? > > Since I am willing to include in my count minuscules of the 9th and 10th > centuries, they would be considered of weight in the 2:18 variant. The MSS > of the 11th and later centuries are not essential toward establishing the > Byzantine reading. > > According to Tischendorf's 8th edition, EK is supported by K and L among > the uncials as well as virtually all the minuscules. This is true for the Byzantine omissions in 1Jn 2,23 and 3,1 as well. All three instances are included in "Text & Textwert", all three have a remarkably pure K-attestation, hardly lacking any Kr- or Kx-ms. K. Wachtel, INTF Muenster From majordom Tue Mar 19 15:15:34 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA23743; Tue, 19 Mar 1996 15:15:34 +0500 Message-Id: <199603192012.PAA34122@r02n05.cac.psu.edu> X-Sender: wlp1@email.psu.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 15:12:29 -0500 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: wlp1@psu.edu (William L. Petersen) Subject: Re: Different dating systems Content-Length: 1452 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Status: O X-Status: On 19 March, Stephen Carlson wrote: >Second, although some parts of John seem very early, other parts, esp. >ch. 21 appear to be written (shortly) after the death of the beloved >disciple. Perhaps John was originally published in two versions, a >twenty chapter and a twenty-one chapter version, but the evidence of P5 >and P75 for this is unclear. I'd be interested in hearing other's >opinions on whether P5 and P75 reflect a twenty-chapter version of >John. > Neither P5 nor P75 include John 21, but that tells us nothing, for both are very fragmentary. P5 does contain parts of chap. 20: 20:11-17, 19-20, and 22-25. In P75 the fragmentary "snippets" of text go as far as John 15:7-8. See Aland & Aland, _Text of the NT_. The best way to see how far back in the tradition John 21 goes is to check Patristic citations, and see who first quotes from John 21. The tool to use is the _Biblia Patristica_ (now 5 vols.) There seems to be little doubt but that, on internal grounds, chap. 21 is some sort of an "Appendix," tacked on after the death of the "beloved disciple" (cf. 21:20-23). Similarly, the shift in pronouns in 21:24 (first person sing. to first person pl.) indicates the same. This "revisionist" tendency also intrudes into the gospel even earlier, at 2:18-22. This revisionism seems to indicate a later date for the final product, and/or a revision of an earlier "edition" (if there was one). --Petersen, Penn State Univ. From majordom Tue Mar 19 15:42:31 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA23916; Tue, 19 Mar 1996 15:42:31 +0500 Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 15:39:45 -0500 From: Orthopodeo@aol.com Message-Id: <960319153945_355979169@mail02.mail.aol.com> To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: James 2:18 Content-Length: 2627 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Status: O X-Status: In a message dated 96-03-15 19:10:19 EST, D. Wheeler wrote: > The real problem for >TC, as I see it, is that passages like this, linked together in a chain, >form the basis for the characterizations of what Byzantine scribes must have >done, and then subsequent decisions are based on those generalizations. >Many more studies, like what Colwell did for the papyrii, are needed on the >Byz material, so that we can formulate an accurate, rather than anecdotal >picture of the Byz scribal process...I would suggest that the newest studies >are not all that flattering to the anecdotal picture. It was most fascinating (and for me, rather frustrating) to see this post twice in my mailbox. No, not because of a system problem, but because one of the subscribers here copied it over to the most vitriolic of KJV Only, Ruckmanite mailing lists (i.e., the Peter Ruckman, Gail Riplinger, "all scholars are together in a grand conspiracy to get the KJV" style folks) as an illustration of the "subjectivity" of textual criticism. In fact, the person who forwarded it added at the beginning, " As Dr. Wheeler points out, such phony scholarship needs to be debunked in the same way that Hort's "Lucian Recension" was debunked by Burgon." Something tells me Dr. Wheeler was not trying to say that we cannot make progress and hence should simply grab the TR and be done with it (those who demand absolute certainty in all things think we need to go that direction), but that further study is *always* to be advised. Nor did I see anything in his post about "phony scholarship" (a term used by KJV Only advocates to describe, well, everyone who doesn't agree with them). I doubt if even one person on that other list would take it the way it was originally intended, however, and I would not be surprised at all to see this post quoted again and again in the context, "See, scholars admit that they are just picking and choosing among variants just to get away from God's Holy Word, the AV 1611!" The only moral to this story I can draw is, it doesn't matter what you say or how you say it, somebody can, and most probably will, twist it to suit their needs. ********************************************************** * James White, B.A., M.A., Th.M., Orthopodeo@aol.com * * College of Christian Studies-Grand Canyon University * * Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary-AZ Campus * * Professor of Apologetics-Faraston Theological Seminary * * Director, Alpha and Omega Ministries * * http://net387.texas.net/ao.html * ********************************************************** From majordom Tue Mar 19 16:30:23 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA24239; Tue, 19 Mar 1996 16:30:23 +0500 Message-Id: <9603192058.AA27429@osf1.gmu.edu> Subject: Re: Different dating systems To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 15:57:59 -0500 (EST) From: "Stephen C Carlson" In-Reply-To: <199603192012.PAA34122@r02n05.cac.psu.edu> from "William L. Petersen" at Mar 19, 96 03:12:29 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 923 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Status: O X-Status: William L. Petersen wrote: >On 19 March, Stephen Carlson wrote: >> I'd be interested in hearing other's >>opinions on whether P5 and P75 reflect a twenty-chapter version of >>John. > >Neither P5 nor P75 include John 21, but that tells us nothing, for both are >very fragmentary. P5 does contain parts of chap. 20: 20:11-17, 19-20, and >22-25. In P75 the fragmentary "snippets" of text go as far as John 15:7-8. >See Aland & Aland, _Text of the NT_. I'm thinking of Comfort's argument that the arrangements of the codices which contained P5 and P75 suggest a shorter, hence twenty-chapter, gospel. Is his argument persuasive among text critics? Stephen Carlson -- Stephen C. Carlson, George Mason University School of Law, Patent Track, 4LE scarlso1@osf1.gmu.edu : Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs http://osf1.gmu.edu/~scarlso1/ : chant the words. -- Shujing 2.35 From majordom Tue Mar 19 17:28:16 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA24594; Tue, 19 Mar 1996 17:28:16 +0500 Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 16:37:30 -0500 From: HuldrychZ@aol.com Message-Id: <960319163729_356029105@emout06.mail.aol.com> To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: BAR Content-Length: 481 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Status: O X-Status: In a recent issue of Biblical Archaeology Review a two volume set of books which contain photographs of "all" the DSS manuscripts is advertised (published by BAR). Has anyone in the forum had occasion to view these books? If so, is the quality worthwhile? The two volumes originally sold for $195 but are now available for something like $40. Thanks, (I hope this has at least some relationship to TC- so that I am not booted out for asking improper questions :) ). Jim West From majordom Tue Mar 19 18:52:51 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA25122; Tue, 19 Mar 1996 18:52:51 +0500 Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 18:50:03 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: James 2:18 In-Reply-To: <960319153945_355979169@mail02.mail.aol.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 2066 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Status: O X-Status: On Tue, 19 Mar 1996 Orthopodeo@aol.com wrote: > one of > the subscribers here copied it over to the most vitriolic of KJV Only, > Ruckmanite mailing lists (i.e., the Peter Ruckman, Gail Riplinger, "all > scholars are together in a grand conspiracy to get the KJV" style folks) as > an illustration of the "subjectivity" of textual criticism. In fact, the > person who forwarded it added at the beginning, " As Dr. Wheeler points out, > such phony scholarship needs to be debunked in the same way that Hort's > "Lucian Recension" was debunked by Burgon." Those who do not have to interact with the KJV-Only movement will not understand White's post, but those within conservative circles deal with this type of material every day. The whole situation is is quite humorous since it is the ECLECTICS here who defend the KJV reading (XWRIS) in James 2:18. The pro-Byzantine people whom they praise as critics of modern eclecticism are the ones here defending the reading EK, which does NOT appear in the KJV at that point. For the record, the TR editions of Erasmus, Stephens, and even Elzevir read EK, but the fictional TR which purportedly underlies the KJV (artificially created by F.H.A. Scrivener in 1894) reads XWRIS, deliberately to agree with the KJV. I suppose the current post indicates that the KJV-Only network now considers the KJV in error at the point of James 2:18....unless they simply failed to read what was being said. One of these days the KJV-Only proponents might do well to take a few extra moments and actually READ what is stated in this conference in full CONTEXT before spouting off in the usual manner. *:-) ========================================================================= Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ========================================================================= From majordom Tue Mar 19 19:00:40 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA25150; Tue, 19 Mar 1996 19:00:40 +0500 Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 18:57:54 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Different dating systems In-Reply-To: <9603192058.AA27429@osf1.gmu.edu> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 1829 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Status: O X-Status: On Tue, 19 Mar 1996, Stephen C Carlson wrote: > I'm thinking of Comfort's argument that the arrangements of the codices > which contained P5 and P75 suggest a shorter, hence twenty-chapter, gospel. > Is his argument persuasive among text critics? >From what I know, Comfort stands alone and his theories are not very well received among any text-critical scholars. I myself wrote a lengthy critical review of Comfort's theories which was published in _Faith and Mission_ about two years ago. Basically, Comfort's problem is his over-simplistic method of doing textual criticism merely by taking the three oldest MSS of any portion of scripture and allowing two out of three to decide the "autograph." Comfort's critique of N27 and his suggested "corrections" to that edition are often laughable, even if one holds to the eclectic standpoint. How by any stretch of imagination the arrangement of the codices which contained P75 or P5 would indicate a 20-chapter version of John when the endings of both MSS are not extant, I do not know. I suppose Comfort is arguing that John preceded Luke in those codices, and that the extant page numbers on the MSS when calculated by average line length and average lines per page would somehow indicate the omission of Jn.21. If so, it seems strange that no other scholar ever seems to have urged this, including Martini in his monograph on P75 and B. ========================================================================= Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ========================================================================= From majordom Tue Mar 19 19:39:02 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA25290; Tue, 19 Mar 1996 19:39:02 +0500 Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 16:35:56 -0800 Message-Id: <199603200035.QAA13074@desiree.teleport.com> X-Sender: dalemw@mail.teleport.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Dale M. Wheeler" Subject: Re: James 2:18 Content-Length: 4636 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Status: O X-Status: James White wrote: At 03:39 PM 3/19/96 -0500, you wrote: >In a message dated 96-03-15 19:10:19 EST, D. Wheeler wrote: > >> The real problem for >>TC, as I see it, is that passages like this, linked together in a chain, >>form the basis for the characterizations of what Byzantine scribes must have >>done, and then subsequent decisions are based on those generalizations. >>Many more studies, like what Colwell did for the papyrii, are needed on the >>Byz material, so that we can formulate an accurate, rather than anecdotal >>picture of the Byz scribal process...I would suggest that the newest studies >>are not all that flattering to the anecdotal picture. > >It was most fascinating (and for me, rather frustrating) to see this post >twice in my mailbox. No, not because of a system problem, but because one of >the subscribers here copied it over to the most vitriolic of KJV Only, >Ruckmanite mailing lists (i.e., the Peter Ruckman, Gail Riplinger, "all >scholars are together in a grand conspiracy to get the KJV" style folks) as >an illustration of the "subjectivity" of textual criticism. In fact, the >person who forwarded it added at the beginning, " As Dr. Wheeler points out, >such phony scholarship needs to be debunked in the same way that Hort's >"Lucian Recension" was debunked by Burgon." Something tells me Dr. Wheeler >was not trying to say that we cannot make progress and hence should simply >grab the TR and be done with it (those who demand absolute certainty in all >things think we need to go that direction), but that further study is >*always* to be advised. Nor did I see anything in his post about "phony >scholarship" (a term used by KJV Only advocates to describe, well, everyone >who doesn't agree with them). I doubt if even one person on that other list >would take it the way it was originally intended, however, and I would not be >surprised at all to see this post quoted again and again in the context, >"See, scholars admit that they are just picking and choosing among variants >just to get away from God's Holy Word, the AV 1611!" The only moral to this >story I can draw is, it doesn't matter what you say or how you say it, >somebody can, and most probably will, twist it to suit their needs. James: If you think you are frustrated, just think how I feel !!!!! I'd appreciate it if you would privately post the message to me with the group's address so I can defend the unwarranted use of my comment. You have apprehended my meaning correctly; I really don't care who "wins" the battle as most likely candidate pointing to the autographs, I'd just like to see the search done in such a way that we all (well at least those of us who want to actually think about the issue) feel like the emerging theory honestly deals with all data. If the research finally being done on the minuscules in a systematic way leads us away from the Byz texts, so be it; but such a decision must be based on research not impression. Equally if the research leads toward the Byz as the preserver of the original, then I hope those who have held the opposite viewpoint will look at the evidence in an unprejudiced manner. A lot of people on both sides of the issue have a lot personally and professionally at stake, but we all hope that such concerns will not get in the way of the pursuit of truth in this most important of arenas. This happily has been the general pattern, e.g., the surrender of the Hortian Lucian recension in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. I myself remain ambivalent seeing pluses and minuses on both sides of the argument. The only thing that I'm absolutely sure of is that this search DOES NOT, CAN NOT, WILL NOT lead to the KJV (of whatever vintage, none of which are used by KJV'ers anyway) or the TR (the question I always ask TR'ers is "Which TR do you mean ?" To which I always get a puzzled look; to which I reply "Which of Erasmus' editions did you have in mind? Or perhaps you are referring to one of the Stephanus or Elziver editions?"... I've never really gotten an answer to this query). I applaud their passion to find the original, but it is clearly misguided, in my opinion. Indeed in the case of the point under discussion, the TR reads XWRIS, not EK. *********************************************************************** Dale M. Wheeler, Th.D. Chair, Biblical Languages Dept Multnomah Bible College 8435 NE Glisan Street Portland, OR 97220 Voice: 503-251-6416 FAX:503-254-1268 E-Mail: dalemw@teleport.com *********************************************************************** From majordom Tue Mar 19 20:02:40 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA25358; Tue, 19 Mar 1996 20:02:40 +0500 Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 19:59:56 -0500 From: HuldrychZ@aol.com Message-Id: <960319195954_250350841@emout10.mail.aol.com> To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Ezekiel 20:25-26 Content-Length: 412 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Status: O X-Status: This text has caused no little discussion over the centuries, not so much for its grammar as for its theology. The Targum has a quite different rendering. Is it possible that the Targum contains the oldest reading and that the MT has somehow been corrupted by a scribal error (i.e., the omission of "the enemies I turned you over to gave you bad laws", etc.)? Thanks in advance for your suggestions. Jim West From majordom Tue Mar 19 20:25:52 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA25430; Tue, 19 Mar 1996 20:25:52 +0500 Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 20:23:04 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: James 2:18 In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 12698 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Status: O X-Status: [Warning - long response! First half interpretative; second half text-critical] On Tue, 19 Mar 1996, James R. Adair wrote: > On Mon, 18 Mar 1996, Maurice Robinson wrote: > Despite my attempts to do so, I can still see no difference in emphasis > between "faith not having works" and "faith without works." Of course > the examples are different, and the wording changes slightly, but the > variation is just for rhetorical effect, it seems to me. Again, I still see quite different angles of approach and emphasis in 2:14-19 and 2:20-26 which would call for different terms. Inaction when opportunity to do good arises reflects a dead (nonproductive) faith -- "faith not having works" -- but failure to act when in a time of severe testing is "faith apart from works". Both are called "dead", but there are clearly two different types of faith-in-action which are being described, and rhetorically it seems quite clear that different terms are used to describe each situation. > According to UBS4, the French version Traduction Oecumenique de la Bible > treats Jas 2:18-19 as one quotation, although I don't know if it reads > XWRIS or EK. Zane Hodges also takes 2:18-19 as a single quotation, and he does read EK in his commentary. > I can see how these > verses might be a single extended quotation, but I can't see how the > hypothetical person can be considered an objector, regardless of how long > the quote is. But why not? James rhetorically introduces him as an objector: "But someone will say...", and also refutes him in the strongest terms, basically "You blockhead!" (O empty man). If this objector is merely saying the same thing as James, why such abuse? (either XWRIS or EK would still bring down the same criticism from James). > The hypothetical person is claiming to have works, the > _same_ position that James is taking. Furthermore, if EK is read, the > argument of this person, whether an opponent or not, seems to go > nowhere. Not at all, if emphasis is understood in the context as I indicated: "Show me _your_ faith from _your_ works and I will show you _my_ faith from _my_ works." Is there not the possibility that the objector is actually the one who is the _prime_ illustration of the failure to do good to those needing clothing and food in vv.14ff ? He may well be arguing in vv.18-19 that his "other" works demonstrate his faith quite sufficiently, so why pick on him for his inaction in that one specific area (of course the point is clear: whoever knows what should be done and fails to do it is guilty of sin; objections to the effect of "Lord, Lord, didn't we do all these mighty works in your name" may still result in "depart from me....I never knew you!"). James calls him foolish, and then intensifies the example by suggesting that inaction in times of charitable opportunity will similarly be followed by a greater inaction in times of testing or persecution -- unless faith is continually demonstrated by works in ALL situation, the faith remains dead. > I suppose it could be argued that James just didn't make his > point very well, but I like to think that clarity rather than obfuscation > was an important concern of the author. And with this I also would agree. Since the vast majority of (at least the minuscule) scribes read EK, they obviously did not have a great concern that the text was meaningless without XWRIS in the passage. Obfuscation should be reflected in comments or correction, which did not occur; rather, EK remained perpetuated in that context. One might perhaps check various patristic exegesis here (if the passage is covered at all). > Now this is the classic majority text argument (in this form of the > majority text theory, as Maurice has differentiated them): errors > introduced in mss will tend to be corrected by the overall process of > cross-checking with other mss, especially when the diorthotes is > involved. This view assumes a controlled ms copying process from almost > the beginning of the period of ms transmission, and I don't think that > this was the case. It certainly does explain, however, why there is such > agreement among later Byzantine mss. I obviously concur with the first half of this comment. Cross-comparison and correction is generally assumed among MSS. However, the matter of "control" as expressed in the second sentence sounds more like some formal imposition rather than the common general practice found among scribes in any given situation. As Colwell noted, "control" may be a proper term, but when and by whom such control was imposed remains questionable. I suggest no formal control whatsoever, but merely the normal scribal practice of copying faithfully, reading over one's work, and having a brother monk or another reader compare your work with a separate MS. The "control" is really found in the perpetuated TEXT itself, and not in the scribe or diorthotes. Viewed in this light, then, yes, there WAS "control" from the very beginning of MS transmission, and the early papyri with their corrections (often from an outside exemplar, as demonstrable in e.g., p66) reflect such "control" from the earliest stages of transmission which are evidenced. This control does NOT, however, explain the vast agreement among Byzantine witnesses, since the early MSS themselves reflect a wide deviation from the single autograph text of any book during the period of the "uncontrolled popular nature" of the text. The church during this period was a persecuted minority, and the opportunities for free exchange of documents and more formal methods of reproduction were not common. It thus should not surprise anyone to find that during the period when the church was NOT state-sponsored, deviations were common, and the text was altered in many ways, creating the early Western variants, as well as other corruptions. I suspect that even the creation of the Alexandrian texttype reflects an Egyptian localized attempt to purge out such corruptions, during the first third of the second century, but even this attempt did not "restore" the autograph text, nor end the uncontrolled corruption. Only after the legitimization of Christianity under Constantine would a new Pax Romana allow free communication and exchange of MSS between churches. Once this occurred, cross-comparison and correction would tend to weed out not only the corrupt elements of individual MSS, but also would slowly tend to eradicate the particular "local" nature of various texts, slowly but inexorably moving back toward the overarching common text from which all of the extant MSS had derived. Viewed in this light, the fact that the later Byzantine MSS (in the period before the 11th century) tend toward one main textform is not surprising. The fact that the Byzantine MSS themselves are subdivided into what appear to be localized or time-bound subgroups (e.g. K1, Ka, Kc, Kr etc.) without ever coming to a full unity of text argues strongly that there were no external controls imposed upon the scribes even during the later period of transmissional history. As Hodges aptly stated regarding the supposed "process" view of Colwell, which assumed that the Alexandrian text or something like it was original (quoted in the introduction to my Greek NT edition): "No one has yet explained how a long, slow process spread out over many centuries as well as over a wide geographical area, and involving a multitude of copyists, who often knew nothing of the state of the text outside of their own monasteries or scriptoria, could achieve this widespread uniformity out of the diversity presented by the earlier [Western and Alexandrian] forms of text....An unguided process achieving relative stability and uniformity in the diversified textual, historical, and cultural circumstances in which the New Testament was copied, imposes impossible strains on our imagination." I later commented in that same introduction: "Only a common, pre-existing archetype will permit order ever to come out of chaos. Even that possibility depends upon both the process of time and sufficient scribal concern for the text being copied." But if one begins with a presumption of Byzantine originality, then the common archetype does exist and is restorable. Other models (including contemporary eclecticism) seek for a different "autograph text", one which cannot satisfactorily explain its virtual self-destruction and utter failure to resuscitate during the 1500 years of transmissional history. > I have asked before whether Maurice (or anyone) can give me some examples > in which the majority text (in the 9th/10th centuries) does _not_ contain > what he considers to be the "original" reading. If there are no > examples, it leads me to suspect that the real criterion is the authority > of the Byzantine text-type. My theory is "Byzantine-priority", and it does assume that the majority text up to and including the 10th century will best reflect what is truly "Byzantine". I have definite reasons for agreeing with Scrivener not to cut the time period any earlier, but that has to do with a paper I am preparing on the non-existence of early Byzantine MSS (and no, I do not agree with Burgon or Pickering that they were so heavily used that they simply "wore out," and that those early MSS which remain were the worst possible examples -- such absurdity I totally reject). However, for the sake of argument, I have no problem in cutting the time period to the sixth century, and still seeking out a "majority" consensus of Greek MSS and Greek fathers at the very least -- any text thus constructed will still approach more closely to the Byzantine Textform than any other texttype or sub-type. In fact, even for the sake of argument were only the five leading MSS of the Alexandrian texttype utilized, their consensus "majority" reading would still slowly move more to the Byzantine side than otherwise -- this fact is what caused Kenneth Clark to suggest to me that the Byzantine Textform indeed did have the potential to be the original source from which all the other types derived. Of course, the standard eclectic explanation of this circumstance is that slow "Byzantine" or "Byzantine-like" corruption was seeping into each and every Alexandrian MS as time went on, but this is merely assuming the point to be proven, viz., that the Byzantine Textform is "late" and subsequent to the Alex and Western types. From a Byzantine-priority standpoint, the Alex and Western are merely small minority deviations from the overarching Byzantine Textform, and most of their variants can be explained as accidental corruption away from the Byzantine or deliberate editorializing to smooth out or "correct" the Byzantine. The view is dependent upon the presuppositional perspective of the observer, obviously. > Those who see the Alexandrian text-type as > generally superior are often accused (and not entirely unjustly, in my > opinion) of twisting their arguments to make the Alexandrian reading > appear to be original. The same charge can be made against the Byzantine > priority approach, unless, as I say, examples of "original" non-Byzantine > readings can be produced. Why should this be a requirement, if the hypothesis under consideration is the originality of the Byzantine Textform as a whole? What you suggest is an alternative hypothesis which requires non-Byzantine readings to make up the final text, i.e., another form of eclectic methodology. Why cannot someone who favors the Alexandrian text argue the hypothesis of a true "Alexandrian-priority" and build a hypothesis better than Hort's arguing from the union of B and P75 (where extant) or of the union of B L C and Aleph for the archetypical Alexandrian text, and follow the results strictly? Would you demand of such a person that his hypothesis must include non-Alexandrian readings, or else it is invalid? Of course not; and it is the same with a Byzantine-priority position -- the goal of this hypothesis is to recreate the Byzantine Textform without extraneous elements, in the hope that by doing so the autograph form of the text might be recoverable. ========================================================================= Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ========================================================================= From majordom Tue Mar 19 20:30:14 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA25460; Tue, 19 Mar 1996 20:30:14 +0500 Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 20:27:28 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: James 2:18 In-Reply-To: <314EA5E1.6E82@uni-muenster.de> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Content-Length: 1735 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Status: O X-Status: On Tue, 19 Mar 1996, Klaus Wachtel wrote: > Even presupposing that POIEIN KALWS can really mean "to do good works" (w= hich=20 > I doubt, because this rendering ignores that KALWS is an adverb) I would agree with Klaus on the adverbial nature of KALWS -- the phrase=20 does not mean "to do good works," but simply "you do well" (in your=20 faith-assumption). > What makes the=20 > Byzantine EK in Js. 2,18 so interesting is the fact that it doesn't fit t= he=20 > Hortian pattern. Nobody was surprised that Bart Ehrman found a lot of ort= hodox=20 > corruptions in the Byzantine text, =AD but by scribal blunders like this = one we=20 > are forced to revise Hort's classical description of the Byzantine text a= nd=20 > his reconstruction of its history. I also agree that the EK does not fit what Hort would have concluded=20 about the Byzantine text; but that EK is a scribal blunder does not seem=20 likely nor acceptable in light of scribal tendencies to reject and=20 correct such blunders on a wide scale. =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D From majordom Tue Mar 19 20:51:28 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA25512; Tue, 19 Mar 1996 20:51:28 +0500 Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 20:48:42 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: James 2:18 In-Reply-To: <314EF57C.1438@uni-muenster.de> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 3160 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Status: O X-Status: On Tue, 19 Mar 1996, Klaus Wachtel wrote: > On Mon, 18 Mar, Maurice Robinson wrote: > > And I conclude that parablepsis might produce error in a single MS and a > > few others copied therefrom, but I cannot see such error growing to a > > dominant position within transmissional history without a word of protest > > or numerous corrections by scribes. > What about the Byzantine omissions in 1Jn 2,23 and 3,1, then? This is of course one of the issues which I intend to deal with in my paper on the non-existence of early Byzantine MSS. Without going into a very extended discussion here, I would suggest that at the time of the switch from uncial to minuscule (9th-10th centuries) certain key MSS were selected as archetypes for the primary minuscule copies. In the case of 1John, the key MS which was selected apparently had omitted the clauses in question by homoioteleuton, and the later MSS which were copied therefrom followed suit in the omission. If the minuscule archetype were copied in sufficient quantity during the very initial period of minuscule distribution, the _omission_ of those two readings would dominate and (through the cross-correction process) would eliminate whatever vestiges remained of the longer reading which had previously dominated transmissional history before the radical change of script. I.e., the cross-comparison and correction process would work normally, but the minuscule would form a new "archetype" which would dominate the tradition from that point, and consultation with earlier uncials would not occur, primarily due to the change of script (within 50 years of the change of script scribes were complaining that they could no longer read the uncial texts). The true "Byzantine" Textform reading remains that which includes the passages in question, even if the mass of minuscules from the beginning of that era failed to perpetuate the autograph text accurately. This does not invalidate the former hypothesis, but in fact confirms it, given that a "new" archetype situation has come into existence. That the minuscule-oriented scribes did not protest (at least as far as we know) is probably indicative of the respect with which they held the selected archetypical copies and the monastery or scriptorium which was primarily responsible for beginning the minuscule revolution. Note that the original locus of my quoted statement above deals with the possibility of a very EARLY error growing into a position of dominance, without mass correction or words of protest. This is NOT the case with 1Jn.2:23 or 3:1, since, except for sporadic cases of individual homoioteleuton, the longer reading in both variant units was utterly dominant from century II until century X. ========================================================================= Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ========================================================================= From majordom Tue Mar 19 21:16:22 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA25582; Tue, 19 Mar 1996 21:16:22 +0500 Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 21:13:35 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: MT/BT In-Reply-To: <314EF46C.6EA4@uni-muenster.de> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 3185 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Status: O X-Status: On Tue, 19 Mar 1996, Klaus Wachtel wrote: > > According to Tischendorf's 8th edition, EK is supported by K and L among > > the uncials as well as virtually all the minuscules. > > This is true for the Byzantine omissions in 1Jn 2,23 and 3,1 as well. All three > instances are included in "Text & Textwert", all three have a remarkably pure > K-attestation, hardly lacking any Kr- or Kx-ms. I see a major difference in cases where accidental omission due to homoioteleuton could be the cause of such variation, however. Certainly it would be difficult to argue that the longer reading in 2:23 was added merely to give balance to the passage or to provide a contrast in "Johannine style" if such were not original. The reading in 3:1, however, can and has been argued as non-original, since KAI ESMEN may have originated as a gloss. With 2:18 however, the principle of the harder reading and that which would give rise to the other alternative(s) takes precedence, since accidental error (even by attraction to EK in the second clause) seems less likely than the deliberate attempt to obviate a difficulty. Note that I am not holding to a double standard: the issue in 1Jn 2:23 and 3:1 is predicated upon the principle of continuity of attestation in the pre-10th century period, followed by a surprising lack of same after the 10th century. The case of James 2:18 reflects continued perpetuation of a non-accidental variant by the minuscules of what I would argue had been in the majority of (now) non-extant uncials which were discarded or destroyed once the minuscule copying revolution had occurred. (Of course, like the homoioteleuton argument, one could also argue that EK in the primary minuscule exemplar was also an error which became the mother of all subsequent copies; I will not deny that this line of argument is possible, but I think it less probable since accidental error is less likely to appear in cases of substitution as opposed to omission). Also, I probably should explain that my presumption of homoioteleuton and the originality of the longer reading in 1 Jn.2:23 and 3:1 is NOT shared by my co-editor, William Pierpont, who argues for the shorter reading in each case, based upon the relative independence of the minuscule MSS. My mind is not fully made up on this point, and Pierpont may well be correct, though I think that if so there is a problem with ignoring the continuity of those longer readings from the second through the tenth century; further, on stylistic grounds, the longer reading appears to be the most appropriate. Should I end up resolving the issue in a different direction from which I am currently inclined, I would still probably include those longer readings, albeit in brackets. ========================================================================= Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ========================================================================= From majordom Wed Mar 20 00:57:31 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA26314; Wed, 20 Mar 1996 00:57:31 +0500 Date: Wed, 20 Mar 1996 00:57:25 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Adair" X-Sender: jadair@scholar To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Mt 6:13 In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 4965 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Status: O X-Status: On Tue, 19 Mar 1996, Maurice Robinson wrote (speaking of the first three Christian centuries): > The church during this period was a persecuted minority, and the > opportunities for free exchange of documents and more formal methods of > reproduction were not common. It thus should not surprise anyone to find > that during the period when the church was NOT state-sponsored, deviations > were common, and the text was altered in many ways, creating the early > Western variants, as well as other corruptions. I suspect that even the > creation of the Alexandrian texttype reflects an Egyptian localized attempt > to purge out such corruptions, during the first third of the second > century, but even this attempt did not "restore" the autograph text, nor > end the uncontrolled corruption. > > Only after the legitimization of Christianity under Constantine would a > new Pax Romana allow free communication and exchange of MSS between > churches. Once this occurred, cross-comparison and correction would tend > to weed out not only the corrupt elements of individual MSS, but also > would slowly tend to eradicate the particular "local" nature of various > texts, slowly but inexorably moving back toward the overarching common > text from which all of the extant MSS had derived. Why would the text tend toward the archetype and not toward some other heretofore (perhaps) unknown text? We know that oral traditions change over time (e.g., different forms of the Enuma Elish epic); why shouldn't written traditions do the same? For example, the stories in Chronicles that parallel those in Samuel and Kings are quite similar, but not nearly identical, even when the Chronicler was clearly using a written source. Changes from "Yahweh" to "Elohim" are numerous, for example, as are substitutions of synonyms. The later OT versions (e.g., V, P) tend to reflect a Vorlage similar to the proto-MT, not because it was the "original," but because it had become the standard text. The Odes, which circulated in the LXX but were culled from both OT and NT texts, are close to, but not identical with, the Majority Text (as far as I can tell from a brief perusal) in the NT portions. All these facts suggest to me that _unity_ of reading among a majority of mss does not imply _originality_ of reading. The fact that _none_ of the earliest NT mss reflects a distinctly Byzantine text suggests to me that the later Byzantine consensus is lately arrived at, just as the Masoretic Text is not identical (nor nearly identical) to the "original" OT text (leaving aside questions of what "original" means when speaking of these texts). Maurice has mentioned a paper he is working on that explains the disappearance of the earliest Byzantine witnesses. I will definitely be interested to read it. > > Those who see the Alexandrian text-type as > > generally superior are often accused (and not entirely unjustly, in my > > opinion) of twisting their arguments to make the Alexandrian reading > > appear to be original. The same charge can be made against the Byzantine > > priority approach, unless, as I say, examples of "original" non-Byzantine > > readings can be produced. > > Why should this be a requirement, if the hypothesis under consideration > is the originality of the Byzantine Textform as a whole? What you > suggest is an alternative hypothesis which requires non-Byzantine > readings to make up the final text, i.e., another form of eclectic > methodology. This is precisely what I was trying to establish: that the position in question starts from the assumption, not of the general superiority of the Byzantine text, but of the _originality_ of that text-type. This is different from an assumption of general Alexandrian superiority, which many (not all) eclectics make. Arguments in favor of specific Byzantine readings, though often quite clever (and undoubtedly sometimes correct!), are not the bases for textual decisions, but are the consequences of readings predetermined by the external evidence. Of course, it can be argued that the Byzantine tradition was chosen in the first place because it contained superior readings (as many argue of the Alexandrian text), but it does not follow that just because some, or many, Byzantine readings are judged to be original that _all_ are. To look at another example, the ending of the Lord's Prayer in Mt 6:13 ("for thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen.") is present in the Majority Text, including several uncials, and many early versions. However, it definitely looks like an early addition, probably from a liturgical setting (thus the "amen"). How does the Byzantine priority view evaluate this reading? Jimmy Adair Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press and Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site ---------------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu <----------------- From majordom Wed Mar 20 01:21:49 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA26366; Wed, 20 Mar 1996 01:21:49 +0500 Date: Wed, 20 Mar 1996 01:21:43 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Adair" X-Sender: jadair@scholar To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Ezekiel 20:25-26 In-Reply-To: <960319195954_250350841@emout10.mail.aol.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 1140 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Status: O X-Status: On Tue, 19 Mar 1996 HuldrychZ@aol.com wrote: > The Targum has a quite different rendering. Is it possible that the Targum > contains the oldest reading and that the MT has somehow been corrupted by a > scribal error (i.e., the omission of "the enemies I turned you over to gave > you bad laws", etc.)? Jim, It is doubtful that the Vorlage of T here differs from the MT. At least, if it did, it can't be recovered, since T is clearly an attempt to deal with a difficult theological topic, namely, the idea that God's laws were bad and intended to lead Israel astray. It is not uncommon for T to abandon a literal rendering in order to make a theological (or halakhic) point, or in order to avoid a troublesome Vorlage. A similar example of shielding God from the charge of inciting evil is the change from 2 Sam 24:1, "And God moved David to take a census," to 1 Chron 21:1, "And Satan moved David to take a census." Jimmy Adair Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press and Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site ---------------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu <----------------- From majordom Wed Mar 20 10:53:12 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA28265; Wed, 20 Mar 1996 10:53:12 +0500 Message-Id: <9603201517.AA26073@osf1.gmu.edu> Subject: Re: Different dating systems To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Date: Wed, 20 Mar 1996 10:17:29 -0500 (EST) From: "Stephen C Carlson" In-Reply-To: from "Maurice Robinson" at Mar 19, 96 06:57:54 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 2341 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Status: O X-Status: Maurice Robinson wrote: >How by any stretch of imagination the arrangement of the codices which >contained P75 or P5 would indicate a 20-chapter version of John when the >endings of both MSS are not extant, I do not know. I suppose Comfort is >arguing that John preceded Luke in those codices, and that the extant >page numbers on the MSS when calculated by average line length and >average lines per page would somehow indicate the omission of Jn.21. If >so, it seems strange that no other scholar ever seems to have urged this, >including Martini in his monograph on P75 and B. This is his basic argument for P75: He notes that there are about 26,500 characters which precede Lk5:37, but the text that follows Jn13:10, comprising 29,300 characters for the twenty chapter version, and 32,300 for the twenty-one chapter version, would have to fit on the same number of sheets. He deals with the issue of the scribe's handwriting getting smaller, but I don't pretend to understand the subject matter well enough to evaluate it. He cites and argues against Martin & Kasser and Turner. His argument for P5 relies on the fact that POxy 208 is a leaf folded in half and includes on one folio Jn1:23-31 (recto) and 1:33-41 (verso), and Jn20:11-17 (v) and 20:19-20,22-25 (r) on the other. Although two pages (one more leaf) are needed for the beginning of John to 1:22, the 21- chapter version would require 4+ more pages, or two leafs. This means that P5 either: (a) intentionally started with two blank pages but for the title [Grenfell & Hunt], (b) was added an extra leaf after running out of room [Sanders], or (c) never had chapter 21 in the first place [Comfort]. Comfort thinks (a) is unlikely, but either (b) or (c) is possible. My source is Philip Wesley Comfort, THE QUEST FOR THE ORIGINAL NEW TESTAMENT (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1992). To this amateur these arguments have some plausibility, but I would really like to get a second opinion. Is there a flaw in his reasoning or is his evidence simply insufficient (though intriguing) for a strong conclusion? Stephen Carlson -- Stephen C. Carlson, George Mason University School of Law, Patent Track, 4LE scarlso1@osf1.gmu.edu : Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs http://osf1.gmu.edu/~scarlso1/ : chant the words. -- Shujing 2.35 From majordom Wed Mar 20 11:33:29 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA28576; Wed, 20 Mar 1996 11:33:29 +0500 Date: 20 Mar 96 10:30:42 EST From: Mike Arcieri <102147.2045@compuserve.com> To: TC-LIST Subject: TOB et Jacques 2:18-19 Message-Id: <960320153041_102147.2045_EHT49-2@CompuServe.COM> Content-Length: 521 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Status: O X-Status: >According to UBS4, the French version Traduction Oecumenique de la Bible >treats Jas 2:18-19 as one quotation, although I don't know if it reads >XWRIS or EK. Maybe someone on the list knows. Yes, the Traduction Oecumenique de la Bible (TOB) does in fact treat the passage as one quotation. Verse 18 begins as follows: "Mais quelqu'un dira: << Tu as de la foi...(19)...frissonnent>>" "But someone will say: ' You have faith...(19)...shudder." Verse 20 then resumes James' argument against this pauvre etre. From majordom Wed Mar 20 12:07:21 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA28981; Wed, 20 Mar 1996 12:07:21 +0500 Date: Wed, 20 Mar 1996 12:07:16 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Adair" X-Sender: jadair@scholar To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: TOB et Jacques 2:18-19 In-Reply-To: <960320153041_102147.2045_EHT49-2@CompuServe.COM> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 633 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Status: O X-Status: On 20 Mar 1996, Mike Arcieri wrote: > Yes, the Traduction Oecumenique de la Bible (TOB) does in fact treat the > passage as one quotation. Verse 18 begins as follows: > > "Mais quelqu'un dira: << Tu as de la foi...(19)...frissonnent>>" > "But someone will say: ' You have faith...(19)...shudder." Mike, Can you please quote the rest of v. 18 so that we can see which variant (EK or XWRIS) was translated? Thanks. Jimmy Adair Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press and Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site ---------------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu <----------------- From majordom Wed Mar 20 13:18:03 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA29565; Wed, 20 Mar 1996 13:18:03 +0500 Date: Wed, 20 Mar 96 10:15:01 PST From: broman@Np.nosc.mil (Vincent Broman) Message-Id: <9603201815.AA07225@Np.nosc.mil> To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Cc: mrobinsn@mercury.interpath.com In-Reply-To: (message from Maurice Robinson on Tue, 19 Mar 1996 20:23:04 -0500 (EST)) Subject: Re: James 2:18 Content-Length: 1787 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Status: O X-Status: There was a question about how widespread and early the "EK" reading was among the Byzantines. Here is the complete data from Text und Textwert, condensed only in omitting most of the Majority roster reading "EK" (requiring the Subtraktionsprinzip). I did retain most of the "EK" MSS up to century XI, and all those with corrections and marginal readings. Notice the changes: EK XWRIS 61txt 61mg 450txt 450mg 582* 582c 1598c 1598* 1611c 1611* ______________________________________________________________________ James 2:18 EK (451x) p54 K L 049 056c 0142 1 2 3 4 5 6 18 35 36 38 42 43 51 57 61txt 76 82 90 93 94 97 102 103 105 181 221 307 323 398 424 431 450txt 451 491 582* 623c1 919supp 945 1424 1448 1598c 1611c 1841 1845 1854 1875 1891 2147 2298 2464 ... omnes reliqui (395x) sine corr. XWRIS (57x) 01 A B C P Psi 33 61mg 69 81 88 104 175 197 206 296 400 429 436 442 450mg 522 582c 614 630 876 915 1067 1175 1241 1243 1270 1297 1505 1595 1598* 1609 1611* 1735 1739 1744 1765 1832 1838 1842 1852 1885 1890 2138 2200 2243 2344 2412 2492 2495 2541 2805 omit EK/XWRIS TWN ERGWN (4x) 619 623* 1162 2776 omit EK/XWRIS TWN (2x) 056* 1066 unknown rdg (3x) 62 110 2716 lacuna (43x) p9 p20 p23 p72 p74 p78 p81 048 093 0116 0156 0173 0206 0209 0232 0245 0246 0247 0251 0285 0296 356 368 498 506 517 602 612 640 712 743 919 1523 1724 1762 1836 1844 1846 1881 2441 2527 2731 2741 ______________________________________________________________________ Vincent Broman Email: broman@nosc.mil = o 2224 33d St. Phone: +1 619 284 3775 = _ /- _ San Diego, CA 92104-5605 Starship: 32d42m22s N 117d14m13s W = (_)> (_) ___ PGP protected mail preferred. For public key finger broman@np.nosc.mil ___ From majordom Wed Mar 20 17:28:17 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA00879; Wed, 20 Mar 1996 17:28:17 +0500 Date: 20 Mar 96 17:15:29 EST From: Mike Arcieri <102147.2045@compuserve.com> To: TC-LIST Subject: Re: TOB et Jacques 2:18 Message-Id: <960320221529_102147.2045_EHT35-1@CompuServe.COM> Content-Length: 377 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Status: O X-Status: >Mike, >Can you please quote the rest of v. 18 so that we can see which variant >(EK or XWRIS) was translated? Thanks. Here she is: "Tu as de la foi: moi aussi, j'ai des oeuvres; prouve-moi ta foi SANS les oeuvres et moi, je tirerai de mes oeuvres la preuve de ma foi." TOB "SANS" = without = XWRIS. This is not a surprise, since TOB is based on the UBS GT. From majordom Wed Mar 20 19:55:20 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA01710; Wed, 20 Mar 1996 19:55:20 +0500 Date: Wed, 20 Mar 1996 19:52:31 -0500 From: Orthopodeo@aol.com Message-Id: <960320195229_173309205@mail06> To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: James 2:18 and KJV Onlyism Content-Length: 4046 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Status: O X-Status: 03-20-96, the day the Lord has made. May He be glorified in it. In a message dated 96-03-20 16:03:00 EST, you write: >> person who forwarded it added at the beginning, " As Dr. Wheeler points out, >> such phony scholarship needs to be debunked in the same way that Hort's >> "Lucian Recension" was debunked by Burgon." >Those who do not have to interact with the KJV-Only movement will not >understand White's post, but those within conservative circles deal with >this type of material every day. The KJV Only folks have quite a presence in the net, and while their rhetoric may not reach outside conservative circles, I (obviously) feel that those who labor in the tc field need to keep in mind the layperson and be ready to provide an understandable accounting of the work being done, especially since the entire tc community is being villified with regularity by the KJV Only crowd. >The whole situation is is quite humorous since it is the ECLECTICS here >who defend the KJV reading (XWRIS) in James 2:18. The pro-Byzantine >people whom they praise as critics of modern eclecticism are the ones here >defending the reading EK, which does NOT appear in the KJV at that point. Recently a regular on that list wrote to me and upbraided me for having cited a passage from the NASB95 in my initial response to him. In fact, the passage is a part of a regular "letter form" I use in responding to folks. Here are his comments: > "Also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to > His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will" (Ephesians > 1:11, NASB95) Allow me a few corrections (to your Vatican manuscripts?): "IN WHOM also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will: WE ONLY OBTAIN THE INHERITANCE BY BEING IN CHRIST! BORN AGAIN! The earnest of the Spirit! This is something you feel is unimportant? ***************** When I wrote back I asked him to take a moment to go look at the NASB and note the last few words of verse 10, but he never responded to that. He now makes regular references to me in the list by the name "Jimbo." >For the record, the TR editions of Erasmus, Stephens, and even Elzevir >read EK, but the fictional TR which purportedly underlies the KJV >(artificially created by F.H.A. Scrivener in 1894) reads XWRIS, >deliberately to agree with the KJV. Most of them are surely not aware of this fact; then again, most Christians, period, are not aware of this fact, either. >I suppose the current post indicates that the KJV-Only network now >considers the KJV in error at the point of James 2:18....unless they >simply failed to read what was being said. They failed to read it, of course, and sadly, in my experience, they would reject EK out of hand (those who would even care what the Greek said---many don't, believing the AV 1611 to be "advanced revelation"), preferring to maintain the priority of the AV 1611 text. Even those who claim they seek only the "best" Greek text, as you well know, end up playing fast and loose with that text simply to maintain the KJV as the "standard." >One of these days the KJV-Only proponents might do well to take a few >extra moments and actually READ what is stated in this conference in full >CONTEXT before spouting off in the usual manner. *:-) You mean exercise fairness? Please, Dr. Robinson, you seem to forget that these folks don't think we should use a LEXICON because the last four letters spell ICON! :) God bless! ********************************************************** * James White, B.A., M.A., Th.M., Orthopodeo@aol.com * * College of Christian Studies-Grand Canyon University * * Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary-AZ Campus * * Professor of Apologetics-Faraston Theological Seminary * * Director, Alpha and Omega Ministries * * http://net387.texas.net/ao.html * ********************************************************** From majordom Wed Mar 20 22:41:55 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA02298; Wed, 20 Mar 1996 22:41:55 +0500 Date: Wed, 20 Mar 1996 22:39:05 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Different dating systems In-Reply-To: <9603201517.AA26073@osf1.gmu.edu> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 1865 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Status: O X-Status: On Wed, 20 Mar 1996, Stephen C Carlson wrote: > [Comfort] cites and argues against Martin & Kasser and Turner. I for one would not argue very strongly against Turner on the point of reconstructing the original form of a codex. > His argument for P5 relies on the fact that POxy 208 is a leaf folded in > half and includes on one folio Jn1:23-31 (recto) and 1:33-41 (verso), and > Jn20:11-17 (v) and 20:19-20,22-25 (r) on the other. Although two pages > (one more leaf) are needed for the beginning of John to 1:22, the 21- > chapter version would require 4+ more pages, or two leafs. This means > that P5 either: (a) intentionally started with two blank pages but for > the title [Grenfell & Hunt], (b) was added an extra leaf after running > out of room [Sanders], or (c) never had chapter 21 in the first place > [Comfort]. Comfort thinks (a) is unlikely, but either (b) or (c) is > possible. Why does Comfort so desperately want the early papyri to omit John 21 in the first place? Even here I would trust Sanders first, Grenfell and Hunt second, and Comfort not at all, unless he can first demonstrate that John originally did end with chapter 20 (which I strongly doubt). Seems to me like Comfort is trying to manufacture evidence to support his theory of the original form of John, and misusing manuscript data in the process. If so, the flaw in his reasoning is that he is following circular argumentation to prove his point, and this he must do, since all other manuscript, versional, and patristic testimony is hostile to his own case. ========================================================================= Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof. of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ========================================================================= From majordom Thu Mar 21 00:09:12 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA02644; Thu, 21 Mar 1996 00:09:12 +0500 Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 00:06:19 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Mt 6:13 In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 16958 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Status: O X-Status: [Warning - another long one!] On Wed, 20 Mar 1996, James R. Adair wrote: > On Tue, 19 Mar 1996, Maurice Robinson wrote (speaking of the first three > Christian centuries): > > would slowly tend to eradicate the particular "local" nature of various > > texts, slowly but inexorably moving back toward the overarching common > > text from which all of the extant MSS had derived. > Why would the text tend toward the archetype and not toward some other > heretofore (perhaps) unknown text? We know that oral traditions change > over time (e.g., different forms of the Enuma Elish epic); why shouldn't > written traditions do the same? For example, the stories in Chronicles > that parallel those in Samuel and Kings are quite similar, but not nearly > identical, even when the Chronicler was clearly using a written source. There is a major difference between the transmissional history of a set text and the development and (obvious) revision of a tradition or myth as found in Enuma Elish. Chronicles in no way claims to be a direct perpetuation of the narrative in Samuel or Kings, and if it had attempted to do so, many Jewish scribes would have objected strongly. To put things in proper perspective, one has to deal with the transmission of the books of Samuel as their own proper entity, and look at that issue alone text-critically (certainly there is plenty to work with, considering the Massoretic Text vs the LXX vs the DSS etc.). But the analogy offered above does not hold in regard to textual transmission of a given canonical OT or NT book, any more than suggestions that the gospel of John reflects the latest development of the Jesus story as altered from Mark. But why would the text tend toward the archetype? For the simple reason that, regardless of texttype, the archetype IS preserved in over 90% of the text of virtually all MSS. Textual criticism is always recognized as dealing with a minority of the textbase. In the minority of text which possesses variant readings the known practice of scribes WAS to compare against both the exemplar and to have second readers and other exemplars compared against the copy. Only if a second textual tradition had as much support as a first textual tradition would the likelihood of moving away from the autograph be increased; so long as the main text dominated in the proportion of ca.80% to 20%, the tendency through the very normal scribal processes of cross-comparison and correction would be to move the minority text inexorably toward the majority. Why was the textual divergence not greater (as with the various versions of the Enuma Elish)? Simply because, as opposed to a growing and developing myth, the text of the NT or OT, once it had reached "canonical" status, became basically fixed as an entity, and a