From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Apr 1 00:48:30 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id AAA03222; Tue, 1 Apr 1997 00:48:29 -0500 Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 00:49:12 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Eph 5:9 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 16123 On Mon, 31 Mar 1997, Robert B. Waltz wrote: > >Since I believe I have provided a reasonable response to the example, I > >would suggest that there is no "example", let alone "rule" in view. > > It's a strong point, too -- Colwell showed that harmonization to > immediate context is very common. > > I think, to finally settle the matter, we would have to determine > how often the "fruits of the spirit" phrase in Galatians was quoted. > If it is frequently cited in ancient times, then harmonization could > have occurred. (I would point out that harmonization need not > even apply to parallels within scripture. Harmonization generally > applies to *the most familiar text,* scriptural or otherwise.) Which is why so many people are 100% certain that "God helps those who help themselves" is in the Bible, even though they aren't sure where. :-) Neither NA26 nor Von Soden give any patristic writers on either side in the case of Eph.5:9, so I suspect there are none of note. There is no variant at Gal.5:22, so no data there either. However, I would not claim that frequency of citation in patristic writers would settle the issue, since scribes in and of themselves may not have been devout readers of technical patristic theological treatises, but would be more drawn to sermonic or devotional material (remember Codex Ephraemi is "rescriptus" because a scribe deemed the _sermons_ of Ephraem more important than the uncial biblical text, and who knows what scribes may have thought about patristic treatises, except when they were directed to copy such. I suspect we would not easily find a treatise of Tertullian overwriting biblical documents or sermonic/devotional material). Since most sermons were not written down in antiquity, who knows how often such a passage may have been cited beyond whatever appearance it may have had in the annual lectionary cycle. Scripture memorization among monks would have been primarily in the Psalms and the Gospels (some monks of course did memorize the entire NT or even the Bible). Familiarity with recurring passages in the lectionary cycle _could_ make a passage or phrase more familiar. Regarding lectionary usage, I would have to check Gregory's or Scrivener's lists to see whether the Galatians or Ephesians passages were read more than once during the liturgical year; I suspect no more than one reading of either passage, however, and, since no special mention was made in N26 of the lectionary readings in Eph.5:9, I suspect it agrees with the Byzantine reading there. As a parallel, it would also be interesting to see whether the peculiar phrase "fruit of light" was ever quoted in any context by the lectionaries or patristic writers or any extra-biblical source. From my limited reading in the fathers and non-biblical sources, I confess that I have _never_ encountered the phrase. My own inclination is that such a phrase was never so quoted, but of course I could be wrong.... > >I of course exempt the Byzantine Textform from this blanket allegation. > Why? If you refuse to examine the matter, then we cannot take you > seriously. Of course, you can examine a list of examples, and say, > "No, this is not a harmonization." But if you refuse in advance to > consider the question, then your results *have no meaning.* This is not a refusal to consider the question, but a matter of the entire view of transmissional history which underlies a Byzantine-priority theory. Should a parallel passage in Matthew and Mark happen to agree in wording with _no_ variation in any texttype, that (as all scholars know) is _not_ something caused by the scribes, but by the original writers of each respective gospel, and is a matter for higher critical investigation. If (under a Byzantine-priority hypothesis) the Byzantine Textform = the autograph, it then also = whatever "harmonized" common text might appear in those autographs, just as in places where no units of variation exist. Merely because in such situations the Byzantine Textform happens to read identically between, say, Matthew and Mark where the Alexandrian may happen to vary, does _not_ allow an automatic presumption of deliberate harmonization by the scribes of the Byzantine MSS. It is fully to be expected that the claim of Byzantine-priority would _have_ to maintain that its text has _not_ been "harmonized" in any way, especially not in a direction supposedly _away from_ a non-harmonistic Alexandrian or Western alternative, since that would then obliterate any Byzantine-priority claim and make something else the archetype reading, and if the Byzantine text is not the archetype, the theory is dead and we are back at square one. In a similar manner, the places where the Alexandrian and Western texttypes present a harmonizing text differing from the non-harmonizing Byzantine Textform are considered (under the view of Byzantine priority) to in fact be _real_ harmonizations which departed from the non-harmonizing Byzantine original. All this goes part and parcel with what a theory of Byzantine-priority implies, and is in no way intended to be a refusal to examine the question. On the contrary, _every_ alleged harmonization within the Byzantine Textform is a reading which needs to be examined and defended, just as with any other reading in any other unit of variation. > >Certainly _some_ MSS within the Byzantine MSS _did_ harmonize from time to > >time, but I still maintain that wholesale harmonization, adopted and > >perpetuated by virtually all MSS of the Byzantine Textform, simply did > >_not_ occur. The reason is simple: if the Byzantine Textform indeed > >reflects the overarching "original archetype", then it would not be > >expected to hold harmonizations in common unless such apparent > >harmonizations were the intent of the original authors. > > This is assuming the solution. You *may* be correct. But you are not > offering evidence. Certainly, the evidence can readily be offered on a case-by-case basis, with the cumulative effect of the defense of the Byzantine reading leading to the desired conclusion. However, there really is _no_ difference between the claim made in regard to my own position and that of the modern eclectics, who in almost all cases claim (from within their perspective) that the Byzantine text continually harmonizes, while all those places where the Alexandrian text happens to agree with parallel passages in other gospels and the Byzantine text differs are quietly ignored and their "harmonizing" variant text remains _accepted and intact_ within their own editions (one need only look at the Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum to see this very point illustrated repeatedly in parallel columns). It of course would be absurd to suggest that a rule such as "prefer every non-harmonizing reading, regardless of texttype" be imposed, else we take the criterion of dissimilarity to a ridiculous level and end up with a horrible text, regardless of theory or preference. Yet to suggest that the need to remain consistent within one's theoretical perspective is somehow a "refusal" to consider the evidence simply crosses the proper bounds of logic and scientific method. _All_ theories have to function properly within their own parameters, else they would already be invalid. Were I to maintain that the Byzantine Text as established by a Byzantine-priority method indeed _does_ have harmonizations within it, then I would be admitting that my theory is no theory at all. I hope you see the point. We can look at any cases of alleged "Byzantine harmonization" all you want, and evaluate the data on the basis of external and internal criteria, just as with any variant unit; such examination in no way refuses the fair and just examination of all the evidence. However, _if_ a Byzantine-priority model is correct, then it is only to be expected that the conclusion drawn by its advocates from those external and internal criteria, especially when viewed from within a solid transmissional-historical theory, will _have_ to conclude that the Byzantine reading is original and will need to successfully defend that position on the basis of the evidence. This seems to me no different than what any modern eclectic claim to originality would have to do. I am not surprised that the interpretation of the data in such cases by modern eclectics is designed precisely to support their own intended end; no one should be surprised that my own Byzantine defense will similarly fall in line with the complete overarching theory which underlies that case. > >Also, if the Byzantine scribes had such a "harmonistic bent" (Fee's > >words), then we should expect to find parallel passages among at least the > >synoptic gospels in near-total harmony among the Byzantine MSS, since to > >allow disharmony to remain would be contrary to their supposed "usual" > >practice; this of course is not the case, and in itself demonstrates that > >there was no major tendency among Byzantine-era scribes to harmonize > >parallel passages, but if any did so, the normal processes of comparison > >and correction against other exemplars would weed out the harmonistic > >corruptions within a relatively few copying generations. > > This is false logic. For one thing, the *primary* characteristic of the > Byzantine scribes was conservatism; they did their best to preserve the > readings before them. This is precisely my own point in defending the readings found in the Byzantine Textform -- if they indeed _were_ so conservative, then they would _not_ en masse have harmonized, would _not_ en masse have accepted the "easier" readings, would _not_ en masse have conflated, etc., etc. If they in fact did precisely what you said, and _preserved_ the readings before them at almost all times and places and in every copying generation, then the _only_ result to be expected would be a near-total uniformity of text in those Byzantine MSS -- a uniformity which would stem from the autograph (Hort's "theoretical presumption once more). So with this statement regarding Byzantine "conservatism", I am in wholehearted agreement. Thank you. Now in light of this excellent statement, _please_ explain how my preceding quoted statement in any way is "false logic", since what I say in that preceding paragraph seems to tally precisely with what you have just said.... > Occasionally the urge to harmonization might > overwhelm them -- but certainly not always. Besides, nobody could > possibly remember all the texts to harmonize them. Even if they could, > they might harmonize in different directions. Fully agreed, especially if you are talking about the Byzantine Textform. Harmonization, whether in individual Byzantine MSS or in the Alexandrian or Western MSS was _sporadic_, as I stated above. Harmonizing readings _did_ occur in individual MSS and even spread among localized texttypes to various degrees (i.e. the Alexandrian, Western or Caesarean); but such harmonizations did _not_ gain a dominant foothold among the vast majority of MSS in any copying generation. Presuming a Byzantine-priority hypothesis, passages in the Byzantine Textform which reflect identity of reading in parallel places are no more harmonizations than similar parallels between the gospels where _no_ variation otherwise occurs. > This process has actually been observed in oral tradition. I can't > place my hands on the example at the moment, but I know it's there. We of course are not dealing with oral tradition in the case of manuscript transmission, though I will agree that oral tradition, especially in regard to the sayings of Jesus, _did_ play a part in maintaining a certain identity of reading among the synoptic gospels -- but again, this is a matter of higher criticism, and not directly related to the actual transmission of the written text per se. > Two siblings had learned the same song from their father. They both > also knew a related song. Both "harmonized" the two slightly. One > harmonized it more than the other; neither harmonized completely. > But in neither instance did they produce a fully harmonized version. > "Lizie Wan" was still "Lizie Wan," not "Edward." (And don't ask > about those songs, folks. They're both about murder, and one of > them involves incest as well....) And this obviously helps to explain Matthew, Mark, and Luke as (to some degree) "theme and variations". To return to the song analogy, "Lizzie Wan" never (so far as I suspect) had to deal with an "Edward" variant, so it is no surprise that "Lizzie Wan" won out. However, what if a song like "De Camptown Races" gets established in oral and written tradition? It will be _exceedingly_ difficult to ever find anyone singing "Hoo Hah" instead of "Doo Dah" -- yet Alan Sherman did just that, for those who remember "My Son the Folk Singer. But even though Sherman sang "Hoo Hah", it did _not_ replace the original form of the text, since there is far too much oral and written tradition opposing such a change. This is a similar conservatism to what obtains in the transmission of the biblical documents, so far as I can see. > >Should I _like_ the word "ilk"? Or does it have a certain degree of > >negative connotation like "brood"? > > I simply meant it to refer to those who accept Byzantine priority. Perhaps > it means something different to you, but in my Midwestern-influenced- > by-Medieval-English vocabulary, it implies "a typical but upstanding > example." I guess that's the difference down here in the South (Doo Dah Doo Dah). We usually use "ilk" in the sense of not liking someone of his ilk -- nothing upstanding about such a fellow....Regional Semantics! > I'd need to see the results before I can accept them blindly. Most definitely Wisselink should be read, and his 4-volumes of data if possible. > Frankly, > too much textual criticism is done by following the dogmatic results of > earlier scholars. (There, at least, Maurice Robinson and I agree fully.) > Is there any hope of commercial publication (read: Something a non- > professional in this field can afford)? Commercial publication of _what_? Wisselink's 4 volumes of data? Other "new" material or reprints of older material? Prices already are too high for books for the non-professional (not to mention us "professionals"), but electronic media do offer a less expensive method and might reflect the wave of the future if commercialism and proprietariness don't get in the way. > >Wisselink's data points to the Byzantine Textform as being the most > >free of harmonization/assimilation in the Gospels. I suspect that this > >is not the result you were expecting. > > If true and verifiable, it is not the result I was expecting. And, > if true, I at least would have to significantly re-think my position. I am certain someone else on this list has examined Wisselink and could confirm some of my claims (e.g. Keith Elliott?). The problem once more is that Wisselink's work has not been printed in quantity and few there are that find it. I have his one-volume edition and could quote conclusions from it if desired. > With the footnote, of course, that the results must be broad spectrum. > Examples are *not* sufficient. I thought that the broad spectrum was what you were initially criticizing in my approach at the beginning of this post. If examples are not sufficient, then what is? -- the transmissional theory presumed? Suffice it to say that Wisselink's published volume deals with examples and theory, but the full listing of all examples is only to be found in those unpublished supplementary volumes (and Wisselink _does_ cover the synoptic gospels in exceedingly minute detail). You're still getting better, Bob....agreeing with me ever so slightly more often, and probably enjoying it less. :-) _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Apr 1 02:35:29 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id CAA03303; Tue, 1 Apr 1997 02:35:29 -0500 From: REElliott@aol.com Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 02:36:11 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <970401023610_-1403359549@emout13.mail.aol.com> To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Rev 12:18 & Peshitta Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 397 In a message dated 97-03-27 16:56:47 EST, you write: << (Recall that the Peshitta does not include the Apocalypse.) >> Sorry if this is redundant, but according to Metzger (Textual Commentary p. 748) "The Textus Receptus, following P, 046, 051 most minuscules syr p h, cop sa bo, al reads kai estaqhn..." The Syriac Peshitta and Harclean Syriac are both listed, so who is correct? Rich Elliott From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Apr 1 04:37:17 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id EAA03423; Tue, 1 Apr 1997 04:37:17 -0500 From: willrut@uni-muenster.de Message-Id: <199704010937.LAA31674@mail.uni-muenster.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Fri, 28 Mar 97 15:38:47 +0100 Subject: Re: Rev 12:18 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 987 On Thu, 27 Mar 1997, Maurice Robinson brought forth a vivid defence of the majority reading ESTAQHN over the competing minority reading ESTAQH in Rev 12:18. In this post I do not wish to opt for one or the other reading. I simply wish to know, if I got Maurices's argument right. The latter reading ["estaqhn"] appears to have arisen when copyists accommodated "estaqh" to the first person of the following "eidon". The problem with this view is that the 3rd person singular reading "he stood", if original, appears sensible, and _could_ fit the context and flow of the narrative. It thus would _not_ be a likely subject of alteration if original; and it certainly would _not_ have been likely to have been altered merely to accommodate to the 1st person singular ostensibly because a verb in the following clause was also in the first person -- at least not as long as the passage with "esthqh" "made sense" in some fashion without the need for any alteration. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Apr 1 07:54:44 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id HAA03834; Tue, 1 Apr 1997 07:54:44 -0500 From: willrut@uni-muenster.de Message-Id: <199704011255.OAA66990@mail.uni-muenster.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Tue, 01 Apr 97 15:09:40 +0100 Subject: Re: Eph 5:9 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2001 On Mon 31 Mar 1997, Maurice Robinson wrote (inter alia): [quoting Waltz:] >>And even if NA27, etc. had complete apparati (sic), we cannot rely on >>impressions. What is needed is a precise study of the rate of >>harmonizations, etc. I don't think that has ever been done. >Wisselink once more is suggested, but not his published volume (which >contains only the text portion of his doctoral research in the >Netherlands), but the four large volumes of data which Wisselink also has >made available in photocopied form for sale, but at great expense. I don't >even have them myself, but was able to spend some time with them while in >Kampen in 1989, and was greatly impressed with his statistics on this >matter. I don't know exactly what Maurice's "four volumes of data" consisted of he reportedly saw in Kampen in 1989. The Muenster *Institut* holds a copy of Wisselink's published dissertation called *Assimilation as a criterion for the establishment of the text. A comparative study on the basis of passages from Matthew, Mark and Luke; Kampen 1989*. The *Institut* holds another unpublished (or privately published) copy of three volumes under the same header: *Assimilation as...Matthew, Mark and Luke; Annex 1: The collations, Kampen 1987*, *Assimilation...; Annex 2: The tables, Kampen 1987*, *Assimilation...Annex 3: The comparison, Kampen 1987*. Just as a guess: Maurice saw Wisselink's published dissertation and the three annexes in Kampen which makes up a total of four volumes. [quoting Waltz:] >>I feel fairly sure I know the results. But they have not been >>proved. >Wisselink's data points to the Byzantine Textform as being the most >free of harmonization/assimilation in the Gospels. I suspect that this >is not the result you were expecting. Maurice, could you please add the relevant quotation from Wisselink's published dissertation displaying THIS result? I must confess, I couldn't find it, neither in one of Wisselink's annexes. Ulrich Schmid, Muenster From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Apr 1 07:57:26 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id HAA03851; Tue, 1 Apr 1997 07:57:26 -0500 From: schmiul@uni-muenster.de Message-Id: <199704011258.OAA43022@mail.uni-muenster.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Tue, 01 Apr 97 15:12:26 +0100 Subject: Re: Eph 5:9 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 143 Sorry, again I did not check the correct return address for my previous post. Please, IGNORE willrut@uni.muenster.de Ulrich Schmid, Muenster From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Apr 1 09:30:52 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA04253; Tue, 1 Apr 1997 09:30:52 -0500 Message-Id: <199704011428.IAA08065@endeavor.flash.net> From: "Perry L. Stepp" To: , Subject: p64+67 available on net? Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 07:12:08 -0600 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 726 A question: is there a transcription or .gif of p64+67 available anywhere on the net? (I'd certainly prefer a transcription, given the choice.) I've looked at the Duke collection on Perseus--it's possible that p64+67 is there, and I've just missed it. Or is it somewhere else? Grace and peace, Perry L. Stepp ************************************************************ Pastor, DeSoto Christian Church, DeSoto TX Ph.D. candidate, Baylor University "A system of morality which is based on relative emotional values is a mere illusion, a thoroughly vulgar conception which has nothing sound in it and nothing true." Phaedo 69b *********************************************************** From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Apr 1 10:04:36 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA06114; Tue, 1 Apr 1997 10:04:35 -0500 Message-Id: <9704011604.AA01316@iris.arcadis.be> Subject: Re: Rev 12:18 & Peshitta Date: Tue, 1 Apr 97 17:08:38 +0200 X-Sender: vale5655@194.111.178.251 X-Mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1 From: Jean VALENTIN To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1182 > ><< (Recall that the Peshitta does not include the Apocalypse.) >> >Sorry if this is redundant, but according to Metzger (Textual Commentary p. >748) "The Textus Receptus, following P, 046, 051 most minuscules syr p h, cop >sa bo, al reads kai estaqhn..." The Syriac Peshitta and Harclean Syriac are >both listed, so who is correct? >Rich Elliott > You'll notice that there's no space or point or comma between the p and the h that are put above the abbreviation syr. So you must read, not "p and h" but "ph" which is the abbreviation for "philoxenian". Greetings, Jean V. ________________________________________________________________ Jean Valentin - 58/7 rue Van Kalck - 1080 Bruxelles - BELGIQUE ________________________________________________________________ email : jgvalentin@arcadis.be *** netmail : 2:291/780.103 ________________________________________________________________ Ce qui est trop simple est faux, ce qui est trop complique est inutilisable. What's too simple is wrong, what's too complicated is unusable. Wat te eenvoudig is, is verkeerd; wat te ingewikkeld is, is onbruikbaar. ________________________________________________________________ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Apr 1 10:14:12 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA06143; Tue, 1 Apr 1997 10:14:11 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 09:20:47 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Eph 5:9 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 15278 On Tue, 1 Apr 1997, Maurice Robinson wrote: >On Mon, 31 Mar 1997, Robert B. Waltz wrote: > >> >Since I believe I have provided a reasonable response to the example, I >> >would suggest that there is no "example", let alone "rule" in view. >> >> It's a strong point, too -- Colwell showed that harmonization to >> immediate context is very common. >> >> I think, to finally settle the matter, we would have to determine >> how often the "fruits of the spirit" phrase in Galatians was quoted. >> If it is frequently cited in ancient times, then harmonization could >> have occurred. (I would point out that harmonization need not >> even apply to parallels within scripture. Harmonization generally >> applies to *the most familiar text,* scriptural or otherwise.) > >Which is why so many people are 100% certain that "God helps those who >help themselves" is in the Bible, even though they aren't sure where. :-) I've even encountered someone (not a Christian) who thought "God fights on the side with the heaviest artillery" was Biblical. >Neither NA26 nor Von Soden give any patristic writers on either side in >the case of Eph.5:9, so I suspect there are none of note. There is no >variant at Gal.5:22, so no data there either. But this is the fact we need: How often did people cite that passage? Only by knowing how familiar it is can we determine whether people would harmonize to it. I concede Robinson's argument (omitted) that it is hard to tell how well-known a passage is. But it is a crucial question here. [ ... ] >As a parallel, it would also be interesting to see whether the peculiar >phrase "fruit of light" was ever quoted in any context by the lectionaries >or patristic writers or any extra-biblical source. From my limited >reading in the fathers and non-biblical sources, I confess that I have >_never_ encountered the phrase. My own inclination is that such a phrase >was never so quoted, but of course I could be wrong.... I agree, for whatever it's worth. >> >I of course exempt the Byzantine Textform from this blanket allegation. > >> Why? If you refuse to examine the matter, then we cannot take you >> seriously. Of course, you can examine a list of examples, and say, >> "No, this is not a harmonization." But if you refuse in advance to >> consider the question, then your results *have no meaning.* > >This is not a refusal to consider the question, but a matter of the entire >view of transmissional history which underlies a Byzantine-priority >theory. Should a parallel passage in Matthew and Mark happen to agree in >wording with _no_ variation in any texttype, that (as all scholars know) >is _not_ something caused by the scribes, but by the original writers of >each respective gospel, and is a matter for higher critical investigation. Agreed. >If (under a Byzantine-priority hypothesis) the Byzantine Textform = the >autograph, it then also = whatever "harmonized" common text might appear >in those autographs, just as in places where no units of variation exist. >Merely because in such situations the Byzantine Textform happens to read >identically between, say, Matthew and Mark where the Alexandrian may >happen to vary, does _not_ allow an automatic presumption of deliberate >harmonization by the scribes of the Byzantine MSS. Agreed again, but it's *still* assuming the solution. The matter cannot be investigated from that standpoint. [ ... ] >It of course would be absurd to suggest that a rule such as "prefer every >non-harmonizing reading, regardless of texttype" be imposed, else we take >the criterion of dissimilarity to a ridiculous level and end up with a >horrible text, regardless of theory or preference. Yet to suggest that the >need to remain consistent within one's theoretical perspective is somehow >a "refusal" to consider the evidence simply crosses the proper bounds of >logic and scientific method. _All_ theories have to function properly >within their own parameters, else they would already be invalid. Were I to >maintain that the Byzantine Text as established by a Byzantine-priority >method indeed _does_ have harmonizations within it, then I would be >admitting that my theory is no theory at all. I hope you see the point. I see what you are saying. And I do not argue that we must always accept the least harmonious reading. I am simply saying (and this criticism applies just as much to blind followers of Hort as to followers of the Byzantine text) that *wherever* there is a variant involving one or more harmonized readings, and one or more disharmonized readings, we must initially evaluate the readings without examining the text-types they belong to. Note that I am working at the very lowest level here. I am *not* trying to determine the original text. I am trying to determine the age and value of the Byzantine text (and the other text-types). Only once that investigation is completed can we start on the original text. To put it another way, Robinson and I are operating at different levels. He has reached a conclusion about the original text type. I had reached a different conclusion about that text-type. I am now offering to go back one level, and assume *ignorance* about the text-types. I am not willing to go back and then blindly come over to his side. [ ... ] >> >Also, if the Byzantine scribes had such a "harmonistic bent" (Fee's >> >words), then we should expect to find parallel passages among at least the >> >synoptic gospels in near-total harmony among the Byzantine MSS, since to >> >allow disharmony to remain would be contrary to their supposed "usual" >> >practice; this of course is not the case, and in itself demonstrates that >> >there was no major tendency among Byzantine-era scribes to harmonize >> >parallel passages, but if any did so, the normal processes of comparison >> >and correction against other exemplars would weed out the harmonistic >> >corruptions within a relatively few copying generations. >> >> This is false logic. For one thing, the *primary* characteristic of the >> Byzantine scribes was conservatism; they did their best to preserve the >> readings before them. > >This is precisely my own point in defending the readings found in the >Byzantine Textform -- if they indeed _were_ so conservative, then they >would _not_ en masse have harmonized, would _not_ en masse have accepted >the "easier" readings, would _not_ en masse have conflated, etc., etc. > >If they in fact did precisely what you said, and _preserved_ the readings >before them at almost all times and places and in every copying >generation, then the _only_ result to be expected would be a near-total >uniformity of text in those Byzantine MSS -- a uniformity which would stem >from the autograph (Hort's "theoretical presumption once more). > >So with this statement regarding Byzantine "conservatism", I am in >wholehearted agreement. Thank you. Now in light of this excellent >statement, _please_ explain how my preceding quoted statement in any way >is "false logic", since what I say in that preceding paragraph seems to >tally precisely with what you have just said.... I said *primarily* conservative. They did not set out to create variants. That doesn't mean they *never* did so. We all know that no copyist is perfect. Also, when I refer to the Byzantine copyists as "conservative," I refer to them during the periods during which their actions are visible (which starts in the fourth/fifth century for the gospels, and later in the rest of the NT). We do not know the shape of the materials they worked with prior to that time. Of course, the same statement applies, with differences in date, to all text-types. We know, e.g., that the copyist who produced B, and probably its immediate predecessors, were conservative, because they kept its text close to p75. But we do not know what happened prior to the creation of p75. Most scholars think the forerunners of that manuscript were also conservative and careful. But we *cannot* prove it. [ ... ] >> This process has actually been observed in oral tradition. I can't >> place my hands on the example at the moment, but I know it's there. > >We of course are not dealing with oral tradition in the case of manuscript >transmission, though I will agree that oral tradition, especially in >regard to the sayings of Jesus, _did_ play a part in maintaining a certain >identity of reading among the synoptic gospels -- but again, this is a >matter of higher criticism, and not directly related to the actual >transmission of the written text per se. Not my point. The point is that oral tradition and written tradition display *identical behaviors*. They are both phenomena of the written memory. The difference is simply that in oral tradition the evolution (or devolution) takes place faster, because it is harder to refer back to the "original." But I would bet that I can find examples of *any* textual phenomenon you care to name in Bronson's "Traditional Tunes of the Child Ballads." (Or could, if I had all four volumes, which I don't.) I could probably find all of them just in "Barbara Allen" or "Lord Thomas and Fair Ellen." >> Two siblings had learned the same song from their father. They both >> also knew a related song. Both "harmonized" the two slightly. One >> harmonized it more than the other; neither harmonized completely. >> But in neither instance did they produce a fully harmonized version. >> "Lizie Wan" was still "Lizie Wan," not "Edward." (And don't ask >> about those songs, folks. They're both about murder, and one of >> them involves incest as well....) > >And this obviously helps to explain Matthew, Mark, and Luke as (to some >degree) "theme and variations". To return to the song analogy, "Lizzie >Wan" never (so far as I suspect) had to deal with an "Edward" variant, so >it is no surprise that "Lizzie Wan" won out. However, what if a song like >"De Camptown Races" gets established in oral and written tradition? It >will be _exceedingly_ difficult to ever find anyone singing "Hoo Hah" >instead of "Doo Dah" -- yet Alan Sherman did just that, for those who >remember "My Son the Folk Singer. You'd be amazed at what happens. A collector in Australia found a text which consisted of equal parts of "Marching Through Georgia" and "The Battle Cry of Freedom," using both textual and melodic phrases from both. And yet *both* songs are still sung widely, and *both* are still in print. Errors of the mind are infinite. [ ... ] >> I'd need to see the results before I can accept them blindly. > >Most definitely Wisselink should be read, and his 4-volumes of data if >possible. > >> Frankly, >> too much textual criticism is done by following the dogmatic results of >> earlier scholars. (There, at least, Maurice Robinson and I agree fully.) >> Is there any hope of commercial publication (read: Something a non- >> professional in this field can afford)? > >Commercial publication of _what_? Wisselink's 4 volumes of data? Other >"new" material or reprints of older material? Prices already are too high >for books for the non-professional (not to mention us "professionals"), >but electronic media do offer a less expensive method and might reflect >the wave of the future if commercialism and proprietariness don't get in >the way. Anything. Everything. Electronic publication would be fine. :-) >> >Wisselink's data points to the Byzantine Textform as being the most >> >free of harmonization/assimilation in the Gospels. I suspect that this >> >is not the result you were expecting. >> >> If true and verifiable, it is not the result I was expecting. And, >> if true, I at least would have to significantly re-think my position. > >I am certain someone else on this list has examined Wisselink and could >confirm some of my claims (e.g. Keith Elliott?). The problem once more is >that Wisselink's work has not been printed in quantity and few there are >that find it. The eternal problem of textual criticism. Something needs to be done about this... even if it just means more electronic publication. >I have his one-volume edition and could quote conclusions >from it if desired. I did the only research I could on this last night: I looked up what Daniel Wallace had to say abour Wisselink. He did raise one *very* strong point. He observes that Wisselink compares the Byzantine *text* with individual Alexandrian *witnesses.* Now it is true that the Byzantine text is fairly coherent, and the Alexandrian text is not, so this is the easiest sort of comparison. But it is also a *false* comparison. An individual manuscript will almost certainly have more harmonizations than its text-type. We must compare types against types. >> With the footnote, of course, that the results must be broad spectrum. >> Examples are *not* sufficient. > >I thought that the broad spectrum was what you were initially criticizing >in my approach at the beginning of this post. If examples are not >sufficient, then what is? -- the transmissional theory presumed? Suffice >it to say that Wisselink's published volume deals with examples and >theory, but the full listing of all examples is only to be found in those >unpublished supplementary volumes (and Wisselink _does_ cover the synoptic >gospels in exceedingly minute detail). Perhaps I expressed myself poorly. My point is, one *cannot* quote isolated examples. One must sit down with *some* section of continuous text and examine every reading. In fact, I made a small experiment of that sort last night. I started from Hodges & Farstad (the only text with a reasonably relevant critical apparatus). Taking two sample chapters (from Mark and John), I compared the Byzantine and Alexandrian readings. My *sole* criterion was the internal one, "Which reading best explains the others." The majority of readings were ambiguous. In instances where one reading seemed preferable to the others, it seemed about an even split as to which was preferable, Byzantine or Alexandrian. However, many of these readings were cases where one reading was only slightly preferable. In the handful of cases where one was *clearly* preferable (I think there were five that I noticed before I had to stop), *all five of the preferable readings were Alexandrian.* This is an interesting caution, in that it says that both sides have some of the truth. It also says that we need to study the matter further; I didn't check enough readings to be decisive. But it also says that we need a rigid control procedure; what I think is certainly original may not be what Wisselink thinks is certainly original. It's a problem. But I would recommend the exercise to others; it *was* educational. The difference between Byzantine and Alexandrian is certainly not as clearcut as I thought. >You're still getting better, Bob....agreeing with me ever so slightly more >often, and probably enjoying it less. :-) True on both counts. Although -- even if the process continues -- my resultant theory is likely to resemble Von Soden's or Sturz's. I doubt I will abandon non-Byzantine text-types entirely. Just great... already half the people on this list don't listen to me. Now I'm going to get the other half ignoring me. :-) Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Apr 1 10:14:13 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA06151; Tue, 1 Apr 1997 10:14:12 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <970401023610_-1403359549@emout13.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 08:19:39 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Rev 12:18 & Peshitta Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 899 >In a message dated 97-03-27 16:56:47 EST, you write: > ><< (Recall that the Peshitta does not include the Apocalypse.) >> >Sorry if this is redundant, but according to Metzger (Textual Commentary p. >748) "The Textus Receptus, following P, 046, 051 most minuscules syr p h, cop >sa bo, al reads kai estaqhn..." The Syriac Peshitta and Harclean Syriac are >both listed, so who is correct? p h ph The reading in the commentary is not "syr " but "syr ." That is, it refers to the Philoxenian Syriac. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A very rough draft of part of the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Apr 1 10:18:02 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA06190; Tue, 1 Apr 1997 10:18:01 -0500 Date: Tue, 01 Apr 1997 10:18:23 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: p64+67 available on net? X-Sender: jwest@mail.infoave.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970401101803.19974032@mail.infoave.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 584 At 07:12 AM 4/1/97 -0600, you wrote: >A question: is there a transcription or .gif of p64+67 available anywhere >on the net? (I'd certainly prefer a transcription, given the choice.) >I've looked at the Duke collection on Perseus--it's possible that p64+67 is >there, and I've just missed it. Or is it somewhere else? > Check out http://www.entmp.org. They are an excellent source for such. >Grace and peace, > >Perry L. Stepp > Jim ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@theology.edu From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Apr 1 10:25:18 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA06231; Tue, 1 Apr 1997 10:25:18 -0500 Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 10:25:45 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Rev 12:18 In-Reply-To: <199704010937.LAA31674@mail.uni-muenster.de> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1485 On Fri, 28 Mar 1997 willrut@uni-muenster.de wrote: > On Thu, 27 Mar 1997, Maurice Robinson brought forth a vivid defence of the > majority reading ESTAQHN over the competing minority reading ESTAQH in Rev > 12:18. In this post I do not wish to opt for one or the other reading. I simply > wish to know, if I got Maurices's argument right. [eclectic view from Metzger:] > The latter reading ["estaqhn"] appears to have arisen when > copyists accommodated "estaqh" to the first person of the > following "eidon". [Robinson's comment:] > The problem with this view is that the 3rd person singular reading "he > stood", if original, appears sensible, and _could_ fit the context and > flow of the narrative. It thus would _not_ be a likely subject of > alteration if original; and it certainly would _not_ have been likely > to have been altered merely to accommodate to the 1st person singular > ostensibly because a verb in the following clause was also in the first > person -- at least not as long as the passage with "esthqh" "made > sense" in some fashion without the need for any alteration. This seems accurate to me. Is there a particular point, Ulrich? _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Apr 1 10:36:32 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA06262; Tue, 1 Apr 1997 10:36:31 -0500 Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 10:37:13 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Eph 5:9 In-Reply-To: <199704011255.OAA66990@mail.uni-muenster.de> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2596 On Tue, 1 Apr 1997 willrut@uni-muenster.de wrote: > I don't know exactly what Maurice's "four volumes of data" consisted of he > reportedly saw in Kampen in 1989. The Muenster *Institut* holds a copy of > Wisselink's published dissertation called *Assimilation as a criterion for the > establishment of the text. A comparative study on the basis of passages from > Matthew, Mark and Luke; Kampen 1989*. The *Institut* holds another unpublished > (or privately published) copy of three volumes under the same header: > *Assimilation as...Matthew, Mark and Luke; Annex 1: The collations, Kampen > 1987*, *Assimilation...; Annex 2: The tables, Kampen 1987*, > *Assimilation...Annex 3: The comparison, Kampen 1987*. > Just as a guess: Maurice saw Wisselink's published dissertation and the three > annexes in Kampen which makes up a total of four volumes. You are probably correct, Ulrich, except that I probably saw the _unpublished_ form of what was also the published dissertation, which was bound similarly to the other three volumes of data so as to make four identical volumes. > >Wisselink's data points to the Byzantine Textform as being the most > >free of harmonization/assimilation in the Gospels. I suspect that this > >is not the result you were expecting. > > Maurice, could you please add the relevant quotation from Wisselink's published > dissertation displaying THIS result? > I must confess, I couldn't find it, neither in one of Wisselink's annexes. I will have to search Wisselink's single published volume for what I confessedly remember from when I first read it some time ago. I was certain that he made a claim to the effect that the Byzantine Textform _may_ have as many _alleged_ harmonizations as have been claimed for it, but that upon examination the alleged harmonizations were generally invalid, and that the other major texttypes in contrast possessed valid harmonizations. This of course by default makes the Byzantine Textform "less harmonized" than the other texttypes. Were you not able to find something of that sort in the book? I know that from talking with Wisselink while in Kampen (he is a Reformed Church pastor living about 2 hours away from Kampen) that we specifically discussed that conclusion as a major result of his research. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Apr 1 10:58:29 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA06362; Tue, 1 Apr 1997 10:58:28 -0500 From: schmiul@uni-muenster.de Message-Id: <199704011559.RAA51968@mail.uni-muenster.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Tue, 01 Apr 97 18:13:27 +0100 Subject: Re: Rev 12:18 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1611 On Tu, 1 Apr 1997, Maurice Robinson wrote: >On Fri, 28 Mar 1997 willrut@uni-muenster.de wrote: >> On Thu, 27 Mar 1997, Maurice Robinson brought forth a vivid defence of the >> majority reading ESTAQHN over the competing minority reading ESTAQH in Rev >> 12:18. In this post I do not wish to opt for one or the other reading. I >>simply >> wish to know, if I got Maurices's argument right. >[eclectic view from Metzger:] >> The latter reading ["estaqhn"] appears to have arisen when >> copyists accommodated "estaqh" to the first person of the >> following "eidon". >[Robinson's comment:] >> The problem with this view is that the 3rd person singular reading "he >> stood", if original, appears sensible, and _could_ fit the context and >> flow of the narrative. It thus would _not_ be a likely subject of >> alteration if original; and it certainly would _not_ have been likely >> to have been altered merely to accommodate to the 1st person singular >> ostensibly because a verb in the following clause was also in the first >> person -- at least not as long as the passage with "esthqh" "made >> sense" in some fashion without the need for any alteration. >This seems accurate to me. Is there a particular point, Ulrich? No. Sorry, but this was a distorted message. I started to compse one, then all of a sudden it dissappeared. I tried to figure out where it went, but I did not succeed. Then I had to leave. Being now back in Muenster, and after checking my mailbox, I have to face the sad truth that I can hardly handle the computer. My apologize. Ulrich Schmid, Muenster From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Apr 1 11:03:02 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA06384; Tue, 1 Apr 1997 11:03:01 -0500 From: schmiul@uni-muenster.de Message-Id: <199704011603.SAA25306@mail.uni-muenster.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Tue, 01 Apr 97 18:17:59 +0100 Subject: Re: Eph 5:9 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2247 > I don't know exactly what Maurice's "four volumes of data" consisted of he > reportedly saw in Kampen in 1989. The Muenster *Institut* holds a copy of > Wisselink's published dissertation called *Assimilation as a criterion for the > establishment of the text. A comparative study on the basis of passages from > Matthew, Mark and Luke; Kampen 1989*. The *Institut* holds another unpublished > (or privately published) copy of three volumes under the same header: > *Assimilation as...Matthew, Mark and Luke; Annex 1: The collations, Kampen > 1987*, *Assimilation...; Annex 2: The tables, Kampen 1987*, > *Assimilation...Annex 3: The comparison, Kampen 1987*. > Just as a guess: Maurice saw Wisselink's published dissertation and the three > annexes in Kampen which makes up a total of four volumes. You are probably correct, Ulrich, except that I probably saw the _unpublished_ form of what was also the published dissertation, which was bound similarly to the other three volumes of data so as to make four identical volumes. > >Wisselink's data points to the Byzantine Textform as being the most > >free of harmonization/assimilation in the Gospels. I suspect that this > >is not the result you were expecting. > > Maurice, could you please add the relevant quotation from Wisselink's published > dissertation displaying THIS result? > I must confess, I couldn't find it, neither in one of Wisselink's annexes. I will have to search Wisselink's single published volume for what I confessedly remember from when I first read it some time ago. I was certain that he made a claim to the effect that the Byzantine Textform _may_ have as many _alleged_ harmonizations as have been claimed for it, but that upon examination the alleged harmonizations were generally invalid, and that the other major texttypes in contrast possessed valid harmonizations. This of course by default makes the Byzantine Textform "less harmonized" than the other texttypes. Were you not able to find something of that sort in the book? I know that from talking with Wisselink while in Kampen (he is a Reformed Church pastor living about 2 hours away from Kampen) that we specifically discussed that conclusion as a major result of his research. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Apr 1 12:20:15 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA06687; Tue, 1 Apr 1997 12:20:15 -0500 From: schmiul@uni-muenster.de Message-Id: <199704011720.TAA50646@mail.uni-muenster.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Tue, 01 Apr 97 19:35:14 +0100 Subject: Re: Eph 5:9 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 5049 Sorry folks, again I pushed the wrong button causing a resending of Maurice's post which I wanted to comment on. Hopefully, this was a telling lapsus, for I now stronly suspect my computer-mouse to be defective. Back to what I initially planned. On Tue, 1 Apr 1997, Maurice Robinson wrote: [quoting Schmid:] >> I don't know exactly what Maurice's "four volumes of data" consisted of he >> reportedly saw in Kampen in 1989. The Muenster *Institut* holds a copy of >> Wisselink's published dissertation called *Assimilation as a criterion for >>the >> establishment of the text. A comparative study on the basis of passages from >> Matthew, Mark and Luke; Kampen 1989*. The *Institut* holds another >>unpublished > >(or privately published) copy of three volumes under the same header: > >*Assimilation as...Matthew, Mark and Luke; Annex 1: The collations, Kampen > >1987*, *Assimilation...; Annex 2: The tables, Kampen 1987*, >> *Assimilation...Annex 3: The comparison, Kampen 1987*. >> Just as a guess: Maurice saw Wisselink's published dissertation and the three >> annexes in Kampen which makes up a total of four volumes. >You are probably correct, Ulrich, except that I probably saw the >_unpublished_ form of what was also the published dissertation, which was >bound similarly to the other three volumes of data so as to make four >identical volumes. We finally settled that case, I assume. >> >Wisselink's data points to the Byzantine Textform as being the most >> >free of harmonization/assimilation in the Gospels. I suspect that this >> >is not the result you were expecting. >> >> Maurice, could you please add the relevant quotation from Wisselink's >>published >> dissertation displaying THIS result? > >I must confess, I couldn't find it, neither in one of Wisselink's annexes. >I will have to search Wisselink's single published volume for what I >confessedly remember from when I first read it some time ago. I was >certain that he made a claim to the effect that the Byzantine Textform >_may_ have as many _alleged_ harmonizations as have been claimed for it, >but that upon examination the alleged harmonizations were generally >invalid, and that the other major texttypes in contrast possessed valid >harmonizations. This of course by default makes the Byzantine Textform >"less harmonized" than the other texttypes. Were you not able to find >something of that sort in the book? I know that from talking with >Wisselink while in Kampen (he is a Reformed Church pastor living about 2 >hours away from Kampen) that we specifically discussed that conclusion as >a major result of his research. Here is Wisselink's final conclusion: "Assimilation is not restricted to a single group of manuscripts, neither to a single gospel; assimilation has not taken place to any one gospel to a strikingly high degree. So if an assimilation is signalized, nothing can be concluded from that regarding the age of any variant or the value of any text-type. The current thesis, that the Byzantine text-type is to be called inferior because of its harmonizing or assimilating character, is methodologically not based on sound foundations" (p. 92f). Noone (at least noone familiar with some MSS) ever assumed that assimilation _only_ occured within the Byzantine text-type. Therefore, Wisselink's conclusion oversimplificates the whole issue. We should not neglect another of Wisselink's conclusions: "D especially has been assimilated. The degree of assimilation in B and P45 is strikingly small. 33, Theta and the Byzantine text-type stand midway between the others" (p. 87). Now this is interesting. Even a scholar so heavily devoted to unearth the crucial problem of assimilation, and at the same time to fight for the reputation of the Byzantine text-type had to concede the fact that B proportionally contains the smallest amount of assimilation (slightly less than P45). In contrast to D which after all contains most of the _big_ assimilations (including transpositions of more than one vers of Mark into Luke) it is no surprise that the rest is somewhere in between B and D. These are the facts drawn from Wisselink's data. In itself the data simply do _not_ point to the "Byzantine Textform as being the most free of harmonization/assimilation in the Gospels". Maurice's conclusion only fits the data, if one judges the Byzantine Textform on other grounds as being original. I prefer to approach Wisselink's data from a more inductive perspective: Since assimilations are found in each and every MS of the Gospels (including P75), and since it is reasonable to infer that this was a constant threat on every level of textual transmission of the (united) Gospels, I simply have greater confidence in those witnesses who contain proportionally less assimilations. This is not to say that I will follow them slavishly in every instance. They just attracted my interest and partly my confidence. This is the way eclectics are supposed to act. Isn't it? Ulrich Schmid, Muenster From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Apr 1 12:24:36 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA06722; Tue, 1 Apr 1997 12:24:35 -0500 Date: 1 Apr 1997 17:24:40 -0000 Message-ID: <19970401172440.264.qmail@np.nosc.mil> From: Vincent Broman To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu In-reply-to: (waltzmn@skypoint.com) Subject: Re: Eph 5:9 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 676 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- waltzmn@skypoint.com said: > ... I compared > the Byzantine and Alexandrian readings. My *sole* criterion was the > internal one, "Which reading best explains the others." > ... > But I would recommend the exercise to others; it *was* educational. I say Amen to that. Quite educational. Vincent Broman -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBM0FEuGCU4mTNq7IdAQFCeQP8DwaiRZZ/o87CsgErrEE3ElFlui9wn0mM gVqVizIVMdzvUOBXgSPa8fuAlwIkcF5T+rruHoXT9yCVwDS6wjUzvm+fVmHpBin5 VEVF2i03qNhCHh6mZFtRJuasb23IbGiuM0LoDLZicNWgzQL0e5DsHj3A2CF3eZrk QUHwjJUMeAw= =nQL3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Apr 1 12:44:41 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA06748; Tue, 1 Apr 1997 12:44:41 -0500 Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 12:44:49 -0500 From: "Harold P. Scanlin" Subject: Wesley on 1 John 5 To: TC-List Message-ID: <199704011244_MC2-1393-587E@compuserve.com> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 590 Robert Waltz commented: >I always though it was ironic, though, that Wesley's changes did not >include the Three Heavenly Witnesses in 1 John 5 Ironic, indeed, but here he also follows Bengel. In his _Explanatory Notes_ at 1 John 5.7, Wesley says, "What Bengelius has advanced, both concerning the transposition of these two verses, and the authority of the controverted verse, partly in his "Gnomon," and partly in his "Apparatus Criticus," will abundantly satisfy any impartial person." Harold P. Scanlin United Bible Societies 1865 Broadway New York, NY 10023 scanlin@compuserve.com From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Apr 1 12:57:00 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA06785; Tue, 1 Apr 1997 12:56:59 -0500 Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 12:57:35 -0500 Message-Id: <2.2.16.19970401125734.42775d30@email.psu.edu> X-Sender: wlp1@email.psu.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "William L. Petersen" Subject: Re: Eph 5:9 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1226 Just as a gloss on Ulrich Schmid's remark about Codex Bezae (D) and its high number of harmonizations/assimilations (as per Wisselink's research) relative to other (Greek) MSS: this high number is thought to be the result of (1) Codex Bezae's having been influenced in some manner by the Diatessaronic tradition (which is, of course, a gospel harmony...), or (2) Codex Bezae's being related to the Vetus Syra, which has numerous cross-gospel harmonizations because *it* was influenced by the Diatessaron, or (3) both of the above (1 *and* 2). See, among others, the work of F.H. Chase. It should be recalled that harmonization began in the *first* century, when "Matthew" and "Luke" began weaving together portions of "Mark" and "Q" (regardless of what theory of synoptic origins one may subscribe to, the same applies: e.g., for Griesbachians: "Mark" harmonized material from "Matthew" and "Luke"). In the *early-second* century we have Justin's harmony, and the Judaic-Christian harmony quoted by Epiphanius in Pan. 30.13, etc., which Vielhauer labelled the "Gospel according to the Ebionites"--although Epiphanius calls it "the Hebrew gospel" (= the "Gospel according to the Hebrews" ?). --Petersen, Penn State Univ. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Apr 1 14:49:20 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA07195; Tue, 1 Apr 1997 14:49:20 -0500 Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 14:49:51 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Eph 5:9 In-Reply-To: <199704011720.TAA50646@mail.uni-muenster.de> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 7978 On Tue, 1 Apr 1997 schmiul@uni-muenster.de wrote: > Sorry folks, again I pushed the wrong button causing a resending of Maurice's > post which I wanted to comment on. Hopefully, this was a telling lapsus, for I > now stronly suspect my computer-mouse to be defective. Are we starting to develop a new type of "scribal error" for the electronic age? :-) > Here is Wisselink's final conclusion: "Assimilation is not restricted to a > single group of manuscripts, neither to a single gospel; assimilation has not > taken place to any one gospel to a strikingly high degree. So if an assimilation > is signalized, nothing can be concluded from that regarding the age of any > variant or the value of any text-type. The current thesis, that the Byzantine > text-type is to be called inferior because of its harmonizing or assimilating > character, is methodologically not based on sound foundations" (p. 92f). This, at least in part, accords with what I was saying. However, I still think that Wisselink examines certain alleged Byzantine harmonizations (which he terms "assimilations") and finds reasons to consider that certain of such more likely stem from the autograph or archetype than that they were subsequently introduced. I do not recall that he excuses any of the Alexandrian or Western harmonizations as possibly stemming from the autograph when the Byzantine MSS differ with a non-harmonizing reading. > Noone (at least noone familiar with some MSS) ever assumed that assimilation > _only_ occured within the Byzantine text-type. Therefore, Wisselink's conclusion > oversimplificates the whole issue. Since even I do not deny assimilation in various MSS reflecting all texttypes, this should be a given. What we are dealing with in particular are assimilations (real or alleged) which transcend individual MSS and go back to either the archetype of a texttype or the autograph itself (which latter would then _not_ be "assimilation", except on a higher critical level regarding the development of the canonical text in a pre-transmissional era). > We should not neglect another of Wisselink's conclusions: "D especially has > been assimilated. The degree of assimilation in B and P45 is strikingly > small. 33, Theta and the Byzantine text-type stand midway between the > others" (p. 87). > Now this is interesting. Even a scholar so heavily devoted to unearth the > crucial problem of assimilation, and at the same time to fight for the > reputation of the Byzantine text-type had to concede the fact that B > proportionally contains the smallest amount of assimilation (slightly less than > P45). In contrast to D which after all contains most of the _big_ assimilations > (including transpositions of more than one vers of Mark into Luke) it is no > surprise that the rest is somewhere in between B and D. These are the facts > drawn from Wisselink's data. These judgements are made on the basis of their singular or subsingular readings in the individual MSS cited. I too acknowledge the careful and generally "conservative" nature of the scribe of B, as well as what Wisselink reports regarding the other individual MSS. The comparison with a texttype is a different matter however, and can only be used as a point of reference. Where Wisselink would put the texttype-specific assimilations which would be endemic to the Alexandrian text as a separate entity might be quite different from where he places B, for example. The Byzantine Textform stands at a certain point relative to those individual MSS with its possible or alleged harmonizations. Such placement does _not_ admit nor declare that those possible harmonizations are in fact true harmonizations rather than reflections of the autograph; they are only there for comparative purposes. > In itself the data simply do _not_ point to the "Byzantine Textform as > being the most free of harmonization/assimilation in the Gospels". Maurice's > conclusion only fits the data, if one judges the Byzantine Textform on > other grounds as being original. And certainly Wisselink's own perspective follows the same course. For the purposes of neutrality, Wisselink had to allow that any alleged assimilation is either a real assimilation or stems from the archetype of a texttype or from the autograph. I would expect no less from an impartial analysis. But the matter still comes up within Wisselink as to whether there are good grounds or valid criteria for determining whether an assimilation is "real" or whether such reflects the original text, and these all deal with theory. Wisselink does make suggestions regarding the lack of "real" assimilation in the Byzantine Textform, and his statement quoted at the head of this post seems to make the point fairly clear, at least to me: "The current thesis, that the Byzantine text-type is to be called inferior because of its harmonizing or assimilating character, is methodologically not based on sound foundations" (p. 92f). One must recall that a key complaint made against the Byzantine Textform for the past century has been its "harmonizing" character. If I read Wisselink correctly, he is clearly saying that (a) the Byzantine Textform has fewer harmonizations alleged to itself than can be alleged to at least the combined Alexandrian and Western texttypes; (b) the Byzantine Textform has far fewer harmonizations than the Western texttype; (c) those harmonizations found in the Western texttype are clearly "true" harmonizations and decidedly secondary; (d) the Alexandrian texttype has a large number of harmonizations which can be alleged against it (whether these alone outnumber the Byzantine, I am not certain, and would have to tabulate Wisselink's data to be sure); (e) there are more "real" harmonizations among the MSS of the non-Byzantine texttypes than can be proven to exist within the Byzantine Textform (and this might depend on both Wisselink's and my own textual theories, but this was basically Wisselink's position as I understood it from him). > Since assimilations are found in each and every MS of the Gospels (including > P75), and since it is reasonable to infer that this was a constant threat on > every level of textual transmission of the (united) Gospels, I simply have > greater confidence in those witnesses who contain proportionally less > assimilations. I don't think assimilation/harmonization was as much of a "constant threat" as you imagine, Ulrich, since the evidence of the MSS show that harmonizing readings tended _not_ to be perpetuated beyond a few copying generations. The real problem is to deal with alleged harmonizations which are endemic to a texttype as a whole, and to determine whether these reflect the autograph or not (they certainly reflect the archetype of the texttype, whether that be the autograph is a matter for debate). Merely to take the witnesses which in singular or sub-singular readings have the fewest number of true assimilations still says nothing about the other alleged assimilations in such MSS which are reflective of the texttype to which such MSS belong. There are a number of Byzantine MSS which are, on the basis of singular and subsingular readings, also _not_ given to much assimilation; why cannot these be followed as well and a "greater confidence" placed in them? > This is not to say that I will follow them slavishly in every > instance. They just attracted my interest and partly my confidence. > This is the way eclectics are supposed to act. Isn't it? Ulrich, I am pleased to say that you act very much like a typical eclectic. :-) I suppose that is a left-handed compliment (and I am left-handed).... _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Apr 1 15:39:11 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA07390; Tue, 1 Apr 1997 15:39:10 -0500 Date: Tue, 01 Apr 1997 15:38:41 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: Eph 5:9 X-Sender: jwest@mail.infoave.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970401153808.2eef7c7e@mail.infoave.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1553 It seems to me that the assimilation to the immediate context argument won't hold water. Lots of evidence has been offered, but the explanations are so complex that they disguise the real issue. The real issue is that a common phrase "fruit of the Spirit" has replaced a more unusual one "fruit of the light". The reasons a scribe in the early middle ages (or late dark ages; or however one wishes to denominate the 8th century CE) would exchange a little known phrase for a well known one are simple- and do not need convoluted argumentation. Sometimes the simple answer is the best one. A scribe, copying happily (or not) along in a cold european monastary, towards the end of the day, read a line which began with the words "fruit of the..." and instead of looking back at his manuscript he simply filled in the blank with the more common word- "spirit". As far as historical probability goes, this seems more probable than that a scribe would read "fruit of the spirit" and replace it with "fruit of the light". It is also more probable than suggesting that a scribe let his eye slip, how many line up? and saw "light" in another section of the text and bent back over to his page and put it in there. (though I do admit the possibility- of course, since it is evident that it happened a number of times). Again, perhaps our fine logic and expertise causes us to overlook the simple answers. Jim ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@theology.edu From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Apr 1 16:20:38 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA07524; Tue, 1 Apr 1997 16:20:37 -0500 Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 16:21:22 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Eph 5:9 In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970401153808.2eef7c7e@mail.infoave.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 5949 On Tue, 1 Apr 1997, Jim West wrote: > It seems to me that the assimilation to the immediate context argument won't > hold water. Lots of evidence has been offered, but the explanations are so > complex that they disguise the real issue. What exactly is complex about assimilation to the immediate context when scribes are known to have done precisely that far more than harmonization to remote parallels? It is hardly a complicated explanation to suggest that the influence of various forms of "fws" in close context, and especially "the identical form fwtos" immediately preceding influenced the judgment of a small minority of scribes at various times. It is far more complex to presume harmonization to a remote parallel than to the immediate context. > The real issue is that a common phrase "fruit of the Spirit" has > replaced a more unusual one "fruit of the light". Since "fruit of light" appears _nowhere_ else, it is likely not even less common or unusual, but a plain and clear error. But (I have to repeat myself and ask), _why_ is "fruit of the spirit", which itself appears _only ONE other time_ in the biblical text, suddenly the "more common" phrase? On what basis is such a judgment made? The only thing that would make it even slightly "more common" would be to have it also occur as genuine in Eph.5:9, which then would become an argument even more against the "fruit of light" phrase, which otherwise is totally undocumented as a Christian expression. As Bob Waltz has pointed out, there needs to be some evidence (patristic or otherwise) that _either_ phrase was even "common" in the early church, and the silence of everything but the MSS seems to suggest that neither was particularly used. Certainly modern-day Christians might refer more to the "fruit of the spirit" in various contexts, but that also may be because there is more emphasis on the Holy Spirit in the present century. What is common today says nothing about what may or may not have been common in the past. > The reasons a scribe > in the early middle ages (or late dark ages; or however one wishes to > denominate the 8th century CE) would exchange a little known phrase for > a well known one are simple- and do not need convoluted argumentation. > Sometimes the simple answer is the best one. Precisely why I offered the simplest answer and claimed harmonization to the immediate context as an explanation for the phenomenon found in a minority of MSS. No convoluted arguments here. > A scribe, copying happily (or not) along in a cold european monastary, > towards the end of the day, read a line which began with the words "fruit of > the..." and instead of looking back at his manuscript he simply filled in > the blank with the more common word- "spirit". This is assuming (a) the scribe was lazy or careless (and then you have to include the vast majority of scribes and correctors who remained so careless that except in a very few cases they never restored the original reading); (b) the scribe had been familiar with "fruit of the spirit" as a commonly used phrase (of which there is no proof); or (c) the scribe remembered what he had just copied in Galatians perhaps a day or two before and mentally made a connection; or (d) the scribe actually looked up the phrase in Galatians and decided it would somehow fit the context better in the Eph.5:9 passage. My scenario #2, on the other hand, is far less difficult: same scribe, same cold European monastery (maybe a Greek one would be preferable), also tired near the end of the day, read "fruit of the...." in his exemplar, wrote that down, then either looked back erroneously at the exemplar and picked up "fwtos" from the preceding verse, and never noticed a problem; or (more likely) simply remembered the contrast of light and darkness and the occcurence of "fwtos" in the expression "children of light" in the verse immediately preceding, and wrote "light" in place of "spirit. The scribe then continued copying the text without a clue that any error had transpired. > As far as historical probability goes, this seems more probable than that a > scribe would read "fruit of the spirit" and replace it with "fruit of the > light". Are you aware of how frequently scribes _did_ make precisely that type of error and _did_ harmonize to the immediate context, whether accidentally or deliberately? The weight of probability rests on that supposition far more than on harmonization to a remote parallel, especially to a phrase which occurs only _one_ time biblically (if Eph.5:9 is not original with "spirit"). > It is also more probable than suggesting that a scribe let his eye > slip, how many lines up? No more than two lines up, assuming normal line lengths in MSS. But the eye does not necessarily have to slip -- the _mind_ can slip and recall the phrase from the previous verse and write a key word from that phrase into another pertinent place. A scribe easily could be impressed with the concept of "children of light" and unconsciously write "fruit of light" so as to remain in harmony with the context of light vs. darkness which prevails in that entire passage. > Again, perhaps our fine logic and expertise causes us to overlook the simple > answers. Precisely my point. I opt for the simpler answer, and wonder that anyone thinks that other possibilities could be simpler than that. This again is another typical case where, had the external evidence been reversed, virtually everyone would have been defending the "spirit" reading over "light" on precisely the grounds which I have advocated. Those Hortian blinders _do_ get in the way..... _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Apr 1 16:47:48 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA07624; Tue, 1 Apr 1997 16:47:47 -0500 Message-Id: <9704012248.AA02759@iris.arcadis.be> Subject: Re: Eph 5:9 Date: Tue, 1 Apr 97 23:51:57 +0200 X-Sender: vale5655@194.111.178.251 X-Mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1 From: Jean VALENTIN To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2773 >thing but the MSS seems to suggest that neither Hello Maurice! You just wrote this : >was particularly used. Certainly modern-day Christians might refer more >to the "fruit of the spirit" in various contexts, but that also may be >because there is more emphasis on the Holy Spirit in the present century. I understand this point, but in this you might also be conditioned by _western_ (and protestant) theological history. If it's true that there's a renewal in interest for the Holy Spirit in our century, this argumentation is pointless when we consider the eastern churches, of which the Greek church is part. All that appears "new" in the west has always been "normal" in the East, as monastic communities in the Greek church have always been charismatic and prophetic, in an intense way that has never been known in the West (remember : the (some very early) texts that constitute the Philocalia, or palamism, or closer to us, the "starets" movements of the Russian church). For example, the liturgy of St John Chrysostom begins with an invocation to the Holy Spirit, something quite extraordinary to western christians : "Heavenly King, Consolator, Spirit of Truth, present everywhere and filling everything, treasure of good things and giver of life, come and abide in us, and purify us from all uncleanness, and save, o Good One, our souls" This is just to show you that the "emphasis" you discover in the present century is just the rediscovery of something that has always existed in the East. Remember also that in the eastern tradition, the consecration of the body and blood of Christ is thought to take place at the "epiclesis" (invocation of the Holy Spirit in the anaphora of the liturgy). This is of course just a little contribution and I don't think it will revolutionize your approach of this text and its variant :-) , but I just mention it for the sake of giving you a little insight as to what the thological context of the scribes was. Very different from ours indeed. And, again, as I mentioned that point already, some familiarity with liturgy can be interesting for working in the field of textual criticism... ________________________________________________________________ Jean Valentin - 58/7 rue Van Kalck - 1080 Bruxelles - BELGIQUE ________________________________________________________________ email : jgvalentin@arcadis.be *** netmail : 2:291/780.103 ________________________________________________________________ Ce qui est trop simple est faux, ce qui est trop complique est inutilisable. What's too simple is wrong, what's too complicated is unusable. Wat te eenvoudig is, is verkeerd; wat te ingewikkeld is, is onbruikbaar. ________________________________________________________________ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Apr 1 17:39:35 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA07736; Tue, 1 Apr 1997 17:39:35 -0500 Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 16:40:15 -0600 (CST) From: "Ronald L. Minton" X-Sender: rminton@orionc0 To: "Robert B. Waltz" cc: Textual Criticism list Subject: Re: Why Byzantine? (Re: Rev 12:18) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1027 On Mon, 31 Mar 1997, Robert B. Waltz wrote: > >Even in the UBS text, Aleph and B disagree more than they agree in > >Paul's epistles. > I'm not sure I see what the UBS text has to do with this... I mentioned it because it is the most common Gk. NT used in the USA and influences more people than any other. Also, their variants are supposed to be the significant ones for translators. I am basically lazy and the variants are easy to count there :) > There's a good reason Aleph and B often disagree in Paul: They *don't > belong to the same text-type.* This was first pointed out by Zuntz, > and my researches clearly confirm it. > Aleph belongs to a text-type that also contains A, C, 33, and the > Bohairic Coptic, with 81, 1175, etc. as lesser witnesses. > > B goes with p46 and the Sahidic in a separate text-type.... What text-type name do Aleph and B go with? -- Prof. Ron Minton: rminton@mail.orion.org W (417)268-6053 H 833-9581 Baptist Bible Graduate School 628 E. Kearney St. Springfield, MO 65803 From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Apr 1 17:50:11 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA07777; Tue, 1 Apr 1997 17:50:10 -0500 From: dwashbur@wave.park.wy.us Message-Id: <199704012253.PAA23378@wavecom.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 15:48:09 -7000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Eph 5:9 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.42a) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1213 Jim West wrote: > It seems to me that the assimilation to the immediate context argument won't > hold water. Lots of evidence has been offered, but the explanations are so > complex that they disguise the real issue. > > The real issue is that a common phrase "fruit of the Spirit" has replaced a > more unusual one "fruit of the light". The reasons a scribe in the early > middle ages (or late dark ages; or however one wishes to denominate the 8th > century CE) would exchange a little known phrase for a well known one are > simple- and do not need convoluted argumentation. Sometimes the simple > answer is the best one. [snip] This assumes that the phrase was as "common" then as it is now. How certain are we that this was the case? As far as I know, Galatians is the only biblical place where the phrase occurs. In the 20th century it has been propagated ad nauseam in self-help books and such, but I'm not convinced that it was as well-worn or "common" in the 8th century as it is in the 20th. Dave Washburn http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur/home.html There will be times when we disagree, but that's good because disagreement leads to thinking, and when you think you'll realize I'm right. ;-) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Apr 1 18:16:50 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA07828; Tue, 1 Apr 1997 18:16:50 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 17:22:05 -0700 To: "Ronald L. Minton" From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Why Byzantine? (Re: Rev 12:18) Cc: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 3060 On Tue, 1 Apr 1997, "Ronald L. Minton" wrote: >On Mon, 31 Mar 1997, Robert B. Waltz wrote: >> >Even in the UBS text, Aleph and B disagree more than they agree in >> >Paul's epistles. > >> I'm not sure I see what the UBS text has to do with this... > >I mentioned it because it is the most common Gk. NT used in the USA and >influences more people than any other. Also, their variants are supposed >to be the significant ones for translators. I am basically lazy and the >variants are easy to count there :) Actually, I would think there would be comparatively *more* disagreements between B and Aleph in the UBS apparatus than in the ordinary run of text. Yes, the UBS apparatus includes variants that are relevant for translators -- but it also includes a lot of variants where the editors are not sure of the original reading. Since the editors of UBS generally worshipped the Alexandrian text, they would be much less sure of the reading if B and Aleph disagreed. So more of these variants would appear in the apparatus. >> There's a good reason Aleph and B often disagree in Paul: They *don't >> belong to the same text-type.* This was first pointed out by Zuntz, >> and my researches clearly confirm it. >> Aleph belongs to a text-type that also contains A, C, 33, and the >> Bohairic Coptic, with 81, 1175, etc. as lesser witnesses. >> >> B goes with p46 and the Sahidic in a separate text-type.... > >What text-type name do Aleph and B go with? There is no clear answer to this, since so few people follow Zuntz. Zuntz called the p46/B/1739/sa/bo group "Proto-Alexandrian," and the Aleph/A/C/I/33 group Alexandrian. I think this is bad terminology; the p46/B text may be older than the Aleph/A/C/I/33 text, but it is not an ancestor. The two are clearly independent. Also, as I mentioned, I do not think 1739 and the Bohairic go with p46 and B. I have sought in vain for a father whose text agrees with p46 and B. So I cannot localize this text. So I just call this type "p46/B." Similarly, I call the 1739 text "Family 1739." This gives us the following text-types in Paul, with their primary witnesses: p46/B -- p46, B, sa; probably also p13 Alexandrian -- Aleph, A, C, I, 33, bo; mixed witnesses include 81, 1175, family 2127, etc. family 1739 -- 1739 0243; also 0121, 1881, 6, 424**, 630 (in part) Western -- D F G Old Latin (629 in part) Byzantine -- K L 049 056 0142 etc. For more details of my opinions, see the relevant files at my encyclopedia site. (Really, folks, if you want to know how I feel, that's the place to go. I am generally much more coherent there, where I took time to think about what I'm saying, than here, where I generally don't. :-) -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A very rough draft of part of the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Apr 1 18:52:24 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA07908; Tue, 1 Apr 1997 18:52:24 -0500 Message-ID: <3341BBA8.50D3@usinternet.com> Date: Tue, 01 Apr 1997 17:51:36 -0800 From: Hubert Bahr Organization: Fingerhut X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Win16; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: 1769 or 1833 References: <199703302315_MC2-137A-4A9A@compuserve.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1474 > the "standard" KJV's. Incidentally, this may be a good context to mention > one of my pet peves: there are several electronic KJV's, but they generally > get distributed without any information on which KJV they were based on. The Online Bible claims to be based on the 1769 text, the Project Guttenberg text is based on a Majority Text from several previous electronic texts. Beyond that I have no idea, (I share the same frustration you mentioned). It would intresting to see what kind of lessons in textual criticism could be learned by trying to restore the KJV text from the existing electronic editions. > > For information on the 1769 "establishment" (I purposely avoid the use of > "revision") see the note in Herbert's published update of the English > section of Darlow and Moule's Catalog of the BFBS Bible collection. > Herbert generally includes notes on major efforts at reestablishing the KJV > text. For similar notes on US editions, including Webster 1833, see > Margaret Hills's published catalog of the ABS Bible collection. Where can I get these works and what is the full bibliographic info. > > Pardon ths rambling on, but I think the whole history of textual variants > in printed editons is relevant to the practice of textual criticism in > general. This same point was made in a very interesting round of list > discussions a few months back. > > Harold P. Scanlin > United Bible Societies > 1865 Broadway > New York, NY 10023 From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Apr 1 18:56:07 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA07926; Tue, 1 Apr 1997 18:56:06 -0500 Message-ID: <3341BC86.3DF1@usinternet.com> Date: Tue, 01 Apr 1997 17:55:18 -0800 From: Hubert Bahr Organization: Fingerhut X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Win16; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: 1769 or 1833 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 323 ANDREW SMITH wrote: > > The "Online Bible" CD-ROM (I have version 6.12, dated Oct. '94) has both > the 1769 and the 1833 KJV texts, and allows one to compare them side by > side. Not exactly true, the 1833 Webster text in the Online Bible has been "cleaned up" and does not accurately reflect Webster's printed version. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Apr 1 21:10:39 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA08148; Tue, 1 Apr 1997 21:10:39 -0500 Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19970402021332.21671f5c@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: scarlson@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 01 Apr 1997 21:13:32 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu, From: "Stephen C. Carlson" Subject: Re: p64+67 available on net? Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1074 At 07:12 4/1/97 -0600, Perry L. Stepp wrote: >A question: is there a transcription or .gif of p64+67 available anywhere >on the net? (I'd certainly prefer a transcription, given the choice.) >I've looked at the Duke collection on Perseus--it's possible that p64+67 is >there, and I've just missed it. Or is it somewhere else? These are not on-line resources, but there is a black-and-white picture of P64 (verso) and P67 (one side) in the latest issue of New Testament Studies. See T.C. Skeat "The Oldest Manuscript of the Four Gospels?", NTS 43 (1997): 1, 10. A transcription of P64 (both sides) within a reconstruction of whole pages is found on pp.11-12. Also, Tiede & D'Ancona, EYEWITNESSES TO JESUS? Amazing New Evidence About the Origin of the Gospels (New York: Doubleday, 1996), have a B&W photographic plate of P64 verso and recto. Stephen Carlson -- Stephen C. Carlson : Poetry speaks of aspirations, scarlson@mindspring.com : and songs chant the words. http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/ : -- Shujing 2.35 From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Apr 1 21:25:14 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA08215; Tue, 1 Apr 1997 21:25:13 -0500 Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19970402022807.2167857e@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: scarlson@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 01 Apr 1997 21:28:07 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Stephen C. Carlson" Subject: Re: Eph 5:9 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 723 I've noticed that the PNEUMATOS (Spirit) reading is found in P46, which is quite old. However, P49, also old, has FWTOS. Given the age of the variants, I'm wondering if they could come from misreading the handwriting of an uncial exemplar. If Spirit is written as a nomen sacrum, it takes up about the same amount of space and the cross bar of the tau may be confused with the horizontal line. I.e., ---- PNOC vs FWTOC In which direction is a misreading of the examplar more likely? Stephen Carlson -- Stephen C. Carlson : Poetry speaks of aspirations, scarlson@mindspring.com : and songs chant the words. http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/ : -- Shujing 2.35 From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Apr 1 22:00:11 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA08271; Tue, 1 Apr 1997 22:00:10 -0500 Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 21:00:49 -0600 (CST) From: "Ronald L. Minton" X-Sender: rminton@orionc0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Papyri pieces In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970402022807.2167857e@pop.mindspring.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 660 For those who may not have read about this, I noticed that Gannett News carried an article on papyri. It is from Umich and says in part "six American papyrus collections are being brought together on the WWW with a grant from the NEH...next fall the Advanced Papyrological Information System will feature about 30,000 items and include translations, bibliography and links to related texts. Portions of the Michigan collection are already on line and can be accessed at http://www.lib.umich.edu/pap/ " -- Prof. Ron Minton: rminton@mail.orion.org W (417)268-6053 H 833-9581 Baptist Bible Graduate School 628 E. Kearney St. Springfield, MO 65803 From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Apr 2 00:54:35 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id AAA08452; Wed, 2 Apr 1997 00:54:35 -0500 Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 00:55:18 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Eph 5:9 In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970402022807.2167857e@pop.mindspring.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1838 On Tue, 1 Apr 1997, Stephen C. Carlson wrote: > I've noticed that the PNEUMATOS (Spirit) reading is found in P46, which > is quite old. However, P49, also old, has FWTOS. > > Given the age of the variants, I'm wondering if they could come from > misreading the handwriting of an uncial exemplar. If Spirit is written > as a nomen sacrum, it takes up about the same amount of space and the > cross bar of the tau may be confused with the horizontal line. I.e., > > ---- > PNOC vs FWTOC > > In which direction is a misreading of the examplar more likely? Consider also that the nomen sacrum might have been the more usual PNC, though certainly the case is helped by the longer form as given above. Also, both P and F are of the same phonetic class (Labials) which could also cause some confusion. However, I still prefer a simple influence from the close context to cause accidental error in writing FWTOS in this place as the more likely possibility rather than confusion of letters. Also, the age of the variants in a case like this should not be taken to imply that all subsequent readings of FWTOS derive from P49 or its archetype and that all readings of PNEUMATOS derive from P46 or its archetype (depending from which side one wishes to view the erroneous reading as having come). In a case of accidental error such as I have proposed, there are sufficient grounds to presuppose independent recurrences of the identical error in MSS of varied type rather than direct genealogical descent, save within normal texttype patterns. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Apr 2 01:00:57 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id BAA08473; Wed, 2 Apr 1997 01:00:56 -0500 Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 01:01:42 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Eph 5:9 In-Reply-To: <9704012248.AA02759@iris.arcadis.be> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1305 On Tue, 1 Apr 1997, Jean VALENTIN wrote: > which the Greek church is part. All that appears "new" in the west has > always been "normal" in the East, as monastic communities in the Greek > church have always been charismatic and prophetic, in an intense way that > has never been known in the West I did not mean to say that the Eastern Church has not had an emphasis on the Holy Spirit, and your point is well taken. The question is whether the phrase "fruit of the spirit" is one that was _common_ and _familiar_ in that era, or whether it is western Protestantism of the current century which has popularized the phrase into the "more familiar" concept. > And, again, as I mentioned that point already, some familiarity with > liturgy can be interesting for working in the field of textual > criticism... Fully agreed. Now, if someone can find liturgical or other citations of either "fruit of the spirit" or "fruit of light" in early Orthodox liturgy or literature, this will be helpful. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Apr 2 02:08:46 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id CAA08538; Wed, 2 Apr 1997 02:08:45 -0500 From: REElliott@aol.com Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 02:09:32 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <970402020932_-1068244899@emout02.mail.aol.com> To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Rev 12:18 & Peshitta Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 498 In a message dated 97-04-01 10:15:51 EST, you (correctly) wrote: << p,h ph The reading in the commentary is not "syr " but "syr ." That is, it refers to the Philoxenian Syriac. >> Yes, of course! My late night oversight. I was looking in my 1st Ed UBSGNT, not my newer 3rd Ed. The 1st Ed does not list the Philoxenian, but at least the 3rd (and probably 4th do), NA26 does also. Sorry for the confusion :-} Rich Elliott From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Apr 2 06:43:05 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id GAA08747; Wed, 2 Apr 1997 06:43:04 -0500 From: schmiul@uni-muenster.de Message-Id: <199704021143.NAA77720@mail.uni-muenster.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Wed, 02 Apr 97 13:57:11 +0100 Subject: EASE (Electronic Age Scribal Errors) To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2530 On Tue, 1 Apr 1997, Maurice Robinson wrote (inter alia): >On Tue, 1 Apr 1997 schmiul@uni-muenster.de wrote: >> Sorry folks, again I pushed the wrong button causing a resending of Maurice's >> post which I wanted to comment on. Hopefully, this was a telling lapsus, for >>I now stronly suspect my computer-mouse to be defective. >Are we starting to develop a new type of "scribal error" for the >electronic age? :-) As far as I can see there are slightly distinct types of scribal errors related to all sorts of human text producing activities of all times. Some modern times scribal errors, e.g., seem to be directly linked to the arrangement of the letters on keyboards. At least in a text of mine I was confronted with a highly instructive example: At university, the very first paper I had to deliver was on some pages of Karl Barth in comparison to some pages of Martin Luther. I recall that I dictated my manuscript to my mother, a former secretary, in order to shorten the time that I would have spent to do this job. The time ran out, so I only hastily proof-read what she had typed. One expression in my paper should read "Die Freiheit des goettlichen Logos..." (the liberty of the divine WORD). When the professor handed my paper back, he pointed to a strange reading: "Die Freizeit des goettlichen Logos..." (the leisure of the divine WORD). This is a perfect example of a finger slip on the keyboard having z directly above h. It's also a perfect example of a "nonsense in context reading", for the finger slip caused a morphologically correct reading (Freizeit) that renders the whole expression, at least the whole sentence, practically senseless. However, my professor raised the possibility that some 400 years later my paper might be unearthed. And he was pretty sure that at least a minority of "experts" would cling to the "reading of the text", seeking for a deeper meaning of "Die Freizeit des goettlichen Logos..". When looking at the arsenal of highly effective exegetical and hermeneutical tools, not to mention post-modern literary strategies, the possibility can not be ruled out that the advocats of the "reading of the text" would portrait my text as the product of one of the most creative theological/ philosophical thinkers of the early 1980s. BTW-- On the psychological level one might even suspect a direct link between the mentioned "scribal error" committed very early in my carreer and my present occupation (obsession?) with NT TC. Ulrich Schmid, Muenster From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Apr 2 11:04:38 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA00920; Wed, 2 Apr 1997 11:04:37 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199704021143.NAA77720@mail.uni-muenster.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 10:10:20 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: EASE (Electronic Age Scribal Errors) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2697 On Wed, 02 Apr 97, schmiul@uni-muenster.de wrote, in part: >On Tue, 1 Apr 1997, Maurice Robinson wrote (inter alia): > >>On Tue, 1 Apr 1997 schmiul@uni-muenster.de wrote: > >>> Sorry folks, again I pushed the wrong button causing a resending of Maurice's >>> post which I wanted to comment on. Hopefully, this was a telling lapsus, for >>>I now stronly suspect my computer-mouse to be defective. > >>Are we starting to develop a new type of "scribal error" for the >>electronic age? :-) > >As far as I can see there are slightly distinct types of scribal errors related >to all sorts of human text producing activities of all times. Some modern times >scribal errors, e.g., seem to be directly linked to the arrangement of the >letters on keyboards. I have made the sort of error described many times. Another error that I make *only* when typing at a keyboard is transposition of letters -- usually when a "strong" finger manages to depress a key faster than a "weak" finger. These are actual mechanical errors. There are also errors that seem to be quite common which are not mechanical. For instance, people don't proofread their work as fully as they once did; they rely on the computer's spelling checkers. Does this have any effect on NT textual criticism? Obviously not. But it is a good demonstration that the sorts of errors copyists will make will depend very much on their circumstances. We all know of errors of seeing versus errors of hearing. But we might want to consider other possible sorts of errors -- e.g. (and I am just wildly speculating here) errors of sitting versus errors of standing, errors of cold climates versus errors of warm climates, errors of those who do not speak a language well (e.g. those found in Theta, L, 28?) versus those who do, errors of monks versus professional scribes, etc. I repeat, I am just speculating. I don't know if any of these circumstances produce different spectra of errors. But it might be worth thinking about. >BTW-- On the psychological level one might even suspect a direct link between >the mentioned "scribal error" committed very early in my carreer and my present >occupation (obsession?) with NT TC. If yours is an obsession, what does that make my situation? I'm not even a professional textual critic, yet I am one of the most active members of this list.... :-) -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A very rough draft of part of the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Apr 2 11:13:47 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA00953; Wed, 2 Apr 1997 11:13:47 -0500 Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 11:14:30 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: The Leisure of the Divine Word In-Reply-To: <199704021143.NAA77720@mail.uni-muenster.de> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2183 On Wed, 2 Apr 1997 schmiul@uni-muenster.de wrote: > >>I now stronly suspect my computer-mouse to be defective. This type of error should be termed a "mausfehler", and thus will absolve the human from responsibility. > handed my paper back, he pointed to a strange reading: "Die Freizeit des > goettlichen Logos..." (the leisure of the divine WORD). Wonderful, Ulrich! This is most defintely how new theological concepts get invented. I think you are on to something, and I see a 400pp book in your future regarding the neo-neo-orthodoxy and the Theology of Leisure. > However, my professor raised the possibility that some 400 years later > my paper might be unearthed. And he was pretty sure that at least a > minority of "experts" would cling to the "reading of the text", seeking > for a deeper meaning of "Die Freizeit des goettlichen Logos..". He is indeed correct. And it will be the future eclectics who will most strongly maintain that "Freizeit" is the original reading, since "Freiheit des goettlichen Logos" is the more common phrase, and scribes obviously harmonized to the more common rather than leaving the difficult "Freizeit" in place..... > the "reading of the text" would portrait my text as the product of one of the > most creative theological/ philosophical thinkers of the early 1980s. Most definitely you _are_ such -- but you will have to maintain the Theology of "Freizeit" to hold on to that reputation. :-) > BTW-- On the psychological level one might even suspect a direct link between > the mentioned "scribal error" committed very early in my carreer and my > present occupation (obsession?) with NT TC. Exactly. Your testimony can be "I never was interested in textual criticism until by a slip of the finger while typing I created a sensible alternate reading by accident, and it changed not only my theology, but my life...." _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Apr 2 11:53:18 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA01060; Wed, 2 Apr 1997 11:53:18 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <199704021143.NAA77720@mail.uni-muenster.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 10:59:15 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: The Leisure of the Divine Word Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2228 On Wed, 2 Apr 1997, Maurice Robinson wrote: >On Wed, 2 Apr 1997 schmiul@uni-muenster.de wrote: > >> >>I now stronly suspect my computer-mouse to be defective. > >This type of error should be termed a "mausfehler", and thus will absolve >the human from responsibility. > >> handed my paper back, he pointed to a strange reading: "Die Freizeit des >> goettlichen Logos..." (the leisure of the divine WORD). > >Wonderful, Ulrich! This is most defintely how new theological concepts >get invented. I think you are on to something, and I see a 400pp book in >your future regarding the neo-neo-orthodoxy and the Theology of Leisure. > >> However, my professor raised the possibility that some 400 years later >> my paper might be unearthed. And he was pretty sure that at least a >> minority of "experts" would cling to the "reading of the text", seeking >> for a deeper meaning of "Die Freizeit des goettlichen Logos..". > >He is indeed correct. And it will be the future eclectics who will most >strongly maintain that "Freizeit" is the original reading, since "Freiheit >des goettlichen Logos" is the more common phrase, and scribes obviously >harmonized to the more common rather than leaving the difficult "Freizeit" >in place..... And then, of course, another critic will come along and say that, since "Freiheit" is clearly a correction for "Freizeit," and since "Freizeit" clearly cannot be correct, the original must have been lost to a "primitive error." This critic will then propose a conjectural emendation (I'm not sure what; the most appropriate noun listed in my German dictionary is Freibeuter, "Freebooter"!). This then will be taken into all the standard handbooks as an example of why conjectural emendation is necessary. Then some cultist will come along and start robbing people in the name of God. I can see it now.... -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A very rough draft of part of the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Apr 2 12:35:52 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA01148; Wed, 2 Apr 1997 12:35:52 -0500 From: schmiul@uni-muenster.de Message-Id: <199704021736.TAA19550@mail.uni-muenster.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Wed, 02 Apr 97 19:50:56 +0100 Subject: RE: Eph 5:9 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 12309 On Tue, 1 Apr 1997, Maurice Robinson wrote (inter alia): [quoting Schmid] >> Here is Wisselink's final conclusion: "Assimilation is not restricted to a >> single group of manuscripts, neither to a single gospel; assimilation has not >> taken place to any one gospel to a strikingly high degree. So if an >>assimilation >> is signalized, nothing can be concluded from that regarding the age of any >> variant or the value of any text-type. The current thesis, that the Byzantine >> text-type is to be called inferior because of its harmonizing or assimilating >> character, is methodologically not based on sound foundations" (p. 92f). >This, at least in part, accords with what I was saying. However, I still >think that Wisselink examines certain alleged Byzantine harmonizations >(which he terms "assimilations") and finds reasons to consider that >certain of such more likely stem from the autograph or archetype than that >they were subsequently introduced. I do not recall that he excuses any of >the Alexandrian or Western harmonizations as possibly stemming from the >autograph when the Byzantine MSS differ with a non-harmonizing reading. Wisselink's "working definition of assimilation and dissimilation" is the following: "If there is a case of variation within a text-passage and if there is another text-passage with which comparison is possible, we call the reading which reduces the difference with that other text-passage,(sic) an assimilation; the reading which increases the difference with that text-passage, we call a dissimilation" (p. 63). Therefrom it may be concluded that Wisselink treats all of the witnesses he uses in his examination very much the same. I simply could not find conclusions drawn from his data where Wisselink "excuses" harmonizations from whatever witness he examined. With respect to his working definition the textus receptus and Hodges-Farstad, which he treated as single witnesses, contain proportionally more assimilations (_not_ "alleged" assimilations) than B. Adding "alleged" to Wisselink's data simply is a METABASIS EIS ALLO GENOS. [snip] >> We should not neglect another of Wisselink's conclusions: "D especially has >> been assimilated. The degree of assimilation in B and P45 is strikingly >> small. 33, Theta and the Byzantine text-type stand midway between the >> others" (p. 87). >> Now this is interesting. Even a scholar so heavily devoted to unearth the >> crucial problem of assimilation, and at the same time to fight for the >> reputation of the Byzantine text-type had to concede the fact that B >> proportionally contains the smallest amount of assimilation (slightly less >>than >> P45). In contrast to D which after all contains most of the _big_ >>assimilations >> (including transpositions of more than one vers of Mark into Luke) it is no >> surprise that the rest is somewhere in between B and D. These are the facts >> drawn from Wisselink's data. >These judgements are made on the basis of their singular or subsingular >readings in the individual MSS cited. I too acknowledge the careful and >generally "conservative" nature of the scribe of B, as well as what >Wisselink reports regarding the other individual MSS. The comparison with >a texttype is a different matter however, and can only be used as a point >of reference. Where Wisselink would put the texttype-specific >assimilations which would be endemic to the Alexandrian text as a separate >entity might be quite different from where he places B, for example. The >Byzantine Textform stands at a certain point relative to those individual >MSS with its possible or alleged harmonizations. Such placement does _not_ >admit nor declare that those possible harmonizations are in fact true >harmonizations rather than reflections of the autograph; they are only >there for comparative purposes. Wisselink simply does not go further as to calculate the number of assimilations found in various selected witnesses when compared to one another. Therefrom he drew the already mentioned overall conclusion. He used the papyri, S, A, B, D, Theta, Omega, W, min 33, and "the Majority Text of Hodges and Farstad, as summary of many minuscules" (p. 64). When examining and comparing the mentioned witnesses, Wisselink treated them all the same, whether Hodges and Farstad as a MS, or all the MSS as text-types. Again, Maurice, any further speculations as to "where Wisselink would put the texttype-specific assimilations" is a METABASIS EIS ALLO GENOS and without any hint on Wisselink's printed results. >> In itself the data simply do _not_ point to the "Byzantine Textform as >> being the most free of harmonization/assimilation in the Gospels". Maurice's >> conclusion only fits the data, if one judges the Byzantine Textform on >> other grounds as being original. >And certainly Wisselink's own perspective follows the same course. For the >purposes of neutrality, Wisselink had to allow that any alleged >assimilation is either a real assimilation or stems from the archetype of >a texttype or from the autograph. I would expect no less from an impartial >analysis. But the matter still comes up within Wisselink as to whether >there are good grounds or valid criteria for determining whether an >assimilation is "real" or whether such reflects the original text, and >these all deal with theory. Wisselink does make suggestions regarding the >lack of "real" assimilation in the Byzantine Textform, and his statement >quoted at the head of this post seems to make the point fairly clear, at >least to me: >"The current thesis, that the Byzantine text-type is to be called inferior >because of its harmonizing or assimilating character, is methodologically >not based on sound foundations" (p. 92f). >One must recall that a key complaint made against the Byzantine Textform >for the past century has been its "harmonizing" character. If I read >Wisselink correctly, he is clearly saying that (a) the Byzantine Textform >has fewer harmonizations alleged to itself than can be alleged to at least >the combined Alexandrian and Western texttypes; (b) the Byzantine Textform >has far fewer harmonizations than the Western texttype; (c) those >harmonizations found in the Western texttype are clearly "true" >harmonizations and decidedly secondary; (d) the Alexandrian texttype has a >large number of harmonizations which can be alleged against it (whether >these alone outnumber the Byzantine, I am not certain, and would have to >tabulate Wisselink's data to be sure); (e) there are more "real" >harmonizations among the MSS of the non-Byzantine texttypes than can be >proven to exist within the Byzantine Textform (and this might depend on >both Wisselink's and my own textual theories, but this was basically >Wisselink's position as I understood it from him). Broad and simple, Maurice, Wisselink "is saying" non of these, at least not in my reading of his work, and certainly not "clearly". He may hold a textual theory similar to your own, he may even argue the way you do (however, I have my doubts on that), but in his book he expresses nothing comparable to your above mentioned conclusions. IMHO, you should verify your conclusions in pointing to Wisselink's published work. Whatever you and Wisselink agreed upon when meeting in Kampen in 1989 we can not know. > Since assimilations are found in each and every MS of the Gospels (including > P75), and since it is reasonable to infer that this was a constant threat on > every level of textual transmission of the (united) Gospels, I simply have > greater confidence in those witnesses who contain proportionally less > assimilations. >I don't think assimilation/harmonization was as much of a "constant >threat" as you imagine, Ulrich, since the evidence of the MSS show that >harmonizing readings tended _not_ to be perpetuated beyond a few copying >generations. Well, Maurice, dealing with assimilation/harmonization is a tricky business. I just wonder how you can be so sure with your overall conclusion. Maybe we should have a closer look at various examples. First of all, I think there is a type of assimilation that is so remote, that no real conclusions can be drawn therefrom. For example, at Mat 9:1 we have the addition/ommission of the article TO before PLOION. Checking all the other instances where Jesus embarked a boat may display preferences of some MSS (or text-types) for the article or against it. However, I doubt that we should build theories on this type of assimilation. Then we have a second type of assimilation where more than the article is involved, e.g. the various forms of AFIENTAI SOU AI hAMARTIAI in Mat 9:2.5 parr. Here the examination with respect to assimilation might produce more solid results. However, the possibility can not be ruled out, that in this case some assimilations might have been produced independently. Thirdly, we find assimilations of a more complex type, i.e. the transposition of whole sentences from one story (or Logion) into another story (or Logion). For example, within the story of the cleansing of the ten lepers (Luke 17:11-19) at least two very prominent MSS fealt the need to add some sort of expressed healing: D added TEQERAPEUESQE in Luke 17:14 and in the margin of P75 you find QELW KAQARISQHTE KAI EUQEWS EKAQARISQHSAN, which is derieved from the story of the cleansing of the leper in Mat 8:3 parr. Both additions display the same tendency, and one of them is a very complex assimilation. One may say, since P75 is the only witness, that this is a perfect example of an assimilation not perpetuated within textual transmission. That's true. However, what about an even more complex transposition within a whole bunch of Byzantine MSS perpetuated from the 9th to the 14th centuries? Within the collations of 119 Byzantine MSS from three monasteries (Patmos, Jerusalem, Sinai), published by Lake, Blake and New (The Caesarean Text of the Gospel of Mark; in: HThR 4 [1928] pp. 338-357), we find after Mark 11:26 an addition of Mat 7,7-8 in 16 MSS from all three monasteries. Another MS adds these verses after Mark 11:24. That is to say, roughly 15 percent of exclusively Byzantine MSS from three monasteries perpetuate this addition. Some further (unfortunately incomplete) studies revealed another 21 Byzantine MSS with the same addition (including K 017 from the 9th century). After checking most of these MSS, I found at least five reasonably distinct textual forms of this addition (if itacisms and orthographicals are included even more). As far as I can see, it is very unlikely that the addition of Mat 7:7-8 at Mark 11:26 (or 11:24) occured several times independently. It is almost totally restricted to Byzantine text MSS (exception 579) from the 9th century onwards. How many copying generations would you guess, Maurice? Remember, it's only 15 percent. So noone, I suspect, would defend this addition as belonging to the autograph. On the other hand, it is at least 15 percent of the Byzantine MSS from three geographically seperated monasteries. So noone should simply dismiss it's validity as an example of what can happen in NT TC. >From my eclectic viewpoint I may draw the following conclusions: Even, or should I say especially, within the Byzantine text a minority of MSS not easy to neglect perpetuate an obvious and complex addition of two verses from Mat within Mark over a period of some 500 years not restricted to any particular locale. This assimilation was not wiped out through cross-correction, but coexisted in various subtypes over a considerable span of time. Moreover, I only found signs of adding the verses, not of extinguishing them in the MSS. Therefore, the possibility can not be ruled out, that some complex assimilations gained a majority status, especially when they happen to be at the right time at the right place, i.e. early in the history of the Byzantine text. [snip] >> This is the way eclectics are supposed to act. Isn't it? >Ulrich, I am pleased to say that you act very much like a typical >eclectic. :-) >I suppose that is a left-handed compliment (and I am left-handed).... I know. So I am still not taken over to the other side. Ulrich Schmid, Muenster From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Apr 2 12:40:54 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA01167; Wed, 2 Apr 1997 12:40:54 -0500 Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 12:41:27 -0500 Message-Id: <2.2.16.19970402124128.4e2788f0@email.psu.edu> X-Sender: wlp1@email.psu.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "William L. Petersen" Subject: The "Freizeit" of the "logos" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 719 As a small (but marginally serious) note on Ulrich's wonderful "Freizeit Fehler," note also how the specific error made by his (innocent!) mother is only possible on a *German* set-up keyboard, and *not* on a QWERTY keyboard. Harkening back to Jean Valentine's comments about the Holy Spirit being more common in the East, here too we see how knowledge of the *specific,* *local* keyboard (and two are in use in Germany today) is necessarily to successfully conjecture what the error might have been: working from the QWERTY model (as most would instinctively do) would tend to exclude the supposition of a typing error, for on a QWERTY keyboard the "z" is too far from the "h"... --Petersen, Penn State University From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Apr 2 14:05:32 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA01463; Wed, 2 Apr 1997 14:05:32 -0500 Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 14:05:32 -0500 From: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-Id: <199704021905.OAA01463@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> Apparently-To: tc-list-outgoing content-length: 23270 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 14:11:54 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Eph 5:9 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu On Tue, 1 Apr 1997, Robert B. Waltz wrote: >I've even encountered someone (not a Christian) who thought "God >fights on the side with the heaviest artillery" was Biblical. They need to listen to Bob Dylan's "With God On Our Side" :-) >>Neither NA26 nor Von Soden give any patristic writers on either side in >>the case of Eph.5:9, so I suspect there are none of note. There is no >>variant at Gal.5:22, so no data there either. >But this is the fact we need: How often did people cite that passage? >Only by knowing how familiar it is can we determine whether people >would harmonize to it. I concede Robinson's argument (omitted) that >it is hard to tell how well-known a passage is. But it is a crucial >question here. Yet for the most part in the NT we are at the same loss. Certainly favorite liturgical passages such as the Lord's Prayer or the Magnificat would be well known in the early church, but would the various catalogs of virtues all be linked together and called the "fruit of the spirit" by the average person? I think this unlikely. Similarly, while today's evangelical church majors on John 3:16 (as can be seen from almost any sporting event), I suspect this key salvational verse played a very small part in the early liturgical church. The key to familiarity in the early era is more probably liturgy than anything else, and thus the lectionaries and early liturgies are our best source for determining popularity of various verses or phrases, "world without end".... >>If (under a Byzantine-priority hypothesis) the Byzantine Textform = the >>autograph, it then also = whatever "harmonized" common text might appear >>in those autographs, just as in places where no units of variation exist. >>Merely because in such situations the Byzantine Textform happens to read >>identically between, say, Matthew and Mark where the Alexandrian may >>happen to vary, does _not_ allow an automatic presumption of deliberate >>harmonization by the scribes of the Byzantine MSS. >Agreed again, but it's *still* assuming the solution. The matter cannot >be investigated from that standpoint. Certainly it can. Any hypothesis _must_ be tested by first assuming the truth of the hypothesis under consideration and then evaluating its claims and attempting to disprove such. If there is an initial refusal to consider the hypothesis from within its own theoretical framework, then the conclusion is predetermined and such a hypothesis cannot be fairly evaluated. Such a method in no way precludes testing the component parts of the hypothesis by evaluating the data piece by piece. Were I to test the validity of the modern eclectic viewpoint, I would have to allow as an initial working hypothesis their view of transmissional history, the development of variants, and the secondary nature of the Byzantine Textform. I then could test the hypothesis and see whether the modern eclectic theory is self-consistent within its own parameters by making a detailed examination of its presuppositions and testing for a regular and fair application of its own internal and external principles. After such a theory has been tested from within its own parameters, with weaknesses or inconsistencies noted, one can then propose or move on to alternative hypotheses for similar evaluation. Following the scientific method, the hypothesis with the _fewest_ perceived weaknesses should be given the preference (I think this is the scientific method's equivalent to "God fights on the side with the heaviest artillery"). >>_All_ theories have to function properly >>within their own parameters, else they would already be invalid. Were I to >>maintain that the Byzantine Text as established by a Byzantine-priority >>method indeed _does_ have harmonizations within it, then I would be >>admitting that my theory is no theory at all. I hope you see the point. >I see what you are saying. And I do not argue that we must always >accept the least harmonious reading. I am simply saying (and this >criticism applies just as much to blind followers of Hort as to >followers of the Byzantine text) that *wherever* there is a variant >involving one or more harmonized readings, and one or more disharmonized >readings, we must initially evaluate the readings without examining >the text-types they belong to. I agree that any and all harmonizations, whether real or alleged, must be investigated; however, following the method you just described (which disregards the working hypotheses under consideration), I see no way that you can come to any conclusion regarding _any_ alleged harmonization without declaring it to be a true harmonization and therefore secondary. Q.E.D., your suggestion _does_ advocate a principle that "we must always accept the least harmonious reading", so long as you approach the variant units with no theoretical concept from any perspective concerning the nature of transmissional history presupposed by the respective theorists. >Note that I am working at the very lowest level here. I am *not* >trying to determine the original text. I am trying to determine the >age and value of the Byzantine text (and the other text-types). >Only once that investigation is completed can we start on the >original text. I suspect that if that question were totally settled, we would not be having any discussion. Were I convinced that the Byzantine Textform and the transmissional theory which underlies a preference for it were false or unsound, I would be the first to return to either modern eclectic praxis or even to the Westcott-Hort theory. Since, however, the determination of the age and value of the Byzantine Textform as well as that of the other texttypes is bound up part and parcel with the underlying presuppositions and various hypotheses, I suspect no resolution of this problem will come quickly (although apparently many from the opposing side thought the Byzantine Text defense was long ago dead and buried, and liked the thought of keeping it that way). This is why I have maintained (with H.H.Oliver and others) that "textual criticism without a history of the text is impossible." Modern eclecticism proceeds without a real history of the text, and prefers to deal with the history of variants alone, taken from within the isolation of the respective variant units (whether one calls it the "local-genealogical method" or whatever). The net result of such a practice leads (as has been critiqued by Colwell, Clark, Epp, and others from within the eclectic school) to a resultant printed text which has _no_ transmissional heritage nor existence in any known MS, version or texttype. Suffice it to say that a Byzantine-priority method does not share those particular weaknesses, nor do transmissionally- based pro-Alexandrian theories such as that of Westcott and Hort (who would have had a nearly pure Alexandrian text had they not gotten imbued with the "Western non-interpolations" issue); the problem noted is endemic to modern eclecticism in particular. >To put it another way, Robinson and I are operating at different levels. Perhaps an understatement..... :-) >He has reached a conclusion about the original text type. I had reached >a different conclusion about that text-type. I am now offering to go >back one level, and assume *ignorance* about the text-types. I am >not willing to go back and then blindly come over to his side. This of course is not expected nor demanded. It must be remembered that my own movement to a pro-Byzantine position was the result _only_ of first analyzing and critiquing the modern eclectic position, as well as those of its predecessors, and only after did I seek a more reasonable explanation to account for the data. Blame Kenneth W. Clark for setting me on the road I have taken; it was his suggestion from the start. >I said *primarily* conservative. They did not set out to create variants. >That doesn't mean they *never* did so. We all know that no copyist is >perfect. Fully agreed. And no two MSS of _any_ texttype agree 100%, so far as I know; but this does not affect texttype-specific readings, which are the primary data to be conservatively preserved in most MSS of any given texttype. Regarding the creation of variants, however, I have suggested that "new" sensible readings, whether accidentally or deliberately created by scribes or revisers at any point subsequent to the autograph, would always be unlikely to gain more than a small foothold within the "primarily conservative" transmissional process, except among small "local text" regions. Most sensible readings so created were weeded out by cross-comparison and correction from other exemplars within a few copying generations; were this not the case, the NT MSS would have degenerated into near-utter chaos among themselves, such as was the case with the Old Latin, and we would not be talking of four major texttypes, but dozens of competing minor texttypes at the very least. The history of NT Greek MS transmission moves toward a final text preserved in the mass of documents which has relatively very few sub-variants among its member MSS. Order coming out of what should have been chaos is a very problematic concept, and it is this very fact which provoked either the Hortian "Syrian Recension" theory or the Colwellian "process" theory to account for the rise and dominance of the basically unified Byzantine Textform. Yet both the recensional and process alternative hypotheses are beset by serious weaknesses, as previously mentioned. >Also, when I refer to the Byzantine copyists as "conservative," I refer >to them during the periods during which their actions are visible >(which starts in the fourth/fifth century for the gospels, and later in >the rest of the NT). Still fully granted. If they essentially reproduced without change that which had been bequeathed to them by scribes of each earlier generation, I would not be surprised to find an essentially unified Textform being preserved from the fourth or fifth century onward in the majority of MSS. I also am willing to grant the relative non-conservative sloppiness of Egyptian scribes from the pre-4th century era in regard to most of the MSS which have been preserved to us from that region. I also grant the concept of the "uncontrolled popular text" existing before AD 200 which likely accounts for most known variant readings and especially the so-called "western" corruptions. My only additional assumption is that not all scribes nor even most scribes were necessarily like those we find in the papyri preserved from Egypt, and that it is a likely extrapolation from those known "conservative" Byzantine-type scribes from the 4th and 5th centuries and onward that similar earlier scribal conservatism also did prevail in the regions of the Empire where Greek had been the primary tongue (Southern Italy through modern Turkey) in the earlier centuries. If this assumption is correct, then the groundwork for a Byzantine- priority theory has a legitimate basis. Since such an assumption cannot be proved one way or the other in view of current data, well, that is why other hypotheses exist, equally unproven. >We do not know the shape of the materials they >worked with prior to that time. Of course, the same statement applies, >with differences in date, to all text-types. Also agreed. >We know, e.g., that the >copyist who produced B, and probably its immediate predecessors, were >conservative, because they kept its text close to p75. That in itself is correct, and shows that there were "conservative" scribes within the other textual traditions as well. Since I presume the Alexandrian texttype to be basically the local text of Egypt, I have no problem with either P75 or B preserving that localized variant with relative accuracy. The wonder is that so many other papyri from the localized region of Egypt did _not_ conservatively copy the text, but fell victim to the "uncontrolled popular text" syndrome. >But we do not >know what happened prior to the creation of p75. Most scholars think >the forerunners of that manuscript were also conservative and careful. >But we *cannot* prove it. Since P75 and B both preserve what Hort called "a very pure line of very ancient text", I think we _have_ to presume that particular line _was_ conservatively and basically carefully preserved over the centuries, and also in any forerunner MSS in a line going back to the archetype of the local Alexandrian texttype (unless one wanted to claim that P75 was "the" original archetype of the Alexandrian text -- I'll leave that one to Theide for his next book :-). >Not my point. The point is that oral tradition and written tradition >display *identical behaviors*. I will differ on this point, since -- especially with a religious text which becomes regarded as sacred -- the written and oral tradition tend to become fixed and stabilized in a manner which folkloric or lyrical oral tradition does not; and the passage of time, even centuries, does little to alter the fixed written or oral tradition in such cases. Remember that, even with all of the little sub-variant types among the Byzantine MSS, the basic text of _any_ Byzantine MS from the 15th century will look amazingly like _any_ Byzantine or proto-Byzantine text from the 4th, 5th, or 6th century. The analogy from oral tradition would expect to see continual corruption or alteration occurring and accruing over the centuries, but this simply is not the case with the Byzantine Textform as an entity, even though sub-Byzantine families or types might branch of in small particulars from the vast majority (Von Soden's Kx) which majority would continue to preserve the original and overarching Byzantine Textform in virtually any era. >But I would bet that I can find examples of *any* >textual phenomenon you care to name in Bronson's "Traditional Tunes >of the Child Ballads." (Or could, if I had all four volumes, which >I don't.) I could probably find all of them just in "Barbara Allen" >or "Lord Thomas and Fair Ellen." I will defer to you on the folk song issue. I only play them and attempt to sing them (and not very well). >I did the only research I could on this last night: I looked up what >Daniel Wallace had to say about Wisselink. He did raise one *very* >strong point. He observes that Wisselink compares the Byzantine *text* >with individual Alexandrian *witnesses.* >Now it is true that the Byzantine text is fairly coherent, and the >Alexandrian text is not, so this is the easiest sort of comparison. >But it is also a *false* comparison. An individual manuscript will >almost certainly have more harmonizations than its text-type. We >must compare types against types. I also grant this point, since obviously any single MS will have more of virtually any type of error (deliberate or accidental) than the members of its texttype. However, I think Wisselink _only_ utilized the frequency of harmonization in individual MSS of the Alexandrian type in order to establish whether any of those individual MSS had a "tendency" to harmonize. This would be no different than Colwell's study of scribal habits in the early papyri. Those Alexandrian witnesses found to have a tendency to harmonize would then become suspect or of somewhat less weight in places where the remainder of the Alexandrian texttype does not harmonize. The real test, however, remains in those readings which are texttype-specific, wherein it can be presumed that the _archetype_ of the Alexandrian texttype must have harmonized -- this transcends the vagaries of the individual MSS comprising such a texttype, and is a proper subject for evaluation. >Perhaps I expressed myself poorly. My point is, one *cannot* quote isolated >examples. One must sit down with *some* section of continuous text and >examine every reading. This is interesting, since Fee and Wallace both have claimed that the task of the pro-Byzantine side was _not_ to deal in theory (even though that is what undergirds the entire perspective), but to deal in praxis with relatively isolated examples set forth as "challenge" cases. I have responded to two such test cases from Fee in an ETS paper which is currently available in our _Faith and Mission_ journal. However, praxis in individual variant units, without the consideration of the theory underlying such praxis, reflects nothing more than practical eclecticism, and this in itself establishes and proves nothing. Certainly I _do_ prefer far more the idea of looking at all variants within a single section of text, since this is compact and relatively easy to deal with. But I don't want this to become merely the "Pepsi Challenge" and continually have to move from pericope to pericope on the assumption that successful defense of Byzantine readings in one place says nothing about what might occur elsewhere. Just as Fee said with his two test passages from Mark, they were merely "two among hundreds," and whatever defense could be made for them could be repeated hundreds of times over (Fee of course meant a defense made by only the Alexandrian eclectics, and discounted the possibility of any such defense coming from the Byzantine supporters). Suffice it to say that _if_ a reasonable defense can be made for the Byzantine readings appearing in a given pericope or segment of text, it should be granted that such a defense obviously _could_ be made elsewhere in a similar manner. Certainly some readings might require time and research effort, and cannot be defended by a simple shot from the hip; but that is only to be expected in the nature of the case. >In fact, I made a small experiment of that sort last night. I started >from Hodges & Farstad (the only text with a reasonably relevant critical >apparatus). Taking two sample chapters (from Mark and John), I compared >the Byzantine and Alexandrian readings. My *sole* criterion was the >internal one, "Which reading best explains the others." Probably too simplistic in and of itself, but fitting in with a primary internal criterion of textual criticism. >The majority of readings were ambiguous. In instances where one reading >seemed preferable to the others, it seemed about an even split as to >which was preferable, Byzantine or Alexandrian. This of course is your subjective judgment. Others (whether eclectics or pro-Byzantine) might look at the same variant units and come to totally different conclusions, even using that single criterion. I know that I would. Part of the reason of course will be that you applied a criterion taken in isolation apart from other internal or external data (a severe parallel to the Kilpatrick/Elliott method of "rigorous" eclecticism). I suspect that even Elliott would demur from your method in such a case; but as a sample without definitive overtones, what you did was a fine experiment. >However, many of these readings were cases where one reading was only >slightly preferable. In the handful of cases where one was *clearly* >preferable (I think there were five that I noticed before I had to >stop), *all five of the preferable readings were Alexandrian.* Again a subjective judgment. Since I don't know the passages or readings, I might seem presumptuous, but since I have worked through all these readings previously and know where the most problematic happen to be, I would maintain that a reasonable case can be made for the Byzantine reading in almost all such places. The difficult cases especially need to be considered in view of the _entire transmissional history_, as even Westcott and Hort pointed out in their own model. The overriding theory, once established and settled, _must_ assume that even the difficult places were transmitted as they were because of autograph or archetype originality, else they would not be part and parcel of a texttype/Textform reading so perpetuated. >I didn't check enough readings to be decisive. But it also >says that we need a rigid control procedure; what I think is certainly >original may not be what Wisselink thinks is certainly original. It's >a problem. I agree in regard to the subjectivity, but that comes with the varied approaches and the theories which underlie them. I suspect that _no_ rigid control procedure could ever come about which would bridge the gap between competing theories. I _do_ think that a rigid control procedure _could_ be imposed within a _single_ theoretical perspective, and in fact my approach to the evaluative method of readings on internal grounds is quite controlled and "rigid" for the most part; it just does not happen to be the same controls or (lack of) rigidity that one would find within modern eclectic praxis. >But I would recommend the exercise to others; it *was* educational. >The difference between Byzantine and Alexandrian is certainly not as >clearcut as I thought. It is interesting that you did that experiment, since I have my own text-critical students do something similar: I give them a "blind" list of readings within a portion of text, with no external evidence support cited, and ask them to determine solely from internal criteria which readings are "best". The results when working "blind" in almost all cases is an equally-divided bag: some Byzantine readings being preferred, some Alexandrian, and even a few Western. The net result of such an approach is that we should expect from eclectic scholars a resultant text which is far more equally balanced among the texttypes than is present in the primarily-Alexandrian model found in the UBS or NA editions. This of course is _only_ if we proceed from internal criteria without theories regarding the "best" MSS or texttypes etc. >True on both counts. Although -- even if the process continues -- my >resultant theory is likely to resemble Von Soden's or Sturz's. I doubt >I will abandon non-Byzantine text-types entirely. If it ever does resemble Von Soden or Sturz (which are quite disparate, by the way), let me know, since I have a strong critique regarding either theory, though admittedly Sturz ends up by his methodology with a text which is _very_ close to a Byzantine text (he published a fascicle containing Matthew to demonstrate his method). Sturz departed from the Byzantine Textform _only_ when the Alexandrian and Western texttypes happened to unite apart from the Byzantine text -- and you know how infrequently that would occur. >Just great... already half the people on this list don't listen to me. >Now I'm going to get the other half ignoring me. :-) Welcome to the club. :-) _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Apr 2 14:52:20 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA01764; Wed, 2 Apr 1997 14:52:20 -0500 Message-Id: <9704022052.AA26459@iris.arcadis.be> Subject: Re: The "Freizeit" of the "logos" Date: Wed, 2 Apr 97 21:56:33 +0200 X-Sender: vale5655@194.111.178.251 X-Mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1 From: Jean VALENTIN To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 848 >for on a QWERTY keyboard the "z" is too far >from the "h"... And, may I add, it's also too far on our french "AZERTY" :-) (there's much humor on the list today, I like it!) ________________________________________________________________ Jean Valentin - 58/7 rue Van Kalck - 1080 Bruxelles - BELGIQUE ________________________________________________________________ email : jgvalentin@arcadis.be *** netmail : 2:291/780.103 ________________________________________________________________ Ce qui est trop simple est faux, ce qui est trop complique est inutilisable. What's too simple is wrong, what's too complicated is unusable. Wat te eenvoudig is, is verkeerd; wat te ingewikkeld is, is onbruikbaar. ________________________________________________________________ THIS MESSAGE WAS SENT TO YOU FROM BRUSSELS, THE CAPITAL OF EUROPE !!! From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Apr 2 14:55:01 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA01787; Wed, 2 Apr 1997 14:55:00 -0500 Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 14:55:00 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Adair" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Papyri pieces In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 703 An interesting online exhibit entitled "From Papyrus to King James: The Transmission of the English Bible" is currently available on the University of Michigan site at http://www.lib.umich.edu/pap/exhibits/ from_papyri_to_king_james/king_james_review. This exhibit, which unfortunately includes fewer than ten images, includes images of pages from P46, the Tyndale Bible, and the Geneva Bible. There is a real need for high-quality color images of manuscripts to begin appearing on the Web. 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 owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Apr 2 16:09:54 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA02233; Wed, 2 Apr 1997 16:09:54 -0500 Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 16:09:22 -0500 From: "Harold P. Scanlin" Subject: 1769 or 1833 To: TC-LIST Message-ID: <199704021609_MC2-13A7-BBBE@compuserve.com> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 547 Hubert Bahr asked for the full bibliographic references to: A. S. Herbert _Historical Catalogue of Printed Editions of the English Bible 1525 - 1961_ (London/NY: BFBS/ABS, 1968) Margaret T. Hills. _The English Bible in America. A Bibliography of Editions of the Bible & the New Testament Published in America 1777 - 1957. (NY: ABS and NY Public Library). Both these titles are out of print but they should be available in larger libraries. Harold P. Scanlin United Bible Societies 1865 Broadway New York, NY 10023 scanlin@compuserve.com From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Apr 2 16:17:11 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA02264; Wed, 2 Apr 1997 16:17:10 -0500 Message-Id: <9704022217.AA02359@iris.arcadis.be> Subject: Re: Eph 5:9 Date: Wed, 2 Apr 97 23:21:22 +0200 X-Sender: vale5655@194.111.178.251 X-Mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1 From: Jean VALENTIN To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1986 >Fully agreed. Now, if someone can find liturgical or other citations of >either "fruit of the spirit" or "fruit of light" in early Orthodox liturgy >or literature, this will be helpful. > A first step would be to look at the lectionary of a byzantine-rite church. I don't have one here, but I have a vague remembrance of having heard that text (or the one in Galatians, rather) read one of the last times I visited the melkite parish of Brussels. Probably for the office of the christmas night (thus one of great affluence). Can somebody verify ? In the nestorian and chaldean churches (but then we are in the syriac world) the Ephesian text is read the last sunday of Advent. The Syrian Orthodox church reads the Galatian text on the third sunday of lent, and the Ephesian text, and the Ephesian text the 7th sunday after Epiphany. By the way, in the peshitto, they are not harmonized. But of course, this is the situation in the XXth century. Even though there have been less liturgical reforms in the East than in the West, we should check it on manuscripts... About the popularity of John 3.16 again : I already mentioned its presence at the heart of St John's Chrysostom' liturgy, and, though it's more anecdotic, I mention also this : it's on the title page of the Gospels in an edition of the georgian NT that was published by the Patriarchate (or more exactly catholicate) of the Georgian orthodox church (Tbilisi, 1963). ________________________________________________________________ Jean Valentin - 58/7 rue Van Kalck - 1080 Bruxelles - BELGIQUE ________________________________________________________________ email : jgvalentin@arcadis.be *** netmail : 2:291/780.103 ________________________________________________________________ Ce qui est trop simple est faux, ce qui est trop complique est inutilisable. What's too simple is wrong, what's too complicated is unusable. Wat te eenvoudig is, is verkeerd; wat te ingewikkeld is, is onbruikbaar. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Apr 2 19:56:07 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA02457; Wed, 2 Apr 1997 19:56:07 -0500 Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 18:57:59 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: RE: Eph 5:9 In-Reply-To: <199704021736.TAA19550@mail.uni-muenster.de> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 4245 On Wed, 2 Apr 1997 schmiul@uni-muenster.de wrote: > On Tue, 1 Apr 1997, Maurice Robinson wrote (inter alia): > Therefrom it may be concluded that Wisselink treats all of the witnesses he uses > in his examination very much the same. I simply could not find conclusions drawn > from his data where Wisselink "excuses" harmonizations from whatever witness he > examined. I will have to look again and see how Wisselink approaches different views of transmissional history. Something should be there regarding how which transmissional view one accepts will include or exclude various alleged harmonizations/assimilations. > more assimilations (_not_ "alleged" assimilations) than B. Adding "alleged" > to Wisselink's data simply is a METABASIS EIS ALLO GENOS. I acknowledge that "alleged" is my term, not Wisselink's; however, I see nothing more in the term than a degree of fairness in the use of such term, since until a harmonization is proven to be such (which it may not be if stemming from the autograph), it can only be an "alleged" harmonization. > Again, Maurice, any further speculations as to > "where Wisselink would put the texttype-specific assimilations" is a METABASIS > EIS ALLO GENOS and without any hint on Wisselink's printed results. But again, Wisselink did determine a MS's propensity toward assimilation from its singular or sub-singular readings. These would say nothing about those cases where, say, an Alexandrian or Western reading happened NOT to be singular or subsingular, but instead reflected the texttype as a whole. Only the Byzantine was considered under that category, and then only as a "control" type of database. _No_ conclusion should be drawn from the use and performance of Byz (H/F text or otherwise) taken as a whole texttype in regard to the _real_ proportion or tendency of the MSS comprising that texttype for assimilation. Since Wisselink found that assimilation was _not_ endemic to the MSS comprising the Byzantine Textform, and dismissed the claims in that regard, the next step should be to examine selected early Byzantine MSS in singular and sub-singular readings in a manner similar to that utilized for the non-Byz individual MSS in order to determine the likelihood of Byzantine assimilation per se. If that likelihood remains small, then most of the assimilations listed under Byz or H/F should be ruled invalid. > Broad and simple, Maurice, Wisselink "is saying" non of these, at least not in > my reading of his work, and certainly not "clearly". He may hold a textual > theory similar to your own, he may even argue the way you do (however, I have my > doubts on that), but in his book he expresses nothing comparable to your above > mentioned conclusions. IMHO, you should verify your conclusions in pointing to > Wisselink's published work. Whatever you and Wisselink agreed upon when meeting > in Kampen in 1989 we can not know. I think that what I am saying is a clear enough reflection of what I read in Wisselink. We obviously read his data and words differently and draw different inferences. I recognize that part of the problem is that he had to work from a "neutral" and non-judgmental perspective in his research, and this is reflected in his text. However, I still think the inferences are very much there, and the perceptions of different readers may affect how such inferences are understood. I know that other items came up in conversation, and I may be blending some of those recollections into my discussion; in that regard I confess guilt. > Well, Maurice, dealing with assimilation/harmonization is a tricky business. I > just wonder how you can be so sure with your overall conclusion. Maybe we should > have a closer look at various examples. Rather than making this post exceedingly long, I will postpone discussion of the examples to another posting, after I have had opportunity to download and digest all you have written. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Apr 2 19:56:09 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA02470; Wed, 2 Apr 1997 19:56:08 -0500 Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 18:11:53 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Rom. 15:19 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 5775 While we are on the topic of correction to the "more familiar" phrase, and the Holy Spirit in particular, I am just curious as to the opinion of the modern eclectics on the tc-list regarding the divided reading in Rom. 15:19 between PNEUMATOS AGIOU and PNEUMATOS QEOU (which in uncial nomina sacra would be PNCAGIOU/PNOCAGIOU or PNCQU/PNOCQU). This happens to be a case where the Byzantine reading is identical to that preferred by the editors of NA26/27, so in theory both positions should argue the internal matters of the case in a similar manner. Paul clearly uses both expressions, though somewhat unequally. The count can be tabulated as follows (not including Rom.15:19): The specific phrases: Paul excluding Hebrews Hebrews PNEUMATOS AGIOU (in various cases) Byzantine Textform: 6x 2x WH text: 5x 2x PNEUMA QEOU: (in various cases) Byzantine Textform: 7x -- WH text: 7x -- In a more general sense, one finds the following: Paul excluding Hebrews Hebrews PNEUMA AGIOS (in various cases) Byzantine Textform: 13x 2x WH text: 12x 2x AGIOS PNEUMA (in various cases) Byzantine Textform: 6x -- WH text: 5x -- TO PNEUMA TO AGIOS (in various cases) Byzantine Textform: 1x 3x WH text: 1x 3x In Rom.15:19 the textual evidence is divided thus (N26 apparatus): AGIOU - A D*,2 F G 33 81 104 365 630 1739 1881 PC lat syh-mg co (Von Soden adds to this: arm Didymus Basil Athanasius) QEOU - p46 Aleph D1 Psi Maj b sy (C illeg.) omit - B While obviously the Byzantine Textform reads QEOU here, internal considerations seem to lean in that direction in any case. "Spirit of God" is used less in Paul (but not significantly less, so I am uncertain if any major case can be made from that). On the other hand, the phrase "Holy Spirit" (PNEUMA AGIOS in various cases) is primarily a Lukan/Pauline term in the NT, occurring as shown above in Paul, and in Lk/Ac Byz 25x (WH 23x), but in the rest of the NT outside of Luke/Paul only Byz 10x (WH 8x). The articular expression TO PNEUMA TO AGIOS (in various cases) is also distinctively Lukan, occurring 15x in Ac and 2x in Lk, while only once each in Mt/Mk/Jn. That form of expression, however, is not distinctively "Pauline", since it occurs only once in Ephesians and 3x in Hebrews. Similarly the reverse expression AGIOS PNEUMA (in various cases) also may not seem greatly characteristic of Paul, with only 5 occurrences, 3x (2x WH) in 1Cor, 1x in 2Cor, and 1x in 2Th; but it once more is a Lukan/Pauline characteristic phrase, occurring as well 7x (6x WH) in Acts and 2x in Lk., with only 1x in Mt and 1x in 1Pe rounding out the NT. But is there enough significant difference to advocate on internal grounds the slightly lesser-used Pauline expression here? In the remainder of the NT, the phrase "Spirit of God" occurs only 1x Byz (2x WH) times, and even Luke/Acts do not use the term, so it could be termed almost a "distinctly Pauline" usage. Also, the phrase "Spirit of God" would seem to be less common in later liturgical use than the familiar "Holy Spirit", which might serve as another argument away from the familiar toward the accepted reading of N26/Byz. Also, the "harmonization to the immediate context" principle may once more play a part, since the phrase "Holy Spirit" appears previously in 15:13 (genitive) and 15:16 (dative), and such close-context occurrences could easily influence a scribe in that direction at 15:19. I note also from Von Soden that at the very end of Rom.15:19 there is another isolated "harmonization to the immediate context" by Chrysostom and MS 88 (= Ia1 200 VS) in reading QEOU for CRISTOU. This suggests that a QEOU was possibly in their exemplars at the variant unit occurring earlier in the verse; not surprising, given that QEOU is the majority reading in the unit under discussion. Yet are these sufficient grounds in the minds of most eclectics on which to declare "Spirit of God" original over "Holy Spirit"? I suspect that this _should_ be the case, since NA26/27 has accepted that reading, but I remain curious as to how the various eclectics on the list might view this line of argument. I also am curious whether anyone might opt for either the "Holy Spirit" reading or the singular Vaticanus "shorter reading" solution (which latter I consider either a product of accidental omission or a recensional decision, resolving the difficulty by omitting the descriptive term and reading only "Spirit"). I suppose that some could argue for the shorter reading of B as original, with later "pious expansion" in two different directions; the utter singularity of Vaticanus, however, will have to be explained and overcome if so). Another good question for the eclectic side is, _why_ in view of two competing readings in this variant unit was there no later conflation of both readings into the "Holy Spirit of God" (PNEUMATOS AGIOU TOU QEOU) in any MS, especially if (as is generally claimed), scribes -- and especially the "later Byzantine" scribes -- were so "prone" to perform conflation when two readings of equal validity presented themselves? _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Apr 2 20:58:43 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA02663; Wed, 2 Apr 1997 20:58:42 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 20:04:48 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Rom. 15:19 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1692 Maurice Robinson asked about Rom. 15:19. Since nobody else does things my way, I will offer my analysis just to stir things up. For me, this is a very difficult reading. Let's start with the manuscript evidence, done my way: Evidence PNEUMATOS PNEUMATOS PNEUMATOS by text-type AGIOU QEOU p46/B sa p46 B Alexandrian A 81 1962 Aleph fam 2127 436 bo 1506 "Western" D* F G 629 b a d f m vg Family 1739 1739 1881 6 630 2200 Miscellaneous Family 1611 hark-marg 1505 1611 hark-txt other arm geo1 geo2 It's worth noting that the conflate reading PNEUMATOS QEOU AGIOU *does* exist in family 330 (330 451; 2492 has QEOU). Counting text-types is ambiguous. Though AGIOU has the clear support of the "Western" and family 1739 texts, the Alexandrian text is split. (It will be noted that I listed neither 33 nor 1175 as Alexandrian; both are Byzantine in Romans). p46/B is also split. On the whole, though, QEOU looks like the Alexandrian reading. It also looks more likely to be the reading of p46/B. Throw in the reading of family 1611, and it is textually just as stron as AGIOU. Which forces me to internal criteria. QEOU better explains AGIOU than the reverse. In my text, I would print QEOU -- but it would be marked in the margin as having maximum uncertainty. Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Apr 2 21:22:52 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA02749; Wed, 2 Apr 1997 21:22:52 -0500 Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 21:23:35 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: The "Freizeit" of the "logos" In-Reply-To: <2.2.16.19970402124128.4e2788f0@email.psu.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 710 On Wed, 2 Apr 1997, William L. Petersen wrote: > supposition of a typing error, for on a QWERTY keyboard the "z" is too far > from the "h"... In which case the future textual critics from the QWERTY region would consider "Freizeit" most definitely the original reading, since only a _deliberate_ alteration would be responsible for substituting the "easier" "Freiheit" for the more difficult "Freizeit". _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Apr 2 21:33:43 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA02768; Wed, 2 Apr 1997 21:33:42 -0500 Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 21:34:21 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Eph 5:9 Reply pt.1 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 11792 This one got bounced due to length, so I have split it into two parts. Here is part 1.... On Tue, 1 Apr 1997, Robert B. Waltz wrote: >I've even encountered someone (not a Christian) who thought "God >fights on the side with the heaviest artillery" was Biblical. They need to listen to Bob Dylan's "With God On Our Side" :-) >>Neither NA26 nor Von Soden give any patristic writers on either side in >>the case of Eph.5:9, so I suspect there are none of note. There is no >>variant at Gal.5:22, so no data there either. >But this is the fact we need: How often did people cite that passage? >Only by knowing how familiar it is can we determine whether people >would harmonize to it. I concede Robinson's argument (omitted) that >it is hard to tell how well-known a passage is. But it is a crucial >question here. Yet for the most part in the NT we are at the same loss. Certainly favorite liturgical passages such as the Lord's Prayer or the Magnificat would be well known in the early church, but would the various catalogs of virtues all be linked together and called the "fruit of the spirit" by the average person? I think this unlikely. Similarly, while today's evangelical church majors on John 3:16 (as can be seen from almost any sporting event), I suspect this key salvational verse played a very small part in the early liturgical church. The key to familiarity in the early era is more probably liturgy than anything else, and thus the lectionaries and early liturgies are our best source for determining popularity of various verses or phrases, "world without end".... >>If (under a Byzantine-priority hypothesis) the Byzantine Textform = the >>autograph, it then also = whatever "harmonized" common text might appear >>in those autographs, just as in places where no units of variation exist. >>Merely because in such situations the Byzantine Textform happens to read >>identically between, say, Matthew and Mark where the Alexandrian may >>happen to vary, does _not_ allow an automatic presumption of deliberate >>harmonization by the scribes of the Byzantine MSS. >Agreed again, but it's *still* assuming the solution. The matter cannot >be investigated from that standpoint. Certainly it can. Any hypothesis _must_ be tested by first assuming the truth of the hypothesis under consideration and then evaluating its claims and attempting to disprove such. If there is an initial refusal to consider the hypothesis from within its own theoretical framework, then the conclusion is predetermined and such a hypothesis cannot be fairly evaluated. Such a method in no way precludes testing the component parts of the hypothesis by evaluating the data piece by piece. Were I to test the validity of the modern eclectic viewpoint, I would have to allow as an initial working hypothesis their view of transmissional history, the development of variants, and the secondary nature of the Byzantine Textform. I then could test the hypothesis and see whether the modern eclectic theory is self-consistent within its own parameters by making a detailed examination of its presuppositions and testing for a regular and fair application of its own internal and external principles. After such a theory has been tested from within its own parameters, with weaknesses or inconsistencies noted, one can then propose or move on to alternative hypotheses for similar evaluation. Following the scientific method, the hypothesis with the _fewest_ perceived weaknesses should be given the preference (I think this is the scientific method's equivalent to "God fights on the side with the heaviest artillery"). >>_All_ theories have to function properly >>within their own parameters, else they would already be invalid. Were I to >>maintain that the Byzantine Text as established by a Byzantine-priority >>method indeed _does_ have harmonizations within it, then I would be >>admitting that my theory is no theory at all. I hope you see the point. >I see what you are saying. And I do not argue that we must always >accept the least harmonious reading. I am simply saying (and this >criticism applies just as much to blind followers of Hort as to >followers of the Byzantine text) that *wherever* there is a variant >involving one or more harmonized readings, and one or more disharmonized >readings, we must initially evaluate the readings without examining >the text-types they belong to. I agree that any and all harmonizations, whether real or alleged, must be investigated; however, following the method you just described (which disregards the working hypotheses under consideration), I see no way that you can come to any conclusion regarding _any_ alleged harmonization without declaring it to be a true harmonization and therefore secondary. Q.E.D., your suggestion _does_ advocate a principle that "we must always accept the least harmonious reading", so long as you approach the variant units with no theoretical concept from any perspective concerning the nature of transmissional history presupposed by the respective theorists. >Note that I am working at the very lowest level here. I am *not* >trying to determine the original text. I am trying to determine the >age and value of the Byzantine text (and the other text-types). >Only once that investigation is completed can we start on the >original text. I suspect that if that question were totally settled, we would not be having any discussion. Were I convinced that the Byzantine Textform and the transmissional theory which underlies a preference for it were false or unsound, I would be the first to return to either modern eclectic praxis or even to the Westcott-Hort theory. Since, however, the determination of the age and value of the Byzantine Textform as well as that of the other texttypes is bound up part and parcel with the underlying presuppositions and various hypotheses, I suspect no resolution of this problem will come quickly (although apparently many from the opposing side thought the Byzantine Text defense was long ago dead and buried, and liked the thought of keeping it that way). This is why I have maintained (with H.H.Oliver and others) that "textual criticism without a history of the text is impossible." Modern eclecticism proceeds without a real history of the text, and prefers to deal with the history of variants alone, taken from within the isolation of the respective variant units (whether one calls it the "local-genealogical method" or whatever). The net result of such a practice leads (as has been critiqued by Colwell, Clark, Epp, and others from within the eclectic school) to a resultant printed text which has _no_ transmissional heritage nor existence in any known MS, version or texttype. Suffice it to say that a Byzantine-priority method does not share those particular weaknesses, nor do transmissionally- based pro-Alexandrian theories such as that of Westcott and Hort (who would have had a nearly pure Alexandrian text had they not gotten imbued with the "Western non-interpolations" issue); the problem noted is endemic to modern eclecticism in particular. >To put it another way, Robinson and I are operating at different levels. Perhaps an understatement..... :-) >He has reached a conclusion about the original text type. I had reached >a different conclusion about that text-type. I am now offering to go >back one level, and assume *ignorance* about the text-types. I am >not willing to go back and then blindly come over to his side. This of course is not expected nor demanded. It must be remembered that my own movement to a pro-Byzantine position was the result _only_ of first analyzing and critiquing the modern eclectic position, as well as those of its predecessors, and only after did I seek a more reasonable explanation to account for the data. Blame Kenneth W. Clark for setting me on the road I have taken; it was his suggestion from the start. >I said *primarily* conservative. They did not set out to create variants. >That doesn't mean they *never* did so. We all know that no copyist is >perfect. Fully agreed. And no two MSS of _any_ texttype agree 100%, so far as I know; but this does not affect texttype-specific readings, which are the primary data to be conservatively preserved in most MSS of any given texttype. Regarding the creation of variants, however, I have suggested that "new" sensible readings, whether accidentally or deliberately created by scribes or revisers at any point subsequent to the autograph, would always be unlikely to gain more than a small foothold within the "primarily conservative" transmissional process, except among small "local text" regions. Most sensible readings so created were weeded out by cross-comparison and correction from other exemplars within a few copying generations; were this not the case, the NT MSS would have degenerated into near-utter chaos among themselves, such as was the case with the Old Latin, and we would not be talking of four major texttypes, but dozens of competing minor texttypes at the very least. The history of NT Greek MS transmission moves toward a final text preserved in the mass of documents which has relatively very few sub-variants among its member MSS. Order coming out of what should have been chaos is a very problematic concept, and it is this very fact which provoked either the Hortian "Syrian Recension" theory or the Colwellian "process" theory to account for the rise and dominance of the basically unified Byzantine Textform. Yet both the recensional and process alternative hypotheses are beset by serious weaknesses, as previously mentioned. >Also, when I refer to the Byzantine copyists as "conservative," I refer >to them during the periods during which their actions are visible >(which starts in the fourth/fifth century for the gospels, and later in >the rest of the NT). Still fully granted. If they essentially reproduced without change that which had been bequeathed to them by scribes of each earlier generation, I would not be surprised to find an essentially unified Textform being preserved from the fourth or fifth century onward in the majority of MSS. I also am willing to grant the relative non-conservative sloppiness of Egyptian scribes from the pre-4th century era in regard to most of the MSS which have been preserved to us from that region. I also grant the concept of the "uncontrolled popular text" existing before AD 200 which likely accounts for most known variant readings and especially the so-called "western" corruptions. My only additional assumption is that not all scribes nor even most scribes were necessarily like those we find in the papyri preserved from Egypt, and that it is a likely extrapolation from those known "conservative" Byzantine-type scribes from the 4th and 5th centuries and onward that similar earlier scribal conservatism also did prevail in the regions of the Empire where Greek had been the primary tongue (Southern Italy through modern Turkey) in the earlier centuries. If this assumption is correct, then the groundwork for a Byzantine- priority theory has a legitimate basis. Since such an assumption cannot be proved one way or the other in view of current data, well, that is why other hypotheses exist, equally unproven. >We do not know the shape of the materials they >worked with prior to that time. Of course, the same statement applies, >with differences in date, to all text-types. Also agreed. ....continued in pt. 2 _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Apr 2 21:35:13 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA02786; Wed, 2 Apr 1997 21:35:13 -0500 Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 21:35:58 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Eph 5:9 Reply, pt.2 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 11679 ....continued from pt.1 On Tue, 1 Apr 1997, Robert B. Waltz wrote: .... Also agreed. >We know, e.g., that the >copyist who produced B, and probably its immediate predecessors, were >conservative, because they kept its text close to p75. That in itself is correct, and shows that there were "conservative" scribes within the other textual traditions as well. Since I presume the Alexandrian texttype to be basically the local text of Egypt, I have no problem with either P75 or B preserving that localized variant with relative accuracy. The wonder is that so many other papyri from the localized region of Egypt did _not_ conservatively copy the text, but fell victim to the "uncontrolled popular text" syndrome. >But we do not >know what happened prior to the creation of p75. Most scholars think >the forerunners of that manuscript were also conservative and careful. >But we *cannot* prove it. Since P75 and B both preserve what Hort called "a very pure line of very ancient text", I think we _have_ to presume that particular line _was_ conservatively and basically carefully preserved over the centuries, and also in any forerunner MSS in a line going back to the archetype of the local Alexandrian texttype (unless one wanted to claim that P75 was "the" original archetype of the Alexandrian text -- I'll leave that one to Theide for his next book :-). >Not my point. The point is that oral tradition and written tradition >display *identical behaviors*. I will differ on this point, since -- especially with a religious text which becomes regarded as sacred -- the written and oral tradition tend to become fixed and stabilized in a manner which folkloric or lyrical oral tradition does not; and the passage of time, even centuries, does little to alter the fixed written or oral tradition in such cases. Remember that, even with all of the little sub-variant types among the Byzantine MSS, the basic text of _any_ Byzantine MS from the 15th century will look amazingly like _any_ Byzantine or proto-Byzantine text from the 4th, 5th, or 6th century. The analogy from oral tradition would expect to see continual corruption or alteration occurring and accruing over the centuries, but this simply is not the case with the Byzantine Textform as an entity, even though sub-Byzantine families or types might branch of in small particulars from the vast majority (Von Soden's Kx) which majority would continue to preserve the original and overarching Byzantine Textform in virtually any era. >But I would bet that I can find examples of *any* >textual phenomenon you care to name in Bronson's "Traditional Tunes >of the Child Ballads." (Or could, if I had all four volumes, which >I don't.) I could probably find all of them just in "Barbara Allen" >or "Lord Thomas and Fair Ellen." I will defer to you on the folk song issue. I only play them and attempt to sing them (and not very well). >I did the only research I could on this last night: I looked up what >Daniel Wallace had to say about Wisselink. He did raise one *very* >strong point. He observes that Wisselink compares the Byzantine *text* >with individual Alexandrian *witnesses.* >Now it is true that the Byzantine text is fairly coherent, and the >Alexandrian text is not, so this is the easiest sort of comparison. >But it is also a *false* comparison. An individual manuscript will >almost certainly have more harmonizations than its text-type. We >must compare types against types. I also grant this point, since obviously any single MS will have more of virtually any type of error (deliberate or accidental) than the members of its texttype. However, I think Wisselink _only_ utilized the frequency of harmonization in individual MSS of the Alexandrian type in order to establish whether any of those individual MSS had a "tendency" to harmonize. This would be no different than Colwell's study of scribal habits in the early papyri. Those Alexandrian witnesses found to have a tendency to harmonize would then become suspect or of somewhat less weight in places where the remainder of the Alexandrian texttype does not harmonize. The real test, however, remains in those readings which are texttype-specific, wherein it can be presumed that the _archetype_ of the Alexandrian texttype must have harmonized -- this transcends the vagaries of the individual MSS comprising such a texttype, and is a proper subject for evaluation. >Perhaps I expressed myself poorly. My point is, one *cannot* quote isolated >examples. One must sit down with *some* section of continuous text and >examine every reading. This is interesting, since Fee and Wallace both have claimed that the task of the pro-Byzantine side was _not_ to deal in theory (even though that is what undergirds the entire perspective), but to deal in praxis with relatively isolated examples set forth as "challenge" cases. I have responded to two such test cases from Fee in an ETS paper which is currently available in our _Faith and Mission_ journal. However, praxis in individual variant units, without the consideration of the theory underlying such praxis, reflects nothing more than practical eclecticism, and this in itself establishes and proves nothing. Certainly I _do_ prefer far more the idea of looking at all variants within a single section of text, since this is compact and relatively easy to deal with. But I don't want this to become merely the "Pepsi Challenge" and continually have to move from pericope to pericope on the assumption that successful defense of Byzantine readings in one place says nothing about what might occur elsewhere. Just as Fee said with his two test passages from Mark, they were merely "two among hundreds," and whatever defense could be made for them could be repeated hundreds of times over (Fee of course meant a defense made by only the Alexandrian eclectics, and discounted the possibility of any such defense coming from the Byzantine supporters). Suffice it to say that _if_ a reasonable defense can be made for the Byzantine readings appearing in a given pericope or segment of text, it should be granted that such a defense obviously _could_ be made elsewhere in a similar manner. Certainly some readings might require time and research effort, and cannot be defended by a simple shot from the hip; but that is only to be expected in the nature of the case. >In fact, I made a small experiment of that sort last night. I started >from Hodges & Farstad (the only text with a reasonably relevant critical >apparatus). Taking two sample chapters (from Mark and John), I compared >the Byzantine and Alexandrian readings. My *sole* criterion was the >internal one, "Which reading best explains the others." Probably too simplistic in and of itself, but fitting in with a primary internal criterion of textual criticism. >The majority of readings were ambiguous. In instances where one reading >seemed preferable to the others, it seemed about an even split as to >which was preferable, Byzantine or Alexandrian. This of course is your subjective judgment. Others (whether eclectics or pro-Byzantine) might look at the same variant units and come to totally different conclusions, even using that single criterion. I know that I would. Part of the reason of course will be that you applied a criterion taken in isolation apart from other internal or external data (a severe parallel to the Kilpatrick/Elliott method of "rigorous" eclecticism). I suspect that even Elliott would demur from your method in such a case; but as a sample without definitive overtones, what you did was a fine experiment. >However, many of these readings were cases where one reading was only >slightly preferable. In the handful of cases where one was *clearly* >preferable (I think there were five that I noticed before I had to >stop), *all five of the preferable readings were Alexandrian.* Again a subjective judgment. Since I don't know the passages or readings, I might seem presumptuous, but since I have worked through all these readings previously and know where the most problematic happen to be, I would maintain that a reasonable case can be made for the Byzantine reading in almost all such places. The difficult cases especially need to be considered in view of the _entire transmissional history_, as even Westcott and Hort pointed out in their own model. The overriding theory, once established and settled, _must_ assume that even the difficult places were transmitted as they were because of autograph or archetype originality, else they would not be part and parcel of a texttype/Textform reading so perpetuated. >I didn't check enough readings to be decisive. But it also >says that we need a rigid control procedure; what I think is certainly >original may not be what Wisselink thinks is certainly original. It's >a problem. I agree in regard to the subjectivity, but that comes with the varied approaches and the theories which underlie them. I suspect that _no_ rigid control procedure could ever come about which would bridge the gap between competing theories. I _do_ think that a rigid control procedure _could_ be imposed within a _single_ theoretical perspective, and in fact my approach to the evaluative method of readings on internal grounds is quite controlled and "rigid" for the most part; it just does not happen to be the same controls or (lack of) rigidity that one would find within modern eclectic praxis. >But I would recommend the exercise to others; it *was* educational. >The difference between Byzantine and Alexandrian is certainly not as >clearcut as I thought. It is interesting that you did that experiment, since I have my own text-critical students do something similar: I give them a "blind" list of readings within a portion of text, with no external evidence support cited, and ask them to determine solely from internal criteria which readings are "best". The results when working "blind" in almost all cases is an equally-divided bag: some Byzantine readings being preferred, some Alexandrian, and even a few Western. The net result of such an approach is that we should expect from eclectic scholars a resultant text which is far more equally balanced among the texttypes than is present in the primarily-Alexandrian model found in the UBS or NA editions. This of course is _only_ if we proceed from internal criteria without theories regarding the "best" MSS or texttypes etc. >True on both counts. Although -- even if the process continues -- my >resultant theory is likely to resemble Von Soden's or Sturz's. I doubt >I will abandon non-Byzantine text-types entirely. If it ever does resemble Von Soden or Sturz (which are quite disparate, by the way), let me know, since I have a strong critique regarding either theory, though admittedly Sturz ends up by his methodology with a text which is _very_ close to a Byzantine text (he published a fascicle containing Matthew to demonstrate his method). Sturz departed from the Byzantine Textform _only_ when the Alexandrian and Western texttypes happened to unite apart from the Byzantine text -- and you know how infrequently that would occur. >Just great... already half the people on this list don't listen to me. >Now I'm going to get the other half ignoring me. :-) Welcome to the club. :-) _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Apr 2 21:42:15 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA02830; Wed, 2 Apr 1997 21:42:14 -0500 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 20:46:13 +0400 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net (Carlton Winbery) Subject: Re: Rom. 15:19 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 375 I would prefer PNEUMATOS [QEOU] with the same reservations expressed by the brackets in the N-A27, primarily because of the possibility of the assimulation to verse 16. Carlton L. Winbery 114 Beall St. Pineville, LA 71360 Fax (318) 442-4996 e-mail winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net winbery@andria.lacollege.edu winbrow@aol.com Phone 318 487-7241 Home 448-6103 From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Apr 2 21:47:44 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA02852; Wed, 2 Apr 1997 21:47:44 -0500 Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 21:48:32 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Eph 5:9 In-Reply-To: <9704022217.AA02359@iris.arcadis.be> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 840 On Wed, 2 Apr 1997, Jean VALENTIN wrote: > About the popularity of John 3.16 again : I already mentioned its > presence at the heart of St John's Chrysostom' liturgy, and, though it's > more anecdotic, I mention also this : it's on the title page of the > Gospels in an edition of the georgian NT that was published by the > Patriarchate (or more exactly catholicate) of the Georgian orthodox > church (Tbilisi, 1963). This is helpful; but I'll bet they didn't hold up signs with John 3:16 on them at the early Isthmian games...... _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Apr 2 22:15:45 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA02917; Wed, 2 Apr 1997 22:15:45 -0500 Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 22:16:28 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Rom. 15:19 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 922 On Wed, 2 Apr 1997, Robert B. Waltz wrote: > It's worth noting that the conflate reading PNEUMATOS QEOU AGIOU > *does* exist in family 330 (330 451; 2492 has QEOU). Thank you for providing this, since NA26 did not. It is a curious conflation, however, since one would expect PNEUMATOS AGIOU (TOU) QEOU as a more "normal" type of reading. > Which forces me to internal criteria. QEOU better explains AGIOU > than the reverse. In my text, I would print QEOU -- but it would > be marked in the margin as having maximum uncertainty. >From your persepctive, this is clear and understandable. Thanks for the enlightenment. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Apr 2 22:21:55 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA02939; Wed, 2 Apr 1997 22:21:55 -0500 Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 22:22:33 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Rom. 15:19 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1204 On Wed, 2 Apr 1997, Carlton Winbery wrote: > I would prefer PNEUMATOS [QEOU] with the same reservations expressed by the > brackets in the N-A27, primarily because of the possibility of the > assimulation to verse 16. Not to mention verse 13, which also could have had some influence. I am pleased to see the point being made and accepted of harmonization to the immediate context as a reason for rejecting a reading. :-) Let me ask, however, what might your decision have been, Carlton, assuming that there were _no_ other mention of the Holy Spirit in vv.13 and 16, nor any mention of "Spirit of God" in the immediate context? Would your evaluation of internal criteria still fall along the same lines as my own in regard to Pauline usage, or what? How also would you evaluate the external evidence without a compelling contextual harmonization as a possible cause? Would your decision change? _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Apr 3 04:49:33 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id EAA03516; Thu, 3 Apr 1997 04:49:33 -0500 From: schmiul@uni-muenster.de Message-Id: <199704030950.LAA57070@mail.uni-muenster.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Thu, 03 Apr 97 12:04:29 +0100 Subject: EASE/Leisure/Freizeit To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1111 Thanks to all those reacting to my modern-times-real-life TC example for absolving at least my mother and various other suggestions. Especially helpful to me was the reference to the different keyboard lay-outs existing throughout the world. I somehow *knew* that, but I simply failed to account for it when writing the story down. By implication it seems very important to know and to imagine as much as possible of the immediate (not only intellectual, but) *physical* context of a given text. I enjoyed very much the various speculations of the "experts" to account for the reading "Freizeit", including conjectural emendation. Especially telling are suggestions like, e.g. heterodox corruption vs. orthodox emendation. The lesson I learned from our example is that with the "right" framework we are able to claim almost every reading as somehow deliberately, purposely produced. However, fact is that my URTEXT contained a simple typing-error. And apart from my hand-written notes, NO copy existed where what I was thinking of could be read plainly and unambiguously. Ulrich Schmid, Muenster From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Apr 3 05:13:28 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id FAA03562; Thu, 3 Apr 1997 05:13:27 -0500 From: schmiul@uni-muenster.de Message-Id: <199704031014.MAA30162@mail.uni-muenster.