specific religious concern and scribal care was given to canonical texts to a degree different from that of other literature (though obviously the presence of variant readings does not eliminate the fact that perfect transmission of the text did not occur under human fallible agency). > Changes from "Yahweh" to "Elohim" are numerous, for example, as are > substitutions of synonyms. But in which texts? Not in the canonical Massoretic text of the individual books. Only in the clearly editorial differences in two entirely different sets of canonical books (Samuel/Kings versus Chronicles), which were authored at different times and for different theological/historical purposes. This argument is apples and oranges, and does not apply to the normal textual criticism of any given OT or NT book. > The later OT versions (e.g., V, P) tend to > reflect a Vorlage similar to the proto-MT, not because it was the > "original," but because it had become the standard text. The Odes, which > circulated in the LXX but were culled from both OT and NT texts, are close > to, but not identical with, the Majority Text (as far as I can tell from a > brief perusal) in the NT portions. I suspect (with most scholars) that the Massoretic Text of the OT is much closer to the original form than the LXX or Samaritan Pentateuch, DSS or other versions, though it still has its interpretative and text-critical problems; but this is another issue entirely and reflects a different text critical genre than that of the NT where the divergence is not so much the versions versus the Greek MSS, but the Greek MSS versus themselves in varying texttypes (which does not occur to the same degree in the Hebrew MSS). The Odes vary text-critically depending upon which LXX MSS possess them, since we still have the same B-Aleph vs A and other MSS problem in the LXX which seems to reflect Alexandrian vs Byzantine in the NT (the Greek Orthodox church today seems to prefer to follow Alexandrinus and its companions in the LXX rather than the B-Aleph text). > All these facts suggest to me that _unity_ of reading among a majority of > mss does not imply _originality_ of reading. By the OT analogy, unity of reading does at least reflect the Massoretic "originality" of the text, if not the autograph. But the Massoretes are recognized as a dislocating factor in the history of transmission of the OT text, just as Jerome is a dislocating factor in the history of the Latin NT text. Had there been a Byzantine recension as Hort postulated, the resultant dislocation in the history of transmission of the NT would call the Byzantine textual unity into question. Without such a revision taking place, that same unity goes back instead to a presumption of autograph originality. This is no more than Hort's initial presumption (which he spent most of his introduction attempting to refute, and that primarily by arguing for a formal Byzantine recension). Hort stated in his Introduction, p.45: "A theoretical presumption indeed remains that a majority of extant documents is more likely to represent a majority of ancestral documents at each stage of transmission than vice versa." Barring a major dislocation in the history of transmission, Hort's statement remains valid, and it is this Hortian principle upon which the current Byzantine-priority position is anchored. > The fact that _none_ of the > earliest NT mss reflects a distinctly Byzantine text suggests to me that > the later Byzantine consensus is lately arrived at, just as the Masoretic > Text is not identical (nor nearly identical) to the "original" OT text > (leaving aside questions of what "original" means when speaking of these > texts). I would question that assumption in regard to the Massoretic text, since the strong agreement of DSS Isaiah-A confirms that the same texttype was extant in at least the first century (along with other DSS Hebrew texts which followed more of a LXX type of text). There is no prevailing reason why the Massoretic text might not more accurately reflect the original text of the canonical OT books than any other type; only speculative opinion can argue such is "not nearly identical" to whatever the original might be. Given the historical scribal preservation of the Massoretic type of text and its scribal/theological connections to the successors of the Temple scribal fraternity, there is probably more likelihood that such a text indeed is closer to the original Vorlage than the versional or DSS alternatives. I would ask what is a "distinctly Byzantine text", since the current definitions of even "distinctive Byzantine readings" no longer match Hort's classic definition. If I were to claim like Colwell that a 70% cutoff level of readings agreeing with the Byzantine Textform would establish a MS as Byzantine, I would suggest that many of the early documents (papyri and non-Byzantine uncials) do come close to that threshhold, contrary to popular text-critical opinion. Assuming (for the sake of arguing the pro-Byzantine hypothesis) that readings held in common by Byzantine and Alexandrian MSS are counted as Byzantine, and also that readings held in common by Western and Byzantine MSS are also considered as Byzantine, the percentage of "Byzantine-ness" in the early MSS will generally hover between 55%-65%; they may not be fully Byzantine, but they are not far from it, when viewed from the standpoint of our hypothesis. The error of modern eclecticism is to consider a Byz+Alex reading as basically Alexandrian and not Byzantine, merely due to the presupposition of the "late" nature of the Byzantine MSS, which merely "adopted" the Alexandrian reading. Ditto with the Byz+Western readings, since the Western text is presupposed to be "earlier" than the Byzantine. Once the presuppositions are altered, the greater will appear the "Byzantine" nature of even the strongest non-Byzantine MSS, versions and fathers (Burgon has been criticized for claiming the fathers supported Byzantine readings in the proportion of 2:1 (=66%), claiming that this was due to his use of uncritical editions. But on the contrary, the real issue is how he tabulated a reading as Byzantine -- and that was to count the Alex+Byz and West+Byz as Byzantine, since from a pro-Byzantine presuppositional stance there is no other way to count such readings -- they are merely autograph readings from which the minority Alexandrian and/or Western witnesses happened NOT to depart. > Maurice has mentioned a paper he is working on that explains the > disappearance of the earliest Byzantine witnesses. I will definitely be > interested to read it. That paper will likely not be completed before sometime next year. The basic thesis and outline is completed and the writing has begun, but ensuring accurate and sufficient documentation is quite time-consuming, specifically because there is so little written material on this subject, since the last century has been so convinced of the secondary nature of the Byzantine Textform. The data has to be extracted almost between the lines. However, I am hoping to read this paper before the ETS San Francisco meeting in 1997, which allows plenty of time for research and refinement. > This is precisely what I was trying to establish: that the position in > question starts from the assumption, not of the general superiority of the > Byzantine text, but of the _originality_ of that text-type. Indeed the presuppositional stance is tied to a belief that, unlike eclecticism, wherein the original text lies scattered hither and yon among the extant witnesses and must be painstakingly recovered piece by piece, the original text is more likely to have perpetuated itself in a single texttype, whether Alexandrian, Western, Byzantine, or Caesarean. The primary appeal in this type of approach is to external evidence first, with sufficient testing by internal evidence principles. Modern eclecticism proceeds first from internal principles and secondarily from an appeal to external evidence. There are clearly two different methodologies, and it is amusing to find that the external evidence emphasis of the Byzantine-priority school differs little in method from that of Hort (who favored the Alexandrian texttype on primarily external grounds) or A.C.Clark (who favored the Western text primarily on external grounds). As Hort strongly urged, "Knowledge of documents must precede final judgement upon readings"; modern eclecticism seems to have reversed this principle in theory, if not in practice. > This is > different from an assumption of general Alexandrian superiority, which > many (not all) eclectics make. But on what basis? The subjective judgment of which readings are superior, based upon what scribes are supposedly inclined to do? Except when such principles contradict the favorite "older MSS" of the Alexandrian texttype, which still remains the strongest underlying principle of modern eclecticism (save for the rigorous eclectics such as Kilpatrick and Elliott). Should an eclectic scholar decide on primarily internal grounds to follow the Byzantine text 80% of the time, I suspect the SBL text-critical seminar would laugh that eclectic out of court, despite his ability to explain and defend such readings; the pro-Alexandrian bias still reigns supreme among modern eclectics, despite their acceptance of a handful of Byzantine readings here and there (a collation of W-H's 1881 text and the N27 text will reveal only about 600 differences, of which 300 involve the presence or absence of brackets; yet Hort's text was supposedly based primarily on external evidence while modern eclecticism supposedly has transcended that barrier). > Arguments in favor of specific Byzantine > readings, though often quite clever (and undoubtedly sometimes correct!), > are not the bases for textual decisions, but are the consequences of > readings predetermined by the external evidence. So we have to be merely "clever" to argue the pro-Byzantine text, and sometimes actually luck out? I think not. Certainly, the external data are the presuppositional basis for textual decisions, but the internal evidence, utilizing NORMAL text-critical principles, still needs to be used to validate and support those externally-based text-critical decisions. It also must be remembered that the reason for going to external data as a primary resource, and for determining the Byzantine Textform as the best of the external evidence does NOT stem from decisions made about individual variant readings as an a priori, nor upon selecting the Byzantine text itself as an a priori, but first from attempting to construct a thoroughly reliable history of transmission, and seeing which pieces best fit into the reconstruction of that history. As stated previously, "Textual criticism without a history of transmission is impossible" (H.H.Oliver). The recent discussion has moved away from that underlying presuppositional position to such an extent that I think we are off on an false tangent which is coming around to a straw man issue that the Byzantine text is favored because of mere say-so; this most definitely is not the case. > Of course, it can be > argued that the Byzantine tradition was chosen in the first place because > it contained superior readings (as many argue of the Alexandrian text), > but it does not follow that just because some, or many, Byzantine > readings are judged to be original that _all_ are. Actually from a pro-Byzantine position, the truth is that we do NOT proceed as did Hort, and do not look for any initial superiority of readings within the Byzantine Textform. The first and primary principle is constructing a hypothesis for the history of transmission and then testing that hypothesis against the known textual data. Only after the most suitable external candidate (on the texttype level) for autograph originality is selected does an examination of its internal readings begin. Then, just as Hort claimed with regard to the Alexandrian text, certain Byzantine readings did NOT commend themselves at first, but upon closer examination are seen to actually be superior and have indications of originality based upon normal text-critical principles of internal evidence. Some Byzantine readings remain where internal defense leads to no definite conclusion; these isolated instances, however, do not negate the basic principles of transmissional history nor the general conclusion regarding the superiority of the Byzantine Textform. > To look at another example, the ending of the Lord's Prayer in Mt 6:13 > ("for thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen.") > is present in the Majority Text, including several uncials, and many > early versions. However, it definitely looks like an early addition, > probably from a liturgical setting (thus the "amen"). How does the > Byzantine priority view evaluate this reading? This one was answered well by both Burgon and Scrivener in the last century. In the liturgical practice of the early church the closing doxology was liturgically stated by the priest alone, and not by the laity. It thus is not surprising to find that a minority of MSS leave out the words which may have been thought by the scribe wrongly to have been inserted into the exemplar he was copying to so as to liturgically "fill out" the prayer. Since the scribe "knew" that the laity did not say the closing doxology, it would not seem proper for these words to have originally been included in the instructions to the disciples as to how they (laity) ought to pray. (I see no need to argue assimilation to the Lukan form of the prayer, which does not have the doxology in any texttype). _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Assoc.Prof./Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From majordom Thu Mar 21 00:11:19 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA02682; Thu, 21 Mar 1996 00:11:19 +0500 Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 00:08:31 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: TOB et Jacques 2:18-19 In-Reply-To: <960320153041_102147.2045_EHT49-2@CompuServe.COM> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 717 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Status: O X-Status: On 20 Mar 1996, Mike Arcieri wrote: > >According to UBS4, the French version Traduction Oecumenique de la Bible > >treats Jas 2:18-19 as one quotation, although I don't know if it reads > >XWRIS or EK. Maybe someone on the list knows. > > Yes, the Traduction Oecumenique de la Bible (TOB) does in fact treat the passage > as one quotation. Verse 18 begins as follows: > > "Mais quelqu'un dira: << Tu as de la foi...(19)...frissonnent>>" > "But someone will say: ' You have faith...(19)...shudder." > > Verse 20 then resumes James' argument against this pauvre etre. But the question remains, does the translation reflect EK or XWRIS in v.18 ? Please quote all of v.18 in French if possible from TOB. From majordom Thu Mar 21 01:56:53 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA02951; Thu, 21 Mar 1996 01:56:53 +0500 Message-Id: <9603210654.AA27444@osf1.gmu.edu> Subject: Re: Different dating systems To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 01:54:05 -0500 (EST) From: "Stephen C Carlson" In-Reply-To: from "Maurice Robinson" at Mar 20, 96 10:39:05 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 964 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Status: O X-Status: Maurice Robinson wrote: >Why does Comfort so desperately want the early papyri to omit John 21 in >the first place? [...] > Seems >to me like Comfort is trying to manufacture evidence to support his >theory of the original form of John, and misusing manuscript data in the >process. My take on Comfort is that his goal is not to establish a 20-chapter John but to support his Early Text theory. If some of the early papyri (e.g., P75) can be shown to come from the 20-chapter precursor that is proposed by several Johannine scholars, then P75 would have a greater claim to the readings of the autograph, thus strengthening his Early Text theory. Stephen Carlson -- Stephen C. Carlson, George Mason University School of Law, Patent Track, 4LE scarlso1@osf1.gmu.edu : Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs http://osf1.gmu.edu/~scarlso1/ : chant the words. -- Shujing 2.35 From majordom Thu Mar 21 07:05:53 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA03609; Thu, 21 Mar 1996 07:05:53 +0500 Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 12:59:38 +0100 X-Sender: schmiul@pop.uni-muenster.de (Unverified) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Priority: 1 (Highest) To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: schmiul@uni-muenster.de (Ulrich Schmid) Subject: James 2:18 Content-Length: 1684 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Status: O X-Status: On Tue, 19 Mar 1996 James R. Adair wrote: > I have asked before whether Maurice (or anyone) can give me some examples = in > which the majority text (in the 9th/10th centuries) does _not_ contain= what he > considers to be the "original" reading. I just came across two readings in Luke 12,58 which may well meet the criteria required. The construction runs as follows: MHPOTE KATASURH...KAI PARADWSEI... KAI BALEI. The unusual thing about this is the future tense (PARADWSEI, BALEI) after MHPOTE. So consequently the vast majority of manuscripts gives the aorist subjunctive for both readings (PARADW, BALH) in order to fit in the classical pattern. These are clearly corrections and therefor to be judged as secondary. What is most impressive is the fact that for the reading PARADWSEI there seems to be _no_ Koine minuscule support (cf. "Oxford Edition" loc. cit.). And what is even more remarkable is the manuscript support for BALEI. Since BALEI and BALH are phonetically identical, the interchange of both forms might have often happened by chance. Nevertheless, there are only three "old" Koine minuscules, 399 (9th/10th centuries, von Soden K 1), 461 (835 A.D., von Soden K 1), and 1351 (10th century, von Soden K x) which give the reading BALEI, and -very impressive- in 399 BALEI is corrected to BALH. In my opinion, this has to be seen as an indication of the growing awareness of the differences in _grammar_. To sum up: The aorist subjunctives (PARADW, BALH) in Luke 12,58 are not "original" readings. The "original" readings (PARADWSEI, BALEI) as future indicatives are absent from the majority text tradition of the 9th/10th centuries. Ulrich Schmid, M=FCnster From majordom Thu Mar 21 14:12:51 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA06167; Thu, 21 Mar 1996 14:12:51 +0500 Message-Id: <1.5.4b12.32.19960321191503.00679f48@mail.teleport.com> X-Sender: dalemw@mail.teleport.com (Unverified) X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4b12 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 11:15:03 -0800 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Dale M. Wheeler" Subject: Re: Mt 6:13 Content-Length: 2782 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu As a preface to the following comments, let me say to those reading this list and who are tempted to use my comments out of context in another forum, that it is not only proper "netiquette," but it would seem to me the appropriate behaviour of a Christian gentleman/gentlewoman, to ask if it is okay to quote someone else's comments in another context or forum. Thank you for your consideration. Jimmy Adair wrote: >The fact that _none_ of the >earliest NT mss reflects a distinctly Byzantine text suggests to me that >the later Byzantine consensus is lately arrived at, But Jimmy wouldn't you acknowledge that since we have no manuscripts from the early period in the Byz area that any conclusion we draw about what happened in that area is simply a theory and not a demonstrable fact of history (I assume that you would believe that such mss did at one time exist.). The fact that none of the earliest NT mss reflect a distinctly Byz text tells us nothing more than that, unless you want, in my opinion, to fall into the fallacy of saying earlier is better, just because its earlier (regardless of the character of the mss, their wide divergence from one another, etc.) But since we must try to reconstruct the history of the text, we must posit and test various theories (which is what TC is engaged in). Thus, it seems to me, we are left with a couple of possible conclusions from the Egyptian data in realtionship to the Byz: (1) What we see going on in Egypt textually is exactly, or at least reasonably close to what was going on throughout Christianity at the time (and then we must demonstrate some mechanism for the emergence of the Byz form which does not match the Alex; without a "Lucian-type" recension, can we demonstrate a manuscript tradition that makes sense of the transition form Alex -->> Byz ?). (2) What we see going on in Egypt textually is totally different (for some reason) from what was going in the Byz area, and the subsequent Byz text which emerges reflects the Byz manuscript tradition. Well, there are our two competing theories...and we are all trying to reconstruct the lost history of the descent of the mss in the Byz region. This is why I said we need more research on scribal practice, manuscript relationships, etc., in the Byz area, and between those mss and others. I suggest that progress is being made and that more will be made soon... *********************************************************************** Dale M. Wheeler, Th.D. Chair, Biblical Languages Dept Multnomah Bible College 8435 NE Glisan Street Portland, OR 97220 Voice: 503-251-6416 FAX:503-254-1268 E-Mail: dalemw@teleport.com *********************************************************************** From majordom Thu Mar 21 23:21:26 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA08218; Thu, 21 Mar 1996 23:21:26 +0500 Date: 21 Mar 96 23:15:33 EST From: Mike Arcieri <102147.2045@compuserve.com> To: TC-LIST Subject: Re: Byz MSS (lack thereof) Message-Id: <960322041532_102147.2045_EHT113-1@CompuServe.COM> Content-Length: 5005 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu >As a preface to the following comments, let me say to those reading this >list and who are tempted to use my comments out of context in another forum, >that it is not only proper "netiquette," but it would seem to me the >appropriate behaviour of a Christian gentleman/gentlewoman, to ask if it is >okay to quote someone else's comments in another context or forum. Thank >you for your consideration. Dale, if I may be permitted to put in my 2 cents in this discussion between yourself and J. Adair. First, let me say that I sympathize with you. It is quite frustrating to have your words deliberately (or carelessly) quoted out of context. But, you must remember which crowd you're dealing with. The TR/KJV worshippers have the scholarly integrity and intellectual honesty of the WatchTower Society - this has been amply demonstrated by J. White (esp. with Gail Riplinger) and J. Price (re: D. A. Waite) in their respective works against this position. I know this firsthand - I was part of that crowd for a number of years, and only through diligent study, correspondance with various scholars in this field, and a decision to be HONEST in dealing with the MS evidence did I completely abandon it. >But Jimmy wouldn't you acknowledge that since we have no manuscripts from >the early period in the Byz area that any conclusion we draw about what >happened in that area is simply a theory and not a demonstrable fact of >history (I assume that you would believe that such mss did at one time >exist.). The fact that none of the earliest NT mss reflect a distinctly Byz >text tells us nothing more than that An argument from silence. Because there are no early Byz MSS THEREFORE it did not exist. The point you raise concerning the lack of Byz evidence in the early stages of transmission is a point I likewise dealt with (in passing) in my review of the Robinson-Pierpont GNT: "One objection dealt with is that of 'no early Byzantine MSS' (pp. xxvi - xxxii). It is surprising that this argument be used today (unfortunately by those who know better), when a] we are reminded again and again that the age of a particular MSS does not reflect the age of its text, and b] the comparative lack of data from the Antiochian area (as to the text used in that locality in the earliest centuries of the Church) cannot be properly turned into an 'argument from silence' against the Byzantine text. On this last point, D. Wallace comments as follows : "Even G. D. Kilpatrick, who has defended not a few Byzantine readings (cf. 'The Greek New Testament Text of Today and the Textus Receptus' in The New Testament in Historical and Contemporary Perspective, edd. H. Anderson and W. Barclay [Oxford: Blackwell, 1965] 189-208) - and is, predictably, oft-quoted by majority-text advocates - in his review of The Majority Text, argues on the basis of the history of transmission (which seems so unlike a thorough-going eclectic!) that the Byzantine text-type is decidedly inferior: 'Hodges' and Farstad's view must explain two features, first, that there is no evidence for Hort's Syrian text before the fourth century, and second that the dominant text of the second and third centuries is so different' "The Majority Text: A New Collating Base? New Testament Studies, vol. 35 (1989), pp. 616. But what exactly does Kilpatrick mean by the use of the term "evidence"? Does he mean physical evidence, i.e. MSS? By the same logic, there was no "physical" evidence that a purely Egyptian text existed before codices B and Aleph untill a few decades ago, with the discovery of the Bodmer papyri. But if Kilpatrick means 'readings', he is using an argument against the Byzantine text which he himself said cannot and should not be used! Please note the following from his above mentioned article, The Greek New Testament Text of Today.. ."Professor H. Vogels has suggested that, apart from errors, the great majority of variants in the New testament text came into being before A. D. 200. this seems reasonable. Many readings can be shown to be in existence before that date: few demonstrably came into being after it. On this hypothesis most readings distinctive of the Syrian text will be older than A.D. 200 even if the selection of these readings in that text appeared later. Consequently we cannot condemm these variants as a product of the depravity of the fourth century. We may ask why it is that we hear nothing of Hort's syrian text from before the fourth century. The answer may be that we lack information in general about the Greek texts of syria before A. D. 300. We have no manuscripts comparable to P66 P72 P75 in date and patristic quotations are few and comparatively late. We have clear evidence of the western text from Irenaeus onward. THE COMPARATIVE LACK OF EVIDENCE FROM THE AREA OF ANTIOCH CANNOT PROPERLY BE TURNED INTO AN EFFECTIVE ARGUMENT FROM SILENCE ARGUMENT FROM SILENCE THAT THE SYRIAN TEXT IS NOT EARLIER THAN LUCIAN." (emphasis added) p. 190. " Hope this helps. Mike A. From majordom Fri Mar 22 04:03:48 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA08927; Fri, 22 Mar 1996 04:03:48 +0500 Date: Fri, 22 Mar 1996 01:00:59 -0800 From: MrNyse195@eworld.com Message-Id: <960322010059_28180891@hp1.online.apple.com> To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Different dating systems Content-Length: 821 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu ----------------------------- Begin Original Text ----------------------------- My take on Comfort is that his goal is not to establish a 20-chapter John but to support his Early Text theory. If some of the early papyri (e.g., P75) can be shown to come from the 20-chapter precursor that is proposed by several Johannine scholars, then P75 would have a greater claim to the readings of the autograph, thus strengthening his Early Text theory. ----------------------------- End Original Text ----------------------------- In your opinion, does his theory hold water? I have noticed that while Comfort quotes others NO ONE quotes him...... Kerry Gilliard Director and Founder W.I.T.N.E.S.S. Ministries http://members.aol.com/blufunk195/witness.html "God has a great sense of humor.....and I'm living proof of it!!" From majordom Fri Mar 22 13:00:31 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA10470; Fri, 22 Mar 1996 13:00:31 +0500 Message-Id: <9603221711.AA31755@osf1.gmu.edu> Subject: Re: Different dating systems To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Date: Fri, 22 Mar 1996 12:11:17 -0500 (EST) From: "Stephen C Carlson" In-Reply-To: <960322010059_28180891@hp1.online.apple.com> from "MrNyse195@eworld.com" at Mar 22, 96 01:00:59 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1034 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu MrNyse195@eworld.com wrote: >In your opinion, does his theory hold water? I have noticed that while >Comfort quotes others NO ONE quotes him...... Comfort's Early Text Theory seems to violate the maxim that the earliest reading is not necessarily the best reading. (This is because preservation and text families are both dependent on geography.) But, to be fair, he only argues that the earliest text should be accorded the presumption of being the best reading, which in individual instances may be rebutted by the normal eclectic methods. Some Majority Text proponents advocate a similar approach, but with the majority reading being accorded the presumption. When the evidence is inconclusive as it often seems to be, the name of the game becomes: Who's got the burden of proof? Stephen Carlson -- Stephen C. Carlson, George Mason University School of Law, Patent Track, 4LE scarlso1@osf1.gmu.edu : Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs http://osf1.gmu.edu/~scarlso1/ : chant the words. -- Shujing 2.35 From majordom Sat Mar 23 06:22:06 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA13475; Sat, 23 Mar 1996 06:22:06 +0500 Date: Sat, 23 Mar 1996 06:19:27 -0500 From: DrJDPrice@aol.com Message-Id: <960323004321_253673799@emout08.mail.aol.com> To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Ezekiel 20:25-26 Content-Length: 862 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu In a message dated 96-03-20 16:02:38 EST, Jim West wrote: >Subj: Ezekiel 20:25-26 >This text has caused no little discussion over the centuries, not so much for >its grammar as for its theology. >The Targum has a quite different rendering. Is it possible that the Targum >contains the oldest reading and that the MT has somehow been corrupted by a >scribal error (i.e., the omission of "the enemies I turned you over to gave >you bad laws", etc.)? The Targums are known for their free paraphrase at times. If their reading is not supported by other ancient witnesses, it is likely that the translator was interpreting. James D. Price ======================================================= James D. Price, Ph.D. Prof. of Hebrew and OT Temple Baptist Seminary Chattanooga, TN 37404 drjdprice@aol.com ======================================================= From majordom Sat Mar 23 11:25:17 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA14010; Sat, 23 Mar 1996 11:25:17 +0500 Date: Sat, 23 Mar 1996 11:22:19 -0500 Message-Id: <199603231622.AA18617@vnet.net> X-Sender: mburrill@vnet.