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Thu, 03 Apr 97 12:28:31 +0100 Subject: Bob Dylan To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 702 On Tue, 1 Apr 1997, Maurice Robinson wrote: >On Tue, 1 Apr 1997, Robert B. Waltz wrote: >>I've even encountered someone (not a Christian) who thought "God >>fights on the side with the heaviest artillery" was Biblical. >They need to listen to Bob Dylan's "With God On Our Side" :-) Apropos *Bob Dylan*. Some weeks ago I heard the rumor that Kurt Aland owned some Bob Dylan records appreciating his music. I should have checked it out before publicly mentioning it, but this week virtually noone is here at the institute, and next week I will be away... But given this rumor, isn't that fine, Maurice? Eclectics could have been fans of Bob Dylan... Just as an aside... Ulrich Schmid, Muenster From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Apr 3 07:31:13 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id HAA03738; Thu, 3 Apr 1997 07:31:12 -0500 From: schmiul@uni-muenster.de Message-Id: <199704031231.OAA74882@mail.uni-muenster.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Thu, 03 Apr 97 14:46:11 +0100 Subject: Re: Eph 5:9 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu In-Reply-To: <2.2.16.19970401125734.42775d30@email.psu.edu> X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1719 On Tue, 1 Apr 1997, Bill Petersen wrote (inter alia): >Just as a gloss on Ulrich Schmid's remark about Codex Bezae (D) and its high >number of harmonizations/assimilations (as per Wisselink's research) >relative to other (Greek) MSS: this high number is thought to be the result >of (1) Codex Bezae's having been influenced in some manner by the >Diatessaronic tradition (which is, of course, a gospel harmony...), or (2) >Codex Bezae's being related to the Vetus Syra, which has numerous >cross-gospel harmonizations because *it* was influenced by the Diatessaron, >or (3) both of the above (1 *and* 2). See, among others, the work of F.H. >Chase. The harmonizations/assimilations in Codex Bezae (D) are especially interesting, not only because of the outstanding number of occurences, but also because of some rather peculiar features. However, up to now I do not feel the need to account for them with reference to the Diatessaronic tradition. As far as I can see every Gospel MS displays some (some even more) harmonistic tendencies. Granted that even Marcions Gospel seems to display a few harmonistic readings, we may infer that harmonizations demonstrably happened earlier in time than the composition of the Diatessaron. Therefore, the sheer amount of harmonistic readings in D in itself does not, in my view, somehow naturally point to contact with the Diatessaronic tradition. However, I am only a beginner in Diatessaronic studies. Being more familiar with the evidence from that fascinating part of tradition might shift my point of view. BTW -- Bill, apart from the work of Chase, which I did not study yet, what else would you recommend? I read Vogels on that. Ulrich Schmid, Muenster From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Apr 3 09:02:25 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA03945; Thu, 3 Apr 1997 09:02:25 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 08:03:31 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Rom. 15:19 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1725 On Wed, 2 Apr 1997, Maurice Robinson >On Wed, 2 Apr 1997, Robert B. Waltz wrote: > >> It's worth noting that the conflate reading PNEUMATOS QEOU AGIOU >> *does* exist in family 330 (330 451; 2492 has QEOU). > >Thank you for providing this, since NA26 did not. It is a curious >conflation, however, since one would expect PNEUMATOS AGIOU (TOU) QEOU as >a more "normal" type of reading. I'd have to say that this depends on how the family 330 text evolved. I haven't managed to figure that out yet. The text is more Byzantine than anything else, but with a large mixture of something else. The "something else" seems to be closest to the Alexandrian text as found in family 2127 -- but it isn't very close. There may also be some "Western" influence. BTW -- just as a note: The Soden/Merk/Bover collation of 330 is very bad. Don't *ever* rely on it. Use the Davies collation or, if that is available, the minimal information available from UBS3. >> Which forces me to internal criteria. QEOU better explains AGIOU >> than the reverse. In my text, I would print QEOU -- but it would >> be marked in the margin as having maximum uncertainty. > >From your persepctive, this is clear and understandable. Thanks for the >enlightenment. Of course, nobody else on this list does TC the way I do.... I know that Robinson knows *that* feeling.... :-) -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A very rough draft of part of the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Apr 3 09:19:43 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA03997; Thu, 3 Apr 1997 09:19:43 -0500 Date: Thu, 03 Apr 1997 09:20:31 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re; Rom 15:19 X-Sender: jwest@mail.infoave.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970403091704.28172794@mail.infoave.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 244 Clearly QEOU is original. Whenever P46 and Sinaiticus agree you can rest assured that the reading is original. Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@theology.edu From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Apr 3 09:38:37 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA04026; Thu, 3 Apr 1997 09:38:36 -0500 From: schmiul@uni-muenster.de Message-Id: <199704031439.QAA39272@mail.uni-muenster.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Thu, 03 Apr 97 16:53:43 +0100 Subject: Re: Re; Rom 15:19 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970403091704.28172794@mail.infoave.net> X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 475 >Clearly QEOU is original. Whenever P46 and Sinaiticus agree you can rest >assured that the reading is original. >Jim >+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >Jim West, ThD >Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology >jwest@theology.edu Well, that's good news. Stop thinking as long as P46 and Sinaiticus agree. Switch on your brain when they depart. Come on, Jim, I'm sure you have another hard and fast rule for those nasty cases. Ulrich Schmid, Muenster From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Apr 3 10:22:03 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA04181; Thu, 3 Apr 1997 10:22:02 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199704031439.QAA39272@mail.uni-muenster.de> References: <1.5.4.16.19970403091704.28172794@mail.infoave.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 09:28:55 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Re; Rom 15:19 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1136 On Thu, 03 Apr 97, schmiul@uni-muenster.de wrote: >>Clearly QEOU is original. Whenever P46 and Sinaiticus agree you can rest >>assured that the reading is original. > > > >>Jim > >>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >>Jim West, ThD >>Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology >>jwest@theology.edu > >Well, that's good news. Stop thinking as long as P46 and Sinaiticus agree. >Switch on your brain when they depart. Come on, Jim, I'm sure you have another >hard and fast rule for those nasty cases. I have to agree with Ulrich Schmid. I'm willing to switch off my brain under certain circumstances (to wit, when p46 Aleph A B C D G 33 1739 agree) -- but basing a decision on just two witnesses is too few. Are you really saying that the "Western" text is *never* correct? -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A very rough draft of part of the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Apr 3 11:33:18 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA04572; Thu, 3 Apr 1997 11:33:17 -0500 Message-ID: <3344718D.4F38@sn.no> Date: Thu, 03 Apr 1997 19:12:13 -0800 From: "Mr. Helge Evensen" Organization: SN Internett X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: apocrypha Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 249 I have a question regerding OT and NT apocrypha: Is there any of the OT and NT apocrypha which showed up for the first time in the 19. century (I mean in modern times, by way of discovery)?? If so, which?? Thanks ahead! -- - Mr. Helge Evensen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Apr 3 11:40:23 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA04626; Thu, 3 Apr 1997 11:40:23 -0500 Message-ID: <33447348.1B39@sn.no> Date: Thu, 03 Apr 1997 19:19:36 -0800 From: "Mr. Helge Evensen" Organization: SN Internett X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Alexandrian text Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 174 One question concerning the Alexandrian text: In what degree was the Alexandrian text-type transmitted among the Greek MSS after the 4./5.century? -- - Mr. Helge Evensen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Apr 3 12:33:35 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA04851; Thu, 3 Apr 1997 12:33:35 -0500 Date: Thu, 03 Apr 1997 12:34:55 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re; Rom 15:19 X-Sender: jwest@mail.infoave.net (Unverified) To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970403123416.234724ee@mail.infoave.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 646 At 04:53 PM 4/3/97 +0100, you wrote: >Well, that's good news. Stop thinking as long as P46 and Sinaiticus agree. >Switch on your brain when they depart. Come on, Jim, I'm sure you have another >hard and fast rule for those nasty cases. > >Ulrich Schmid, Muenster > > Its not a hard and fast rule. As to switching off the brain- that happens only when one refuses to accept celar evidence. If something is clearly right- it is clearly right and does not need to be voted on to be proven right. Jim ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@theology.edu From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Apr 3 12:33:40 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA04865; Thu, 3 Apr 1997 12:33:39 -0500 Date: Thu, 03 Apr 1997 12:35:00 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: Re; Rom 15:19 X-Sender: jwest@mail.infoave.net (Unverified) To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970403123421.23473094@mail.infoave.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 705 At 09:28 AM 4/3/97 -0700, you wrote: > >I have to agree with Ulrich Schmid. I'm willing to switch off my brain >under certain circumstances (to wit, when p46 Aleph A B C D G 33 1739 >agree) -- but basing a decision on just two witnesses is too few. Are >you really saying that the "Western" text is *never* correct? > > It is only correct when it agrees with the Alexandrian type- this is also true of the Byzantine text; but I am willing to accept any evidence that this is not so; so far, I remain unconvinced and wish to be shown the error of my ways. Jim ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@theology.edu From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Apr 3 12:34:09 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA04889; Thu, 3 Apr 1997 12:34:09 -0500 Date: Thu, 03 Apr 1997 12:35:04 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: apocrypha X-Sender: jwest@mail.infoave.net (Unverified) To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970403123424.2347770c@mail.infoave.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 529 At 07:12 PM 4/3/97 -0800, you wrote: >I have a question regerding OT and NT apocrypha: > >Is there any of the OT and NT apocrypha which showed up for the first >time in the 19. century (I mean in modern times, by way of discovery)?? >If so, which?? > >Thanks ahead! > You may want to look at the 2 volume collection of these works by Charlesworth. >-- >- Mr. Helge Evensen > Jim ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@theology.edu From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Apr 3 12:34:11 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA04892; Thu, 3 Apr 1997 12:34:10 -0500 Date: Thu, 03 Apr 1997 12:35:07 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: P46 X-Sender: jwest@mail.infoave.net (Unverified) To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970403123428.234776aa@mail.infoave.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 507 Regarding P46. It of course does not solve all TC issues- as it is very small and only contains minor portions of the whole NT. Yet it deserves very special consideration as it is free of "type influence". It is very early (180 at the latest?). And it is clearly superior by all the canons of TC. Why, then, dismiss it when it has all the right stuff? Jim ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@theology.edu From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Apr 3 12:45:44 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA04938; Thu, 3 Apr 1997 12:45:44 -0500 Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 12:46:29 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Assimilation and Mt.9:1 In-Reply-To: <199704030950.LAA57070@mail.uni-muenster.de> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 6979 Continuing the discussion..... On Tue, 1 Apr 1997, Ulrich Schmid wrote (inter alia): >> Since assimilations are found in each and every MS of the Gospels >> (including P75), and since it is reasonable to infer that this was a >> constant threat on every level of textual transmission of the (united) >> Gospels, I simply have greater confidence in those witnesses who >> contain proportionally less assimilations. Again, how do you determine what constitutes "proportionally less"? Certainly not by taking the Byz readings as a whole and assuming that every _possible_ harmonization in such is a "true" harmonization. This would be no more legitimate than to take every _possible_ harmonization in the Alexandrian or Western texttypes as a whole and then broad-brush paint all the individual witnesses to those texttypes as somehow guilty of what allegedly _might_ occur on the wide scale within the archetypical level of that texttype. It simply is _not_ valid to take the Byzantine Textform as a whole, (which reflects a reasonable "control" group), and then presume that every "possible" assimilation in such a group is automatically a "true" harmonization. What needs to be done, plainly and simply, is to take Byzantine witnesses individually and calculate from their singular and subsingular readings what degree of or propensity toward harmonization seems apparent in such MSS, compare these to the same Byztxt-as-a-whole control group and from there consider how this might apply to the transmission of harmonizations within the main Textform once such harmonizations occur beyond a few copying generations. >> I don't think assimilation/harmonization was as much of a "constant >> threat" as you imagine, Ulrich, since the evidence of the MSS show >> that harmonizing readings tended _not_ to be perpetuated beyond a few >> copying generations. >Well, Maurice, dealing with assimilation/harmonization is a tricky >business. I just wonder how you can be so sure with your overall >conclusion. The conclusion derives from the fact that it can be demonstrated merely from the critical apparatus of, say, _Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum_, [SQE] that harmonizations or assimilations _frequently_ occurred. It likewise can be demonstrated from their near total lack of perpetuation -- even among members of a single minority texttype -- that _non-perpetuation_ of harmonizations/assimilations was the rule rather than the exception. There is no need or logic underlying the presumption of the selective perpetuation of _some_ harmonizations on the wide "majority" level to the exclusion of other quite reasonable harmonizations which were _not_ perpetuated, except by a very few MSS in a very limited area or number of copying generations. >Maybe we should have a closer look at various examples. Sounds fine to me. >First of all, I think there is a type of assimilation that is so >remote, that no real conclusions can be drawn therefrom. For example, >at Mat 9:1 we have the addition/ommission of the article TO before >PLOION. Checking all the other instances where Jesus embarked a boat >may display preferences of some MSS (or text-types) for the article or >against it. However, I doubt that we should build theories on this type >of assimilation. In Mk. 9:1, the article before PLOION is indeed the Byzantine reading, supported also by C* W 0233 (E F Delta 579 700 1424) al., with Alexandrian and Caesarean witnesses (Aleph B C3 L Theta f1 f13 33 565 892 al sa mae) otherwise omitting the article. This article-inclusion, however, as SQE demonstrates, is _not_ a matter of parallel passage harmonization, as you basically stated. However, from within a Byzantine-priority perspective, the use or non-use of the article in such a case _is_ a matter of "normal" Matthean style which appears to have been grammatically altered in a number of places by the minority MSS. Whether this was done due to consideration of the rule of first mention (in which the article would be omitted on the first mention of a term, but included on subsequent occasions), or whether there may be some other stylistic considerations or even influence from the use of the article in Coptic or its non-use in Latin would have to be determined from a more complete evaluation of the data. Examining the use of the article with PLOION (in various cases) in Matthew alone, one finds that in the Byzantine Textform that there are 13 instances of PLOION, _all but one_ of which (14:13) have the article present (Mt. 4:21,22; 8:23,24; 9:1; 13:2; 14:13,22,24,29,32,33; 15:39). Out of these the article is absent in the NA26/27 text in only 8:23; 9:1; 13:2 (as well as 14:13 which did not have the article to begin with). Omitting the article: 8:23 - Aleph1 B C f1 f13 33 205 565 892 pc (omission follows "rule of first mention" and also harmonizes with parallel lack of article in Lk.8:22, where itself article is added to harmonize with Byz in Mt only by H W f13 pc bo-mss) 9:1 - Evidence cited above. Omission here also follows the "rule of first mention" even though there are no parallel passages to compare against. 13:2 - Included by D K Gamma Delta f13 28 565 1006 1342 1506 (E F G 209 579 2542) Maj; all other constant minority witnesses omit (this omission once again follows the "rule of first mention" and also harmonizes with parallel lack of article in among minority MSS in Mk.4:1, where article remains present in Maj, but _not_ in Aleph B* C L Theta 33 565 892 1342 1424 2427 pc). Note also that WH text (but not NA26/27) chose also to omit the article in 14:22, following Aleph* C* 892* (ff1) sy-s sy-c. This also reflects an omission of the article in the parallel passage Mk.6:45 by Aleph Theta 1 33 565 1342 1582 2542 pc. and is again a case of certain MSS following the "rule of first mention". My suggestion in such cases as Mt. 8:23; 9:1; 13:2; and 14:22 is that certain minority scribes happened to accommodate Matthean style (which by including the article is more Hebraic) to the proper "rule" regarding first mention. If so, this appears to be not so much harmonization or assimilation, but recensional activity for grammatical reasons. Looking at it from another angle (the reading which best accounts for the rise of the others), there seems to be _no_ reason why the mass of scribes would _add_ the article in such places on their own initiative, but there are compelling reasons why the scribes might omit the article on a selective basis for grammatical or harmonization reasons. I will continue with the other examples in a later post... _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Apr 3 12:48:50 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA04961; Thu, 3 Apr 1997 12:48:49 -0500 Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 12:49:06 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Bob Dylan In-Reply-To: <199704031014.MAA30162@mail.uni-muenster.de> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 933 On Thu, 3 Apr 1997 schmiul@uni-muenster.de wrote: > Apropos *Bob Dylan*. Some weeks ago I heard the rumor that Kurt Aland owned some > Bob Dylan records appreciating his music. I should have checked it out before > publicly mentioning it, but this week virtually noone is here at the institute, > and next week I will be away... > But given this rumor, isn't that fine, Maurice? Eclectics could have been fans > of Bob Dylan... If this is true, Ulrich, then Kurt Aland and I may be closer text-critically than you might think.....The question now is whether Barbara Aland or anyone else at the Institute is a fan of Dylan..... _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Apr 3 12:50:24 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA04978; Thu, 3 Apr 1997 12:50:24 -0500 Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 12:51:04 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Re; Rom 15:19 In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970403091704.28172794@mail.infoave.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 583 On Thu, 3 Apr 1997, Jim West wrote: > Clearly QEOU is original. Whenever P46 and Sinaiticus agree you can rest > assured that the reading is original. Sounds a bit like Westcott and Hort on when Aleph and B unite....I have a suspicion that this type of method is oversimplified. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Apr 3 13:11:20 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA05037; Thu, 3 Apr 1997 13:11:20 -0500 Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 13:12:02 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Re; Rom 15:19 In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970403123421.23473094@mail.infoave.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1063 On Thu, 3 Apr 1997, Jim West wrote: > >Are you really saying that the "Western" text is *never* correct? > > > > > It is only correct when it agrees with the Alexandrian type- this is also > true of the Byzantine text; but I am willing to accept any evidence that > this is not so; so far, I remain unconvinced and wish to be shown the error > of my ways. In other words, you are saying that the Western or Byzantine are only correct when they agree with the Alexandrian -- this therefore basically says only the Alexandrian is correct at all times. Why? I certainly have reasons to defend the Byzantine-priority hypothesis, but these are both externally, internally, and transmissionally based. What is the basis for a pure "Alexandrian-priority" schema? _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Apr 3 13:13:25 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA05068; Thu, 3 Apr 1997 13:13:25 -0500 Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 13:14:05 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: P46 In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970403123428.234776aa@mail.infoave.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 941 On Thu, 3 Apr 1997, Jim West wrote: > Regarding P46. It of course does not solve all TC issues- as it is very > small and only contains minor portions of the whole NT. > > Yet it deserves very special consideration as it is free of "type > influence". It is very early (180 at the latest?). And it is clearly > superior by all the canons of TC. > > Why, then, dismiss it when it has all the right stuff? And some think P46 might date to the AD 90-100 period.....but this also does not make it correct. When P46 stands alone in a non-error sensible reading, are you quite prepared to accept and defend such? And on what grounds? _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Apr 3 13:22:16 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA05153; Thu, 3 Apr 1997 13:22:16 -0500 Message-Id: <9704031922.AA27957@iris.arcadis.be> Subject: liturgy on the net Date: Thu, 3 Apr 97 20:25:59 +0200 X-Sender: vale5655@194.111.178.251 X-Mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1 From: Jean VALENTIN To: "TC-List" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 3063 Hello TC-ers : A few URL for those who want a first approach to the eastern liturgies, as we have been speaking about these in the last threads. A quick initiation to the plan of the liturgy can be found at : http://the-hermes.net/~hrycak/liturgy.html The liturgy of St John Chrysostom, which is the main liturgy of the chalcedonian Greek, Slavic and Melkite churches, orthodox and catholic, can be found at many places - never the whole text, it probably would be too long to type. Anyhow, the most important part of it. Just to name two URL's : http://www.cris.com/~bronson/6mass.html http://esoptron.umd.edu/ugc/liturgy1.html The Liturgy of St Basil - not the one of the Greeks which has hardly anything common with it except the name, but the main liturgy of the Coptic church, can be found at : http://pharos.bu.edu/cn/prayers/StBasilLiturgy.html The Liturgy of St James in the syrian rite is used by a quite interesting "Antiochene Catholic Church of America". They say it's a "recension" of the one used by the Syrian orthodox Church of Antioch, but I found it to be quite true to the syriac text: http://www.maths.tcd.ie/~thomas/acca/liturgy.html Here's the address of a server that has the text of most of the important liturgies, eastern and western, only is it not in a formatted html presentation. It has Chrysostom, St James both in the Greek and Syriac recensions (called "syrian rite"), the Chaldean mass of the Apostles... I haven't checked everything, it's hardly possible as I just discovered it, but it's a good place to begin... http://www.alltel.net/~gacanon/liturgy.html Of course, you'll be better documented if you buy liturgical books (but often they're expensive) or go to the manuscripts. But the main texts are there and it's valuable for a first contact. If you download some of these texts and read them once in a while, you will have a valuable source of information (and some very beautiful texts, think about the spiritual and theological depth in the Chrysostom liturgy!). I remember also that at the Holy Bible Web Site (http://www.redbay.com/newbies/mag) there are links that lead to archives where you will find a well-known collection of patristical texts translated into English, among which some liturgies are present. They are in the format of the Windows help. I hope I haven't made scribal errors in the URL's. Our century will probably be remembered in history for its high level of technology, but also for the human mistakes that it implies! ________________________________________________________________ Jean Valentin - 58/7 rue Van Kalck - 1080 Bruxelles - BELGIQUE ________________________________________________________________ email : jgvalentin@arcadis.be *** netmail : 2:291/780.103 ________________________________________________________________ Ce qui est trop simple est faux, ce qui est trop complique est inutilisable. What's too simple is wrong, what's too complicated is unusable. Wat te eenvoudig is, is verkeerd; wat te ingewikkeld is, is onbruikbaar. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Apr 3 13:50:59 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA05453; Thu, 3 Apr 1997 13:50:58 -0500 Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 13:51:46 -0500 (EST) From: Nichael Cramer To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu cc: schmiul@uni-muenster.de Subject: Re: Bob Dylan In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 993 Maurice Robinson wrote: > schmiul@uni-muenster.de wrote: > If this is true, Ulrich, then Kurt Aland and I may be closer > text-critically than you might think.....The question now is whether > Barbara Aland or anyone else at the Institute is a fan of Dylan..... Although it might not seems so at first glance, this may not be as unreasonable as one might think. It would appear that Mr Dylan is in possession of manuscripts that contain many interesting variant readings. For example, one of his early publication contained the following variant from Genesis: "God said to Abraham 'Kill me a son', Abe said 'Man, you gotta be putting me on!' God, he said, 'No' Abe he said 'What?!?' God said 'Listen you can do what you want. But next you seem comin' you'd better run...' Abe said 'Where you want this killing done?' God said 'Out on Highway 61!' -- Nichael Cramer work: ncramer@bbn.com home: nichael@sover.net http://www.sover.net/~nichael/ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Apr 3 14:25:07 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA05652; Thu, 3 Apr 1997 14:25:07 -0500 Date: Thu, 03 Apr 1997 14:26:31 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: P46 X-Sender: jwest@mail.infoave.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970403142303.26d753bc@mail.infoave.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 702 At 01:14 PM 4/3/97 -0500, you wrote: >And some think P46 might date to the AD 90-100 period.....but this also >does not make it correct. No- its age does not make it correct; but its age goes a very long way in making it more reliable. > When P46 stands alone in a non-error sensible >reading, are you quite prepared to accept and defend such? And on what >grounds? > Yes. On the grounds that antiquity counts more than any of the other criteria (unless there are VERY compelling reasons to ignore a document's antiquity). > >Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@theology.edu From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Apr 3 14:29:05 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA05673; Thu, 3 Apr 1997 14:29:04 -0500 Date: Thu, 03 Apr 1997 14:28:45 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: Re; Rom 15:19 X-Sender: jwest@mail.infoave.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970403142517.26d78676@mail.infoave.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1110 At 01:12 PM 4/3/97 -0500, you wrote: >In other words, you are saying that the Western or Byzantine are only >correct when they agree with the Alexandrian -- this therefore basically >says only the Alexandrian is correct at all times. Why? > Yes. Because of antiquity, scribal practice (which was far more developed in Egypt than anywhere else), and reliability (internally and externally). >I certainly have reasons to defend the Byzantine-priority hypothesis, but >these are both externally, internally, and transmissionally based. What >is the basis for a pure "Alexandrian-priority" schema? > Why the same as the reasons one supports the western text or the byzantine. >_________________________________________________________________________ >Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament >Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@theology.edu From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Apr 3 15:06:26 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA05807; Thu, 3 Apr 1997 15:06:25 -0500 Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 15:07:11 -0500 Message-Id: <2.2.16.19970403150714.4e8fcf1a@email.psu.edu> X-Sender: wlp1@email.psu.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "William L. Petersen" Subject: Re: Eph 5:9 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 3247 At 02:46 PM 4/3/97 +0100, Ulrich Schmid wrote: >On Tue, 1 Apr 1997, Bill Petersen wrote (inter alia): >The harmonizations/assimilations in Codex Bezae (D) are especially interesting, >not only because of the outstanding number of occurences, but also because of >some rather peculiar features. However, up to now I do not feel the need to >account for them with reference to the Diatessaronic tradition. As far as I can >see every Gospel MS displays some (some even more) harmonistic tendencies. >Granted that even Marcions Gospel seems to display a few harmonistic readings, >we may infer that harmonizations demonstrably happened earlier in time than the >composition of the Diatessaron. Therefore, the sheer amount of harmonistic >readings in D in itself does not, in my view, somehow naturally point to contact >with the Diatessaronic tradition. You are quite correct in this: harmonization--in and of itself--is, of course, not proof of a link with the Diatessaron; furthermore, as I pointed out in that post (or an earlier one), and in an article in *NTS* in 1990, harmonizations antedate the Diatessaron, most notably in the form of whatever the harmonized gospel was which Justin used... The special circumstances which apply to Codex Bezae are, however, more complex. A good starting place is to look at the apparatus in Daniel Plooij's edition of *The Liege Harmony* (Amsterdam 1929-70), which remains one of the more impressive editions ever undertaken, with an exquisite apparatus. The apparatus includes numerous Diatessaronic witnesses, both east and west, as well as relevant Greek, Latin, Syriac, etc., gospel MSS. There seems to be a high degree of agreement, throughout (not just in harmonizations/assimilations, but also in variant readings), between Codex Bezae and the Diatessaronic witnesses. That--not the willy-nilly presence of harmonizations--is why a link between Bezae and the Diatessaron has been proposed. What then follows, as a corollary, is that since the Diatessaron was earlier and a harmony, then *some* of the harmonizations, and the exceptionally high number of harmonizations/assimilations in Bezae, are *probably* due to Diatessaronic influence. > >However, I am only a beginner in Diatessaronic studies. Being more familiar with >the evidence from that fascinating part of tradition might shift my point of >view. BTW -- Bill, apart from the work of Chase, which I did not study yet, what >else would you recommend? I read Vogels on that. > >Ulrich Schmid, Muenster > In addition to Plooij's edition, his two monographs (*A Primitive Text of the Diatessaron* [1923] and *A Further Study of the Liege Diatessaron* [1925]; both rather slim volumes) are excellent introductions. Ulrich, you are already familiar with Vogels (I assume you are referring to his *Die Harmonistik im Evangelientext des Codex Cantabrigiensis* [1910]). This, however, is only semi-useful for the Diatessaron connection. Vogels' *Beitraege zur Geschichte des Diatessaron im Abendland* (1919) is much more useful and mature. Chase's work is, however, probably the most direct treatment of this problem (and, although about a century old, perhaps the most incisive). --Petersen, Penn State Univ. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Apr 3 15:18:56 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA05836; Thu, 3 Apr 1997 15:18:55 -0500 Date: 03 Apr 97 15:16:38 EST From: Mike Arcieri <102147.2045@CompuServe.COM> To: TC-LIST Subject: celar evidence Message-ID: <970403201638_102147.2045_EHT31-1@CompuServe.COM> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 338 >Its not a hard and fast rule. As to switching off the brain- that happens >only when one refuses to accept celar evidence. >If something is clearly right- it is clearly right and does not need to be >voted on to be proven right. **Now THAT'S "clear" - celar evidence ;-) ;-) ;-) (Sorry Jim, but I couldn't resist :-) ) Mike A. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Apr 3 15:19:00 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA05850; Thu, 3 Apr 1997 15:19:00 -0500 Message-Id: <9704032119.AA05758@iris.arcadis.be> Subject: Re: Re; Rom 15:19 Date: Thu, 3 Apr 97 22:23:05 +0200 X-Sender: vale5655@194.111.178.251 X-Mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1 From: Jean VALENTIN To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2799 Jim, as I see you are an unconditional Alexandrian! >Because of antiquity, scribal practice (which was far more developed in >Egypt than anywhere else), and reliability (internally and externally). So, to you and all the list participants, a few questions (that probably will betray my bias in favor of the versions, but...) First a question about antiquity : some "western" witnesses seem to be as old as the "alexandrian" ones. Sometimes both agree against the other text-types, but when the B-type and the D-type disagree what will you do? And, corollary to that question, what would you answer to those people who say that in the IInd century, the Alexandrian text-type was a local text-type found only in Egypt, while the D-type was found everywhere in the world, and that this shows it is probably closer to the original ? (just like when you throw stones in water, the wider circle comes from a stone that was thrown in the water long ago...). Generally speaking, what do you make of geographical dispersion of the readings? How would you consider readings that are attested, for example, in an Arabic manuscript of the Xth century, and in the georgian version and some western versions (whether it be old latin or middle dutch for example) with or without a few isolated greek manuscripts? Personnally, I have the impression that geographical criteria are not enough considered when discussing variants - whether it be in the IInd century context (D against B) or later (versions). Do you think there is something correct in my impression and why? And if you answer yes, why is it so? To a certain extend, the same remarks would apply to the Byzantine readings. Maurice, what would you do of variants of Byz as against more geographically spread variants? Do you accept that older variants may survive far from the geographical "centers" of text-production? I see that some of you seem to have time these days: it's Easter vacation for the people working in teaching institutions, not for me! But I profit of the occasion in the hope to have some well-thought feedback. Sorry if those questions seem repetitive compared to earlier postings from me, but my work on the versions makes me sensitive to this problem. :-) ________________________________________________________________ Jean Valentin - 58/7 rue Van Kalck - 1080 Bruxelles - BELGIQUE ________________________________________________________________ email : jgvalentin@arcadis.be *** netmail : 2:291/780.103 ________________________________________________________________ Ce qui est trop simple est faux, ce qui est trop complique est inutilisable. What's too simple is wrong, what's too complicated is unusable. Wat te eenvoudig is, is verkeerd; wat te ingewikkeld is, is onbruikbaar. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Apr 3 15:46:45 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA05917; Thu, 3 Apr 1997 15:46:45 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: shell3.ba.best.com: gjw owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 12:47:24 -0800 (PST) From: "Gregory J. Woodhouse" To: Textual Criticism List Subject: Dating Gos. John Message-ID: X-Url: http://www.wnetc.com/ MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 299 I don't remember who it was, but someone recently posted that the Gospel of John can be dated as being no later than 125 C.E. What is the basis of this date? --- gjw@wnetc.com / http://www.wnetc.com/home.html If you're going to reinvent the wheel, at least try to come up with a better one. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Apr 3 15:58:35 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA05935; Thu, 3 Apr 1997 15:58:35 -0500 Date: Thu, 03 Apr 1997 15:59:04 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: celar evidence X-Sender: jwest@mail.infoave.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970403155551.2f177e48@mail.infoave.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 581 At 03:16 PM 4/3/97 -0500, you wrote: >>Its not a hard and fast rule. As to switching off the brain- that happens >>only when one refuses to accept celar evidence. >>If something is clearly right- it is clearly right and does not need to be >>voted on to be proven right. > >**Now THAT'S "clear" - celar evidence ;-) ;-) ;-) > >(Sorry Jim, but I couldn't resist :-) ) Thats ok- I had accidentally slipped into Byzantine scribe mode! > >Mike A. Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@theology.edu From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Apr 3 16:01:11 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA05959; Thu, 3 Apr 1997 16:01:11 -0500 Message-Id: <9704032201.AA08313@iris.arcadis.be> Subject: An sample from Sinai Arabic 71 Date: Thu, 3 Apr 97 23:05:19 +0200 X-Sender: vale5655@194.111.178.251 X-Mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1 From: Jean VALENTIN To: "TC-List" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2134 TC-ers, Here's a sample translation of a few verses from Sinai Arabic 71, the manuscript about which I posted some notes before. I remind you that (1) this version is from the Xth century - very early for Arabic, as the first mss (but they have another version) appear in the IXth), (2) it is most probably translated from Greek as many mistakes of the translator make it apparent, and (3) it's in an unliterary arabic showing traces of aramaic vocabulary and constructions. Here's a rough English translation of the beginning of Mark : 1 Beginning of the Gospel: Jesus Christ (is) the Son of God. 2 As it (is) written in the prophet: behold, I send my messenger before your face, so that he (may) prepare your way before you. 3 A voice calls in the desert: Prepare the way of the Lord, and straigth make his ways. 4 John was baptizing in the desert, and was preaching the baptism of repentance, for the forgivenness of the sins. 5 And all the region of Judea and all Jerusalem were coming and were being baptized by him in the Jordan, confessing their sins. 6 And John used to clothe (himself) with camel's hair, and a belt of leather at his waist. And his food was the locusts and wild honey. 7 And he preached, saying: he comes after me, the one who is mightier than me, of whom I am not worthy to untie the thong of his shoes. 8 As for me, I baptized you with water. And he, he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit. What are your reactions about its text? If you like it, I could, from time to time, send you such samples from other Arabic mss as well. Thank you. ________________________________________________________________ Jean Valentin - 58/7 rue Van Kalck - 1080 Bruxelles - BELGIQUE ________________________________________________________________ email : jgvalentin@arcadis.be *** netmail : 2:291/780.103 ________________________________________________________________ Ce qui est trop simple est faux, ce qui est trop complique est inutilisable. What's too simple is wrong, what's too complicated is unusable. Wat te eenvoudig is, is verkeerd; wat te ingewikkeld is, is onbruikbaar. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Apr 3 16:05:45 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA05981; Thu, 3 Apr 1997 16:05:45 -0500 Date: Thu, 03 Apr 1997 16:06:30 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Rom 15:19 X-Sender: jwest@mail.infoave.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970403160315.2f1755b2@mail.infoave.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 3501 At 10:23 PM 4/3/97 +0200, you wrote: >Jim, as I see you are an unconditional Alexandrian! > Perhaps unconditioned- as my wife is constantly urgiing me to get in shape! (or is it, to shape up?) :) >>Because of antiquity, scribal practice (which was far more developed in >>Egypt than anywhere else), and reliability (internally and externally). > >So, to you and all the list participants, a few questions (that probably >will betray my bias in favor of the versions, but...) > >First a question about antiquity : some "western" witnesses seem to be as >old as the "alexandrian" ones. Sometimes both agree against the other >text-types, but when the B-type and the D-type disagree what will you do? > If there is a conflict that is unresolvable- I opt for the oldest reading. When all else fails, antiquity counts the most (but only when all else fails). >And, corollary to that question, what would you answer to those people >who say that in the IInd century, the Alexandrian text-type was a local >text-type found only in Egypt, while the D-type was found everywhere in >the world, and that this shows it is probably closer to the original ? How does it show this? What it shows is that it is widely disseminated; and this has nothing to do with originality. The Byzantine type is perhaps the most disseminated but I would hardly argue that it is original. >(just like when you throw stones in water, the wider circle comes from a >stone that was thrown in the water long ago...). > Unless it was a bigger stone. >Generally speaking, what do you make of geographical dispersion of the >readings? How would you consider readings that are attested, for example, >in an Arabic manuscript of the Xth century, and in the georgian version >and some western versions (whether it be old latin or middle dutch for >example) with or without a few isolated greek manuscripts? > I regret that I am not as impressed (yet) with the versional evidence as I am with the Greek manuscript tradition. >Personnally, I have the impression that geographical criteria are not >enough considered when discussing variants - whether it be in the IInd >century context (D against B) or later (versions). You may be right in this. But again, does dispersion = authenticity? > Do you think there is >something correct in my impression and why? And if you answer yes, why is >it so? > I have a little trouble with the notion that just because a manuscript is widely attested that it is thereby authentic. This will degrade into counting manuscripts; it seems to me. >To a certain extend, the same remarks would apply to the Byzantine >readings. Maurice, what would you do of variants of Byz as against more >geographically spread variants? Do you accept that older variants may >survive far from the geographical "centers" of text-production? > >I see that some of you seem to have time these days: it's Easter vacation >for the people working in teaching institutions, not for me! But I profit >of the occasion in the hope to have some well-thought feedback. Sorry if >those questions seem repetitive compared to earlier postings from me, but >my work on the versions makes me sensitive to this problem. :-) > Thats good- input from many sources makes us all better. > > >________________________________________________________________ >Jean Valentin Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@theology.edu From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Apr 3 16:07:35 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA06000; Thu, 3 Apr 1997 16:07:34 -0500 Message-Id: <9704032207.AA08714@iris.arcadis.be> Subject: Re: celar evidence Date: Thu, 3 Apr 97 23:11:46 +0200 X-Sender: vale5655@194.111.178.251 X-Mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1 From: Jean VALENTIN To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1023 >>>Its not a hard and fast rule. As to switching off the brain- that happens >>>only when one refuses to accept celar evidence. >>>If something is clearly right- it is clearly right and does not need to be >>>voted on to be proven right. >> >>**Now THAT'S "clear" - celar evidence ;-) ;-) ;-) >> >>(Sorry Jim, but I couldn't resist :-) ) > >Thats ok- I had accidentally slipped into Byzantine scribe mode! > Do you mean that you too copy old text in a dark cell ? :-) Shlama! ________________________________________________________________ Jean Valentin - 58/7 rue Van Kalck - 1080 Bruxelles - BELGIQUE ________________________________________________________________ email : jgvalentin@arcadis.be *** netmail : 2:291/780.103 ________________________________________________________________ Ce qui est trop simple est faux, ce qui est trop complique est inutilisable. What's too simple is wrong, what's too complicated is unusable. Wat te eenvoudig is, is verkeerd; wat te ingewikkeld is, is onbruikbaar. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Apr 3 16:08:00 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA06015; Thu, 3 Apr 1997 16:08:00 -0500 Date: 3 Apr 1997 21:07:43 -0000 Message-ID: <19970403210743.1304.qmail@np.nosc.mil> From: Vincent Broman To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu In-reply-to: (gjw@wnetc.com) Subject: Re: Dating Gos. John Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 940 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > ...John can be dated as being no later than 125 C.E. What is the basis... The Rylands papyrus fragment from that Gospel is dated early second century, nominally AD 125. Interestingly, it's from Egypt, so that some time must also be allowed for the book to travel from Asia Minor to Egypt. Vincent Broman Email: broman@nosc.mil,broman@sd.znet.com = 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 ___ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBM0Qb+mCU4mTNq7IdAQE5iAP9GZDiN2SQMbANuTPWvHTJkKJxMLQj5TgX oftXBYoLIi8YQ8hyUlxtpZezjPRFdoUSohpZeo2yGz5VIPO5w/TGCd7lyJ6G4oPf Ml9W49FdAF2RGld7dKfk5OwcWO1f7XC4rs86Vhvy4KhJphMeHfJr5Q5CYrzxUlsN Jv+cUvdn3Ls= =bctk -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Apr 3 16:15:37 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA06048; Thu, 3 Apr 1997 16:15:36 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 15:20:52 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Dating Gos. John Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 781 On Thu, 3 Apr 1997, "Gregory J. Woodhouse" wrote: >I don't remember who it was, but someone recently posted that the Gospel >of John can be dated as being no later than 125 C.E. What is the basis of >this date? I don't recall the situation, but I'm fairly sure of the reason. The oldest manuscript of John is the fragment p52. Most scholars date p52 c. 125. Therefore John must have been in existence in 125. Q.E.D. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A very rough draft of part of the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Apr 3 16:15:39 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA06063; Thu, 3 Apr 1997 16:15:39 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970403142517.26d78676@mail.infoave.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 15:21:32 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Pro-Alexandrian scholars Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 998 On Thu, 03 Apr 1997, Jim West wrote: >At 01:12 PM 4/3/97 -0500, you wrote: > >>In other words, you are saying that the Western or Byzantine are only >>correct when they agree with the Alexandrian -- this therefore basically >>says only the Alexandrian is correct at all times. Why? >> > >Yes. >Because of antiquity, scribal practice (which was far more developed in >Egypt than anywhere else), and reliability (internally and externally). I think this is good news. Now we have a pure Hortian to attack, along with Maurice Robinson (pro-Byzantine) and me (pro-everything that isn't internal evidence). Misery loves company. :-) -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A very rough draft of part of the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Apr 3 16:22:27 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA06098; Thu, 3 Apr 1997 16:22:26 -0500 Message-Id: <9704032222.AA09637@iris.arcadis.be> Subject: Re: Dating Gos. John Date: Thu, 3 Apr 97 23:26:43 +0200 X-Sender: vale5655@194.111.178.251 X-Mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1 From: Jean VALENTIN To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1285 >>I don't remember who it was, but someone recently posted that the Gospel >>of John can be dated as being no later than 125 C.E. What is the basis of >>this date? > >I don't recall the situation, but I'm fairly sure of the reason. > >The oldest manuscript of John is the fragment p52. Most scholars >date p52 c. 125. Therefore John must have been in existence in 125. >Q.E.D. That's also what I've always read (for example in B. Metzger's manual). But the fragment is so little... Are we really sure we are not facing with some source of Jn. or with some other lost Gospel that had this passage in common with it? Of course, this is pure vicious hypothesis, but... there are many such papyri in Egypt (like collections of logia etc...). ________________________________________________________________ Jean Valentin - 58/7 rue Van Kalck - 1080 Bruxelles - BELGIQUE ________________________________________________________________ email : jgvalentin@arcadis.be *** netmail : 2:291/780.103 ________________________________________________________________ Ce qui est trop simple est faux, ce qui est trop complique est inutilisable. What's too simple is wrong, what's too complicated is unusable. Wat te eenvoudig is, is verkeerd; wat te ingewikkeld is, is onbruikbaar. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Apr 3 17:09:36 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA06211; Thu, 3 Apr 1997 17:09:36 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: shell3.ba.best.com: gjw owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 14:08:57 -0800 (PST) From: "Gregory J. Woodhouse" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Dating Gos. John In-Reply-To: <9704032222.AA09637@iris.arcadis.be> Message-ID: X-Url: http://www.wnetc.com/ MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 350 Thanks, I just happened to bring Metzger into the office with me today and was able to look it up . A fascinating story. I now remember how surprised I as reading the description of P52 when I first read it. --- gjw@wnetc.com / http://www.wnetc.com/home.html If you're going to reinvent the wheel, at least try to come up with a better one. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Apr 3 20:20:58 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA06418; Thu, 3 Apr 1997 20:20:57 -0500 Message-ID: <3344575D.2FDB@Squam.org> Date: Thu, 03 Apr 1997 20:20:29 -0500 From: "John C. Hurd" X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Dating Gos. John References: <9704032222.AA09637@iris.arcadis.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2209 The pint of P52 is that it is a codex fragment, i.e., written on both sides. From the same amount of text one can calculate the average line length and the average number of lines per page, and thus the number of MS pages in the Gospel of John. It would be vanishingly unlikely that a source of the IV would be extensive enough to match the canonical text as this fragment does. What one does wonder about is how closely one can date a scribes hand. +/- 12.5 years seems rather more than one should expect. Book hands are more conservative than informal scripts. -- John Hurd Jean VALENTIN wrote: > > >>I don't remember who it was, but someone recently posted that the Gospel > >>of John can be dated as being no later than 125 C.E. What is the basis of > >>this date? > > > >I don't recall the situation, but I'm fairly sure of the reason. > > > >The oldest manuscript of John is the fragment p52. Most scholars > >date p52 c. 125. Therefore John must have been in existence in 125. > >Q.E.D. > > That's also what I've always read (for example in B. Metzger's manual). > But the fragment is so little... Are we really sure we are not facing > with some source of Jn. or with some other lost Gospel that had this > passage in common with it? Of course, this is pure vicious hypothesis, > but... there are many such papyri in Egypt (like collections of logia > etc...). > > ________________________________________________________________ > Jean Valentin - 58/7 rue Van Kalck - 1080 Bruxelles - BELGIQUE > ________________________________________________________________ > email : jgvalentin@arcadis.be *** netmail : 2:291/780.103 > ________________________________________________________________ > Ce qui est trop simple est faux, ce qui est trop complique est > inutilisable. > What's too simple is wrong, what's too complicated is unusable. > Wat te eenvoudig is, is verkeerd; wat te ingewikkeld is, is onbruikbaar. -- ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :: Prof. John C. Hurd Internet: John.Hurd@Squam.org :: :: 49 Wanless Ave. Office tel.: (416) 485-2429 :: :: Toronto, Ont. M4N 1V5 Office fax: (416) 485-7320 :: From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Apr 3 20:47:43 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA06444; Thu, 3 Apr 1997 20:47:43 -0500 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 19:51:41 +0400 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net (Carlton Winbery) Subject: Re: Rom. 15:19 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1116 Maurice Robinson wrote; >Not to mention verse 13, which also could have had some influence. I am >pleased to see the point being made and accepted of harmonization to the >immediate context as a reason for rejecting a reading. :-) > >Let me ask, however, what might your decision have been, Carlton, assuming >that there were _no_ other mention of the Holy Spirit in vv.13 and 16, nor >any mention of "Spirit of God" in the immediate context? Would your >evaluation of internal criteria still fall along the same lines as my own >in regard to Pauline usage, or what? How also would you evaluate the >external evidence without a compelling contextual harmonization as a >possible cause? Would your decision change? > I do not consider Pauline usage to be very helpful since he uses both. Without the possibility of assimilation, the decision would be more difficult. I would admit that I was quite unsure. Carlton L. Winbery 114 Beall St. Pineville, LA 71360 Fax (318) 442-4996 e-mail winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net winbery@andria.lacollege.edu winbrow@aol.com Phone 318 487-7241 Home 448-6103 From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Apr 3 23:53:00 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id XAA06637; Thu, 3 Apr 1997 23:53:00 -0500 Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 12:53:45 +0800 (WST) From: Timothy John Finney To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: A big idea In-Reply-To: <199704030235.VAA02805@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 5439 There have been a few messages upon which I would like to comment: 1) Collation program for PC I believe that Peter Robinson has someone converting Collate (a Mac progam) to PC. By the way, the Project version of Collate (still Mac only) is about to be released. It does groovy things like produce html output: you can make a collation which is linked to transcriptions of the various witnesses for display with a browser like Netscape, AUTOMAGICALLY! It also does about 500 other things. 2) Images of P64/67 This is what the Electronic New Testament Manuscripts Project is supposed to be about. The aim is to collect images of New Testament manuscripts to be made available to the scholarly community. As you can imagine, there are lots of problems with such a venture, two of which are its magnitude (there are of the order of 1000 images required, just for the papyri), and the problem of protecting the images from electronic theft (there is no copyright on manuscripts, put there is on their images). With respect to P64/67 in particular, I have not yet been able to obtain images to put on the site. But even if I had, you still wouldn't be able to look at them, simply because we haven't put any images or transcriptions up at the site yet. 3) What's wrong with ENTMP? No one has asked this (yet) but I feel anxious enough about it to say the following. At the moment, ENTMP relies on James Tauber as the Web Architect, and he is a very busy person. James and I are both committed to the Project, but are both indisposed to do anything with ENTMP right now. (I am trying to finish my PhD thesis.) We do, in fact, have some papyri images and a few transcriptions (thanks to Jim West), but we haven't yet made them available. One issue is security and another is that we haven't yet got around to it. 4) An idea Through discussions with James about ENTMP, writing my thesis, reading the text books, talking with colleagues, and through the Lord's help, I have had the following idea, which has probably already occurred to some of you already. (As Klaus Wachtel once said, no one can come up with anything new in New Testament textual criticism.) With the constant advance of computer architecture, and the huge task of assembling New Testament textual data in electronic form, it makes sense to try to do the job in a modular form. Imagine a gigantic spread sheet that has as its first column every Greek word (orthographically levelled) that occurs in any NT manuscript, or that is behind a version or patristic quotation, in order. That is, the text of every witness could be obtained by selecting certain ones of the words as one proceeds down this first column. (I have worked out an algorithm that constructs such a sequence from a group of collated witnesses. It works with a fair degree of reliability.) Next, for every witness, line up its actual words (not levelled, sometimes fragmentary) with the corresponding words in the first column. These witnesses each form a new column. Next, for each manuscript word, provide a hypertext link to an image of the relevant part of the manuscript itself. Next, have columns for each manuscript of the versions (an even bigger job than for the Greek), for each Father, for each modern edition, for each commentator who has said what they think the original word is, and a column for each textual criterion (both internal and external -- much refinement is needed here). Such a big data structure could be a useful foundation from which to make assertions about the text. Every step of its construction is subject to difficulties, but not insurmountable ones. Java applets could then be written to do things like multivariate analysis of the resulting patterns of agreement between these many different perspectives on the text of the New Testament. This is a gigantic task: one which, I dare say, no single person or university can achieve. However, each one of these columns, or a group of them, could constitute a manageable project. The key is to make a coordinated effort. What is required is a coordinating body (???), a standardised approach to transcriptions (SGML/TEI?), a standard format for the spread sheet components (???), and a central location that holds the links between the various parts of the big data structure (ENTMP?). (There is no reason why the various parts could not be held all over the place). Well that's the big idea. Perhaps one of these areas (Greek mss, patristics, versions, editions, images, data bases) could benefit from your efforts. One thing that I would like to say now, though. Don't wait until the final standards have been worked out before you begin making a contribution. I think that it is more likely that the standards will be worked out later, not sooner. As long as we do not work in complete isolation, we should be able to produce data that will go with everyone else's. Certain scholars, universities, and organisations already specialise in particular ones of these areas. Acknowledged specialists would be the logical first choice to help with coordination of the various areas (Perhaps Aland and Das Instituet for the Greek mss, Fee for the patristics, Epp and Elliott for the criteria?) Sorry for the long message. Now I will disappear again in an attempt to finish that thesis, Tim Finney finney@central.murdoch.edu.au Baptist Theological College and Murdoch University Perth, W. Australia From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Apr 4 00:18:08 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id AAA06683; Fri, 4 Apr 1997 00:18:08 -0500 From: dwashbur@wave.park.wy.us Message-Id: <199704040521.WAA20515@wavecom.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 22:15:06 -7000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: P46 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.42a) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 675 > Regarding P46. It of course does not solve all TC issues- as it is very > small and only contains minor portions of the whole NT. > > Yet it deserves very special consideration as it is free of "type > influence". It is very early (180 at the latest?). And it is clearly > superior by all the canons of TC. > > Why, then, dismiss it when it has all the right stuff? But it isn't always right, as anyone knows, so why canonize it? that seems like the other extreme. Dave Washburn http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur/home.html There will be times when we disagree, but that's good because disagreement leads to thinking, and when you think you'll realize I'm right. ;-) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Apr 4 00:35:10 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id AAA06714; Fri, 4 Apr 1997 00:35:09 -0500 From: dwashbur@wave.park.wy.us Message-Id: <199704040538.WAA21359@wavecom.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 22:33:19 -7000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Re; Rom 15:19 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.42a) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 469 > Clearly QEOU is original. Whenever P46 and Sinaiticus agree you can rest > assured that the reading is original. Uh-huh. So the only "original" New Testament is the little bit contained in P46. That should make reading through it in a year considerably easier... Dave Washburn http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur/home.html There will be times when we disagree, but that's good because disagreement leads to thinking, and when you think you'll realize I'm right. ;-) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Apr 4 01:10:42 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id BAA06758; Fri, 4 Apr 1997 01:10:42 -0500 Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 01:11:30 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Bob Dylan In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 830 On Thu, 3 Apr 1997, Nichael Cramer wrote: > Although it might not seems so at first glance, this may not be as > unreasonable as one might think. It would appear that Mr Dylan is in > possession of manuscripts that contain many interesting variant readings. > For example, one of his early publication contained the following variant > from Genesis: > > "God said to Abraham 'Kill me a son', > Abe said 'Man, you gotta be putting me on!' > God, he said, 'No' > Abe he said 'What?!?' > God said 'Listen you can do what you want. > But next you seem comin' you'd better run...' > Abe said 'Where you want this killing done?' > God said 'Out on Highway 61!' I believe this expanded reading is found in the Dylanxenian Pentateuch scrolls, found in Cave 7 alongside Highway 61.... From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Apr 4 01:21:59 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id BAA06780; Fri, 4 Apr 1997 01:21:59 -0500 Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 01:22:48 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: P46 In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970403142303.26d753bc@mail.infoave.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2084 On Thu, 3 Apr 1997, Jim West wrote: > > When P46 stands alone in a non-error sensible > >reading, are you quite prepared to accept and defend such? And on what > >grounds? > > Yes. On the grounds that antiquity counts more than any of the other > criteria (unless there are VERY compelling reasons to ignore a document's > antiquity). This sounds very much like Philip Comfort's methodology, which to my knowledge has not exactly been regarded in a favorable light by reviewers (including myself). Why exactly should the oldest or near-oldest MS be considered best? If, as you say above, virtually _any_ sensible reading is to be preferred when it stands quite alone merely because it happens to occur in the oldest known MS, you still have a responsibility to explain how such a reading gave rise to all other readings and also to explain transmissionally how it is that _no_ other MS, let alone version or father, happened to share such a singular reading. If this cannot be done, then there remain no good grounds for holding to a reading merely because it happens to be found in a single ancient document. What do you do then with Colwell's suggestion that virtually _all_ sensible variant readings were created before AD 200, regardless of the age of the MSS in which they happen to currently appear? Also, what do you do in cases such as Eph.5:9 where an almost equally early papyrus (P49) differs? What happens in John when, say, P66 and P75 differ? Which one is best, and why? Antiquity of a single witness as a sole criterion is too simplistic, it would seem to me. That is why even among pro-Byzantine supporters like Burgon the principle of "Antiquity" is only _one_ of seven major criteria, and not sufficient in and of itself to determine a reading. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Apr 4 01:43:23 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id BAA06820; Fri, 4 Apr 1997 01:43:23 -0500 Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 01:44:12 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Re; Rom 15:19 In-Reply-To: <9704032119.AA05758@iris.arcadis.be> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2021 On Thu, 3 Apr 1997, Jean VALENTIN wrote: > To a certain extend, the same remarks would apply to the Byzantine > readings. Maurice, what would you do of variants of Byz as against more > geographically spread variants? Do you accept that older variants may > survive far from the geographical "centers" of text-production? Your own textual bias of course does show, Jean, as you admit. Certainly a geographically-spread variant (if not likely to have arisen by coincidence or identical accident) does betray a certain degree of antiquity and diversity, both of which are important factors in evaluating variant readings. What I find as a major defect in looking _only_ to such diversity is that those readings present in versional and localized text regions outside of the primary Greek-speaking area (S.Italy through modern Turkey) likely reflect more aberrant forms of text if unsupported by Byzantine witnesses. When the Byzantine is supported by such additional diversity, it certainly gains some degree of support thereby, but outside diversity without a shared Byzantine presence would be suspect in my opinion. > I see that some of you seem to have time these days: it's Easter vacation > for the people working in teaching institutions, not for me! But I profit > of the occasion in the hope to have some well-thought feedback. Sorry if > those questions seem repetitive compared to earlier postings from me, but > my work on the versions makes me sensitive to this problem. :-) My week off will soon be over; I suspect I already have more than enough to reply to, and have already started to feel overwhelmed. Maybe it will be good to see the Theology of Freizeit wane away beginning next week... _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Apr 4 01:52:54 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id BAA06837; Fri, 4 Apr 1997 01:52:53 -0500 Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 01:53:43 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: TC-List Subject: Re: An sample from Sinai Arabic 71 In-Reply-To: <9704032201.AA08313@iris.arcadis.be> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 872 On Thu, 3 Apr 1997, Jean VALENTIN wrote: > Here's a sample translation of a few verses from Sinai Arabic 71, the > > 1 Beginning of the Gospel: Jesus Christ (is) the Son of God. 2 As it (is) > written in the prophet: Prophet -- singular, not plural? Sort of a halfway house between "Isaiah the prophet" and "the prophets"? Couldn't have been because someone might be trying to make the Muslims think Muhammed said that, could it? Just curious on what influences there might have been here, or whether this was simply a scribal error, leaving off the final -in. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Apr 4 01:58:25 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id BAA06858; Fri, 4 Apr 1997 01:58:25 -0500 Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 01:59:15 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: celar evidence In-Reply-To: <9704032207.AA08714@iris.arcadis.be> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 860 On Thu, 3 Apr 1997, Jean VALENTIN wrote: > >Thats ok- I had accidentally slipped into Byzantine scribe mode! > > > Do you mean that you too copy old text in a dark cell ? :-) Since I think that I am the only one on this list who has actually copied out the entire Greek NT by hand (typing it into the computer for the Online Bible in four different editions), I can testify that I do _not_ do that type of work in a dark cell (though the room is a small 10'x10'), but a well-lit room which has a glowing computer screen to "illuminate my manuscript". :-) _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Apr 4 05:28:04 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id FAA07051; Fri, 4 Apr 1997 05:28:03 -0500 From: schmiul@uni-muenster.de Message-Id: <199704041028.MAA49564@mail.uni-muenster.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Fri, 04 Apr 97 12:42:55 +0100 Subject: Re: Assimilation and Mt.9:1 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 5138 On Thu, 3 Apr 1997, Maurice Robinson wrote (inter alia): >Continuing the discussion..... Maybe I should have been waiting with my reply, but something in your post, Maurice, strikes me... >On Tue, 1 Apr 1997, Ulrich Schmid wrote (inter alia): >>> Since assimilations are found in each and every MS of the Gospels >>> (including P75), and since it is reasonable to infer that this was a >>> constant threat on every level of textual transmission of the (united) >>> Gospels, I simply have greater confidence in those witnesses who >>> contain proportionally less assimilations. >Again, how do you determine what constitutes "proportionally less"? >Certainly not by taking the Byz readings as a whole and assuming that >every _possible_ harmonization in such is a "true" harmonization. This >would be no more legitimate than to take every _possible_ harmonization >in the Alexandrian or Western texttypes as a whole and then broad-brush >paint all the individual witnesses to those texttypes as somehow guilty >of what allegedly _might_ occur on the wide scale within the >archetypical level of that texttype. Once for all: When I speak of assimilation in the context of our discussion on Wisselink (that's how it all started), I simply use HIS definition, for I wanted to infer from HIS results. Again, Wisselink's "working definition of assimilation and dissimilation" is the following: "If there is a case of variation within a text-passage and if there is another text-passage with which comparison is possible, we call the reading which reduces the difference with that other text-passage,(sic) an assimilation; the reading which increases the difference with that text-passage, we call a dissimilation" (p. 63). Therefore, please stop fighting straw-men. >It simply is _not_ valid to take the Byzantine Textform as a whole, >(which reflects a reasonable "control" group), and then presume that >every "possible" assimilation in such a group is automatically a "true" >harmonization. What needs to be done, plainly and simply, is to take >Byzantine witnesses individually and calculate from their singular and >subsingular readings what degree of or propensity toward harmonization >seems apparent in such MSS, compare these to the same Byztxt-as-a-whole >control group and from there consider how this might apply to the >transmission of harmonizations within the main Textform once such >harmonizations occur beyond a few copying generations. Wisselink does not show a glimps of your distinction as far as I can see. He simply construes a kind of master-file with the mentioned MSS + Hodges and Farstad "as summary of many minuscules" (p. 64). He, therefore, treats the Byzantine Textform as a MS, ignoring all the singular or sub-singular assimilations of the "many minuscules" and yet comparing it to individual MSS. When he then concludes that the single MS B contains less assimilations (according to his working definition) than Byz, you might count proportionally even less assimilations in B, when ignoring its singular assimilations, than in Byz. My problem with that is somehow similar to your problem, but don't blame me. Wisselink is to be charged for that. [snip] >>Maybe we should have a closer look at various examples. >Sounds fine to me. >>First of all, I think there is a type of assimilation that is so >>remote, that no real conclusions can be drawn therefrom. For example, >>at Mat 9:1 we have the addition/ommission of the article TO before >>PLOION. Checking all the other instances where Jesus embarked a boat >>may display preferences of some MSS (or text-types) for the article or >>against it. However, I doubt that we should build theories on this type >>of assimilation. >In Mk(sic). 9:1, the article before PLOION is indeed the Byzantine reading, >supported also by C* W 0233 (E F Delta 579 700 1424) al., with >Alexandrian and Caesarean witnesses (Aleph B C3 L Theta f1 f13 33 565 >892 al sa mae) otherwise omitting the article. >This article-inclusion, however, as SQE demonstrates, is _not_ a matter >of parallel passage harmonization, as you basically stated. Sorry, Maurice, but this really brings me up. Where did I "basically state" this to be "a matter of PARALLEL passage harmonization" (emphasis added). If you are so familiar and "congenial" with the work of Wisselink, almost totally making him a spokesman of your own theories, you should have noted that assimilation/harmonization is indeed a tricky business. Wisselink seems to be more sensible towards the problem, than you: please take note that the article-inclusion in Mat 9:1 is the first reading Wisselink includes in his statistics in Appendix 2 (pp. 108-163). Fight him. But most of all, READ him and READ others CAREFULLY. Before going any further, it may be wise to stop, take a deep breath, switch off the PC, take a week off, not touching an on-line computer, and enjoy Mecklenburg-Vorpommern and the Ostsee. That's exactly, what I'm going to do now. (Don't worry, Maurice, I planned this long before your recent post.) Bye for now. Ulrich Schmid, Muenster From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Apr 4 08:09:18 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA07329; Fri, 4 Apr 1997 08:09:18 -0500 Date: Fri, 04 Apr 1997 08:09:54 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Antiquity X-Sender: jwest@mail.infoave.net (Unverified) To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970404080639.264f4ce2@mail.infoave.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1323 I have taken some jabs for my suggestion that age is a primary factor in determining reliability. I have at no point said it is the only factor to be taken into account. Yet it seems to me that each person who does tc picks a criteria (or more properly criterion) and uses it more than the others. for Maurice, it is Byzantine priority. For Jean, it is geographical distribution. For me it is antiquity. for others it is something else. All of us, for some reason or another, choose a tool which seems to us to fit the job the best. The trick is learning to use the other tools as well. I have tried Byzantine priority and found it lacking, and unconvincing. Likewise the matter of geographical dispersion seems to me to lack a certain reliability. It is only antiquity of a manuscript which is compelling evidence; for it is hard evidence and not subject to the subjective impulses of the interpreter. If two manuscripts of equal age conflict, then the other criteria come into play. If they do not, then the reading is virtually (!) assured. What sense does it make, after all, to say that an 8th century manuscript is more reliable than a 2nd? This is the hurdle which I cannot leap. Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@theology.edu From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Apr 4 08:44:53 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA07408; Fri, 4 Apr 1997 08:44:52 -0500 Date: Fri, 04 Apr 1997 08:45:42 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: ABMC X-Sender: jwest@mail.infoave.net (Unverified) To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970404084229.276f5d78@mail.infoave.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 230 Does anyone know the email address of the Ancient Biblical Manuscript Center at Claremont? Thanks, Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@theology.edu From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Apr 4 08:50:52 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA07447; Fri, 4 Apr 1997 08:50:51 -0500 Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 08:51:37 -0500 (EST) From: ANDREW SMITH To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: A big idea In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 183 Current spread sheets can handle tens of thousands of columns and rows; you can use Greek fonts to fill in the cells. Your project is, in principle, quite feasible. [feasable? sp?] From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Apr 4 09:11:51 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA07523; Fri, 4 Apr 1997 09:11:50 -0500 Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 09:12:40 -0500 (EST) From: Kim Haines-Eitzen To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: ABMC In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970404084229.276f5d78@mail.infoave.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 349 The address is ABMC@cgs.edu --Kim Haines-Eitzen On Fri, 4 Apr 1997, Jim West wrote: > Does anyone know the email address of the Ancient Biblical Manuscript Center > at Claremont? > > Thanks, > > Jim > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > Jim West, ThD > Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology > jwest@theology.edu > > From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Apr 4 09:23:27 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA07563; Fri, 4 Apr 1997 09:23:27 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970404080639.264f4ce2@mail.infoave.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 08:21:40 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Antiquity Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2672 On Fri, 04 Apr 1997, Jim West wrote, in part: >I have taken some jabs for my suggestion that age is a primary factor in >determining reliability. I have at no point said it is the only factor to >be taken into account. >Yet it seems to me that each person who does tc picks a criteria (or more >properly criterion) and uses it more than the others. >for Maurice, it is Byzantine priority. >For Jean, it is geographical distribution. >For me it is antiquity. >for others it is something else. > >All of us, for some reason or another, choose a tool which seems to us to >fit the job the best. The trick is learning to use the other tools as well. >I have tried Byzantine priority and found it lacking, and unconvincing. >Likewise the matter of geographical dispersion seems to me to lack a certain >reliability. It is only antiquity of a manuscript which is compelling >evidence; for it is hard evidence and not subject to the subjective impulses >of the interpreter. Conceding that it is hard evidence, I can't see that that is decisive. To take a more recent example: The earliest publications of most of Shakespeare's plays are called the "bad folios" -- for the good and simple reason that they are of very poor quality. Age can give us a hint of a manuscript's quality; an early manuscript *might* be very good. But it might be very bad. The obvious example is p45. Colwell has offered strong evidence that this is an *edited* text -- hardly something I want to rely on to reconstruct the original text. >If two manuscripts of equal age conflict, then the other criteria come into >play. If they do not, then the reading is virtually (!) assured. >What sense does it make, after all, to say that an 8th century manuscript is >more reliable than a 2nd? This is the hurdle which I cannot leap. I admit that this is beyond me. What matters is not the age of the *manuscript,* but the age of the text it contains. Would you actually claim that the minuscules 33 and 861 (both 9th century) are of equal value? 861 is purely Byzantine, 33 ranges from about half Alexandrian in the gospels to purely Alexandrian in Paul (outside Romans). Surely everyone on the list will agree that they differ in value (though Maurice would disagree as to which is more valuable :-) -- yet they are the same age. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A very rough draft of part of the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Apr 4 09:30:49 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA07594; Fri, 4 Apr 1997 09:30:49 -0500 Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 09:30:48 -0500 (EST) From: "James R. Adair" To: TC List Subject: Ehrman presidential address Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1024 Bart Ehrman, president of the Southeastern SBL region this year, presented a paper at the recent meeting of the group in Macon. His paper, entitled "The Neglect of the Firstborn in New Testament Studies," is a plea for the necessity of engaging in textual criticism as the first step in exegesis. In his paper he explores the variants in Luke 22:19-20 to illustrate his point. Since his audience had very few text critics in it (there was at least one!), his remarks were designed to communicate to a less specialized group and are thus accessible to the broad range of biblical scholars and students. Ehrman's address is now accessible on TELA at http://scholar.cc.emory.edu/scripts/TC/extras/ehrman-pres.html, and it has been added to the TC-Links page (http://scholar.cc.emory.edu/scripts/TC/TC-links.html). 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 owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Apr 4 09:50:46 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA07693; Fri, 4 Apr 1997 09:50:46 -0500 Message-ID: <3345AB15.72C4@sn.no> Date: Fri, 04 Apr 1997 17:29:57 -0800 From: "Mr. Helge Evensen" Organization: SN Internett X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Rom 15:19 References: <1.5.4.16.19970403160315.2f1755b2@mail.infoave.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 194 Jim West wrote: > If there is a conflict that is unresolvable- I opt for the oldest reading. You of course mean: "I opt for the reading found in the oldest MS(S)". -- - Mr. Helge Evensen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Apr 4 10:18:45 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA07773; Fri, 4 Apr 1997 10:18:44 -0500 Message-Id: <9704041619.AA09374@iris.arcadis.be> Subject: Re: A sample from Sinai Arabic 71 Date: Fri, 4 Apr 97 17:23:04 +0200 X-Sender: vale5655@194.111.178.251 X-Mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1 From: Jean VALENTIN To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1758 >Prophet -- singular, not plural? Sort of a halfway house between "Isaiah >the prophet" and "the prophets"? Couldn't have been because someone might >be trying to make the Muslims think Muhammed said that, could it? Just >curious on what influences there might have been here, or whether this was >simply a scribal error, leaving off the final -in. Yes, singular. It could be explained by syriac, as in that language the plural of the noun is expressed by a double dot that is put above the word. And I noticed that in the two mss of the vetus syra, this double dot (called seyome) is frequently omitted. The problem is that (1) we have no vetus syra for these verses, and (2) I see no other place where a variant could be explained by the misreading of a syriac text (there are many _common variants_ with the veteres syrae, but nothing that really proves a direct relation). This would be the first place... Concerning the final -in, this is not correct for this word : _nabi_ has an "broken" plural as arabic grammatical terminology names it : the plural is _anbya_, graphically quite different. I haven't either found traces of polemics with Islam in this ms. For me this reading remains a mystery. ________________________________________________________________ Jean Valentin - 58/7 rue Van Kalck - 1080 Bruxelles - BELGIQUE ________________________________________________________________ email : jgvalentin@arcadis.be *** netmail : 2:291/780.103 ________________________________________________________________ Ce qui est trop simple est faux, ce qui est trop complique est inutilisable. What's too simple is wrong, what's too complicated is unusable. Wat te eenvoudig is, is verkeerd; wat te ingewikkeld is, is onbruikbaar. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Apr 4 10:45:18 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA07811; Fri, 4 Apr 1997 10:45:17 -0500 Date: Fri, 04 Apr 1997 10:40:59 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: Rom 15:19 X-Sender: jwest@mail.infoave.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970404103726.23375506@mail.infoave.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 416 At 05:29 PM 4/4/97 -0800, you wrote: >Jim West wrote: > >> If there is a conflict that is unresolvable- I opt for the oldest reading. > > >You of course mean: "I opt for the reading found in the oldest MS(S)". > > No, I mean I opt for the oldest reading. >-- >- Mr. Helge Evensen > Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@theology.edu From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Apr 4 12:08:39 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA13019; Fri, 4 Apr 1997 12:08:38 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970404103726.23375506@mail.infoave.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 11:15:21 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Rom 15:19 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 549 On Fri, 04 Apr 1997, Jim West wrote: >At 05:29 PM 4/4/97 -0800, you wrote: >>Jim West wrote: >> >>> If there is a conflict that is unresolvable- I opt for the oldest reading. >> >> >>You of course mean: "I opt for the reading found in the oldest MS(S)". >> >> > >No, I mean I opt for the oldest reading. > >>-- >>- Mr. Helge Evensen >> > >Jim I want to get this straight. Let's take an example: The Doxology of Romans. p46 (only) places it after chapter 15. Is that where you would put it? Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Apr 4 12:15:37 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA13044; Fri, 4 Apr 1997 12:15:36 -0500 Message-Id: <9704041816.AA18367@iris.arcadis.be> Subject: Acts in Arabic... Date: Fri, 4 Apr 97 19:19:55 +0200 X-Sender: vale5655@194.111.178.251 X-Mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1 From: Jean VALENTIN To: "TC-List" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 3383 Here follow the text of the beginning of the Acts, translated from Sinai Arabic 158. It is the oldest ms of what I call the "Acts in the melkite version of the XIIIth century". First the text, then a few precisions : 1 As to the first discourse, o Theophile, I composed it in all the things that Jesus begun to do and to teach, 2 until the day when he commanded by the Holy Spirit to his disciples that he had chosen and he ascended, going-by-degrees, (3) they to whom he rose (parestisen!) his soul after his suffering alive by many firm proofs, they saw him appearing to them a period of forty days and saying discourses about the reign of God, 4 and in his gathering with them he commanded that they flee not from Jerusalem but that they wait the promise of the Father which you have heard from me. 5 For sure, John baptized with water, and you, you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit, not after many days from this one. 6 And they approached him and asked him saying: O Lord, will you at that moment bring the reign back to Israel? 7 And he said to them: it is not entrusted to you that you know the years or the moments that the Father established in his might. 