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: "Mark E. Burrill" Subject: Novice Questions Content-Length: 1200 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu I greatly appreciate the scholarly discussions that this list hosts. I have learned much and am determined to learn more about textual criticism. I hope, therefore, I am not intruding upon substantive discussions when I ask a question or two that may help me in this endeavor. Can someone recommend a book that is a good introduction to the discipline. Preferably one that is offered by CBD or another popular mail order company (I'm not near a decent library that carries such things). I've already read THE TEXT OF THE NT by the Alands. How about a source that offers transcripts of the more important early mss? Finally, I've enjoyed the discussion concerning the James 2:18 XWRIS/EK issue. But what I don't understand is this: If this is a topic worthy of such scholarly attention, why then does the UBS-4 not mention it as a variant while it does list multiple variants of vs. 19, EIS ESTIN O QEOS, none of which (as best as I can tell) result in any interpretive difference? (I'm only in my first year of Greek, so be gentle!) ************************ * KATA MAPKON * * * * Mark Burrill * * mburrill@vnet.net * ************************ From majordom Sat Mar 23 13:22:35 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA14386; Sat, 23 Mar 1996 13:22:35 +0500 Date: Sat, 23 Mar 1996 10:19:39 -0800 (PST) From: Amy S Anderson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Novice Questions In-Reply-To: <199603231622.AA18617@vnet.net> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 1006 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu In reply to Mark E. Burrill: Greetings! Much like you, I am in the learning phases of TC and becoming quite addicted! It is pleasant to be able to be of help to another student. A book which should be readily available and provide a good introduction is "Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism" in the revised edition by J. Harold Greenlee (Peabody, MA:Hendrickson,1995). This will only cost you $12.50. MSS can be explored in: "Encountering New Testament Manuscripts" by Jack Finegan (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974). "Manuscripts of the Greek Bible" by Bruce Metzger (NY:Oxford University Press, 1981). Next I would suggest "The Text of the New Testament" by Metzger (3rd edition, NY:Oxford University Press 1992). By then you would be ready for "Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism" by Eldon J. Epp and Gordon D. Fee (Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1993). Enjoy! Amy Anderson 455 Ford Place #2 Pasadena, CA 91101 (818)795-9917 From majordom Sat Mar 23 14:31:18 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA14537; Sat, 23 Mar 1996 14:31:18 +0500 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 23 Mar 1996 14:31:29 -0400 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: nichael@sover.net (Nichael Lynn Cramer) Subject: Re: Novice Questions Content-Length: 971 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Amy S Anderson wrote: > ... [very nice list ommitted]... >By then you would be ready for "Studies in the Theory and Method of New >Testament Textual Criticism" by Eldon J. Epp and Gordon D. Fee (Grand >Rapids:Eerdmans, 1993). If I could suggest an addition to this list (which serves as something of a companion to this last item): _The Text of the NT in Contemporary Research_, ed Ehrman[*] and Holmes (Eerdmans, 1995). This volume is a Festschrift in honor of Bruce Metzger's 80th birthday. It provides a very nice summary of the current state, questions and problems of contemporary NT TC. [* As a note, I just noticed that "Ehrman" is spelled "Erhman" on the spine of my copy! (Fortunately only on the dustjacket.)] Nichael | "Just because it didn't happen | nichael@sover.net | don't mean it ain't true." | http://www.sover.net/~nichael | -Yogi Berra [paraphrasing Mircea Eliade] | From majordom Sat Mar 23 18:03:34 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA15217; Sat, 23 Mar 1996 18:03:34 +0500 Date: Sat, 23 Mar 1996 18:00:38 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: James 2:18 In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 4738 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu On Thu, 21 Mar 1996, Ulrich Schmid wrote: > I just came across two readings in Luke 12,58 which may well meet the > criteria required. The construction runs as follows: MHPOTE KATASURH...KAI > PARADWSEI... KAI BALEI. The unusual thing about this is the future tense > (PARADWSEI, BALEI) after MHPOTE. Although unusual, the future tense after MHPOTE is not unique to the critical text, but is also found in the Byzantine Textform in Mk.14:2 (MHPOTE QORUBOS ESTAI) and Heb.3:12 (MHPOTE ESTAI). By the analogy given, the Byzantine scribes should have been as swift to "correct" those instances as well as in Lk.12:58. Since they did not, the question is whether the Alexandrian scribes may have had reason to alter the clause to the future tense and to depart from the subjunctive. Blass-Debrunner note specifically that it is the introduction of the future tense which is anomalous, since in some MSS "the fut.ind. has also been introduced to a very limited degree in the very places where it would not have been permissible in classical...usually with the aor.subj. as variant" (sec.369[2]) More to the point, Bl-D. sec.370 note that MH "is combined in classical with the subjunctive if the anxiety is directed towards warding off something still dependent on the will, with the indicative of all tenses if directed toward something which has already taken place or is entirely independent of the will .... (1) usually strengthened by POTE or PWS ... and then always with the aor.subj. .... This construction is evidently literary and not a part of the vernacular." Note within the context of Lk.12:58, the act of the will appears to be lacking in the final clauses, thereby giving some reason to alter the tense to the indicative. The Byzantine reading reflects the literary, if not the classical perspective. The use of the fut.indic. in Lk.12:58 appears thus to be a late variant created within the Alexandrian texttype, and an alteration reflecting common vernacular rather than normal literary style. I therefore am not particularly surprised to find the non-Byzantine reading shifting to the future indicative here. Rather than a mark of "originality" this use clearly seems to indicate something of a secondary nature; the later scribes did not have to "discover" grammar -- these principles were already part of their stock in trade. Robertson (p.987) also points out that the "ancient idiom" was that "where in pure final sentences a past tense of the ind. was used if it is distinctly implied that the purpose was not attained .... As a strictly final particle it [MHPOTE] occurs either with the subj. or the future ind., though the subj. is more common. For the fut. ind. note Mt.7:6 ([Alexandrian text]...though the [Byzantine] aor.subj. has support), Mk.14:2...[mentions Lk.12:58 Alextxt also]. Both subj. and fut.ind. likewise occur in Mt.13:15 MH POTE IDWSIN -- KAI IASOMAI" [Byz and Alex here agree]. It seems that the "grammatically-oriented" Byzantine scribes should also have been working overtime to "correct" the futures which remain within the Byzantine text in these other places rather than spending all their grammatical effort on Lk.12:58 and Mt.7:6. Obviously, I fail to see any "error" in the Byzantine reading in light of all these comments, let alone any indication that the Byzantine scribes were any more likely to "correct" the grammar (when such was not needed) as opposed to the Alexandrian scribes simply abandoning the more literary form for the more common vernacular. I would further suggest, in light of certain MSS having altered the order of the text from SE PARADW into PARADW SE that this may well have given impetus for other scribes coming upon such in their exemplars to simply create PARADWSEI from that latter combination. BALH and BALEI are of course homonymic and more likely the result of itacism than any other cause, but if a PARADW SE had become PARADWSEI, a "grammatical" scribe would have little option but to render BALH as BALLEI, else the construction would suffer. To sum up from my viewpoint: The aorist subjunctives (PARADW, BALH) in Luke 12,58 are clearly the original readings, and the future indicatives (PARADWSEI, BALEI) are merely grammatical shifts to the common vernacular which were likely occasioned by a transposition and scribal confusion plus required grammatical correction following that confusion. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Assoc.Prof./Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From majordom Sat Mar 23 23:56:17 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA16007; Sat, 23 Mar 1996 23:56:17 +0500 Date: Sat, 23 Mar 1996 23:53:29 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Different dating systems In-Reply-To: <9603221711.AA31755@osf1.gmu.edu> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 1798 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu On Fri, 22 Mar 1996, Stephen C Carlson wrote: > Comfort's Early Text Theory seems to violate the maxim that the earliest > reading is not necessarily the best reading. (This is because preservation > and text families are both dependent on geography.) But, to be fair, he > only argues that the earliest text should be accorded the presumption of > being the best reading, which in individual instances may be rebutted by > the normal eclectic methods. As I read Comfort, with his VERY dogmatic assertion that he is correct, bolstered by his listing of places where N26/27 should be altered to agree with his assertions, I think that he is going far beyond merely arguing "presumption". > Some Majority Text proponents advocate a > similar approach, but with the majority reading being accorded the > presumption. I would note, however, that the presumption as to specifically _which_ texttype to follow is NOT an a priori, but derives only after attempting to develop a transmissional history of the text which accounts for all variation. I should not have to repeat that my own position moved from a fairly rigorous pro-Alexandrian position in the late 1960s due to shifting my text-critical scope from electicism to transmissional history. There was NO initial presumption in favor of the Byzantine Textform which underlay my own position. > When the evidence is inconclusive as it often seems to be, the name of the > game becomes: Who's got the burden of proof? Exactly. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Assoc.Prof./Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From majordom Sun Mar 24 01:00:57 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA16372; Sun, 24 Mar 1996 01:00:57 +0500 Date: Sun, 24 Mar 1996 00:58:08 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Novice Questions In-Reply-To: <199603231622.AA18617@vnet.net> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 2482 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu On Sat, 23 Mar 1996, Mark E. Burrill wrote: > Can someone recommend a book that is a good introduction to the discipline. > Preferably one that is offered by CBD or another popular mail order company > (I'm not near a decent library that carries such things). I've already read > THE TEXT OF THE NT by the Alands. For a beginner, I would suggest you read Metzger's Text of the NT and Greenlee's Introduction to NT Textual Criticism. Aland is probably too overwhelming at this stage. > How about a source that offers transcripts of the more important early mss? Try Jack Finegan's Encountering NT MSS. It does not have full transcripts, but does reproduce various pages and gives transcripts of those. > Finally, I've enjoyed the discussion concerning the James 2:18 XWRIS/EK > issue. But what I don't understand is this: If this is a topic worthy of such > scholarly attention, why then does the UBS-4 not mention it as a variant while > it does list multiple variants of vs. 19, EIS ESTIN O QEOS, none of which > (as best as I can tell) result in any interpretive difference? Basically, the editors of the Nestle or UBS editions determine which readings in their judgment are more or less "significant." The UBS edition in particular severely limits their selection of variant readings to those which are most significant for translators, thus only around 1450 variant units are mentioned for the entire NT. The Nestle editions have a much broader scope, and include somewhere around 8000 or so variants, perhaps more. For most people, the Nestle edition would be preferable (especially with the horrid typeface selected for UBS-4); however, even more variants can be found by consulting Tischendorf's 1869 edition or Von Soden's 1911 edition, or (more recently) Swanson's 1995 edition of the four gospels with all variants of all cited MSS provided. > (I'm only in my first year of Greek, so be gentle!) I would worry more about getting your first year completed and then your second year advanced grammar and syntax before making a major study of textual criticism. Remember, about 90% of the text is identical in all Greek editions and MSS. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Assoc.Prof./Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From majordom Mon Mar 25 00:40:59 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA19024; Mon, 25 Mar 1996 00:40:59 +0500 From: dwashbur@nyx.net (David Washburn) Message-Id: <9603250537.AA07745@nyx.net> Subject: "Magdalen Manuscript"? To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Date: Sun, 24 Mar 1996 22:37:59 -0700 (MST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL21] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 469 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu I just received a question via my web page about a so-called Jesus or Magdalen Manuscript, supposedly dated around AD 65. The questioner implied that it has something to do with Matthew's Gospel. I'm out here in northwestern Wyoming, a gazillion miles from a good academic library; does anybody have any information about this document? -- Dave http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur/home.html Seen in a classified ad: "Parachute for sale. Used once. Never opened." From majordom Mon Mar 25 00:43:43 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA19062; Mon, 25 Mar 1996 00:43:43 +0500 Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 00:43:38 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Adair" X-Sender: jadair@scholar To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: history of transmission In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 7412 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu I'd like to break the discussion that began with Mt 6:13 into three separate topics. In this post, I want to focus on the problem of the history of transmission of the text. On Thu, 21 Mar 1996, Maurice Robinson wrote: > But why would the text tend toward the archetype? For the simple reason > that, regardless of texttype, the archetype IS preserved in over 90% of > the text of virtually all MSS. Textual criticism is always recognized as > dealing with a minority of the textbase. In the minority of text which > possesses variant readings the known practice of scribes WAS to compare > against both the exemplar and to have second readers and other exemplars > compared against the copy. Only if a second textual tradition had as much > support as a first textual tradition would the likelihood of moving away > from the autograph be increased; so long as the main text dominated in the > proportion of ca.80% to 20%, the tendency through the very normal scribal > processes of cross-comparison and correction would be to move the minority > text inexorably toward the majority. > MSS). > ... > By the OT analogy, unity of reading does at least reflect the Massoretic > "originality" of the text, if not the autograph. But the Massoretes are > recognized as a dislocating factor in the history of transmission of the > OT text, just as Jerome is a dislocating factor in the history of the > Latin NT text. Had there been a Byzantine recension as Hort postulated, > the resultant dislocation in the history of transmission of the NT would > call the Byzantine textual unity into question. Without such a revision > taking place, that same unity goes back instead to a presumption of > autograph originality. This is no more than Hort's initial presumption > (which he spent most of his introduction attempting to refute, and that > primarily by arguing for a formal Byzantine recension). Hort stated in > his Introduction, p.45: > > "A theoretical presumption indeed remains that a majority of extant > documents is more likely to represent a majority of ancestral documents > at each stage of transmission than vice versa." > > Barring a major dislocation in the history of transmission, Hort's > statement remains valid, and it is this Hortian principle upon which the > current Byzantine-priority position is anchored. Checking mss against one another may very well lead to a text that approaches the original text in many ways, hence the 90% agreement between Byzantine & Alexandrian mss. However, I don't see any good reason to suspect that anything approaching 100% agreement would result. Here's some of my reasoning. (1) Maurice believes that one particular subset of the Byzantine mss has preserved the original text of the NT. However, he looks at the 9th-10th century Majority text, not the 15th century MT. As he has mentioned before, there are some readings which actually are the majority readings in the 15th century which were not a few centuries earlier. Why is that? Apparently because scribes didn't check the right mss when making their corrections, or maybe the mss weren't available to them, or maybe there were other factors (e.g., influence of the Vulgate) that led them to perpetuate certain secondary readings. Since it is clearly demonstrable that this happened late in the transmission process, when Christianity was the dominant religion in most areas where the texts were copied, why shouldn't we believe that the same sort of thing happened in the first few centuries of transmission (1st-3rd centuries), when conditions weren't as favorable to cross-checking other mss? (2) Mss cross-checking may indeed help weed out secondary readings (but might it not also introduce secondary readings in some cases?). However, what evidence do we have that scribes in the earliest centuries of the transmission of the NT text checked other mss? If some did, does that imply that the process was widespread? It seems likely that the first several ms generations of most (or all) NT books were copied from a single exemplar, without cross-checking other mss. This is part of the reason for the "wild" early mss described by the Alands and others. Were multiple copies of the original documents made in all cases? If so, did those copies contribute to the existing ms tradition? This line of questioning raises the spectre of Westcott & Hort's "primitive corruptions." Does the Byzantine priority theory rule out the possibility of such primitive corruptions, and if so, on what basis? (3) That scribes were intent only in transmitting the received text, and not in amplifying, clarifying, or "correcting" it (from their own memory or doctrinal perspective, not from another ms) is a supposition that doesn't seem supported by the facts. We know that some scribes did in fact supplement their texts (e.g., the addition in Mk 16:14 in W). Bart Ehrman has given many examples of what he believes to be "orthodox corruptions." It is also clear that some scribes harmonized one passage with another, especially in the gospels (or, from the Byzaninte priority perspective, scribes omitted material found in other gospels?). When translations are considered alongside Greek mss, the evidence is increased that some scribes, especially (but not exclusively) early ones, altered their text as they transmitted it (this doesn't even consider accidental changes to the text). While many of these changes would be eliminated by the cross-checking process, would all of them be? (4) Finally, there is the issue of the "dislocating factor" in the history of transmission. In the case of the Hebrew OT text, the desctruction of the temple was one important dislocating factor. In the case of the LXX, the influence of Origen's Hexapla, which introduced a Greek text much closer to the MT, was a dislocating factor. Maurice has noted that Jerome's Vulgate was a dislocating factor in the transmission of the Latin text (many OL mss contain numerous Vulgate readings). Was there a dislocating factor in the history of the Greek NT text, one that would irrevocably alter the course of the transmission of the text? I can think of several possibilities: (a) the persecutions of Decian and Diocletian, which destroyed numerous NT mss; (b) the Muslim revolution, which swept over Egypt and Palestine, virtually eliminating Egyptian texts, hence the Alexandrian text-type (of course, the Alexandrian text was already limited in influence, but why?--see c & d); (c) the shift in the seat of the Roman government from Rome to Constantinople (Byzantium), home of the Byzantine text--Rome did retain (or gain) religious ascendancy, but the text in Rome was transmitted in Latin, primarily in the form of the Vulgate, which, though close to the Byzantine text-type, is not by any means synonymous with it; (d) the ecumenical councils of Nicea and Chalcedon (among others) might have led to the suppression of questionable readings or to orthodox "improvements" to the text. Any or all of these might have been dislocating factors in the history of the transmission of the NT text. Jimmy Adair Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press and Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site ---------------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu <----------------- From majordom Mon Mar 25 00:49:31 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA19108; Mon, 25 Mar 1996 00:49:31 +0500 Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 00:49:25 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Adair" X-Sender: jadair@scholar To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: "Magdalen Manuscript"? In-Reply-To: <9603250537.AA07745@nyx.net> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 1369 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu On Sun, 24 Mar 1996, David Washburn wrote: > I just received a question via my web page about a so-called Jesus or > Magdalen Manuscript, supposedly dated around AD 65. The questioner > implied that it has something to do with Matthew's Gospel. I'm out here > in northwestern Wyoming, a gazillion miles from a good academic library; > does anybody have any information about this document? Dave, This question came up about 6 weeks ago on this list. Here's my response. I think that you're probably referring to Papyrus Magdalen Greek 17 (P64) which was not discovered last year, but rather was redated by Carsten P. Thiede from ca. 200 (see Colin H. Roberts, "An Early Papyrus of the First Gospel," Harvard Theological Review 46 [1953]: 233-237) to ca. 70 on the basis on paleography. Thiede's arguments may be found in "Papyrus Magdalen Greek 17 (Gregory-Aland P64): A Reappraisal," Zeitschrift fu"r Paleographie und Epigraphik 105 (1995): 13-20 and further in the Tyndale Bulletin (I don't know the full ref.). Thiede's revised date was disputed vociferously on Ioudaios last year by Stuart Pickering and, in greater detail, by Sigrid Peterson. Jimmy Adair Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press and Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site ---------------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu <----------------- From majordom Mon Mar 25 00:51:35 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA19129; Mon, 25 Mar 1996 00:51:35 +0500 From: dwashbur@nyx.net (David Washburn) Message-Id: <9603250548.AA08692@nyx.net> Subject: Never mind... To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Date: Sun, 24 Mar 1996 22:48:38 -0700 (MST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL21] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 354 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu In looking back through some tc-list stuff that I hadn't filed away yet, I find that this Magdalen document was just recently discussed on here, so disregard my question that I just posted. Sorry for the waste of bandwidth. -- Dave http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur/home.html Seen in a classified ad: "Parachute for sale. Used once. Never opened." From majordom Mon Mar 25 01:08:06 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA19169; Mon, 25 Mar 1996 01:08:06 +0500 Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 01:08:01 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Adair" X-Sender: jadair@scholar To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: "canonical" text In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 2386 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu On Thu, 21 Mar 1996, Maurice Robinson wrote: > Why was the textual divergence not greater (as with the various versions > of the Enuma Elish)? Simply because, as opposed to a growing and > developing myth, the text of the NT or OT, once it had reached "canonical" > status, became basically fixed as an entity, and a specific religious > concern and scribal care was given to canonical texts to a degree > different from that of other literature (though obviously the presence of > variant readings does not eliminate the fact that perfect transmission of > the text did not occur under human fallible agency). When did the NT text become "canonical," and what exactly is a canonical text? My view is that the first recipients of NT documents might have viewed them as having some authority (even 2-3 John?), but they were not viewed as "scripture," much less part of a fixed list of authoritative documents, for at least 300 years (longer in the case of Revelation). The whole issue of the canon can be deabted further if there is any interest in that thread, but my point here is that the earliest scribes didn't view the works they were copying as scripture. Important, yes; authoritative, probably; scripture, not at first. Thus, they might not have felt as much compunction as later scribes about "fixing" the text in front of them. Next, is there such a thing as the "canonical" text? I don't think so. The church determined the canon over a period of time, and they finally arrived at a fixed list of books that were generally accepted as the canon (there were some exceptions, e.g., among th Syriac, Ethiopic, and Armenian churches). However, the same was not done for the text. Only in the case of the Vulgate has a specific text-type ever been declared to be authoritative, as far as I know. My point is that without the presumption of a "canonical" text, again scribes might not have felt bad about altering the text in front of them (not to degrade it, but to "fix" it). The tradition that developed among the Masoretes that involved counting the very letters of the text never seems to have taken hold among Christian copyists. Jimmy Adair Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press and Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site ---------------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu <----------------- From majordom Mon Mar 25 01:16:51 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA19200; Mon, 25 Mar 1996 01:16:51 +0500 Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 01:16:47 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Adair" X-Sender: jadair@scholar To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Mt 6:13 In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 2169 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu On Thu, 21 Mar 1996, Maurice Robinson wrote: > (Jimmy Adair wrote in an earlier post): > > To look at another example, the ending of the Lord's Prayer in Mt 6:13 > > ("for thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen.") > > is present in the Majority Text, including several uncials, and many > > early versions. However, it definitely looks like an early addition, > > probably from a liturgical setting (thus the "amen"). How does the > > Byzantine priority view evaluate this reading? > > This one was answered well by both Burgon and Scrivener in the last > century. In the liturgical practice of the early church the closing > doxology was liturgically stated by the priest alone, and not by the > laity. It thus is not surprising to find that a minority of MSS leave out > the words which may have been thought by the scribe wrongly to have been > inserted into the exemplar he was copying to so as to liturgically "fill > out" the prayer. Since the scribe "knew" that the laity did not say the > closing doxology, it would not seem proper for these words to have > originally been included in the instructions to the disciples as to how > they (laity) ought to pray. (I see no need to argue assimilation to the > Lukan form of the prayer, which does not have the doxology in any > texttype). I agree that the Lukan form of the Lord's Prayer can be ignored for the purposes of this variant. Burgon and Scrivener may have answered this question, but not well, in my opinion. Scribes omitted the ending because the laity did not say it? If this had been an Alexandrian reading and such an argument had been offered, would Byzantine priority folks have accepted it? I don't think so (I hope no Alexandrian-leaning eclectics would have, either!). If the presumption of Byzantine priority is laid aside, the doxology doesn't have any feet to walk on. Can any other arguments be offered in favor of the doxology? Jimmy Adair Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press and Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site ---------------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu <----------------- From majordom Mon Mar 25 01:25:11 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA19223; Mon, 25 Mar 1996 01:25:11 +0500 Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 01:25:06 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Adair" X-Sender: jadair@scholar To: TC List Subject: Vinton Dearing Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 1111 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu What is the opinion among text critics about the work of Vinton Dearing? For those who don't know who he is, Dearing wrote a couple of books on textual criticism (not necessarily of the biblical text): Manual of Textual Analysis (Berkeley: UC Press, 1959); Principles and Practice of Textual Analysis (Berkeley: UC Press, 1974). He advocated using computer algorithms to reconstruct stemmata of "states of the text." He then offered guidelines for determining the top of the tree his algorithm generated, that is, the archetype. He did a presentation at an SBL NT Textual Criticism several years ago, before I was participating in such things. I was impressed with his method, but it seemed more suited for bodies of text that had maybe only a couple of dozen "states of the text" extant (like classical texts) than for NT textual criticism, with its thousands of different witnesses. Jimmy Adair Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press and Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site ---------------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu <----------------- From majordom Mon Mar 25 01:37:01 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA19250; Mon, 25 Mar 1996 01:37:01 +0500 Date: Sun, 24 Mar 1996 22:34:12 -0800 From: MrNyse195@eworld.com Message-Id: <960324223409_28292720@hp1.online.apple.com> To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: "Magdalen Manuscript"? Content-Length: 1549 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu >>>I just received a question via my web page about a so-called Jesus or Magdalen Manuscript, supposedly dated around AD 65. The questioner implied that it has something to do with Matthew's Gospel. I'm out here in northwestern Wyoming, a gazillion miles from a good academic library; does anybody have any information about this document?