8 But you, you will take a force through the descent of the Holy Spirit to you, and you will be witnesses for me in Jerusalem and Samaria and to the end of the earth. Here's a list of the mss that have this version in Mt Sinai: Sin. Arb. 158 (1232) Sin. Arb. 168 (1238) Sin. Arb. 175 (1255) Sin. Arb. 170 (1285) Sin. Arb. 171 (1296) Sin. Arb. 173 (1303) Sin. Arb. 156 (1316) As you see, they were all produced over a period of a century. It is most probably translated from Greek, but we don't know what text-type exactly, and nothing excludes totally that the translator consulted syriac texts. But the Greek is clearly dominant. As to its text, a friend of mine who is working on the text of the Acts says it's a mixed text, in which elements from B, D, Byz, syp and others are present. Does the sample above allow you to see something interesting? There are earlier mss at Mt Sinai (Sin. Arb. 154, 151, both of the IXth century), but they have other versions and have been published. This version seemed to have an official character, as the number of mss seems to show. They have liturgical indications. Also, some of them have their text interspersed with homiletical texts. The version is in literary arabic. Its vocabulary is often quite researched (rare words...). Why was such a text extinct after a century? Probably because of the concurrence of another version. Sinai Arabic 151, one of the oldest versions, was revised: Sinai Arabic 150 (1252) is a lectionary showing the text of that revision. We find another, probably independant, revision of the same text in the Acts that Erpenius published in his Arabic NT (1616). ________________________________________________________________ Jean Valentin - 58/7 rue Van Kalck - 1080 Bruxelles - BELGIQUE ________________________________________________________________ email : jgvalentin@arcadis.be *** netmail : 2:291/780.103 ________________________________________________________________ Ce qui est trop simple est faux, ce qui est trop complique est inutilisable. What's too simple is wrong, what's too complicated is unusable. Wat te eenvoudig is, is verkeerd; wat te ingewikkeld is, is onbruikbaar. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Apr 4 13:31:09 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA13168; Fri, 4 Apr 1997 13:31:09 -0500 Message-ID: <3345DECC.4949@sn.no> Date: Fri, 04 Apr 1997 21:10:36 -0800 From: "Mr. Helge Evensen" Organization: SN Internett X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Rom 15:19 References: <1.5.4.16.19970404103726.23375506@mail.infoave.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2879 Jim West wrote: =20 > >> If there is a conflict that is unresolvable- I opt for the oldest re= ading. I commented: > >You of course mean: "I opt for the reading found in the oldest MS(S)". Jim replied: > No, I mean I opt for the oldest reading. I now reply: So you just _know_ that the oldest _reading_ is found in the oldest _MS_!= ? A good faith statement! Then you mean to tell me that the oldest _reading_ is always found in the= oldest _MSS_ (if the reading is not=20 _clearly_ in error, of course), that is, oldest MS =3D oldest reading????= If that=B4s so, your method seems to be=20 the most simple method ever. It is _easy_ to be _assured_ of the original= readings by this method: You just=20 gather all the oldest MSS and wherever the NT text is covered in them (ev= en in the places where there is only=20 one "oldest" MS supporting a reading, after all, the MS is _oldest_) you = pick the oldest MS (or fragment) in=20 each instance, and presto! there is the autograph reading! (Of course you= still have to choose between _some_=20 competing readings). That=B4s a convenient methodology. Had only W & H th= ought of that! One of the obvious problems is this: You _have_ to rely on _"later"_ MSS = in most cases, since there is no such=20 thing as "_the_ oldest NT MS". You begin at the fragment p52 and work you= r way down through the comparatively=20 "later" fragments/papyri/MSS. Maybe some day the remaining part of p52 wi= ll be discovered. But its text may=20 _not_ agree with any of the other "oldest" papyri known today!! It may ev= en introduce "new" variants. Can you please tell me *why* an _obvious false_ reading (a scribal slip o= r something....) can have entered the=20 *oldest* _extant_ MSS/fragments, and a _real_ error (that is, a deviation= from the autograph text) cannot=20 have?? Maybe you believe in the providential preservation of the scriptur= es by archeological discoveries. There=20 may still be some even _older_ MSS hiding in the sand or in some cave. It= =B4s good that the MSS which is _found_=20 can be of some help in the assurance of the autograph reading. The whole theory of "oldest is best" is very false indeed. We cannot even= always know for sure that the datings=20 placed on the MSS is 100% accurate. If one papyri has been dated 200 A.D.= and another 180 A.D., would you=20 automatically accept the reading of the one dated 180 A.D.?? (I now go underground....I=B4m not sure I dare to open my mailbox next ti= me.....I don=B4t even know if there is a=20 computer available down there.....) I appologize ahead for any "faulty logic" on my part in the above......If= it=B4s too bad, please just regard it=20 as another humoristic contribution to this list. As you can see, I=B4m no= t a scholar, nor a specialist in text=20 criticism. You should have noticed that by now! - Mr. Helge Evensen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Apr 4 13:33:01 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA13197; Fri, 4 Apr 1997 13:33:01 -0500 Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 13:33:48 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Assimilation and Mt.9:1 In-Reply-To: <199704041028.MAA49564@mail.uni-muenster.de> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 8082 On Fri, 4 Apr 1997 schmiul@uni-muenster.de wrote: > Once for all: When I speak of assimilation in the context of our discussion on > Wisselink (that's how it all started), I simply use HIS definition, for I wanted > to infer from HIS results. > Again, Wisselink's "working definition of assimilation and dissimilation" is the > following: "If there is a case of variation within a text-passage and if there > is another text-passage with which comparison is possible, we call the reading > which reduces the difference with that other text-passage,(sic) an assimilation; > the reading which increases the difference with that text-passage, we call a > dissimilation" (p. 63). > Therefore, please stop fighting straw-men. As a neutral statement, Wisselink's working definition is satisfactory. However what you seem to make into a "straw man" has nothing to do with that neutral definition, but with the decision to use Byz as an entity as if it were a MS. If it indeed is _counted_ as a MS, and not as merely a control group for comparison, then the number of assimilations which can be alleged to exist in Byz will definitely be proportionally higher than those found in any of its individual components. Reverse the situation and use the WH text to = Alex and then compare that against the same individual MSS -- you once more would have a _larger_ number of possible or alleged assimilations in Alex than you would in any of the individual MSS. The point is simple, and not a "straw man" -- a texttype as a whole cannot function as a single MS when making comparisons; its _only_ usefulness is in serving as a control group for comparison. > Wisselink does not show a glimps of your distinction as far as I can see. If Wisselink does not make that abundantly clear in his dissertation, that is his problem, but such is the _only_ logical manner in which to evaluate the data, and such _must_ underlie his methodology. Texttypes and individual MSS are like apples and oranges, and cannot be directly compared one to another with equally valid results, else why not simply compare Alex with West, Caes, and with Byz, and forget the individual MSS comparison? He chose to compare individual MSS to get an idea regarding their propensity toward assimilation, and therefrom to derive some idea of the likelihood of assimilation extending into the texttype-as-a-whole (which Alex or Caes or West was _not_ considered). Had he simply included individual Byzantine MSS and evaluated their propensity toward assimilation and made extrapolations therefrom, we would be on level ground all the way around. That certainly is the way in which I would have approached his dissertation research; but I was not his director, nor did I offer any advice. You later state: >If you are so familiar and "congenial" with the work of Wisselink, almost >totally making him a spokesman of your own theories... But I am no more familiar with Wisselink than having read his material once and having conversed with him once. He most certainly is _not_ a spokesman for my own theory, though he does assist that theory by his conclusion regarding assimilation as _not_ a primary characteristic of the Byzantine Textform any more than for other texttypes (which I would have claimed in any case, but he provides hard evidence). As for Wisselink's own theory, I really do not know it in detail, though I know he leans more pro-Byzantine, as does Jakob Van Bruggen, his mentor, but I am not even sure if he and Van Bruggen agree. I do know that other eclectics have tried to make Wisselink's work also support a position against the Byzantine Textform when he in fact does no such thing. This is why I think Wisselink at some point should have simply stopped being so "neutral" and declared his own interpretation of the conclusions. > When he then concludes that the single MS B contains less assimilations > (according to his working definition) than Byz, you might count > proportionally even less assimilations in B, when ignoring its singular > assimilations, than in Byz. My problem with that is somehow similar to > your problem, but don't blame me. Wisselink is to be charged for that. Agreed in this case. I would also suggest that what you mention would change proportionally were he even to compare B against the WH Alexandrian text with whatever possible proportions of alleged assimilation might be present in that texttype taken as a whole. My point has been that on the texttype level there will _always_ be proportionally more assimilations than on the individual MS basis, so long as the singular and subsingular readings of individual MSS are being examined. On the other hand, if the singular and subsingular readings of individual MSS are included AND the other possible alleged harmonizations of the texttype to which such a MS belongs should be added, then of course _every_ MS will look even _more_ prone to harmonization than otherwise. This is why MSS should be compared with MSS and texttypes with texttypes, and never the twain should meet. > >>First of all, I think there is a type of assimilation that is so > >>remote, that no real conclusions can be drawn therefrom. For example, > >>at Mat 9:1 we have the addition/ommission of the article TO before > >>PLOION. Checking all the other instances where Jesus embarked a boat > >>may display preferences of some MSS (or text-types) for the article or > >>against it. However, I doubt that we should build theories on this type > >>of assimilation. > >This article-inclusion, however, as SQE demonstrates, is _not_ a matter > >of parallel passage harmonization, as you basically stated. > Sorry, Maurice, but this really brings me up. Where did I "basically state" this > to be "a matter of PARALLEL passage harmonization" (emphasis added). I will recant on that point: you only said "a type of assimilation" -- though I remain puzzled in light of Wisselink's definition why parallels are somehow not in view if it is to be termed assimilation. He said: "If there is a case of variation within a text-passage and if there is another text-passage with which comparison is possible, we call the reading which reduces the difference with that other text-passage,(sic) an assimilation" ..If comparison is possible between two text passages, then they must in some way be "parallel". However, I reject in the present case any contention that the mere presence or absence of an article before PLOION has something of "assimilation" to it, as I discussed the matter. > please take note that the > article-inclusion in Mat 9:1 is the first reading Wisselink includes in his > statistics in Appendix 2 (pp. 108-163). Fight him. But most of all, READ > him and READ others CAREFULLY. I indeed object to Wisselink's use of Mt.9:1 in that situation and would not claim any such passages as assimilation or harmonization, for reasons stated. Basically nothing in the first category of "remote" assimilations which have no real parallel to harmonize with should be considered as assimilations, plain and simple. These should be dealt with (as I did) from other text-critical perspectives. Wisselink is not perfect in this matter, and neither am I; but I most definitely would have had certain aspects of his research proceed differently were I to suspect the later interpretative problems his published results would cause. > Before going any further, it may be wise to stop, take a deep breath, switch off > the PC, take a week off, not touching an on-line computer, and enjoy > Mecklenburg-Vorpommern and the Ostsee. I would love to do the same. I plan to head for the mountains this last weekend before classes resume and talk to the hillbillies in Mecklenburg county NC..... _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Apr 4 13:43:17 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA13229; Fri, 4 Apr 1997 13:43:16 -0500 Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 13:44:04 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Antiquity In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970404080639.264f4ce2@mail.infoave.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1408 On Fri, 4 Apr 1997, Jim West wrote: > It is only antiquity of a manuscript which is compelling > evidence; for it is hard evidence and not subject to the subjective impulses > of the interpreter. > If two manuscripts of equal age conflict, then the other criteria come into > play. If they do not, then the reading is virtually (!) assured. > What sense does it make, after all, to say that an 8th century manuscript is > more reliable than a 2nd? This is the hurdle which I cannot leap. So let me ask the ultimate question then: since virtually all text-critics acknowledge that the age of the MS itself does not say anything specific about the age of the text it contains, do you reject that principle, and therefore say that the Western text of D is merely 5th century and no earlier because that is the date of that vellum? Likewise, is the predominantly Alexandrian text of minuscule 33 merely "late", and not to be considered, despite the fact that it's text is in high agreement with the other early Alexandrians? Do you simply write off all evidence after, say, the fourth century, or what? _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Apr 4 13:45:42 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA13284; Fri, 4 Apr 1997 13:45:42 -0500 Message-Id: <2.2.32.19970404184801.006efce0@mail.airmail.net> X-Sender: peterd@mail.airmail.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 04 Apr 1997 12:48:01 -0600 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: Peter Diebenow Subject: Re: Ehrman presidential address Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1982 At 09:30 AM 4/4/97 -0500, you wrote: >Bart Ehrman, president of the Southeastern SBL region this year, presented >a paper at the recent meeting of the group in Macon. His paper, entitled >"The Neglect of the Firstborn in New Testament Studies," is a plea for the >necessity of engaging in textual criticism as the first step in exegesis. >In his paper he explores the variants in Luke 22:19-20 to illustrate his >point. <> >Ehrman's address is now accessible on TELA at >http://scholar.cc.emory.edu/scripts/TC/extras/ehrman-pres.html, and it has >been added to the TC-Links page >(http://scholar.cc.emory.edu/scripts/TC/TC-links.html). > >Jimmy Adair Thank you for this article and its location, Jim. I have just read it. As a non-scholar but very interested student of the Bible, I have two questions about this article. In the following quote I am left with the impression that he agrees with Thiede's claims. Am I misreading Ehrman here? (Hasn't that claim been put to rest?) "... very few highly trained New Testament scholars are able actually to dispute the claims of Carston Thiede found in a major article of Time Magazine that one of our papyrus MSS, P64, in fact dates to the middle of the first century and may represent an eyewitness account of the life of Jesus by one of his followers." My second question: Will this article/paper be discussed on this list? I am interested in a response to his thesis as well as his example. (The longer/shorter version of Luke 22:19-21)? I found his style interesting, easy to read and understand, and welcome responses from members on this list. Thank you! --pete ____________________________________________________________ Peter Diebenow, Interim Minister (As of 5/15/96 serving as a Vacancy Pastor, Charity Lutheran, Burleson, TX) (817)792-3271(Voice) peterd@iadfw.net (817)275-5641 (FAX) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Apr 4 19:21:26 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA14235; Fri, 4 Apr 1997 19:21:26 -0500 Message-ID: <334649EF.6A55@cryogen.com> Date: Sat, 05 Apr 1997 21:47:43 +0900 From: Andrew Kulikovsky Organization: Killersoft X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Ehrman presidential address References: <2.2.32.19970404184801.006efce0@mail.airmail.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2182 Peter Diebenow wrote: > > Thank you for this article and its location, Jim. I have just read it. > > As a non-scholar but very interested student of the Bible, I have two > questions about this article. > > In the following quote I am left with the impression that he agrees with > Thiede's claims. Am I misreading Ehrman here? (Hasn't that claim been put to > rest?) > > "... very few highly trained New Testament scholars are able actually > to dispute the claims of Carston Thiede found in a major article > of Time > Magazine that one of our papyrus MSS, P64, in fact dates to the > middle of the first century and may represent an eyewitness account > of the life of Jesus by one of his followers." > > My second question: Will this article/paper be discussed on this list? I am > interested in a response to his thesis as well as his example. (The > longer/shorter version of Luke 22:19-21)? > > I found his style interesting, easy to read and understand, and welcome > responses from members on this list. Thank you! > > --pete > What does P64 actually contain? Does it contain Biblical books or sections or is it a pseudopigraphic document? cheers, Andrew +--------------------------------------------------------------------- | Andrew S. Kulikovsky B.App.Sc(Hons) MACS | | Software Engineer (CelsiusTech Australia) | & Theology Student (MA - Pacific College) | Adelaide, Australia | ph: +618 8281 0919 fax: +618 8281 6231 | email: killer@cryogen.com | | Check out my Biblical Hermeneutics web page: | http://www.netforward.com/cryogen/?hermeneutics | | What's the point of gaining everything this world has | to offer, if you lose your own life in the end? | | ...Look to Jesus Christ | | hO IESOUS KURIOS! +--------------------------------------------------------------------- From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Apr 4 20:23:45 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA14335; Fri, 4 Apr 1997 20:23:45 -0500 From: dwashbur@wave.park.wy.us Message-Id: <199704050127.SAA02884@wavecom.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 18:21:48 -7000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Rom 15:19 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.42a) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1242 > At 05:29 PM 4/4/97 -0800, you wrote: > >Jim West wrote: > > > >> If there is a conflict that is unresolvable- I opt for the oldest reading. > > > > > >You of course mean: "I opt for the reading found in the oldest MS(S)". > > > > > > No, I mean I opt for the oldest reading. No you don't. You redefine the "oldest reading" to mean "the reading found in the oldest manuscript(s)". That's a very different definition of the "oldest reading" than is accepted by most textual critics. As Bob Waltz pointed out, the oldest reading is not necessarily the one found in the oldest extant ms. Let's keep in mind that the ages and geographical/chronological distributions of the mss we possess (at least before about the 10th century) are purely a matter of chance and the luck of the draw, in terms of what has been preserved and what we have been able to find. That's why the age of the text contained in a ms. is more important than the age of the ms itself. Nothing is resolved simply by arbitrarily redefining terms like this. Dave Washburn http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur/home.html There will be times when we disagree, but that's good because disagreement leads to thinking, and when you think you'll realize I'm right. ;-) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Apr 4 21:05:43 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA14391; Fri, 4 Apr 1997 21:05:42 -0500 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19970404184801.006efce0@mail.airmail.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 21:08:57 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: Nichael Lynn Cramer Subject: Re: Ehrman presidential address Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2140 At 12:48 PM -0600 4/4/97, Peter Diebenow wrote: >Thank you for this article and its location, Jim. I have just read it. Ditto. >In the following quote I am left with the impression that he agrees with >Thiede's claims. Am I misreading Ehrman here? (Hasn't that claim been put to >rest?) > "... very few highly trained New Testament scholars are able >actually > to dispute the claims of Carston Thiede found in a major article >of Time > Magazine that one of our papyrus MSS, P64, in fact dates to the > middle of the first century and may represent an eyewitness account > of the life of Jesus by one of his followers." I think, that in context, it is very hard to argue that Prof Ehrman is supporting Thiede's claim. More generally Ehrman's point is that the principles of textual criticism (and, indeed, much of Greek itself) is outside the "toolkit" of many practicing scholars --to say nothing of the non-specialist. But more to the point, the complete paragraph from which you quote make, I feel, Prof Ehrman's position perfectly clear: "This is raw ignorance in one of its most crass forms, an ignorance that can be and has been fed upon by well-meaning incompetents and glory-seeking cranks. Very few people in our society have any grounds whatsoever to evaluate the claims that the words of the King James Translation are themselves inspired by God; very few highly trained New Testament scholars are able actually to dispute the claims of Carston Thiede found in a major article of Time Magazine that one of our papyrus MSS, P64, in fact dates to the middle of the first century and may represent an eyewitness account of the life of Jesus by one of his followers. There are lots of knees jerking over these issues, but very few minds working. At the very least scholars of the NT should be equipped to deal with these matters. And, in fact, the training that can prepare them to do so can prove salutary for other reasons, since considerations of the problems of the text naturally involve so many areas of research interest to scholars of the Bible and early Christianity." From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Apr 5 08:36:03 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA14973; Sat, 5 Apr 1997 08:36:02 -0500 Date: Sat, 5 Apr 1997 08:41:04 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199704051341.IAA00405@mail3.voicenet.com> X-Sender: cbtslibr@popmail.voicenet.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "L. Mark Bruffey" Subject: Re: Bob Dylan Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1005 HMMMM . . . . Must be from Philly. At 01:11 AM 4/4/97 -0500, you wrote: > > >On Thu, 3 Apr 1997, Nichael Cramer wrote: > >> Although it might not seems so at first glance, this may not be as >> unreasonable as one might think. It would appear that Mr Dylan is in >> possession of manuscripts that contain many interesting variant readings. >> For example, one of his early publication contained the following variant >> from Genesis: >> >> "God said to Abraham 'Kill me a son', >> Abe said 'Man, you gotta be putting me on!' >> God, he said, 'No' >> Abe he said 'What?!?' >> God said 'Listen you can do what you want. >> But next you seem comin' you'd better run...' >> Abe said 'Where you want this killing done?' >> God said 'Out on Highway 61!' > > >I believe this expanded reading is found in the Dylanxenian Pentateuch >scrolls, found in Cave 7 alongside Highway 61.... > > > L. Mark Bruffey CBTS Library 1380 S Valley Forge Rd. Lansdale PA 19446 From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Apr 5 08:42:31 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA15002; Sat, 5 Apr 1997 08:42:30 -0500 Date: Sat, 05 Apr 1997 08:42:53 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: Antiquity X-Sender: jwest@mail.infoave.net (Unverified) To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970405084249.245f58dc@mail.infoave.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1163 The simplest answer to the various queries is as follows: First, we have no autographs of any Biblical documents. Second, we have thousands of copies. Third, we have no hard proof that any of these documents existed until the oldest manuscript of them which we possess. Fourth, these oldest manuscripts are the earliest evidence of these documents. Therefore, these oldest manuscripts are the most important witnesses to these documents. How does this work itself out? In the Gospels, for instance, we have much debate about the origin of Mark. Was it written in 60 or 70 or 80 CE? The simple truth is, we have no proof that it existed prior to the oldest manuscript we have of it. This oldest manuscript must receive special attention as it is the oldest evidence for the existence of this document. That is why the antiquity of a manuscript is so important. If we have no manuscript of Mark prior to the 8th century then we have no proof that Mark existed before the 8th century- pure and simple. Jim ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@theology.edu From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Apr 5 09:07:33 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA15039; Sat, 5 Apr 1997 09:07:32 -0500 Message-Id: <9704051507.AA14606@iris.arcadis.be> Subject: Re: Antiquity Date: Sat, 5 Apr 97 16:11:52 +0200 X-Sender: vale5655@194.111.178.251 X-Mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1 From: Jean VALENTIN To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 931 >Third, we have no hard proof that any of these documents existed until the >oldest manuscript of them which we possess. >Fourth, these oldest manuscripts are the earliest evidence of these >documents. >Therefore, these oldest manuscripts are the most important witnesses to >these documents. Jim, you reason as if patristical quotations simply didn't exist. What's too simple... Jean V. ________________________________________________________________ Jean Valentin - 58/7 rue Van Kalck - 1080 Bruxelles - BELGIQUE ________________________________________________________________ email : jgvalentin@arcadis.be *** netmail : 2:291/780.103 ________________________________________________________________ Ce qui est trop simple est faux, ce qui est trop complique est inutilisable. What's too simple is wrong, what's too complicated is unusable. Wat te eenvoudig is, is verkeerd; wat te ingewikkeld is, is onbruikbaar. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Apr 5 09:44:44 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA15086; Sat, 5 Apr 1997 09:44:43 -0500 Date: Sat, 05 Apr 1997 09:45:13 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: Antiquity X-Sender: jwest@mail.infoave.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970405094222.276fc47a@mail.infoave.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 976 At 04:11 PM 4/5/97 +0200, you wrote: >Jim, you reason as if patristical quotations simply didn't exist. What's >too simple... > >Jean V. > Not at all. If a Father contains a quotation of the Biblical text, it must be taken into account. Yet the same problem arises in the Patristic evidence (somehting I know little to nothing about). I.e., what is the earliest manuscript of the Father? If Tertullian quotes John, for instance; well and good. But what is the date of the Tertullian manuscript? 12th, 16th, 19th century? Simply to say that Father x quotes Mark and therefore the text of Mark can be estalished by that quote simply does not work. What is the date of Father x's ms? The same criterian apply to the OT text. The DSS are 1000 years older than the Leningrad text. They are therefore far more significant than Lenigrad. Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@theology.edu From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Apr 5 13:25:19 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA15233; Sat, 5 Apr 1997 13:25:19 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 5 Apr 1997 12:31:51 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Oldest Manuscripts Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2052 Since we're all jumping on Jim West (hey, Maurice, how does it feel to be part of the consensus for once? :-), I thought I would add one other thought. One difficulty with following the reading of the oldest manuscript is *determining* the oldest manuscript. If I recall correctly, none of the papyri are dated. The only uncial I can recall that gives a date is S. This means that, of our 250 or so earliest manuscripts, *only one* can be dated precisely. The rest are dated paleographically. I'm not trying to attack paleography. But it is *not* an exact science. Consider this: I can write five different hands: A script hand, a normal print hand, an italic hand, and two types of blackletter (one for broad pens and one for pointed pens). In the ordinary course of things, I write with the print hand, which is closest to what people write today (though with rather more curls and twists than "block print"). If, however, I were writing something as significant as a Biblical manuscript, I would resort to the blackletter -- which is a fair approximation of a seventeenth century hand. I don't say it happens often. But there is nothing to prevent a scribe from employing an archaic hand -- or cultivating an odd style (observe that we cannot date Theta because no other sample of that style of writing has ever been found). If even *one* important manuscript uses an archaic hand, it could throw off the whole theory. Keep in mind, too, that manuscripts *with* colophons can mislead. Colwell showed that 1505 had a colophon with a forged date. How can we be sure that others are not equally false? Yet another reason why basing our assessment of manuscripts solely on their date is dangerous.... -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A very rough draft of part of the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Apr 5 14:00:36 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA15276; Sat, 5 Apr 1997 14:00:35 -0500 From: dwashbur@wave.park.wy.us Message-Id: <199704051904.MAA29769@wavecom.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Sat, 5 Apr 1997 11:58:45 -7000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Antiquity Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.42a) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1911 > The simplest answer to the various queries is as follows: > > First, we have no autographs of any Biblical documents. > Second, we have thousands of copies. > Third, we have no hard proof that any of these documents existed until the > oldest manuscript of them which we possess. > Fourth, these oldest manuscripts are the earliest evidence of these documents. > Therefore, these oldest manuscripts are the most important witnesses to > these documents. > > How does this work itself out? In the Gospels, for instance, we have much > debate about the origin of Mark. Was it written in 60 or 70 or 80 CE? The > simple truth is, we have no proof that it existed prior to the oldest > manuscript we have of it. This oldest manuscript must receive special > attention as it is the oldest evidence for the existence of this document. But this is true only insofar as it testifies to the antiquity of the autograph. It says nothing about the usefulness of that oldest manuscript for purposes of textual criticism. It gives us some idea how old the work is, but for textual purpose it could still be a piece of junk. So we're comparing apples and oranges. > That is why the antiquity of a manuscript is so important. If we have no > manuscript of Mark prior to the 8th century then we have no proof that Mark > existed before the 8th century- pure and simple. Not so pure and not so simple, but also off the subject. Once again, how old the manuscript says nothing about its usefulness for TC. Antiquity does not equal reliability (if you're into C, Ant != Rel) :-) And our specific context on this list is textual criticism, a field into which the above reasoning does not carry over. Dave Washburn http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur/home.html There will be times when we disagree, but that's good because disagreement leads to thinking, and when you think you'll realize I'm right. ;-) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Apr 5 14:02:06 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA15295; Sat, 5 Apr 1997 14:02:06 -0500 From: dwashbur@wave.park.wy.us Message-Id: <199704051905.MAA29836@wavecom.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Sat, 5 Apr 1997 12:00:17 -7000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Antiquity Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.42a) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 501 > The same criterian apply to the OT text. The DSS are 1000 years older than > the Leningrad text. They are therefore far more significant than Lenigrad. Oh please. Are you saying we should rearrange and completely rewrite the Psalms, and add a few extras, based on 11QPs? Let's get real here. Dave Washburn http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur/home.html There will be times when we disagree, but that's good because disagreement leads to thinking, and when you think you'll realize I'm right. ;-) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Apr 5 14:54:07 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA15339; Sat, 5 Apr 1997 14:54:07 -0500 Date: Sat, 05 Apr 1997 14:52:33 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: getting Real X-Sender: jwest@mail.infoave.net (Unverified) To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970405145231.30573988@mail.infoave.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1106 The purpose of Text criticism is to establish the reading most likely to have been original. If you could tell me how that is to be done without taking into account the oldest manuscripts of a document I would be grateful. As to getting real, it seems to me that a realistic approach to textual criticism lies in hard evidence and not in fanciful hypothetical reconstructions. The DSS Psalms is a millenium older than Leningrad; but we are urged to ignore it because it would cause us to re-evaluate our standard "book of Psalms". So which approach is more unreal- the one which maintains that "older is better" or the one that attaches itself to a present form of the text in spite of a more ancient form and trys to reconstruct from the present to the past? As to the purpose of this forum- I believe it is the open exchange of ideas and not the mere gainsaying of ideas which a particular author finds discomfiting for (apparently) dogmatic reasons. Jim ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@theology.edu From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Apr 5 15:12:21 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA15372; Sat, 5 Apr 1997 15:12:20 -0500 Date: Sat, 5 Apr 1997 15:13:09 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Rom 15:19 In-Reply-To: <199704050127.SAA02884@wavecom.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1770 On Fri, 4 Apr 1997 dwashbur@wave.park.wy.us wrote: > No you don't. You redefine the "oldest reading" to mean "the > reading found in the oldest manuscript(s)". That's a very different > definition of the "oldest reading" than is accepted by most textual > critics. As Bob Waltz pointed out, the oldest reading is not > necessarily the one found in the oldest extant ms. And this is the same principle which is held by the Byzantine-priority position also. But I am more impressed with Dave's closing comment, which says precisely what I have been trying to say all along from within my text-critical framework, viz., that the limited sample from pre-9th century antiquity which we possess is _not_ necessarily representative of the state of the text in those respective centuries, especially as the copying dates become older and the MSS become fewer and more "localized" -- extant pre-9th century MSS _do_ reflect the "luck of the draw" to a degree which is _not_ present in the post-9th century era. > Let's keep in mind that the ages and geographical/chronological > distributions of the mss we possess (at least before about the 10th > century) are purely a matter of chance and the luck of the draw, in > terms of what has been preserved and what we have been able to find. > That's why the age of the text contained in a ms. is more important than > the age of the ms itself. Nothing is resolved simply by arbitrarily > redefining terms like this. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Apr 5 15:13:15 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA15390; Sat, 5 Apr 1997 15:13:15 -0500 Date: Sat, 5 Apr 1997 14:57:19 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: TC List Subject: Mat. 9:2, 5 and parallels In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 11142 Continuing Ulrich's examples... >Then we have a second type of assimilation where more than the article >is involved, e.g. the various forms of AFIENTAI SOU AI hAMARTIAI in Mat >9:2.5 parr. Here the examination with respect to assimilation might >produce more solid results. However, the possibility can not be ruled >out, that in this case some assimilations might have been produced >independently. This example is extremely complex (and I hope everyone will forgive the lengthy discussion, but it is due to the complexity involved), and the variants affect not only Matthew but the direct synoptic parallels in Mark and Luke as well. _All_ of these have to be considered together in order to see the differences, and it should not be forgotten that numerous other items which might reflect harmonization/assimilation also occur in the immediate context, not merely the one phrase you have selected. It first will be well to set forth in horizontal-line format (a la Swanson) the parallel passages in the Byzantine Textform, followed by the same passages in the NA26/27 text. Spacing and underscores (_ _) indicate differences among the gospels within each edition: Byzantine parallel texts: Matt 9:2b kai idwn o ihsous thn pistin autwn _eipen_ _tw paralutikw_ Mk 2:5 idwn de o ihsous thn pistin autwn _legei_ _tw paralutikw_ Lk 5:20 kai idwn thn pistin autwn _eipen_ _autw_ Matt qarsei _teknon_ afewntai soi ai amartiai sou Mk _teknon_ afewntai soi ai amartiai sou Lk _anqrwpe_ afewntai soi ai amartiai sou Note that the Byzantine text within those parallel passages does _not_ harmonize totally among its own majority readings. This in itself should indicate that the tendency toward harmonization was itself rare and sporadic among MSS of the Byzantine type. Nestle-Aland parallel texts: Matt 9:2b kai idwn o ihsous thn pistin autwn _eipen_ _tw paralutikw_ Mk 2:5 kai idwn o ihsous thn pistin autwn _legei_ _tw paralutikw_ Lk 5:20 kai idwn thn pistin autwn _eipen_ Matt qarsei _teknon_ _afientai sou_ ai amartiai Mk _teknon_ _afientai sou_ ai amartiai Lk _anqrwpe_ _afewntai soi_ ai amartiai sou Note that in the first line the NA text has harmonized the kai/de interchange which remained different in Byz. In the second line the uniform Byzantine "afewntai" has become "afientai" in Mt/Mk, and the uniform "soi ai amartiai sou" of the Byzantine synoptics now remains only in Luke, while Mt/Mk concur in the simpler "sou ai amartiai". Otherwise only the "autw" of Luke in the Byz is missing from the parallels in NA. Overall, both texts are relatively non-harmonized, and retain the identical differences among the various synoptic parallels. The only major changes which might be charged as harmonizations here deal with the "afewntai/afientai" difference and the closing phrase itself. As you mentioned, the influence (in whatever direction) from the later close-context parallels (Mt 9:5b; Mk 2:9; Lk 5:23) also need to be considered, and their respective readings in general context are given next: Byzantine parallel texts: Matt 9:5b eipein afewntai sou ai amartiai h eipein Mk 2:9 eipein tw paralutikw afewntai sou ai amartiai h eipein Lk 5:23 eipein afewntai soi ai amartiai sou h eipein Matt egeirai kai peripatei Mk egeirai kai aron sou ton krabbaton kai peripatei Lk egeirai kai peripatei Nestle-Aland parallel texts: Matt 9:5b eipein afientai sou ai amartiai h eipein Mk 2:9 eipein tw paralutikw afientai sou ai amartiai h eipein Lk 5:23 eipein afewntai soi ai amartiai sou h eipein Matt egeire kai peripatei Mk egeire kai aron ton krabbaton sou kai peripatei Lk egeire kai peripatei Without even looking at the external evidence, one can see that the final phrase "soi ai amartiai sou" of Byz in Mt 9:2/Mk 2:5/Lk 5:20, although identical in those parallels, does _not_ harmonize with the close-context parallels in Mt 9:5/Mk 2:9 which read "sou ai amartiai"; only the Lukan context retains the "soi ai amartiai sou" in both places. On the other hand, when looking at the Nestle-Aland parallels, one sees the initial phrase "sou ai amartiai" in Mt 9:2/Mk 2:5 harmonized _directly_ to the close context NA parallels in Mt 9:5/Mk 2:9, while the Lukan close-context parallels continue to remain identical, as with Byz ("soi ai amartiai sou"). If anyone has harmonized/assimilated in this case, it seems to be the NA witnesses and _not_ the Byzantine; and the harmonization was once more to the close context. It is also possible that the NA reading may be that which is "smoother" stylistically and grammatically, since it removes what might be perceived as a too-redundant occurrence of two pronouns when only one will suffice. As for the "afewntai"/"afientai" difference, I suspect this is not so much a matter of harmonization or assimilation as a homonymic variation, in which case the similar sounds of both words could cause a scribe to read one word, sound it out in his mind, and write the other word, still "making sense" in the context. According to Swanson, we also find the forms "afiontai", "afionte", "afeontai", "afeonte", "afaiontai" and "afaiwntais" beyond the normal "afewntai" and "afientai" in the MSS he collated. The primary "sensible" change, however, affects the tense, switching (in Mt/Mk, all occurrences) from the Byzantine perfect passive to the NA present passive. Luke alone retains the perfect passive in _both_ Byz and NA, for whatever reason (though according to Swanson, Theta reads "afientai" in Lk 5:23). While either Byzantine perfect or the NA present passive could fit in either context, the present passive "afientai" clearly would seem to be the "easier" reading, since it would "fit" the time frame within which the forgiveness would have been made, while the perfect passive would raise theological questions as to _when_ in the past such forgiveness had been made which was being declared at the then present. So the alteration here I suspect as being homonymic, but also with a tendency toward the "easier" reading in the NA text. There is still more which needs to be said regarding these parallel variant units, however, since merely utilizing the NA text could lead to false inferences regarding the amount and degree of the external support for each variant. The external evidence provides some interesting information: Regarding the Byz "afewntai" vs the NA "afientai", and looking at NA and Swanson's evidence supporting the non-Byzantine reading in Mt/Mk (Lk remained identical to Byz, so is not listed): Verse/Reading Support Mt 9:2 "afientai" Aleph B pc lat Ir "afionte" D "afewntai" Byz Mk 2:5 "afientai" B 28 33 565 1342 2427 pc lat "afiontai" Delta "afiwntai" Theta "afeontai" 124 1424 "afewntai" Byz Mt 9:5 "afientai" Aleph-c B pc lat "afiontai" Aleph* D "afeontai" f13 1424 "afewntai" Byz Mk 2:9 "afientai" Aleph B 28 565 1342 2427 lat "afeontai" 69 1424 "afaiwntais" 579 "afaiontai" 1071 "afewntai" Byz It will be noted that the only _consistent_ witnesses for this change are B and lat; all others vary to differing degrees. From a Byzantine-priority perspective, this is not unusual or unexpected, since sporadic departures from the Byzantine standard are only to be expected, especially such might be based on phonetic confusion, and especially if such change produces a theologically "easier" reading. The reading of B lat could have a common archetype, or could have arisen from independent occurrences of the same phonetic error or a similar desire to create the theologically simpler reading. I return to consider the closing clause, in which the NA text of Mt 9:2/Mk 2:5/(Lk 5:20) harmonizes to the close-context readings of Mt 9:5/Mk 2:9/(Lk 5:23). As mentioned, this may be due to close-context harmonization or may be due to a desire to simplify and smooth out the text by removing a redundant pronoun ("sou/soi"). What should be noticed in the external evidence is once more the wide inconsistency of harmonization/assimilation among the MSS here as well as in the "afewntai"/"afientai" context. Once more MS B appears to be the _only_ thread holding the NA critical text together on this point (where B or any major MS is not cited, it agrees with Byz; the evidence is all according to Swanson), and this calls into question precisely _what_ "harmonizations" or "assimilations" are occurring, _which_ MSS they occurred in, and _why_ they occurred. Regardless of explanation, the Byzantine text in this passage comes out looking _far_ better and less "harmonized" than any of the other witnesses cited. Note that, for whatever reason, NA breaks up the variants for the Markan passages into _separate_ units rather than taking all as a whole; this is far more confusing, especially since the "txt" support is not given for those readings. Rather than perform extrapolation from the constant witnesses to see the support, I opted for the easier and quicker route and simply used Swanson for the Markan evidence. I think the divergence among the MSS is itself exemplary enough to demonstrate precisely which sources harmonize and in which direction. Verse Reading Support Mt 9:2 "sou ai amartiai" Aleph B C* W Delta* f1 33 205 892 pc "sou ai amartiai sou" M Omega "soi ai amartiai" D Delta-c pc k vg-mss "soi ai amartiai sou" Byz Mk 2:5 "sou ai amartiai" Aleph B D G L W Delta Theta f1 33 69 565 579 1424 "soi ai amartiai" C* "sou ai amartiai sou" M* Omega f13 28 124 1071 "soi ai amartiai sou" Byz Mt 9:5 "soi ai amartiai" G L N S U Delta Pi f13 1 33 118 124 1346 1582 "soi ai amartiai sou" 1424 "sou ai amartiai" = Byz Mk 2:9 "soi ai amartiai" A C S Delta 1071 "soi ai amartiai sou" f13 "sou ai amartiai" = Byz Lk 5:20 "sou ai amartiai" Aleph D W Theta 579 1071 "sou ai amartiai sou" Omega "soi ai amartiai sou" Byz Lk 5:23 "sou ai amartiai" Aleph D W "sou ai amartiai sou" C Lambda 33 1346 "soi ai amartiai" N Psi "sou ai amartiai sou" Byz And here this portion of the discussion ends....more to come regarding Ulrich's remaining point in a later post... _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Apr 5 15:28:23 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA15479; Sat, 5 Apr 1997 15:28:22 -0500 Date: Sat, 5 Apr 1997 15:29:06 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Antiquity In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970405084249.245f58dc@mail.infoave.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 927 On Sat, 5 Apr 1997, Jim West wrote: > That is why the antiquity of a manuscript is so important. If we have no > manuscript of Mark prior to the 8th century then we have no proof that Mark > existed before the 8th century- pure and simple. Whoa!......Now if this were applied to the OT Books prior to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, then we would have no proof that much of anything in the Hebrew Bible existed before the 9th century AD. Similarly, as of 150 years ago, we apparently had no certain "proof" than any NT book was older than the 4th century AD.... Where then is the logic behind your assumption? _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Apr 5 16:24:42 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA15602; Sat, 5 Apr 1997 16:24:42 -0500 Date: Sat, 05 Apr 1997 16:25:17 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: Antiquity X-Sender: jwest@mail.infoave.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970405162225.27e78580@mail.infoave.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1135 At 03:29 PM 4/5/97 -0500, you wrote: >Whoa!......Now if this were applied to the OT Books prior to the discovery >of the Dead Sea Scrolls, then we would have no proof that much of anything >in the Hebrew Bible existed before the 9th century AD. > No- in fact we have the Nash papyrus; several fragmentary items from Cairo; and other such items. >Similarly, as of 150 years ago, we apparently had no certain "proof" than >any NT book was older than the 4th century AD.... > Quite true. >Where then is the logic behind your assumption? > The logic is simple. We have no proof of a document until we actually have a document! Why is this so controversial? It seems quite simple to me. I am certainly not saying that these various documents did not exist; I am simply saying that we have no evidence to work with until we have a manuscript. It is because these manuscripts are our first evidence of a document's existence that they are so important. Where is the logic in denying any of this? Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@theology.edu From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Apr 5 17:30:08 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA15708; Sat, 5 Apr 1997 17:30:07 -0500 From: dwashbur@wave.park.wy.us Message-Id: <199704052233.PAA04399@wavecom.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Sat, 5 Apr 1997 15:28:14 -7000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: getting Real Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.42a) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2845 > The purpose of Text criticism is to establish the reading most likely to > have been original. > If you could tell me how that is to be done without taking into account the > oldest manuscripts of a document I would be grateful. I believe that we and those who have gone before us have spent a couple of centuries doing just that. And nobody is saying not to take into account the oldest manuscripts. That wouldn't be good science. However, it's also not good science to blindly follow one small pocket of evidence because it happens to embody the "oldest manuscripts of a document." > As to getting real, it seems to me that a realistic approach to textual > criticism lies in hard evidence and not in fanciful hypothetical > reconstructions. Once again you redefine terms. There's the science of textual criticism's definition of "hard evidence," and then there's Jim West's definition. I'll go with the former, thank you. > The DSS Psalms is a millenium older than Leningrad; but we are urged to > ignore it because it would cause us to re-evaluate our standard "book of > Psalms". So which approach is more unreal- the one which maintains that > "older is better" or the one that attaches itself to a present form of the > text in spite of a more ancient form and trys to reconstruct from the > present to the past? The DSS Psalms is one among many. The fact that it's old doesn't alter the fact that it's contrary to every other piece of evidence, betrays anachronistic tendencies, stands by itself even among its brethren in the DSS corpus, and contains an unusually high number of nonsense readings. "Older is better" is not a valid criterion. It's a gross attempt at oversimplification that flies in the face of the evidence gathered since the earliest days of TC. IOW, it's unreal. > As to the purpose of this forum- I believe it is the open exchange of ideas > and not the mere gainsaying of ideas which a particular author finds > discomfiting for (apparently) dogmatic reasons. Cop-out. I didn't gainsay anything based on dogmatic reasons and you know it. What I said was, the comments about the age of a document as reflected by the age of the manuscripts of it has no real bearing on textual criticism. It lies more in the purview of form or rhetorical criticism and really tells us little or nothing about the establishment of or history of the text as transmitted from the autographs. This forum is for "the open exchange of ideas" related specifically to textual criticism. I merely pointed out that the statements made are not, in the final analysis, germane to textual criticism. Dave Washburn http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur/home.html There will be times when we disagree, but that's good because disagreement leads to thinking, and when you think you'll realize I'm right. ;-) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Apr 5 17:33:24 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA15730; Sat, 5 Apr 1997 17:33:24 -0500 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970405162225.27e78580@mail.infoave.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 5 Apr 1997 16:39:45 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Antiquity Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1872 On Sat, 05 Apr 1997, Jim West wrote, in part: >The logic is simple. We have no proof of a document until we actually have >a document! This is exactly the problem. Consider: Our earliest manuscript of Herodotus dates from the tenth century. Does this mean that Herodotus came back from the grave fourteen centuries after his death and wrote the book? Our only copy of the Annals of Tacitus has lost the whole reign of Gaius. Does this mean Tacitus never wrote about that Emperor? >Why is this so controversial? It seems quite simple to me. I am certainly >not saying that these various documents did not exist; I am simply saying >that we have no evidence to work with until we have a manuscript. Since I already used a literary analogy, let's try a biological. Assume your parents were lost at sea. Does that mean we know nothing about their DNA? Hardly! We can learn about it from you, and any siblings you may have, and perhaps ancestors or siblings of your parents. And so forth. Or take crimes. The majority of crimes are solved by the police. Yet in many of these instances there are no eyewitnesses. The crime is solved through circumstantial evidence. As long as we have no autographs, we *must* rely on some sort of secondary evidence. Which means we must examine it, not trust it blindly. >It is because these manuscripts are our first evidence of a document's >existence that they are so important. That may be of importance for dating. But that has nothing to do with the text. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A very rough draft of part of the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Apr 5 17:34:29 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA15750; Sat, 5 Apr 1997 17:34:29 -0500 Message-ID: <3347694D.41C7@sn.no> Date: Sun, 06 Apr 1997 01:13:49 -0800 From: "Mr. Helge Evensen" Organization: SN Internett X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Antiquity References: <1.5.4.16.19970405084249.245f58dc@mail.infoave.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 4203 Jim West wrote: >=20 > The simplest answer to the various queries is as follows: >=20 > First, we have no autographs of any Biblical documents. > Second, we have thousands of copies. > Third, we have no hard proof that any of these documents existed until = the > oldest manuscript of them which we possess. > Fourth, these oldest manuscripts are the earliest evidence of these doc= uments. > Therefore, these oldest manuscripts are the most important witnesses to > these documents. There=B4s at least _two_ kinds of evidence connected with the manuscripts= : 1) Manuscript copies give testimony to the earlier _existence_ of a=20 document. 2) Manuscript copies give testimony to the _textform(s)_ in existence. The _latter_ point is where textual criticism deals. Within a certain frame of thought the oldest MSS may be _regarded_ as=20 "the most important witnesses", but again, this would not stand the test=20 of sound criticism and it gives all too much weight to only _one_ canon=20 of criticism. a) Even if we _had_ the autograph of any NT book, let=B4s say of the book= =20 of Colossians, who would be the authority for determining if it really=20 _is_ the autograph?? Such a MS would have been dated as early as the=20 established date of this particular book. But is there anybody living=20 today who is able to recognize Paul=B4s handwriting? Most certainly, such= a=20 claim _could_ not have been verified at all. If somebody claimed it, he=20 would very soon meet strong opposition from other scholars.=20 b) As to the _existence_ of a certain document, the oldest MS copies may=20 be the "most important" witnesses, for they give testimony to that=20 document=B4s early existence. One example is the discovery of p52: while=20 not of great use in textual criticism because of its small size, it is a=20 strong defense against the supposed late date of John. The early=20 existence of a MS does not necessarily mean that its _textform_ is=20 earlier than that found in later MSS. This has been demonstrated.=20 c) But theoretically it can also be looked at in another way: p52 may not= =20 be a fragment of an entire Gospel of John, but just a part of a document=20 which _later_ developed into the present Gospel of John.(Of course I do=20 not _believe_ this). Maybe the whole chapter 8 was there substantially as= =20 we have it today in the later MSS. Following the "hard proof" theory, p52= =20 is not a witness to the existence of the _whole_ Gospel of John as we=20 know it today, just that part which it contains (maybe most of ch.8=20 because of the verso-recto situation). You must seek in _later_ MSS to=20 find the whole Gospel of John attested. So when we talk about "hard=20 evidence" or "hard proof", it is far from always possible to draw=20 conclusions from such. We may _interpret_ the "hard evidence" in a=20 certain way, that=B4s ok, but "proof" and certainty? that=B4s another thi= ng!! > How does this work itself out? In the Gospels, for instance, we have m= uch > debate about the origin of Mark. Was it written in 60 or 70 or 80 CE? = The > simple truth is, we have no proof that it existed prior to the oldest > manuscript we have of it. This oldest manuscript must receive special > attention as it is the oldest evidence for the existence of this docume= nt. As I indicated, _existence_ and _textform_ are not the same! =20 > That is why the antiquity of a manuscript is so important. If we have = no > manuscript of Mark prior to the 8th century then we have no proof that = Mark > existed before the 8th century- pure and simple. Many other sources other than pure NT MSS attest to both the _existence_=20 and the _textform_ of the New Testament text. Even if we did not have a MS of Mark prior to the 8th century, hardly=20 anybody would argue that it did not _exist_ before that time! So far as I= =20 can see, Jim, you seem to be quite alone in your theories, but that=B4s=20 alright, it=B4s your choice......and it sure is a _choice_..... =20 > Jim >=20 > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > Jim West, ThD > Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology > jwest@theology.edu --=20 - Mr. Helge Evensen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Apr 5 17:40:21 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA15780; Sat, 5 Apr 1997 17:40:20 -0500 From: dwashbur@wave.park.wy.us Message-Id: <199704052244.PAA04841@wavecom.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Sat, 5 Apr 1997 15:38:24 -7000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Antiquity Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.42a) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2383 > >Where then is the logic behind your assumption? > > > > The logic is simple. We have no proof of a document until we actually have > a document! > > Why is this so controversial? It seems quite simple to me. I am certainly > not saying that these various documents did not exist; I am simply saying > that we have no evidence to work with until we have a manuscript. > It is because these manuscripts are our first evidence of a document's > existence that they are so important. > > Where is the logic in denying any of this? First, it's not logical. I can't see the sun today because of a snowstorm, but the fact that it's not visible cannot be adduced as evidence that it doesn't exist. By this kind of "logic" we end up saying that, because we don't have the autographs, there's no evidence they ever existed. That's just plain silly. Second and more important, this approach renders any kind of meaningful scientific historical investigation impossible. If we don't have Julius Caesar's perforated body we have no evidence that he was murdered, or that he ever existed. If we can't do historical study without your so-called "hard evidence" then in the main we can't do history at all. TC is, after all, a branch of historical study. None of us was there for the events, so we have to examine the history using the most scientific tools and methods available. Those tools and methods are constantly being re-evaluated and refined to make them more scientific and reliable. Your approach takes them all away and sends us back to the principle of blind faith. It's like this: the most ancient mss we have were preserved quite by accident, the luck of the draw as I said before. If we insist that these have to be the most reliable because they're the oldest, it's a little like tossing the dice, watching them come up with, say, 4, and declaring "because this is the number that came up on the dice on this particular toss, 4 must be the perfect number and we must all base our lives on it." It just doesn't work, and doesn't take into account the fact that the dice will ultimately be thrown again and come up with a different number. Dave Washburn http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur/home.html There will be times when we disagree, but that's good because disagreement leads to thinking, and when you think you'll realize I'm right. ;-) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Apr 5 18:04:22 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA15843; Sat, 5 Apr 1997 18:04:21 -0500 Date: Sat, 05 Apr 1997 18:04:21 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: Antiquity X-Sender: jwest@mail.infoave.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970405180416.19af538e@mail.infoave.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1882 >>The logic is simple. We have no proof of a document until we actually have >>a document! > >This is exactly the problem. Consider: > >Our earliest manuscript of Herodotus dates from the tenth century. >Does this mean that Herodotus came back from the grave fourteen >centuries after his death and wrote the book? > No. But it does prove that the mss of Herodotus we have are very far removed from him. >Our only copy of the Annals of Tacitus has lost the whole reign of >Gaius. Does this mean Tacitus never wrote about that Emperor? > No- and this is argument reductio ad absurdam. >Since I already used a literary analogy, let's try a biological. > >Assume your parents were lost at sea. Does that mean we know nothing >about their DNA? Hardly! We can learn about it from you, and any >siblings you may have, and perhaps ancestors or siblings of your >parents. And so forth. Yet you don't have them- do you? > >Or take crimes. The majority of crimes are solved by the police. >Yet in many of these instances there are no eyewitnesses. The crime >is solved through circumstantial evidence. Indeed- but try proving to a jury that your circumstantial evidence is proof of guilt. Just ask OJ how that works. > >As long as we have no autographs, we *must* rely on some sort of >secondary evidence. Which means we must examine it, not trust it >blindly. > Indeed- but we must trust what is more reliable; and a priori evidence closer to the time of composition is worthy of higher trust than evidence further removed. >That may be of importance for dating. But that has nothing to do with >the text. Not so. It has everything to do with the text; it is not just about the material used or the penmanship of the scribe. Jim ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@theology.edu From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Apr 5 18:09:28 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA15860; Sat, 5 Apr 1997 18:09:28 -0500 Date: Sat, 05 Apr 1997 18:10:04 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: Antiquity X-Sender: jwest@mail.infoave.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970405180958.21a736aa@mail.infoave.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 3746 >There=B4s at least _two_ kinds of evidence connected with the manuscripts: >1) Manuscript copies give testimony to the earlier _existence_ of a=20 >document. Or- they give evidence of a newly composed document. Or are you saying that every manuscript has a predecessor? If so, then this electronic manuscript also has a predecessor. >2) Manuscript copies give testimony to the _textform(s)_ in existence. >The _latter_ point is where textual criticism deals. > No- TC deals with both. >Within a certain frame of thought the oldest MSS may be _regarded_ as=20 >"the most important witnesses", but again, this would not stand the test=20 >of sound criticism and it gives all too much weight to only _one_ canon=20 >of criticism. > And, as I have said, when manuscripts of similar age conflict, the other criteria are brought to bear. I did not say antiquity was the only criteria- just that it is the most important. >a) Even if we _had_ the autograph of any NT book, let=B4s say of the book= =20 >of Colossians, who would be the authority for determining if it really=20 >_is_ the autograph?? Such a MS would have been dated as early as the=20 >established date of this particular book. But is there anybody living=20 >today who is able to recognize Paul=B4s handwriting? Most certainly, such a= =20 >claim _could_ not have been verified at all. If somebody claimed it, he=20 >would very soon meet strong opposition from other scholars.=20 > Yet we can tell if a manuscript of Colossians was written in the 10th century or the 2nd. >b) As to the _existence_ of a certain document, the oldest MS copies may=20 >be the "most important" witnesses, for they give testimony to that=20 >document=B4s early existence. One example is the discovery of p52: while=20 >not of great use in textual criticism because of its small size, it is a=20 >strong defense against the supposed late date of John. The early=20 >existence of a MS does not necessarily mean that its _textform_ is=20 >earlier than that found in later MSS. This has been demonstrated.=20 > Quite true. >c) But theoretically it can also be looked at in another way: p52 may not= =20 >be a fragment of an entire Gospel of John, but just a part of a document=20 >which _later_ developed into the present Gospel of John.(Of course I do=20 >not _believe_ this). Maybe the whole chapter 8 was there substantially as= =20 >we have it today in the later MSS. Following the "hard proof" theory, p52= =20 >is not a witness to the existence of the _whole_ Gospel of John as we=20 >know it today, just that part which it contains (maybe most of ch.8=20 >because of the verso-recto situation). You must seek in _later_ MSS to=20 >find the whole Gospel of John attested. So when we talk about "hard=20 >evidence" or "hard proof", it is far from always possible to draw=20 >conclusions from such. We may _interpret_ the "hard evidence" in a=20 >certain way, that=B4s ok, but "proof" and certainty? that=B4s another= thing!! > > Indeed! >As I indicated, _existence_ and _textform_ are not the same! >=20 How can they be different? Are you other than your existence? >Many other sources other than pure NT MSS attest to both the _existence_=20 >and the _textform_ of the New Testament text. >Even if we did not have a MS of Mark prior to the 8th century, hardly=20 >anybody would argue that it did not _exist_ before that time! So far as I= =20 >can see, Jim, you seem to be quite alone in your theories, but that=B4s=20 >alright, it=B4s your choice......and it sure is a _choice_..... > Its hard to be the only one right! :) >Helge Jim ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@theology.edu From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Apr 5 18:13:08 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA15890; Sat, 5 Apr 1997 18:13:07 -0500 Message-ID: <33477262.5975@sn.no> Date: Sun, 06 Apr 1997 01:52:34 -0800 From: "Mr. Helge Evensen" Organization: SN Internett X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: getting Real References: <1.5.4.16.19970405145231.30573988@mail.infoave.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 821 Jim West wrote, in part: >=20 > The purpose of Text criticism is to establish the reading most likely t= o > have been original. > If you could tell me how that is to be done without taking into account= the > oldest manuscripts of a document I would be grateful. Of course the oldest MSS should be _taken into account_. But it=B4s=20 another thing to use antiquity as the sole criterion for establishing=20 the original text. > As to getting real, it seems to me that a realistic approach to textual > criticism lies in hard evidence and not in fanciful hypothetical > reconstructions. But the question still remains: _Is_ antiquity in reality "hard=20 evidence" for establishing the _original_ text?? All know that it is=20 evidence for the _existence_ of a certain document or text.=20 --=20 - Mr. Helge Evensen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Apr 5 18:16:25 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA15907; Sat, 5 Apr 1997 18:16:25 -0500 Date: Sat, 05 Apr 1997 18:17:08 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: Antiquity X-Sender: jwest@mail.infoave.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970405181702.21a73608@mail.infoave.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 3016 >First, it's not logical. Uh huh. (you see, I have given up offering substance as I have yet to hear any substance opposing the fact that the antiquity of a document is of the utmost importance) > I can't see the sun today because of a >snowstorm, but the fact that it's not visible cannot be adduced as >evidence that it doesn't exist. By this kind of "logic" we end up >saying that, because we don't have the autographs, there's no >evidence they ever existed. That's just plain silly. > The sun is there whether you see it or not. But if you do not see it- you do not see it. We have no autographs. Period. >Second and more important, this approach renders any kind of >meaningful scientific historical investigation impossible. Not at all. It simply bases investigation in what we do have- not in what someone hypothetically reconstructs. > If we >don't have Julius Caesar's perforated body we have no evidence that >he was murdered, or that he ever existed. You are right- we dont have his body. Why then would anyone argue that we do? ANd yet some text critics are arguing that we have good textual evidence from the 8th century while at the same time they discount the earliest manuscript evidence and make age of text merely one criteria among others. > If we can't do historical >study without your so-called "hard evidence" then in the main we >can't do history at all. TC is, after all, a branch of historical >study. None of us was there for the events, so we have to examine >the history using the most scientific tools and methods available. >Those tools and methods are constantly being re-evaluated and refined >to make them more scientific and reliable. Your approach takes them >all away and sends us back to the principle of blind faith. NO! It is blind faith I am opposing; that is why I am suggesting (!) that of all the criteria, antiquity should be held in great importance (and yet still no one has bothered to discuss this central issue; this crux). > >It's like this: the most ancient mss we have were preserved quite by >accident, the luck of the draw as I said before. If we insist that >these have to be the most reliable because they're the oldest, it's a >little like tossing the dice, watching them come up with, say, 4, and >declaring "because this is the number that came up on the dice on >this particular toss, 4 must be the perfect number and we must all >base our lives on it." It just doesn't work, and doesn't take into >account the fact that the dice will ultimately be thrown again and >come up with a different number. > Ya lost me on this one! :) >Dave Washburn >http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur/home.html >There will be times when we disagree, but that's >good because disagreement leads to thinking, and >when you think you'll realize I'm right. ;-) Perhaps so!!! :) Jim ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@theology.edu From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Apr 5 18:20:15 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA15924; Sat, 5 Apr 1997 18:20:14 -0500 Date: Sat, 05 Apr 1997 18:20:25 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: getting Real X-Sender: jwest@mail.infoave.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970405182021.19af4f28@mail.infoave.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 846 At 01:52 AM 4/6/97 -0800, you wrote: >Of course the oldest MSS should be _taken into account_. But it=B4s=20 >another thing to use antiquity as the sole criterion for establishing=20 >the original text. > I never said it was! (gute nacht, du falsche Welt; as Papageno sang before he put the noose around his neck because no one was listening!) > >But the question still remains: _Is_ antiquity in reality "hard=20 >evidence" for establishing the _original_ text?? All know that it is=20 >evidence for the _existence_ of a certain document or text.=20 It simply takes us closer to the original than any of the other criteria. If it does not, which criteria does? >--=20 >- Mr. Helge Evensen > Jim ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@theology.edu From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Apr 5 18:32:52 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA15950; Sat, 5 Apr 1997 18:32:52 -0500 Message-Id: <9704060033.AA10927@iris.arcadis.be> Subject: Re: getting Real Date: Sun, 6 Apr 97 01:37:15 +0200 X-Sender: vale5655@194.111.178.251 X-Mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1 From: Jean VALENTIN To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1334 >The purpose of Text criticism is to establish the reading most likely to >have been original. Jim, this may be _your_ purpose. But confronted with the complexity of the evidence (and this complexity is the source of the debates we're in) many scholars would, at least for one or two generations - try to attain more modest goals. Like for example : making the history of the text, gathering documentation, solving one or another specific question. I appreciate your "most likely" though, and I think that is quite to the point. The evidence is so complex, the documentation is so immense, and so many hundreds of mss have not yet been read... In the present state of the art, nobody can be too dogmatic about what the "original text" (if there ever was such a thing) should have been. ________________________________________________________________ Jean Valentin - 58/7 rue Van Kalck - 1080 Bruxelles - BELGIQUE ________________________________________________________________ email : jgvalentin@arcadis.be *** netmail : 2:291/780.103 ________________________________________________________________ Ce qui est trop simple est faux, ce qui est trop complique est inutilisable. What's too simple is wrong, what's too complicated is unusable. Wat te eenvoudig is, is verkeerd; wat te ingewikkeld is, is onbruikbaar. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Apr 5 19:08:58 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA15983; Sat, 5 Apr 1997 19:08:57 -0500 Date: Sat, 5 Apr 1997 18:09:43 -0600 (CST) From: "Ronald L. Minton" X-Sender: rminton@orionc0 To: dwashbur@wave.park.wy.us cc: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Antiquity In-Reply-To: <199704051905.MAA29836@wavecom.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 726 > > The same criteria apply to the OT text. The DSS are 1000 years older than > > the Leningrad text. They are therefore far more significant than Leningrad. > > Oh please. Are you saying we should rearrange and completely rewrite > the Psalms, and add a few extras, based on 11QPs? Let's get real here. Tyndale (1525) is older and therefore superior to the KJV (1611) which is superior to all new versions. That must be it, Dr. West is a KJVO ite and this is his indirect way of bringing in his defense. Just a joke.... But then again, if older is better,.... :) -- Prof. Ron Minton: rminton@mail.orion.org W (417)268-6053 H 833-9581 Baptist Bible Graduate School 628 E. Kearney St. Springfield, MO 65803 From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Apr 5 19:59:27 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA16041; Sat, 5 Apr 1997 19:59:26 -0500 Message-ID: <33477D49.4E28@sn.no> Date: Sun, 06 Apr 1997 03:39:05 -0700 From: "Mr. Helge Evensen" Organization: SN Internett X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Antiquity References: <1.5.4.16.19970405180958.21a736aa@mail.infoave.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2925 Jim West replied, in part: >=20 > >There=B4s at least _two_ kinds of evidence connected with the manuscri= pts: > >1) Manuscript copies give testimony to the earlier _existence_ of a > >document. >=20 > Or- they give evidence of a newly composed document. Or are you saying= that > every manuscript has a predecessor? If so, then this electronic manusc= ript > also has a predecessor. Only if one cannot find a trace in history of a certain document, traces=20 that predate the manuscript copy, can it rightly be asserted that the=20 manuscript is "a newly composed document". And the NT certainly has left=20 historical traces that predates most of its MSS! It can hardly be compared to your electronic post. Besides, since MSS=20 were frequently copied in antiquity, the chance for a discovered MS to be= =20 an autograph or a newly composed document must be very small. > >2) Manuscript copies give testimony to the _textform(s)_ in existence. > >The _latter_ point is where textual criticism deals. > > >=20 > No- TC deals with both. Well, if you say so, it must be right..... =20 > >Within a certain frame of thought the oldest MSS may be _regarded_ as > >"the most important witnesses", but again, this would not stand the te= st > >of sound criticism and it gives all too much weight to only _one_ cano= n > >of criticism. > > >=20 > And, as I have said, when manuscripts of similar age conflict, the othe= r > criteria are brought to bear. I did not say antiquity was the only > criteria- just that it is the most important. The result of your theory is that _whenever it is possible_, you will use= =20 the principle of antiquity as the final authority. Is that so? Your theory still seems to place to much _weight_ (as I said) on only=20 _one_ canon or criteria. =20 > >a) Even if we _had_ the autograph of any NT book, let=B4s say of the b= ook > >of Colossians, who would be the authority for determining if it really > >_is_ the autograph?? Such a MS would have been dated as early as the > >established date of this particular book. But is there anybody living > >today who is able to recognize Paul=B4s handwriting? Most certainly, s= uch a > >claim _could_ not have been verified at all. If somebody claimed it, h= e > >would very soon meet strong opposition from other scholars. > > >=20 > Yet we can tell if a manuscript of Colossians was written in the 10th > century or the 2nd. True of course, but again, that does not say much of the _form_ or the=20 _quality_ of text contained in the manuscript. =20 > >As I indicated, _existence_ and _textform_ are not the same! > > >=20 > How can they be different? Are you other than your existence? Let me qualify: the _existence_ of a *manuscript* is not the same as the=20 _originality_ and _quality_ of its *textform*. For the existence of a NT=20 manuscript is a _copy_ and we have not seen the autograph manuscripts. --=20 - Mr. Helge Evensen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Apr 5 21:00:59 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA16122; Sat, 5 Apr 1997 21:00:58 -0500 From: REElliott@aol.com Date: Sat, 5 Apr 1997 21:01:43 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <970405210143_182580122@emout14.mail.aol.com> To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Need e-mail address Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 197 TC List members, I have been in some discussion with Dr. E. Habas from Univ. of the Negev, Isreal and have lost his e-mail address. Does anyone out ther have it? Thanks for any help. Rich Elliott From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Apr 5 21:11:26 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA16170; Sat, 5 Apr 1997 21:11:25 -0500 Date: Sat, 05 Apr 1997 21:11:11 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: getting Real X-Sender: jwest@mail.infoave.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970405211105.26df5144@mail.infoave.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 934 At 01:37 AM 4/6/97 +0200, you wrote: >Jim, this may be _your_ purpose. But confronted with the complexity of >the evidence (and this complexity is the source of the debates we're in) >many scholars would, at least for one or two generations - try to attain >more modest goals. Like for example : making the history of the text, >gathering documentation, solving one or another specific question. >I appreciate your "most likely" though, and I think that is quite to the >point. The evidence is so complex, the documentation is so immense, and >so many hundreds of mss have not yet been read... In the present state of >the art, nobody can be too dogmatic about what the "original text" (if >there ever was such a thing) should have been. Jean, We are 100% in agreement here! Jim ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@theology.edu From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Apr 5 21:12:13 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA16188; Sat, 5 Apr 1997 21:12:12 -0500 Date: Sat, 05 Apr 1997 21:12:21 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: Antiquity X-Sender: jwest@mail.infoave.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970405211217.26df81a0@mail.infoave.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 551 At 06:09 PM 4/5/97 -0600, you wrote: >Tyndale (1525) is older and therefore superior to the KJV (1611) which is >superior to all new versions. That must be it, Dr. West is a KJVO ite and >this is his indirect way of bringing in his defense. Just a joke.... >But then again, if older is better,.... :) > But, the Greek mss are older than the KJV or any translation- and therefore FAR superior. Jim ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@theology.edu From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Apr 5 21:15:13 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA16209; Sat, 5 Apr 1997 21:15:12 -0500 Message-ID: <33478F0E.3787@sn.no> Date: Sun, 06 Apr 1997 04:54:54 -0700 From: "Mr. Helge Evensen" Organization: SN Internett X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: getting Real References: <1.5.4.16.19970405182021.19af4f28@mail.infoave.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1744 Jim West wrote: >=20 > At 01:52 AM 4/6/97 -0800, you wrote: >=20 > >Of course the oldest MSS should be _taken into account_. But it=B4s > >another thing to use antiquity as the sole criterion for establishing > >the original text. > > >=20 > I never said it was! (gute nacht, du falsche Welt; as Papageno sang be= fore > he put the noose around his neck because no one was listening!) You=B4re right! I am aware you would use other criteria _if_ in=20 some instances you should have your back against the wall and have no=20 other choice.=20 >=20 > > > >But the question still remains: _Is_ antiquity in reality "hard > >evidence" for establishing the _original_ text?? All know that it is > >evidence for the _existence_ of a certain document or text. >=20 > It simply takes us closer to the original than any of the other criteri= a. > If it does not, which criteria does? Closer to the original *what*? the original _text_ or the original=20 _writing_ (activity) of the NT?? It does indeed take us closer to the _time_ of the writing of the NT.=20 There=B4s no argument there. But the possibility remains that the NT text= =20 could very well have been corrupted in some MSS at an *early* stage, and=20 as long as this possibility is present and since there is no "hard proof"= =20 to prove _otherwise_, antiquity is not necessarily the *best* criterion. The earliest papyri do not very often reflect an accurate copying=20 activity. And they have a high percentage of disagreements among=20 themselves. What if we have had 500 NT papyri? (What a mess!). So you may freely _prefer_ the antiquity theory, and assert that it is=20 the best one, but that does not make it more sure than other=20 criteria..... --=20 - Mr. Helge Evensen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Apr 5 21:15:45 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA16226; Sat, 5 Apr 1997 21:15:44 -0500 Date: Sat, 05 Apr 1997 21:15:34 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: Antiquity X-Sender: jwest@mail.infoave.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970405211529.26dfd092@mail.infoave.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 807 Helge, At 03:39 AM 4/6/97 -0700, you wrote: >Well, if you say so, it must be right..... > Not necessarily- but.... >The result of your theory is that _whenever it is possible_, you will use >the principle of antiquity as the final authority. Is that so? > Yes. >Your theory still seems to place to much _weight_ (as I said) on only >_one_ canon or criteria. Perhaps. But no more, I think, than on adhering to a certain text type, etc. >-- >- Mr. Helge Evensen > At any rate, I will be quiet and just listen for a while, as I have probably used up my monthly allotment of postings (or more than a lifetimes worth to some of y'all :) ) finis Jim ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@theology.edu From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Apr 5 22:01:16 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA16273; Sat, 5 Apr 1997 22:01:15 -0500 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 5 Apr 1997 21:05:17 +0400 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net (Carlton Winbery) Subject: Re: Antiquity Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 955 Perhaps it would be better for Jim to talk of specific places where the reading of the oldest Greek ms containing a verse is wrong. What would you say to Romans 8:28. P46, clearly the oldest Greek ms but not the oldest evidence (Clement, the Greek text behind the old latin). The reading of P46 clearly is wrong even tho witnessed to by P46, A, B, & 81 because there is little likelihood that scribes would have omitted the name of God. The reading also fits what Paul was saying, i.e., having mentioned God in the hOTI clause he assumed him as the subject of the verb SUNERGEI. So the wording of the verse as Paul wrote it gave rise to the variation preserved in the earliest ms of Romans that we possess at the moment. Would you agree, Jim. Carlton L. Winbery 114 Beall St. Pineville, LA 71360 Fax (318) 442-4996 e-mail winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net winbery@andria.lacollege.edu winbrow@aol.com Phone 318 487-7241 Home 448-6103 From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Apr 5 22:10:34 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA16295; Sat, 5 Apr 1997 22:10:33 -0500 Date: 05 Apr 97 22:10:43 EST From: Mike Arcieri <102147.2045@CompuServe.COM> To: TC-LIST Subject: 'dam' Antiquity... Message-ID: <970406031043_102147.2045_EHT2-1@CompuServe.COM> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 274 Jim West wrote: >No- and this is argument reductio ad absurdam. Jim, No need to get angry. Its 'reductio ad absurdum'; ad absur_dam_ is logic spiked with a little swearing... ;-) ;-) ;-) This is the last spell-check, honest. ;-) (but thanks for the laugh) Mike A. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Apr 5 23:19:19 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id XAA16341; Sat, 5 Apr 1997 23:19:19 -0500 Date: Sat, 5 Apr 1997 23:20:06 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Antiquity In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970405162225.27e78580@mail.infoave.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2130 On Sat, 5 Apr 1997, Jim West wrote: > No- in fact we have the Nash papyrus; several fragmentary items from Cairo; > and other such items. So go back 150 years in OT studies also -- then there would be no certainty that any book of the Hebrew Bible ever existed prior to the 9th century AD, and any theory that it might be a total fabrication made in AD 692 of thereabouts to counter the Muslim insurgence might be correct? > >Similarly, as of 150 years ago, we apparently had no certain "proof" than > >any NT book was older than the 4th century AD.... > > Quite true. > > >Where then is the logic behind your assumption? > > The logic is simple. We have no proof of a document until we actually have > a document! Then under your method, you would never be able to claim restoration of either the archetype of any given texttype, let alone the autograph or a near reflection of such? This position still would not eliminate the hypothesis that any NT book might merely be a second-century fabrication. > Why is this so controversial? It seems quite simple to me. I am certainly > not saying that these various documents did not exist; I am simply saying > that we have no evidence to work with until we have a manuscript. > It is because these manuscripts are our first evidence of a document's > existence that they are so important. > > Where is the logic in denying any of this? There is nothing wrong with looking at MSS of early date as contributing to the goal of textual criticism in restoring the archetype or autograph. But one, two, or three early MSS (I say this so as to include Philip W. Comfort's theory as well) do not in themselves suffice to establish the definitive text of either the archetype or autograph when all other relevant data and principles of internal evidence are not included. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Apr 5 23:37:08 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id XAA16359; Sat, 5 Apr 1997 23:37:07 -0500 Date: Sat, 5 Apr 1997 23:37:59 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Antiquity In-Reply-To: <3347694D.41C7@sn.no> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2575 On Sun, 6 Apr 1997, Mr. Helge Evensen wrote: > 2) Manuscript copies give testimony to the _textform(s)_ in existence. > The _latter_ point is where textual criticism deals. > > The early existence of a MS does not necessarily mean that its _textform_ > is earlier than that found in later MSS. This has been demonstrated. > > As I indicated, _existence_ and _textform_ are not the same! > > Many other sources other than pure NT MSS attest to both the _existence_ > and the _textform_ of the New Testament text. I group the above together since I must discuss my definition and use of the word "Textform" as opposed to any other definitions which might be otherwise utilized. As stated in the introduction to my edition of the Gk NT, I consider the Byzantine to be the "Textform", i.e. the overarching autograph text, from which all other "texttypes" are derived (e.g., Alexandrian, Western, Caesarean). So I make a very clear distinction between "Textform" (which I _always_ capitalize) and "texttype" (which I _never_ capitalize). Others on this list generally have not used the term "Textform"/"textform" in a manner which differed from my own usage, so I did not mention the point previously. Mr Evensen in the above passages appears to use "textform" as synonymous with "texttype", so this is why I offer the clarification from my perspective. Of course anyone can define any term to mean what they desire, but I wish it to be known that I _am_ making a distinction in my use of the terms. > c) But theoretically it can also be looked at in another way: p52 may not > be a fragment of an entire Gospel of John, but just a part of a document > which _later_ developed into the present Gospel of John.(Of course I do > not _believe_ this). Maybe the whole chapter 8 was there substantially as > we have it today in the later MSS. If I recall correctly, by extrapolation of estimated line length, number of lines per page and other factors which can be calculated from the four or so verse portions in that small fragment (Jn.18:31-33, 37-38), I believe that someone calculated that P52 would not have contained the woman in adultery passage, presuming that the gospel began at a proper line 1 of page 1. I forget the source however; can anyone clarify? _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Apr 5 23:39:29 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id XAA16380; Sat, 5 Apr 1997 23:39:29 -0500 Date: Sat, 5 Apr 1997 23:40:21 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Antiquity In-Reply-To: <199704052244.PAA04841@wavecom.