<<<< This has to do with Carsten Theide's research on the Magdalen Manuscripts in the Oxford library. Originally, they've been sitting around for a century or so untouched because folks thought they were dated around (200 AD?). In 94, Theide took a deeper look at them and part of his argumentation states that the three scraps date around 50-65 AD (my understanding based on what I've heard so far) because of the handwriting style of the MSS. which supposedly went out of style around mid-first century. Yes, the three scraps are from Matthew. From what I hear, the book's been getting good reviews (from evangelicals anyway...=) ). In any case, he's published his findings in a book called "Rekindling the Word: [I FORGET THE REST OF THE TITLE]." Glenn Miller's Christian ThinkTank (http://www.webcom.com/~ctt) has the full title listed under his book list. Furthermore, I've ordered the book and it just came in on Tuesday ($15.99). I should pick it up by next week (you know how us poor college students are....). Kerry Gilliard Director and Founder W.I.T.N.E.S.S. Ministries http://members.aol.com/blufunk195/witness.html "God has a great sense of humor and I'm living proof of it!!" From majordom Mon Mar 25 01:40:56 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA19268; Mon, 25 Mar 1996 01:40:56 +0500 Date: Sun, 24 Mar 1996 22:38:09 -0800 From: MrNyse195@eworld.com Message-Id: <960324223807_28292854@hp1.online.apple.com> To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Never mind... Content-Length: 700 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu ----------------------------- Begin Original Text ----------------------------- In looking back through some tc-list stuff that I hadn't filed away yet, I find that this Magdalen document was just recently discussed on here, so disregard my question that I just posted. Sorry for the waste of bandwidth. ----------------------------- End Original Text ----------------------------- Dave, Is it possible that you can forward the discussion to me? Send it to my AOL address if you can- it's MrNyse195@aol.com. Thanks!! Kerry Gilliard Director and Founder W.I.T.N.E.S.S. Ministries http://members.aol.com/blufunk195/witness.html "God has a great sense of humor and I'm living proof of it!!" From majordom Mon Mar 25 01:41:08 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA19282; Mon, 25 Mar 1996 01:41:08 +0500 Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 01:41:01 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Adair" X-Sender: jadair@scholar To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Mt 6:13 In-Reply-To: <1.5.4b12.32.19960321191503.00679f48@mail.teleport.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 2481 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu On Thu, 21 Mar 1996, Dale M. Wheeler wrote: > But Jimmy wouldn't you acknowledge that since we have no manuscripts from > the early period in the Byz area that any conclusion we draw about what > happened in that area is simply a theory and not a demonstrable fact of > history (I assume that you would believe that such mss did at one time > exist.). The fact that none of the earliest NT mss reflect a distinctly Byz > text tells us nothing more than that, unless you want, in my opinion, to > fall into the fallacy of saying earlier is better, just because its earlier > (regardless of the character of the mss, their wide divergence from one > another, etc.) First I want to voice some concern about the phrase "demonstrable fact of history." By its very nature, history is not composed of facts, but rather reports and interpretations of events. This isn't the place to get into the philosophy of history, but we must remember that historical facts are different from scientific facts (i.e., historical facts are not repeatable), which are in turn different from mathematical facts (i.e., scientific facts can't be proven logically by either deduction or induction). Keeping in mind these caveats, perhaps we're better off dispensing with talking about historical "facts" at all and admitting that we're all talking about theories. Having said that, yes, of course all of our statments about the Byzantine text (and other forms of the text) are theories. The fact that no early Byzantine mss are known to exist is a fact, but how we deal with this fact is a matter of looking at our options and choosing what we think is the best one. It's true that earlier is not necessarily better when it comes to mss, but it is a factor in determining the preferred reading. Probably everyone would agree that a reading that first appears in 3rd century ms has a greater likelihood of originality that a reading that first appears in a 12th century ms. It's possible that the original reading was preserved in a ms that served as the exemplar for the 12th century ms, but most would give the reading very careful scrutiny before allowing that it might be original. In other words, date is not determinative, but it is a factor to be considered. Jimmy Adair Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press and Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site ---------------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu <----------------- From majordom Mon Mar 25 01:54:28 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA19316; Mon, 25 Mar 1996 01:54:28 +0500 Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 01:54:23 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Adair" X-Sender: jadair@scholar To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: James 2:18 In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 3198 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu On Sat, 23 Mar 1996, Maurice Robinson wrote: > On Thu, 21 Mar 1996, Ulrich Schmid wrote: > > > I just came across two readings in Luke 12,58 which may well meet the > > criteria required. The construction runs as follows: MHPOTE KATASURH...KAI > > PARADWSEI... KAI BALEI. The unusual thing about this is the future tense > > (PARADWSEI, BALEI) after MHPOTE. > > Although unusual, the future tense after MHPOTE is not unique to the > critical text, but is also found in the Byzantine Textform in Mk.14:2 > (MHPOTE QORUBOS ESTAI) and Heb.3:12 (MHPOTE ESTAI). By the analogy given, > the Byzantine scribes should have been as swift to "correct" those > instances as well as in Lk.12:58. Since they did not, the question is > whether the Alexandrian scribes may have had reason to alter the clause to > the future tense and to depart from the subjunctive. > > ... > The use of the fut.indic. in Lk.12:58 appears thus to be a late variant > created within the Alexandrian texttype, and an alteration reflecting > common vernacular rather than normal literary style. I therefore am not > particularly surprised to find the non-Byzantine reading shifting to the > future indicative here. Rather than a mark of "originality" this use > clearly seems to indicate something of a secondary nature; the later > scribes did not have to "discover" grammar -- these principles were > already part of their stock in trade. > > ... > To sum up from my viewpoint: The aorist subjunctives (PARADW, BALH) in Luke > 12,58 are clearly the original readings, and the future indicatives > (PARADWSEI, BALEI) are merely grammatical shifts to the common vernacular > which were likely occasioned by a transposition and scribal confusion > plus required grammatical correction following that confusion. I think text critics of all stripes should be wary of too much certainty in cases such as this. The different readings could be no more than itacism. On the other hand, there may have been gramatically-influenced correction one way or the other. The fact that both the future indicative and aorist subjunctive appear in similar contexts in both Alexandrian and Byzantine texts, though not always in the same places, suggests that the scribes who might have been concerned with "grammatical correctness" in some places (I'll resist any analogy with PC here) were anything but consistent. I will offer an OT analogy, however. The tendency toward fuller spelling (plene readings) is evident in Masoretic mss, and especially in certain Qumran mss (e.g., 1QIsa-a, 11QPs-a), but plene readings are by no means ubiquitous: defective (shorter) spelling abounds throughout the Hebrew Bible, and although the concentration is higher in some books than in others, even within books there is very little consistency. The point here is that scribes "correcting" their texts, whether for orthographic, grammatical, or theological reasons, just weren't very consistent, as a rule. Jimmy Adair Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press and Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site ---------------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu <----------------- From majordom Mon Mar 25 07:55:20 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA20055; Mon, 25 Mar 1996 07:55:20 +0500 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 07:55:33 -0400 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: nichael@sover.net (Nichael Lynn Cramer) Subject: Re: "Magdalen Manuscript"? Cc: dwashbur@nyx.net Content-Length: 1434 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu David Washburn wrote: > ...[re: Magdalen Manuscript/p64]... Hi Dave Others have pointed to recent discussions on this topic that appeared on this list (and on IOUDAIOS). Two other, easily accessible, in-print discussion of this material are: Graham Stanton, "A Gospel Among the Scrolls?", Bible Review, Dec 1995. Graham Stanton, _Gospel Truths?: New Light on Jesus and the Gospels_ (Trinity Press, 1995). (The BR article (primarily selections from the book) focuses on p64 and the proposal, put forth by Jose O'Callaghan that certain fragments discovered at Qumran contained portions of the NT. The book is a "popular" survey of the current state of contemporary NT scholarship. The book covers a very wide range of topics and, while there are several places where I wished that the book had contained a bit more detail, it is a very nice overview of the material. A good book, rich in bibliographic detail, for those of us who view these things from the sidelines or for a friend who wonders what is actually going on in the field.) As James Adair pointed out, Thiede's claims have virtually no support among NT scholars. This article and book do a very nice job of explaining why this is so. Nichael | "Just because it didn't happen | nichael@sover.net | don't mean it ain't true." | http://www.sover.net/~nichael | -Yogi Berra [paraphrasing Mircea Eliade] | From majordom Mon Mar 25 12:21:11 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA21826; Mon, 25 Mar 1996 12:21:11 +0500 Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 12:18:22 -0500 From: MoreCB@aol.com Message-Id: <960325121821_361235541@emout06.mail.aol.com> To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: re: "canonical" text Content-Length: 575 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu On Monday, Mar 25, James Adair wrote, "My point here is that the earliest scribes didn't view the works they were copying as scripture. Important, yes; authoritative, probably; scripture, not at first. Thus, they might not have felt as much compunction as later scribes about "fixing" the text in front of them." As a novice in the field(s), I ask, does such a statement discount1 Cor 14:37 and 2 Pet 3:15, 16 (even if one relegates 2 Pet to the pseudepigrapha) as revelatory of early (i.e. pre- A.D. 200) reverential attitudes towards Pauline writings? Jim Woychuk From majordom Mon Mar 25 14:49:48 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA22693; Mon, 25 Mar 1996 14:49:48 +0500 Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 14:46:58 -0500 From: HuldrychZ@aol.com Message-Id: <960325144657_454401988@emout04.mail.aol.com> To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Is 40:6 Content-Length: 563 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu I would appreciate any insight as to the most ancient reading of this verse- in particular whether "amar" should be read; or if the LXX and Vulg. should be followed and we should read "kai eipa". This seems to be one of those cases where either reading would make sense in context; and there seems to be no justification for a scribal alteration in one direction or another. And then, the Qumran "a" Isaiah has something which looks to be a cohortative! Thanks, Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Professor of Biblical Languages, CCBI Petros TN 37845 From majordom Mon Mar 25 19:59:10 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA24231; Mon, 25 Mar 1996 19:59:10 +0500 Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 19:56:14 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: "canonical" text In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 3318 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu On Mon, 25 Mar 1996, James R. Adair wrote: > When did the NT text become "canonical," and what exactly is a canonical > text? I suspect we will have very divergent views on this question, so I will not make it an issue. As a conservative evangelical, I do suspect canonicity to be far earlier than non-evangelicals. > My view is that the first recipients of NT documents might have > viewed them as having some authority (even 2-3 John?), but they were not > viewed as "scripture," much less part of a fixed list of authoritative > documents, for at least 300 years (longer in the case of Revelation). I would see that time frame as far too long, even considering Eusebius' list of the "disputed" books written in the fourth century. Most NT books would have already been recognized as "canonical" within the second century at the latest, and even the disputed books were held to be canonical by many if not most Christian communities long before Eusebius. > The whole issue of the canon can be deabted further if there is any > interest in that thread, but my point here is that the earliest scribes > didn't view the works they were copying as scripture. Important, yes; > authoritative, probably; scripture, not at first. Thus, they might not > have felt as much compunction as later scribes about "fixing" the text in > front of them. I in contrast suspect a greater number of scribes did accept these texts as scripture from the earliest times; but their view of what the essence of "scripture" was likely did not include a sense of inviolability such as held for the Hebrew MT. > Next, is there such a thing as the "canonical" text? I don't think so. None if such is the result of an officially-determined canon together with its text. But I do not even think the canon was ever officially determined until after it was unofficially recognized in most communities. As a Protestant, I would not accept the argument that "the church determined the canon", which you mention. > My point is that without the > presumption of a "canonical" text, again scribes might not have felt bad > about altering the text in front of them (not to degrade it, but to "fix" > it). But matters do not change after the canon is established without question: there still is a non-uniform text and no official promulgation of any specific reading(s). Yet the scribes in the later eras still had a theological view of canonicity and scriptural authority which in itself imposed _some_ controls on their copying habits. I merely suggest that such controls in the minds of scribes existed from early times, beginning with the fourfold gospel and the Pauline corpus, both clearly recognized as canonical "scripture" by the mid-second century. > The tradition that developed among the Masoretes that involved > counting the very letters of the text never seems to have taken hold > among Christian copyists. Agreed. We might have less to do in textual criticism had they done so. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From majordom Mon Mar 25 20:37:31 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA24390; Mon, 25 Mar 1996 20:37:31 +0500 Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 20:34:40 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Mt 6:13 In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 5740 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu On Mon, 25 Mar 1996, James R. Adair wrote: > I agree that the Lukan form of the Lord's Prayer can be ignored for the > purposes of this variant. Burgon and Scrivener may have answered this > question, but not well, in my opinion. Scribes omitted the ending > because the laity did not say it? You will notice from the UBS apparatus (at least) that the Lectionaries in the aggregate have the doxology present, yet the laity do not recite that specific text in the liturgy. When the lectionary passage is quoted, however, the lector could read what normally only the priest would say. During the liturgical service, however, the laity (which would include monks and catacheumens) would themselves leave off at precisely the point of the doxology. Why then should the suggestion that _some_ few scribes might choose to omit the passage based on their known familiarity with the text through repeated liturgical practice seem strange? It seems far stranger to me to think that the UBS editor's suggestion that the doxology was added to harmonize with 1 Chr 29:11-13 is a likely explanation! To put it into perspective, in this variant unit we are not even talking of the Alexandrian texttype as a whole here: UBS lists only _six_ Greek MSS, of which the primary are Aleph B and D, followed by the later f1 and the 5th/6th century 0170 plus a meaningless single lectionary of the 12th century. Based upon what I see frequently in Aleph, an omission of this length is no more surprising than its original scribe's omission of Mt.24:35 for no good reason, supported by no other MS whatever. That B or even D might follow suit in such an omission is similarly not surprising, though it should be more surprising in D, which usually does not have the shorter text. I do note that a LARGE contingent of the Old Latin MSS and Latin Fathers omit the doxology, which makes me suspect that the omission originated in the Western regions and not in the Greek-speaking regions. Gregory of Nyssa also omits the reading, yet his Greek text is thoroughly Byzantine -- Gregory's omission here can only be liturgically-based, and not reflective of the Byzantine Textform. > If this had been an Alexandrian > reading and such an argument had been offered, would Byzantine priority > folks have accepted it? I don't think so (I hope no Alexandrian-leaning > eclectics would have, either!). By reversing the situation of the external evidence, you are really asking me how I would defend the omission of the doxology had it been the Byzantine text which had the shorter reading. My answer would probably be that it _was_ a liturgical insertion of some sort, but this would be arguing on the assumption that the monks and catacheumens actually KNEW what the priest may have been saying in a whisper, and so knowing, felt bound to add it to the text to round it out. But again, the issue is tied to the external evidence: I would no more accept the sole reading of Aleph B and D (f1 and 0170 and the single lectionary not being significant) as original in such a reversed case than I would as the case now stands. Although "number" is not primary within a Byzantine-priority hypothesis, it still carries weight against a collection of non-representative (in the present case) Alexandrian MSS and a coalition of Old Latin sources, where such a reading had to have had its origin in order to spread precisely as it did. On a similar basis I can immediately reject the united testimony of Aleph B C L 1010 in regard to the insertion at Mt.27:49 -- yet in that place the leading representatives of the Alexandrian text are _all_ united, though _all_ in utter error. There the Byzantine "omission" is original, while the Alexandrian "addition" is false. I think that should serve as a clear example of how to proceed with the evidence reversed, and that evidence being even stronger on the Alexandrian side in Mt.27:49. > If the presumption of Byzantine priority > is laid aside, the doxology doesn't have any feet to walk on. Can any > other arguments be offered in favor of the doxology? I think the doxology is alive and well and walking. One of the STRONGEST reasons for accepting the doxology as original is one which you dismissed out of hand: the non-appearance of the doxology in the Lukan form of the Lord's prayer. Yet, in that same Lukan version (assuming the Alexandrian critical text to the the original reading for the sake of argument), the Byzantine MSS there "harmonized" either to Matthew or to the liturgical use in the church by adding specifically the words and phrases (using the familiar English liturgical wording): "Our" "which art in heaven" "thy will be done on earth as in heaven" "but deliver us from evil" --- and yet in such a supposedly "harmonizing" passage where the Byzantine "harmonizers" were working overtime, why did they _fail_ to finish the harmonization by adding in the doxology, especially if they were harmonizing to either Matthew (Byztxt) or liturgical practice? Basically you can't have it both ways. There is not one rule of harmonization for Matthew and another for Luke to which scribes would be expected to adhere. I find the solution easier by far to presume Byzantine authenticity in both Matthew and Luke than to have the Byzantine scribes do such a poor job of harmonization when trying to conform the passages to each other. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From majordom Mon Mar 25 20:39:29 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA24424; Mon, 25 Mar 1996 20:39:29 +0500 Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 20:36:39 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Vinton Dearing In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 610 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu On Mon, 25 Mar 1996, James R. Adair wrote: > What is the opinion among text critics about the work of Vinton Dearing? Dearing is still around, and has published a couple more articles that I have seen. His theory looks impressive, but I have found few who think it workable or valid on the grand scale. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From majordom Mon Mar 25 20:50:57 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA24502; Mon, 25 Mar 1996 20:50:57 +0500 Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 20:48:05 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Mt 6:13 In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 2643 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu On Mon, 25 Mar 1996, James R. Adair wrote: > It's true that earlier is not necessarily better when it > comes to mss, but it is a factor in determining the preferred reading. > Probably everyone would agree that a reading that first appears in 3rd > century ms has a greater likelihood of originality that a reading that > first appears in a 12th century ms. It's possible that the original > reading was preserved in a ms that served as the exemplar for the 12th > century ms, but most would give the reading very careful scrutiny before > allowing that it might be original. In other words, date is not > determinative, but it is a factor to be considered. I am certain that we would concur on the example given or on other similar examples. But what do you do when a 5th century MS differs from one of the 4th century, or a 3rd century MS from one of the 2nd century. The wider the gap before the first appearance of a reading, certainly the less likely a reading to be original in the later MS; but when a short time period separates widely divergent MSS (e.g. A and B in the gospels), why is there so much stronger a presumption in favor of the earlier? Scrivener wrote in the last century that it was paradoxical that the worst corruptions to which the text ever had been subjected occurred in the earliest centuries, and that the text after the fourth century offered a far greater chance to determine the original (Scrivener of course did not have the early papyri, but only patristic and versional testimony to make his statement; the papyri only serve to confirm the truth of Scrivener's assessment). So in such a case, there still remains a limit as to when "earlier" might necessarily equal "better". Bringing it down to the 2nd century alone, which of the three, P45, P66 or P75 is the "better" MS? Only those who automatically confer a higher regard to B will immediately choose P75; but there is no inherent reason for such preference within the second century MSS themselves. So even equally early does not confer anything as regards originality, any more than the quite Alexandrian MS L of the 9th century is of any less weight than Aleph of the fourth. We are back to the original contention that age of a MS says little or nothing about the purity or originality of its text. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From majordom Mon Mar 25 21:02:09 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA24542; Mon, 25 Mar 1996 21:02:09 +0500 Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 20:59:17 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: James 2:18 In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 2902 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu On Mon, 25 Mar 1996, James R. Adair wrote: > > To sum up from my viewpoint: The aorist subjunctives (PARADW, BALH) in Luke > > 12,58 are clearly the original readings, and the future indicatives > > (PARADWSEI, BALEI) are merely grammatical shifts to the common vernacular > > which were likely occasioned by a transposition and scribal confusion > > plus required grammatical correction following that confusion. > I think text critics of all stripes should be wary of too much certainty > in cases such as this. Agreed. I should have less dogmatically stated that from my perspective there was no problem in seeing the subjunctives as the original readings as opposed to the futures. Sometimes one just gets carried away. *;-) > The different readings could be no more than > itacism. In the case of BALH/BALLEI this seems likely. Not so in the case of PARADW/PARADWSEI however. > suggests that the scribes who might have been concerned with "grammatical > correctness" in some places (I'll resist any analogy with PC here) were > anything but consistent. The Byzantine scribes certainly did not "correct" grammar wherever they could have done so. Kilpatrick's article on "Atticism and the Text of the Greek NT" (where he primarily defends Byzantine readings) stands as a case in point. However, neither did the Alexandrian scribes seize every opportunity. > I will offer an OT analogy, however. The > tendency toward fuller spelling (plene readings) is evident in Masoretic > mss, and especially in certain Qumran mss (e.g., 1QIsa-a, 11QPs-a), but > plene readings are by no means ubiquitous: defective (shorter) spelling > abounds throughout the Hebrew Bible, and although the concentration is > higher in some books than in others, even within books there is very > little consistency. The point here is that scribes "correcting" their > texts, whether for orthographic, grammatical, or theological reasons, > just weren't very consistent, as a rule. There is a NT analogy to this in the cases of Hebrew names like David or Moses, where we find the variations even within the Byzantine MSS of DAUID/DAUEID/DABID and (the easy escape) the nomen sacrum DAD; for Moses we have MWSHS and MWUSHS, with various declensions scattered among the Byzantine MSS. Likewise "Jerusalem", whether IEROUSOLHMA or IEROUSALHM. There is no consistency even within the same MS of orthography, and this is why most editors simply select a single orthography and go with it consistently (see, e.g. W-H's lengthy section on Orthography in their Introduction volume). _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From majordom Tue Mar 26 01:11:50 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA25145; Tue, 26 Mar 1996 01:11:50 +0500 Date: Tue, 26 Mar 1996 14:08:29 +0800 (WST) From: Timothy John Finney To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Thiede's redating, James Adair's discussion points, etc. In-Reply-To: <9603260138.AA24409@scholar.cc.emory.edu> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 4758 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu I thought that I would throw in my two bob's worth. (Etymology: Two bob is an Australian colloquiallism for two shillings which was the pre-decimal (pre-1966) twenty cents.) Dr Wachtel of the INTF at Muenster wrote an article (which appeared in one of last year's issues of ZPE) replying to Carsten Thiede's redating of P64/67. It is written in German. In short, he doesn't agree. He and Stuart Pickering would have more experience in these matters than Carsten Thiede, I would say. Concerning James Adair's discussion points: On Vinton Dearing: He was working on the pre-1000 AD text, as preserved in the MSS we have. He is a classical scholar with other interests besides, and it seems that these have now forced him to drop his work on the NT. He was using Apple II computers to try to work out the stemma. The only comment I have heard about this work is from Dr G.P Farthing who is not connected to the Internet (may he be so soon). I hope that it will not be inappropriate to repeat what he said in a note to me accompanying an offprint of his AIBI4 article 'Detailed Textual Stemmata by means of Probability Theory' which I had requested from him: 'One of the things that has surprised me at the two AIBI conferences I attended is the shortage of people working on the New Testament and most particularly in the area of stemmata. The only recent work seems to be [by] Vinton Dearing. My opinion, by the way, is that Dearing's method does not work.' I am sure that this comment is made with due deference to Prof. Dearing. It is a professional opinion based on Dr Farthing's own research which includes a thesis 'Numerical Methods of Demonstrating the Relationships of Greek New Testament Manuscripts', Birmingham, England, 1990. Now he is working on a program which applies his probabilistic approach to discovering stemmata. He uses a quite simple model which gives some surprising results. Dr Farthing is not the only one addressing questions about stemmata. There is also the article (in German) by Dr Mink of the INTF that appeared in New Testament Studies in 1993 (I think). Now to my final point. There is, and always has been, plenty of speculation about what might have happened to give us the text we now have. What I would like to know is how much do we really know. We seem to say and think the same things over and over again without really being sure of the assumptions made by those who first said them. What evidence is there that NT MSS were checked? What evidence is there that they were