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 707 On Sat, 5 Apr 1997 dwashbur@wave.park.wy.us wrote: > it's a > little like tossing the dice, watching them come up with, say, 4, and > declaring "because this is the number that came up on the dice on > this particular toss, 4 must be the perfect number and we must all > base our lives on it." This of course would be wrong, since most of us know (or should know) that the correct answer is 42.... _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Apr 5 23:43:28 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id XAA16401; Sat, 5 Apr 1997 23:43:28 -0500 Date: Sat, 5 Apr 1997 23:44:20 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Antiquity In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970405180416.19af538e@mail.infoave.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 900 On Sat, 5 Apr 1997, Jim West wrote: > Indeed- but we must trust what is more reliable; and a priori evidence > closer to the time of composition is worthy of higher trust than evidence > further removed. How then does this square with the classic observation of Scrivener in the 19th century, basically repeated by Colwell in the 20th, that the worst corruptions the NT text and its MSS have ever been subjected to were basically during the first four centuries, and especially during the period before AD 200? How then does this affect the reliability of the oldest documents in your opinion? _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Apr 5 23:56:15 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id XAA16471; Sat, 5 Apr 1997 23:56:14 -0500 Date: Sat, 5 Apr 1997 23:57:07 -0500 (EST) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: getting Real In-Reply-To: <9704060033.AA10927@iris.arcadis.be> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1706 On Sun, 6 Apr 1997, Jean VALENTIN wrote: > The evidence is so complex, the documentation is so immense, and > so many hundreds of mss have not yet been read... In the present state of > the art, nobody can be too dogmatic about what the "original text" (if > there ever was such a thing) should have been. Certainly the bulk of even the continuous-text MSS have not been collated in detail, but I suspect nearly everyone on the list will agree that there would not likely be too many surprises, especially not after these have already been subjected to the thousand test-passages now partially provided in the _text und Textwert_ series. I suspect the "representative sample" of collated MSS which we currently possess is indeed sufficient and adequate for establishing the "original text" in accordance with various theories of transmission or the lack thereof. This would include not only my own theory and resultant Byzantine Textform edition, but also the NA "Standard Text" view, as well as texts constructed on a rigorously eclectic basis. The fact that all texts tend to agree around 90% implies (at least for that portion) virtual certainty as to the autograph text in such agreed-upon wordings. So, yes, I _do_ think something meaningful can be said regarding the "original text" (which apparently _did_ have some real and valid existence), based upon the evidence we currently possess. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Apr 6 00:14:27 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id AAA16502; Sun, 6 Apr 1997 00:14:27 -0500 From: dwashbur@wave.park.wy.us Message-Id: <199704060517.WAA18465@wavecom.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Sat, 5 Apr 1997 22:12:19 -7000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Antiquity Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.42a) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 5787 > >First, it's not logical. > > Uh huh. > (you see, I have given up offering substance as I have yet to hear any > substance opposing the fact that the antiquity of a document is of the > utmost importance) Several have, but you appear to have set the question up in such a way that no amount of evidence can suffice for you. > > I can't see the sun today because of a > >snowstorm, but the fact that it's not visible cannot be adduced as > >evidence that it doesn't exist. By this kind of "logic" we end up > >saying that, because we don't have the autographs, there's no > >evidence they ever existed. That's just plain silly. > > > > The sun is there whether you see it or not. But if you do not see it- you > do not see it. We have no autographs. Period. This is not a reply to my analogy. The autographs existed, whether we now have them or not. But because I can't see the sun, I have to use other criteria to establish its existence, composition, etc. So it is with TC: we have to use other criteria, among them the canons of internal and external evidence, to establish the nature of the autographs. I can't just arbitrarily pick the highest cloud I can see and say "This one is most like the sun because it's the closest to it," which is what you're doing with manuscripts. > >Second and more important, this approach renders any kind of > >meaningful scientific historical investigation impossible. > > Not at all. It simply bases investigation in what we do have- not in what > someone hypothetically reconstructs. Wrong. If all we have is a haphazard array (and a mighty small one, at that) of randomly-preserved fragments, but are told that those are ALL we can base our investigation on, then true science is not possible. How many people have ever seen an electron? Nobody has. They are "what someone hypothetically reconstructs." The reason we all accept their existence is because the hypothesis fits the observable facts. That's how science works. And given the unpredictable and capricious nature of (pre-9th century) manuscript preservation, we MUST have some sort of scientific method to help us or we end up looking like ostriches. > > If we > >don't have Julius Caesar's perforated body we have no evidence that > >he was murdered, or that he ever existed. > > You are right- we dont have his body. Why then would anyone argue that we > do? ANd yet some text critics are arguing that we have good textual > evidence from the 8th century while at the same time they discount the > earliest manuscript evidence and make age of text merely one criteria among > others. Your extension of the analogy doesn't work because you misunderstood it. My point was, we have historical evidence (writings) to substantiate both his existence and his death. Saying that we have good textual evidence from the 8th century is the result of sound historical investigation. It is nothing akin to saying we have Caesar's body. What we have are good records of its rise and fall; it's the same with 8th century (and other) textual evidence. By your approach, we can't really know anything about Caesar's death unless we either (a) have his body or (b) have a note from his own hand that reads "My buddies just ran me through!" The methodology just doesn't work, and as I said, it eliminates any meaningful historical investigation for lack of "hard evidence." > > If we can't do historical > >study without your so-called "hard evidence" then in the main we > >can't do history at all. TC is, after all, a branch of historical > >study. None of us was there for the events, so we have to examine > >the history using the most scientific tools and methods available. > >Those tools and methods are constantly being re-evaluated and refined > >to make them more scientific and reliable. Your approach takes them > >all away and sends us back to the principle of blind faith. > > NO! It is blind faith I am opposing; that is why I am suggesting (!) that > of all the criteria, antiquity should be held in great importance (and yet > still no one has bothered to discuss this central issue; this crux). Because all you've done is say it, you haven't given any sound scientific reasons why. Plenty of respondents have pointed out that the most ancient manuscripts can be and sometimes are much more flawed than later ones, and I have yet to see you answer that. The reason text critics hold antiquity as merely one criterion among many is because that's what it is. > >It's like this: the most ancient mss we have were preserved quite by > >accident, the luck of the draw as I said before. If we insist that > >these have to be the most reliable because they're the oldest, it's a > >little like tossing the dice, watching them come up with, say, 4, and > >declaring "because this is the number that came up on the dice on > >this particular toss, 4 must be the perfect number and we must all > >base our lives on it." It just doesn't work, and doesn't take into > >account the fact that the dice will ultimately be thrown again and > >come up with a different number. > > > > Ya lost me on this one! :) Read my previous post about it and Maurice's response. The "most ancient" witnesses we have may or may not be a true sampling of the text at that period in time; because of the paucity of such witnesses, we can't know. Hence, even when we don't have two witnesses of equal age (as you have described elsewhere), we still have to have other balancing criteria for deciding among readings. Age is simply not enough. Dave Washburn http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur/home.html "You're so open-minded that your brain leaked out." -Steve Taylor From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Apr 6 00:19:18 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id AAA16519; Sun, 6 Apr 1997 00:19:17 -0500 From: dwashbur@wave.park.wy.us Message-Id: <199704060523.WAA18626@wavecom.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Sat, 5 Apr 1997 22:17:25 -7000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Antiquity Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.42a) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 663 Maurice Robinson wrote: > > On Sat, 5 Apr 1997 dwashbur@wave.park.wy.us wrote: > > > it's a > > little like tossing the dice, watching them come up with, say, 4, and > > declaring "because this is the number that came up on the dice on > > this particular toss, 4 must be the perfect number and we must all > > base our lives on it." > > This of course would be wrong, since most of us know (or should know) that > the correct answer is 42.... For me it's actually 43 (all too soon to become 44...) Dave Washburn http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur/home.html "You're so open-minded that your brain leaked out." -Steve Taylor From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Apr 6 01:37:17 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id BAA16595; Sun, 6 Apr 1997 01:37:17 -0500 Message-ID: <33474A81.709E@bellatlantic.net> Date: Sun, 06 Apr 1997 03:02:25 -0400 From: David Large X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02E (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Antiquity References: <1.5.4.16.19970405162225.27e78580@mail.infoave.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 4813 Hello! I am a recent subscriber to this list ( I found out about it thanks to Maurice << Hello, Maurice :-D >>, and have enjoyed the posts I've read thus far. Just for everyone's information, I am not a scholar, don't know Greek ( I am trying to teach myself, though ), and am a 27 year-old minister in a small Maryland church. I've been reading and studying about TC for about three years or so, and continue to seek out a better understanding of it. I truly believe that this field is *much* more relevant to the Christian's faith than is commonly admitted, so I can appreciate the toil of the individuals, both professional or otherwise, who regularly enrich this field, both by an accretion of knowledge and the advancement of theory. Kudos to all who care enough to share in a forum such as this! Thank you, all :-) I've been a little reluctant to dive in so far, fearing I lack the tools and training to offer much; but the recent thread concerning 'Antiquity' provides, I think, as convenient a point of entry to the group discussion as I'm liable to find. So here goes... First, a few preliminary remarks: * Bob - love the web page - keep up the good work! * Maurice - Thanks for telling me about the list, and thanks for taking the time recently to discuss some of my questions. You don't get much sleep, do you? ;-) It's good to see you're still making your point! * Jim W. - You seem to have touched a nerve or two with your recent posts, but I applaud your honesty in stating "it seems to me that each person who does tc picks a criteria (or more properly criterion) and uses it more than the others." Though such a statement may seem naive to some, and insulting to others, it reminds me of something I read quite some time ago, which went something like, ' He who lingers long over a particular line of reasoning grows increasingly unable to appreciate its weaknesses." ( forgive the paraphrase ). My other com- ments follow. I am an outsider to this discipline, and my calling and ministry prevent me from devoting the resources and time I would otherwise spend in order to master this field. But far from giving it a half-hearted effort, I have tried my hardest to impartially sift through all that I have read the past few years, in order to reach a certain con- viction concerning the most original form of the N.T. text. I have " lingered long " over many disparate trains of thought, and early on was struck by the dogmatic tones taken by not a few scholars as they asserted their theories. ( though, in a way, the dogmatic man is a happy man- I mean, to be at all equivocal in matters of faith is to be, of all things, most miserable. "But..." I can hear one say, "... this is not faith... this is *science*." ;-) ) Some times I wonder. Recently, there has been a discussion over the use of antiquity as a determinant when evaluating external evidence. I must say, I find little to commend Jim's method ( No offense, Jim :-) ). It seems to me that to defer to antiquity as a final arbiter amidst conflicting readings is to disregard the need to appreciate a given text in its historical context. Whether you understand the text's history from a Byzantine-priority, a p75-B priority, et al., nothing, in my humble opinion, is more antithetical to an historical inquiry than to blur the necessary distinction between a document's text and a text's document, say, " the document's the thing " and call it a day. You said : > The logic is simple. We have no proof of a document until we actually have > a document! > > Why is this so controversial? It seems quite simple to me. I am certainly > not saying that these various documents did not exist; I am simply saying > that we have no evidence to work with until we have a manuscript. > It is because these manuscripts are our first evidence of a document's > existence that they are so important. > > Where is the logic in denying any of this? I would like to know what you do with patristic evidence. In many cases pat- ristic quotations, allusions and paraphrases precede actual documentary evidence for, at times, centuries. A logic such as this is unworkable and historically naive. It would be not unlike affirming that you didn't even exist until you were photographed, even though you had children who spoke of you, no? :-) Well, I guess I better get going. I've been stabbing at this post, on and off, all day now ( interruptions.... interruptions... ), so I'm sure that there are some more current posts by now. Thanks for your time, all! *_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_* Rev. David Large dlarge@bellatlantic.net From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Apr 6 07:39:10 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id HAA16710; Sun, 6 Apr 1997 07:39:09 -0400 Message-Id: <9704061239.AA04723@iris.arcadis.be> Subject: latin NT texts on the net? Date: Sun, 6 Apr 97 13:43:20 +0200 X-Sender: vale5655@194.111.178.251 X-Mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1 From: Jean VALENTIN To: "TC-List" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 672 By the way, anybody knows if the text of the Latin NT is available on the net? I'd like to D/L a copy on my hard disk. Thank you. ________________________________________________________________ Jean Valentin - 58/7 rue Van Kalck - 1080 Bruxelles - BELGIQUE ________________________________________________________________ email : jgvalentin@arcadis.be *** netmail : 2:291/780.103 ________________________________________________________________ Ce qui est trop simple est faux, ce qui est trop complique est inutilisable. What's too simple is wrong, what's too complicated is unusable. Wat te eenvoudig is, is verkeerd; wat te ingewikkeld is, is onbruikbaar. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Apr 6 07:48:08 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id HAA16743; Sun, 6 Apr 1997 07:48:07 -0400 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 6 Apr 1997 11:47:48 +0100 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: Steven Carr Subject: Western version of Acts MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 211 I've read that the Western version of Acts, which is about 10 percent longer, was quoted in the early second century. Could someone tell me where and by whom please? -- Steven Carr steven@bowness.demon.co.uk From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Apr 6 12:30:42 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA16848; Sun, 6 Apr 1997 12:30:41 -0400 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <33474A81.709E@bellatlantic.net> References: <1.5.4.16.19970405162225.27e78580@mail.infoave.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 6 Apr 1997 10:36:33 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Antiquity Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1963 On Sun, 06 Apr 1997, David Large wrote, in part: >"But..." I can hear one say, "... this is not >faith... this is *science*." ;-) As an amateur myself, I would have to say that textual criticism, as practiced, is *both* art and science. The problem is in deciding the correct balance between the two. Some parts of TC are show almost all the characteristics of a science. Paleography is an example. It works with actual observable objects, and sets out to categorize them. It makes and tests hypotheses. Etc. The relationship between texts can also be placed on a fairly scientific (statistical) basis. We can say, for instance, that "In a sample of 150 readings in the Catholic Epistles, 945 and 1739 agree 80% of the time, and 96% of the time where both are non-Byzantine." >From bases such as these, one can construct an exact science of textual criticism. As I understand it, this is what Dearing has attempted to do. I don't go quite that far (I still think about readings), but I approach it as far closely as possible. But the vast majority of critics also practice an "art" -- it's known as "internal evidence." The balance we place between the art and the science determines what type of critics we are -- and what sort of text we produce. >Some times I wonder. I don't see faith as coming into it at all. One need not have faith to practice TC. Not even NT TC. I've been a scientist for most of my life (well, not really a scientist, but I wanted to be one when I was young, and I *do* have a degree in Physics & Math). That's a lot longer than I've been a Christian.... -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A very rough draft of part of the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Apr 6 12:30:43 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA16856; Sun, 6 Apr 1997 12:30:42 -0400 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <9704060033.AA10927@iris.arcadis.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 6 Apr 1997 10:36:38 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Finding text-types (Was: Re: getting Real) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2336 On Sat, 5 Apr 1997, Maurice Robinson wrote: >Certainly the bulk of even the continuous-text MSS have not been collated >in detail, but I suspect nearly everyone on the list will agree that there >would not likely be too many surprises, especially not after these have >already been subjected to the thousand test-passages now partially >provided in the _text und Textwert_ series. I wonder about this. While I conceded that T&T gives us at least some information about the vast majority of manuscripts, the data really hasn't been analysed. For example, no one ever seems to have studied family 330 (330, 451, 2492). Even Davies, who collated 330 for her study of 2344, never noticed its family connections. Similarly, family 2138 has not been studied until recently, and generally has been lumped with the "Western" text when it is examined. Nor did anyone notice that 1891 is a near-sister of 1739 in Acts until the last few years. I think we still have some surprises awaiting us. I concede that family 330 probably doesn't hold many *big* surprises (since it's about 75% Byzantine) -- but if there's one undiscovered group, there might be more.... >I suspect the "representative sample" of collated MSS which we currently >possess is indeed sufficient and adequate for establishing the "original >text" in accordance with various theories of transmission or the lack >thereof. This would include not only my own theory and resultant Byzantine >Textform edition, but also the NA "Standard Text" view, as well as texts >constructed on a rigorously eclectic basis. The fact that all texts tend >to agree around 90% implies (at least for that portion) virtual certainty >as to the autograph text in such agreed-upon wordings. So, yes, I _do_ >think something meaningful can be said regarding the "original text" >(which apparently _did_ have some real and valid existence), based upon >the evidence we currently possess. That I won't argue with. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A very rough draft of part of the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Apr 6 12:58:43 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA16937; Sun, 6 Apr 1997 12:58:43 -0400 Message-ID: <3347D609.6308@ipo.net> Date: Sun, 06 Apr 1997 12:57:46 -0400 From: vanatter@ipo.net (Vanatter, Scott) X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.0b2 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Antiquity [timeline example... we're *way* down the line] X-Priority: 3 (Normal) References: <1.5.4.16.19970405162225.27e78580@mail.infoave.net> <33474A81.709E@bellatlantic.net> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 4515 See below for the real problems that even preceed the problem we are discussing now: Timeframe "a" -- the lag between the event being recorded and the original recording of it. Timeframe "b" -- What influences occured between the time of an accurate 'truer' original -- and the less accurate (for whatever reasons) third hand (or worse) copy. We'll 'never' have an Original, probably never even close to a first hand copy... Textual criticism is necessary, but should always be couched in its own caveats as to how much *can* be known from such a process with so much, ao many unknowns. _______ Timeline: / x...xn / y...yn / z...zn EO....IR....EEC............................Today | a | b | c | d ^^^^^ ^^^^^ - EO = Event Occured IR = Initial Recording of "Event" EEC = Earliest Existing Copy of IR - a = Time period between Event Occuring and Initial Recording b = Time period between Initial Recording and Earlest Existing Copy* c = Time Period between Earliest Existing Copy and the many extant manuscripts, x, y, & z d = Time period between having multiple 'competing' extant manuscripts and now... We are dealing with the "d" timeframe. If we could ever got to the "a" or "b" time -- *then* we could say with more confidnce and authority any hard and fast conclusion. - x = One known manuscript y = Another known manuscript z = Even another known manuscript - x1, x2, xn = Versions of Manuscript "x" y1, y2, yn = " y z" " " = " z ___________ * The search for the "earliest" is proper -- however, knowing which *is* the earliest, is the crux of one of our problems, and then, if a certain manuscript is judged to be earliest -- Then what? I suggest that the "earliest manuscript" *available* will always be 'too late' in the timeline to make *any* hard and fast conclusions. Of all the 'copies' ever made of an Initial Recording of an Event, let's assume we are only dealing with, (say in round numbers) 50% of 'em. (Generous, yes/no?) Since the "real"* Earliest Copy probably hasn't been discovered yet -- if it even still exits -- our conclusions could be way off, if we stay dogmatic on any one position or another, based on supposedly knowing which actually is earliest. Specifically, re: the "earliest" copy: Later copies of manuscripts could well tell more about the Event, if it's origin is a better one than the origin of the earlier one. E.g.: x3 [poor source -- older] y9 [better source -- later] If we have a later copy [y9] of a better sourced original, then the earlier version [x3] might not be of more value. It might even be more misleading than the later item. Well, I hope I've not added confusion, or betrayed too much ignorance. Thanks. Scott Vanatter http://www.angelfire.com/va/vanatter/index.html PS David Large wrote: > ... > I would like to know what you do with patristic evidence. He has already briefly answered this one -- treat it the same. When was the original supposed to have been written, and what are the dates of the earlist copies of even these [patristic] writings? > In many cases patristic quotations, allusions and paraphrases > precede actual documentary evidence for, at times, centuries. > A logic such as this is unworkable and historically naive. > It would be not unlike affirming that you didn't even exist > until you were photographed, even though you had children > who spoke of you, no? :-) Summary of the logic of your pix analogy: - I exist - Photo of me - Children affirming my existence My addition: third hand report of my children speaking of me... ====================================================== | Still, absent my photo (or even better, me myself) | | -- reading third hand information *of* what my | | children spoke of me will not get too close to who | | I actually was. | ====================================================== I do like your analogy... it works for both sides of this discussion. ---------- I am in agreement with the position Mr West is taking -- with as many caveats placed on his position as he wishes to place on those arguing against him, limiting the importance of "earlier" manuscripts. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Apr 6 13:03:17 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA16958; Sun, 6 Apr 1997 13:03:17 -0400 Date: Sun, 06 Apr 1997 13:02:44 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: Antiquity X-Sender: jwest@mail.infoave.net (Unverified) To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970406130233.0b9f4146@mail.infoave.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2107 At 09:05 PM 4/5/97 +0400, you wrote: >Perhaps it would be better for Jim to talk of specific places where the >reading of the oldest Greek ms containing a verse is wrong. Yes, it would. Though to say that a ms contains a "wrong" reading is a little ahead of the game, since it seems a bit premature at the beginning of a post rather than at the end. > >What would you say to Romans 8:28. > P46, clearly the oldest Greek ms but >not the oldest evidence (Clement, the Greek text behind the old latin). Depending on when you date the Clement ms. At any rate, the Greek ms tradition takes precedence over the Patrisitic and Versional evidence. >The reading of P46 clearly is wrong even tho witnessed to by P46, A, B, & >81 because there is little likelihood that scribes would have omitted the >name of God. Yes, if a scribe felt it redundant, he could omit it; or it may have been omitted due to parablepsis; there seem to be any number of possibilities. It is certainly the more difficult reading (in terms of sense) It is the reading which best explains the others. It is not the shorter reading (so here, in terms of the general rules, it fails) It is the oldest reading. > The reading also fits what Paul was saying, i.e., having >mentioned God in the hOTI clause he assumed him as the subject of the verb >SUNERGEI. This is absolutely correct- which is why a scribe would delete the second reference to God; and why a scribe would not add it in- as the verse is already clear without it. > So the wording of the verse as Paul wrote it gave rise to the >variation preserved in the earliest ms of Romans that we possess at the >moment. > Or- the wording Paul used gave place in some mss to a scribal smoothing. >Would you agree, Jim. > Yes- in terms of what I have clarified above. > >Carlton L. Winbery Now, I said I would shut up for a while- but as Carlton did me the kindness of positing an actual case I felt compelled to respond. Jim ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@theology.edu From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Apr 6 14:18:58 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA17056; Sun, 6 Apr 1997 14:18:58 -0400 Message-Id: <9704061919.AA24284@iris.arcadis.be> Subject: Re: Antiquity Date: Sun, 6 Apr 97 20:23:24 +0200 X-Sender: vale5655@194.111.178.251 X-Mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1 From: Jean VALENTIN To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1374 Jim, > >Depending on when you date the Clement ms. At any rate, the Greek ms >tradition takes precedence over the Patrisitic and Versional evidence. I'm not yet conviced about this, specially when it comes to the early fathers that give us information about their local texts, while all that the earliest mss tell us is about the conditions in Egypt - and, for sure, we have to listen to them too. As to what should or should not take precedence, I get back to what I said before : as long as no complete history of the text has been written using ALL the evidence, such statements seem hazardous to me. That's why, also, my goal is not to establish a text, but to gather documentation and provide informations for the generations that will be able to say something based on more evidence than what we have. Cheers, Jean V. ________________________________________________________________ Jean Valentin - 58/7 rue Van Kalck - 1080 Bruxelles - BELGIQUE ________________________________________________________________ email : jgvalentin@arcadis.be *** netmail : 2:291/780.103 ________________________________________________________________ Ce qui est trop simple est faux, ce qui est trop complique est inutilisable. What's too simple is wrong, what's too complicated is unusable. Wat te eenvoudig is, is verkeerd; wat te ingewikkeld is, is onbruikbaar. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Apr 6 14:42:35 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA17097; Sun, 6 Apr 1997 14:42:34 -0400 Message-ID: <3347F487.2862@bellatlantic.net> Date: Sun, 06 Apr 1997 15:07:51 -0400 From: David Large X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02E (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Antiquity References: <1.5.4.16.19970405162225.27e78580@mail.infoave.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2625 Robert B. Waltz wrote: > > On Sun, 06 Apr 1997, David Large wrote, in part: > > >"But..." I can hear one say, "... this is not > >faith... this is *science*." ;-) > > As an amateur myself, I would have to say that textual criticism, > as practiced, is *both* art and science. The problem is in deciding > the correct balance between the two. I would concur emphatically on that simple, yet profound, point. > But the vast majority of critics also practice an "art" -- it's > known as "internal evidence." The balance we place between the > art and the science determines what type of critics we are -- > and what sort of text we produce. And, I would add, how scientific they are. > I don't see faith as coming into it at all. All kinds of faith-assumptions are cloaked with the appearance of 'science'. Take for instance, Jim W.'s preference for the oldest document. It is based upon a faith-assump- tion that our earliest extant papyri are *representative* samples. And who can possibly assert *that* scientifically without the hard data required to confirm or confute it? Surely the Patristic evidence is anything but conclusive. Take the methodology of the 'rigorous eclectics'- their method makes a faith-assumption that a historical recon- struction of the text is either impossible, or worse, irrelevant. They also assume that the subjective canons that they utilize have been sufficiently established empirically, and can be applied accurately. Maurice assumes that the generally convergent process that lead to Byzantine dominance was a result of cross-correction, not Muslim conquests and the restriction of Greek to the Byzantine Empire. Nothing here is new, my point is that we *all* must make assumptions to account for lucanae in the data, and assumptions such as the above, in my humble opinion, naturally lead to a skewed methodology which is much more art than science. A theory is only as strong as its presuppositions; the real question is- What presuppositions are more reasonable in light of history and the data? To pretend that one's theory is a *natural* outcome of a rigorous scientific method is naive. The data are not that conclusive. In my mind, the more scientific method is the one which makes the more reasonable assump- tions, since we *must* make them. > One need not have faith to practice TC. Not even NT TC. If you mean faith in Christ, I agree. If you mean faith, as opposed to empirical science, I do not.:-) > -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Rev. David Large dlarge@bellatlantic.net From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Apr 6 15:06:54 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA17132; Sun, 6 Apr 1997 15:06:53 -0400 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <9704061239.AA04723@iris.arcadis.be> References: Conversation <9704061239.AA04723@iris.arcadis.be> with last message <9704061239.AA04723@iris.arcadis.be> Priority: Normal X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 From: "Huey or Faye" Subject: Re: latin NT texts on the net? Date: Tue, 01 Apr 97 04:59:21 PST Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; X-MAPIextension=".TXT" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 909 try http://davinci.marc.gatech.edu/catholic/scriptures/vulgata-clementina.html or gopher://ftp.std.com/11/obi/book/Religion/Vulgate or http://ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu/carrie/vulgate_main.html ---------- > By the way, anybody knows if the text of the Latin NT is available on the > net? I'd like to D/L a copy on my hard disk. > Thank you. > > > > ________________________________________________________________ > Jean Valentin - 58/7 rue Van Kalck - 1080 Bruxelles - BELGIQUE > ________________________________________________________________ > email : jgvalentin@arcadis.be *** netmail : 2:291/780.103 > ________________________________________________________________ > Ce qui est trop simple est faux, ce qui est trop complique est > inutilisable. > What's too simple is wrong, what's too complicated is unusable. > Wat te eenvoudig is, is verkeerd; wat te ingewikkeld is, is onbruikbaar. > > > From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Apr 6 15:20:26 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA17182; Sun, 6 Apr 1997 15:20:25 -0400 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3347F487.2862@bellatlantic.net> References: <1.5.4.16.19970405162225.27e78580@mail.infoave.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 6 Apr 1997 13:27:06 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Antiquity Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2642 On Sun, 06 Apr 1997, David Large wrote, in part: [ ... ] > >All kinds of faith-assumptions are cloaked with the appearance of 'science'. Take for >instance, Jim W.'s preference for the oldest document. It is based upon a faith-assump- >tion that our earliest extant papyri are *representative* samples. And who can possibly >assert *that* scientifically without the hard data required to confirm or confute it? >Surely the Patristic evidence is anything but conclusive. Take the methodology of the >'rigorous eclectics'- their method makes a faith-assumption that a historical recon- >struction of the text is either impossible, or worse, irrelevant. They also assume that >the subjective canons that they utilize have been sufficiently established empirically, >and can be applied accurately. Maurice assumes that the generally convergent process >that lead to Byzantine dominance was a result of cross-correction, not Muslim conquests >and the restriction of Greek to the Byzantine Empire. > >Nothing here is new, my point is that we *all* must make assumptions to account for >lucanae in the data, and assumptions such as the above, in my humble opinion, naturally >lead to a skewed methodology which is much more art than science. A theory is only as >strong as its presuppositions; the real question is- What presuppositions are more >reasonable in light of history and the data? To pretend that one's theory is a *natural* >outcome of a rigorous scientific method is naive. The data are not that conclusive. In >my mind, the more scientific method is the one which makes the more reasonable assump- >tions, since we *must* make them. A minor demurrer. There are some points at which the data *is* conclusive. (E.g. no one can doubt the existence of the Byzantine text.) I agree that the data do not allow us to compile a complete and verifiable history of the text, which is of course the basis for our reconstructions of the text. > >> One need not have faith to practice TC. Not even NT TC. > >If you mean faith in Christ, I agree. If you mean faith, as opposed to empirical >science, I do not.:-) OK, I'll accept that. At the very least, one needs faith in one's own competence as one is being attacked by dozens of rabid TC-listers. :-) -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A very rough draft of part of the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Apr 6 15:25:05 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA17199; Sun, 6 Apr 1997 15:25:05 -0400 X-Sender: winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net (Unverified) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 6 Apr 1997 14:29:01 +0400 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net (Carlton Winbery) Subject: Re: Antiquity Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1798 Jim West Wrote; >>What would you say to Romans 8:28. >> P46, clearly the oldest Greek ms but >>not the oldest evidence (Clement, the Greek text behind the old latin). > >Depending on when you date the Clement ms. At any rate, the Greek ms >tradition takes precedence over the Patrisitic and Versional evidence. > > >>The reading of P46 clearly is wrong even tho witnessed to by P46, A, B, & >>81 because there is little likelihood that scribes would have omitted the >>name of God. > >Yes, if a scribe felt it redundant, he could omit it; or it may have been >omitted due to parablepsis; there seem to be any number of possibilities. > >It is certainly the more difficult reading (in terms of sense) >It is the reading which best explains the others. >It is not the shorter reading (so here, in terms of the general rules, it >fails) >It is the oldest reading. > >> The reading also fits what Paul was saying, i.e., having >>mentioned God in the hOTI clause he assumed him as the subject of the verb >>SUNERGEI. > >This is absolutely correct- which is why a scribe would delete the second >reference to God; and why a scribe would not add it in- as the verse is >already clear without it. > >> So the wording of the verse as Paul wrote it gave rise to the >>variation preserved in the earliest ms of Romans that we possess at the >>moment. After a lifetime of collating and using the collations of others, I would have to say that scribes did not omit the name of God except to put another divine name in its place (John 1:18), especially when it would clarify the meaning of a sentence. Carlton L. Winbery 114 Beall St. Pineville, LA 71360 Fax (318) 442-4996 e-mail winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net winbery@andria.lacollege.edu winbrow@aol.com Phone 318 487-7241 Home 448-6103 From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Apr 6 15:47:39 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA17235; Sun, 6 Apr 1997 15:47:39 -0400 Message-ID: <334885AF.7735@sn.no> Date: Sun, 06 Apr 1997 22:27:11 -0700 From: "Mr. Helge Evensen" Organization: SN Internett X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Antiquity References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 3523 Maurice Robinson wrote: >=20 > On Sun, 6 Apr 1997, Mr. Helge Evensen wrote: >=20 > > 2) Manuscript copies give testimony to the _textform(s)_ in existence. > > The _latter_ point is where textual criticism deals. > > > > The early existence of a MS does not necessarily mean that its _textf= orm_ > > is earlier than that found in later MSS. This has been demonstrated. > > > > As I indicated, _existence_ and _textform_ are not the same! > > > > Many other sources other than pure NT MSS attest to both the _existen= ce_ > > and the _textform_ of the New Testament text. >=20 > I group the above together since I must discuss my definition and use o= f > the word "Textform" as opposed to any other definitions which might be > otherwise utilized. >=20 > As stated in the introduction to my edition of the Gk NT, I consider th= e > Byzantine to be the "Textform", i.e. the overarching autograph text, fr= om > which all other "texttypes" are derived (e.g., Alexandrian, Western, > Caesarean). So I make a very clear distinction between "Textform" (whi= ch > I _always_ capitalize) and "texttype" (which I _never_ capitalize). >=20 > Others on this list generally have not used the term "Textform"/"textfo= rm" > in a manner which differed from my own usage, so I did not mention the > point previously. Mr Evensen in the above passages appears to use > "textform" as synonymous with "texttype", so this is why I offer the > clarification from my perspective. Of course anyone can define any term= to > mean what they desire, but I wish it to be known that I _am_ making a > distinction in my use of the terms. Yes, I used "textform" as synonymous with "texttype". This may be wrong=20 and your definition of the terms may be completely justifiable. Thanks=20 for the clarification! >=20 > > c) But theoretically it can also be looked at in another way: p52 may= not > > be a fragment of an entire Gospel of John, but just a part of a docum= ent > > which _later_ developed into the present Gospel of John.(Of course I = do > > not _believe_ this). Maybe the whole chapter 8 was there substantiall= y as > > we have it today in the later MSS. >=20 > If I recall correctly, by extrapolation of estimated line length, numbe= r > of lines per page and other factors which can be calculated from the fo= ur > or so verse portions in that small fragment (Jn.18:31-33, 37-38), I > believe that someone calculated that P52 would not have contained the > woman in adultery passage, presuming that the gospel began at a proper > line 1 of page 1. I forget the source however; can anyone clarify? My fault. I confused chapter 18 with chapter 8. Sorry.=20 My point was that the fragment may have _at least_ contained the whole=20 chapter of that part in which it is extant in that fragment, but that=20 according to the "hard proof" theory the document (of which p52 is a=20 fragment) did not necessarily contain much more than this one chapter,=20 and therefore can=B4t be _proved_ to be (following Jim West=B4s "hard=20 evidence" theory) a fragment originally belonging to a copy of the=20 *complete* Gospel of John. This may, however, not be justifiable logic on= =20 my part. >=20 > _______________________________________________________________________= __> Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testa= ment > Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Caroli= na > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~= ~~ --=20 - Mr. Helge Evensen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Apr 6 16:20:39 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA17289; Sun, 6 Apr 1997 16:20:39 -0400 Message-Id: <9704062121.AA01107@iris.arcadis.be> Subject: Re: Western version of Acts Date: Sun, 6 Apr 97 22:25:03 +0200 X-Sender: vale5655@194.111.178.251 X-Mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1 From: Jean VALENTIN To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1240 > >I've read that the Western version of Acts, which is about 10 percent >longer, was quoted in the early second century. Could someone tell me >where and by whom please? There's a much probable allusion to Acts 2.24 D in Polycarp (around 110 AD) to the Philippians 1.2: Ihsou Christou... on hgeiren o Theos lusas tas wdeinas TOU ADOU. TOU ADOU is the text of D (with d e g p r t vg syr.p boh mae and other fathers like Irenaeus which is also very early, as well as a medieval Provencal version) while B has TOU THANATOU (with P74vid ! A B C E P etc... Byz syr.h sah arm eth geo . I don't see in his apparatus that there would be Fathers on the B-side that are as early as those of the D-side. ________________________________________________________________ Jean Valentin - 58/7 rue Van Kalck - 1080 Bruxelles - BELGIQUE ________________________________________________________________ email : jgvalentin@arcadis.be *** netmail : 2:291/780.103 ________________________________________________________________ Ce qui est trop simple est faux, ce qui est trop complique est inutilisable. What's too simple is wrong, what's too complicated is unusable. Wat te eenvoudig is, is verkeerd; wat te ingewikkeld is, is onbruikbaar. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Apr 6 18:13:49 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA17522; Sun, 6 Apr 1997 18:13:49 -0400 Message-ID: <33482610.678C@bellatlantic.net> Date: Sun, 06 Apr 1997 18:39:12 -0400 From: David Large X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02E (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Antiquity References: <1.5.4.16.19970405162225.27e78580@mail.infoave.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2902 Robert B. Waltz wrote: > > On Sun, 06 Apr 1997, David Large wrote, in part: > > [ ... ] > > > >All kinds of faith-assumptions are cloaked with the appearance of 'science'. Take for > >instance, Jim W.'s preference for the oldest document. It is based upon a faith-assump- > >tion that our earliest extant papyri are *representative* samples. And who can possibly > >assert *that* scientifically without the hard data required to confirm or confute it? > >Surely the Patristic evidence is anything but conclusive. Take the methodology of the > >'rigorous eclectics'- their method makes a faith-assumption that a historical recon- > >struction of the text is either impossible, or worse, irrelevant. They also assume that > >the subjective canons that they utilize have been sufficiently established empirically, > >and can be applied accurately. Maurice assumes that the generally convergent process > >that lead to Byzantine dominance was a result of cross-correction, not Muslim conquests > >and the restriction of Greek to the Byzantine Empire. > > > >Nothing here is new, my point is that we *all* must make assumptions to account for > >lucanae in the data, and assumptions such as the above, in my humble opinion, naturally > >lead to a skewed methodology which is much more art than science. A theory is only as > >strong as its presuppositions; the real question is- What presuppositions are more > >reasonable in light of history and the data? To pretend that one's theory is a *natural* > >outcome of a rigorous scientific method is naive. The data are not that conclusive. In > >my mind, the more scientific method is the one which makes the more reasonable assump- > >tions, since we *must* make them. > > A minor demurrer. There are some points at which the data *is* conclusive. (E.g. > no one can doubt the existence of the Byzantine text.) I agree unreservedly, and don't mean to imply otherwise. Certainly some things are certain, but who argues for the existence of the Byzantine text? ;-) > I agree that the data do not allow us to compile a complete and verifiable > history of the text, which is of course the basis for our reconstructions of > the text. And since the data are incomplete, we must advance theories that account for the data that we *are* able to verify, whilst remaining historically sensitive. I'm sure that we are agreed here, as well. > >> One need not have faith to practice TC. Not even NT TC. > > > >If you mean faith in Christ, I agree. If you mean faith, as opposed to empirical > >science, I do not.:-) > > OK, I'll accept that. At the very least, one needs faith in one's own competence > as one is being attacked by dozens of rabid TC-listers. :-) And a good sense of humor doesn't hurt, either :-D > -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- David Large dlarge@bellatlantic.net From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Apr 6 22:22:02 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA17781; Sun, 6 Apr 1997 22:22:02 -0400 From: Fran@prodigy.net Message-Id: <199704070222.WAA163978@mail1y-int.prodigy.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Sun, 6 Apr 1997 22:22:14 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: On Ancient Versions Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.53/R1) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1293 On Ancient Versions' Value to TC - A question (Dear Jean V. Thanks so much for your reply. I appreciate your help, as my language ability does not include Arabic, and a host of other languages ;-) Are you (Jean or someone else) doing the initial translation of this ms? (Sinai Arabic 71). Is there an English translation available of the Arabic witness to the GNT?). I know that that will mean another step removed from the GNT, but I wish to know more about the versional testimony to the GNT. Correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that it is possible to ascertain (to a certain degree) the Greek (or Heb for that case) behind a version of the Scriptures (version in the sense of a ms which is a translation of Gr into another ancient language). I understand that this means, as I said above, a step removed from the original Gr, therefore: 1. What would be the *consensus* (if there can be such a thing in TC!) as to the value of ancient versions in TC? 2. Are there versions which are *more* valuable than others? 3. Are there English translations of such versions? 4. Are those versions also *divided* into Alexandrian, Byzantine, Western....? A Lurker, Francisco Orozco Trinity Ministerial Academy 1991-1995 (Montville NJ USA) Fran@prodigy.net Nashville NC USA From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Apr 7 14:37:01 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA19861; Mon, 7 Apr 1997 14:37:00 -0400 Message-ID: <33495B74.7DB4@usinternet.com> Date: Mon, 07 Apr 1997 13:39:16 -0700 From: Hubert Bahr Organization: Fingerhut X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Win16; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: On Ancient Versions References: <199704070222.WAA163978@mail1y-int.prodigy.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1223 Fran@prodigy.net wrote: > > Correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that it is possible to > ascertain (to a certain degree) the Greek (or Heb for that case) behind a > version of the Scriptures (version in the sense of a ms which is a > translation of Gr into another ancient language). >The degree to which you can ascertain the text, is going to vary by how literal the translation was and how reliably it was handed down. Pick a few English translations and use a Nestle text to guess the variant readings they are based on. The task is much easier for the American Standard Version than for "The Message" paraphrase. I've noticed that versional evidence tends to be overlooked in the NT, probabally in part, because it is difficult at points to determine which text the translator had in front of him when he translated. There is also the difficulty of mastering a third, fourth, or fifth langauge (possilby more). Some scholars seem to feel that given the wealth of readings in Greek, there is little value in the versions. I think all evidence has value, but I am unable to process all of it--I don't think I'm alone in that. --Huey Bahr hbahr@usinternet.com I thought it made sense when I wrote it. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Apr 7 15:31:58 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA20109; Mon, 7 Apr 1997 15:31:58 -0400 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <33495B74.7DB4@usinternet.com> References: <199704070222.WAA163978@mail1y-int.prodigy.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 7 Apr 1997 14:34:06 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: On Ancient Versions Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2913 On Mon, 07 Apr 1997, Hubert Bahr wrote, in part: >I've noticed that versional evidence tends to be overlooked in the NT, >probabally in part, because it is difficult at points to determine which text >the translator had in front of him when he translated. There is also the >difficulty of mastering a third, fourth, or fifth langauge (possilby more). >Some scholars seem to feel that given the wealth of readings in Greek, there >is little value in the versions. I think all evidence has value, but I am >unable to process all of it--I don't think I'm alone in that. I certainly am in the same situation. I have very little Latin (some vocabulary, but no sense of the grammar), no Syriac, no Coptic, no Armenian or Georgian or anything else useful. But I agree that the versions *need* to be considered. Not just because they are evidence of an early date. Even more so, because they are frequently the *key* evidence for various text-types. Take the "Western" text of the gospels. For the most part we automatically equate it with Bezae. But D has demonstrably been edited at at least one point (since it uses Matthew's genealogy of Jesus in Luke). If it has been edited at that point, we must admit the possibility that it has been edited elsewhere. This means that we *must* turn to the Latin versions to determine the proper readings of the "Western" text. Or consider the "Caesarean" text. I don't mean to start a debate with Hurtado or others over this. But a simple fact is that *every* so-called "Caesarean" witness is at least half Byzantine. (And those are the *best* witnesses -- Theta and family 1. Family 13 is about two-thirds Byzantine, 700 is worse, 28 is valuable only in Mark, and 565 is also rather weak outside Mark.) The best witnesses to the type would appear to be the Old Georgian and Armenian versions; without them we probably cannot fully reconstruct the type. Or take the p46/B text-type in Paul. There are only two Greek witnesses, both incomplete. And they sometimes disagree. In such cases, we must look to the only other witness to the type -- the Sahidic Coptic. There may be other examples that I don't even know about. The Gothic version, for instance, seems to have a number of "Western" readings in Paul. But the examples listed should be more than enough proof that we *cannot* ignore the versions. We cannot even be content with the "big three" cited in NA27 (the Latin, Syriac, and Coptic). We need to give full attention to the Armenian and Georgian, and at least investigate the others.... -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A very rough draft of part of the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Apr 7 15:41:58 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA20156; Mon, 7 Apr 1997 15:41:57 -0400 Date: Mon, 7 Apr 1997 15:42:42 -0400 (EDT) From: ANDREW SMITH To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: On Ancient Versions In-Reply-To: <33495B74.7DB4@usinternet.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2073 (concerning the below) Versional evidence is useful in several ways. As is mentioned, given the already-numerous Greek readings, some scholars don't want to further muddy the waters with still more readings which some of the versions might suggest; these readings are much more shakey, anyways, being re-constructed from a translation. A more friendly use of the versions is that they can attest to the geographic and temporal spread of a given Greek reading; here the question is not of a new variant, but rather mapping the spatio-temporal spread of that variant. For example, the Gothic Bible (one version with which I am familiar) attests to certain variants in a time and place where they are not otherwise attested. ********************************** On Mon, 7 Apr 1997, Hubert Bahr wrote: > Fran@prodigy.net wrote: > > > > Correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that it is possible to > > ascertain (to a certain degree) the Greek (or Heb for that case) behind a > > version of the Scriptures (version in the sense of a ms which is a > > translation of Gr into another ancient language). > >The degree to which you can ascertain the text, is going to vary by how > literal the translation was and how reliably it was handed down. Pick a few > English translations and use a Nestle text to guess the variant readings they > are based on. The task is much easier for the American Standard Version than > for "The Message" paraphrase. > > I've noticed that versional evidence tends to be overlooked in the NT, > probabally in part, because it is difficult at points to determine which text > the translator had in front of him when he translated. There is also the > difficulty of mastering a third, fourth, or fifth langauge (possilby more). > Some scholars seem to feel that given the wealth of readings in Greek, there > is little value in the versions. I think all evidence has value, but I am > unable to process all of it--I don't think I'm alone in that. > > --Huey Bahr > hbahr@usinternet.com > I thought it made sense when I wrote it. > From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Apr 7 17:10:26 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA20426; Mon, 7 Apr 1997 17:10:26 -0400 Message-Id: <9704072210.AA22951@iris.arcadis.be> Subject: Re: On Ancient Versions Date: Mon, 7 Apr 97 23:14:47 +0200 X-Sender: vale5655@194.111.178.251 X-Mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1 From: Jean VALENTIN To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 11177 >Are you (Jean or someone else) doing the initial translation of this ms? >(Sinai Arabic 71). Is there an English translation available of >the Arabic witness to the GNT?). I know that that will mean another step >removed from the GNT, but I wish to know more about the versional >testimony to the GNT. No, there is to my knowledge no translation of this interesting manuscript. Neither is there an edition of its text, I am prepairing it using a microfilm... and hope to present also a French (sorry...) translation with it. Good news, I've just finished typing the Arabic text and the translation is going forward too :-) To my knowledge, there is no translation of any of the many Arabic versions. The only exception is the Arabic Diatessaron, probably the easiest to find is the one in the collection of The Ante-Nicene Fathers. In what concerns the texts, the easiest to find is the "Alexandrian Vulgate" as we call it. It is an eclectic recension of the XIIIth century and was edited by Lagarde. But with no translation... >Correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that it is possible to >ascertain (to a certain degree) the Greek (or Heb for that case) behind a >version of the Scriptures (version in the sense of a ms which is a >translation of Gr into another ancient language). To a certain degree indeed. The best introduction to that problem - and to the Versions in general - is the book of B.M. METZGER The Early Versions of the New Testament (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1977). After the presentation of each version, he lets a specialist of the language involved speak about its ability and limitations to render Greek. If you are interested in scholarly discussion of the versions, this book is the place to begin! BTW, before ascertaining the "greek" text that lies behind a version, the first thing to know is whether it _was_ translated from greek or from another language - there are versions of versions (we call them secundary versions, and there are even tertiary or quaternary ones, if these words are correct. No, we are not in Jurassic Park! :-). Determining the language of the source is not always easy as you can guess, it involves careful study. And when you have a translator who works with several mss in different languages open before him (quite often in the case of Arabic versions), it becomes very difficult to say anything certain. For example, there are versions mixing greek and syriac elements, or the Alexandrian vulgate uses greek, syriac and coptic texts. >I understand that this means, as I said above, a step removed from the >original Gr, therefore: It depends on what you mean by that. Let's take an extreme example : the earliest gerogian version, contained in the Adish codex (IXth century - it was already an old version in that time). Most of its specialists argued it was (1) translated from an armenian base (there are even armenian words in it, and misconstructions - armenisms - in georgian that are due to servile imitation of the armenian model), very different from the armenian version that we know (but reflected also in Armenian patristical quotations). But (2) the textual type is very close to the old syriac version, thus this lost armenian base was most probably itself translated from an old syriac base. (3) We have only two fragmentary mss of the old syriac, so the Adysh codex can be important to reconstruct this text-type, that goes back, probably, to the IInd century. (4) As you know, the old syriac is one of the most important witnesses to the "western" text - that was thus once very widespread in the East too before the triumph of the antiochene (or byzantine) text. So even though there are so many stages between the greek and the Adish ms, it is in fact quite an important ms for the reconstruction of the history of the text, and more specifically for our knowledge of a very important text-type : the so-called "western text". > >1. What would be the *consensus* (if there can be such a thing in TC!) as >to the value of ancient versions in TC? Well, just look at the very different reactions on the list when we're speaking about them :-) Personnally, "value" is a term I don't like as it has utilitarian or moralistic overtones which I believe do not have their place in critical studies. The versions complete the documentation as to the text-type that was used in several regions of the world where we do not have greek mss, or few of them. Also, they tend to be quite conservative as many nationalistic and religious complexes (specially in dissident churches like the Coptic or Syrian churches) intervene in their conservation (just look at the proud face of an Armenian when scholars call their Bible the "Queen of Versions", or look at Lamsa's translation of the peshitto, where the introduction, signed by the nestorian patriarch of the time, claims that the peshitto is the authentic apostolic text overhanded to the Church). >2. Are there versions which are *more* valuable than others? Once again, it depends on what you mean by "valuable"... Some (old latin, old syriac, sahidic) are usually seen as very important witnesses, but this can be quite subject to personal opinion - some people will probably find the coptic versions very important just because they believe the Alexandrian text to be the closest to the original. Versions that reflect a well-known text-type are less interesting, as they don't give us many variants from, say, the byzantine text or the latin vulgate. But even late medieval versions (or patristic quotations) can be very important in that they attest of the survivance of a less known text-type, and even provide variants that can fill the holes of our knowledge about these text-types, their variants and geographical dissemination. Generally speaking, the more you get remote from the centres of manuscript production and revision, the more it becomes interesting in that respect... The great centers (Alexandria, Antioch, Rome, Constantinople) influenced very early the region surrounding them. If they produce a revision, it will be adopted in their region, but an older text will survive in Mesopotamia, in the Caucasus, in Arabia, or in the Netherlands, in Portugal etc... As soon as there is any barrier, whether it be geographical, political, linguistical or ecclesiastical, we have a chance of meeting another text-type. Another extreme example : so late as the XVIth century, we find a... hebrew ms that is translated directly from the old latin (Paris Hebrew 132 - it has only Mt). And it appears in... Rome, so while you would expect the Vulgate it is not the case as the Jews that copied this text were not subject to the obligation of aligning their text on the Vulgate! >3. Are there English translations of such versions? Yes there are, once again, Metzger's book might provide information about them. I'm not well placed for speaking of English translations though, as I would first look for a French one (or rather, prefer to learn the language of the version :-). But be careful: some of these translations are not scholarly works. An example is Lamsa's English translation of the peshitto. Lamsa, an Assyrian himself, produced a translation of the peshitto, but as a speaker of modern syriac he often let his knowledge of the modern language influence his translation, substituting modern syriac meanings for the classical ones. Often, you will find a translation accompanying the edition of the version, whether in English, French, German or Latin. As these languages are supposedly known to anybody who wants to work in the field, they are the most currently used in publications. Burkitt published the vetus syra with an English translation, Lake and Briere published the Adish ms with a latin translation, Marmardji published the Arabic diatessaron with a french translation (though it has many problems) etc... >4. Are those versions also *divided* into Alexandrian, Byzantine, >Western....? Some follow quite strictly one of those text-types : the third georgian version ("georgian vulgate", the official one unto this day) is quite strictly byzantine for example, as are several arabic versions. Earlier versions may follow the alexandrian (in Egypt) or the western type (though not exactly as represented by D). Some are probably based on critical recensions made for the occasion. As I said, some translators worked with several mss open before them and chose the text that suited them the most (many mixed texts in arabic for example). I'll mention too that the "cesarean" text, which is documented by quite a few greek mss (some scholars even doubted it ever existed - I think even Kurt Aland is one of them if I understand his statement in his manual), survives in many eastern versions that, even though they may have variations, have too many common variants : syropalestinian, armenian, the second georgian version (Tbeth and Opiza mss and others), and several arabic versions too - Sinai arabic 71, except for the many blunders and carelessnesses of the translator, is very close to Theta. I was quite amazed when I first discovered that, before the well-know, byzantine-based versions, there were cesarean versions nearly everywhere in the East - and, before that, western or deeply influenced by the diatessaron. Was it the official text of the Jerusalem patriarchate before its "byzantinization"? The abandonment of the cesarean text for the byzantine seems indeed to coincidate with the adoption of the liturgy of St John Chrysostom in place of the liturgy of St James, and other reforms that were introduced in a time when the melkite patriarchs resided in... Constantinople. The situation in Georgia is typical : first the Adish ms with its old syriac influences, then the second version, close to the cesarean texts, then finally the georgian vulgate, nearly fully byzantine - because produced by the georgians of Mount Athos (close to "the centre") - and, the georgians are chalcedonian, they are in communion with Constantinople so they finally accepted the byzantine text, though late. The same can be said of the Melkites of the Middle-East : as chalcedonians, they also finally produced versions that reproduced the byzantine text at the end of the processus. Non-Chalcedonians like the Jacobites from Syria or the Copts preferred to use their own version and translate it into arabic - though sometimes with an eye on greek codices. Oops! What a long post... Read the rest in Metzger and the other good authors... :-) ________________________________________________________________ Jean Valentin - 58/7 rue Van Kalck - 1080 Bruxelles - BELGIQUE ________________________________________________________________ email : jgvalentin@arcadis.be *** netmail : 2:291/780.103 ________________________________________________________________ Ce qui est trop simple est faux, ce qui est trop complique est inutilisable. What's too simple is wrong, what's too complicated is unusable. Wat te eenvoudig is, is verkeerd; wat te ingewikkeld is, is onbruikbaar. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Apr 7 23:08:57 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id XAA21064; Mon, 7 Apr 1997 23:08:57 -0400 Date: Mon, 7 Apr 1997 22:09:30 -0500 (CDT) From: "Ronald L. Minton" X-Sender: rminton@orionc0 To: Textual Criticism list Subject: Versions and Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 3607 I want to chart out the versions and select other ancient literature. This is my initial effort, but I used some good and some novel sources. Please find fault and send me your corrections and suggestions. Thanks SURVIVING MANUSCRIPTS OF ANCIENT AUTHORS AUTHORS WRITINGS APPROXIMATE EARLIEST TIME COPIES DATE WRITTEN COPY-A.D SPAN EXTANT HOMER Mythology 900 B.C. 400 B.C. 500 643 SOPHOCLES Tragedy 496-406 B.C. 1,000 1,400 193 HERODOTUS History 480-425 B.C. 900 1,300 8 EURIPIDES Tragedy 480-406 B.C. 1,100 1,500 9 THUCYDIDES History 460-400 B.C. 900 1,300 8 ARISTOPHANES Comedy 450-385 B.C. 900 1,200 10 PLATO Various 427-347 B.C. 900 1,200 7 ARISTOTLE Science 384-322 B.C. 1,100 1,400 49+ DEMOSTHENES Politics 383-322 B.C. 1,100 1,300 c. 200 CAESAR Politics 100-44 B.C. 900 1,000 10 LIVY History 59B.C.-A.D.17 500 500 20 LUCRETIUS Di. Poem 60 B.C. 1050 1,100 2 CATULLUS Poetry 54 B.C. 1,550 1,600 3 VIRGIL Poetry 50-19 B.C. 300 300 HORACE History 20 B.C. 900 900 c. NINE MEN New Test. A.D. 40-95 120 25 24,000 PLINY/YOUNG History A.D. 61-113 850 750 7 SUETONIUS Biography A.D. 70-160 950 800 8 TACITUS Annals A.D. 100 1,100 1,000 20 TACITUS History A.D. 100 1,000 900 1 MINOR WORKS New Testament manuscripts are comprised of Greek copies and translation copies. The chart shows approximate numbers and dates. SURVIVING MANUSCRIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT NEW TESTAMENT A.D. DATE A.D. DATE OF TOTAL GREEK MANUSCRIPTS FIRST MADE OLDEST COPY NUMBER Minuscules 9th Cent 9th Cent 2,880 Lectionaries 4th Cent 4th Cent 2,300 Uncials 3rd Cent 3rd Cent 275 Papyri 1st Cent 2nd Cent 100 NEW TESTAMENT A.D. DATE A.D. DATE COPIES TRANSLATION FIRST MADE OLDEST COPY KNOWN Latin Vulgate 400 450 10,000 Slavonic 850 950? 4,100 Armenian 400 887 2,587 Ethiopic 500? 1250 2,000 Syriac Peshitta 425 450 350 Georgian 450 897 300? Coptic 250 350 100 Arabic 700? 850 75 Old Latin 180 370 50 Nubian 550 900? 10? Anglo Saxon 950 950 9 Gothic 350 450 6 Sogdian ? ? 3 Old Syriac ? ? 2 Persian ? 1350 2 Old Syraic 200 400 2? Frankish ? 750 1 -- Prof. Ron Minton: rminton@mail.orion.org W (417)268-6053 H 833-9581 Baptist Bible Graduate School 628 E. Kearney St. Springfield, MO 65803 From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Apr 8 07:13:40 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id HAA21547; Tue, 8 Apr 1997 07:13:40 -0400 Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 07:13:38 -0400 From: Mike Bossingham Subject: re a Big Idea To: tc list Message-ID: <199704080713_MC2-13EE-9765@compuserve.com> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1522 Hi, I have never contributed to this list before, so do be kind to me. Let me introduce myself. I am a theology and a computer science graduate and I am currently working (part time unfortunately) on a Doctorate attached to Birmingham University under David Parker. I am developing software that will allow the creation of a comprehensive electronic critical edition. It currently will:- 1) Display selected verses along with an apparatus. 2) Select the witnesses that are display in the apparatus - thereby allowing users to filter out witnesses they are not interested in. 3) All the user to select the base text - ie if you wish you can have P66 as the base text. All Apparatii are then automatically rebuilt to reflect the new base text. 4) Print selected witnesses. 5) Stores notes about verses, witnesses and editions In the near future it will be able to:- 1) display collations (and compare them with what is in an Apparatus) 2) display (if they can be made available) scanned images of manuscripts. 3) Search for a particular word in both the base text and selected variants. The software runs on a PC under Windows 3.1 (it also works under NT and 95). When my work is complete (and progress is slow because I am a Part Time student and full time Minister) I am prepared to offer it to the TC community. With some thought, planning and co-orperation it would be possible using this software to build a massive critical edition through the Internet. Regards Rev Mike Bossingham Maidenhead, Berks. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Apr 8 08:34:45 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA21698; Tue, 8 Apr 1997 08:34:44 -0400 Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 08:39:51 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199704081239.IAA22793@mail3.voicenet.com> X-Sender: cbtslibr@popmail.voicenet.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "L. Mark Bruffey" Subject: Re: re a Big Idea Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 577 This sounds SUPERB to me! Mark Bruffey mbruffey@voicenet.com At 07:13 AM 4/8/97 -0400, you wrote: >Hi, > >I have never contributed to this list before, so do be kind to me. > >Let me introduce myself. I am a theology and a computer science graduate >and I am currently working (part time unfortunately) on a Doctorate >attached to Birmingham University under David Parker. > >I am developing software that will allow the creation of a comprehensive >electronic critical edition. It currently will:- > L. Mark Bruffey CBTS Library 1380 S Valley Forge Rd. Lansdale PA 19446 From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Apr 8 08:41:06 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA21722; Tue, 8 Apr 1997 08:41:06 -0400 Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 08:46:13 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199704081246.IAA23186@mail3.voicenet.com> X-Sender: cbtslibr@popmail.voicenet.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "L. Mark Bruffey" Subject: Re: Versions and Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 853 You would want to add at least Strabo, Epictetus and Plutarch to this list, since they are more or less "comtemporary" with the NT writings. You might want to include Josephus and Philo too! Check out the Perseus database. Mark bruffey mbruffey@voicenet.com At 10:09 PM 4/7/97 -0500, you wrote: >I want to chart out the versions and select other ancient literature. >This is my initial effort, but I used some good and some novel sources. >Please find fault and send me your corrections and suggestions. Thanks > > > > SURVIVING MANUSCRIPTS OF ANCIENT AUTHORS > > >AUTHORS WRITINGS APPROXIMATE EARLIEST TIME COPIES > DATE WRITTEN COPY-A.D SPAN EXTANT > >HOMER Mythology 900 B.C. 400 B.C. 500 643 > L. Mark Bruffey CBTS Library 1380 S Valley Forge Rd. Lansdale PA 19446 From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Apr 8 08:47:09 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA21744; Tue, 8 Apr 1997 08:47:08 -0400 Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 08:48:03 -0400 (EDT) From: ANDREW SMITH To: Textual Criticism list Subject: Re: Versions and In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 108 Are there really 6 copies of Gothic Bible? I though that there was only one, and that it was fragmentary. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Apr 8 10:29:24 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA22114; Tue, 8 Apr 1997 10:29:23 -0400 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199704080713_MC2-13EE-9765@compuserve.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 09:30:33 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: re a Big Idea Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1550 On Tue, 8 Apr 1997, Mike Bossingham wrote, in part: >The software runs on a PC under Windows 3.1 (it also works under NT and >95). When my work is complete (and progress is slow because I am a Part >Time student and full time Minister) I am prepared to offer it to the TC >community. Let me add my support to that expressed by others. But I'm going to ask a technical question or two. I'm a bit concerned that this software is PC-specific. Partly that's personal, because I use a Macintosh. But there's also a general concern. Anything that is to be used over the Internet *should* run under UNIX, in some form. This, ideally, would allow queries over the net. So I would ask, what language are you using? (I don't suppose it's Perl, is it? That would be perfect for the job, and it's available *free* for Mac, PC, and UNIX.) Second, what flavour of the language? I assume, since this is for Windows, that there is some sort of graphical interface. Are you writing that yourself, or are you using some sort of library? And are you keeping the I/O code modularized so that porting is possible? Just the thoughts of a programmer who wants this project to succeed.... -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A very rough draft of part of the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Apr 8 10:29:40 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA22131; Tue, 8 Apr 1997 10:29:40 -0400 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 09:21:12 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Gothic (Was: Re: Versions and) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 741 On Tue, 8 Apr 1997, ANDREW SMITH wrote: >Are there really 6 copies of Gothic Bible? I though that there was only >one, and that it was fragmentary. You're thinking of Codex Argenteus, which to my knowledge is the only substantial manuscript of the Gothic. It contains about half of the gospels. But there are several other fragments, mostly if not all palimpsest. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A very rough draft of part of the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Apr 8 10:29:43 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA22146; Tue, 8 Apr 1997 10:29:43 -0400 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 09:25:04 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Versions and Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2268 On Mon, 7 Apr 1997, "Ronald L. Minton" wrote: >I want to chart out the versions and select other ancient literature. >This is my initial effort, but I used some good and some novel sources. >Please find fault and send me your corrections and suggestions. Thanks > > > > SURVIVING MANUSCRIPTS OF ANCIENT AUTHORS > > >AUTHORS WRITINGS APPROXIMATE EARLIEST TIME COPIES > DATE WRITTEN COPY-A.D SPAN EXTANT > >HOMER Mythology 900 B.C. 400 B.C. 500 643 >SOPHOCLES Tragedy 496-406 B.C. 1,000 1,400 193 >HERODOTUS History 480-425 B.C. 900 1,300 8 >EURIPIDES Tragedy 480-406 B.C. 1,100 1,500 9 >THUCYDIDES History 460-400 B.C. 900 1,300 8 >ARISTOPHANES Comedy 450-385 B.C. 900 1,200 10 >PLATO Various 427-347 B.C. 900 1,200 7 >ARISTOTLE Science 384-322 B.C. 1,100 1,400 49+ >DEMOSTHENES Politics 383-322 B.C. 1,100 1,300 c. 200 >CAESAR Politics 100-44 B.C. 900 1,000 10 >LIVY History 59B.C.-A.D.17 500 500 20 >LUCRETIUS Di. Poem 60 B.C. 1050 1,100 2 >CATULLUS Poetry 54 B.C. 1,550 1,600 3 >VIRGIL Poetry 50-19 B.C. 300 300 >HORACE History 20 B.C. 900 900 >c. NINE MEN New Test. A.D. 40-95 120 25 24,000 >PLINY/YOUNG History A.D. 61-113 850 750 7 >SUETONIUS Biography A.D. 70-160 950 800 8 >TACITUS Annals A.D. 100 1,100 1,000 20 >TACITUS History A.D. 100 1,000 900 1 >MINOR WORKS I think there are at least two other Greek authors that belong in this list: Aeschylus (Drama, sixth century) and Hesiod (mythology, eighth? century). Unfortunately, I can't add manuscript data. Sigh. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A very rough draft of part of the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Apr 9 01:01:28 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id BAA24422; Wed, 9 Apr 1997 01:01:28 -0400 Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 01:01:27 -0400 (EDT) From: "James R. Adair" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: re a Big Idea In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 913 I'm certainly interested in the program that Mike is developing, but like Bob, I think it is essential that it run on more than one platform, and especially under Unix. Mike, could you tell us what language you are using? Maybe we can figure out a way to port it to Perl, or maybe even C or Java (platform independence!). If you are willing to share your software and some demo data at this stage of your work, even if it only works on PCs at the moment, I would like to put it on the TC FTP site for others to look at (including myself!). If you would like to share it, send it to ftp://scholar.cc.emory.edu/uploads, and I'll move it to the TC part of the site (ftp://scholar.cc.emory.edu/pub/TC). 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 owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Apr 9 10:22:06 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA25169; Wed, 9 Apr 1997 10:22:05 -0400 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 09:22:24 -0500 To: "Ronald L. Minton" From: "Carl W. Conrad" Subject: Re: Versions and Cc: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1433 Dear Ronald: As I receive the digest version of TC-List only, I didn't see your Monday post until this morning. I'm curious about (1) the sources of your information on the MSS of ancient authors, since I attempted to compile a list of this sort about ten years ago and felt rather frustrated in getting current information. I'm also curious about (2) whether you are making any differentiation between regular MSS and papyrus fragments of works in question. I ask that because it's my understanding that there's a massive number of papyrus fragments of Homer that go back fairly early and continue through all periods of antiquity. (3) You are listing, evidently, MSS only of the Christian era: is that BECAUSE you are only considering parchment codices, which don't appear earlier, or just because you are primarily concerned with comparison with NT MSS? =46inally, although you've had other suggestions about important authors to add to your list, I would suggest that you bring the date for Homer down to no earlier than 750 B.C.--and that may still be too early for us to suppose any written text, even if the oral traditions and performances go back that far or considerably earlier. Thanks for the useful list. Carl W. Conrad Department of Classics, Washington University One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130 (314) 935-4018 cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Apr 9 11:10:05 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA25477; Wed, 9 Apr 1997 11:10:05 -0400 Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 10:10:49 -0500 (CDT) From: "Ronald L. Minton" X-Sender: rminton@orionc0 To: "Carl W. Conrad" cc: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Versions and In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2027 On Wed, 9 Apr 1997, Carl W. Conrad wrote: > Dear Ronald: > As I receive the digest version of TC-List only, I didn't see your Monday > post until this morning. I'm curious about (1) the sources of your > information on the MSS of ancient authors, since I attempted to compile a > list of this sort about ten years ago and felt rather frustrated in getting > current information. I'm also curious about I used a wide variety of sources including the standard text crit books. I also used some ref books like Oxford classic. dictionaries, etc. I even used apologetics books for a few numbers. I too was frustrated because of a lack of usable, recent, and reliable sources. I hope to try the classics dept at the local university soon. > (2) whether you are making any > differentiation between regular MSS and papyrus fragments of works in > question. I ask that because it's my understanding that there's a massive > number of papyrus fragments of Homer that go back fairly early and continue > through all periods of antiquity. (3) You are listing, evidently, MSS only > of the Christian era: is that BECAUSE you are only considering parchment > codices, which don't appear earlier, or just because you are primarily > concerned with comparison with NT MSS? Actually, I listed every ms. the sources listed. I once took a Homeric Greek course, but know little in that mss. field. My lack was not intentional, and I will include all corrections I receive. > Finally, although you've had other suggestions about important authors to > add to your list, I would suggest that you bring the date for Homer down to > no earlier than 750 B.C.--and that may still be too early for us to suppose > any written text, even if the oral traditions and performances go back that > far or considerably earlier. > > Thanks for the useful list. I hope it becomes more useful. -- Prof. Ron Minton: rminton@mail.orion.org W (417)268-6053 H 833-9581 Baptist Bible Graduate School 628 E. Kearney St. Springfield, MO 65803 From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Apr 9 12:09:03 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA25603; Wed, 9 Apr 1997 12:09:02 -0400 Message-ID: <334C4716.63DC@sn.no> Date: Wed, 09 Apr 1997 18:49:10 -0700 From: "Mr. Helge Evensen" Organization: SN Internett X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Alexandrian text References: <33447348.1B39@sn.no> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 331 Mr. Helge Evensen wrote: > > One question concerning the Alexandrian text: > > In what degree was the Alexandrian text-type transmitted among the Greek > MSS after the 4./5.century? > > -- > - Mr. Helge Evensen Since I have not received any response to the above mail, I now repeat it! Thanks.... -- - Mr. Helge Evensen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Apr 9 12:11:23 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA25653; Wed, 9 Apr 1997 12:11:22 -0400 Message-ID: <334C47A1.5191@sn.no> Date: Wed, 09 Apr 1997 18:51:29 -0700 From: "Mr. Helge Evensen" Organization: SN Internett X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: apocrypha References: <3344718D.4F38@sn.no> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 476 Mr. Helge Evensen wrote: >=20 > I have a question regerding OT and NT apocrypha: >=20 > Is there any of the OT and NT apocrypha which showed up for the first > time in the 19. century (I mean in modern times, by way of discovery)?? > If so, which?? >=20 > Thanks ahead! >=20 > -- > - Mr. Helge Evensen I have received only one reply to this, and it wasn=B4t too helpful in th= at=20 it only gave a book reference. Will anyone bother to respond?? --=20 - Mr. Helge Evensen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Apr 9 14:14:20 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA25990; Wed, 9 Apr 1997 14:14:20 -0400 Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 14:14:19 -0400 (EDT) From: "James R. Adair" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: apocrypha In-Reply-To: <334C47A1.5191@sn.no> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1923 On Wed, 9 Apr 1997, Mr. Helge Evensen wrote: > > I have a question regerding OT and NT apocrypha: > > > > Is there any of the OT and NT apocrypha which showed up for the first > > time in the 19. century (I mean in modern times, by way of discovery)?? > > If so, which?? The Gospel of Thomas springs to mind. According to the Gospel of Thomas FAQ: Portions of Greek versions of the Gospel of Thomas were found in Oxyrhynchus Egypt about one hundred years ago and these can be dated to about 140 A.D. or somewhat before. A complete version in Coptic (the native Egyptian language written in an alphabet derived from the Greek alphabet) was found in Nag Hammadi Egypt in 1945. That version can be dated to about 340 A.D. The Coptic version is a translation of the Greek version. Thus most, if not all, of the Gospel of Thomas was written prior to 140 A. D. For more information, see the Gospel of Thomas home page at http://www.epix.net/~miser17/Thomas.html. And, of course, there is abundant information in print about the Gospel of Thomas. Other apocryphal works that have been discovered in the past century or so include the Egerton Gospel fragments, the Gnostic gospel recently discovered in a library in Berlin (not yet published), and Morton Smith's reported discovery of a new letter of Clement of Alexandria in which he has excerpts from the Secret Gospel of Mark (check Hennecke/Schneemelcher for more info). As for OT apocrypha/deuterocanonicals, a Hebrew version of Sirach was found in the Cairo Geniza in the late 19th century, I believe. The DSS include much new material, of course, including several unknown psalms (in 11QPs-a). It all depends on what you might classify as "apocrypha." 