produced in Scriptoria? What evidence is there that they were produced by dictation? A comment appended to one MS saying that it was compared with an ancient one at Caesarea only applies to that MS, not all. Therefore, I would like New Testament textual criticism to take stock of the evidence which it has and to launch into speculation from there, rather than speculating from speculation. The evidence we have is, in the main, the MSS themselves. There are also the findings that might come from research in areas such as history, statistics and psychology that would enable us to answer some key questions to help model the development of the text: How often was a copy made and why? How long was it likely to last? Which ones were likely to survive catastrophe? Which words were likely to be changed and why? Which words were NOT likely to be changed and why? How many MSS were made, and what proportion survived? How many copies distant is any particular surviving MS from any other, and from the archtype? Please, if your answer to these questions are speculative, make that clear. But if you can dig up something that someone living in 200 AD said about copying practice, or if you discover that a particular type of error is far more likely to be made based on human copying tendencies, or if you can work out a (fairly) mathematically rigorous way to count how many MSS were made, these are the kinds of knowledge that could help us answer a fundamental question: Is it likely that we can reconstruct the archtype from the MSS we now have? Just a quick thought on questions 2 and 3: having looked at Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus side by side -- 1500 or 1600 years old, it seems that age is not so great a factor in (parchment) MS loss as is catastrophe. From the look of them they could go on for another 1000 years, catastrophes aside. Nevertheless, a first step to answering the likelihood of survival question is to plot the number of known MSS versus their estimated ages and work out how probability of survival varies with age. That might even give us a way of estimating how many MSS have ever been made. Any statisticians out there? Tim Finney Baptist Theological College of Western Australia From majordom Tue Mar 26 08:16:09 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA26284; Tue, 26 Mar 1996 08:16:09 +0500 Date: Tue, 26 Mar 1996 08:13:41 -0500 From: HuldrychZ@aol.com Message-Id: <960326081340_455090489@emout09.mail.aol.com> To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: "canonical" text Content-Length: 331 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Jim Woychuk, The entire field of what constituted "sacred texts" in the early Church is very complex. Years ago Ernst Kasemann edited a collection on that very topic. I forget the name- but it could easily be found by looking under Kasemann's name in a good library. Perhaps that would be the best place to start. Jim West From majordom Tue Mar 26 08:46:28 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA26437; Tue, 26 Mar 1996 08:46:28 +0500 Date: Tue, 26 Mar 1996 05:42:23 -0800 (PST) From: "Gregory J. Woodhouse" X-Sender: gjw@shellx.best.com To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: "canonical" text In-Reply-To: <960326081340_455090489@emout09.mail.aol.com> Message-Id: X-Url: http://www.wnetc.com/ Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 1535 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu I find the distinction between "authoritative" and "canonical" to be very interesting. If I understand the comments which have been made so far, then it seems that the basis of the distinction is a reverential attitude toward the text. But is this really central, or even necessary? If I consider a text to be an authoritative source from which I can learn the Lord's will concerning us, then it would seem that I consider that text to be canonical in some sense. On the other hand, it seems proper that the Lord should be the object of my reverence, and Him only. On the other hand, it could bee argued that affording the text a special honor does not amount to reverence. But that seems to be just the point: we seem to have something of a continuum in one sense (attitude toward the text per se), but in another sense the issue seems more clearcut. This other sense, of course, is that of authority. It seems almost an oxymoron to call a text somewhat authoritative. Another complication I see is that there seems to be a distinction between the Text and specific texts. I often explain to people, for example, that there is no such thing as an original manuscript of the Bible. (Okay, maybe it's too obvious to say in this forum!) Nevertheless, I consider the Bible to be scripture. But what I consider to be scripture is not just one manuscript, fragment, or compendium. --- Gregory Woodhouse gjw@wnetc.com home page: http://www.wnetc.com/ resource page: http://www.wnetc.com/resource/ From majordom Tue Mar 26 10:55:13 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA27561; Tue, 26 Mar 1996 10:55:13 +0500 Date: Tue, 26 Mar 1996 10:50:06 -0500 (EST) From: David Moore Subject: Re: "canonical" text To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Cc: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu In-Reply-To: <960326081340_455090489@emout09.mail.aol.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 888 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu On Tue, 26 Mar 1996 HuldrychZ@aol.com wrote: > The entire field of what constituted "sacred texts" in the early Church is > very complex. Years ago Ernst Kasemann edited a collection on that very > topic. I forget the name- but it could easily be found by looking under > Kasemann's name in a good library. > > Perhaps that would be the best place to start. _The Canon of Scripture, a general work on this subject by F. F. Bruce, includes a bibliographic entry on the work referred to above. It is _Das Neue Testament als Kanon_ (Go:ttingen, 1970), E. Ka:semann, ed.; Bruce's book also includes other bibliography up to about 1986. David L. Moore Southeastern Spanish District Miami, Florida of the Assemblies of God dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us Department of Education http://members.aol.com/dvdmoore From majordom Tue Mar 26 13:11:48 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA28543; Tue, 26 Mar 1996 13:11:48 +0500 Date: Tue, 26 Mar 1996 12:09:29 -0600 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net (Carlton L. Winbery) Subject: Re: "canonical" text Content-Length: 848 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Concerning the question of the cononical text, Bruce Metzger has a very short discussion of this question in The Canon of the NT, pp. 267-270. He concludes that the category of 'canonical' appears to have been broad enough to include all variant readings. He specifically mentions variants like the ending of Mark, Luke 22:43-44, John 7:53-8:11, and Acts 8:37. I first heard the material in this part of his book on Canon in an address in New Orleans. I asked him specifically at that time would he include the Comma Johanneum in that class and he said "No." His reason was because of the lateness (12th cent. in Greek) and the way it got in, a trick played on Erasmus. Grace, Carlton Winbery Chair Religion/Philosophy LA College, Pineville,La winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net winbery@andria.lacollege.edu fax (318) 442-4996 or (318) 487-7425 From majordom Tue Mar 26 16:33:54 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA29888; Tue, 26 Mar 1996 16:33:54 +0500 Date: Tue, 26 Mar 1996 16:31:01 -0500 From: HuldrychZ@aol.com Message-Id: <960326163100_455437122@mail02.mail.aol.com> To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: James Content-Length: 298 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu So, sans "grin", why the apparent hostility to the idea that James was originally written in Aramaic? The supposed Aramaic Matthew is making some progress, isn't it? Kittel dated James very early, didn't he? The language of the epistle in the canon is not specifically Greek, is it? Jim West From majordom Tue Mar 26 16:48:59 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA29989; Tue, 26 Mar 1996 16:48:59 +0500 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 26 Mar 1996 16:49:05 -0400 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: nichael@sover.net (Nichael Lynn Cramer) Subject: Erasmus, Metzger and the _Comma Johanneum_ Content-Length: 1360 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Carlton L. Winbery wrote: > [...] I first heard the >material in this part of his [Bruce Metzger's] book on Canon in an address in >New Orleans. I asked him specifically at that time would he include the >Comma Johanneum in that class and he said "No." His reason was because of >the lateness (12th cent. in Greek) and the way it got in, a trick played on >Erasmus. Prof Winbery, do you recall when you heard this lecture? The reason I ask is that there is an interesting footnote here, wrt this well-known story concerning the Comma Johanneum and Prof Metzger in particular. The following appears as note 2 on p291 of the 3rd edition of his _Text of NT_ (1992): What is said on p. 101 above about Erasmus' promise to include the _Comma Johanneum_ if one greek manuscript were found that contained it, and his subsequent suspicion that MS. 61 was written expressly to force him to do so, needs to be corrected in the light of the research of H. J. de Jonge, a specialist in Erasmian studies who finds no explicit evidence that supports this frequently made assertion: see his 'Erasmus and the _Comman Johanneum_', _Ephemerides Theologicae Lovabienses_, lvi (1980), pp, 381-9. Nichael nichael@sover.net __ http://www.sover.net/~nichael Be as passersby -- IC From majordom Tue Mar 26 18:35:30 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA00647; Tue, 26 Mar 1996 18:35:30 +0500 Date: Tue, 26 Mar 1996 18:32:32 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: History of transmission, part 1 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 18473 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu [ Warning - VERY LONG, and appearing in two parts ] James R. Adair wrote on 25 Mar 1996: >> I'd like to break the discussion that began with Mt 6:13 into three >> separate topics. In this post, I want to focus on the problem of the >> history of transmission of the text. I will also take this opportunity to make clarification of certain of my positions which apparently are misunderstood. Since Jimmy's comments were long, mine will be three times as long as well (by now this should be expected *;-) I apologize for the length of this post, but Jimmy wanted the questions answered! [long previous quotes from Robinson omitted] >> Checking mss against one another may very well lead to a text that >> approaches the original text in many ways, hence the 90% agreement >> between Byzantine & Alexandrian mss. However, I don't see any good >> reason to suspect that anything approaching 100% agreement would result. >> Here's some of my reasoning. Please note that the 90% agreement is in regard to the areas of _undisputed_ text. I do NOT suggest or allege that this basic 90% agreement is due to cross-comparison and correction, since this is the consensus textbase. My claim is that cross-comparison and correction will tend to cause the deviant (non-Byzantine and minority) texttypes slowly to be converted back towards the archetypical autograph text over a large number of copying generations, given sufficient time for such to take place. This thesis basically is demonstrable within the extant manuscript evidence preserved to us. Note also that I do not claim that any minority texttype, nor even any single MS (even within the Byzantine Textform) will ever attain 100% identity with the autograph; the extant data of the manuscripts themselves argues well enough against that hypothesis. >> (1) Maurice believes that one particular subset of the Byzantine mss has >> preserved the original text of the NT. I believe that the underlying archetype of whatever constitutes the Byzantine Textform preserves the original text. I do not claim that any single sub-group among the MSS of the Byzantine Textform uniformly preserves that archetype, though I personally suspect the Kx group as being closest to that archetype. >> However, he looks at the 9th-10th >> century Majority text, not the 15th century MT. I actually look at all the extant evidence from the second through the tenth century in an attempt to reconstruct the Byzantine archetype. I do not limit myself to merely the minuscules of the 9th and 10th centuries, though I am quite willing to exclude later minuscule evidence from the 11th century onward as not directly applicable to the task of Byzantine Textform reconstruction. Even then, I would still not neglect readings which might appear only in those later minuscules, though I would have a very difficult time thinking that such were original without earlier MS, versional, and patristic testimony. >> As he has mentioned >> before, there are some readings which actually are the majority readings >> in the 15th century which were not a few centuries earlier. The entire Kr tradition (12th-14th centuries) has some readings which are unique to that subgroup of about 200 MSS and which appear to reflect a localized revision during that era. I do not suggest restriction of "majority" readings to MSS only of the 15th century, but look at the aggregate bulk of MSS from the 11th-15th century when speaking of such a numerical "majority". >> Why is >> that? Apparently because scribes didn't check the right mss when making >> their corrections, or maybe the mss weren't available to them, or maybe >> there were other factors (e.g., influence of the Vulgate) that led them >> to perpetuate certain secondary readings. Since, barring a clear theological or dogmatic reason, no one really knows what may have motivated a scribe to alter the text in any given situation, I cannot speak with any certainty as to _why_ scribes of that era did what they did; only that they _did_ do what they did. In the case of the minuscules, the issue is not that they failed to check the "right" MSS, since their resultant text still remains 98%-99% identical with the overarching Byzantine Textform archetype. I only suggest as a hypothesis that in the case of 1Jn.2:23 and 3:1 there _may_ have been mitigating factors (sensible reading caused by homoioteleuton; the change in script from uncial to minuscule; the earliest minuscule MSS with a "head start" on the others, which then would influence the developing minuscule tradition, etc.) I do not think there was any lack of MSS available within the minuscule era. Which MSS may have been first consulted, however, would perhaps leave a lasting imprint on the specific transmissional history of the minuscules (as opposed to that of the uncials); but even this would be in the aggregate very minor. I doubt that the Vulgate had much (if any) influence among Greek-speaking scribes, and even in Western monasteries, unless a MS were bilingual or the scribe literate in Latin but not in Greek, the Vulgate or Old Latin would have little appreciable effect on any Greek NT MS. >> Since it is clearly >> demonstrable that this happened late in the transmission process, when >> Christianity was the dominant religion in most areas where the texts were >> copied, why shouldn't we believe that the same sort of thing happened in >> the first few centuries of transmission (1st-3rd centuries), when >> conditions weren't as favorable to cross-checking other mss? What I suggest took place in the minuscule tradition in the case of the 1Jn readings is only a minute matter on a very limited scale. The bulk of the text of the MSS from the 9th-10th centuries or even later still reflect a text quite similar to that used by Chrysostom in the latter half of the fourth century. The comparison between a few isolated readings in the bulk of later MSS and the massive "mixture" of texts as found in the early MSS is not a valid analogy. Most definitely, conditions were less favorable during the first three (even five) centuries, which amply explains why there is so much deviation among the early papyri and uncials. Had a steady and unhindered process of cross-comparison and correction occurred during that era, the text of those early documents would have been far more uniform than is the case. My own contention is that the "uncontrolled popular text" of the second and third centuries deviated as it did due to two factors -- (a) lack of "control" in the form of the natural process of cross-comparison and correction, hindered by lack of free and wide communication during the era of persecution; and (b) the desire of many early Christians to "supplement" the text with circulating oral tradition (e.g. Codex Bezae in Mt.20:28, Lk.6:4 or in Acts) or to grammatically/stylistically "improve" the text as best as a scribe thought himself or herself able. The end result of this is precisely the mish-mash of readings we find in the early documents. The later scribes were not encumbered by either of these notions to any significant degree. Only after the conversion of Constantine and the institution of free communication and state-sponsored scribal activity would NT documents be readily accessible and be able to be transferred around the Empire. Once this occurred, the normal scribal processes of cross-comparison and correction would slowly work its wonders toward the restoration of a more unified text, which would be itself the overarching archetype stemming from the autograph. >> (2) Mss cross-checking may indeed help weed out secondary readings (but >> might it not also introduce secondary readings in some cases?). Most definitely it could, all things being equal. Had 50% of the MSS read KAI in a given location and 50% read DE, there is no telling which way the evidence might go. In fact, there are a good number of Byzantine readings which are almost equally divided. In those situations, internal principles become essential in order to determine the original reading. However, in most cases, the balance of evidence is around 90% to 10%, and, based upon the weight of the evidence, taken statistically, the tendency will normally be for the 90% to overwhelm the 10% during the cross-correction process. Had the Alexandrian texttype been original, the likelihood of a "new" textform introduced at a later date to gain this 90%+ ascendancy would be almost nil. The newly-introduced Byzantine MSS would continually be corrected away from the Byzantine by the pre-existing exemplars, and the Byzantine text itself would slowly devolve back to the Alexandrian archetype within such a scenario. The only way that situation could be prevented would be if the Byzantine MSS were mass-copied on a scale theretofore unknown, and released upon an unsuspecting public which cared little for tradition and familiarity, with the full force and authority of the Church and the Empire behind it (i.e., Hort's "Byzantine revision" theory). Barring such a circumstance, the rise and dominance of the Byzantine Textform still remains an enigma, unless it indeed is the texttype more likely to reflect the autograph than any other. >> However, >> what evidence do we have that scribes in the earliest centuries of the >> transmission of the NT text checked other mss? If some did, does that >> imply that the process was widespread? Since the earliest papyri we possess give sufficient evidence that comparison and correction was made in virtually _all_ instances, and thus was clearly "widespread", the only question is whether the corrections we see merely stemmed from the original exemplar, the scribe's own mind, or from a different exemplar. Certain corrections seen in the early papyri clearly could not have come from the exemplar, since they differ too radically and even reflect a different texttype. Some corrections are made in a different hand from that of the original scribe, and in such a case there is no question as to the cross-comparison practice occurring. For the corrections in the original scribe's own hand, it remains to be tested whether such readings merely come from the mind of the scribe. This can be determined by examining all of the scribe's own blunders and corrections as did Colwell in regard to P45, P66 and P75. Readings which do not fit the normal pattern of a scribe's habits must certainly stem from different exemplars (P66 mentioned previously is a case in point; P45 likewise will serve as an example). Once the readings which are atypical of a given scribe are categorized, I suggest that one will find that most of these must reflect an exemplar beyond that of the original used by that scribe for initial copying. >> It seems likely that the first >> several ms generations of most (or all) NT books were copied from a >> single exemplar, without cross-checking other mss. As a tautology, certainly the original autograph copy of a given NT book was the primary source for numerous copies made therefrom. Each of those copies would most obviously _not_ be compared against other copies, but against the autograph itself. Errors would still remain in the copies, however, since scribes and even second readers are still fallible. Once the autograph copy perished, as they all did fairly quickly, being on fragile papyrus and (in this specific case!) being heavily used, copies would then become dependent upon other copies, with the several errors and corruptions found in each needing to be weeded out. At that very same time, before a more solid view of canonicity might exist, the free addition, subtraction, transposition, and substitution of words would also occur in various MSS, dependent in part on the skill of the scribe or lack thereof, as well as the desire to include tidbits of valid oral tradition and grammatical "improvements" etc. Thus the text, once the autograph had been itself lost as a standard of comparison, would "grow like Topsy" and, for a time, become increasingly more corrupt. These of course were the days of persecution, and the issue of cross-comparison was less a problem than simply copying and comparing the copy to the exemplar, making corrections therefrom. Of course, if, as in the case of P66 or other MSS, additional exemplars may have become available, then certainly cross-comparison would occur; but basically the first three centuries remain the era of the uncontrolled popular text. >> This is part of the >> reason for the "wild" early mss described by the Alands and others. Were >> multiple copies of the original documents made in all cases? If so, did >> those copies contribute to the existing ms tradition? Agreed that there is sufficient explanation for the "wild" and "mixed" texts of the early era based upon the factors mentioned. It well may be that under the circumstances many copies were made which had no opportunity to be compared with a second MS, and sometimes, due to haste, not even with the exemplar itself. The growth of the early variations in such a manner clearly fits in with the hypothesis that virtually all variant readings were likely created before AD 200. Did these copies contribute to the existing MS tradition? Certainly. They were part and parcel of that tradition. Whether the surviving handful of papyri from that period is truly _representative_ of that entire era, however, is questionable. I think all would agree that such is adequately representative for the situation in Egypt during that era, but I would not attempt to extend the Egyptian data into that which must have been typical for the entire Greek-speaking world of the first three centuries. >> This line of >> questioning raises the spectre of Westcott & Hort's "primitive >> corruptions." Does the Byzantine priority theory rule out the >> possibility of such primitive corruptions, and if so, on what basis? Westcott and Hort's "primitive corruptions" occurred in places where their favored "neutral" text was problematic and difficult to interpret. Since W-H themselves ruled out conjecture as a valid part of NT textual criticism (though it is valid in textual traditions without a large quantity of MS data), they were forced by their own methodology to "suspect primitive corruption" which no longer was extant and which, if known, would be able to explain the reading of the "neutral text" as a development from that primitive corruption. The pro-Byzantine position does not need within its own theory to speculate in that manner. Most of the suspected "primitive corruptions" of W-H could have easily been answered had the Byzantine reading been at all considered by them as the source from which their "neutral text" had derived. One of course could always speak hypothetically and say that we cannot achieve 100% certainty as to the original text, and it is always "possible" that a reading here or there of the autograph text has disappeared -- but in view of the wealth of manuscript, versional, and patristic evidence we possess, neither I nor many eclectics see any need to argue in the Hortian manner on this point. >> (3) That scribes were intent only in transmitting the received text, and >> not in amplifying, clarifying, or "correcting" it (from their own memory >> or doctrinal perspective, not from another ms) is a supposition that >> doesn't seem supported by the facts. On the contrary, my own dissertation study ("Scribal Habits among MSS of the Apocalypse", Southwestern Seminary, 1982) showed quite clearly that the later scribes (especially) were not very likely to do all of those nasty things alleged to them by most critical handbooks. If such allegations are really to be believed, it becomes amazing how frequently the apparatus shows such practice occurring only here and there among MSS, and not on a wholesale basis. (E.g., the alleged scribal practice of amplification of names and titles of Christ should have left the Byzantine text nowhere reading merely "Jesus" or "Christ," especially in the epistles, but in each case the initial amplification should have been made to "Jesus Christ", then to "the Lord Jesus Christ," and then to "our Lord Jesus Christ" etc.; but the evidence demonstrates that this simply did not occur on a massive scale). Certainly, _some_ scribes here and there did practice such "editorial" activity on a frequent basis; but these were by far in the minority. The bulk of the later scribes (and by this I mean from the 5th century onward) indeed _were_ "intent only in transmitting" the text they received (not the "received text" per se, but whatever text was at hand in their exemplars). >> We know that some scribes did in >> fact supplement their texts (e.g., the addition in Mk 16:14 in W). Not to mention the additions in Mt.20:28 and Lk.6:4 in D al previously mentioned. But again, did this occur on a large scale? Not at all; in fact such "extra" material, as "good" as it might appear to scribes, was still not perpetuated by many, even if known at large (and patristic testimony at times tells us such readings were known widely). >> Ehrman has given many examples of what he believes to be "orthodox >> corruptions." Bart of course does not concur with a Byzantine-priority hypothesis, but remains within the eclectic fold. I do find it amusing that he does side with the Byzantine as original in certain readings like John 1:18, against virtually all other eclectics, maintaining that the Alexandrian reading in such places is the "orthodox corruption." Of course, the other 50% of the time, he thinks the Byztxt is the corruption, but half a loaf is better than none. *;-) I also should mention that Bart's definition of "orthodox" is not exactly my own nor that of those within the more conservative evangelical wing, but instead reflects Baur's view that orthodoxy merely happens to be the name given to the victors in a socio-political drama, in which theology played only a minor role. (Please correct me if I misrepresent you on this point, Bart). [Continued in next message on this topic] _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From majordom Tue Mar 26 18:37:28 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA00700; Tue, 26 Mar 1996 18:37:28 +0500 Date: Tue, 26 Mar 1996 18:34:31 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: History of transmission, part II Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 12896 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu [ Continued from previous message on same topic ] James R. Adair wrote on 25 Mar 1996: >> It is also clear that some scribes harmonized one passage >> with another, especially in the gospels (or, from the Byzantine priority >> perspective, scribes omitted material found in other gospels?). Wisselink's published dissertation on "Assimilation" in the Gospels argues strongly against such suggestions being implemented on the wide scale. Certainly, even the N27 apparatus shows individual MSS and even small groups of MSS harmonizing one parallel passage to another, and there are abundant cases of such harmonization cited. However, a "leap of faith" occurs text-critically when eclectics assume from the known limited harmonization data that _any_ agreement in reading in parallel places in the gospels on the texttype level "must" be the result of a similar "harmonization" process. Wisselink and I both argue that the very fact that frequent harmonization is found sporadically among various MSS and is _not_ perpetuated by any significant number of scribes clearly demonstrates that such would likewise not carry itself over to the texttype level. Indeed, the only way that harmonization on the large scale can be alleged against the Byzantine Textform is to revert back to Hort's "Byzantine revision" hypothesis, which, if true, would allow for such a revision to incorporate such widespread harmonizations and then to formally promote them on the large scale. Most true harmonizations, by the way, are by conforming words and word order to that of a parallel text. Inclusion of parallel material rather than harmonization by omission (i.e. thus creating the shorter reading) would be characteristic of harmonizing readings, but not the reverse. >> When >> translations are considered alongside Greek mss, the evidence is >> increased that some scribes, especially (but not exclusively) early ones, >> altered their text as they transmitted it (this doesn't even consider >> accidental changes to the text). While many of these changes would be >> eliminated by the cross-checking process, would all of them be? The issue of versional differences is often due to limitations of those versions in rendering the Greek text or idiom into their language. Hence cases of the definite article or word order almost never can be resolved by an appeal to the versions. (See especially the various excellent "limitation" chapters in Metzger's _Early Versions of the NT_ volume). Whoever was responsible for a versional translation, be it a single scribe/translator or committee, had to deal both with the factor of the limitations involved in translating from Greek to the language of that version and with the limitations and errors inherent in the MS(S) available to him or her at the point of such translation. During this process I suspect a good number of alterations may have been made to the text which were deemed essential by the translator(s), but these would not all be resolved by cross-checking and correction. Once the versional translation had been created, its further MSS would have their own transmissional history and their own specific errors. Rarely would later versional copies be compared with Greek MSS to attempt a "restoration". The Syriac text seems to be the primary exception, in which the later Harkleian revises the Peshitto into a more stringently Byzantine text (placing non-Byzantine readings in the margin). >> (4) Finally, there is the issue of the "dislocating factor" in the >> history of transmission. In the case of the Hebrew OT text, the >> destruction of the temple was one important dislocating factor. Which, though obviously a grave event, did not seem to seriously damage the transmission of the Hebrew biblical text. > In the >> case of the LXX, the influence of Origen's Hexapla, which introduced a >> Greek text much closer to the MT, was a dislocating factor. Though again, I fail to see much influence from the Hexapla on the extant MSS of the LXX. More MT readings should have appeared in the basic LXX MSS as a result, but instead we find most MSS still maintaining their typical "LXX style" text versus the MT. >> Maurice has >> noted that Jerome's Vulgate was a dislocating factor in the transmission >> of the Latin text (many OL mss contain numerous Vulgate readings). Was >> there a dislocating factor in the history of the Greek NT text, one that >> would irrevocably alter the course of the transmission of the text? Jerome's revision did resolve the chaos existing among the Old Latin MSS. It was a "dislocation," but one which tended toward restoration. The Vulgate, even based on a primarily Alexandrian text, was far superior to the mixed "western" Old Latin confusion. Had Jerome decided to select a Byzantine rather than an Alexandrian MS for his revision, I daresay the history of the Vulgate would have been quite different, not to mention the practice of NT textual criticism. I would suggest that there were two "dislocating" factors in the history of the Greek text, but even in these cases the tendency is still toward "restoration" of the autograph and not with the intent of placing a wholly new text before the world which would mysteriously be adopted by virtually everyone without official promulgation or sanction such as Jerome's Vulgate enjoyed. Rather than Hort's Byzantine revision, the two biggest dislocating factors in the history of transmission were (a) the shift from papyrus to vellum and (b) the legitimization of Christianity under Constantine (the former basically dependent on the latter). With both freedom to disseminate, compare, and correct scriptural texts and the introduction of a more durable material to write upon, the opportunity would arise for a greater stability of text than ever had been the case. Without a Jerome or even a Lucian, the slow process of textual restoration could freely begin in the 4th century, with the result of that process being seen only through the passage of time. >> I can think of several possibilities: These of course all have been mentioned by other critics of the Byzantine position (D. A. Carson, Gordon Fee, Bruce Metzger, Kurt Aland, etc.) >> (a) the persecutions of Decian and Diocletian, which destroyed >> numerous NT mss; Most definitely. But unless one wishes to argue that all things were not equal, the surrender and destruction of MSS would proportionally have affected all extant texttypes so that the result, once the persecution was over, would be basically the same ratio of whatever types existed previously. Certainly the Alexandrian and Western MSS were not seized in the greater proportion, since they are still around from the early centuries. I do not think that from your perspective you would want to argue that it was primarily the Byzantine MSS which were thus seized, since that would argue in _my_ favor. Thus, for all concerned, the best assumption is that the proportion of surviving MSS generally reflected the proportion of MSS destroyed. If so, then this persecution, though severe, did not radically alter the transmissional history of NT MSS, though it did reduce their overall numbers significantly. >> (b) the Muslim revolution, I will come to this after considering points (c) and (d), since you make them part of the reason for (b). >> (c) the shift in >> the seat of the Roman government from Rome to Constantinople (Byzantium), >> home of the Byzantine text--Rome did retain (or gain) religious >> ascendancy, but the text in Rome was transmitted in Latin, primarily in >> the form of the Vulgate, which, though close to the Byzantine text-type, >> is not by any means synonymous with it; The Latin West and the Byzantine East were already separated linguistically and textually long before the shift in the seat of government occurred. Old Latin and Vulgate MSS from before the fall of Rome are no more Byzantine in character than those from after that fall. Neither are the Greek MSS following the fall of Rome more "Alexandrian" than they had previously been, even though influence from the Vulgate might have been expected to tend in that direction. The Vulgate, however you cut it, is _not_ "close to the Byzantine text-type", but to the Alexandrian. Only the Graeco-Latin MSS (many produced in southern Italy) appear to show cross-pollination in either direction from Latin to Greek or Greek to Latin. In any case, the shift in the seat of government did not affect the transmission of the Greek text itself. The episcopal see of Constantinople was already influential, but so too were Rome, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria, and no one of these dominated textual preference or even appeared to show much concern with such. (d) the ecumenical councils of >> Nicea and Chalcedon (among others) might have led to the suppression of >> questionable readings or to orthodox "improvements" to the text. Any or >> all of these might have been dislocating factors in the history of the >> transmission of the NT text. I immediately suspect the word "might" in a historical context where we know fairly well what the precise concerns of these councils happened to be, down to the single iota in HOMOOUSIOS vs HOMOIOUSIOS. There is no evidence whatever that indicates that these councils took any concern with specific readings of the text, let alone to enthusiastically support a specific Byzantine reading. Had they in fact done so, then it would be likely that the resultant "orthodoxy" would not only be theological and creedal, but also textual, and those who are now doctrinally "orthodox" in the sense of Nicea and Chalcedon would be under the same obligation to accept the Byzantine text as they are to accept the deity of Christ and the orthodox creeds. Q.E.D..... >> (b) the Muslim revolution, >> which swept over Egypt and Palestine, virtually eliminating Egyptian >> texts, hence the Alexandrian text-type (of course, the Alexandrian text >> was already limited in influence, but why?--see c & d); Back to this point (having from my perspective now dismissed (c) and (d) --- Even granting for the sake of argument the presumption that the Moslem conquest would have wiped out the text in a given region: are you suggesting that the _only_ influence the Alexandrian texttype had in the seventh century emanated from Egypt? If the Alexandrian texttype were in fact NOT a "local text" of Egypt (which I would maintain), but instead closer to the autograph, that texttype should have been utterly dominant in the Greek-speaking region of the Empire, and the destruction of MSS within a merely localized region should NEVER have eliminated the dominant Alexandrian text elsewhere. On the other hand, if the Alexandrian text were merely a local text of Egypt, why then should it be considered more likely the autograph than the Greek texts which were originally sent to various localities in Greece, Asia Minor and even Rome, and the descendants of which themselves should still maintain a dominance in those regions unaffected by the Moslem conquest? But on the contrary, the Moslem conquest in fact did _not_ utterly wipe out Christianity nor the biblical MSS in the conquered territories, even though the great library at Alexandria was destroyed -- and that not due to its possessing Christian works, but due to its massive collection of pagan works. The early Moslems allowed the conquered peoples to retain their religion and their sacred books. They definitely made life difficult for those believers by adding "incentives" to convert to Islam such as triple taxation, inability to hold office, etc., but the Coptic church in Egypt survived and continues to survive until this day, maintaining its scriptures intact. Without in any way being an apologist for Islam, Saladin and others like him were not exactly Saddam Hussein or the Ayatollah Khomeini. I thus minimize the effect of the Moslem conquest EXCEPT in regard to its creating a lack of freedom of movement between Christians in those conquered regions and therefore their MSS likewise. Before I forget...you left out (e) the influence of John Chrysostom in using what was basically a Byzantine text. That text as he preached it, was supposedly like the latest study bible endorsed by Billy Graham which everyone immediately wanted to begin using. *;-) I kid you not -- this is another alleged reason for the growing acceptance and dominance of the Byzantine Textform -- a reason which in my opinion still holds about as much water as any of the others. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From majordom Tue Mar 26 19:05:04 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA00829; Tue, 26 Mar 1996 19:05:04 +0500 Date: Tue, 26 Mar 1996 19:02:09 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: "canonical" text In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 2317 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu On Tue, 26 Mar 1996, Carlton L. Winbery wrote: > Concerning the question of the cononical text, Bruce Metzger has a very > short discussion of this question in The Canon of the NT, pp. 267-270. He > concludes that the category of 'canonical' appears to have been broad > enough to include all variant readings. I would concur on this point. I do not think canonicity ever excluded particular variant readings one way or the other. "Non-canonical" texts were non-biblical text, plain and simple. > He specifically mentions variants > like the ending of Mark, Luke 22:43-44, John 7:53-8:11, and Acts 8:37. I > first heard the material in this part of his book on Canon in an address in > New Orleans. I asked him specifically at that time would he include the > Comma Johanneum in that class and he said "No." His reason was because of > the lateness (12th cent. in Greek) and the way it got in, a trick played on > Erasmus. This latter raises an interesting point. Although the Byzantine text includes the long ending of Mark, Lk.22:43-44, and Jn.7:53-8:11, it excludes Acts 8:37 and the Johannine Comma (1Jn.5:7). Yet in my various Greek NT editions published by the Greek Orthodox Church, Ac.8:37 continues to be printed in normal type in the ZWH Brotherhood edition but in reduced type in the Antoniades edition, with 1Jn.5:7 printed in the main text in reduced type in both the ZWH and Antoniades editions. I would like to hear input from Greek Orthodox scholars on these two clearly non-Byzantine passages which nevertheless are retained in their "canonical" printed editions (and no, it is not because those editions present a form of the Textus Receptus, since they otherwise agree quite closely with Von Soden's "K" or the N27 "M" designations as to the formal Byzantine text as opposed to the TR). It seems to me that the Greek Orthodox Church chooses to walk a quasi-canonical line in the case of those two passages which does not accord with their own historical tradition. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From majordom Tue Mar 26 19:10:59 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA00873; Tue, 26 Mar 1996 19:10:59 +0500 Date: Tue, 26 Mar 1996 19:08:06 -0500 From: Orthopodeo@aol.com Message-Id: <960326190806_178691879@emout07.mail.aol.com> To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Erasmus, Metzger and the _Comma Johanneum_ Content-Length: 3182 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu In a message dated 96-03-26 16:48:34 EST, you write: >> [...] I first heard the >>material in this part of his [Bruce Metzger's] book on Canon in an address >in >>New Orleans. I asked him specifically at that time would he include the >>Comma Johanneum in that class and he said "No." His reason was because of >>the lateness (12th cent. in Greek) and the way it got in, a trick played on >>Erasmus. > >Prof Winbery, do you recall when you heard this lecture? The reason I ask >is that there is an interesting footnote here, wrt this well-known story >concerning the Comma Johanneum and Prof Metzger in particular. The >following appears as note 2 on p291 of the 3rd edition of his _Text of NT_ >(1992): > > What is said on p. 101 above about Erasmus' promise to include the _Comma > Johanneum_ if one greek manuscript were found that contained it, and his > subsequent suspicion that MS. 61 was written expressly to force him to do >so, > needs to be corrected in the light of the research of H. J. de Jonge, a > specialist in Erasmian studies who finds no explicit evidence that supports > this frequently made assertion: see his 'Erasmus and the _Comman >Johanneum_', > _Ephemerides Theologicae Lovabienses_, lvi (1980), pp, 381-9. If I might add a note on this dispute: I recently had my head handed to me on a platter by a particular writer for not having agreed with H. J. de Jonge at this point, preferring the research and conclusions of Erika Rummel, a likewise well-known Erasmus scholar out of Canada. Rummel disagrees with de Jonge at this point, or so the published works seem to indicate. The controversy seems to swirl around whether the following words can be taken as a real "challenge" or not: Is it negligence and impiety, if I did not consult manuscripts which were simply not within my reach? I have at least assembled whatever I could assemble. Let Lee produce a Greek MS. which contains what my edition does not contain and let him show that that manuscript was within my reach. Only then can be reproach me with negligence in sacred matters. That is de Jonge's translation of Erasmus, by the way. I would call it a bit of a tempest in a teapot myself, and certainly one *could* take the preceding words as a challenge (indeed, Erasmus was quite fond of offering challenges), but de Jonge insists that one *cannot* take it that way, which I find a bit strident. The manuscript of my book was sent to Dr. Metzger; he endorsed the work, but we had no particular discussion of the materials on the TR, Erasmus, or the Comman Johanneum, so I can hardly say that his endorsement of my book means that he backed my comments on that particular issue. ********************************************************** * James White, B.A., M.A., Th.M., Orthopodeo@aol.com * * College of Christian Studies-Grand Canyon University * * Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary-AZ Campus * * Professor of Apologetics-Faraston Theological Seminary * * Director, Alpha and Omega Ministries * * http://net387.texas.net/ao.html * ********************************************************** From majordom Tue Mar 26 19:16:44 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA00910; Tue, 26 Mar 1996 19:16:44 +0500 Date: Tue, 26 Mar 1996 19:13:51 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: James In-Reply-To: <960326163100_455437122@mail02.mail.aol.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 2183 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu On Tue, 26 Mar 1996 HuldrychZ@aol.com wrote: > So, sans "grin", why the apparent hostility to the idea that James was > originally written in Aramaic? The supposed Aramaic Matthew is making some > progress, isn't it? (With the appropriate grin) For the sake of NT textual criticism, I hope not. All our MSS are in Greek; the Aramaic equivalent in the Syriac version are clearly later, and obviously reflect translation FROM Greek and not merely a perpetuation of an Aramaic original. I see no reason to suppose either an Aramaic original of either Matthew or James within a church whose missionary purpose (even in those books writing to Jews) was to communicate not only to those who spoke Hebrew or Aramaic, but to a wider audience. Especially in the case of documents written to Jews scattered abroad, the need for using Greek would be paramount, and I do not think that either Matthew or James had an overwhelming concern to limit the message and impact of their works to Palestinian Aramaic-speaking Jews or Jewish Christians. More pertinently, Lamsa's claim that the entire NT was written in Aramaic (still published in reprints of his books as "fact") has been clearly debunked long ago. > Kittel dated James very early, didn't he? The language of the epistle in the > canon is not specifically Greek, is it? No declaration is made regarding the language of the canon until you get to the Reformation era confessions, where "the OT in Hebrew and the NT in Greek" are specifically mentioned (to address specifically Roman Catholic claims regarding the Vulgate). Nevertheless, only a very few fathers claim more for even Matthew than Papias stated, and the "logia" mentioned may merely have been personal notes rather than the entire gospel. James also does not well reflect "translation Greek", which argues strongly for its original language being Greek. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From majordom Tue Mar 26 19:41:22 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA00959; Tue, 26 Mar 1996 19:41:22 +0500 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 26 Mar 1996 18:43:21 +0400 To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu From: winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net (Carlton L. Winbery) Subject: Re: Erasmus, Metzger and the _Comma Johanneum_ Content-Length: 1167 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Nichael>> [...] I first heard the >>material in this part of his [Bruce Metzger's] book on Canon in an address in >>New Orleans. I asked him specifically at that time would he include the >>Comma Johanneum in that class and he said "No." His reason was because of >>the lateness (12th cent. in Greek) and the way it got in, a trick played on >>Erasmus. > >Prof Winbery, do you recall when you heard this lecture? The reason I ask >is that there is an interesting footnote here, wrt this well-known story >concerning the Comma Johanneum and Prof Metzger in particular. The >following appears as note 2 on p291 of the 3rd edition of his _Text of NT_ >(1992): I heard Prof. Metzger talk of the relation of text and canon in a seminar at the N.O. Baptist Seminary in 1980, I think. He did not tell the story about Erasmus at that time, only commented the Comma Johanneum should not be considered canonical because of the way it got into the text and did not circulate as text during the time of the development of the canon. Carlton L. Winbery Prof. Religion LA College, Pineville, La winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net winbery@andria.lacollege.edu From majordom Tue Mar 26 19:45:42 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA00981; Tue, 26 Mar 1996 19:45:42 +0500 Date: Tue, 26 Mar 1996 19:42:46 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Thiede's redating, James Adair's discussion points Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 10171 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu [ Also part 1 of 2 ] Timothy John Finney wrote on Tue, 26 Mar 1996: Concerning Thiede and P64/67: >> Dr Wachtel of the INTF at Muenster wrote an article (which appeared in >> one of last year's issues of ZPE) replying to Carsten Thiede's redating >> of P64/67. I would agree with Wachtel here. Thiede goes too far in his dating of P64/67, just as O'Callaghan went too far in his claims regarding the 7Q4 fragments. I have more sympathy with the recent attempt to declare P46 earlier on palaeographic grounds, though even then I would not attempt to push P46 into the first century. On Vinton Dearing: I too agree with G. P. Farthing that "Dearing's method does not work." I have doubts about computer modeling of stemmas within NT textual criticism. My own opinion is that we can speak of "near-neighbor clusters" (John G. Griffith, JTS 1969) and apply the results within the Claremont Profile Method (Wisse), but I do not think that valid stemmas can be established by either Dearing's method or any other, since the computer model is not seeking for the _real_ stemmatic data, which is shared agreement among MSS in plain and clear error -- NOT in commonly-shared sensible readings. >> Dr Farthing's own research includes a thesis 'Numerical Methods of >> Demonstrating the Relationships of Greek New Testament Manuscripts', >> Birmingham, England, 1990. Now he is working on a program which applies his >> probabilistic approach to discovering stemmata. He uses a quite simple >> model which gives some surprising results. If Dr Farthing should get on the internet, I for one would be interested in corresponding with him. My own research for my Th.M. thesis concerned "Textual Interrelationships among Selected Ancient Witnesses to the Book of Acts," and used a variation on Griffith's near-neighbor cluster approach which was able to delineate texttype and family relationships among MSS somewhat more precisely (in my opinion) than the Claremont Profile Method. Nevertheless, I did not attempt to create stemmas from the data attained. On textual criticism in general: >> Now to my final point. There is, and always has been, plenty of speculation >> about what might have happened to give us the text we now have. What I >> would like to know is how much do we really know. We seem to say and think >> the same things over and over again without really being sure of the >> assumptions made by those who first said them. Certainly much is continually repeated and urged as method within NT textual criticism. If we "knew" more, our theories and speculations would of necessity be quite different. It is because we know so little that we have such variance in viewpoints, theory, and method. This is of course a healthy situation under the circumstances, and not a detriment. Various questions: >> What evidence is there that NT MSS were checked? The MSS themselves provide ample evidence of this fact. Most were at least checked and corrected against their original exemplar; many were compared against a plainly different exemplar, as shown by the type of variant in the correction. >> What evidence is there that they were produced in Scriptoria? After the fourth century, under the rise of formal monasticism, I think there is no doubt that monastery-related scriptoria were common. Some NT MSS, such as the 50 made under edict from Constantine, may have been produced by commercial scriptoria, but most Greek MSS were likely prepared within Greek-speaking monastic settings. Before the fourth century, scriptoria-produced MSS were likely very rare (which provides another reason for the rise of the "uncontrolled popular text" of that era). In desert monastic communities, such as those in Egypt (where all extant papyri have been found), scriptoria of a sort may have existed; those desert regions were somewhat more isolated from Imperial disfavor and persecution, and more leisure to copy, compare and correct MSS may have been available (as evidenced by the corrections found in many early papyri which reflect a different exemplar). >> What evidence is there that they were produced by dictation? Others in the list may differ, but I see very few MSS which suggest dictation-production. This was more the bailiwick of the formal secular scriptoria, and not the general pattern in the monasteries. The image of the solitary scribe in his cell diligently copying a MS from an exemplar before him appears correct. This is evidenced by the types of error produced by scribes as seen in the MSS themselves. Had the texts been produced by dictation, there would have been many more readings reflecting errors of hearing than happens to be the case (e.g., we should expect to see a nearly equal division among the MSS regarding EXOMEN/EXWMEN in Rom.5:1; also with most cases where itacistic confusion by hearing would tend to create differences). The relatively small number of cases where hearing might be a factor simply illustrate well Metzger's description of the process of copying by reading the text of the exemplar (aloud), holding that phonetic pattern in the mind, putting pen to paper, and echoing out the same phonetic pattern as the copy is actually produced. Further, the relatively frequent occurrence of nonsense readings produced by homoioteleuton which are NOT shared by multiple MSS clearly indicates a non-dictation model. Had an oral reader accidentally skipped a line or two so as to produce a nonsense reading, either he or a scribe might have been likely to catch the blunder and correct it, or, if left uncorrected, such blunder should have found its way into 20 or so MSS at once, and from their multiplied descendants into the mainstream of transmission, waiting to be corrected by the cross-comparison process. Since these cases are mostly isolated, the implication is clearly against the dictation model. >> A comment appended to one MS saying that it was compared with an ancient >> one at Caesarea only applies to that MS, not all. Certainly so. Of course some MSS which bear such statements are known to have simply incorporated their colophons from their preceding exemplar, so nothing certain can be established in this regard either, save that at least one MS in the chain was compared with a MS at Caesarea. Most colophons, however, say nothing about their provenance or date, but usually only some pious remarks thanking God for enabling the scribe to finish his task. >> Therefore, I would like New Testament textual criticism to take stock of >> the evidence which it has and to launch into speculation from there, >> rather than speculating from speculation. I trust that is indeed what we do, following the scientific method, so long as purely conjectural readings are ruled out. As James Adair pointed out regarding historical "fact", we by and large in the main are having to "speculate from speculation" since the unquestioned data are not there to provide the definitive answer. Textual hypotheses, like any other hypotheses, must be tested against the extant data at all times. The hypothesis which results in the fewest unresolved problems is that which should be preferred. >> The evidence we have is, in the >> main, the MSS themselves. As well as the versional and patristic data. >> There are also the findings that might come from >> research in areas such as history, statistics and psychology that would >> enable us to answer some key questions to help model the development of >> the text: History and various mentions of variant readings within history may offer some assistance (e.g. Metzger's "Explicit Reference to Variant Readings" articles on Jerome and Origen. I doubt whether there would be sufficient statistical data to settle the questions involved. The psychology of the scribe may be of help, but that comes more from a study of an individual scribe's habits as demonstrated in the MSS he or she produced than from application of psychological principles. >> Please, if your answer to these questions are speculative, make that >> clear. All answers to the following questions are speculative, some in a higher degree than others. Had there been a clear-cut pattern of copying which was universally enforced, the task of textual criticism would be greatly simplified. As it is, speculation and testing of competing hypotheses is what we must do in order to arrive at the most satisfactory solution. I will offer my opinions regarding the following questions, based upon what I see in the manuscript data. Others may draw different conclusions. >> How often was a copy made and why? This is probably indeterminate. Because of the labor involved, copies were generally made as need required them. The monks and monasteries would make copies to either replace copies which had become worn and tattered in their own library or to supply outside church or (wealthy) individual needs. Also, monks and other literate individuals might also make copies for their own personal use; however, this would be limited in scope due to the cost of vellum, but might explain some of the post-4th century papyri we currently possess. >> How long was it likely to last? Papyrus outside of a dry climate would have a relatively short life, perhaps only 20-30 years. Wear and tear based upon usage would also play a part. Thus the limited number of papyri now preserved. Vellum MSS on the other hand, though more expensive to produce, could easily be expected to last for a hundred or more years, even with heavy use. Properly cared for, a vellum MS might even have five or six hundred years of unbroken use. Sinaiticus clearly was used and corrected over a lengthy period of time, as shown by the different correctors and paleographic dates of the various hands which made corrections to that MS. [ continued in part 2 ] _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From majordom Tue Mar 26 19:46:48 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA00999; Tue, 26 Mar 1996 19:46:48 +0500 Date: Tue, 26 Mar 1996 19:43:53 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Thiede's redating, James Adair's discussion points Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 11342 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu [ continued from part 1 ] Timothy John Finney wrote on Tue, 26 Mar 1996: >> Which ones were likely to survive catastrophe? This is purely a matter of speculation. Vellum MSS would be more likely to survive in any given natural catastrophe. In cases of seizure due to persecution, all MSS were fair game. I suggest that, assuming all things to be equal and that there was not a specific search-and-destroy for a specific texttype or type of writing material, that MSS would be seized and destroyed in percentages parallel to the frequency of the specific texttype or material on which it was written, without dislocating the proportion of the general transmissional history. >> Which words were likely to be changed and why? Not counting nonsense readings produced by error, the most frequent type of variation would be alteration due to itacism, affecting individual words and not entire passages. Next would be omissions occasioned by homoioteleuton which still produced "sensible" readings, as well as random omissions of syllables, whole words, and phrases based upon line length or scribal proclivities. Following that, I would suggest conjunctional changes between KAI, DE, OUN etc., followed by prepositional substitution (and the case endings of words following altered prepositions). After that would come changes in word order (which may have been occasioned by homoioteleuton or other slips of the pen), then substitution of synonymous words or phrases. Major additions or omissions to the text would fall under the least frequent category, since unconscious error is always more likely than deliberate "editorial" activity. Statistically, one could tabulate all types of variation among all MSS to get an idea of the relative frequency of changes, but the truth is that individual MSS differ widely in the types of variation to which their scribes were prone (see Colwell on