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 owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Apr 9 16:03:54 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA26812; Wed, 9 Apr 1997 16:03:53 -0400 Message-ID: <334C7E2F.4003@sn.no> Date: Wed, 09 Apr 1997 22:44:15 -0700 From: "Mr. Helge Evensen" Organization: SN Internett X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: apocrypha Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 69 Thank you for the useful information, James! -- - Mr. Helge Evensen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Apr 9 17:00:41 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA27127; Wed, 9 Apr 1997 17:00:40 -0400 From: "George Kiraz" Message-Id: <9704091657.ZM7396@atlas.research.bell-labs.com> Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 16:57:48 -0400 X-Mailer: Z-Mail (3.1.0 22feb94 MediaMail) To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu, peshitta@nic.surfnet.nl, caal@ff.cuni.cz, itisalat@listserv.georgetown.edu, elenchus@mercury.cc.uottawa.ca, gkiraz@research.bell-labs.com Subject: New Journal: call for papers Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 3251 HUGOYE: JOURNAL OF SYRIAC STUDIES ================================= The Syriac Computing Institute (SyrCOM) is proud to announce its new electronic journal, **Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies** For more info: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/users/gk105/syrcom/Hugoye/index.html P.S. if the mirror site is still under construction, please use the U.K. home site. CALL FOR PAPERS: ================ Articles, squibs, project reports and book reviews on all topics related to Syriac studies in all its aspects are welcome. Four copies of all submissions should be sent to the General Editor in hard-copy form (i.e., printed on paper) at the following address: George Anton Kiraz (Hugoye Journal) c/o Bell Laboratories 700 Mountain Avenue Murray Hill, NJ 07974 USA Fax: +1 (908) 582-3306 E-mail: gkiraz@research.bell-labs.com The first page must contain: (1) paper's title. (2) author's name and address. Please include email and fax if possible. (3) keywords representing the subject of the paper (e.g., biblical, hagiography, feminine theology, linguistics, etc.). (4) one paragraph abstract (c. 500 words) summarising the paper's main contribution. All submissions are subject to peer-review by the Editorial Board . If accepted for publication, authors will be notified and requested to submit articles in electronic form. Editorial Board ================ General Editor George Anton Kiraz Bell Laboratories, Lucent Technologies Editors: Sebastian Brock University of Oxford Sidney Griffith Catholic University of America Amir Harrak University of Toronto Susan Harvey Brown University Gregorios Y. Ibrahim Mardin-Edessa Publishing House Konrad Jenner The Peshitta Institute Hubert Kaufhold Oriens Christianus Kathleen McVey Princeton Theological Seminary William Petersen Pennsylvania State University Lucas Van Rompay Leiden University Technical Editor: Thomas Joseph -- _ _ \\\||/// George Anton Kiraz ___________\||||/___________ Language Modeling Research \___\___\___/ \___/___/___/ Bell Laboratories \___\___\_ ARAM _/___/___/ Room 2D-513 \___\___\_\__/_/___/___/ 700 Mountain Ave \___\___\_||_/___/___/ Murray Hill, NJ 07974 |||| |||| Tel. +1 908 582 4074 |\_//\\_/| Fax. +1 908 582 3306 \_/ \_/ Email: gkiraz@research.bell-labs.com From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Apr 9 17:11:45 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA27187; Wed, 9 Apr 1997 17:11:45 -0400 From: "George Kiraz" Message-Id: <9704091709.ZM7426@atlas.research.bell-labs.com> Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 17:09:56 -0400 X-Mailer: Z-Mail (3.1.0 22feb94 MediaMail) To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: New Journal: call for papers Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 3252 HUGOYE: JOURNAL OF SYRIAC STUDIES ================================= The Syriac Computing Institute (SyrCOM) is proud to announce its new electronic journal, **Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies** For more info: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/users/gk105/syrcom/Hugoye/index.html P.S. if the mirror site is still under construction, please use the U.K. home site. CALL FOR PAPERS: ================ Articles, squibs, project reports and book reviews on all topics related to Syriac studies in all its aspects are welcome. Four copies of all submissions should be sent to the General Editor in hard-copy form (i.e., printed on paper) at the following address: George Anton Kiraz (Hugoye Journal) c/o Bell Laboratories 700 Mountain Avenue Murray Hill, NJ 07974 USA Fax: +1 (908) 582-3306 E-mail: gkiraz@research.bell-labs.com The first page must contain: (1) paper's title. (2) author's name and address. Please include email and fax if possible. (3) keywords representing the subject of the paper (e.g., biblical, hagiography, feminine theology, linguistics, etc.). (4) one paragraph abstract (c. 500 words) summarising the paper's main contribution. All submissions are subject to peer-review by the Editorial Board . If accepted for publication, authors will be notified and requested to submit articles in electronic form. Editorial Board ================ General Editor George Anton Kiraz Bell Laboratories, Lucent Technologies Editors: Sebastian Brock University of Oxford Sidney Griffith Catholic University of America Amir Harrak University of Toronto Susan Harvey Brown University Gregorios Y. Ibrahim Mardin-Edessa Publishing House Konrad Jenner The Peshitta Institute Hubert Kaufhold Oriens Christianus Kathleen McVey Princeton Theological Seminary William Petersen Pennsylvania State University Lucas Van Rompay Leiden University Technical Editor: Thomas Joseph -- _ _ \\\||/// George Anton Kiraz ___________\||||/___________ Language Modeling Research \___\___\___/ \___/___/___/ Bell Laboratories \___\___\_ ARAM _/___/___/ Room 2D-513 \___\___\_\__/_/___/___/ 700 Mountain Ave \___\___\_||_/___/___/ Murray Hill, NJ 07974 |||| |||| Tel. +1 908 582 4074 |\_//\\_/| Fax. +1 908 582 3306 \_/ \_/ Email: gkiraz@research.bell-labs.com From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Apr 9 17:24:27 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA27234; Wed, 9 Apr 1997 17:24:26 -0400 From: Fran@prodigy.net Message-Id: <199704092125.RAA20918@mail1y-int.prodigy.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 17:24:51 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: On Ancient Versions Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.53/R1) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1474 Thanks to all for the wealth of info I got re: Ancient Versions. Sadly, it is one of the areas (in TC) in which I received *no* instruction at all. Jean V recommended the book of B.M. METZGER _The Early Versions of the New Testament_ (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1977). Are there any other source books of which I should be aware of? All I want is to fill the void in my (lack of) knowledge about and of Ancient Versions, and their part in TC. BTW, in my original post I used the word "value" in the sense of *practical TC worth*. Obsviously, as Jean V pointed out, such assessment can become very *subjective* depending on the person doing the research (the person's TC philosophy). I would think that there are a number of ancient versions that because of their antiquity, known-language-source, localization, sphere of influence, time-span of influence, TCers would regard as having *practical TC worth*. The ones that I am familiar with are the ones cited in the N/A apparatus. As a number of resposes pointed out, Ancient Versions witness to the text, received as faithful, and/or available in the place where the version was translated and used. Bear with my ignorance, but I would think that an Ancient Version would witness also to the TC-practice of the translator(s), in the case of some one having several differing mss before him. (?). Francisco Orozco Trinity Ministerial Academy 1991-1995 (Montville NJ USA) Fran@prodigy.net Nashville NC USA From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Apr 9 18:10:00 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA27349; Wed, 9 Apr 1997 18:09:59 -0400 Date: 9 Apr 1997 22:09:52 -0000 Message-ID: <19970409220952.3567.qmail@np.nosc.mil> From: Vincent Broman To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Greek symbols Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2111 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Can anyone recognize and name characters 38 and 43 in the WinGreek font? They appear among some archaic letters like digamma. Number 43 might be some editor's mark like an obelus, I suppose. Appended find pictures of the two mysterious characters. I have almost finished creating a mapping between the WinGreek font encoding and Unicode (which I will make public, and which I may implement into the free "tcs" character set translator). Vincent Broman, broman@nosc.mil character 38 ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... .........*****........ ........**...**....... .......**.....*....... .......**............. ......***............. ......***............. ......***............. ......***............. ......***............. .......**......*...... .......***....**...... ........***..***...... .........*******...... ..............**...... ..............**...... ..............**...... ..............**...... ..............**...... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... character 43 ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ....*............*.... ...***....*.....***... ....***...**...**..... .....***......**...... ......***....**....... .......***..**........ ........*****......... ....**...***....**.... ....*....****...*..... ........**.***........ .......**...***....... ......**.....***...... .....**...*...***..... ....**....**...***.... ...**...........***... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBM0wTnGCU4mTNq7IdAQEMPAP/ekaEhTfC/z8p594elILLSFkawEtA/rsx uDRRbgQWCfY9FSfwpLYvE/Agqtc2HmXMIMdpIX3jFxAK0G0uJYOqTBldVbYS4acz CI/q5WAbAuggzWhU9Emg4o+NfAazq+Pon1r6uF4Rjabyt5KOSLBi5c4g7pWjyyK8 56ww13+DXoI= =HbfK -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Apr 9 19:03:19 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA27493; Wed, 9 Apr 1997 19:03:19 -0400 Message-Id: Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jenee Woodard" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 19:05:11 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Greek symbols Priority: normal In-reply-to: <19970409220952.3567.qmail@np.nosc.mil> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.53/R1) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1099 I forwarded your message to Sterling Bjorndahl, and here is his reply: WinGreek Character 38 is a variety of koppa. See the example on p. 9 of Metzger's _Manuscripts of the Greek Bible_. And 43 is an _asteriscus_ (asterisk), one of Origen's sigla for the Hexapla. Again, Metzger, p. 38 (ss. 22), and plate 15. Sterling -- Sterling G. Bjorndahl, bjorndahl@Augustana.AB.CA Augustana University College, Camrose, Alberta, Canada (403) 679-1516 When dealing with computers, a little paranoia is usually appropriate. > Can anyone recognize and name characters 38 and 43 in the WinGreek font? > They appear among some archaic letters like digamma. > Number 43 might be some editor's mark like an obelus, I suppose. > Appended find pictures of the two mysterious characters. > > I have almost finished creating a mapping between the WinGreek > font encoding and Unicode (which I will make public, and which > I may implement into the free "tcs" character set translator). Jenee Woodard * Jackson, Michigan * jeneewd@dmci.net "Homoousios: Constantine said it. I believe it. That settles it." From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Apr 9 22:32:19 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA27834; Wed, 9 Apr 1997 22:32:18 -0400 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970410073123.00712850@mail.teleport.com> X-Sender: dalemw@mail.teleport.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 07:31:23 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Dale M. Wheeler" Subject: Re: a Big Idea Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1865 >From: Mike Bossingham >Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 07:13:38 -0400 >Subject: > >Hi, > >I have never contributed to this list before, so do be kind to me. > >Let me introduce myself. I am a theology and a computer science graduate >and I am currently working (part time unfortunately) on a Doctorate >attached to Birmingham University under David Parker. > >I am developing software that will allow the creation of a comprehensive >electronic critical edition. It currently will:- > >1) Display selected verses along with an apparatus. ...snip... Mike: I don't mean to throw cold water on what you are doing, but we have had this discussion on list before about the use of copyrighted apparatuses. If you are planning on keying in all the papyri and letting the program self-collate (which is an enormous task by itself given the problems of word order, etc., etc., etc.,...just ask Vinton Dearing or any of the others who have worked on this problem in electronic and print form), then you'll probably be okay; but if you are planning to simply key in the UBS or NA apparatus, then you've got a SERIOUS copyright issue on your hands. You should probably discuss this with Harold Scanlin of ABS, who is on this list, to see just what the UBS and Muenster are currently thinking about such things; I'd hate to see you invest HUGH amounts of time and effort into something which you couldn't make available to those who would like to use it. XAIREIN... *********************************************************************** Dale M. Wheeler, Th.D. Research Professor in Biblical Languages Multnomah Bible College 8435 NE Glisan Street Portland, OR 97220 Voice: 503-251-6416 FAX:503-254-1268 E-Mail: dalemw@teleport.com *********************************************************************** From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Apr 9 22:43:44 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA27880; Wed, 9 Apr 1997 22:43:44 -0400 Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 21:44:25 -0500 (CDT) From: "Ronald L. Minton" X-Sender: rminton@orionc0 To: "Mr. Helge Evensen" cc: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Alexandrian text In-Reply-To: <334C4716.63DC@sn.no> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 459 On Wed, 9 Apr 1997, Mr. Helge Evensen wrote: > > In what degree was the Alexandrian text-type transmitted among the Greek > > MSS after the 4./5.century? I have checked almost all of the uncials as cataloged in Metzger and Aland, and the answer is very few indeed. I can check the list I composed tomorrow. -- Prof. Ron Minton: rminton@mail.orion.org W (417)268-6053 H 833-9581 Baptist Bible Graduate School 628 E. Kearney St. Springfield, MO 65803 From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Apr 10 05:38:55 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id FAA28553; Thu, 10 Apr 1997 05:38:55 -0400 Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 05:39:52 -0400 (EDT) From: ANDREW SMITH To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: a Big Idea In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19970410073123.00712850@mail.teleport.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 859 On Thu, 10 Apr 1997, Dale M. Wheeler wrote: > but if you are planning to simply key in the UBS > or NA apparatus, then you've got a SERIOUS copyright issue on your hands. > You should probably discuss this with Harold Scanlin of ABS, who is on this > list, to see just what the UBS and Muenster are currently thinking about > such things; I'd hate to see you invest HUGH amounts of time and effort > into something which you couldn't make available to those who would like to > use it. ***** But couldn't he use an older edition of those text, along with its critical apparatus, because its copyright will have expired? Many of the less expensive software packages use editions and text and their related apparatus which are no longer copyright-protected. There's a big step up in prices when you purchase those CD-ROM's which have copyrighted material. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Apr 10 05:40:41 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id FAA28570; Thu, 10 Apr 1997 05:40:41 -0400 From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" Organization: Divinity Faculty To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 10:40:59 +000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: a Big Idea Priority: normal In-reply-to: <3.0.1.32.19970410073123.00712850@mail.teleport.com> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.52) Message-ID: Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 679 Those interested in ms collation programs should familiarize themselves with the Manuscript program being developed for the International Greek New Testament Project. I know little about it "hands-on", but have read a description (in a NEH funding application I was asked to assess, and which, in spite of my spirited support did not receive funding). Contact Michael Holmes (Bethel Theol. Sem., and on this list, I think), or Bart Ehrman, who prepared the grant proposal and will have more direct knowledge. L. W. Hurtado University of Edinburgh, New College Mound Place Edinburgh, Scotland EH1 2LX Phone: 0131-650-8920 Fax: 0131-650-6579 E-mail: L.Hurtado@ed.ac.uk From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Apr 10 09:16:58 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA29399; Thu, 10 Apr 1997 09:16:57 -0400 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <334C4716.63DC@sn.no> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 08:19:31 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Alexandrian text Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1409 On Wed, 9 Apr 1997, "Ronald L. Minton" wrote: >On Wed, 9 Apr 1997, Mr. Helge Evensen wrote: >> > In what degree was the Alexandrian text-type transmitted among the Greek >> > MSS after the 4./5.century? > > >I have checked almost all of the uncials as cataloged in Metzger and >Aland, and the answer is very few indeed. I can check the list I >composed tomorrow. I concede that the uncials are rather few (L, Delta in Mark, Psi in part, P2 in part, 0243, etc.) But there are hundreds of minuscules. The easiest way to check this, if you accept the Aland definition of an Alexandrian manuscript (which is, essentially, that anything not purely Byzantine is Alexandrian), is to get Aland and Aland's "Text of the New Testament" and look at the list of Category I, II, and III manuscripts by century. Admittedly Byzantine manuscripts outnumber Alexandrians by quite a bit. And manuscripts in which the Alexandrian element is dominant (i.e. those in Categories I and II) number only two or three per century. But there are always some. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A very rough draft of part of the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Apr 10 10:12:59 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA29681; Thu, 10 Apr 1997 10:12:58 -0400 Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 10:11:28 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by DEV.InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Syriac X-Sender: jwest@mail.highland.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970410101018.27b7395c@mail.highland.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 220 Can anyone give me the email address of the Syriac Computing Institute? Thanks, Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@theology.edu From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Apr 10 10:57:37 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA29854; Thu, 10 Apr 1997 10:57:37 -0400 Message-Id: <9704101558.AA09307@iris.arcadis.be> Subject: Re: Syriac Date: Thu, 10 Apr 97 17:02:15 +0200 X-Sender: vale5655@194.111.178.251 X-Mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1 From: Jean VALENTIN To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 652 > Can anyone give me the email address of the Syriac Computing >Institute? gkiraz@research.bell-labs.com ________________________________________________________________ Jean Valentin - 58/7 rue Van Kalck - 1080 Bruxelles - BELGIQUE ________________________________________________________________ email : jgvalentin@arcadis.be *** netmail : 2:291/780.103 ________________________________________________________________ Ce qui est trop simple est faux, ce qui est trop complique est inutilisable. What's too simple is wrong, what's too complicated is unusable. Wat te eenvoudig is, is verkeerd; wat te ingewikkeld is, is onbruikbaar. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Apr 10 11:00:15 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA29876; Thu, 10 Apr 1997 11:00:15 -0400 Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 10:01:03 -0500 (CDT) From: "Ronald L. Minton" X-Sender: rminton@orionc0 To: "Robert B. Waltz" cc: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Alexandrian text In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1086 On Thu, 10 Apr 1997, Robert B. Waltz wrote: > On Wed, 9 Apr 1997, "Ronald L. Minton" wrote: > >I have checked almost all of the uncials as cataloged in Metzger and > >Aland, and the answer is very few indeed. I can check the list I > >composed tomorrow. > > I concede that the uncials are rather few (L, Delta in Mark, Psi in > part, P2 in part, 0243, etc.) But there are hundreds of minuscules. According to my notes (mostly based on Aland), the Alexandrian [not mixed] uncials are Aleph & B (4th), 057 (4th/5th), 048 (5th), 0254 (5th), 098 (7th, & only 11 vss). I have not surveyed them as much, but I have found that few minuscules are Alexandrian: 33 (not in gospels), 1739 (not Acts), 1175 (not gen ep), 1243 (gosp), 1241 (gosp), 2053, 2062, 2427. Note that on some of these, I went by Aland's variant statistics, which do not always equal his categories. Corrections and additions are welcomed. -- Prof. Ron Minton: rminton@mail.orion.org W (417)268-6053 H 833-9581 Baptist Bible Graduate School 628 E. Kearney St. Springfield, MO 65803 From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Apr 10 11:20:31 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA29923; Thu, 10 Apr 1997 11:20:31 -0400 Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 10:10:57 -0400 From: Mike Bossingham Subject: Re: A big idea To: tc list Message-ID: <199704101011_MC2-140F-5F2E@compuserve.com> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2449 Hi, Thanks for all the comments and questions. Here I hope are some answers. Sorry MAC users but the PC is the obvious choice for 95% of machines out there are PC's with Windows. The language is C, used in a very simplistic way - so I guess it would port quite easily. It does not use Windows fonts - I doubted that it could handle fully aspirated and accented Greek - and they certainly couldn't handle right to left fully pointed Hebrew. And so the software has it's own font generator and formatter - this will make porting easier. The data collection is through the standard windows routines - I don't porting as too difficult. BUT are there not Windows simulators on MAC's that could be used. Performance is not a problem as it runs well on my steam driven 486 - yes people still use them. I would see the Internet as a distributor of verses that would be transferred, stored and maintained on local machines - rather than the software running on the host machines itself. Not everyone has free local calls! My project is to develop, debug and make the software available. Other than test data (most likely the papyrii of John) I have no intention of entering large amounts of data. This is for the TC community to undertake. The software is designed to allow different individuals to enter different collations and then pool them to be merged, approved and distributed by editors. The software has two distinct areas - published data which is fixed - unpublished local data which can be changed. It is up to those who hold Copyright to catch the vision and join in. I see the project as more akin to IGNTP than UBS or NA though. My other intention is to write convertors and/or to publish an independant transfer language so that data that already exists in digital form can be checked and amalgamated withour rekeying. OCR is not yet an option - it is not reliable enough from what I have seen. I have seen the manuscript program and spoken to Bruce Morril about it. It is a fine tool for collation. It does not clash though with the role of my software which is to take the collations and apparatus and then provide an attractive useful interface for those who wish to use such data. I think an alpha version will be available in the autumn (fall) with some test data - if anyone is at SNTS I will be around and willing to demonstate. Hope that answers your questions. Regards Mike Bossingham Maidenhead by the Thames in England. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Apr 10 12:04:33 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA00038; Thu, 10 Apr 1997 12:04:32 -0400 From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" Organization: Divinity Faculty To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 17:04:14 +000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Alexandrian text Priority: normal References: In-reply-to: X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.52) Message-ID: Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 573 The thing to beware of is assuming that a given ms consistently witnesses any one text type across various NT writings (or, sometimes, even across a single NT writing). E.g., Codex W shows interesting levels of agreement with D in Mk 1-5, but thereafter doesn't, aligning with P45 and not particularly with any other control witness I've used. Likewise, Codex A varies its affiliations across the NT. Etc. L. W. Hurtado University of Edinburgh, New College Mound Place Edinburgh, Scotland EH1 2LX Phone: 0131-650-8920 Fax: 0131-650-6579 E-mail: L.Hurtado@ed.ac.uk From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Apr 10 12:31:02 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA00104; Thu, 10 Apr 1997 12:31:02 -0400 From: BillCombs@aol.com Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 12:31:56 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <970410122927_1917810494@emout10.mail.aol.com> To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Bart Ehrman's e-mail address Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 119 Could someone give me Bart Ehrman's e-mail address? Bill Combs Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary BillCombs@aol.com From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Apr 10 12:38:18 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA00126; Thu, 10 Apr 1997 12:38:17 -0400 Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 11:38:29 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <199704101638.LAA00333@homer.bethel.edu> X-Sender: holmic@mailhost.bethel.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: Michael Holmes Subject: Re: Bart Ehrman's e-mail address Cc: BillCombs@aol.com Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 190 At 12:31 PM 4/10/97 -0400, you wrote: >Could someone give me Bart Ehrman's e-mail address? > >Bill Combs >Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary >BillCombs@aol.com > > behrman@email.unc.edu From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Apr 10 13:28:25 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA00312; Thu, 10 Apr 1997 13:28:24 -0400 Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 10:10:57 -0400 From: Mike Bossingham Subject: Re: A big idea To: tc list Message-ID: <199704101011_MC2-140F-5F2E@compuserve.com> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2449 Hi, Thanks for all the comments and questions. Here I hope are some answers. Sorry MAC users but the PC is the obvious choice for 95% of machines out there are PC's with Windows. The language is C, used in a very simplistic way - so I guess it would port quite easily. It does not use Windows fonts - I doubted that it could handle fully aspirated and accented Greek - and they certainly couldn't handle right to left fully pointed Hebrew. And so the software has it's own font generator and formatter - this will make porting easier. The data collection is through the standard windows routines - I don't porting as too difficult. BUT are there not Windows simulators on MAC's that could be used. Performance is not a problem as it runs well on my steam driven 486 - yes people still use them. I would see the Internet as a distributor of verses that would be transferred, stored and maintained on local machines - rather than the software running on the host machines itself. Not everyone has free local calls! My project is to develop, debug and make the software available. Other than test data (most likely the papyrii of John) I have no intention of entering large amounts of data. This is for the TC community to undertake. The software is designed to allow different individuals to enter different collations and then pool them to be merged, approved and distributed by editors. The software has two distinct areas - published data which is fixed - unpublished local data which can be changed. It is up to those who hold Copyright to catch the vision and join in. I see the project as more akin to IGNTP than UBS or NA though. My other intention is to write convertors and/or to publish an independant transfer language so that data that already exists in digital form can be checked and amalgamated withour rekeying. OCR is not yet an option - it is not reliable enough from what I have seen. I have seen the manuscript program and spoken to Bruce Morril about it. It is a fine tool for collation. It does not clash though with the role of my software which is to take the collations and apparatus and then provide an attractive useful interface for those who wish to use such data. I think an alpha version will be available in the autumn (fall) with some test data - if anyone is at SNTS I will be around and willing to demonstate. Hope that answers your questions. Regards Mike Bossingham Maidenhead by the Thames in England. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Apr 10 13:44:54 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA00375; Thu, 10 Apr 1997 13:44:54 -0400 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199704101011_MC2-140F-5F2E@compuserve.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 12:47:18 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: A big idea Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2274 On Thu, 10 Apr 1997, Mike Bossingham wrote: >Hi, > >Thanks for all the comments and questions. Here I hope are some answers. > >Sorry MAC users but the PC is the obvious choice for 95% of machines out >there are PC's with Windows. If you're going to be prejudiced, why not argue that Mac users are disproportionally scientists and engineers (true), and therefore less interested in Biblical subjects. :-) >The language is C, used in a very simplistic >way - so I guess it would port quite easily. It does not use Windows fonts >- I doubted that it could handle fully aspirated and accented Greek - and >they certainly couldn't handle right to left fully pointed Hebrew. And so >the software has it's own font generator and formatter - this will make >porting easier. The data collection is through the standard windows >routines - I don't porting as too difficult. BUT are there not Windows >simulators on MAC's that could be used. Performance is not a problem as it >runs well on my steam driven 486 - yes people still use them. > >I would see the Internet as a distributor of verses that would be >transferred, stored and maintained on local machines - rather than the >software running on the host machines itself. Not everyone has free local >calls! Not everyone has Windows, either. I know a guy who still accesses the Internet through an Apple II. (Don't ask me how he does it.) That's why I think making the data available over the Net is so important. And that makes UNIX important. (Note that I say this as someone who *does not* use UNIX.) I realize that asking you to port to a system you don't own is a problem. But I would hope that you would avoid getting too PC-specific. And keep the I/O routines in separate functions. Not that I have the right to dictate, of course. I just hope that you'll keep this in mind, so that those of us who port it will have a better chance.... -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A very rough draft of part of the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Apr 10 13:44:57 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA00390; Thu, 10 Apr 1997 13:44:57 -0400 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 12:39:16 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Alexandrian text Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2839 On Thu, 10 Apr 1997, "Ronald L. Minton" wrote: >On Thu, 10 Apr 1997, Robert B. Waltz wrote: >> On Wed, 9 Apr 1997, "Ronald L. Minton" wrote: >> >I have checked almost all of the uncials as cataloged in Metzger and >> >Aland, and the answer is very few indeed. I can check the list I >> >composed tomorrow. >> >> I concede that the uncials are rather few (L, Delta in Mark, Psi in >> part, P2 in part, 0243, etc.) But there are hundreds of minuscules. > >According to my notes (mostly based on Aland), the Alexandrian [not mixed] >uncials are Aleph & B (4th), 057 (4th/5th), 048 (5th), 0254 (5th), 098 >(7th, & only 11 vss). >I have not surveyed them as much, but I have found that few minuscules are >Alexandrian: 33 (not in gospels), 1739 (not Acts), 1175 (not gen ep), >1243 (gosp), 1241 (gosp), 2053, 2062, 2427. Note that on some of these, >I went by Aland's variant statistics, which do not always equal his >categories. > >Corrections and additions are welcomed. I'm going to have to give a nuanced answer to this, since I do not use the "standard" definition of the Alexandrian text. Aland's definition is inclusive (non-Byzantine non-Western); mine is more restrictive. But I am troubled by casting out mixed manuscripts. The fact that, say, 33 is not purely Alexandrian in the Gospels does not mean it is not descended from the Alexandrian text. It *is* descended from the Alexandrian text, with a heavily Byzantine mixture. It should be consulted in determining the history of the Alexandrian text. If you want manuscripts which have *no* Byzantine influence, I concede the list is short. In the Gospels, p45 p66 p75 Aleph B 2427 D (the first of these being a wild text and the last being "Western"). In Paul, p46 Aleph A B C D F G I 33 (except in Romans) 1739. And of these, only Aleph A C 33 are Alexandrian. In the Catholics, p72 Aleph A B C 33 1739, and C 1739 are not Alexandrian, and p72 B may not be. But let's take Paul. Even if we exclude non-Byzantine non-Alexandrian witnesses, we find the following manuscripts to be *predominantly* Alexandrian (and this omits fragments): Aleph A C I 33 (except in Romans) 81 1175 (except in Romans and Thessalonians) 2127 Also the Bohairic Coptic. I could add a list of at least 40 in which the Alexandrian elements constitute at least a third of the total (the rest of family 2127; 442; 1962; etc.) Why must a manuscript be *purely* Alexandrian to be "Alexandrian"? -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A very rough draft of part of the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Apr 10 14:38:56 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA00580; Thu, 10 Apr 1997 14:38:56 -0400 Message-Id: <9704101939.AA25122@iris.arcadis.be> Subject: Re: A big idea Date: Thu, 10 Apr 97 20:43:27 +0200 X-Sender: vale5655@194.111.178.251 X-Mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1 From: Jean VALENTIN To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1001 >If you're going to be prejudiced, why not argue that Mac users are >disproportionally scientists and engineers (true), and therefore >less interested in Biblical subjects. :-) > Oh really? Bob, the glory of the macintosh is its WorldScript technology, allowing writing in middle-eastern languages very easily. Most Orientalists here in Europe prefer the Mac. In fact, all my colleagues and teachers in Belgium have a Mac... It's just a remark of course :-) ________________________________________________________________ Jean Valentin - 58/7 rue Van Kalck - 1080 Bruxelles - BELGIQUE ________________________________________________________________ email : jgvalentin@arcadis.be *** netmail : 2:291/780.103 ________________________________________________________________ Ce qui est trop simple est faux, ce qui est trop complique est inutilisable. What's too simple is wrong, what's too complicated is unusable. Wat te eenvoudig is, is verkeerd; wat te ingewikkeld is, is onbruikbaar. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Apr 10 15:12:02 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA00746; Thu, 10 Apr 1997 15:12:01 -0400 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <9704101939.AA25122@iris.arcadis.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 14:14:17 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Macs; also a question about this list (Was: Re: A big idea) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2134 On Thu, 10 Apr 97, Jean VALENTIN wrote: >>If you're going to be prejudiced, why not argue that Mac users are >>disproportionally scientists and engineers (true), and therefore >>less interested in Biblical subjects. :-) >> >Oh really? Bob, the glory of the macintosh is its WorldScript technology, >allowing writing in middle-eastern languages very easily. Most >Orientalists here in Europe prefer the Mac. In fact, all my colleagues >and teachers in Belgium have a Mac... It's just a remark of course :-) Hey... I was *defending* the Mac. *Of course* WorldScript makes it better for Hebrew... or Aramaic... or Armenian... or Georgian... or Ethiopic... or any other language which does not use the Roman alphabet. This apart from the fact that it's generally better than Windows anyway. :-) But it's still true that scientists use Macs more often than business people... scientists want the *best* tool for the job, and the fact that business people like IBM PCs is hardly a recommendation for them. I'm amazed it constitutes a recommendation for TCers. :-) Obligatory TC content: The graphics and HTML files on my Encycopedia site are entirely written on a Macintosh. They're served on a UNIX machine. No Microsoft products were used in this process. On an unrelated point: I sent a long response about a week ago to a post of Maurice Robinson's. It never showed up, and I never received a bounce. I notice that Maurice said something about having troubles with long messages, too. The message wasn't really important (which is just as well, since I didn't keep a copy). But it does leave me wondering: Have others had trouble sending long messages to this list? Is there a restriction on message size that I didn't notice in the FAQ? Or is it just me? -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A very rough draft of part of the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Apr 10 15:31:00 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA00837; Thu, 10 Apr 1997 15:30:59 -0400 Date: 10 Apr 1997 19:29:27 -0000 Message-ID: <19970410192927.4190.qmail@np.nosc.mil> From: Vincent Broman To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu In-reply-to: (jeneewd@dmci.net) Subject: Re: Greek symbols Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 863 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Thanks for input. I've put the Unicode encoding information for the WinGreek v1.9 type 1 greek font at http://sd.znet.com/~broman/wingreek.txt and included caveats and explanations. Suggestions and corrections to me. Vincent Broman Email: broman@nosc.mil,broman@sd.znet.com = 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 ___ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBM006zmCU4mTNq7IdAQGuOAP9FfedEqBHD50/B9XLbd/hrX41XUfHLfJ7 cf/0l+gWiywXpc/AP1FAtX1v1lCSNs1julawSwat8JDTVX/zNdA+4a6ucXjLdO4p F3PLnNiVrW81XBeaXuZSO2gC4x/l6mW2sBHcaGN+gzh9pQrtPL7/CRMmdgEhC23v mCqPqWtxWVg= =QCoW -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Apr 10 16:35:34 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA00984; Thu, 10 Apr 1997 16:35:34 -0400 Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 16:35:33 -0400 (EDT) From: "James R. Adair" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Macs; also a question about this list In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1863 On Thu, 10 Apr 1997, Robert B. Waltz wrote: > But it's still true that scientists use Macs more often than business > people... scientists want the *best* tool for the job, and the fact > that business people like IBM PCs is hardly a recommendation for > them. I'm amazed it constitutes a recommendation for TCers. :-) > > Obligatory TC content: The graphics and HTML files on my Encycopedia > site are entirely written on a Macintosh. They're served on a UNIX > machine. No Microsoft products were used in this process. I might add that the TC journal, as well as most of the maintenance of this list, are done on a Mac, although the server is a Sun (running Unix). > On an unrelated point: I sent a long response about a week ago to > a post of Maurice Robinson's. It never showed up, and I never > received a bounce. I notice that Maurice said something about > having troubles with long messages, too. > > The message wasn't really important (which is just as well, since > I didn't keep a copy). But it does leave me wondering: Have others > had trouble sending long messages to this list? Is there a restriction > on message size that I didn't notice in the FAQ? Or is it just me? There is a 20,000 byte message limit, but if you send a message that is too long, both you (as sender) and I (as listowner) should get a BOUNCE message. I don't remember seeing one from you (I did see Maurice's, and sent it through to the list), and since you didn't get a BOUNCE message, either, my guess is that the message was lost in transit and never reached the server on this end. Try sending it again, and we'll see what happens. Jimmy Adair, Listowner, TC-List 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 owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Apr 10 22:07:36 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA01572; Thu, 10 Apr 1997 22:07:36 -0400 Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 21:08:23 -0500 (CDT) From: "Ronald L. Minton" X-Sender: rminton@orionc0 To: "Robert B. Waltz" cc: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Alexandrian text In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1899 On Thu, 10 Apr 1997, Robert B. Waltz wrote (in part): > But I am troubled by casting out mixed manuscripts. The fact that, > say, 33 is not purely Alexandrian in the Gospels does not mean it > is not descended from the Alexandrian text. It *is* descended > from the Alexandrian text, with a heavily Byzantine mixture. It > should be consulted in determining the history of the Alexandrian > text. I fully agree on the mixed part. (However, I do not think the Alexandrian readings were usually before the Byz). > If you want manuscripts which have *no* Byzantine influence, I > concede the list is short. In the Gospels, p45 p66 p75 Aleph B 2427 > D (the first of these being a wild text and the last being "Western"). > In Paul, p46 Aleph A B C D F G I 33 (except in Romans) 1739. And > of these, only Aleph A C 33 are Alexandrian. In the Catholics, p72 Aleph > A B C 33 1739, and C 1739 are not Alexandrian, and p72 B may not be. > > But let's take Paul. Even if we exclude non-Byzantine non-Alexandrian > witnesses, we find the following manuscripts to be *predominantly* > Alexandrian (and this omits fragments): > > Aleph > A > C > I > 33 (except in Romans) > 81 > 1175 (except in Romans and Thessalonians) > 2127 > Also the Bohairic Coptic. > > I could add a list of at least 40 in which the Alexandrian elements > constitute at least a third of the total (the rest of family 2127; > 442; 1962; etc.) > > Why must a manuscript be *purely* Alexandrian to be "Alexandrian"? I agree. If fact if a manuscript had to be purely Alexandrian to be "Alexandrian," There would be a total of zero (does P52 qualify?). I was amazed at the number of mixed uncials, by far the largest category, with Byz second, unknowns third, and Alex fourth. -- Prof. Ron Minton: rminton@mail.orion.org W (417)268-6053 H 833-9581 Baptist Bible Graduate School 628 E. Kearney St. Springfield, MO 65803 From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Apr 11 04:09:23 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id EAA02020; Fri, 11 Apr 1997 04:09:23 -0400 From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" Organization: Divinity Faculty To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 09:09:30 +000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Alexandrian text Priority: normal References: In-reply-to: X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.52) Message-ID: Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1262 R. Minton wrote: (in part) > I fully agree on the mixed part. (However, I do not think the Alexandrian > readings were usually before the Byz). It's a free world (scholarship) to think what you like, but one is usually expected to provide evidence & rationale if one wishes a view to gain any acceptance. Have you done (or can you do) this? And while you're at it, please give your definitions of "Alexandrian readings" and "Byzantine readings". > > > I agree. If fact if a manuscript had to be purely Alexandrian to be > "Alexandrian," There would be a total of zero (does P52 qualify?). > I was amazed at the number of mixed uncials, by far the largest category, > with Byz second, unknowns third, and Alex fourth. As someone who with others has worked to develop and implement more exact methods for determining ms alignments, I'd like to see the discussants here define what they mean by "purely Alexandrian" and "mixed", etc. Along with this, I'd like to see what they mean by "text-type". I'm sorry but there seem to be too many ill/un-defined categories at work here. L. W. Hurtado University of Edinburgh, New College Mound Place Edinburgh, Scotland EH1 2LX Phone: 0131-650-8920 Fax: 0131-650-6579 E-mail: L.Hurtado@ed.ac.uk From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Apr 11 09:42:47 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA02673; Fri, 11 Apr 1997 09:42:46 -0400 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 08:44:18 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Alexandrian text Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1364 On Fri, 11 Apr 1997, "Professor L.W. Hurtado" wrote, in part: >> I agree. If fact if a manuscript had to be purely Alexandrian to be >> "Alexandrian," There would be a total of zero (does P52 qualify?). >> I was amazed at the number of mixed uncials, by far the largest category, >> with Byz second, unknowns third, and Alex fourth. > >As someone who with others has worked to develop and implement more >exact methods for determining ms alignments, I'd like to see the >discussants here define what they mean by "purely Alexandrian" and >"mixed", etc. Along with this, I'd like to see what they mean by >"text-type". I'm sorry but there seem to be too many ill/un-defined >categories at work here. I obviously can't speak for Minton. But *my* opinions on the above points are available for all to see at the Encyclopedia web site. Look at the article on text-types. It doesn't give a perfect answer, but it *does* show my thinking (which, I fear, does not agree with Hurtado's). -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A very rough draft of part of the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Apr 11 09:42:49 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA02689; Fri, 11 Apr 1997 09:42:49 -0400 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 08:15:30 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Alexandrian text Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 3699 On Thu, 10 Apr 1997, "Ronald L. Minton" wrote: >On Thu, 10 Apr 1997, Robert B. Waltz wrote (in part): >> But I am troubled by casting out mixed manuscripts. The fact that, >> say, 33 is not purely Alexandrian in the Gospels does not mean it >> is not descended from the Alexandrian text. It *is* descended >> from the Alexandrian text, with a heavily Byzantine mixture. It >> should be consulted in determining the history of the Alexandrian >> text. > >I fully agree on the mixed part. (However, I do not think the Alexandrian >readings were usually before the Byz). As I said in a previous reply to Maurice Robinson, I personally don't consider the *order* of mixture to be generally important (though it may affect our assessment of particular readings). The point is, 33 has both Alexandrian and Byzantine ancestry. > >> If you want manuscripts which have *no* Byzantine influence, I >> concede the list is short. In the Gospels, p45 p66 p75 Aleph B 2427 >> D (the first of these being a wild text and the last being "Western"). >> In Paul, p46 Aleph A B C D F G I 33 (except in Romans) 1739. And >> of these, only Aleph A C 33 are Alexandrian. In the Catholics, p72 Aleph >> A B C 33 1739, and C 1739 are not Alexandrian, and p72 B may not be. BTW -- I should probably have added 1506 in Paul. It's hard to be sure, since it's such a short fragment and has so many defects. But it certainly has a very strong Alexandrian text. (In the gospels, by contrast, it is entirely Byzantine.) [ ... ] >> Why must a manuscript be *purely* Alexandrian to be "Alexandrian"? > >I agree. If fact if a manuscript had to be purely Alexandrian to be >"Alexandrian," There would be a total of zero (does P52 qualify?). >I was amazed at the number of mixed uncials, by far the largest category, >with Byz second, unknowns third, and Alex fourth. Two comments: First, we cannot really be sure of the nature of a fragment. So p52 shouldn't qualify as *anything.* Also, one cannot call "mixed" a text-type. No two cases of mixture are the same. Nor is it a useful classification. It doesn't tell us what is mixed with what. If I were preparing this catalog, I would list mixed manuscripts in *both* categories which they are derived from. That is, taking 33 as our example, I would list it as both Alexandrian (mixed with Byzantine) and Byzantine (mixed with Alexandrian). Also, I would ask why it is surprising that mixed texts are common. Take human beings as an analogy. How many people are descended from only one nationality? I personally am English, Scottish, and German -- just on my father's side! (My mother is adopted, so we don't know that side.) Obviously manuscripts don't *have to* have multiple parents. But most of them do. Mixture -- whether deliberate or sporadic -- is everywhere. One of the great tasks of the textual critic (all too often forgotten) is to *deal with* this mixture. This is why, for instance, I maintain that calculating percentages of overall agreement between manuscripts is such a weak method. It ignores mixture. It is why I say that Hurtado's study of the Caesarean text and Richards's study of the Catholic Epistles are incomplete: They ignore mixture. But this is probably getting off-topic for this post. If anybody cares to continue this discussion, I'll harangue you later. :-) -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A very rough draft of part of the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Apr 11 09:42:51 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA02702; Fri, 11 Apr 1997 09:42:51 -0400 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 08:19:56 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Macs; also a question about this list Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1869 On Thu, 10 Apr 1997, "James R. Adair" wrote, in part: >On Thu, 10 Apr 1997, Robert B. Waltz wrote: [ ... ] >> On an unrelated point: I sent a long response about a week ago to >> a post of Maurice Robinson's. It never showed up, and I never >> received a bounce. I notice that Maurice said something about >> having troubles with long messages, too. >> >> The message wasn't really important (which is just as well, since >> I didn't keep a copy). But it does leave me wondering: Have others >> had trouble sending long messages to this list? Is there a restriction >> on message size that I didn't notice in the FAQ? Or is it just me? > >There is a 20,000 byte message limit, but if you send a message that is >too long, both you (as sender) and I (as listowner) should get a BOUNCE >message. I don't remember seeing one from you (I did see Maurice's, and >sent it through to the list), and since you didn't get a BOUNCE message, >either, my guess is that the message was lost in transit and never reached >the server on this end. Try sending it again, and we'll see what happens. Unfortunately, I didn't keep a copy. It was 16K long, but not too important. Another of these point-by-point arguments with Robinson, in which we both restated our positions in detail. The one thing I do remember is that Robinson commented that he merely listened to and sometimes sang traditional music. I would say that that is much more important than my work as a traditional music scholar. If more people kept singing the songs, we wouldn't need the scholars. :-) Though the idea of Robinson singing "Sheath and Knife" is almost beyond my ability to imagine. But he probably doesn't sing it (and since chances are that none of you know it, I refuse to explain, lest people throw me off the list...). :-) Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Apr 11 11:09:13 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA03148; Fri, 11 Apr 1997 11:09:13 -0400 From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" Organization: Divinity Faculty To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 16:04:16 +000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Alexandrian text Priority: normal In-reply-to: References: X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.52) Message-ID: Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1747 Robt. Waltz wrote (in part): > Mixture -- whether deliberate or sporadic -- is everywhere. > One of the great tasks of the textual critic (all too often forgotten) > is to *deal with* this mixture. > > This is why, for instance, I maintain that calculating percentages of > overall agreement between manuscripts is such a weak method. It ignores > mixture. It is why I say that Hurtado's study of the Caesarean text > and Richards's study of the Catholic Epistles are incomplete: They > ignore mixture. I'm sure there is much more to say about Codex W and P45 and the nature of the text they evidence than I have written, but I reject the assertion that I "ignore mixture", or that my study merely counted "overall agreement between manuscripts". First, I specifically called for, and conducted, a study that involved *both* careful quantitative assessment of ms agreements (as per the Colwell-Tune approach refined by Fee), and also *analysis* of agreements, with a view toward asessing such things as varying degrees of relationship (it's not a binary in/out thing, guys) and the types of readings that characterize agreements. Thus, e.g., in the case of the mss I studied in my 1981 volume, I pointed out the mixture of apparent influences/alignments and the degrees thereof. I attempted to note more precisely than in earlier studies where the shift in textual alignment in Mark in Codex W takes place (earlier, I argued, in Mk 5 than otherwise thought). So, I can only conclude that Mr. Waltz's one-line ref. to my work betrays a lack of careful reading of it. L. W. Hurtado University of Edinburgh, New College Mound Place Edinburgh, Scotland EH1 2LX Phone: 0131-650-8920 Fax: 0131-650-6579 E-mail: L.Hurtado@ed.ac.uk From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Apr 11 13:03:03 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA03408; Fri, 11 Apr 1997 13:03:03 -0400 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 11:24:04 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Alexandrian text Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 3025 Here we go again... People who have already read what I have to say about this can ignore it. On Fri, 11 Apr 1997, "Professor L.W. Hurtado" wrote: >Robt. Waltz wrote (in part): > >> Mixture -- whether deliberate or sporadic -- is everywhere. >> One of the great tasks of the textual critic (all too often forgotten) >> is to *deal with* this mixture. >> >> This is why, for instance, I maintain that calculating percentages of >> overall agreement between manuscripts is such a weak method. It ignores >> mixture. It is why I say that Hurtado's study of the Caesarean text >> and Richards's study of the Catholic Epistles are incomplete: They >> ignore mixture. > >I'm sure there is much more to say about Codex W and P45 and the >nature of the text they evidence than I have written, but I reject >the assertion that I "ignore mixture", or that my study merely >counted "overall agreement between manuscripts". >First, I specifically called for, and conducted, a study that >involved *both* careful quantitative assessment of ms agreements (as >per the Colwell-Tune approach refined by Fee), and also *analysis* of >agreements, with a view toward asessing such things as varying >degrees of relationship (it's not a binary in/out thing, guys) and >the types of readings that characterize agreements. Thus, e.g., in >the case of the mss I studied in my 1981 volume, I pointed out the >mixture of apparent influences/alignments and the degrees thereof. >I attempted to note more precisely than in earlier studies where the >shift in textual alignment in Mark in Codex W takes place (earlier, I >argued, in Mk 5 than otherwise thought). >So, I can only conclude that Mr. Waltz's one-line ref. to my work >betrays a lack of careful reading of it. I have read it in full twice, and checked it in part at other times. The reason that I say it ignores mixture is that it *ignores Streeter's definition of the "Caesarean" text.* Streeter defined that text as the non-Byzantine readings found in Theta, 565, 700, 28, family 1, family 13, etc. Now it may be argued that this is a bad definition. As used by Streeter, it *was* a bad definition, since he used the TR to define the Byzantine text. But it is a usable definition. And nowhere that I have seen does Hurtado examine the "Caesearean" text according to this definition -- i.e. making an examination of the "Caesarean" witnesses and their level of agreement *where they are non-Byzantine.* I do not claim to know the result of such a study. I have hints, but no more. All I say -- as I have said many times -- is that Hurtado has not done it. That, in my book, is ignoring mixture. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A very rough draft of part of the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Apr 11 14:32:31 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA03748; Fri, 11 Apr 1997 14:32:30 -0400 Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 14:29:47 -0400 (EDT) From: Bart Ehrman X-Sender: behrman@login1.isis.unc.edu To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Classifying witnesses (was Alexandrian Text) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 4533 I have to weigh in heavily on Larry Hurtado's side on this one (sorry Larry! :-)). The problems with taking "non-Byzantine" readings of any set of witnesses, Caesarean or otherwise, as an indication of textual consanguinity have been thoroughly exposed and widely recognized by practicioners in this field for most of the second half of the century. In fact, the problems became evident precisely in work on the Caesarean text in an article by Bruce Metzger (to my knowledge, the only serious methodological contribution that he made to this particular aspect of the discipline -- but it was a biggee), "The Caesarean Text of the Gospels," _JBL 65 (1945) 457-89. In large measure it was just these problems that Metzger recognized that led Colwell (and Tune) to develop the quantitative method that is so widely used today, as revised a bit by Fee and others. The arguments against Streeter's approach (used also by the Lakes, among others) are so overwhelming that no one, to my knowledge, uses it today (at least in nothing that's been published). Anyone interested in pursuing this matter should read the articles on manuscript classification by Colwell in his Studies in Methodology (NTTS, 9) and by Fee in Fee and Epp's _Methodology_ volume in SD. -- Bart D. Ehrman, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill On Fri, 11 Apr 1997, Robert B. Waltz wrote: > Here we go again... People who have already read what I have to say > about this can ignore it. > > On Fri, 11 Apr 1997, "Professor L.W. Hurtado" wrote: > > >Robt. Waltz wrote (in part): > > > >> Mixture -- whether deliberate or sporadic -- is everywhere. > >> One of the great tasks of the textual critic (all too often forgotten) > >> is to *deal with* this mixture. > >> > >> This is why, for instance, I maintain that calculating percentages of > >> overall agreement between manuscripts is such a weak method. It ignores > >> mixture. It is why I say that Hurtado's study of the Caesarean text > >> and Richards's study of the Catholic Epistles are incomplete: They > >> ignore mixture. > > > >I'm sure there is much more to say about Codex W and P45 and the > >nature of the text they evidence than I have written, but I reject > >the assertion that I "ignore mixture", or that my study merely > >counted "overall agreement between manuscripts". > >First, I specifically called for, and conducted, a study that > >involved *both* careful quantitative assessment of ms agreements (as > >per the Colwell-Tune approach refined by Fee), and also *analysis* of > >agreements, with a view toward asessing such things as varying > >degrees of relationship (it's not a binary in/out thing, guys) and > >the types of readings that characterize agreements. Thus, e.g., in > >the case of the mss I studied in my 1981 volume, I pointed out the > >mixture of apparent influences/alignments and the degrees thereof. > >I attempted to note more precisely than in earlier studies where the > >shift in textual alignment in Mark in Codex W takes place (earlier, I > >argued, in Mk 5 than otherwise thought). > >So, I can only conclude that Mr. Waltz's one-line ref. to my work > >betrays a lack of careful reading of it. > > I have read it in full twice, and checked it in part at other times. > > The reason that I say it ignores mixture is that it *ignores > Streeter's definition of the "Caesarean" text.* > > Streeter defined that text as the non-Byzantine readings found in > Theta, 565, 700, 28, family 1, family 13, etc. > > Now it may be argued that this is a bad definition. As used by Streeter, > it *was* a bad definition, since he used the TR to define the Byzantine > text. But it is a usable definition. And nowhere that I have seen does > Hurtado examine the "Caesearean" text according to this definition -- > i.e. making an examination of the "Caesarean" witnesses and their > level of agreement *where they are non-Byzantine.* > > I do not claim to know the result of such a study. I have hints, but no > more. All I say -- as I have said many times -- is that Hurtado has not > done it. That, in my book, is ignoring mixture. > > -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- > > Robert B. Waltz > waltzmn@skypoint.com > > Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? > Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn > (A very rough draft of part of the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) > > From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Apr 11 15:53:02 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA04043; Fri, 11 Apr 1997 15:53:02 -0400 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 14:54:36 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Classifying witnesses (was Alexandrian Text) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 5968 On Fri, 11 Apr 1997, Bart Ehrman wrote: > I have to weigh in heavily on Larry Hurtado's side on this one (sorry >Larry! :-)). The problems with taking "non-Byzantine" readings of any set >of witnesses, Caesarean or otherwise, as an indication of textual >consanguinity have been thoroughly exposed and widely recognized by >practicioners in this field for most of the second half of the century. >In fact, the problems became evident precisely in work on the Caesarean >text in an article by Bruce Metzger (to my knowledge, the only serious >methodological contribution that he made to this particular aspect of the >discipline -- but it was a biggee), "The Caesarean Text of the Gospels," >_JBL 65 (1945) 457-89. In large measure it was just these problems >that Metzger recognized that led Colwell (and Tune) to develop the >quantitative method that is so widely used today, as revised a bit by Fee >and others. The arguments against Streeter's approach (used also by the >Lakes, among others) are so overwhelming that no one, to my knowledge, >uses it today (at least in nothing that's been published). > > Anyone interested in pursuing this matter should read the articles on >manuscript classification by Colwell in his Studies in Methodology (NTTS, >9) and by Fee in Fee and Epp's _Methodology_ volume in SD. Time for me to get the acetylene torches out. Yes, I'm going to spout off. This is exactly why textual criticism hasn't gone anywhere for decades. Why is it that everyone quotes Colwell and Tune day in and day out, and never quotes anything else of Colwell's? Can anyone cite a single instance, outside of the work done in Colwell and Tune, of Colwell using the "quantitative method"? (Which name, BTW, should be abolished; *any* mathematical method is quantitative.) I can't claim to have seen everything he has written, but I haven't seen such a thing. I think Colwell gave up on it when he realized how flawed it was. Let me quote some *better* passages from Colwell: "Weak members of a Text-type may contain no more of the total content of a text-type than strong members of some other text-type may contain. The comparison in total agreements of one manuscript with another manuscript has little significance beyond that of confirmation, and then only if the agreement is large enough to be distinctive." (Studies in Methodology, page 33) Even better is the quote from page 39 of the same book: "In conclusion I suggest that the location of a manuscript within the tradition should use Multiple Readings to find the related group, Distinctive Readings to demonstrate the kinship, and total comparison to confirm the relationship." In other words, Colwell advocates a multiple-statistic method of determining manuscript kinship. He never really put this on a mathematically sound footing (not many TC shcolars seem to like math much...), but the idea is there. My version uses total agreements, non-Byzantine agreements, and near-singular agreements; it's similar in concept if not in detail. There is, of course, a terrible defect in the method of the Lakes and Streeter: They worked on the basis that the Textus Receptus *is* the Byzantine text. This means that they often called Byzantine readings "Caesarean" and vice versa. But that does not invalidate the method. It seems to me that people have used it successfully on a small scale to reconstruct manuscript families -- and nobody said that it doesn't work *there*. Take a thought-experiment. Suppose there were a manuscript X that was a perfect representative of a hypothetical Ephesian text-type. Make two copies of X; call them Y and Z. Now *correct them* each against the Byzantine text. In each case, let exactly half the characteristic Ephesian readings be replaced by Byzantine. In each case, replace readings at random. (This is what really happens.) Now make more copies: A from Y and B from Z. Now *destroy* X, Y, Z, and every other example of the Ephesian text-type except A and B. This is by no means impossible; people consider the "Western" to be a text-type in the Gospels even though its only Greek representative is D. What, then, is the relationship of A and B? If you know anything about statistics, you will realize that their rate of agreement is roughly 50% (25% in Byzantine readings and 25% in Ephesian readings). In the other 50% of the cases one is Byzantine and one is Ephesian. By the argument advanced above, A and B are unrelated and the Ephesian text-type not only does not exist, but apparently *never* existed. If this isn't absurd, I don't know what is. But how can you find the Ephesian text-type? Only by looking at the non-Byzantine readings of A and B. The fact that Lake, Streeter, et al used an uncontrolled form of this procedure doesn't make the method wrong. It just makes the measurements wrong. Does the fact that Columbus incorrectly thought the circumference of the earth was 18,000 miles mean that the earth is not spherical? (Well, an oblate spheroid.) It the same sort of argument. Once again, I have treated this argument much more fully in my article on text-types at the Encyclopedia site. I'd really suggest people try to follow some logic here, not just repeat the same old refrains. I won't say that everyone is blind to this. I think that Epp sees this problem (see his various essays on the "Interlude" in TC). I will try not to say any more on this topic. (Not a promise, but I will try.) I would appeal to people to conduct the thought- experiment I outlined. If that doesn't make it obvious, I don't know what else I can say. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A very rough draft of part of the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Apr 11 16:35:52 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA04164; Fri, 11 Apr 1997 16:35:52 -0400 From: fsung@chass.utoronto.ca (Felix Sung) Message-Id: <199704112036.QAA28367@chass.utoronto.ca> Subject: Re: a Big Idea To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 16:36:50 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: from "ANDREW SMITH" at Apr 10, 97 05:39:52 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 959 > But couldn't he use an older edition of those text, along with its > critical apparatus, because its copyright will have expired? Many of the > less expensive software packages use editions and text and their related > apparatus which are no longer copyright-protected. There's a big step up > in prices when you purchase those CD-ROM's which have copyrighted > material. Short of obtaining permission from the copyright holder, he can't, unless he's willing to use the critical apparatus from a very early (and therefore, badly outdated) edition of the NA, because copyrights remain in force despite the publication of new editions. Furthermore, the copyright holder owns *ALL* publication rights, regardless of medium, except those specifically excluded in the contract between the author(s) and the publisher. Felix Sung Wycliffe College fsung@epas.utoronto.ca Toronto School of Theology From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Apr 11 23:37:53 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id XAA04729; Fri, 11 Apr 1997 23:37:52 -0400 Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 22:38:34 -0500 (CDT) From: "Ronald L. Minton" X-Sender: rminton@orionc0 To: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" cc: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Alexandrian text In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 3874 On Fri, 11 Apr 1997, Professor L.W. Hurtado wrote: > R. Minton wrote: (in part) > > > I fully agree on the mixed part. (However, I do not think the Alexandrian > > readings were usually before the Byz). > > It's a free world (scholarship) to think what you like, but one is > usually expected to provide evidence & rationale if one wishes a view > to gain any acceptance. Have you done (or can you do) this? Please note that I said "usually." Every textual theory has a lot of prejudice in it. The only ones I count as worthless are those held by people who think they have a corner on correctness. Such include those who still cling to the days of Tischendorf and Hort as well as those who say those men speak nothing of truth for us today. 100 years ago most text critics seem to have believed all five of the pillars of the W-Hort theory. Now all five are mostly dis-proven, at least to my satisfaction. I am not so arrogant as to suppose my theories will fare better, but they are certainly as viable as any others I am aware of. My rationale (on a quick note, the way I evaluate the evidence that I am aware of): (1)The origin of the Byz or Alex or any other text-type is unknown. (2)The important Alex text-type mss are generally older, but they are so diverse (self-contradicting) that they cannot give a solid, or at least the best, witness to the original text and they certainly do not give a clue as to a common origin. They are a mixture of who knows what. The variants in Aleph are over 25% Byz against Alex (and 50% of Aleph _can be_ classified as Byz). (3)The important BYZ representation is later, but the time difference has been overstated many times. (4)The BYZ is much more consistent among the many witnesses (some early). (5)If you can tell us where the Byz text came from, then you can possibly argue that it is later than some other text, otherwise your _guess_ is as good as mine, but IMHO it is not any better. > And while you're at it, please give your definitions of "Alexandrian > readings" and "Byzantine readings". > > I agree. If fact if a manuscript had to be purely Alexandrian to be > > "Alexandrian," There would be a total of zero (does P52 qualify?). > > I was amazed at the number of mixed uncials, by far the largest category, > > with Byz second, unknowns third, and Alex fourth. > > As someone who with others has worked to develop and implement more > exact methods for determining ms alignments, I'd like to see the > discussants here define what they mean by "purely Alexandrian" and > "mixed", etc. Along with this, I'd like to see what they mean by > "text-type". I'm sorry but there seem to be too many ill/un-defined > categories at work here. You are right, there probably is no such thing as a text-type. Some suggest we say text families or affinities or groupings. The truth is the text-type concept may even hinder us from objectivity. Though this is somewhat simplistic, I would basically agree with Aland and Hodges, both of whom essentially admit only two broad text-types, the Alex and the Byz. A text-type is a theoretical arch-type behind the actual mss that have similar enough texts to be grouped together. I suggest you refer to Epp & Fee ch. 3-4 in _Studies in the Theory and Method of NT T Cr_. I do not know the textual affinities of every ms. but the key players are well known enough to categorize the mss into text-types for that section. When the leading players agree, that is pure enough for me. However the tone of your post suggests that you are an expert in this area, and I am not one, so please do inform us more perfectly as to "purely Alexandrian" or "purely anything." -- Prof. Ron Minton: rminton@mail.orion.org W (417)268-6053 H 833-9581 Baptist Bible Graduate School 628 E. Kearney St. Springfield, MO 65803 From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Apr 11 23:50:56 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id XAA04831; Fri, 11 Apr 1997 23:50:56 -0400 Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 22:51:34 -0500 (CDT) From: "Ronald L. Minton" X-Sender: rminton@orionc0 To: "Robert B. Waltz" cc: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Alexandrian text In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 793 On Fri, 11 Apr 1997, Robert B. Waltz wrote: > I obviously can't speak for Minton. But *my* opinions on the above > points are available for all to see at the Encyclopedia web site. > Look at the article on text-types. It doesn't give a perfect answer, > but it *does* show my thinking (which, I fear, does not agree with > Hurtado's). I admit I had never read as good of a defense or perhaps explanation as Waltz gives of his categories. It is almost enough to make me a genuine multiple text-typer again, rather than just believing only two are legitimate. I am not consistent anyway, because I sometimes speak of Western and theta also. -- Prof. Ron Minton: rminton@mail.orion.org W (417)268-6053 H 833-9581 Baptist Bible Graduate School 628 E. Kearney St. Springfield, MO 65803 From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Apr 12 01:04:18 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id BAA04892; Sat, 12 Apr 1997 01:04:17 -0400 Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19970412040734.3d378a7a@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: scarlson@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 00:07:34 -0400 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu, Textual Criticism list From: "Stephen C. Carlson" Subject: Re: Versions and Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 845 At 10:09 4/7/97 -0500, Ronald L. Minton wrote: >I want to chart out the versions and select other ancient literature. >This is my initial effort, but I used some good and some novel sources. >Please find fault and send me your corrections and suggestions. Thanks > > SURVIVING MANUSCRIPTS OF ANCIENT AUTHORS > >AUTHORS WRITINGS APPROXIMATE EARLIEST TIME COPIES > DATE WRITTEN COPY-A.D SPAN EXTANT [...] >PLATO Various 427-347 B.C. 900 1,200 7 Weren't portions of Plato's republic discovered along with the Gospel of Thomas at Nag Hammadi? Stephen Carlson -- Stephen C. Carlson : Poetry speaks of aspirations, scarlson@mindspring.com : and songs chant the words. http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/ : -- Shujing 2.35 From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Apr 12 01:32:57 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id BAA04931; Sat, 12 Apr 1997 01:32:57 -0400 Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 01:33:56 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Macs; also a question about this list In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 955 On Fri, 11 Apr 1997, Robert B. Waltz wrote: > Though the idea of Robinson singing "Sheath and Knife" is almost > beyond my ability to imagine. But he probably doesn't sing it (and > since chances are that none of you know it, I refuse to explain, > lest people throw me off the list...). :-) Robinson would more likely sing "Silver Dagger" or "Gilgarra Mountain", but in any case, unless you really love the Bob Dylan style of vocal performance, you probably _don't_ want to hear Robinson sing, or you might throw me off the list also. My musical ability is the primary reason why I have a day job teaching textual criticism among other matters.... _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Apr 12 01:54:57 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id BAA04994; Sat, 12 Apr 1997 01:54:57 -0400 Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 01:55:56 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Classifying witnesses (was Alexandrian Text) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2346 On Fri, 11 Apr 1997, Bart Ehrman wrote: > I have to weigh in heavily on Larry Hurtado's side on this one It may be surprising to some, but so also do I, since I _do_ consider the quantitative analysis approach as superior to merely taking the non-Byzantine readings of MSS as the basis for building solid theories. Along with this agreement in regard to method, I also do consider that, on the basis of quantitative methodology (which I employed in a different manner than Colwell/Tune or Hurtado) used in my own unpublished M.Div. independent research studies (1972-1974) on the four gospels and in my 1975 Th.M. thesis on "Textual Interrelationships among Selected Ancient Witnesses to the Book of Acts"), that "near-neighbor cluster" groupings (John G. Griffith's term) legitimately _can_ be discerned which point to the existence of the Caesarean text as a valid texttype. > On Fri, 11 Apr 1997, Robert B. Waltz wrote: > This is why, for instance, I maintain that calculating percentages of > overall agreement between manuscripts is such a weak method. It ignores > mixture. It is why I say that Hurtado's study of the Caesarean text > and Richards's study of the Catholic Epistles are incomplete: They > ignore mixture. Although I would not fault Hurtado or Richards on their methodology or conclusions in the same manner as Waltz, it seems that the simplest way to detect mixture is to perform a quantitative analysis on a book as a whole, then on a chapter-by-chapter basis to see if any alignment shifts might occur which would point to a true "mixture" defined as a shift in textual alignment. Certainly mere "mixture" (if defined as the intrusion of a single reading or only sporadic readings which are non-germane to the base texttype of a given MS) is not a genuine problem when attempting to determine the primary textual alignment of a given MS, or its relation to its closest neighbors; were this the case, then _no_ analysis would ever be possible, since _all_ MSS are "mixed" in that fashion to varying degrees. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Apr 12 02:20:35 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id CAA05029; Sat, 12 Apr 1997 02:20:35 -0400 Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 02:21:33 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Classifying witnesses (was Alexandrian Text) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 6886 On Fri, 11 Apr 1997, Robert B. Waltz wrote: > I think Colwell gave up on it when he realized how flawed it > was. Let me quote some *better* passages from Colwell: > > "Weak members of a Text-type may contain no more of the total content > of a text-type than strong members of some other text-type may contain. > The comparison in total agreements of one manuscript with another > manuscript has little significance beyond that of confirmation, and > then only if the agreement is large enough to be distinctive." > (Studies in Methodology, page 33) I'm not sure how Bob reads Colwell, but I certainly do not see the same conclusion from this article. All Colwell is saying is that as one group of MSS with a certain texttype alignment moves from its stronger to weaker members, a "gray area" exists where the readings of that specific texttype become blended to a high degree with the readings of the members of another texttype, which members may themselves be "strong" within that texttype, but which happen to have a small number of readings from a near-neighbor type which establishes its "type" relationship on a _different_ percentage of agreement. Example: Alexandrian MSS will have generally a percentage of agreements in the 70-80% range among themselves. The weaker members will drift down into the low 60% range. But they still remain more "Alexandrian" than any other texttype. Yet the strong Byzantine MSS (which is what I think Colwell had in view in his statement) generally run in the 90th percentile of overall agreement, and there is no question of their texttype alignment -- YET in the 10% area where disagreement may occur, these same Byzantine MSS may have "mixture" of some Alexandrian readings which are of the same quantity as is found in the weaker Alexandrian MSS previously categorized. Nevertheless, no one examining the weaker Alexandrian witnesses would thus conclude they were not more closely related to the Alexandrian type than to the Byzantine; nor would anyone conclude that the 10% of Alexandrian readings in a Byzantine MS would make it somehow non-Byzantine. Different texttypes simply have different _patterns_ of readings which characterize them, and they also have different percentage of agreement threshholds specific to each texttype group. > Even better is the quote from page 39 of the same book: > "In conclusion I suggest that the location of a manuscript within the > tradition should use Multiple Readings to find the related group, > Distinctive Readings to demonstrate the kinship, and total comparison > to confirm the relationship." > > In other words, Colwell advocates a multiple-statistic method of > determining manuscript kinship. He never really put this on a > mathematically sound footing (not many TC shcolars seem to like > math much...), but the idea is there. My version uses total > agreements, non-Byzantine agreements, and near-singular agreements; > it's similar in concept if not in detail. I would differ from both Colwell and Waltz on this point, since my contention is based upon not only the readings themselves, nor any claim to "distinctive" readings, but only to the _pattern_ of readings which happen to occur in a given MS as compared with the pattern which would similarly appear in other MSS of closely-related type. If, e.g., one only looks for "distinctive readings" to characterize the Caesarean texttype, that person will be led to conclude that such a type has no existence, since it basically possesses a mixture of readings which fluctuate between Alexandrian and Byzantine, with little or nothing "distinctive" within itself. But these same MSS nevertheless _do_ reflect a certain _pattern_ of readings within that fluctuation which do allow categorization and evaluation on the texttype level. Put pattern-alignments in tandem with quantitative analysis, and I think one will have a very workable method. > Take a thought-experiment. Suppose there were a manuscript X that > was a perfect representative of a hypothetical Ephesian text-type. > Make two copies of X; call them Y and Z. Now *correct them* each > against the Byzantine text. In each case, let exactly half the > characteristic Ephesian readings be replaced by Byzantine. In > each case, replace readings at random. (This is what really happens.) This is where the analogy breaks down -- "pure" randomness in transmission simply does not occur in the manner suggested. I suspect no scribe ever worked in such a haphazard manner, let alone deliberately would choose to randomly select now from one, now from another MS. But for the illustration purposes, this point obviously has to be granted.... > Now make more copies: A from Y and B from Z. Now *destroy* X, Y, Z, > and every other example of the Ephesian text-type except A and B. > What, then, is the relationship of A and B? If you know anything > about statistics, you will realize that their rate of agreement is > roughly 50% (25% in Byzantine readings and 25% in Ephesian readings). > In the other 50% of the cases one is Byzantine and one is Ephesian. > > By the argument advanced above, A and B are unrelated and the Ephesian > text-type not only does not exist, but apparently *never* existed. Yet MSS copied from the A and B archetypes (assuming now "normal" transmission and not a continued randomness) will in general preserve most of the characteristics of their respective 50% Ephesian/Byzantine mixture, and (were the true state of affairs that A and B each will be responsible for 50% of the descendants in later generations) such will continue preserving in general the same texttype patterns until and unless cross-correction from one side might utterly overwhelm that coming in from the other side (which under the hypothetical example given should _not_ occur). It definitely is true that under the example given the original archetype (the "Ephesian" texttype MS) could _not_ be successfully reconstructed. However, I am unconvinced that this hypothetical scenario has much if anything to do with the reality of MS transmission. > If this isn't absurd, I don't know what is. But how can you find the > Ephesian text-type? Only by looking at the non-Byzantine readings > of A and B. And how would you know that those were actually of the archetype without someone to guide you? The _most_ you could suppose was that there were two competing texttypes which ultimately stemmed from a common source (autograph?), but with no clue as to how they possibly could have diverged under normal transmissional practice. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Apr 12 07:56:56 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id HAA05286; Sat, 12 Apr 1997 07:56:56 -0400 From: Fran@prodigy.net Message-Id: <199704121157.HAA15112@mail1y-int.prodigy.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 07:57:34 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Transmission theories? (was: re: Alexandrian text) Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.53/R1) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2992 On Fri, 11 Apr 1997 Ronald L. Minton wrote (in part): >Please note that I said "usually." Every textual theory has a lot of >prejudice in it. The only ones I count as worthless are those held by >people who think they have a corner on correctness. Such include those >who still cling to the days of Tischendorf and Hort as well as those who >say those men speak nothing of truth for us today. 100 years ago most >text critics seem to have believed all five of the pillars of the W-Hort >theory. Now all five are mostly dis-proven, at least to my satisfaction. >I am not so arrogant as to suppose my theories will fare better, but they >are certainly as viable as any others I am aware of. My rationale (on a >quick note, the way I evaluate the evidence that I am aware of): >(1)The origin of the Byz or Alex or any other text-type is unknown. >(2)The important Alex text-type mss are generally older, but they are so >diverse (self-contradicting) that they cannot give a solid, or at least >the best, witness to the original text and they certainly do not give a >clue as to a common origin. They are a mixture of who knows what. The >variants in Aleph are over 25% Byz against Alex (and 50% of Aleph _can >be_ classified as Byz). (3)The important BYZ representation is later, but >the time difference has been overstated many times. (4)The BYZ is much >more consistent among the many witnesses (some early). (5)If you can tell >us where the Byz text came from, then you can possibly argue that it is >later than some other text, otherwise your _guess_ is as good as mine, >but IMHO it is not any better. [me now] This is an amazing statement: "The variants in Aleph are over 25% Byz against Alex (and 50% of Aleph _can be_ classified as Byz)."!!! Then, what should I make of the N/A and TC books (that I have seen, few indeed I have) which keep defining and using Aleph as one of the strongest Alexandrian witnesses, and never mention anything about its being -in any way- Byz? Also, (5) above, I would like to see some argument or explanation re: "where the Byz text came from". IMHO, a theory of *transmission* is first and foremost in TC. Could it be possible to either post or make available in some TC web-place a concise presentation of the different *transmission* theories that TCers use? (Sort of a FAQ which provides a concise yet complete exposition of each theory by its proponents - not by its opponents, I have read plenty of these) This is just a humble petition, as a lurker and learner, and because of my vocation, I simply have no time and/or tools to come up with my *theory* of what those theories are! I've visited many times the webpages which ocassionally some List member recommends, and I've visited the link section in the TC page. I've not seen any MT/Byz page or material out there... is there any? Thanks! Francisco Orozco Trinity Ministerial Academy 1991-1995 (Montville NJ USA) Fran@prodigy.net Nashville NC USA From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Apr 12 09:59:08 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA05473; Sat, 12 Apr 1997 09:59:08 -0400 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199704121157.HAA15112@mail1y-int.prodigy.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 08:57:16 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Transmission theories? (was: re: Alexandrian text) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 3126 On Sat, 12 Apr 1997, Fran@prodigy.net wrote, in part: >[me now] >This is an amazing statement: "The variants in Aleph are over 25% Byz >against Alex (and 50% of Aleph _can be_ classified as Byz)."!!! Then, what >should I make of the N/A and TC books (that I have seen, few indeed I >have) which keep defining and using Aleph as one of the strongest >Alexandrian witnesses, and never mention anything about its being -in any >way- Byz? We should note that all such numbers are imprecise, since they depend on the sample. (One of the most important phrases in statistics, that.) But I won't get into that just now.... There is nothing inherently improbable about Aleph agreeing with Byz 50% of the time. Depending on the number of "Western" or "wild" readings in the sample, I can see that number going as high as 70%. The vast majority of variants in the NT are non-genetic errors that arise in only a handful of manuscripts. As for readings where Aleph agrees with Byz against the Alexandrian text -- yes, there are a fair number even of these, at least if we define the Alexandrian text as the reading found in p75 and B. There are thousands of differences between Aleph and B in the gospels. And most of these are binary readings, so either Aleph or B has to have the Byzantine reading. Usually it's Aleph. I suspect there are at least 2,000 places in the Gospels where Aleph agrees with Byz against B. This is less true in Paul, BTW. Here it is B that goes against the Alexandrian text, and Aleph is almost painfully pure. Yes, Aleph will agree with Byz against B -- but in Paul, one must say that Aleph is Alexandrian and B is not. >Also, (5) above, I would like to see some argument or explanation re: >"where the Byz text came from". IMHO, a theory of *transmission* is first >and foremost in TC. A note: While a theory of transmission is vital, it can only be created *after* we have analysed and grouped the manuscript data. (I could quote Colwell again, but nobody likes the way I read Colwell. Reminds me of Harnack's remark about Marcion -- the one about only Marcion understanding Paul, and *he* misunderstood him.) >Could it be possible to either post or make available >in some TC web-place a concise presentation of the different >*transmission* theories that TCers use? (Sort of a FAQ which provides a >concise yet complete exposition of each theory by its proponents - not by >its opponents, I have read plenty of these) I did mine. :-) BTW, I am in the process of revising my TC articles. If nothing else, I should shake a few of the typos out. I'll let you all know when I'm finished. BTW (2) -- you'll note that I am keeping my promise not to say more about the "what is a text-type" argument. It hurts, but I'm still holding off.... :-) -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A very rough draft of part of the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Apr 12 09:59:09 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA05480; Sat, 12 Apr 1997 09:59:09 -0400 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 08:59:48 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Macs; also a question about this list Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1455 On Sat, 12 Apr 1997, Maurice Robinson wrote: >On Fri, 11 Apr 1997, Robert B. Waltz wrote: > >> Though the idea of Robinson singing "Sheath and Knife" is almost >> beyond my ability to imagine. But he probably doesn't sing it (and >> since chances are that none of you know it, I refuse to explain, >> lest people throw me off the list...). :-) > >Robinson would more likely sing "Silver Dagger" or "Gilgarra Mountain", >but in any case, unless you really love the Bob Dylan style of vocal >performance, you probably _don't_ want to hear Robinson sing, or you might >throw me off the list also. My musical ability is the primary reason why >I have a day job teaching textual criticism among other matters.... How does that line go? "Be afraid. Be very, very afraid." Here again, Robinson and I agree. I sing versions of both songs.... Though, as a music publisher, I do have the advantage of being passable if not great on guitar and banjo.... TC content: I *still* say that oral transmission can give examples of the sort of corruption that can occur in manuscripts. :-) -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A very rough draft of part of the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Apr 12 12:25:51 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA05682; Sat, 12 Apr 1997 12:25:50 -0400 Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 12:26:50 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Transmission theories? (was: re: Alexandrian text) In-Reply-To: <199704121157.HAA15112@mail1y-int.prodigy.