P45, P66 and P75 for clear examples). Therefore statistics will not help when evaluating any individual MSS nor when trying to create a blanket view of scribes in general. >> Which words were NOT likely to be changed and why? The answer sounds facetious, but it is not: the words comprising the vast bulk of the text and therefore the autograph reading itself were the least likely to be altered by scribes. This is precisely what the extant evidence indicates. Within the 10% of the text where variation occurs, there simply is no hard and fast rule which can explain why a scribe would NOT change a word or phrase, except that the overriding assumption will always be that his normal trendency would NOT be to alter the text within the 10% area of variance from what he read in his exemplar, just as he did with the other 90% of the text where variation was not present. Further argument as to what a scribe would likely NOT do is probably an exercise in futility. I would suggest that words well known from lectionary or liturgical practice would be less likely to be altered, as well as "proof-text" passages which were used regularly for apologetic purposes. The Easter Sunday reading in the Orthodox church has always been John 1:1-17, and that very familiar passage of text has few significant variants (Codex Bezae being the main exception). Note, however, that the textual base of the Lectionary version, while Byzantine in the main, nevertheless stems from an archetype which reflects a Byzantine sub-type. Where Lect and Byz differ in the UBS apparatus, the difference between the main Textform and the Lectionary subtype can be clearly seen; yet over the centuries the correction of Lect by Byz or vice versa rarely occurred, so distinct were their lines of transmission. >> How many MSS were made, and what proportion survived? Again pure speculation, given any period within transmissional history. But we can speculate proportionally from statistics of extant MSS, beginning from the most recent period and working backward. I would suspect that in centuries 11-15 we likely have a majority of MSS surviving, perhaps as many as 70-80%, but more likely 50-60%, since fire, flood, carelessness, etc. could account for the loss of numerous MSS in any era. For the minuscules of centuries 9-10 I would suggest maybe only about 30% survival. For uncials of centuries 4-10 it should be obvious to all that the vast majority copied during that era no longer exist, and I would suspect the existing uncials to comprise no more than 5% of the total for that period. For the era of the papyri, I suspect the mere 100 or so which we now possess are less than 2% of the total ever produced. >> How many copies distant is any particular surviving MS from any other, >> and from the archetype? If we knew this, we would be immensely helped in determining the antiquity of the text possessed by a MS. Here too we have only speculation, except in the case of family groups, such as f1 or f13, where it can be demonstrated that the members of such a family all descended from a single lost uncial of some centuries earlier. It would even have been convenient had scribes noted whether the exemplar was uncial or minuscule, on vellum or papyrus, but they did not. A colophon like that appended to the Martyrdom of Polycarp would have been of great help if such had been maintained in all Greek MSS: "From these papers of Irenaeus...Gaius made a copy, and Isocrates used in Corinth the copy of Gaius. And again, I, Pionius, wrote from the copies of Isocrates...after searching for them, and gathering them together when they were almost worn out from age..." (Apostolic Fathers, Loeb edition, p.345) Of course, such a statement says nothing about the total number of copying generations or the date of each copy, but at least gives a line of descent and shows that, at times, a "new" MS might have been made from one which was extremely old. This of course merely serves to reinforce the notion that the date of a MS does not necessarily say anything about the date of the text it contains (which has significance in relation to the MSS containing the Byzantine Textform). >> But if you can dig up something that someone living in 200 AD said >> about copying practice, or if you discover that a particular type of error >> is far more likely to be made based on human copying tendencies, or if you >> can work out a (fairly) mathematically rigorous way to count how many MSS >> were made, these are the kinds of knowledge that could help us answer a >> fundamental question: Is it likely that we can reconstruct the archetype >> from the MSS we now have? Birks in the 19th century attempted to create a mathematical model of transmission (Essay on the Right Estimation of Manuscript Evidence applied to the NT). However, Birks' conclusion pointed mathematically to the likelihood that the Byzantine Textform was original, and thus his conclusions were not well received. I personally find Birks' inflexible model unrepresentative of the many factors which influenced transmissional history; nevertheless, Birks does make for some interesting and challenging reading. We have little or nothing stated about copying practices in the early centuries, and even very little from the later centuries. Cassiodorus probably provides the most detail, and even he fails to give us all that we wish to know. Basically, all claims regarding copying practices within MSS must be determined by evaluating the individual habits of the scribes of those MSS. There is much that can be learned thereby, and such evidence is vital to establish probabilities and proclivities within individual MSS. As to the "fundamental question": can we reconstruct the archetype from the MSS we now have, the issue revolves around the degree of certainty sought. If you are looking for 100% certainty, then no one alive and no one MS can offer that certainty. If you will accept 90% certainty (i.e., for 90% of the text we are 100% certain of the autograph reading), then that is basically agreed upon by all text-critical schools. I suspect that the eclectic pro-Alexandrian school considers their method to provide about 97% certainty, based upon the weight given to their primary MSS. I would consider the Byzantine-priority model to produce around 99% certainty, based upon our primary establishment of Textform readings. But the issue is not about the percentage degree of certainty any given text-critical school might be able to suggest: _all_ textual critics are attempting to reconstruct the autograph text to the highest degree of certainty permitted within the bounds of their respective hypotheses. Even when all this is taken into account, the remaining passages where "certainty" is not present still divide into two or three primary readings in each case, and we all know (barring those who would advocate pure conjectural readings) that the autograph reading resides among those two or three readings; so in theory 100% certainty is "attainable", though in practice our attempts will always fall slighlty short of that goal unless one invokes special revelation. From my own position, I am quite confident that my own edited text approaches the autograph quite closely; however, were I on a desert island with only the Westcott-Hort Alexandrian text by my side (sans apparatus), I would not consider myself seriously deprived. >> Just a quick thought on questions 2 and 3: having looked at Sinaiticus and >> Alexandrinus side by side -- 1500 or 1600 years old, it seems that age is >> not so great a factor in (parchment) MS loss as is catastrophe. This is my own opinion also. Vellum endures. So the question I would ask is this: where have all the vellum copies gone (long time passing)? As stated above, I suspect our extant vellum uncials from centuries 4-10 reflect only about a 5% survival rate. So where are they or where have they gone? Catastrophic occurrence might account for the disappearance of some of them, but certainly not for 95% of them or any significant majority of them during that era of peace and preservation. I of course have a solution to the problem, but that is another matter entirely. >> From the >> look of them they could go on for another 1000 years, catastrophes aside. Correct. And those of us who have worked directly with vellum MSS (as I have at Duke), know precisely how durable those MSS are, especially when bound and used for church-related purposes. >> Nevertheless, a first step to answering the likelihood of survival >> question is to plot the number of known MSS versus their estimated ages >> and work out how probability of survival varies with age. >> That might even give us a way of estimating how many MSS have ever >> been made. Any statisticians out there? Again, see Birks, though I cannot promise anyone will be pleased with his results. As long as statistics have to be drawn from existing data, the conclusions will likely fall into the same pattern as claimed by Birks. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From majordom Wed Mar 27 11:19:28 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA03949; Wed, 27 Mar 1996 11:19:28 +0500 Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 11:16:31 -0500 From: HuldrychZ@aol.com Message-Id: <960327111630_257267816@mail06> To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Thanks Content-Length: 146 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Maurice, Thanks for your thorough insights and very helpful comments- particularly on the questions posed concerning James. Yours, Jim West From majordom Wed Mar 27 14:20:41 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA05401; Wed, 27 Mar 1996 14:20:41 +0500 Date: Wed, 27 Mar 96 11:05:28 PST From: broman@Np.nosc.mil (Vincent Broman) Message-Id: <9603271905.AA11369@Np.nosc.mil> To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu In-Reply-To: (message from Timothy John Finney on Tue, 26 Mar 1996 14:08:29 +0800 (WST)) Subject: MS survival Content-Length: 1474 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu finney@central.murdoch.edu.au suggested: > Nevertheless, a first step to answering the likelihood of survival > question is to plot the number of known MSS versus their estimated ages > and work out how probability of survival varies with age. That might even > give us a way of estimating how many MSS have ever been made. Any > statisticians out there? We know the count of MS survivors, this is plotted in Aland's introductory book, but we don't know directly the count of MSS produced in a century, nor the rate of destruction/loss. Of the latter unknowns, at least one would have to be modeled to be able to calculate the other. Production might be estimated from growth in Church population, changes in the distribution of Greek-speakers, and estimates of the useful lifetime of a MS which suffers no catastrophe. The proportion of MSS that survive each century would depend on the MS material, on whether on not book-burnings occur, climate, and usage of the MS, at least. S Lake, I think it was, suggested that the scarcity of MSS which are directly related to each other by descent might be due to a practice of destroying an exemplar after it was copied. Vincent Broman, code 786 Bayside Email: broman@nosc.mil Naval Command Control and Ocean Surveillance Center, RDT&E Div. San Diego, CA 92152-6147, USA Phone: +1 619 553 1641 === PGP protected mail preferred. For public key finger broman@np.nosc.mil === From majordom Wed Mar 27 23:57:46 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA08168; Wed, 27 Mar 1996 23:57:46 +0500 Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 23:54:52 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: MS survival In-Reply-To: <9603271905.AA11369@Np.nosc.mil> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 3783 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu On Wed, 27 Mar 1996, Vincent Broman wrote: > We know the count of MS survivors, this is plotted in Aland's introductory > book, but we don't know directly the count of MSS produced in a century, > nor the rate of destruction/loss. We at least can rightly assume less than 100% survival in any given century. Also, we can generally assume a greater survival rate of vellum MSS over papyri. In those centuries where large numbers of MSS survive (i.e. the era of the minuscules) we can assume a proportional survival rate which is greater by far than for those centuries with only 1/100th of that number surviving. Even though no hard and fast counts can be estimated from such incomplete data, there is a definite use which can be made of that type of information. > Production might be estimated from growth in Church population, > changes in the distribution of Greek-speakers, and estimates > of the useful lifetime of a MS which suffers no catastrophe. This all would be a worthy target. The first two cases might suffer from lack of data, but the last point, assuming vellum, would fit in well with the ca.500 years or more which I previously suggested. Papyri, on the other hand, would still have a useful life of only 30-40 years in most cases, if good care were taken. Heavy usage would definitely shorten papyri life, but not that of vellum. > The proportion of MSS that survive each century would depend on > the MS material, on whether on not book-burnings occur, climate, > and usage of the MS, at least. Include loss by natural disaster and accident as well (one good rainstorm could destroy a papyrus MS or seriously damage text on a vellum MS if proper care were not taken). Climate is disastrous to papyri outside of Egypt, but high humidity, mold, and mildew could also seriously harm vellum MSS as well. > S Lake, I think it was, suggested that the scarcity of MSS which are > directly related to each other by descent might be due to a practice of > destroying an exemplar after it was copied. This claim was made in HTR 1928, based upon their sample collations of numerous MSS in Mt. Athos and Jerusalem. The evidence showed no genealogical connection among the minuscules collated (and only minuscules were collated for that project), which led Lake, Blake and New (not S. Lake, who was then Silva New before she married Kirsopp Lake) to postulate that scribes usually destroyed their exemplar after a fresh copy was made. That statement gives rise to certain problems, which D.A. Carson addressed in his critique of Pickering in his "KJV Debate" volume (Baker, 1978). Taken strictly, this would reduce to the absurdity that only one MS of any Greek NT book could ever exist *;-) Obviously, such was not the case. While SOME exemplars may have been destroyed for various reasons (and I can suggest some), it is not reasonable to assume that such a practice occurred with great frequency, even during the minuscule era alone. Yet, if the known minuscule MSS appear to show little or no genealogical connection, based upon their collations, then the basic assumption will tend to be their relative independence as witnesses to the text of the NT. The real issue involves explaining how those MSS may have become genealogically "independent" and yet still fit into the normal stream of transmissional history; that is part of what I intend to do in my forthcoming paper on the non-existence of early Byzantine MSS. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From majordom Fri Mar 29 00:02:10 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA14139; Fri, 29 Mar 1996 00:02:10 +0500 Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1996 00:01:57 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Adair" X-Sender: jadair@scholar To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: autographs and archetypes In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 2757 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu On Tue, 26 Mar 1996, Maurice Robinson wrote: > As to the "fundamental question": can we reconstruct the archetype from the > MSS we now have, the issue revolves around the degree of certainty sought. > If you are looking for 100% certainty, then no one alive and no one MS can > offer that certainty. If you will accept 90% certainty (i.e., for 90% of > the text we are 100% certain of the autograph reading), then that is > basically agreed upon by all text-critical schools. > > ... > > Even when all this is taken into account, the remaining passages where > "certainty" is not present still divide into two or three primary readings > in each case, and we all know (barring those who would advocate pure > conjectural readings) that the autograph reading resides among those two or > three readings; so in theory 100% certainty is "attainable", though in > practice our attempts will always fall slighlty short of that goal unless > one invokes special revelation. Textual critics need to maintain the distinction between the autograph (i.e., the "original" document) and the archetype (i.e., the ms that is the most immediate ancestor of all extant mss). Though they may be identical, it is by no means certain that they are in every, or in any, case. To assert that archetype=autograph is a faith statement. I raise again the spectre of Hort's "primitive corruptions," because they always lurk behind the text. It is irrelevant whether someone "advocates" conjectural readings, because in some instances, admittedly probably only a small number, the "original" reading may not be recoverable, and text critics have to admit that. Do extant texts preserve all the original readings, so that the industrious scholar can theoretically piece together all the readings of the autograph? I don't see any reason to think so. Who is to say that several copies were made of every autograph? Or who can say for certain that some ms family lines, like some branches on a human family tree, didn't play out after one or two generations? The most textual critics can hope to reconstruct is the archetype, not the autograph, of any given book, at least if we claim to rely on any semblance of scientific model, but this archetype may lie one or more generations beyond the autograph. Reconstructed hypothetical "autographs" _may_ require conjectures, but these are hardly scientific. (Note that I am leaving aside for now the whole question of "original" readings and if every NT book has a single autograph.) Jimmy Adair Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press and Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site ---------------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu <----------------- From majordom Fri Mar 29 01:07:11 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA14287; Fri, 29 Mar 1996 01:07:11 +0500 Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1996 01:06:59 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Adair" X-Sender: jadair@scholar To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Is 40:6 In-Reply-To: <960325144657_454401988@emout04.mail.aol.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 780 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Of course the letters W)MR reflect either pf 3ms or impf 1cs, so the reading of the LXX doesn't imply any different Vorlage than that found in the MT. The vowel letters of 1QIsa-a suggest a 1cs reading. I once heard James Sanders talk about this verse, and he pointed out that the LXX reading here may be more a reflection of the relatively "free" translation technique in Isaiah than of the translator's understanding of the Vorlage. Notice that the LXX adds the vocative IEREIS in v. 2, so the speaker in v. 6 may be one of the priests referred to earlier. Jimmy Adair Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press and Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site ---------------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu <----------------- From majordom Fri Mar 29 02:40:54 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA14420; Fri, 29 Mar 1996 02:40:54 +0500 Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1996 02:37:57 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: autographs and archetypes In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 9920 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu On Fri, 29 Mar 1996, James R. Adair wrote: > Textual critics need to maintain the distinction between the autograph > (i.e., the "original" document) and the archetype (i.e., the ms that > is the most immediate ancestor of all extant mss). Though they may be > identical, it is by no means certain that they are in every, or in any, > case. To assert that archetype=autograph is a faith statement. This is partly due to the underlying presuppositions of the eclectic schools, which also are "faith" statements. It comes down to a matter of probability, viz., is it more likely that the autograph = archetype in a textual tradition which quantitatively and qualitatively surpasses all other classical secular literature, or is it more likely that the autograph <> archetype, and that only an archetype of later stages of transmission can be restored, perhaps only the archetypes of individual texttypes, with no hope of going beyond that to the actual autograph. Even though the competing presuppositions underlying each text-critical viewpoint may be "faith" assumptions, I would argue de minorem ad majorem, and suggest that, since classical scholars consider their textual restoration, made with far less extant data than we possess for the the NT, to be the restoration of the autograph and not the archetype in almost every situation, it is only a peculiarly biased viewpoint which would not think the abundance of evidence would bring us closer to and not further away from that goal. Quite frankly, if the papyri had not turned up, or if they had presented a nearly pure Alexandrian text rather than the "mixture" now seen in them, I suspect that the argument from modern eclectics would be that archetype _must_ equal autograph. Though coming from a different perspective, the pro-Byzantine position _does_ take that very view, and is in conformity with the normal classical approach to textual criticism. > I raise > again the spectre of Hort's "primitive corruptions," because they always > lurk behind the text. I question that assumption entirely. Why "always"? There seems to be a presumption of non-authenticity which prevails in such an assumption. Why not a presumption that, unless some demonstration of inauthenticity can be _proven_, the text should be considered basically "authentic" and of autograph originality. To do otherwise will make a mockery of the labors of textual critics, since anyone can then argue that, even in places where there are NO textual variants, that the original "could not have so read." This in fact is precisely the Muslim approach to the OT and NT, which they consider extremely "corrupted" from the pure Torah and Injil delivered by Moses and Jesus -- just the phrase "son of God" is urged in proof of that assertion, and no textual variant is in view. Even if the "spectre of primitive corruption" is only invoked in places where there are variant readings and where interpretation is difficult, this still makes its own "faith presumption" regarding the transmission of the text. Based upon the data we have and the care with which the bulk of it was preserved (and I am talking about the 90% of the text in all MSS of all texttypes which is basically certain), there is no reason why a presupposition postulating primitive error need be maintained. If we only had 10 or 12 MSS extant, of varying texttypes, such a presupposition might be possible; but with the evidence we presently possess, I see a greater faith assumption on the part of those who propose primitive error than on those who presuppose the autograph text certainly to reside somewhere among our extant MSS and their variant readings. > It is irrelevant whether someone "advocates" > conjectural readings, because in some instances, admittedly probably only > a small number, the "original" reading may not be recoverable, and text > critics have to admit that. Only some NT textual critics make a place for conjecture within the text of the NT. Most handbooks rule such a practice out entirely. > Do extant texts preserve all the original readings, so that the > industrious scholar can theoretically piece together all the readings of > the autograph? I don't see any reason to think so. Why not? What is there in the process of copying which you think would cause the original reading at any given point to be _utterly_ wiped out in ALL derived witnesses and no longer preserved within the vast number of continuous text MSS, lectionaries, versional data, or patristic data? No other work of antiquity has such a wealth of support, and no classical scholar would suggest that primitive error were likely in such a situation. Further, as mentioned above, if primitive error can be suspected in _some_ places where variation occurs, what is there to prevent suspicion of primitive error even in places where _no_ variation occurs? There is no legitimate boundary which restricts such a presupposition from being applied anywhere once one does not happen to agree with or understand the text. > Who is to say that > several copies were made of every autograph? No one can say this for certain. My own view of apostolic authority and the evangelistic intent of communication transcending the single recipients of the autograph MSS leads me to suppose that at least the one autograph copy which arrived at, say, Colossae, was soon copied at least once (obviously, or we would have NO extant copies), and either from the autograph or from the first copy made other copies were made soon thereafter. My guess is for more rapid multiplication in the initial stages, while comparison or copying from the autograph was possible; but thus is not a necessity in any event. If only two or three copies were made from an autograph directly, there would be sufficient data for the text of that book both to spread, become corrupt in various ways during the popular text era, and then by later cross-correction to move back to the restoration of the autograph text as the originally divergent "families" re-converged during the correction process once free communication and the legitimacy of the chuch had been recognized within the Empire. > Or who can say for certain > that some ms family lines, like some branches on a human family tree, > didn't play out after one or two generations? Certainly this did happen to many family lines of transmission. Transmissional history is not an unbroken stemma, but has various dead ends. Some of those dead ends may be reflected in a portion of our extant MSS, which were never used as exemplars or to correct a second MS (which MSS these are, of course, is indeterminate). However, my claim is simply that a sufficient number of lines of transmission did exist so as to preserve the autograph reading in one or more of those lines; most of the time in all of those lines. > The most textual critics > can hope to reconstruct is the archetype, not the autograph, of any given > book, at least if we claim to rely on any semblance of scientific model, > but this archetype may lie one or more generations beyond the autograph. Agreed that the goal is to reconstruct an archetype. But, if there is merit in the hypothesis that the primary archetype is the autograph, then there is no reason to suppose that only archetypes of later stages of transmission can be restored, but never the archetype of the autograph. Most textual critics would probably agree that the archetype of the Byzantine Textform can basically be restored. If that archetype is held to be identical or nearly so to the autographical archetype, there is a hypothesis which is put forth and needs to be tested in the light of all data. On the assumption that texttype archetype would NOT equal the autograph, then we would end up with the peculiar situation of being quite able to restore some form of primitive archetype for the Byzantine, Alexandrian, Western, and Caesarean texttypes, but would be utterly incapable of going beyond that to a postulation of the autograph archetype. This is highly illogical, and inconsistent with the data preserved to us in the extant witnesses. Even most reasoned eclectics think that the current critical text basically is equivalent to the autograph, since it obviously is not restoring _any_ texttypical "archetype," due to its "mixed" character. If the current critical texts are not considered to be restoring the autograph archetype, then why did they not merely present the text of B-Aleph and leave it at that? > Reconstructed hypothetical "autographs" _may_ require conjectures, but > these are hardly scientific. What is unscientific about a reconstruction of the autograph based upon the extant data as opposed to the reconstruction of the archetype of a texttype based upon the extant data? Why is conjecture or suspicion of "primitive error" needed in the first case, but not so in the second case? There still seems to be a double standard and illogic at work, and it goes back to the "faith presupposition" underlying this type of theory, but not my own. > (Note that I am leaving aside for now the whole question of "original" > readings and if every NT book has a single autograph.) Yes, the discussion here is of archetypes, which is wholly different from individual variant readings. There are theories as to whether, e.g., Acts, may have had two or more "editions" which would account for the wide variation between the Alexandrian and Western texts of that book, etc., but this also is not in view here. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From majordom Sat Mar 30 16:05:56 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA21552; Sat, 30 Mar 1996 16:05:56 +0500 Message-Id: <199603302102.QAA28507@mail-e2b-service.gnn.com> X-Mailer: GNNmessenger 1.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 30 Mar 1996 16:04:50 From: Aruss1193@gnn.com (Anthony/Audra Russell) To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Subject: Re: Mt 6:13 Content-Length: 504 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu In a textbook called _The New Testament: Proclamation and Parenesis, Myth and History_ by Dennis C. Duling and Norman Perrin there is a fascinating discussion of The Lord's Prayer. The book uses it in the first chapter as an example to look at several different types of critism. Although, its kind of elementary it does give a nice survey of the subject. *********************************************** Anthony and Audra Russell Sunnyside, NY aruss1193@gnn.com aud1anth@aol.com From majordom Sun Mar 31 12:36:18 1996 Return-Path: Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA24390; Sun, 31 Mar 1996 12:36:18 +0500 Message-Id: <26033111331232@vms2.macc.wisc.edu> Date: Sun, 31 Mar 96 11:33 CDT From: Michael V. Fox Subject: Bibliographical request To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu X-Vms-To: IN%" tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu",MICHAELFOX Content-Length: 552 Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Has anyone come across an article by M.P. Weitzman, "Peshitta, Septuagint, and Targum"? If so, I would appreciate full biblio info. (If Dr Weitzman is reading this, perhaps he could send me an offprint.) I am also looking for R. Owens's "The relationship between the Targum and Peshitta..." Perhaps that's already appeared in Targum Studies. Thanking you in advance, ---------------------------------------------------------- Michael V. Fox Professor of Hebrew University of Wisconsin 1220 Linden Drive Madison, WI 53706