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 6040 On Sat, 12 Apr 1997 Fran@prodigy.net wrote: [quoting Minton] > >They are a mixture of who knows what. The > >variants in Aleph are over 25% Byz against Alex (and 50% of Aleph _can > >be_ classified as Byz). > [me now] > This is an amazing statement: "The variants in Aleph are over 25% Byz > against Alex (and 50% of Aleph _can be_ classified as Byz)."!!! Then, what > should I make of the N/A and TC books (that I have seen, few indeed I > have) which keep defining and using Aleph as one of the strongest > Alexandrian witnesses, and never mention anything about its being -in any > way- Byz? A part of the problem lies in the methodological approach to evaluating a MS's percentage of agreement with its specific primary texttype. I don't know if Prof. Minton's percentage claim regarding Aleph is correct or not, but allowing for the moment that it is, I am not surprised. From an eclectic method of evaluation Aleph is counted as far more non-Byzantine that it would be from a pro-Byzantine method of evaluation, and this is tied in with a large body of its (or any MS's) readings which happen to be held in common by the Alexandrian and Byzantine (or Western and Byzantine) texts. Those coming from a pro-Alexandrian position count those dual Alex + Byz alignments as strictly Alexandrian (since the Byzantine text is "late" and merely "adopted" those particular readings), and thus have a higher total of Alexandrian support in such a MS (e.g. using Minton's example, Aleph by this method would be, say, 25% Byzantine, 65% Alexandrian, and perhaps, by my suggestion, even 10% Western). Minton suggests that another 25% of Aleph's readings are either dually aligned as Alex + Byz or even West + Byz, and that when considered from a different theoretical perspective, these dually-aligned readings could support the concept that Aleph's text is actually 50% Byzantine (actually my own guess is that the percentage is even higher than that, probably over 60%, when counted in the manner described). The problem in considering statistics from both approaches is that there is no easy way merely to leave, say, 25% of the readings which happen to be dually-aligned as merely "floating" and not assigned to any specific texttype, especially when an Alex + Byz combination _does_ exclude the Western readings and when a West + Byz combination similarly excludes the Alexandrian readings. Each theoretical approach will count the statistical data in the manner which fits its respective methodology and reflects (especially) its view regarding the place and significance of Byzantine support for such dually-aligned readings. Since from my theoretical perspective I view the Byzantine Textform as that from which the other texttypes have derived, I will count Byz + Alex or Byz + West readings as Byzantine, and consider such as places where respectively either the Alexandrian texttype happened _not_ to depart from the original Textform, but the Western did; or as places where the Western texttype happened not to depart from the original Textform, but the Alexandrian did. As Bro. Dave Gardner used to say, "It's all how you look at it and study it....." > Also, (5) above, I would like to see some argument or explanation re: > "where the Byz text came from". IMHO, a theory of *transmission* is first > and foremost in TC. Could it be possible to either post or make available > in some TC web-place a concise presentation of the different > *transmission* theories that TCers use? (Sort of a FAQ which provides a > concise yet complete exposition of each theory by its proponents - not by > its opponents, I have read plenty of these) I think that statements by the proponents of a theory should _definitely_ be made first. These can be followed by whatever critique might be made by opponents. I do note that in the Ehrman and Holmes volume positions such as rigorous eclecticism are allowed to be presented by a proponent (Keith Elliott), reasoned eclecticism by a proponent (Michael Holmes), but the Byzantine-priority position (or "Majority Text" position as it is called therein) is _not_ presented by a proponent, but only by a determined opponent (Wallace), who I believe so caricatures and propagandizes the case (not to mention blending in a number of diverse theoretical viewpoints) that even _I_ would be skeptical of holding my own theory if what Wallace claims were correct. The pro-Byzantine position was definitely given short shrift in that volume, and in light of the other _positive_ essays by proponents of various theories included therein, it seems this should not have been done. What would be welcome would be a volume somewhat in the line of the "Four Views" series on different theological subjects, in which differing views of textual critical theory could each be presented in detail by their own proponents and then critiqued somewhat more briefly by the proponents of the remaining positions. Of course, we might have to have more than "four views".... > This is just a humble petition, as a lurker and learner, and because > of my vocation, I simply have no time and/or tools to come up with my > *theory* of what those theories are! I've visited many times the webpages > which ocassionally some List member recommends, and I've visited the link > section in the TC page. I've not seen any MT/Byz page or material out > there... is there any? None out there to which I have contributed, certainly. I suppose that I could have the Introduction to my Byzantine/Majority Gk NT scanned in and offered to Jimmy or Bob for download from their sites, along with some other ETS papers etc., but I have not been asked to do so, so that remains Jimmy's or Bob's call. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Apr 12 13:06:34 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA05756; Sat, 12 Apr 1997 13:06:33 -0400 Message-ID: <334FDD71.3F66@mail.usinternet.com> Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 12:07:29 -0700 From: Huey Bahr X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Transmission theories? (was: re: Alexandrian text) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 925 Maurice Robinson wrote: > > This is just a humble petition, as a lurker and learner, and because > > of my vocation, I simply have no time and/or tools to come up with my > > *theory* of what those theories are! I've visited many times the webpages > > which ocassionally some List member recommends, and I've visited the link > > section in the TC page. I've not seen any MT/Byz page or material out > > there... is there any? > > None out there to which I have contributed, certainly. I suppose that I > could have the Introduction to my Byzantine/Majority Gk NT scanned in and > offered to Jimmy or Bob for download from their sites, along with some > other ETS papers etc., but I have not been asked to do so, so that remains > Jimmy's or Bob's call. What about Vincent Broman's site? surely one of the three would host the Intro. [Special note to Jimmy, Bob, and Vincent--->"Please, offer to host Robinson's Intro"] From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Apr 12 14:41:46 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA05922; Sat, 12 Apr 1997 14:41:46 -0400 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <199704121157.HAA15112@mail1y-int.prodigy.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 13:18:45 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Transmission theories? (was: re: Alexandrian text) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2606 On Sat, 12 Apr 1997, Maurice Robinson wrote, in part: >I think that statements by the proponents of a theory should _definitely_ >be made first. These can be followed by whatever critique might be made by >opponents. I do note that in the Ehrman and Holmes volume positions such >as rigorous eclecticism are allowed to be presented by a proponent (Keith >Elliott), reasoned eclecticism by a proponent (Michael Holmes), but the >Byzantine-priority position (or "Majority Text" position as it is called >therein) is _not_ presented by a proponent, but only by a determined >opponent (Wallace), who I believe so caricatures and propagandizes the >case (not to mention blending in a number of diverse theoretical >viewpoints) that even _I_ would be skeptical of holding my own theory if >what Wallace claims were correct. The pro-Byzantine position was >definitely given short shrift in that volume, and in light of the other >_positive_ essays by proponents of various theories included therein, it >seems this should not have been done. I can hardly argue with Robinson on this, since there are at least three other viewpoints given even shorter shrift: The Hortian, the age-based (the view of Jim West and Philip Comfort) -- and, of course, my own. :-) >None out there to which I have contributed, certainly. I suppose that I >could have the Introduction to my Byzantine/Majority Gk NT scanned in and >offered to Jimmy or Bob for download from their sites, along with some >other ETS papers etc., but I have not been asked to do so, so that remains >Jimmy's or Bob's call. I would point out that I have invited others to contribute to my page. If Maurice Robinson wants to send me the file, I will format it and post it. I may make suggestions as to format, and I retain the right to include a rebuttal -- but I am willing to post an article by Robinson, and I will *not* make any alterations without his permission. I will also give it the same position in the index as an article of mine. In fact, I might even change my sarcastic sig. :-) BTW -- this invitation is open to others, as long as I have space available. We may have to dissociate ourselves from the ENTTC, but at least we'll make the resources available. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A very rough draft of part of the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Apr 12 17:22:47 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA06135; Sat, 12 Apr 1997 17:22:47 -0400 Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 16:23:40 -0500 (CDT) From: "Ronald L. Minton" X-Sender: rminton@orionc0 To: Fran@prodigy.net cc: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Transmission theories? (was: re: Alexandrian text) In-Reply-To: <199704121157.HAA15112@mail1y-int.prodigy.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 754 On Sat, 12 Apr 1997 Fran@prodigy.net wrote: > This is an amazing statement: "The variants in Aleph are over 25% Byz > against Alex (and 50% of Aleph _can be_ classified as Byz)."!!! Then, what > should I make of the N/A and TC books (that I have seen, few indeed I > have) which keep defining and using Aleph as one of the strongest > Alexandrian witnesses, and never mention anything about its being -in any > way- Byz? Aland and others do say P75 and B are the best Alexandrian text representatives. Aleph less so. Their similarity and age should require anyone to at least give them a hearing. -- Prof. Ron Minton: rminton@mail.orion.org W (417)268-6053 H 833-9581 Baptist Bible Graduate School 628 E. Kearney St. Springfield, MO 65803 From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Apr 12 17:27:31 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA06152; Sat, 12 Apr 1997 17:27:30 -0400 Message-ID: <33508656.3459@sn.no> Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 00:08:06 -0700 From: "Mr. Helge Evensen" Organization: SN Internett X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Alexandrian Text Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 113 Thanks to all of you that have responded to my inquiry regarding the Alexandrian text. -- - Mr. Helge Evensen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Apr 12 17:39:21 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA06170; Sat, 12 Apr 1997 17:39:21 -0400 Message-ID: <33508918.5C23@sn.no> Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 00:19:52 -0700 From: "Mr. Helge Evensen" Organization: SN Internett X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Apocrypha Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 510 I have tried a couple of times before, but I try again! Please don=B4t give me any book reference this time. At the present I do=20 not have much time to search in books concerning the apocrypha. (Don=B4t=20 misunderstand me, I _love_ to study books). My question is (to form it differently): Can anyone give me some concise=20 information regarding the OT and NT apocrypha, as to which of them were=20 (archeological) discovered in the 19. or the 20. century? Thanks in advance! --=20 - Mr. Helge Evensen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Apr 12 21:26:00 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA06502; Sat, 12 Apr 1997 21:26:00 -0400 Message-Id: <9704130226.AA04442@iris.arcadis.be> Subject: Re: Apocrypha Date: Sun, 13 Apr 97 03:30:47 +0200 X-Sender: vale5655@194.111.178.251 X-Mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1 From: Jean VALENTIN To: "TC-List" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 921 As to recently discovered Apocrypha, I don't remember having seen a mention of the Didache (if it is to be considered as an apocrypha - is there a definition of the term?). Unfortunately, I'll soon be moving and several of my books are already in boxes... but if I remembered, it was discovered by an orthodox bishop in the middle east (?) in a manuscript of the XIth century. ________________________________________________________________ Jean Valentin - 58/7 rue Van Kalck - 1080 Bruxelles - BELGIQUE ________________________________________________________________ email : jgvalentin@arcadis.be *** netmail : 2:291/780.103 ________________________________________________________________ Ce qui est trop simple est faux, ce qui est trop complique est inutilisable. What's too simple is wrong, what's too complicated is unusable. Wat te eenvoudig is, is verkeerd; wat te ingewikkeld is, is onbruikbaar. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Apr 13 03:09:00 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id DAA06880; Sun, 13 Apr 1997 03:09:00 -0400 Message-ID: <3350A2F9.3DBF@mail.usinternet.com> Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 02:10:17 -0700 From: Huey Bahr X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Apocrypha References: <9704130226.AA04442@iris.arcadis.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 393 Jean VALENTIN wrote: > > As to recently discovered Apocrypha, I don't remember having seen a > mention of the Didache "Apart from two miniscule fragments . . . the Greek text of the Didache has survived in only one manuscript [Codex Hierosolymitanus (AD 1056)] . . . discovered by Bryennios in 1873" J.B.Lightfoot, J.R.Harmer, M.W.Holmes _Apostolic_Fathers_2nd.ed. 1989 Baker, page 147 From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Apr 13 03:35:55 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id DAA06915; Sun, 13 Apr 1997 03:35:55 -0400 Message-ID: <3350A92F.7219@mail.usinternet.com> Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 02:36:47 -0700 From: Huey Bahr X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Genesis 4:8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 812 In Genesis 4:8 the KJV has And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him. the Douay has And Cain said to Abel his brother: Let us go forth abroad. And when they were in the field, Cain rose up against his brother Abel, and slew him. At first glance I would say "Let us go forth abroad." should be dismissed as an obvious addition because (1) the reading given in the KJV is shorter, and in general one should prefer the shorter reading. (2) the evidence for the longer reading is based on the versions (LXX/Vulgate) where as the evidence for the shorter reading is in the original language. But I noticed the RSV and the NIV both follow the longer reading. Are they picking up on something I'm missing? From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Apr 13 12:09:08 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA07170; Sun, 13 Apr 1997 12:09:08 -0400 Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 19:09:36 +0300 (IDT) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: habas@netvision.net.il (Dr. E. Habas) Subject: Re: getting Real Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 815 >The purpose of Text criticism is to establish the reading most likely to >have been original. .... >The DSS Psalms is a millenium older than Leningrad; but we are urged to >ignore it because it would cause us to re-evaluate our standard "book of >Psalms". .... Does one really *have* to assume there *was* (say, in the first or second century CE) a "standard 'book of Psalms'"? Actually, it would seem that there were more than a single version of several biblical works in circulation at least until the 120's CE. Some of the later Jewish works are, likewise, compilations which cannot (and probably should not) be traced to a single "authorized" book, or: "correct text", or:"original text", of which all other variants are a mere corruption (or forgery), but present a much more complex phenomenon. Effie From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Apr 13 13:00:00 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA07316; Sun, 13 Apr 1997 13:00:00 -0400 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3350A92F.7219@mail.usinternet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 11:24:01 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Genesis 4:8 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2138 On Sun, 13 Apr 1997, Huey Bahr wrote: >In Genesis 4:8 the KJV has > >And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they >were in the >field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him. > >the Douay has > >And Cain said to Abel his brother: Let us go forth abroad. And when they >were in the field, Cain rose up against his brother Abel, and slew him. > >At first glance I would say "Let us go forth abroad." should be >dismissed as an obvious >addition because (1) the reading given in the KJV is shorter, and in >general one should prefer the shorter reading. (2) the evidence for the >longer reading is based on >the versions (LXX/Vulgate) where as the evidence for the shorter reading >is in the >original language. > >But I noticed the RSV and the NIV both follow the longer reading. Are >they picking >up on something I'm missing? It's a matter of translation technique. As I understand it (and I am not a Hebraist), the MT actually reads "And Cain said to Abel his brother. And they were in the field, and Cain...." In other words, the MT offers a transitive verb ("said") with no object. Since LXX and Vg (independent translations) *both* offer an object, the reading with the object is to be preferred. Two other notes I would add on the critical theory you use here: 1. "Prefer the shorter reading" has only a limited place in NT criticism, and even less of a place in TO criticism. (Consider all those nonsense short readings in MT Samuel.) 2. There are those, and I'm one of them, who consider LXX to be as strong a witness to the original Hebrew as is the MT. We *cannot* be content to just take the MT as it stands as long as it makes sense. The versions need to be considered at every point. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A very rough draft of part of the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Apr 13 17:07:42 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA07605; Sun, 13 Apr 1997 17:07:42 -0400 Message-ID: <3351D316.6056@sn.no> Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 23:47:50 -0700 From: "Mr. Helge Evensen" Organization: SN Internett X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: John 9:35 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 805 Jesus addressed the man who was born blind, after He had healed him: "Do=20 you believe in the Son of *God* (Byzantine Text)" vs. "Do you believe in=20 the Son of *Man* (Alexandrian Text)". (John 9:35). Which of these two readings are more likely to be the original one? It would seem that at least _internal evidence_ points to the Byz=20 reading, since Jesus is here addressing a man who is about to come to=20 faith in Him? Is it *more* likely that He would have called Himself "the=20 Son of Man" in front of this man, rather than "the Son of God"?? Isn=B4t belief in the "Son of GOD" rather than the "Son of MAN" necessary= =20 for salvation? As regards _external_ evidence, the Byz reading is well attested in=20 number, and is found also in _antiquity_ (i.e. Cod. A). --=20 - Mr. Helge Evensen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Apr 13 18:44:16 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA07727; Sun, 13 Apr 1997 18:44:15 -0400 Message-ID: <33517E1C.61E1@mail.usinternet.com> Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 17:45:17 -0700 From: Huey Bahr X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Genesis 4:8 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1855 Robert B. Waltz wrote: > It's a matter of translation technique. As I understand it (and I am > not a Hebraist), the MT actually reads "And Cain said to Abel his > brother. And they were in the field, and Cain...." In other words, > the MT offers a transitive verb ("said") with no object. Since The ASV, NAS, and JPS Tanakh also have the transitive verb without the object, which lends support to your statement. > LXX and Vg (independent translations) *both* offer an object, the > reading with the object is to be preferred. Couldn't the arguement be made that that these translators, finding the same situation in their Hebrew texts that we find in ours, supplied the object based on the wording of the latter part of the verse? > Two other notes I would add on the critical theory you use here: > > 1. "Prefer the shorter reading" has only a limited place in NT > criticism, and even less of a place in TO criticism. (Consider > all those nonsense short readings in MT Samuel.) True, but what we have here is either accidental omission of the words, or a delibrate supplying of them. I just can't imagine someone making a conscious decision to delete the object of a transitive verb. I can see however, a translator supplying an object in order to make his translation readable. Do the words that would have to have been omitted resemble the surrounding text enough that accidental omission becomes likely? > 2. There are those, and I'm one of them, who consider LXX to be as > strong a witness to the original Hebrew as is the MT. We *cannot* > be content to just take the MT as it stands as long as it makes > sense. The versions need to be considered at every point. Agreed. But here the Hebrew makes no sense, which is why I am supporting it with such enthusiasm. Huey Bahr hbahr@usinternet.com Did I say that? From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Apr 13 21:48:16 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA07980; Sun, 13 Apr 1997 21:48:15 -0400 Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 21:47:50 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by DEV.InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: John 9:35 X-Sender: jwest@mail.highland.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970413214714.1c7725c8@mail.highland.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1594 At 11:47 PM 4/13/97 -0700, you wrote: >Jesus addressed the man who was born blind, after He had healed him: "Do=20 >you believe in the Son of *God* (Byzantine Text)" vs. "Do you believe in=20 >the Son of *Man* (Alexandrian Text)". (John 9:35). The "son of man" reading is obviously original. > >Which of these two readings are more likely to be the original one? > >It would seem that at least _internal evidence_ points to the Byz=20 >reading, since Jesus is here addressing a man who is about to come to=20 >faith in Him? Is it *more* likely that He would have called Himself "the=20 >Son of Man" in front of this man, rather than "the Son of God"?? The problem here is really a "higher critical" one having to do with Jesus' self perception. It is, in short, the later Church which called Jesus the Son of God; as to whether Jesus referred to himself in that way- it seems highly doubtful. >Isn=B4t belief in the "Son of GOD" rather than the "Son of MAN" necessary= =20 >for salvation? > This question seems to indicate a distinction between the two terms. There was, indeed, no distinction as far as the early Church was concerned- which is why the Byzantines had no trouble changing son of man to son of God. >As regards _external_ evidence, the Byz reading is well attested in=20 >number, and is found also in _antiquity_ (i.e. Cod. A). > Manuscripts are weighed- not counted. A is simply wrong here. >--=20 >- Mr. Helge Evensen Jim ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@theology.edu From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Apr 14 01:53:44 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id BAA08256; Mon, 14 Apr 1997 01:53:44 -0400 From: "Dr Johann Cook" Organization: University of Stellenbosch To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 07:56:54 GMT+0200 Subject: GEN 4:8 X-Confirm-Reading-To: "Dr Johann Cook" X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.40) Message-ID: <3B38CED0FE1@SEMT.sun.ac.za> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2907 > ------ This is a copy of the message, including all the headers. ------ > > > > Return-path: > > Received: from SEMT.sun.ac.za [146.232.80.6] > > by mail.sun.ac.za with esmtp (Exim 1.61 #1) > > id 0wGPNL-0005Lz-00; Sun, 13 Apr 1997 15:31:23 +0200 > > Received: from SUN_SEMT/SpoolDir by SEMT.sun.ac.za (Mercury 1.21); > > 13 Apr 97 15:32:14 +0200 > > Received: from SpoolDir by SUN_SEMT (Mercury 1.21); 13 Apr 97 15:32:11 +0200 > > From: "Dr Johann Cook" > > Organization: University of Stellenbosch > > To: tc-list@shemesh.emory.edu > > Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 15:32:05 GMT+0200 > > Subject: Re: GEN 4:8 > > X-Confirm-Reading-To: "Dr Johann Cook" > > X-pmrqc: 1 > > Priority: normal > > X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.40) > > Message-ID: <3A322FE0CA9@SEMT.sun.ac.za> > > > > > > > DT) > > > Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) > > > id DAA06915; Sun, 13 Apr 1997 03:35:55 -0400 > > > Message-ID: <3350A92F.7219@mail.usinternet.com> > > > Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 02:36:47 -0700 > > > From: Huey Bahr > > > X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; U) > > > MIME-Version: 1.0 > > > Resent-to: cook@semt.sun.ac.za > > > To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu > > > Subject: Genesis 4:8 > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > > Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu > > > Precedence: bulk > > > Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu > > > > > > In Genesis 4:8 the KJV has > > > > > > And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they > > > were in the > > > field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him. > > > > > > the Douay has > > > > > > And Cain said to Abel his brother: Let us go forth abroad. And when they > > > were in the field, Cain rose up against his brother Abel, and slew him. > > > > > > At first glance I would say "Let us go forth abroad." should be > > > dismissed as an obvious > > > addition because (1) the reading given in the KJV is shorter, and in > > > general one should prefer the shorter reading. (2) the evidence for the > > > longer reading is based on > > > the versions (LXX/Vulgate) where as the evidence for the shorter reading > > > is in the > > > original language. > > > > > > But I noticed the RSV and the NIV both follow the longer reading. Are > > > they picking > > > up on something I'm missing? > > > > > > > It is just possible that the longer reading actually represents a > > different Hebrew Vorlage. It is not only attested to by LXX and V, > > but Peshitta also has this reading. On the other hand, the latter two > > could have been influenced by LXX. Prof. Johann Cook Department of Ancient Near Eastern Studies University of Stellenbosch 7600 Stellenbosch SOUTH AFRICA tel 22-21-8083207 fax: 22-21-8083480 From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Apr 14 02:10:47 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id CAA08339; Mon, 14 Apr 1997 02:10:47 -0400 Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 02:11:49 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: John 9:35 In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970413214714.1c7725c8@mail.highland.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 9075 On Sun, 13 Apr 1997, Jim West wrote: [quoting Evensen] >>Jesus addressed the man who was born blind, after He had healed him: "Do >>you believe in the Son of *God* (Byzantine Text)" vs. "Do you believe in >>the Son of *Man* (Alexandrian Text)". (John 9:35). > The "son of man" reading is obviously original. Disputed, for reasons given below. >>Which of these two readings are more likely to be the original one? >>It would seem that at least _internal evidence_ points to the Byz >>reading, since Jesus is here addressing a man who is about to come to >>faith in Him? Is it *more* likely that He would have called Himself "the >>Son of Man" in front of this man, rather than "the Son of God"?? > The problem here is really a "higher critical" one having to do with Jesus' > self perception. It is, in short, the later Church which called Jesus the > Son of God; as to whether Jesus referred to himself in that way- it seems > highly doubtful. Excuse me, Jim? If this is the case, _WHY_ is it that the Gospel of John -- uniquely among the Gospels -- makes a _frequent_ and _distinctive_ theological use of the phrase "Son of God" -- and this in almost all cases with _no_ distinction among the MSS of the Byzantine or Alexandrian or Western texts (only Jn 6:69 and 9:35 have variants where Byz and Alex differ). Nor does this have _anything_ to do with the supposed higher critical question of the "later" usage of the church, since (a) _only_ John makes this clear theological distinction, and for certain reasons which should be obvious in view of the theological theme of his gospel; and (b) the supposedly "later" Byzantine MSS did _not_ alter the phrase "Son of Man" into "Son of God" in _any_ degree whatsoever, whether in John's gospel where the two phrases are used approximately equally, or in the Synoptics, where "Son of Man" overwhelmingly predominates, nor in the book of Acts (which is the last place "Son of Man" occurs in the NT). Look at the statistics from the entire NT just for the phrase "Son of Man" versus "Son of God" (I realize I might be omitting some possible cases where a "de" or "gar" might intervene, but the point still is obvious; I use the Byzantine Text for the base, but include the WH text in () where it otherwise differs): NT Book Son of Man Son of God ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Mt 32x 2x Mk 14x 2x (1x) Lk 25x (23x) 2x Jo 11x (12x) 10x (8x) Ac 1x 1x Paul 0x 2x Heb 0x 3x Cath 0x 8x (7x) Rev 0x 1x Synoptic usage is simply overwhelmingly in favor of the phrase "Son of Man". In John, however, when one examines the occurrences of the "Son of God" vs "Son of Man" phrases, a _pattern of usage_ develops for each, a pattern which is both fitting and germane to the particular contextual theme John is presenting about Christ, whether as the incarnate Son of God, viewed from the aspect of his deity, or as the incarnate Son of Man, viewed from his full humanity. Look at this pattern in John (given in summary with references omitted, though these can be easily supplied): 1. Son of Man (SM) used to indicate Christ in his humanity in John: Angels ascending and descending upon SM The SM being now in heaven The SM needs to be lifted up The SM will give his flesh as the meat supplying eternal life You have to eat SM's flesh You will behold the SM ascending You will know when you lift up the SM The hour is come for SM to be glorified It is necessary to lift up the SM (2x) Now the SM is glorified 2. Son of God (SG) used to indicate Christ in his deity in John: Have seen and testify that this is SG You are SG Believe in name of monogenhs SG Dead will hear voice of SG You are Christ the SG (WH has Holy One of God) Do you believe in the SG (WH has SM) Believe me when I say I am SG That the SG might be glorified You are the Christ the SG These are written that you might believe Jesus is the Christ the SG Note _especially_ among these distinct references that in the Byzantine Textform the ones which contain a mention of "believing" _all_ connect with the SG phrase, and 3 out of 4 of these "belief" mentions remain _identical_ in the Alexandrian text. Why then should I not suspect that the Byzantine majority is once again correctly preserving the theological distinction which John _fully intended_ in his gospel, and that the minority of MSS in Jn 9:35 which read SM simply accommodated to the _far_ more familiar and prevalent phraseology found over 80x in the gospels as opposed to a phrase which (even including John) only occurs a mere 16x in the four gospels? John 9:35 is a case where I fully consider the regional Alexandrian witnesses (P66 P75 Aleph B), one Western witness (D) and one "mixed" witness (W) along with the single sy-s version and the Coptic versions minus the Bohairic simply to be dead wrong, and out of touch with "normal" Johannine style and theological emphasis on this single occasion, likely caused by an error (with no malicious or even positive theological intent) of misreading the nomina sacra YYQY and writing YYANOY instead. I also note that the Byzantine reading here is supported by Alexandrian (L Psi) and Caesarean (Theta f1 f13) witnesses, along with the Latin versions, the sy-p sy-h and Bohairic. Herman Hoskier said long ago that there were far too many conclusions drawn in NT textual criticism on the basis of hasty generalizations which did not take account of all the facts; I suspect this Jn 9:35 passage is another such conclusion. > >Isn't belief in the "Son of GOD" rather than the "Son of MAN" necessary > >for salvation? > This question seems to indicate a distinction between the two terms. There > was, indeed, no distinction as far as the early Church was concerned- which > is why the Byzantines had no trouble changing son of man to son of God. If there was _no_ distinction between the two terms, _why_ then didn't the the Byzantine scribes make such changes all over the place, Jim? _Why_ in fact is SM _utterly dominant_ in the gospels among _all_ MSS of _all_ texttypes? One variant unit does not exactly confirm a "later Byzantine tendency". My plea to the modern eclectics of whatever variety is this: please stop accusing the Byzantine scribes of doing on a regular basis what they in fact did _not_ do, as demonstrated by the MS evidence. Also, if there was "no distinction" between the terms SM and SG, why then is there such an unequal balance in the gospels which tilts almost completely in the Synoptics to SM and is split almost evenly in John between SM and SG? The answer is obvious, and is has nothing to do with the usage of the later church, but only with the specialized theological usage of John as opposed to the specialized theological usage of the synoptics. > >As regards _external_ evidence, the Byz reading is well attested in > >number, and is found also in _antiquity_ (i.e. Cod. A). > > Manuscripts are weighed- not counted. A convenient cop-out, I suspect. So let me weigh the evidence: P66, P75, Aleph and B, though "early", are all Alexandrian, and I can readily suggest that these should count only as a single-source witness, equal in themselves to the opposing single source witness of A and the Byzantines. But I will oppose the Alexandrian L and Psi as a single source against the other Alexandrians; I will also oppose the single source Western witness of D standing alone versus the single source witness of the remaining Latins opposing D; and also add the Caesarean f1 f13 as a single Caesarean source opposing W (if it indeed is Caes here). Further, the Sahidic single witness can stand against the Bohairic + Memphitic, and sy-s can stand against sy-p and sy-h. So, totally apart from counting, precisely _what_ specific "weight" is overwhelming on either side once _all_ the witnesses of whatever texttype are taken into account? Even the principle of the "oldest" witness (p66 or p75) does not fare well again the united Old Latin testimony, so what "weight" are we talking about from your perspective. > A is simply wrong here. Simple and simplistic, just like taking the reading of the oldest MS and proclaiming all others as well as internal criteria to be invalid. I suspect you should be able to do better, Jim. I would suggest that it might be _you_ who is simply wrong here, except that the modern eclectic position also seems to agree with you (though for far different reasons). That's ok with me; everyone has a right to be wrong from my perspective. :-) _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Apr 14 05:30:02 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id FAA08541; Mon, 14 Apr 1997 05:30:02 -0400 From: seb@mailgate.arcadis.be Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 11:32:54 +0100 (WET DST) Message-Id: <199704141032.LAA02776@mailgate.arcadis.be> Content-Type: text Apparently-To: Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1117 Return-Path: Received: from graf.cc.emory.edu (graf.cc.emory.edu [170.140.1.44]) by mailgate.arcadis.be (8.8.5/8.8.5/1997041001) with ESMTP id OAA06884 for ; Sat, 12 Apr 1997 14:06:39 +0100 (WET DST) Received: from shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (shemesh.scholar.emory.edu [170.140.130.65]) by graf.cc.emory.edu (8.7.3/8.6.9-950630.01osg-itd.null) with SMTP id HAA02324; Sat, 12 Apr 1997 07:55:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id HAA05286; Sat, 12 Apr 1997 07:56:56 -0400 From: Fran@prodigy.net Message-Id: <199704121157.HAA15112@mail1y-int.prodigy.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 07:57:34 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Transmission theories? (was: re: Alexandrian text) Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.53/R1) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Apr 14 07:50:21 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id HAA08637; Mon, 14 Apr 1997 07:50:20 -0400 Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 07:42:24 -0400 (EDT) From: Bart Ehrman X-Sender: behrman@login4.isis.unc.edu To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Classifying witnesses (was Alexandrian Text) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 7915 I see little point in offering a detailed refutation of this. If Robert Waltz thinks that "textual criticism hasn't gone anywhere in decades," then I suggest he start reading in the field rather than developing his theories in isolation. His cavalier attitude to people who have produced substantive work is offensive. As to Colwell's methods, the literature is there for anyone to read for him or herself. For anyone really wanting to see the problems with the use of non-Byzantine readings for establishing textual affinities, the place to start is with Metzger 1945 article on the Caesarean text and Fee's article on the text of John and Mark in Chrysostom (if Mr. Waltz would care to refute that bit of scholarship, I'd be very interested). Finally, if someone would care to engage in a substantive, as opposed to a merely dismissive, engagement with method, I would be quite interested in an evaluation of my "Comprehensive Profile Method," which is used as way to provide nuance to the findings of a Colwell-like quantitative method, and can be found in its initial form in _JBL_ 106 (1987) 468-71, and in a more developed (slightly) form (using the same data: I published the JBL thing so that the methodological proposals not get lost in a book with a limited reading audience) in my 1986 book on Didymus the Blind and the Text of the Gospels. The method has been used in a number of dissertations recently, a couple of which have been published (e.g., in SBLNTIGF), and it always appears to *work* remarkably well. But anyone with suggestions will receive a welcome hearing. -- Bart Ehrman, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill On Fri, 11 Apr 1997, Robert B. Waltz wrote: > On Fri, 11 Apr 1997, Bart Ehrman wrote: > > > I have to weigh in heavily on Larry Hurtado's side on this one (sorry > >Larry! :-)). The problems with taking "non-Byzantine" readings of any set > >of witnesses, Caesarean or otherwise, as an indication of textual > >consanguinity have been thoroughly exposed and widely recognized by > >practicioners in this field for most of the second half of the century. > >In fact, the problems became evident precisely in work on the Caesarean > >text in an article by Bruce Metzger (to my knowledge, the only serious > >methodological contribution that he made to this particular aspect of the > >discipline -- but it was a biggee), "The Caesarean Text of the Gospels," > >_JBL 65 (1945) 457-89. In large measure it was just these problems > >that Metzger recognized that led Colwell (and Tune) to develop the > >quantitative method that is so widely used today, as revised a bit by Fee > >and others. The arguments against Streeter's approach (used also by the > >Lakes, among others) are so overwhelming that no one, to my knowledge, > >uses it today (at least in nothing that's been published). > > > > Anyone interested in pursuing this matter should read the articles on > >manuscript classification by Colwell in his Studies in Methodology (NTTS, > >9) and by Fee in Fee and Epp's _Methodology_ volume in SD. > > Time for me to get the acetylene torches out. Yes, I'm going to spout > off. This is exactly why textual criticism hasn't gone anywhere for > decades. > > Why is it that everyone quotes Colwell and Tune day in and day out, > and never quotes anything else of Colwell's? Can anyone cite a single > instance, outside of the work done in Colwell and Tune, of Colwell > using the "quantitative method"? (Which name, BTW, should be > abolished; *any* mathematical method is quantitative.) I can't claim > to have seen everything he has written, but I haven't seen such a > thing. I think Colwell gave up on it when he realized how flawed it > was. Let me quote some *better* passages from Colwell: > > "Weak members of a Text-type may contain no more of the total content > of a text-type than strong members of some other text-type may contain. > The comparison in total agreements of one manuscript with another > manuscript has little significance beyond that of confirmation, and > then only if the agreement is large enough to be distinctive." > (Studies in Methodology, page 33) > > Even better is the quote from page 39 of the same book: > "In conclusion I suggest that the location of a manuscript within the > tradition should use Multiple Readings to find the related group, > Distinctive Readings to demonstrate the kinship, and total comparison > to confirm the relationship." > > In other words, Colwell advocates a multiple-statistic method of > determining manuscript kinship. He never really put this on a > mathematically sound footing (not many TC shcolars seem to like > math much...), but the idea is there. My version uses total > agreements, non-Byzantine agreements, and near-singular agreements; > it's similar in concept if not in detail. > > There is, of course, a terrible defect in the method of the Lakes and > Streeter: They worked on the basis that the Textus Receptus *is* the > Byzantine text. This means that they often called Byzantine readings > "Caesarean" and vice versa. But that does not invalidate the method. > It seems to me that people have used it successfully on a small scale > to reconstruct manuscript families -- and nobody said that it doesn't > work *there*. > > Take a thought-experiment. Suppose there were a manuscript X that > was a perfect representative of a hypothetical Ephesian text-type. > Make two copies of X; call them Y and Z. Now *correct them* each > against the Byzantine text. In each case, let exactly half the > characteristic Ephesian readings be replaced by Byzantine. In > each case, replace readings at random. (This is what really happens.) > Now make more copies: A from Y and B from Z. Now *destroy* X, Y, Z, > and every other example of the Ephesian text-type except A and B. > This is by no means impossible; people consider the "Western" to > be a text-type in the Gospels even though its only Greek > representative is D. > > What, then, is the relationship of A and B? If you know anything > about statistics, you will realize that their rate of agreement is > roughly 50% (25% in Byzantine readings and 25% in Ephesian readings). > In the other 50% of the cases one is Byzantine and one is Ephesian. > > By the argument advanced above, A and B are unrelated and the Ephesian > text-type not only does not exist, but apparently *never* existed. > > If this isn't absurd, I don't know what is. But how can you find the > Ephesian text-type? Only by looking at the non-Byzantine readings > of A and B. > > The fact that Lake, Streeter, et al used an uncontrolled form of > this procedure doesn't make the method wrong. It just makes the > measurements wrong. Does the fact that Columbus incorrectly > thought the circumference of the earth was 18,000 miles mean > that the earth is not spherical? (Well, an oblate spheroid.) It > the same sort of argument. > > Once again, I have treated this argument much more fully in my > article on text-types at the Encyclopedia site. I'd really suggest > people try to follow some logic here, not just repeat the same old > refrains. > > I won't say that everyone is blind to this. I think that Epp sees > this problem (see his various essays on the "Interlude" in TC). > > I will try not to say any more on this topic. (Not a promise, but > I will try.) I would appeal to people to conduct the thought- > experiment I outlined. If that doesn't make it obvious, I don't > know what else I can say. > > -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- > > Robert B. Waltz > waltzmn@skypoint.com > > Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? > Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn > (A very rough draft of part of the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) > > From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Apr 14 08:49:44 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA08763; Mon, 14 Apr 1997 08:49:44 -0400 Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 08:50:41 -0400 (EDT) From: ANDREW SMITH To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Genesis 4:8 In-Reply-To: <33517E1C.61E1@mail.usinternet.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 744 On Sun, 13 Apr 1997, Huey Bahr wrote: > ...what we have here is either accidental omission of the words, > or a delibrate supplying of them. I just can't imagine someone making > a conscious decision to delete the object of a transitive verb. I can > see > however, a translator supplying an object in order to make his > translation > readable. Do the words that would have to have been omitted resemble the > surrounding text enough that accidental omission becomes likely? In the transmission of text, omissions are as likely as additions. Probably few would make a "conscious decision" to omit the direct object of a transitive verb, but the accidental omission by a copyist is as likely as an editorial addition. Andrew C. Smith From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Apr 14 09:14:26 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA08809; Mon, 14 Apr 1997 09:14:25 -0400 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 08:16:57 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: CPM? (Was: Re: Classifying witnesses (was Alexandrian Text)) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 4096 I promised to stay out of this discussion, and I will (it *still* hurts; I can't *understand* you people). So I will not go on with clarifications; better that this thread die. But I'm going to a few notes, and then ask a question. Also, does it seem that the level of civility on this list is declining? Recently we were all jumping on Jim West. Of course, we've also climbed on Maurice Robinson regularly. Now it's my turn. And the "refutations" are no more detailed than the original statements. Is there any way that we can get back to discussion? On Mon, 14 Apr 1997, Bart Ehrman wrote: > I see little point in offering a detailed refutation of this. If >Robert Waltz thinks that "textual criticism hasn't gone anywhere in >decades," then I suggest he start reading in the field rather than >developing his theories in isolation. His cavalier attitude to people who >have produced substantive work is offensive. My statement agrees, as I see it, with the attitude of Eldon Jay Epp. (See his essays on the "Twentieth Century Interlude.") My point is not that no work has been done; obviously a great deal has. But there has been no *breakthrough* -- no solutions to the impasses of the past century. We still have no comprehensive, widely accepted history of the text, and no universally applicable method for resolving variants. To me, that seems a severe lack. Evidently others disagree. But this is the view I meant to express. If I expressed it badly, my sincere apologies. If that seems cavalier, well, I'm not the only one on this list who cavalierly dismisses others. > As to Colwell's methods, the literature is there for anyone to read >for him or herself. For anyone really wanting to see the problems with >the use of non-Byzantine readings for establishing textual affinities, the >place to start is with Metzger 1945 article on the Caesarean text and >Fee's article on the text of John and Mark in Chrysostom (if Mr. Waltz >would care to refute that bit of scholarship, I'd be very interested). Can you tell me which article of Fee's you are referring to? Looking at the recent Epp and Fee volume, I don't see one on Chrysostom. As for refuting it, I doubt I could do that. I do not expect to "refute" current scholarship. My question is one of utility, not accuracy. > Finally, if someone would care to engage in a substantive, as opposed >to a merely dismissive, engagement with method, I would be quite >interested in an evaluation of my "Comprehensive Profile Method," which is >used as way to provide nuance to the findings of a Colwell-like >quantitative method, and can be found in its initial form in _JBL_ 106 >(1987) 468-71, and in a more developed (slightly) form (using the same >data: I published the JBL thing so that the methodological proposals not >get lost in a book with a limited reading audience) in my 1986 book on >Didymus the Blind and the Text of the Gospels. The method has been used >in a number of dissertations recently, a couple of which have been >published (e.g., in SBLNTIGF), and it always appears to *work* remarkably >well. But anyone with suggestions will receive a welcome hearing. Non-serious question: Why is it that all "profile methods" wind up with the initials "CPM"? Can't we come up with some different abbreviations? :-) Seriously, could you tell us briefly what distinguishes your CPM from other profile methods? There are a lot of methods floating around today (the Claremont method, the "Thousand Readings," some "modified Claremonts," and whatever it was Duplacy was using in the Catholic Epistles). Each of these others have weaknesses of one sort or another. What are the distinctive features of the Comprehensive Profile Method? -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A very rough draft of part of the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Apr 14 10:41:57 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA09082; Mon, 14 Apr 1997 10:41:57 -0400 Message-ID: <33525EE7.2F02@usinternet.com> Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 09:44:23 -0700 From: Hubert Bahr Organization: Fingerhut X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Win16; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Genesis 4:8 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1079 ANDREW SMITH wrote: > > On Sun, 13 Apr 1997, Huey Bahr wrote: > > > ...what we have here is either accidental omission of the words, > > or a delibrate supplying of them. I just can't imagine someone making > > a conscious decision to delete the object of a transitive verb. I can > > see > > however, a translator supplying an object in order to make his > > translation > > readable. Do the words that would have to have been omitted resemble the > > surrounding text enough that accidental omission becomes likely? > > In the transmission of text, omissions are as likely as additions. > Probably few would make a "conscious decision" to omit the direct object > of a transitive verb, but the accidental omission by a copyist is as > likely as an editorial addition. > > Andrew C. Smith You're right, and an author who used a transitive verb most likely would have included the object, which is why the newer translations have the longer reading. Thanks to all who answered my question, and patiently endured my hard-headedness. -- --Huey Bahr hbahr@usinternet.com From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Apr 14 11:03:09 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA09154; Mon, 14 Apr 1997 11:03:09 -0400 Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 11:02:10 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by DEV.InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: CPM? (Was: Re: Classifying witnesses (was Alexandrian Text)) X-Sender: jwest@mail.highland.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970414110048.306f21f2@mail.highland.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 865 >Also, does it seem that the level of civility on this list is declining? I, personally, don't think so. To me, good honest criticism (of opinions- never people) is useful in helping me to clarify my own thinking. Now of course I am often not persuaded by the arguments presented- but that just means that I am rather dense! >Recently we were all jumping on Jim West. Of course, we've also climbed >on Maurice Robinson regularly. Now it's my turn. And the "refutations" >are no more detailed than the original statements. Is there any way >that we can get back to discussion? > I think we are discussing. Jim, (a happy participant who doesn't mind being dragged through it- so long as no one says anything unkind about Mozart!). +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@theology.edu From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Apr 14 11:12:18 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA09224; Mon, 14 Apr 1997 11:12:18 -0400 Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 11:12:17 -0400 (EDT) From: "James R. Adair" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Transmission theories? (was: re: Alexandrian text) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2001 On Sat, 12 Apr 1997, Maurice Robinson wrote: > > > This is just a humble petition, as a lurker and learner, and because > > of my vocation, I simply have no time and/or tools to come up with my > > *theory* of what those theories are! I've visited many times the webpages > > which ocassionally some List member recommends, and I've visited the link > > section in the TC page. I've not seen any MT/Byz page or material out > > there... is there any? > > None out there to which I have contributed, certainly. I suppose that I > could have the Introduction to my Byzantine/Majority Gk NT scanned in and > offered to Jimmy or Bob for download from their sites, along with some > other ETS papers etc., but I have not been asked to do so, so that remains > Jimmy's or Bob's call. I would certainly be glad to include links to any articles or other material of interest to text critics on the TC Links page, and I would also be willing to have the texts of these articles reside on our Web server. The whole point of having the links page is to provide a central location where scholarly resources for the study of the biblical text can be found. I encourage Maurice and others on the list to share their research with the TC community in this manner. If you have access to your own Web site and have material posted there, simply send me a URL to point to. If you don't have your own Web site (or if you would just prefer to have it on TELA), send the entire article/paper/whatever to our ftp site: ftp://scholar.cc.emory.edu/uploads, then send me a note telling me the name of the file. Articles that come already tagged in HTML will be added to the page sooner than articles that I have to tag myself, but they'll all eventually appear on the TC Links page. Jimmy Adair, Listowner, TC-List 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 owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Apr 14 12:11:36 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA09613; Mon, 14 Apr 1997 12:11:35 -0400 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Apocrypha Message-ID: <19970414.090915.10326.1.HILKAP@juno.com> References: <33508918.5C23@sn.no> X-Mailer: Juno 1.15 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0,2-26 From: hilkap@juno.com (HILL R KAPLAN) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 12:09:48 EDT Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 803 On Sun, 13 Apr 1997 00:19:52 -0700 "Mr. Helge Evensen" writes: > >My question is (to form it differently): Can anyone give me some >concise information regarding the OT and NT apocrypha, as to which of >them were (archeological) discovered in the 19. or the 20. century? > >Thanks in advance! > > Mr. Helge Evensen > Suppose you explain what you mean by the word Apocrypha ? You ** do ** know that the Protestant definintion is different from that of the Roman Catholics , DON'T YOU ? BTW most Jews do not consider the Deuterocanonicals as part of the Hebrew Bible. Even Macabees is outside the Jewish Canon. As to Christian Apocrypha, I would imagine that the entire collection of manuscripts recovered from Nag Hammadi in 1947(?) might meet everyone's defintion. HILL From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Apr 14 12:43:35 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA09698; Mon, 14 Apr 1997 12:43:34 -0400 Message-ID: <3352E692.27E6@sn.no> Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 19:23:14 -0700 From: "Mr. Helge Evensen" Organization: SN Internett X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: John 9:35 References: <1.5.4.16.19970413214714.1c7725c8@mail.highland.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 3060 Jim West wrote (in reply to Mr. Helge Evensen): >=20 > At 11:47 PM 4/13/97 -0700, you wrote: > >Jesus addressed the man who was born blind, after He had healed him: "= Do > >you believe in the Son of *God* (Byzantine Text)" vs. "Do you believe = in > >the Son of *Man* (Alexandrian Text)". (John 9:35). >=20 > The "son of man" reading is obviously original. >=20 > > > >Which of these two readings are more likely to be the original one? > > > >It would seem that at least _internal evidence_ points to the Byz > >reading, since Jesus is here addressing a man who is about to come to > >faith in Him? Is it *more* likely that He would have called Himself "t= he > >Son of Man" in front of this man, rather than "the Son of God"?? >=20 > The problem here is really a "higher critical" one having to do with Je= sus' > self perception. It is, in short, the later Church which called Jesus = the > Son of God; as to whether Jesus referred to himself in that way- it see= ms > highly doubtful. >=20 > >Isn=B4t belief in the "Son of GOD" rather than the "Son of MAN" necess= ary > >for salvation? > > >=20 > This question seems to indicate a distinction between the two terms. T= here > was, indeed, no distinction as far as the early Church was concerned- w= hich > is why the Byzantines had no trouble changing son of man to son of God. >=20 > >As regards _external_ evidence, the Byz reading is well attested in > >number, and is found also in _antiquity_ (i.e. Cod. A). > > >=20 > Manuscripts are weighed- not counted. >=20 > A is simply wrong here. >=20 > >-- > >- Mr. Helge Evensen >=20 > Jim >=20 > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > Jim West, ThD > Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology > jwest@theology.edu First of all, I want to thank Dr. Robinson for his very able reply to Jim= West=20 and in general for his useful discussion of the textual problem at John 9= :35.=20 Personally, I believe the points he raised are conclusive in favor of the= Byz=20 reading! I wonder: Are these points any _less_ "hard evidence" than the f= act=20 that the Alex reading is found in the oldest extant witnesses??? I just want to comment upon another point of internal evidence in favor o= f the=20 Byz reading at John 9:35. In verse 38 the "ex-blind" man said to Jesus: "Lord, I believe!" The vers= e=20 continues: "And he worshiped Him".=20 *Before* Jesus told him that He was the Son of God, he didn=B4t know that= He was=20 the Messiah, just a prophet (v.17) and that His name was Jesus (v.11) and= =20 furthermore, that He was "from God" (v.33). My question is: Is it really likely that this man, who probably didn=B4t = know=20 much of the Holy Scriptures, would have _worshiped_ Jesus *if* He just ha= d=20 called Himself "the Son of MAN"??=20 Isn=B4t it more likely that Jesus=B4 statement was: "Do you believe in th= e Son of=20 GOD?" and that the "ex-blind" man (based on Jesus=B4 own statement) ackno= wledged=20 and recognized Jesus as DEITY and _therefore_ bowed down in worship?? --=20 - Mr. Helge Evensen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Apr 14 12:55:42 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA09775; Mon, 14 Apr 1997 12:55:42 -0400 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970414110048.306f21f2@mail.highland.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 11:57:44 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Politeness and the doxology of Romans (how's that for unrelated subjects?) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1590 On Mon, 14 Apr 1997, Jim West wrote, in part: >>Also, does it seem that the level of civility on this list is declining? > >I, personally, don't think so. To me, good honest criticism (of opinions- >never people) is useful in helping me to clarify my own thinking. Now of >course I am often not persuaded by the arguments presented- but that just >means that I am rather dense! Well, it seemed to me that we were getting into people -- perhaps because I was being attacked for not having published or having a seminary degree. But I hope I'm wrong. >>Recently we were all jumping on Jim West. Of course, we've also climbed >>on Maurice Robinson regularly. Now it's my turn. And the "refutations" >>are no more detailed than the original statements. Is there any way >>that we can get back to discussion? >> > >I think we are discussing. Since you're one of the ones who has been under attack, I'll accept that. The sad thing is, though, that in the course of that deluge against Jim West, I asked a serious question (specifically, where does a person with his views place the doxology of Romans, since p46 has it after chapter 15). In all the sound and fury, I never saw an answer. And I am genuinely curious. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A very rough draft of part of the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Apr 14 12:59:40 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA09796; Mon, 14 Apr 1997 12:59:39 -0400 Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 12:59:52 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by DEV.InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: Apocrypha X-Sender: jwest@mail.highland.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970414125829.27a77884@mail.highland.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 591 At 12:09 PM 4/14/97 -0400, you wrote: >As to Christian Apocrypha, I would imagine that the entire collection >of manuscripts recovered from Nag Hammadi in 1947(?) might meet >everyone's defintion. > >HILL > I don't think that Gnostic material qualifies as apocrypha, does it? Apocrypha are materials written by Jews or Christians which are of an orthodox character- but which were not included in the Canon. I do not think that Nag Hammadi qualifies here. Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@theology.edu From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Apr 14 13:03:21 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA09823; Mon, 14 Apr 1997 13:03:21 -0400 Message-ID: <3352EB56.421F@sn.no> Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 19:43:34 -0700 From: "Mr. Helge Evensen" Organization: SN Internett X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Mozart References: <1.5.4.16.19970414110048.306f21f2@mail.highland.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 457 Jim West wrote (in conclusion): > Jim, (a happy participant who doesn't mind being dragged through it- so long > as no one says anything unkind about Mozart!). > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > Jim West, ThD > Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology > jwest@theology.edu I would certainly _not_ be the first one to say anything unkind about Mozart. I really _love_ classical music, especially Mozart! -- - Mr. Helge Evensen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Apr 14 13:20:11 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA09892; Mon, 14 Apr 1997 13:20:11 -0400 Message-ID: <3352EF38.5DE7@sn.no> Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 20:00:08 -0700 From: "Mr. Helge Evensen" Organization: SN Internett X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Apocrypha References: <33508918.5C23@sn.no> <19970414.090915.10326.1.HILKAP@juno.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1232 HILL R KAPLAN wrote: > > On Sun, 13 Apr 1997 00:19:52 -0700 "Mr. Helge Evensen" > writes: > > > > >My question is (to form it differently): Can anyone give me some > >concise information regarding the OT and NT apocrypha, as to which of > >them were (archeological) discovered in the 19. or the 20. century? > > > >Thanks in advance! > > > > Mr. Helge Evensen > > > > Suppose you explain what you mean by the word Apocrypha ? > > You ** do ** know that the Protestant definintion is different from that > of the Roman Catholics , DON'T YOU ? > > BTW most Jews do not consider the Deuterocanonicals as part of the > Hebrew Bible. Even Macabees is outside the Jewish Canon. > > As to Christian Apocrypha, I would imagine that the entire collection > of manuscripts recovered from Nag Hammadi in 1947(?) might meet > everyone's defintion. > > HILL Thanks for your reply. I should have qualified what I meant by the term "apocrypha". However, my question was really not that difficult. It simply means: Is there _any_ apocrypha that have been discovered in the 19. or 20. century? No one, I suspect, would have called the OT Hebrew canon or the NT Greek canon "apocryphal"!? -- - Mr. Helge Evensen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Apr 14 13:29:46 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA09937; Mon, 14 Apr 1997 13:29:46 -0400 Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 12:30:41 -0500 (CDT) From: "Ronald L. Minton" X-Sender: rminton@orionc0 To: "Robert B. Waltz" cc: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Politeness and the doxology of Romans (how's that for unrelated subjects?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 763 On Mon, 14 Apr 1997, Robert B. Waltz wrote: > I asked a serious question (specifically, where > does a person with his views place the doxology of Romans, since > p46 has it after chapter 15). In all the sound and fury, I never > saw an answer. And I am genuinely curious. I have wondered about that too, as I see it, the choices for the floating doxology are as follows: Majority Text = at end of ch 14 Aleph, A, B, Cr = after 16:23 Textus Receptus = end of ch 16 (aft 16:24) Alexandrinus = after both chapters 14 and 16:23 P46 = end of ch 15 Does A conflate Byz and B... here? (just asking) -- Prof. Ron Minton: rminton@mail.orion.org W (417)268-6053 H 833-9581 Baptist Bible Graduate School 628 E. Kearney St. Springfield, MO 65803 From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Apr 14 13:40:24 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA09994; Mon, 14 Apr 1997 13:40:24 -0400 Message-ID: <335288BB.7CE0@usinternet.com> Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 12:42:51 -0700 From: Hubert Bahr Organization: Fingerhut X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Win16; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Finding resources References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 685 Is it just me or are resources that were once on the web being eliminated? I seem to remember being able to find copies of the LXX in line-per-verse format and being able to look up passages in the American Standard Version (1901). Now I can't seem to find either. I understand the U.S. Congress is debating extend copyrights by an additional 20 years (from authors lifetime + 50 or first publication + 75 years to authors lifetime + 70 or first publication + 95 years) but it would be to early for that to have any effect. So am I just forgetting where to find things or is something else going on? -- --Huey Bahr hbahr@usinternet.com I thought it made sense when I wrote it. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Apr 14 13:41:24 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA10019; Mon, 14 Apr 1997 13:41:23 -0400 Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 13:41:23 -0400 (EDT) From: "James R. Adair" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: John 9:35 In-Reply-To: <3352E692.27E6@sn.no> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 3771 On Mon, 14 Apr 1997, Mr. Helge Evensen wrote: > In verse 38 the "ex-blind" man said to Jesus: "Lord, I believe!" The vers= e=20 > continues: "And he worshiped Him".=20 > *Before* Jesus told him that He was the Son of God, he didn=B4t know that= He was=20 > the Messiah, just a prophet (v.17) and that His name was Jesus (v.11) and= =20 > furthermore, that He was "from God" (v.33). >=20 > My question is: Is it really likely that this man, who probably didn=B4t = know=20 > much of the Holy Scriptures, would have _worshiped_ Jesus *if* He just ha= d=20 > called Himself "the Son of MAN"??=20 > Isn=B4t it more likely that Jesus=B4 statement was: "Do you believe in th= e Son of=20 > GOD?" and that the "ex-blind" man (based on Jesus=B4 own statement) ackno= wledged=20 > and recognized Jesus as DEITY and _therefore_ bowed down in worship?? I question the viability of this particular argument in favor of "Son of God." Text critics need to make a distinction between what might have happened historically and what might have happened in the process of the transmission of the text. To my mind, the question of how the man might have addressed Jesus is irrelevant to the question of what the original text of John might have read at this point. The reason is this: when the gospel came to be written many years after these events occurred (setting aside entirely questions of historicity as not germane to my argument), it seems unlikely that the exact words of the dialog were preserved. Instead of wondering what the man might have said, the real question should be "What would the author of John have said?" Maurice has offered an argument for "Son of God" on the basis of the theological perspective of the author of the gospel. One might counter with the observation that author of John doesn't always show great consistency in his use of vocabulary (cf. his use of AGAPAW and FILEW)--rather, he often seems to strive for variety for the sake of variety (here cf. Jn 21:15-19). If the author shows a tendency toward varying his vocabulary in other places, then perhaps he does here as well. If that is the case, then one could argue on the basis of internal evidence that "Son of God" is an example of Bart's "orthdox corruptions," since some scribes might have considered "Son of God" a higher theological affirmation than "Son of Man." To preempt Maurice's complaint that scribes didn't correct other such statements, I will suggest that scribes weren't very consistent in their corrections. Admittedly, however, the internal argument for "Son of Man" is not the strongest in the world; I am simply trying to give a counter-argument. When external evidence is considered, the argument for "Son of Man" (from a tradition eclectic viewpoint, of course) is stronger than for "Son of God." Older and stronger Alexandrian witnesses for "Son of Man," support from D (although Western support _is_ weakened by the defection of the OL witnesses), and older and stronger support from the other versions (syr-s vs. syr-p,h; cop-sa+ vs. cop-bo) give the edge to "Son of Man" on the bases of text-type diversity, geographical distribution, and age of readings. Having said all this, though, I do think that Maurice's argument about the author's theology should be given ample consideration. The main point of this post is not to offer an argument for the originality of "Son of Man" (though such can obviously be made) but to demonstrate the problem with confusing "real history" with the question of authorship and the history of transmission.=20 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 owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Apr 14 13:58:25 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA10098; Mon, 14 Apr 1997 13:58:25 -0400 Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 13:58:24 -0400 (EDT) From: "James R. Adair" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Genesis 4:8 In-Reply-To: <33517E1C.61E1@mail.usinternet.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1115 On Sun, 13 Apr 1997, Huey Bahr wrote: > Robert B. Waltz wrote: > > > 2. There are those, and I'm one of them, who consider LXX to be as > > strong a witness to the original Hebrew as is the MT. We *cannot* > > be content to just take the MT as it stands as long as it makes > > sense. The versions need to be considered at every point. > > Agreed. But here the Hebrew makes no sense, which is why I am supporting > it with such enthusiasm. I don't think that there are any factors in the text that would lead to homoioteleuton--simple accidental omission of a line seems the most likely culprit. One of the "rules" of textual criticism is that a nonsense reading cannot be original, but it is an open question whether in the present case the addition of "Let's go into the field" represents the preservation of the original reading or an attempt (or attempts) to emend a problematic 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 owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Apr 14 14:04:17 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA10126; Mon, 14 Apr 1997 14:04:17 -0400 Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 13:57:30 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by DEV.InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: John 9:35 X-Sender: jwest@mail.highland.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970414135606.27e77ed8@mail.highland.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2424 At 07:23 PM 4/14/97 -0700, you wrote: > >First of all, I want to thank Dr. Robinson for his very able reply to Jim= West=20 I too thank Maurice for his detailed response; however I must simply state that the reasoning appeared circular to me. that is, the Byzantine scribes would not (!) have changed son of man to son of God (!!!!!); and therefore they did not. (p.s., I too hold an earned Doctorate (in Theology, admittedly not in Philosophy)). I think the respect one shows to a person one agrees with is also due to a person one disagrees with; this is simply common courtesy). >and in general for his useful discussion of the textual problem at John= 9:35.=20 >Personally, I believe the points he raised are conclusive in favor of the= Byz=20 >reading! I wonder: Are these points any _less_ "hard evidence" than the= fact=20 >that the Alex reading is found in the oldest extant witnesses??? > No- the scribes were much more prone to change a reading if they believed it would clarifiy the context. That is what was done here- in accord with your reasoning below! (You would have made an excellent redactor in the middle ages!!) (Redaction, by the way, is what occurs in the byzantine manuscripts more than real copying). >I just want to comment upon another point of internal evidence in favor of= the=20 >Byz reading at John 9:35. > >In verse 38 the "ex-blind" man said to Jesus: "Lord, I believe!" The verse= =20 >continues: "And he worshiped Him".=20 >*Before* Jesus told him that He was the Son of God, he didn=B4t know that= He was=20 >the Messiah, just a prophet (v.17) and that His name was Jesus (v.11) and= =20 >furthermore, that He was "from God" (v.33). > >My question is: Is it really likely that this man, who probably didn=B4t= know=20 >much of the Holy Scriptures, would have _worshiped_ Jesus *if* He just had= =20 >called Himself "the Son of MAN"??=20 >Isn=B4t it more likely that Jesus=B4 statement was: "Do you believe in the= Son of=20 >GOD?" and that the "ex-blind" man (based on Jesus=B4 own statement)= acknowledged=20 >and recognized Jesus as DEITY and _therefore_ bowed down in worship?? > As mentioned above- this reasoning is the "very" reason that the scribes would have changed son of man into son of God! > >--=20 >- Mr. Helge Evensen > Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@theology.edu From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Apr 14 14:04:20 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA10141; Mon, 14 Apr 1997 14:04:19 -0400 Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 13:58:44 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by DEV.InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: Mozart X-Sender: jwest@mail.highland.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970414135722.27e7dcf4@mail.highland.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 373 At 07:43 PM 4/14/97 -0700, you wrote: > > >I would certainly _not_ be the first one to say anything unkind about Mozart. I >really _love_ classical music, especially Mozart! > See- we have this in common!! :) > >-- >- Mr. Helge Evensen > Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@theology.edu From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Apr 14 14:04:21 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA10151; Mon, 14 Apr 1997 14:04:20 -0400 Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 14:01:51 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by DEV.InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: Politeness and the doxology of Romans (how's that for unrelated subjects?) X-Sender: jwest@mail.highland.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970414140028.27e7ee10@mail.highland.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 963 At 11:57 AM 4/14/97 -0700, you wrote: >Well, it seemed to me that we were getting into people -- perhaps >because I was being attacked for not having published or having a >seminary degree. > >But I hope I'm wrong. > I do too. Truth is truth, whether it comes from Jerusalem, Berlin, Rome, or Wyoming. >>I think we are discussing. > >Since you're one of the ones who has been under attack, I'll accept >that. The sad thing is, though, that in the course of that deluge >against Jim West, I asked a serious question (specifically, where >does a person with his views place the doxology of Romans, since >p46 has it after chapter 15). In all the sound and fury, I never >saw an answer. And I am genuinely curious. > Sorry- I have not had time to check this yet. I hope to soon; but I do not wish to give a half cocked answer. Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@theology.edu From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Apr 14 14:34:34 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA10307; Mon, 14 Apr 1997 14:34:34 -0400 Message-ID: <3352956D.D4D@usinternet.com> Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 13:37:01 -0700 From: Hubert Bahr Organization: Fingerhut X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Win16; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Genesis 4:8 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 880 James R. Adair wrote: > I don't think that there are any factors in the text that would lead to > homoioteleuton--simple accidental omission of a line seems the most likely > culprit. One of the "rules" of textual criticism is that a nonsense > reading cannot be original, but it is an open question whether in the > present case the addition of "Let's go into the field" represents the > preservation of the original reading or an attempt (or attempts) to emend > a problematic 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 <----------------- Thanks for your answer. While I am not sure the LXX reading was original, I now see why it is a better reading than the Masoretic. -- --Huey Bahr hbahr@usinternet.com From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Apr 14 14:59:49 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA10389; Mon, 14 Apr 1997 14:59:48 -0400 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 14:00:25 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Politeness and the doxology of Romans (how's that for unrelated subjects?) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1631 On Mon, 14 Apr 1997, "Ronald L. Minton" wrote: >On Mon, 14 Apr 1997, Robert B. Waltz wrote: >> I asked a serious question (specifically, where >> does a person with his views place the doxology of Romans, since >> p46 has it after chapter 15). In all the sound and fury, I never >> saw an answer. And I am genuinely curious. > >I have wondered about that too, as I see it, the choices for the floating >doxology are as follows: > > >Majority Text = at end of ch 14 >Aleph, A, B, Cr = after 16:23 >Textus Receptus = end of ch 16 (aft 16:24) >Alexandrinus = after both chapters 14 and 16:23 >P46 = end of ch 15 There's another important reading here which you have not listed: 1506 = at end of ch. 14 *and* at end of chapter 15, *omitting* chapter 16. (That's what I said; look it up in NA26) And 1506 is an important witness to Paul; in Romans, it seems to be second only to Aleph in "Alexandrian-ness" (based on my table of readings). >Does A conflate Byz and B... here? (just asking) It's not just A -- P 33 al have the same reading. I think you're right, though -- A etc. are conflating the Byzantine and Alexandrian readings. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A very rough draft of part of the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Apr 14 15:13:44 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA10486; Mon, 14 Apr 1997 15:13:44 -0400 Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 15:13:18 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by DEV.InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: Roman's Doxology X-Sender: jwest@mail.highland.net (Unverified) To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970414151154.23d73ac6@mail.highland.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 952 P46 locates the doxology after 15:33. This seems to make the most sense (for the following reasons): 1- Rom 15:33 was originally followed by 16:25-27. 2- when Chapter 16 was added by later scribes (as 16 is evidently not original to Romans, but seems to be a completely different document- either a cover letter to 1-2 Corinthians or a lost fragment, I do not know.) the ending had to be moved to its current location. Though the scribe of P46 retained the original order. 3- Likewise, the scribes of P61, Aleph, B, C, D, etc placed it at the end of the 16th chapter because they too saw it as a concluding doxology. They simply thought that 16 was integral to the letter; so they put the doxology where it would naturally belong- at the end, just like in a worship service. (liturgy influences textual decisions). Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@theology.edu From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Apr 14 16:05:08 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA10690; Mon, 14 Apr 1997 16:05:07 -0400 Message-ID: <33531597.189A@sn.no> Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 22:43:51 -0700 From: "Mr. Helge Evensen" Organization: SN Internett X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: John 9:35 References: <1.5.4.16.19970414135606.27e77ed8@mail.highland.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 3718 Jim West wrote: >=20 > At 07:23 PM 4/14/97 -0700, you wrote: >=20 > > > >First of all, I want to thank Dr. Robinson for his very able reply to = Jim West >=20 > I too thank Maurice for his detailed response; however I must simply st= ate > that the reasoning appeared circular to me. that is, the Byzantine scr= ibes > would not (!) have changed son of man to son of God (!!!!!); and theref= ore > they did not. Well, in TC one is looking at what is more _likely_, since we do not have= =20 the originals. And Maurice=B4s suggestions are *far more* likely than tho= se=20 of the "eclectic camp"! The only _real_ argument of the eclectics=20 regarding this reading is the argument from age. And that argument in=20 itself does not prove anything. It does not even seem more _likely_ that=20 the oldest MSS are better representatives of the original text. There=B4s= =20 too many things which must be taken into consideration. >=20 > (p.s., I too hold an earned Doctorate (in Theology, admittedly not in > Philosophy)). I think the respect one shows to a person one agrees wit= h is > also due to a person one disagrees with; this is simply common courtesy= ). >=20 > >and in general for his useful discussion of the textual problem at Joh= n 9:35. > >Personally, I believe the points he raised are conclusive in favor of = the Byz > >reading! I wonder: Are these points any _less_ "hard evidence" than th= e fact > >that the Alex reading is found in the oldest extant witnesses??? > > >=20 > No- the scribes were much more prone to change a reading if they believ= ed it > would clarifiy the context. That is what was done here- in accord with= your > reasoning below! (You would have made an excellent redactor in the mid= dle > ages!!) (Redaction, by the way, is what occurs in the byzantine manusc= ripts > more than real copying). "Much more prone". But you cannot _know_. Just like I told you: You do=20 not have access to the *autographs*! Why argue about "redaction" in the Byz MSS when the problem can be solved= =20 in a much more reasonable way? To me it seems that it is prejudice rather= =20 than real investigation of the facts that leads eclectics into=20 dismissing the Byz MSS so easily! >=20 > >I just want to comment upon another point of internal evidence in favo= r of the > >Byz reading at John 9:35. > > > >In verse 38 the "ex-blind" man said to Jesus: "Lord, I believe!" The v= erse > >continues: "And he worshiped Him". > >*Before* Jesus told him that He was the Son of God, he didn=B4t know t= hat He was > >the Messiah, just a prophet (v.17) and that His name was Jesus (v.11) = and > >furthermore, that He was "from God" (v.33). > > > >My question is: Is it really likely that this man, who probably didn=B4= t know > >much of the Holy Scriptures, would have _worshiped_ Jesus *if* He just= had > >called Himself "the Son of MAN"?? > >Isn=B4t it more likely that Jesus=B4 statement was: "Do you believe in= the Son of > >GOD?" and that the "ex-blind" man (based on Jesus=B4 own statement) ac= knowledged > >and recognized Jesus as DEITY and _therefore_ bowed down in worship?? > > >=20 > As mentioned above- this reasoning is the "very" reason that the scribe= s > would have changed son of man into son of God! It is _equally_ as possible to imagine that the scribes of the earlier=20 centuries would _avoid_ this likelihood when they were confronted with=20 the two competing readings, because of the canon "more difficult - more=20 likely original".=20 >=20 > > > >-- > >- Mr. Helge Evensen > > >=20 > Jim >=20 > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >=20 > Jim West, ThD > Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology > jwest@theology.edu --=20 - Mr. Helge Evensen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Apr 14 17:14:39 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA10864; Mon, 14 Apr 1997 17:14:39 -0400 Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 17:15:40 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: John 9:35 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2613 On Mon, 14 Apr 1997, James R. Adair wrote: > perspective of the author of the gospel. One might counter with the > observation that author of John doesn't always show great consistency in > his use of vocabulary (cf. his use of AGAPAW and FILEW)--rather, he often > seems to strive for variety for the sake of variety (here cf. Jn > 21:15-19). Actually, I would counter this with the notion that John clearly and deliberately varied the use of AGAPAW and FILEW in this passage, despite the views of those who maintain that merely because they are synonyms that the exact same thought is being expressed. Rather than Peter becoming disturbed over the THIRD repetition of the "do you love me" question, I would maintain it was particularly the use of FILEW in the third question which so concerned him. Others may exegete the passage differently, and I know they do, but I consider John extremely deliberate and particular in his choice of words in any given context, and not merely "varying his vocabulary" just for the sake of style. > then one could argue on the basis of internal evidence that "Son of God" > is an example of Bart's "orthdox corruptions," since some scribes might > have considered "Son of God" a higher theological affirmation than "Son of > Man." I for one would be interested in Bart's comment on this point; I suspect he will concur with Jimmy, but, in light of his comment in _Orthodox Corruption_ on Jn. 1:18, I'm not all that sure _what_ he might say. Bart? > To preempt Maurice's complaint that scribes didn't correct other > such statements, I will suggest that scribes weren't very consistent in > their corrections. No pre-emption needed. The evidence that scribes did not make such wholesale changes in regard to the "Son of Man" phrase in either John or the 80+ times in the Synoptics speaks for itself. It is not a matter of inconsistency, but the strong _consistency_ of transmission of the "Son of Man" term _without_ it being amplified into "Son of God" which is the point. > readings. Having said all this, though, I do think that Maurice's > argument about the author's theology should be given ample consideration. Thanks, Jimmy :-) (I would love to hear Keith Elliott's rigorous eclectic reasoning on this variant as well. Are you out there, Keith?) _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Apr 14 17:25:34 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA10933; Mon, 14 Apr 1997 17:25:34 -0400 Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 17:26:35 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: John 9:35 In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970414135606.27e77ed8@mail.highland.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2689 On Mon, 14 Apr 1997, Jim West wrote: > At 07:23 PM 4/14/97 -0700, you wrote: > I too thank Maurice for his detailed response; however I must simply state > that the reasoning appeared circular to me. that is, the Byzantine scribes > would not (!) have changed son of man to son of God (!!!!!); and therefore > they did not. Somehow this is not what I stated, Jim. The point was that you accused the Byzantine scribes of making this change, and stated that this was "typical" of what the Byzantine scribes were wont to do. I pointed out all of the other instances where "Son of Man" appears and that the Byzantine scribes did _not_ make any change of the sort. Therefore the likelihood of their making that precise change in Jn 9:35 is greatly lessened from what you were claiming. > (p.s., I too hold an earned Doctorate (in Theology, admittedly not in > Philosophy)). I think the respect one shows to a person one agrees with is > also due to a person one disagrees with; this is simply common courtesy). I hope we all have common courtesy in regard to the persons on this list. Ideas may be right or wrong, intelligent or wacko, but I hope we do have the proper level of respect for each other at all times. Note that the Ph for Philosophy is still a misnomer, since my specialization has nothing whatever to do with Philosophy, but with NT, Greek, and Textual Criticism, in that order. > No- the scribes were much more prone to change a reading if they believed it > would clarifiy the context. That is what was done here- And why did they not choose to "clarify the context" in regard to any other occurrences of "Son of Man"? > (Redaction, by the way, is what occurs in the byzantine manuscripts > more than real copying). I strongly object to this caricature of the Byzantine scribes. My own dissertation study of "Scribal Habits among MSS of the Apocalypse" showed that almost all Byzantine-era scribes were _non-editorial_ in nature. If you have some data which demonstrates the contrary, I never saw or heard of it during or since my research. > As mentioned above- this reasoning is the "very" reason that the scribes > would have changed son of man into son of God! And all those places where Jesus healed people in the Synoptics and spoke of himself as "Son of Man" were not sufficient to warrant such a "typical" Byzantine alteration? I don't think so..... _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Apr 14 18:08:36 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA11024; Mon, 14 Apr 1997 18:08:36 -0400 From: Fran@prodigy.net Message-Id: <199704142209.SAA82024@mail1y-int.prodigy.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 18:09:09 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Genesis 4:8 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.53/R1) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 3708 On 13 Apr 1997 Huey Bahr wrote: >In Genesis 4:8 the KJV has >And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they >were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew >him. >the Douay has >And Cain said to Abel his brother: Let us go forth abroad. And when they >were in the field, Cain rose up against his brother Abel, and slew him. >At first glance I would say "Let us go forth abroad." should be >dismissed as an obvious addition because (1) the reading given in the KJV >is shorter, and in general one should prefer the shorter reading. (2) the >evidence for the longer reading is based on the versions (LXX/Vulgate) >where as the evidence for the shorter reading is in the original >language. >But I noticed the RSV and the NIV both follow the longer reading. Are >they picking up on something I'm missing? [me now] This is a welcomed exercise to look into the apparatus of the BHS. There, there is a notation concerning the variant in 4:8 which says: mlt Mss Edd hic interv; frt ins c ~ GSV {"Let us go forth abroad."} cf. TjjII I *translate* this into (using their English Key and the info in the Intro): Many medieval mss of the Hebrew OT, [many] Editions of the Hebrew OT, here (in this place [have an?]) interval; (fortasse) perhaps insert (cum) with Samaritan Hebrew Pentateuch The Septuagint The Syriac version of OT The Vulgate {"Let us go forth abroad."} Compare The Targums (Targum Pseudo-Jonathae secundum M. Ginsburger, Pseudo-Jonathan 1903 & Targum Hierosolymitanum secundum M. Ginsburger, Das Fragmententhargum 1899) So, the witnesses to the longer reading are: (1) The Samaritan Hebrew Pentateuch (2) LXX (3) Syriac OT (4) Vulg. (5) Plus perhaps two Targums In connection with another variant (Luke 3:35,36 "Shelah-Cainan-Arphaxad" with Gen 10:24 "Shelah-Arpachshad" [No Cainan], also 1 Chr 1:18 --- note the following: in Gen 10:24 LXX has Cainan, and in 1 Chr LXX (Codex Alexandrinus, etc., also includes Cainan. BTW, I did not see any variant in Luke 3:35,36) *forgive the long parentisis!*, anyway, a former prof. of mine commented: Are not those witnesses (noted above) older than the masoretic text in which BHS is based (Leningrad Codex B19^A (L) - dated 1009 or 1008 AD)? The same prof. made the observation that seemingly Luke had a witness to the inclusion of Cainan which is not found in L. Perhaps the same witness(es) had the same text of that Ms(s) which served as the basis for the LXX, Vulg, etc. I grant that my theological presuppositions force me to correct the L text in those OT passages with the NT text of Luke. Now, back to Gen 4:8: Plus, a search for the string "and (he) said" in the BHS gave 1896 verses, there are 315 in Genesis alone. I looked at over 100x, in these there was always a phrase or word(s) which stated what was said. I suspect that it is true in most if not all the rest of the 1896x! I've never seen an OT ms (just images in the web), but just looking to the BHS, could it be possible that the scribe of L *jumped* from the Nun (first letter of "lets us go") to the Waw (conjuction, first letter in "and it came to pass"), these two letters look very much the same, specially if there were already "vowel" points in the ms (either L or the ms(s) from which L's scribe was working), since the Waw with the Pathat looks like a Nun. That way, by simple Homoioteleuton the phrase "let us go forth abroad" could have been lost in L. (Or, for that case, in the masoretic tradition). I suspect that the RSV & NIV followed the LXX in this case. Francisco Orozco Trinity Ministerial Academy 1991-1995 (Montville NJ USA) Fran@prodigy.net Nashville NC USA From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Apr 14 18:27:00 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA11084; Mon, 14 Apr 1997 18:26:59 -0400 From: "Mirkovic, Alexander" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Apocrypha Message-ID: Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 17:28:19 -0400 (EDT) Priority: NORMAL X-Mailer: Simeon for Windows Version 4.0.9 X-Authentication: none MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1529 On Mon, 14 Apr 1997 12:59:52 -0500 (EST) Jim West wrote: > I don't think that Gnostic material qualifies as apocrypha, does it? > Apocrypha are materials written by Jews or Christians which are of an > orthodox character- but which were not included in the Canon. I do not > think that Nag Hammadi qualifies here. > > Jim This is an interesting question. Let me give an example: The Apocalypse of Adam is preserved in a single manuscript, codex 5 of Nag Hammadi, yet Charlesworth includes it in his collection of the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Is he right? The problem here is the definition of the terms, apocrypha, pseudepigrapha, etc. I would rather speak about literature, namely, Jewish literature from the Hellenistic Period, or Christian literature from the early Imperial Period, and avoid terms like apocrypha or pseudepigrapha, since they imply a value judgment (a pretty negative one). To some, this might sound like political correctness, but IMO the terms apocrypha and pseudepigrapha have done more harm that good. PS. A similar discussion started on OT Pseudepigrapha list run by James Davila presently at St. Andrews in Scotland. Anyone interested could visit St. Andrews web-site. ************************************************* Alexander Mirkovic Senior Teaching Fellow for Koine Greek Graduate Department of Religion Vanderbilt University Email: alexander.mirkovic@vanderbilt.edu Phone: (615) 421-8331 ************************************************* From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Apr 14 18:43:03 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA11178; Mon, 14 Apr 1997 18:43:03 -0400 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 17:39:35 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: AGAPAW/FILEW (Was: Re: John 9:35) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1041 On Mon, 14 Apr 1997, Maurice Robinson wrote, in part: >Actually, I would counter this with the notion that John clearly and >deliberately varied the use of AGAPAW and FILEW in this passage [...] >and not merely "varying his >vocabulary" just for the sake of style. I doubt we'll settle this question here -- and it isn't really a textual question anyway -- but I'm inclined to agree with Robinson. At least in his essential point. I think the author used the two verbs as he did for some deliberate reason. I'm not as sure I know what it is -- but I think in Chapter 21 the variation has a purpose. (I'm not as certain in John's other uses of the two roots.) -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A very rough draft of part of the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Apr 14 19:41:41 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA11385; Mon, 14 Apr 1997 19:41:41 -0400 Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 19:42:26 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by DEV.InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: Apocrypha X-Sender: jwest@mail.highland.net (Unverified) To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970414194147.22b76c7a@mail.highland.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1750 At 05:28 PM 4/14/97 -0400, you wrote: >The Apocalypse of Adam is preserved in a single manuscript, >codex 5 of Nag Hammadi, yet Charlesworth includes it in his >collection of the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Is he >right? I haven't decided yet. As I do not yet know enough (!). > The problem here is the definition of the >terms, apocrypha, pseudepigrapha, etc. I would rather >speak about literature, namely, Jewish literature >from the Hellenistic Period, or Christian literature >from the early Imperial Period, and avoid terms like >apocrypha or pseudepigrapha, since they imply a value >judgment (a pretty negative one). This is an excellent suggestion. The entire question of the "canon" is fraught with difficulties (see the forthcoming article by P. Davies in "The Journal of Hebrew Scriptures"). > To some, this might sound like political >correctness, but IMO the terms apocrypha and >pseudepigrapha have done more harm that good. > True. >PS. A similar discussion started on OT Pseudepigrapha list >run by James Davila presently at St. Andrews in >Scotland. Anyone interested could visit St. Andrews >web-site. > There is an excellent bib on the site as well. The course is utterly fascinating and Professor Davila is doing an excellent job at it! >************************************************* >Alexander Mirkovic >Senior Teaching Fellow for Koine Greek >Graduate Department of Religion >Vanderbilt University >Email: alexander.mirkovic@vanderbilt.edu >Phone: (615) 421-8331 >************************************************* Jim (from the other side of TN). ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@theology.edu From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Apr 14 19:43:18 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA11410; Mon, 14 Apr 1997 19:43:17 -0400 Date: 14 Apr 1997 23:43:44 -0000 Message-ID: <19970414234344.4926.qmail@np.nosc.mil> From: Vincent Broman To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu In-reply-to: (message from Bart Ehrman on Mon, 14 Apr 1997 07:42:24 -0400 (EDT)) Subject: Re: Classifying witnesses (was Alexandrian Text) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 3291 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- behrman@email.unc.edu wrote: > ... I would be quite > interested in an evaluation of my "Comprehensive Profile Method," which is > used as way to provide nuance to the findings of a Colwell-like > quantitative method.... The method has been used > in a number of dissertations recently... I think I've read the JBL article, but it's hazy in my memory. I'm working now with Mullen's book on Cyril of Jerusalem, and he attributes his use of profiles to Ehrman. So, if I've got the right set of methods in mind, then I do have comments. Observation: Most of Mullen's convincing findings were obtained from the CompPM profiles, i.e. from the percentages of agreements of Cyril with the Uniform+Predominant readings of each text type, or with the Unique+Distinctive readings of the text types. (Are U+D the right label names from the second set of profiles?) Mullen also presented the raw percentages of MS agreements, but they turned out to be not so useful in his analysis. (Also, the cited "average percentage of agreement" for each text type is an irrelevancy.) It seems to me that the difference between agreement with a Uniform reading of a text type and agreement with a Predominant reading of that text type is only a difference in the _degree_of_certainty_ you have that the reading in question really belongs to that text type, not reflecting some other characteristic of the reading or of the TT. Right? If so, then counts of agreements with Predominant readings should be lumped in with counts of Uniform readings, along with a weight factor that reflects how predominant the reading is. The resulting statistic would answer the question: how much evidence is there that the Pater's text could have come from that text type? A similar argument could be made that the Unique and Distinctive readings should be lumped together, with a weight factor reflecting how little support comes from outside the text type in question, in order to answer the question: how much evidence is there that the Pater's text could not have come from any other text type? These two sets of profiles are really looking at dual questions, measuring "could belong" vs. "could not belong", or "might belong" vs. "must belong". Phrased this way, it looks like the proper framework to measure these kinds of textual affinity would be a belief function like that of Dempster and Shafer. The issues involved are just like those I've dealt with in Data Fusion for the Navy, just with a different slant. Considering how many tc-listers are likely to have read Shafer (~1 I bet) I'll have to develop that idea myself, I guess. Vincent Broman Email: broman@nosc.mil,broman@sd.znet.com = 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 ___ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCUAwUBM1K/xWCU4mTNq7IdAQGLzwP3RECEAYtoGic60Bdw+nXp5GbhfucA7Mid 3btQ4JoVunqb5L28s8+eRsPfZZC9Zgcr2QpN5xOEuJyI11Gy3SHpQRnd1layzv5j GlzqzGgWLFIpASMqN0rWoQyaPR2Xk68pb25e6fct5IRp4d1CV1sNHdHx6z363Eid 5yX6Eyg0cQ== =gRiw -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Apr 14 22:52:55 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA12137; Mon, 14 Apr 1997 22:52:54 -0400 Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 19:53:55 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew Johnson Subject: Re: The Leisure of the Divine Word To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 901 On Wed, 2 Apr 1997, Maurice Robinson wrote: > > > On Wed, 2 Apr 1997 schmiul@uni-muenster.de wrote: > > > >>I now stronly suspect my computer-mouse to be defective. In the highly professional scriptorium of Studion, run by St. Theodore, a copyist would receive a penance of many prostrations for being caught with a dirty workspace, or a pen badly in need of sharpening. And in our modern computer age, what penance should we get for failing to keep the mouse clean? If you have the common mechanical mouse, open the mouse, remove the ball and scrape the caked grime and dust off of the rollers which contact the ball. This will greatly reduce modern copying errors. I use a pen-cap to do the scraping. I'll let someone else assign you your epitimia! Matthew Johnson Waiting for the blessed hope and the appearance of the glory of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ (Ti 2:13). From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Apr 14 23:15:27 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id XAA12175; Mon, 14 Apr 1997 23:15:26 -0400 Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 20:16:28 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew Johnson Subject: Re: P46 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970403123428.234776aa@mail.infoave.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1434 On Thu, 3 Apr 1997, Jim West wrote: > Regarding P46. It of course does not solve all TC issues- as it is very > small and only contains minor portions of the whole NT. > > Yet it deserves very special consideration as it is free of "type > influence". It is very early (180 at the latest?). And it is clearly But according to Amphoux, the first recension of the Western text had already taken place, in about 135AD. So how can you say that P46 is free of type influence? > superior by all the canons of TC. > > Why, then, dismiss it when it has all the right stuff? I don't think anyone is arguing that P46 should be _dismissed_. Rather, some of us are extremely cautious of Western readings. And we should be. For although there are some very good readings in the Western text, there was also very little 'quality control' over the copying process in that era. So sorting out the wheat from the chaff in Western readings is significantly more difficult than in the other text-types. Personally, I will have a lot more confidence in modern textual criticism's ability to do this when the Vetus Latina Project is finished, and the results widely understood. This will greatly simplify the job because of the close relation between the Old Latin text-types and the Western. Matthew Johnson Waiting for the blessed hope and the appearance of the glory of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ (Ti 2:13). From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Apr 15 08:44:47 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA12961; Tue, 15 Apr 1997 08:44:46 -0400 From: willrut@uni-muenster.de Message-Id: <199704151245.OAA50394@mail.uni-muenster.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Tue, 15 Apr 97 15:00:29 +0100 Subject: Re: Roman's Doxology To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970414151154.23d73ac6@mail.highland.net> X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1716 On Mon, 14 Apr 1997, Jim West wrote: >P46 locates the doxology after 15:33. This seems to make the most sense >(for the following reasons): >1- Rom 15:33 was originally followed by 16:25-27. In my view this is no TC "reason", at least not in this form. >2- when Chapter 16 was added by later scribes (as 16 is evidently not >original to Romans, but seems to be a completely different document- either >a cover letter to 1-2 Corinthians or a lost fragment, I do not know.) the >ending had to be moved to its current location. Though the scribe of P46 >retained the original order. Again, in my view no TC "reason", but a reasoning based on "Literarkritik" (integrity/disintergrity of a text). >3- Likewise, the scribes of P61, Aleph, B, C, D, etc placed it at the end of >the 16th chapter because they too saw it as a concluding doxology. They >simply thought that 16 was integral to the letter; so they put the doxology >where it would naturally belong- at the end, just like in a worship service. >(liturgy influences textual decisions). Given that the placing of the doxology after chapter 16 is not original, this reasoning is sound in my view. However, the main difficulties have not been accounted for, yet: 1. If the location of the (concluding) doxology after chapter 15 was original, why would most of the MSS place the doxology after chapter 14 with chapters 15+16 still to follow? 2. Within the latin textual tradition we have evidence that the doxology once was placed after chapter 14 with nothing left to follow. 3. The marcionite version of Romans ended after chapter 14 without the doxology. BTW-- the marcionite version is half a century older than P46. Ulrich Schmid, Muenster From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Apr 15 09:15:36 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA13044; Tue, 15 Apr 1997 09:15:36 -0400 Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 09:14:45 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by DEV.InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: Roman's Doxology X-Sender: jwest@highland.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970415091405.26c76178@highland.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1166 At 03:00 PM 4/15/97 +0100, you wrote: >However, the main difficulties have not been accounted for, yet: >1. If the location of the (concluding) doxology after chapter 15 was original, >why would most of the MSS place the doxology after chapter 14 with chapters >15+16 still to follow? This is the great mystery. Perhaps for the same reason (unknown) that the Johannine pericope about the adulterous woman "floats"; that is, various scribes attempted to solve the problem in various wasy- just as we are. >2. Within the latin textual tradition we have evidence that the doxology once >was placed after chapter 14 with nothing left to follow. Perhaps because the scribe simply stopped (?). >3. The marcionite version of Romans ended after chapter 14 without the doxology. >BTW-- the marcionite version is half a century older than P46. > I have a great deal of trouble trusting Marcion. He definitely had an axe to grind. But, as you say, many of these issues are Literarkritik. >Ulrich Schmid, Muenster > Jim ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@theology.edu From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Apr 15 09:33:58 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA13111; Tue, 15 Apr 1997 09:33:57 -0400 Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 09:34:18 -0400 (EDT) From: Bart Ehrman X-Sender: behrman@login4.isis.unc.edu To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Qualifications, Classifications, and Progress Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 3067 I too don't think contributors should be maligned for not having seminary degrees or for not having published anything (I haven't been reading the list consistently, and so didn't know that anyone had leveled these accusations against R. Waltz). My point though is that if Mr. Waltz wants to make a public statement that the study of the NT text hasn't gone anywhere for decades, I'd like to see his qualifications for saying so. It certainly doesn't need to be in the form of degrees or publications; I'd settle for some evidence of knowing the field well enough to pass judgment on it. How, for example, can anyone who hasn't read the seminal pieces and kept up on recent developments -- e.g., in group profile methods? -- say that nothing of significance has happened in the field? And how can someone write an encyclopedia article on just this topic for broad circulation? Am I to understand that this encyclopedia article overlooks the major contributions of the past 30 years? I apologize for the bluntness of these questions, but it seems to me that anyone who makes a sweeping judgment on a field is not asking to be treated with kid gloves. In fact, if major "breakthroughs" are the important criterion to consider for the field going somewhere, I should think that manuscript classification (especially in the matter recently raised, of getting away from the use of non-Byzantine readings to establish consanquinity) would be one area to consider seriously. A decade-old piece that may serve as a starting point is my "where we are now" sketch: "Methodological Developments in the Analysis and Classification of NT Documentary Evidence," _NovT_ 29 (1987) 22-45. Gordon Fee's article is a key development here; the full reference is "The Text of John and Mark in the Writings of Chrysostom," _NTS_ 26 (1979-80) 525-47. My other article that I mentioned earlier is "The Use of Group Profiles for the Classification of NT Documentary Evidence," _JBL_ 106 (1987) 465-86; the Didymus book whence the data come is Scholars Press, 1986. Again, any substantive suggestions by people who *have* read and/or used the method are extremely welcome. In terms of substantive developments in other subfields, I would suggest that the increasingly widespread recognition of the importance of theological and other ideological disputes in early Christianity for the NT text is a major breakthrough. And the significant advances in patristic analyses (with competent studies now available, for the first time, of the NT texts of Didymus, Gregory of Nyssa, chunks of Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius, and others, including Cyril of Alexandria soon forthcoming) are highly significant. Very very soon we will be equipped to write a competent history of the text of Alexandria, for example, on the basis of some of these sundry (and related) studies. Any takers? It needs to be someone thoroughly conversant with all the data that are increasingly becoming available. -- Bart D. Ehrman, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Apr 15 09:37:23 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA13133; Tue, 15 Apr 1997 09:37:22 -0400 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <1.5.4.16.19970403123428.234776aa@mail.infoave.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 08:23:54 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: P46 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2457 On Mon, 14 Apr 1997, Matthew Johnson wrote: >On Thu, 3 Apr 1997, Jim West wrote: > >> Regarding P46. It of course does not solve all TC issues- as it is very >> small and only contains minor portions of the whole NT. >> >> Yet it deserves very special consideration as it is free of "type >> influence". It is very early (180 at the latest?). And it is clearly > >But according to Amphoux, the first recension of the Western text had >already taken place, in about 135AD. So how can you say that P46 is free >of type influence? I can't see that the fact that the "Western" text was in existence in 135 has any necessary effect on p46. (I also doubt that there was a "Wesrn" *recension* in 135, but that's not really relevant to the argument.) As far as I know, the best analysis of the so-called "Western" readings in p46 remains that of Zuntz. Zuntz found that, where p46 has a so-called "Western" reading, it is almost always ancient and not characteristically "Western." As I have noted many times before, I don't entirely agree with Zuntz (he spent so much time examining p46 that there wasn't much energy left over for other manuscripts). But I agree with him that those "Western" readings of p46 (and B sa) are not, in fact, "Western"; they are characteristic of the p46 text-type. [ ... ] >For although there are some very good readings in the Western text, >there was also very little 'quality control' over the copying process in >that era. So sorting out the wheat from the chaff in Western readings is >significantly more difficult than in the other text-types. > >Personally, I will have a lot more confidence in modern textual >criticism's ability to do this when the Vetus Latina Project is finished, >and the results widely understood. This will greatly simplify the job >because of the close relation between the Old Latin text-types and the >Western. I would agree that there is an urgent need for good work on the Old Latin and its relation to the "Western" text. But I don't think this is quite as urgent in Paul as in the Gospels or Acts. In Paul, the "Western" text is relatively well-represented in Greek (with D F G and a handful of readings in 629, though these likely come from the Latin). It is also a much less wild edition; there are very few insertions of more than a word or two. I think it perfectly possible to control the "Western" text of Paul. Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Apr 15 09:47:46 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA13173; Tue, 15 Apr 1997 09:47:45 -0400 Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 09:47:44 -0400 (EDT) From: "James R. Adair" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Genesis 4:8 In-Reply-To: <199704142209.SAA82024@mail1y-int.prodigy.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 5010 On Mon, 14 Apr 1997 Fran@prodigy.net wrote: > This is a welcomed exercise to look into the apparatus of the BHS. There, > there is a notation concerning the variant in 4:8 which says: > > mlt Mss Edd hic interv; frt ins c ~ GSV {"Let us go forth abroad."} cf. > TjjII > > I *translate* this into (using their English Key and the info in the > Intro): > > Many medieval mss of the Hebrew OT, [many] Editions of the Hebrew OT, > here (in this place [have an?]) interval; (fortasse) perhaps insert (cum) > with Samaritan Hebrew Pentateuch The Septuagint The Syriac version of OT > The Vulgate {"Let us go forth abroad."} Compare The Targums (Targum > Pseudo-Jonathae secundum M. Ginsburger, Pseudo-Jonathan 1903 & Targum > Hierosolymitanum secundum M. Ginsburger, Das Fragmententhargum 1899) > > So, the witnesses to the longer reading are: > (1) The Samaritan Hebrew Pentateuch > (2) LXX > (3) Syriac OT > (4) Vulg. > (5) Plus perhaps two Targums Targum Neofiti may also support the reading. It includes the phrase "let us go into the field," followed by a fairly long report of a dispute between Cain and Abel over the justice of God, etc. The use of targumic witnesses to the text requires special care, however, hence the "cf." in the BHS apparatus. > In connection with another variant (Luke 3:35,36 "Shelah-Cainan-Arphaxad" > with Gen 10:24 "Shelah-Arpachshad" [No Cainan], also 1 Chr 1:18 --- note > the following: in Gen 10:24 LXX has Cainan, and in 1 Chr LXX (Codex > Alexandrinus, etc., also includes Cainan. BTW, I did not see any variant > in Luke 3:35,36) *forgive the long parentisis!*, anyway, a former > prof. of mine commented: > > Are not those witnesses (noted above) older than the masoretic text in > which BHS is based (Leningrad Codex B19^A (L) - dated 1009 or 1008 AD)? > > The same prof. made the observation that seemingly Luke had a witness > to the inclusion of Cainan which is not found in L. Perhaps the same > witness(es) had the same text of that Ms(s) which served as the basis for > the LXX, Vulg, etc. I grant that my theological presuppositions force me > to correct the L text in those OT passages with the NT text of Luke. Mss of Luke do predate L and other medieval mss, but the testimony of Luke should be seen as a witness to the text of the LXX in the first century, since the NT (including Luke) regularly cites the Greek rather than the Hebrew (with a few exceptions). TON KAINAN KAI KAINAN EGENNHSEN could have been omitted easily by parablepsis in the forerunner of the MT, making the LXX reading preferable. On the other hand, Wevers (Notes on the Greek Text of Genesis) points to 11:12-13, where Kainan also appears, replete with a specified lifespan before and after the birth of a son. He suggests that Kainan has been inserted by the forerunner of the LXX (or by the translator?) in order to produce a schema of 10 generations from Adam to Noah and 10 generations from Arpachshad to Abram (cf. Matthew's genealogy). I have to comment on the statement, "my theological presuppositions force me to correct the L text in those OT passages with the NT text of Luke." Aside from being questionable from a text-critical point of view, isn't this putting the cart before the horse? Shouldn't one's theological presuppositions (or conclusions) be based on the text, not vice versa? > Now, back to Gen 4:8: > Plus, a search for the string "and (he) said" in the BHS gave 1896 verses, > there are 315 in Genesis alone. I looked at over 100x, in these there was > always a phrase or word(s) which stated what was said. I suspect that it > is true in most if not all the rest of the 1896x! > > I've never seen an OT ms (just images in the web), but just looking to the > BHS, could it be possible that the scribe of L *jumped* from the Nun > (first letter of "lets us go") to the Waw (conjuction, first letter in > "and it came to pass"), these two letters look very much the same, > specially if there were already "vowel" points in the ms (either L or the > ms(s) from which L's scribe was working), since the Waw with the Pathat > looks like a Nun. That way, by simple Homoioteleuton the phrase "let us go > forth abroad" could have been lost in L. (Or, for that case, in the > masoretic tradition). The reading of the MT surely predates by a long time the earliest medieval manuscripts. The omission of Kainan is found in LXX mss 911 (3rd C) and 961 (4th C) (among others). Although these readings could be independent examples of parablepsis, it seems more likely that they represent sporadic corrections in the direction of the MT. Some, but not all, of the hexaplaric mss also omit the reference to Kainan here. > I suspect that the RSV & NIV followed the LXX in this case. > I'm sure that's true. 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 owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Apr 15 12:17:21 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA13664; Tue, 15 Apr 1997 12:17:20 -0400 Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 12:16:48 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by DEV.InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: Romans Doxology X-Sender: jwest@hub.infoave.net (Unverified) To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970415121523.24d740d0@hub.infoave.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 481 I responded to Ulrichs post- but I have not seen it appear. In short, Ulrich is right, my observations are "Literary-Critical" in nature. Yet the textual question can only be resolved with the help of higher criticism. Jim (this means that the disciplines are intertwined by necessity; one cannot be used in isolation or a distorted picture arises.) +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@theology.edu From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Apr 15 12:23:07 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA13710; Tue, 15 Apr 1997 12:23:07 -0400 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 11:17:05 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Qualifications, Classifications, and Progress Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2526 On Tue, 15 Apr 1997, Bart Ehrman wrote, in part: > I too don't think contributors should be maligned for not having >seminary degrees or for not having published anything (I haven't been >reading the list consistently, and so didn't know that anyone had leveled >these accusations against R. Waltz). My point though is that if Mr. Waltz >wants to make a public statement that the study of the NT text hasn't gone >anywhere for decades, I'd like to see his qualifications for saying so. It >certainly doesn't need to be in the form of degrees or publications; I'd >settle for some evidence of knowing the field well enough to pass judgment >on it. Let me again try to make my statement clear: I was saying that the textual *theory* of NTTC has not changed much in the last few decades. At least, I haven't seen any changes in the manuals. It is obviously true that a massive amount of work has been put into classifying manuscripts. The amount of *information* available is much greater than it was fifty or even twenty years ago. This should facilitate the development of better theory. On the other hand, if one of the most widely used techniques -- the Claremont Profile Method -- can't tell the B text from the D text, it's clear we still have problems. :-) I will admit that I haven't seen Ehrman's own work. Based on Vincent Broman's comments, it does sound like it is the first widely-used classification system to use classified agreements -- which I consider absolutely vital. Obviously Ehrman beat me to the punch on this (I will have to look up the article to see which method works best). I would point out that I *am* a trained mathematician. I can say without hesitation that the level of mathematical sophistication displayed in many of the publications in the field is abysmal. (Though the worst crimes have been committed by people, such as Richards, not on this list.) I would appeal for those who use mathematical methods to consult with a mathematician (preferably a statistician -- something which I am not) before making too much of their results. And since I don't want to escalate this debate, I will not respond further. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A very rough draft of part of the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Apr 15 13:09:38 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA13843; Tue, 15 Apr 1997 13:09:38 -0400 Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 13:07:29 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by DEV.InfoAve.Net From: Jim West X-Sender: jwest@hub.infoave.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970415130604.21ff5702@hub.infoave.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1147 At 03:00 PM 4/15/97 +0100, you wrote: >However, the main difficulties have not been accounted for, yet: >1. If the location of the (concluding) doxology after chapter 15 was original, >why would most of the MSS place the doxology after chapter 14 with chapters >15+16 still to follow? This is the great mystery. Perhaps for the same reason (unknown) that the Johannine pericope about the adulterous woman "floats"; that is, various scribes attempted to solve the problem in various wasy- just as we are. >2. Within the latin textual tradition we have evidence that the doxology once >was placed after chapter 14 with nothing left to follow. Perhaps because the scribe simply stopped (?). >3. The marcionite version of Romans ended after chapter 14 without the doxology. >BTW-- the marcionite version is half a century older than P46. > I have a great deal of trouble trusting Marcion. He definitely had an axe to grind. But, as you say, many of these issues are Literarkritik. >Ulrich Schmid, Muenster > Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@theology.edu From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Apr 15 13:30:58 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA13958; Tue, 15 Apr 1997 13:30:57 -0400 Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 13:31:54 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Roman's Doxology In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970415091405.26c76178@highland.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2012 On Tue, 15 Apr 1997, Jim West wrote: > At 03:00 PM 4/15/97 +0100, you wrote: > > >However, the main difficulties have not been accounted for, yet: > >1. If the location of the (concluding) doxology after chapter 15 was original, > >why would most of the MSS place the doxology after chapter 14 with chapters > >15+16 still to follow? > > This is the great mystery. Perhaps for the same reason (unknown) that the > Johannine pericope about the adulterous woman "floats"; that is, various > scribes attempted to solve the problem in various wasy- just as we are. Ulrich and I happen to agree about the doxology of Romans being originally at the end of ch.14, though certainly for different reasons. However, in light of Jim's comments above, the situation in Romans as he seems to explain it is that he favors one of the "floating" positions as original, as opposed to the mass of MSS. By making an analogy to the pericope adultera, he then should argue that the Johannine passage also is "original", but _only_ when found in a minority location (e.g. Lk. 21.38); otherwise there is no point to be gained by appealing to a passage which I certainly feel Jim would _not_ consider original in any form. The big question (as Ulrich stated) in both situations remains how the vast majority of MSS happened to place either the Romans doxology or the pericope adultera in their single precise location had any other form been their predecessor. I would suggest that the Romans situation demonstrates that not only can the earliest MS (P46) be quite wrong, but also the Alexandrian, Western and Caesarean (?) traditions, and also that a similar conclusion can be drawn in regard to the pericope adultera. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Apr 15 13:47:34 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA14016; Tue, 15 Apr 1997 13:47:33 -0400 From: schmiul@uni-muenster.de Message-Id: <199704151748.TAA30054@mail.uni-muenster.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Tue, 15 Apr 97 20:03:23 +0100 Subject: Re: Roman's Doxology To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970415091405.26c76178@highland.net> X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 4682 On Tue, 15 Apr 1997, Jim West wrote: [quoting Schmid:] >>However, the main difficulties have not been accounted for, yet: >>1. If the location of the (concluding) doxology after chapter 15 was original, >>why would most of the MSS place the doxology after chapter 14 with chapters >>15+16 still to follow? >This is the great mystery. Perhaps for the same reason (unknown) that the >Johannine pericope about the adulterous woman "floats"; that is, various >scribes attempted to solve the problem in various wasy- just as we are. To my mind, this is only a mystery, if we do not include all of the relevant data into the whole framework. The "floating" pericope about the adulterous woman is in no way comparable, as far as I can see, for most of the various positions of this pericope seem to be due to lectionary systems (there was a recent article on that which I fail to recall right now). >>2. Within the latin textual tradition we have evidence that the doxology once >>was placed after chapter 14 with nothing left to follow. >Perhaps because the scribe simply stopped (?). Why? Again, a mystery only to those who prefer P46. >>3. The marcionite version of Romans ended after chapter 14 without the >>doxology. >>BTW-- the marcionite version is half a century older than P46. > >I have a great deal of trouble trusting Marcion. He definitely had an axe >to grind. What do you mean by "trusting Marcion"? You are not willing to trust him as a textual witness? Marcion especially with respect to the ending of Romans usually serves as a deus ex machina being charged for having erased Rom 15-16. However, taking all the relevant data into account this scenario seems to be most unlikely as, e.g., Harry Gamble (The textual history of the Letter to the Romans: Studies and Documents 42, 1977) has shown. In my own dissertation on Marcion und sein Apostolos. Rekonstruktion und historische Einordnung der marcionitischen Paulusbriefausgabe: ANTF 25, 1995) I reaffirmed Gamble's judgement (IMHO), yet differing on the conclusions to be drawn from this position. >But, as you say, many of these issues are Literarkritik. [Only minutes later in a second post] >Yet the textual question can only be resolved with the help of higher >criticism. >Jim >(this means that the disciplines are intertwined by necessity; one cannot be >used in isolation or a distorted picture arises.) I totally agree in that we can not ignore higher criticism in textual questions. However, textual questions, in my mind, should be addressed first of all according to their own simple agenda: 1. Gathering all of the relevant data. 2. Judging them according to "rules" pertinent to textual matters. 3. Applying Occam's razor. With respect to the ending of Romans my own picture is the following: - The whole messed up textual situation is basically due to contamination of two different forms of Romans (A = Rom 1,1-16,23 + B = Rom 1,1-14,23+16,25-27). - B resulted in a mechanical break-off after 14,23 with the doxology added lateron. - The mechanical break-off presumably took place within a small edition of Gal 1/2 Cor Rom (= C) that lateron was expanded to a ten letter edition: Gal 1/2 Cor Rom (lacking chapters 15-16, but including the doxology) 1/2 Thess Laod(=Eph) Kol Phil Phlm. This ten letter edition was used by Marcion, but it had its impact on tradition apart from Marcion's (mis-)use of it. Now, applying the above mentioned three-point-agenda to my hypotheses reveals the following: 1. Personally, I think that I included all the relevant data. However, in order to falsify my hypotheses, I need data that can be not accounted for within this framework. 2. Mechanical break-off (and supplementation) at the beginning/end of MSS is one of the most widespread features in textual transmission. Conflation is also germane to textual transmission. The same goes for corrections of various sorts. In short: Nothing within my hypotheses is unparalleled from a textual viewpoint. 3. I only need three different entities: A, B, C. A and B are displayed by transmission itself, only C is postulated. However, C is not necessary to account for the messed up textual situation _after_ A and B. C only accounts for the existence of B, to my knowledge, in the most compelling way, again, according to textual matters. My hypotheses only needs one basic assumption with respect to editorial activities: making somehow sense of a situation when A meets B (or subsequent editorial activities). To sum up: The mysteries P46 advocats have to face simply disappear. Literarkritik is not directly involved, but could be added. Ulrich Schmid, Muenster From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Apr 15 14:02:25 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA14095; Tue, 15 Apr 1997 14:02:25 -0400 Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 14:02:58 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by DEV.InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: Roman's Doxology X-Sender: jwest@hub.infoave.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970415140133.18df96c2@hub.infoave.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 891 At 01:31 PM 4/15/97 -0400, you wrote: > > >The big question (as Ulrich stated) in both situations remains how the >vast majority of MSS happened to place either the Romans doxology or the >pericope adultera in their single precise location had any other form been >their predecessor. This is indeed the central issue. > I would suggest that the Romans situation demonstrates >that not only can the earliest MS (P46) be quite wrong, but also the >Alexandrian, Western and Caesarean (?) traditions, and also that a similar >conclusion can be drawn in regard to the pericope adultera. > I dont see it that way. In fact, what the Romans example illustrates is that early scribes were more likely to leave things the way they found them than later scribes. Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@theology.edu From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Apr 15 14:12:19 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA14162; Tue, 15 Apr 1997 14:12:19 -0400 Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 14:13:13 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by DEV.InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: Roman's Doxology X-Sender: jwest@hub.infoave.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970415141147.307f5516@hub.infoave.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2431 >With respect to the ending of Romans my own picture is the following: >- The whole messed up textual situation is basically due to contamination of two >different forms of Romans (A = Rom 1,1-16,23 + B = Rom 1,1-14,23+16,25-27). >- B resulted in a mechanical break-off after 14,23 with the doxology added >lateron. >- The mechanical break-off presumably took place within a small edition of Gal >1/2 Cor Rom (= C) that lateron was expanded to a ten letter edition: Gal 1/2 Cor >Rom (lacking chapters 15-16, but including the doxology) 1/2 Thess Laod(=Eph) >Kol Phil Phlm. This ten letter edition was used by Marcion, but it had its >impact on tradition apart from Marcion's (mis-)use of it. This means that these collections were made very early. I suppose this is possible (and surely could have occured by the time of Marcion). Are you suggesting that there was a Pauline collection which circulated in a ten letter edition? > >Now, applying the above mentioned three-point-agenda to my hypotheses reveals >the following: >1. Personally, I think that I included all the relevant data. However, in order >to falsify my hypotheses, I need data that can be not accounted for within this >framework. >2. Mechanical break-off (and supplementation) at the beginning/end of MSS is one >of the most widespread features in textual transmission. Conflation is also >germane to textual transmission. The same goes for corrections of various sorts. >In short: Nothing within my hypotheses is unparalleled from a textual viewpoint. Quite true. >3. I only need three different entities: A, B, C. A and B are displayed by >transmission itself, only C is postulated. However, C is not necessary to >account for the messed up textual situation _after_ A and B. C only accounts for >the existence of B, to my knowledge, in the most compelling way, again, >according to textual matters. My hypotheses only needs one basic assumption with >respect to editorial activities: making somehow sense of a situation when A >meets B (or subsequent editorial activities). >To sum up: The mysteries P46 advocats have to face simply disappear. >Literarkritik is not directly involved, but could be added. > This is a very stimulating suggestion. It deserves some thought. >Ulrich Schmid, Muenster > Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@theology.edu From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Apr 15 14:45:36 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA14283; Tue, 15 Apr 1997 14:45:35 -0400 Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 14:46:32 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Roman's Doxology In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970415140133.18df96c2@hub.infoave.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 696 On Tue, 15 Apr 1997, Jim West wrote: > > I would suggest that the Romans situation demonstrates > >that not only can the earliest MS (P46) be quite wrong, but also the > >Alexandrian, Western and Caesarean (?) traditions, and also that a similar > >conclusion can be drawn in regard to the pericope adultera. > > > > I dont see it that way. In fact, what the Romans example illustrates is > that early scribes were more likely to leave things the way they found them > than later scribes. That position then only works by your example in but ONE early MS out of all of them -- so EVERY scribe after P46 is a "later" scribe with intent to "edit" the text? Again, I have serious doubts... From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Apr 15 15:24:47 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA14337; Tue, 15 Apr 1997 15:24:46 -0400 Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 15:22:50 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by DEV.InfoAve.Net From: Jim West X-Sender: jwest@hub.infoave.net (Unverified) To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970415152210.230f24e6@hub.infoave.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 281 Could someone provide me (off list) with the email address or regular address of the "Jahrbuch fuer biblische Theologie"? Thanks, Jim ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@theology.edu From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Apr 15 15:40:30 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA14451; Tue, 15 Apr 1997 15:40:30 -0400 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Genesis 4:8 Message-ID: <19970415.123457.10326.0.HILKAP@juno.com> References: X-Mailer: Juno 1.15 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-24 From: hilkap@juno.com (HILL R KAPLAN) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 15:35:35 EDT Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 909 On Sun, 13 Apr 1997 11:24:01 -0700 "Robert B. Waltz" >>But I noticed the RSV and the NIV both follow the longer reading. >>Are they picking up on something I'm missing? > >It's a matter of translation technique. As I understand it (and I am >not a Hebraist), the MT actually reads "And Cain said to Abel his >brother. And they were in the field, and Cain...." In other words, >the MT offers a transitive verb ("said") with no object. Since >LXX and Vg (independent translations) *both* offer an object, the >reading with the object is to be preferred. > > You are correct in observing that the MT does not provide details of what Cain said to Abel. Now, please explain why the highly probable **object ** ( ????) found in the LXX an Vg should be preferred over the omission ? In case you haven't noticed, the Hebrew Text is often so terse that occasional expected phrases are missing. HILL KAPLAN From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Apr 15 15:40:39 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA14466; Tue, 15 Apr 1997 15:40:39 -0400 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: GEN 4:8 Message-ID: <19970415.123457.10326.2.HILKAP@juno.com> References: <3B38CED0FE1@semt.sun.ac.za> X-Mailer: Juno 1.15 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-7,9-19 From: hilkap@juno.com (HILL R KAPLAN) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 15:35:35 EDT Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 591 On Mon, 14 Apr 1997 07:56:54 GMT+0200 "Dr Johann Cook" >> > > But I noticed the RSV and the NIV both follow the longer reading. Are they picking up on something I'm missing? >> > > >> > >> > It is just possible that the longer reading actually represents a different Hebrew Voltage. It is not only attested to by LXX and V, >>> >> > but Peshitta also has this reading. On the other hand, the latter two could have been influenced by LXX. >Prof. Johann Cook I understood that the Syriac was dependent on both LXX as well as the HEXAPLA. HILL KAPLAN From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Apr 15 16:46:23 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA14654; Tue, 15 Apr 1997 16:46:22 -0400 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <19970415.123457.10326.0.HILKAP@juno.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 15:49:39 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Genesis 4:8 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2213 On Tue, 15 Apr 1997, hilkap@juno.com (HILL R KAPLAN) wrote: >On Sun, 13 Apr 1997 11:24:01 -0700 "Robert B. Waltz" > > >>>But I noticed the RSV and the NIV both follow the longer reading. >>>Are they picking up on something I'm missing? >> >>It's a matter of translation technique. As I understand it (and I am >>not a Hebraist), the MT actually reads "And Cain said to Abel his >>brother. And they were in the field, and Cain...." In other words, >>the MT offers a transitive verb ("said") with no object. Since >>LXX and Vg (independent translations) *both* offer an object, the >>reading with the object is to be preferred. >> >> >You are correct in observing that the MT does not provide details of >what Cain said to Abel. > >Now, please explain why the highly probable **object ** ( ????) found >in the LXX an Vg should be preferred over the omission ? > >In case you haven't noticed, the Hebrew Text is often so terse that >occasional expected phrases are missing. This last statement is ambiguous, but I'll assume you mean that the authors of the Hebrew text preferred brevity to clarity, and so occasionally neglected to include clear language. (The other reading, of course, is that portions of the text have been lost in transmission.) Personally -- and I already said that I am not a Hebraist, so perhaps it would have been better if you had reacted to someone else's comments rather than mine -- I think that the Hebrew text *has* lost a lot of pieces, and that we need to use all the evidence, not just the MT, to reconstruct the original Hebrew. But even if that weren't true, this is a special case. Both LXX and the Vulgate support the longer reading. And these are two independent translations. The Vulgate is translated from something very close to the Masoretic Text. LXX is not. So, when they *agree* in a longer reading, it has a strong chance of being original. Especially when the MT looks defective. If MT looked defective, and LXX and Vg had *different* corrections, we might suspect that the defect (if it is one) preceded LXX. But here the defect clearly arose *after* LXX was translated -- and perhaps even after the Vulgate was translated. Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Apr 15 17:09:04 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA14783; Tue, 15 Apr 1997 17:09:03 -0400 From: DrJDPrice@aol.com Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 17:10:06 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <970415170739_-1970415418@emout01.mail.aol.com> To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: New dates for papyri Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2829 Hi tc-listers: I just gleaned the following from the B-Hebrew list and thought you guys might be interested in case some may not have seen it before. James D. Price ============================================== From: Fred Miller Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 07:51:22 -0500 Subject: Re: BHGr Q? Dawson 1994 on textlinguistics friends Bob Morse sent me a message which concerns dating of Greek papari by documents that were found at Qumran. Because of the obvious implication related to dating N.T. documents I thought it worth sharing. I think the Hebrew community at Qumran may make the Greek documents relevant to any group I hope you think so too. from bmorse@ticz.com Dear Fred, As a result of browsing and an inter-library "loan", I recently obtained a copy of the Tyndale Bulletin (May '95). It contains articles by Carsten Thiede and Philip Comfort. These men are papyrologists of the first water. Between the two of them, I learned that ten NT papyri have been redated and all are earlier than was thought. What led to these new assessments was the discovery of first century Greek fragments from Dead Sea caves and from Herculaneum, both areas having precise latest dates (A.D 68 and 79). The letter style matches that of the Egyptian papyri. P4, until recently dated 3rd cent., is now of about 100 (Luke). P32 (Titus) has moved from c.200 to c.175; P45 (Chester Beatty for the Gospel and Acts) has moved from 3rd cent. to c.150; P46 (Chest. Beat. Ro, 1-2 Co, Gal, Eph, Php, Col, 1 Th, Heb) has moved from c.200 to A.D. 85!!!! P52 (Rylands, Jn 18) has moved from c.125 to later first century--around 81-100. P64,67 (Magdalen & Barcelona fragments of Matt) has moved from c.200 to later first cent, (c.68-100). P66 (Bodmer II of Jn) has moved from c200 to c.125; P77 (Matt.) from 2nd-3rd cent. to c.150; P87 (Philemon) from 3rd cent to c.125; P90 (John) from "2nd cent." to c.150. Now get this: the former datings were influenced by the late-dating of NT books by destructive higher criticism (DHC). The new, accurate dates simply pitch DHC into the garbage can, where it has always belonged. I can give you precise descriptions of the Dead Sea documents later, if you need them. Thiede is a German with an English wife. He made the authorities at Oxford (Magdalen College)very unhappy because they had been sitting on the evidence for a century and didn't know what they had. Thiede speaks of Jesus resurrection in A.D. 30 as factual. How refreshing! Comfort is connected with Wheaton. Two other papyrologists involved in the new dating are: Herbert Hunger and Y.K. Kim. Well, so much for tonight. God bless and we'll be in touch again, God willing. *************************** Fred P Miller For Bible Study Majoring in Isaiah http://www.ao.net/~fmoeller ******************************* From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Apr 15 18:12:21 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA15047; Tue, 15 Apr 1997 18:12:21 -0400 Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 18:08:01 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by DEV.InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: New dates for papyri X-Sender: jwest@hub.infoave.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970415180720.26c7f2c4@hub.infoave.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 713 At 05:10 PM 4/15/97 -0400, you wrote: >Hi tc-listers: >I just gleaned the following from the B-Hebrew list and thought you guys >might be interested in case some may not have seen it before. >James D. Price > > The outrageous theories of Thiede have been well known to Qumran scholars for several years now. This is nothing new. In fact, Thiede has been thoroughly debunked by Qumran experts (which Thiede, by his own admission, is not). Further, the Greek fragments can hardly be considered NT fragments. In point of fact, they are most likely LXX fragments. Jim ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@theology.edu From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Apr 15 18:25:34 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA15079; Tue, 15 Apr 1997 18:25:33 -0400 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <970415170739_-1970415418@emout01.mail.aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 17:28:04 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: New dates for papyri Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2590 On Tue, 15 Apr 1997, DrJDPrice@AOL.COM quoted: >Dear Fred, As a result of browsing and an inter-library "loan", I >recently obtained a copy of the Tyndale Bulletin (May '95). It contains >articles by Carsten Thiede and Philip Comfort. These men are >papyrologists of the first water. Between the two of them, I learned >that ten NT papyri have been redated and all are earlier than was >thought. What led to these new assessments was the discovery of first >century Greek fragments from Dead Sea caves and from Herculaneum, both >areas having precise latest dates (A.D 68 and 79). The letter style >matches that of the Egyptian papyri. P4, until recently dated 3rd cent., >is now of about 100 (Luke). P32 (Titus) has moved from c.200 to c.175; >P45 (Chester Beatty for the Gospel and Acts) has moved from 3rd cent. to >c.150; P46 (Chest. Beat. Ro, 1-2 Co, Gal, Eph, Php, Col, 1 Th, Heb) has >moved from c.200 to A.D. 85!!!! P52 (Rylands, Jn 18) has moved from >c.125 to later first century--around 81-100. P64,67 (Magdalen & >Barcelona fragments of Matt) has moved from c.200 to later first cent, >(c.68-100). P66 (Bodmer II of Jn) has moved from c200 to c.125; P77 >(Matt.) from 2nd-3rd cent. to c.150; P87 (Philemon) from 3rd cent to >c.125; P90 (John) from "2nd cent." to c.150. Now get this: the former >datings were influenced by the late-dating of NT books by destructive >higher criticism (DHC). Let me start by freely admitting that I am NOT a paleographer. So I don't know what goes on in paleographers' heads. But I just can't buy this. Dating a papyrus to an exact year? Come on! Did any of us change the way we wrote between last year and this? For that matter, do all of us (obviously contemoraries) write in the same style? Certainly not. Now I'm not saying that the dates of some of the papyri should not be moved down. As I said, I don't know enough to argue. But I don't think we can take this without a grain of salt. This is particularly true where Philip Comfort is involved. His worship of old documents makes Jim West look restrained. If previous scholars were influenced by higher criticism, he Comfort is at least as likely to be influenced by a desire for old manuscripts. The curmudgeon in me strikes again. :-) -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A very rough draft of part of the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Apr 16 02:01:18 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id CAA15816; Wed, 16 Apr 1997 02:01:17 -0400 From: "Dr Johann Cook" Organization: University of Stellenbosch To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 08:05:12 GMT+0200 Subject: Re: GEN 4:8 X-Confirm-Reading-To: "Dr Johann Cook" X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.40) Message-ID: <3E3B2253FCE@SEMT.sun.ac.za> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1166 > To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu > Subject: Re: GEN 4:8 > From: hilkap@juno.com (HILL R KAPLAN) > Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 15:35:35 EDT > Reply-to: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu > > On Mon, 14 Apr 1997 07:56:54 GMT+0200 "Dr Johann Cook" > > >> > > But I noticed the RSV and the NIV both follow the longer > reading. Are they picking up on something I'm missing? > >> > > > >> > > >> > It is just possible that the longer reading actually represents a > different Hebrew Voltage. It is not only attested to by LXX and V, > > >>> > >> > but Peshitta also has this reading. On the other hand, the latter > two could have been influenced by LXX. > > >Prof. Johann Cook > > I understood that the Syriac was dependent on both LXX as > well as the HEXAPLA. > > HILL KAPLAN > Dependence of Peshitta on LXX has been established in most books (cf. my article in Textus XVII (1994)), it should just not be overestimated. Prof. Johann Cook Department of Ancient Near Eastern Studies University of Stellenbosch 7600 Stellenbosch SOUTH AFRICA tel 22-21-8083207 fax: 22-21-8083480 From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Apr 16 02:04:14 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id CAA15833; Wed, 16 Apr 1997 02:04:14 -0400 From: "Dr Johann Cook" Organization: University of Stellenbosch To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 08:07:48 GMT+0200 Subject: Re: Genesis 4:8 X-Confirm-Reading-To: "Dr Johann Cook" X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.40) Message-ID: <3E3BD652C59@SEMT.sun.ac.za> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1423 > To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu > Subject: Re: Genesis 4:8 > From: hilkap@juno.com (HILL R KAPLAN) > Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 15:35:35 EDT > Reply-to: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu > > On Sun, 13 Apr 1997 11:24:01 -0700 "Robert B. Waltz" > > > >>But I noticed the RSV and the NIV both follow the longer reading. > >>Are they picking up on something I'm missing? > > > >It's a matter of translation technique. As I understand it (and I am > >not a Hebraist), the MT actually reads "And Cain said to Abel his > >brother. And they were in the field, and Cain...." In other words, > >the MT offers a transitive verb ("said") with no object. Since > >LXX and Vg (independent translations) *both* offer an object, the > >reading with the object is to be preferred. > > > > > You are correct in observing that the MT does not provide details of > what Cain said to Abel. > > Now, please explain why the highly probable **object ** ( ????) found > in the LXX an Vg should be preferred over the omission ? > > In case you haven't noticed, the Hebrew Text is often so terse that > occasional expected phrases are missing. > > HILL KAPLAN > It will of course depend om your definition of textual criticism. > Prof. Johann Cook Department of Ancient Near Eastern Studies University of Stellenbosch 7600 Stellenbosch SOUTH AFRICA tel 22-21-8083207 fax: 22-21-8083480 From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Apr 16 08:30:17 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA16142; Wed, 16 Apr 1997 08:30:17 -0400 Message-Id: <2.2.16.19970416121918.388f0a50@nd.edu> X-Sender: Larry.Niccum.2@nd.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 07:19:18 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: Curt Niccum Subject: Re: "Western" text of Paul Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1210 >I would agree that there is an urgent need for good work on the Old Latin >and its relation to the "Western" text. But I don't think this is quite >as urgent in Paul as in the Gospels or Acts. In Paul, the "Western" >text is relatively well-represented in Greek (with D F G and a handful >of readings in 629, though these likely come from the Latin). It is >also a much less wild edition; there are very few insertions of more than >a word or two. I think it perfectly possible to control the "Western" >text of Paul. > >Bob Waltz I question how "well-represented" the "Western" text of Paul is in Greek. First, D F and G are so closely related genetically, they can rarely be viewed as more than one witness. Furthermore, they represent, along with a number of Latin witnesses, a North Italian (i.e., "local") text. Only when these North Italian readings of D F G are isolated can one then speak of their attestation of the "Western" text. Zuntz's requirements for establishing a "Western" reading, although not consistently followed even by Zuntz, will have to be the default until we have a better grasp of the history of the Latin text; which brings us back to the Vetus Latina Institute. Curt Niccum From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Apr 16 09:07:00 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA16197; Wed, 16 Apr 1997 09:06:59 -0400 From: schmiul@uni-muenster.de Message-Id: <199704161307.PAA28092@mail.uni-muenster.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Wed, 16 Apr 97 15:22:33 +0100 Subject: Re: Roman's Doxology To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970415141147.307f5516@hub.infoave.net> X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 3046 On Tue, 15 Apr 1997, Jim West wrote: [quoting Schmid] >>With respect to the ending of Romans my own picture is the following: >>- The whole messed up textual situation is basically due to contamination >>of two >>different forms of Romans (A = Rom 1,1-16,23 + B = Rom 1,1-14,23+16,25-27). >>- B resulted in a mechanical break-off after 14,23 with the doxology added >>lateron. >>- The mechanical break-off presumably took place within a small edition of Gal >>1/2 Cor Rom (= C) that lateron was expanded to a ten letter edition: Gal >>1/2 Cor >>Rom (lacking chapters 15-16, but including the doxology) 1/2 Thess Laod(=Eph) >>Kol Phil Phlm. This ten letter edition was used by Marcion, but it had its >>impact on tradition apart from Marcion's (mis-)use of it. >This means that these collections were made very early. I suppose this is >possible (and surely could have occured by the time of Marcion). >Are you suggesting that there was a Pauline collection which circulated in a >ten letter edition? Yes. Marcion most likely was not resposible for the initial edition of the ten letter edition that he worked on. There are some impressive textual features that can be traced back to the ten letter edition: - the sequenze of the letters is paralleled by the Old Latin prologue tradition; - dito the shorter ending of Romans - dito the title Laodiceans for Ephesians - a bunch of readings that were also found in the Old Syriac (Ephraem and Aphraat) - a bunch of readings that were also found in D F G - a reading that gave rise to a conflate reading in D F G to mention only the most compelling ones. > >>Now, applying the above mentioned three-point-agenda to my hypotheses reveals >>the following: >>1. Personally, I think that I included all the relevant data. However, in >>order >>to falsify my hypotheses, I need data that can be not accounted for within >>this >>framework. >>2. Mechanical break-off (and supplementation) at the beginning/end of MSS >>is one >>of the most widespread features in textual transmission. Conflation is also >>germane to textual transmission. The same goes for corrections of various >>sorts. >>In short: Nothing within my hypotheses is unparalleled from a textual >>viewpoint. >Quite true. Thank you. >>3. I only need three different entities: A, B, C. A and B are displayed by >>transmission itself, only C is postulated. However, C is not necessary to >>account for the messed up textual situation _after_ A and B. C only >>accounts for >>the existence of B, to my knowledge, in the most compelling way, again, >>according to textual matters. My hypotheses only needs one basic assumption >>with >>respect to editorial activities: making somehow sense of a situation when A >>meets B (or subsequent editorial activities). >>To sum up: The mysteries P46 advocats have to face simply disappear. >>Literarkritik is not directly involved, but could be added. > >This is a very stimulating suggestion. It deserves some thought. Again, thank you. Ulrich Schmid, Muenster From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Apr 16 09:15:04 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA16231; Wed, 16 Apr 1997 09:15:04 -0400 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <2.2.16.19970416121918.388f0a50@nd.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 08:17:37 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: "Western" text of Paul Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 3896 On Wed, 16 Apr 1997, Curt Niccum wrote: >>I would agree that there is an urgent need for good work on the Old Latin >>and its relation to the "Western" text. But I don't think this is quite >>as urgent in Paul as in the Gospels or Acts. In Paul, the "Western" >>text is relatively well-represented in Greek (with D F G and a handful >>of readings in 629, though these likely come from the Latin). It is >>also a much less wild edition; there are very few insertions of more than >>a word or two. I think it perfectly possible to control the "Western" >>text of Paul. >> >>Bob Waltz > >I question how "well-represented" the "Western" text of Paul is in Greek. You'll note that I said *relatively* well-represented. It's better represented in Paul than in any other part of the Bible. (Not that that's saying much....) Put it this way: Of the five discernable text-types in Paul (Alexandrian, Byzantine, family 1739, p46/B, and "Western"), the "Western" text is third in the strength of its representation. We have no fewer than six substantial witnesses: D F+G a b d m (the Vulgate is not purely "Western," and r is at once fragmentary and much more Alexandrian than the rest of the Latins). You'll note that I list more Latin than Greek witnesses. So I agree that work on the Old Latin must proceed. All I am saying is that, even in the present state of our knowledge, we're in much better shape for the "Western" text than for, say, p46/B/sa. >First, D F and G are so closely related genetically, they can rarely be >viewed as more than one witness. This is simply not true. Yes, F and G can be treated as a single witness. But D and F+G are quite distinct. They aren't first cousins, as someone suggested. There are at least hundreds of differences; I suspect (based on sample passages) that there are thousands. It even appears that there are differences in character between the two. D has fewer small differences from the Alexandrian witnesses, but more major changes. F+G are much more prone to exchange of prepositions or conjunctions or synonyms, but rather less likely to have large alterations. (Note: I have not formally tested this. It is my impression in working from the collations.) >Furthermore, they represent, along with a >number of Latin witnesses, a North Italian (i.e., "local") text. I ask this in complete seriousness and ignorance of what you're talking about: What is a text-type if not the local text of somewhere? It may be that D/F/G are the local type of somewhere (I'd be interested in the evidence that it's nothern Italy), but I don't see how that reduces their authority. It just means that we don't *have* the local text of, say, Carthage. >Only when >these North Italian readings of D F G are isolated can one then speak of >their attestation of the "Western" text. By "isolated" do you mean "set aside"? If so, why need they be set aside? If not, what do you mean? >Zuntz's requirements for >establishing a "Western" reading, although not consistently followed even by >Zuntz, will have to be the default until we have a better grasp of the >history of the Latin text; which brings us back to the Vetus Latina Institute. I agree that Zuntz's procedures simply were not rigorous (I would have to say that he focussed to much on p46. He was right to start with the papyrus. But all too often he stopped there...). I wonder, though, if we can go beyond that. Is there really enough Latin evidence to construct the history of the Latin versions? I'm rather inclined to doubt it. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A very rough draft of part of the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Apr 16 09:30:46 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA16257; Wed, 16 Apr 1997 09:30:46 -0400 Message-Id: <199704161328.IAA18769@endeavor.flash.net> From: "Perry L. Stepp" To: Subject: Re: Qualifications, Classifications, and Progress Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 02:41:56 -0500 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2023 Regarding progress: The points raised by Dr. Ehrman all center on what *I* would suggest is the central ongoing methodological advancement, namely the realization that textual criticism based on generalities leads us nowhere. For example: text-critical questions have historically been addressed via the use of a system of canons of internal criteria, e.g., "The shorter reading is preferred." But detailed studies of individual manuscripts (undertaken via a more or less standardized approach, i.e., *some* type of thorough collation of the mss against one another rather than against a single standard) and of the individual scribes and correctors of mss (e.g., Colwell, Fee, Royse, Kubo, et. al.) have shown how inaccurate and insufficient the traditionally stated canons are. To follow the example of "the cult of the shorter reading": detailed studies of scribes show that some scribes tend to "skip" more material than others, and--at least when *short* vl are in view, scribes tended to omit rather than add material--haplography seems to have occurred more than dittography, etc. Detailed studies of readings, on the other hand, show that in the case of *some* types of longer readings, such as conflations, the shorter reading is indeed to be preferred. I guess what I'm suggesting is that the work that is being done today is minutely detailed and labyrinthine (this from a man who knows labyrinthine--see the second paragraph of this post!), and the scholarly community may take years to really digest the data, but the results should be revolutionary. Grace and peace, PLStepp ************************************************************ Pastor, DeSoto Christian Church, DeSoto TX Ph.D. candidate in New Testament, Baylor University "A system of morality which is based on relative emotional values is a mere illusion, a thoroughly vulgar conception which has nothing sound in it and nothing true." Phaedo 69b ************************************************************ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Apr 16 10:14:08 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA16360; Wed, 16 Apr 1997 10:14:08 -0400 Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 10:14:34 -0400 (EDT) From: Bart Ehrman X-Sender: behrman@login1.isis.unc.edu To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: "Western" text of Paul In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 103 *Zuntz* was not rigorous?!? Sigh... -- Bart Ehrman, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Apr 16 10:19:35 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA16391; Wed, 16 Apr 1997 10:19:35 -0400 Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 10:19:33 -0400 (EDT) From: Bart Ehrman X-Sender: behrman@login1.isis.unc.edu To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: "Western" text of Paul In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 4368 Let me say for the record that text-types are decidedly *not* "local texts" for obvious reasons (a ms copied in one location can be the exemplar of another copied hundreds of miles away). -- Bart D. Ehrman, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill On Wed, 16 Apr 1997, Robert B. Waltz wrote: > On Wed, 16 Apr 1997, Curt Niccum wrote: > > >>I would agree that there is an urgent need for good work on the Old Latin > >>and its relation to the "Western" text. But I don't think this is quite > >>as urgent in Paul as in the Gospels or Acts. In Paul, the "Western" > >>text is relatively well-represented in Greek (with D F G and a handful > >>of readings in 629, though these likely come from the Latin). It is > >>also a much less wild edition; there are very few insertions of more than > >>a word or two. I think it perfectly possible to control the "Western" > >>text of Paul. > >> > >>Bob Waltz > > > >I question how "well-represented" the "Western" text of Paul is in Greek. > > You'll note that I said *relatively* well-represented. It's better > represented in Paul than in any other part of the Bible. (Not that > that's saying much....) > > Put it this way: Of the five discernable text-types in Paul (Alexandrian, > Byzantine, family 1739, p46/B, and "Western"), the "Western" text is > third in the strength of its representation. We have no fewer than > six substantial witnesses: D F+G a b d m (the Vulgate is not purely > "Western," and r is at once fragmentary and much more Alexandrian than > the rest of the Latins). > > You'll note that I list more Latin than Greek witnesses. So I agree > that work on the Old Latin must proceed. All I am saying is that, > even in the present state of our knowledge, we're in much better > shape for the "Western" text than for, say, p46/B/sa. > > >First, D F and G are so closely related genetically, they can rarely be > >viewed as more than one witness. > > This is simply not true. Yes, F and G can be treated as a single witness. > But D and F+G are quite distinct. They aren't first cousins, as someone > suggested. There are at least hundreds of differences; I suspect (based > on sample passages) that there are thousands. > > It even appears that there are differences in character between the > two. D has fewer small differences from the Alexandrian witnesses, > but more major changes. F+G are much more prone to exchange of > prepositions or conjunctions or synonyms, but rather less likely > to have large alterations. (Note: I have not formally tested this. > It is my impression in working from the collations.) > > >Furthermore, they represent, along with a > >number of Latin witnesses, a North Italian (i.e., "local") text. > > I ask this in complete seriousness and ignorance of what you're talking > about: What is a text-type if not the local text of somewhere? > It may be that D/F/G are the local type of somewhere (I'd be interested > in the evidence that it's nothern Italy), but I don't see how that > reduces their authority. It just means that we don't *have* the local > text of, say, Carthage. > > >Only when > >these North Italian readings of D F G are isolated can one then speak of > >their attestation of the "Western" text. > > By "isolated" do you mean "set aside"? If so, why need they be set aside? > If not, what do you mean? > > >Zuntz's requirements for > >establishing a "Western" reading, although not consistently followed even by > >Zuntz, will have to be the default until we have a better grasp of the > >history of the Latin text; which brings us back to the Vetus Latina Institute. > > I agree that Zuntz's procedures simply were not rigorous (I would have > to say that he focussed to much on p46. He was right to start with the > papyrus. But all too often he stopped there...). I wonder, though, if > we can go beyond that. Is there really enough Latin evidence to construct > the history of the Latin versions? I'm rather inclined to doubt it. > > > -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- > > Robert B. Waltz > waltzmn@skypoint.com > > Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? > Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn > (A very rough draft of part of the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) > > From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Apr 16 11:48:09 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA16787; Wed, 16 Apr 1997 11:48:09 -0400 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 10:48:54 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Local text definition (Was: Re: "Western" text of Paul) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1618 On Wed, 16 Apr 1997, Bart Ehrman wrote: > Let me say for the record that text-types are decidedly *not* "local >texts" for obvious reasons (a ms copied in one location can be the >exemplar of another copied hundreds of miles away). I think this is a matter of definition. If by "local text" one means "the only text used in a particular area," then of course there is no such thing as a local text. And it is obvious that a manuscript of a text-type can be found anywhere (as witness that the four leading manuscripts of the Alexandrian text in the Gospels -- p75 Aleph B L -- are in Cologny, London, Rome, and Paris). But I was using "local text" to mean the text which evolved and was dominant in a particular area. In this sense, a text-type can be a local text -- as the Alexandrian text may have been the local text of Alexandria. If D+F/G are in fact the text of northern Italy (and I'd still like to see evidence on that), then they too could be a local text. If this is not the sense in which Ehrman uses the term, then it's probably time we reached a consensus on the meaning. If we can do so, I'll post it at my web site, and then we can all at least have something to start from when the next argumentative person comes along. :-) -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A very rough draft of part of the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Apr 16 12:08:34 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA16865; Wed, 16 Apr 1997 12:08:34 -0400 From: schmiul@uni-muenster.de Message-Id: <199704161609.SAA44546@mail.uni-muenster.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Wed, 16 Apr 97 18:24:25 +0100 Subject: Re: Qualifications, Classifications, and Progress To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 627 Since the first mail seems to have been bounced, I'll try it again. On Tue, 15 Apr 1997, Bart Ehrman wrote (inter alia): > In terms of substantive developments in other subfields, I would >suggest that the increasingly widespread recognition of the importance of >theological and other ideological disputes in early Christianity for the >NT text is a major breakthrough. Bart, could you please add some examples of "the increasingly widespread recognition of the importance of theological and other ideological disputes in early Christianity for the NT text" apart from your own book, of course. Ulrich Schmid, Muenster From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Apr 16 12:09:03 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA16882; Wed, 16 Apr 1997 12:09:02 -0400 Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 12:09:15 -0400 (EDT) From: Bart Ehrman X-Sender: behrman@login1.isis.unc.edu To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Local text definition (Was: Re: "Western" text of Paul) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1234 Pretty soon R. Waltz and I are going to be arguing about which of us is more arumentative. :-) It's true of course that the Alexandrian text-type was to some extent "localized" (Alexandrian!); but even here I'd have to say that we have to be careful. How do we *know* for example, where P75 was produced? Let *alone* Codex Vaticanus! This "local" text may have been extremely widespread -- it's just impossible to say. (This by the way is why the Patristic analyses, such as those embodied in SBLNTIGF are so absolutely critical.) (Some of Epps socio-historical probings into the dissemination of ancient literature and the ancient postal system, btw, while old hat for a lot of classicists, is quite fruitful for this kind of discussion.) With other "texts" though we can't even say this. Where, e.g., was the so-called "Western" text localized? (NB: this *is* one area that I think Zuntz can be critiqued: he used the designation Western in a strictly *geographical* sense rather than as an expression of textual consanguinity; it's important to bear this in mind when considering his claims about the strength of Western and Byzantine agreements.) -- Bart Ehrman, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Apr 16 12:17:34 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA16923; Wed, 16 Apr 1997 12:17:34 -0400 Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 12:18:23 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by DEV.InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: Local text definition (Was: Re: "Western" text of Paul) X-Sender: jwest@hub.infoave.net (Unverified) To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970416121653.2fbf4a42@hub.infoave.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2407 At 10:48 AM 4/16/97 -0700, you wrote: > >I think this is a matter of definition. If by "local text" one means >"the only text used in a particular area," then of course there is >no such thing as a local text. And it is obvious that a manuscript >of a text-type can be found anywhere (as witness that the four >leading manuscripts of the Alexandrian text in the Gospels -- p75 >Aleph B L -- are in Cologny, London, Rome, and Paris). > I don't see how P75 being at a particular modern library helps us in determining its relationship to other texts. That has absolutely nothing to do with its being a "local text". The texts cited above belong to the Alexandrian family "because" they were used (!) in a particular location- i.e., in the vicinity of Egypt, and not necessarily because they originated there. >. If D+F/G are in fact the text >of northern Italy (and I'd still like to see evidence on that), >then they too could be a local text. > Right- what matters in determining the use of a text is its locale as well as its "parent". It is, for example, more than true that here in the American South the KJV is the "local text type". In other parts of the country there are a variety of translations so that one type does not dominate; we might call these areas "mixed". So text critics in the future (unless we are able to answer all questions in our lifetimes!!!!) may say that the KJV was the dominant type in the ancient south; while the NASB and NIV were the dominant types in ancient california, etc. This clearly does not mean these text originated in these areas- instead these are the areas in which these types were used. the same was most likely true of the Ancient world as well. The text types found in Alexandria are related; as are those found in the Byzantine empire- etc. simply because of use and not origin. They were used in a particular area because of their similarity! and not because they all came from the same scribal house. >If this is not the sense in which Ehrman uses the term, then it's >probably time we reached a consensus on the meaning. If we can do >so, I'll post it at my web site, and then we can all at least >have something to start from when the next argumentative person >comes along. :-) > Hope this isn't me! :) Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@theology.edu From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Apr 16 12:23:50 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA16954; Wed, 16 Apr 1997 12:23:49 -0400 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970416091214.00718010@mail.teleport.com> X-Sender: dalemw@mail.teleport.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 09:12:14 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Dale M. Wheeler" Subject: Re: a Big Idea Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 3666 ANDREW SMITH wrote: >On Thu, 10 Apr 1997, Dale M. Wheeler wrote: > >> but if you are planning to simply key in the UBS >> or NA apparatus, then you've got a SERIOUS copyright issue on your hands. >> You should probably discuss this with Harold Scanlin of ABS, who is on this >> list, to see just what the UBS and Muenster are currently thinking about >> such things; I'd hate to see you invest HUGH amounts of time and effort >> into something which you couldn't make available to those who would like to >> use it. > >***** > >But couldn't he use an older edition of those text, along with its >critical apparatus, because its copyright will have expired? Many of the >less expensive software packages use editions and text and their related >apparatus which are no longer copyright-protected. There's a big step up >in prices when you purchase those CD-ROM's which have copyrighted >material. Sorry this response took so long...I got sidetracked BIG TIME for a while... The answer is yes and no; NO--just because NA has a new edition, doesn't mean that the old edition is no longer under copyright. YES--(you've hit on one of my pet peeves) but, it is fallacious (not to mention misleading advertising) to claim that one has "scholarly" tools which can be used for serious and accurate research (whether for a dissertation or a sermon), when in fact what is being offered is a hacked-up Strong's dictionary or other totally obsolete books. Do you really want to do TC research with a potentially outdated and incorrect database? As an example, there are two versions of BDB found on Bible software, one from the Online Bible people and one from Prof Dick Whitaker's Princeton team (derived from Whitaker's own IBYCUS version). The former is missing numerous entries (evidently, the best I can figure, because whoever typed it in didn't really know Hebrew all that well, and left out every entry which just happened to have a duplicate [and normally errroneous] Strong's number), however Whitaker's version has everything in it. BTW, to make matters "worse", in revising the Westminster MorphHeb database, I've already had to add over 1000 NEW numbers to the current Strongs 8674, and there are probably a couple hundred more to come...because we are standardizing the MorphHeb to the latest English translation of Koehler-Baumgartner-Stamm; do you really want to use the OLB BDB to work with the next version of the MorphHeb ?? I think its wonderful that people sacrificially e-text these tools, but the original language ones (except for Maurice's texts) have suffered seriously from a naive hand. But even though Maurice's texts are well done by someone who knew what he was doing, do you want to do TC with the TR as your sole basis ?? And while we might disagree on the pricing structure of certain e-text versions of tools, I think the basic principle that "a workman is worthy of his wages" applies to these enterprises as well...though I must admit I'm frustrated by the situations I all to often see of the software producers making tremendous amounts of money from texts they did not create, while the folks who did create the texts get little benefit to allow them to continue the work...but that sermon will have to wait for another day... (-: XAIREIN... *********************************************************************** Dale M. Wheeler, Th.D. Research Professor in Biblical Languages Multnomah Bible College 8435 NE Glisan Street Portland, OR 97220 Voice: 503-251-6416 FAX:503-254-1268 E-Mail: dalemw@teleport.com *********************************************************************** From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Apr 16 12:23:58 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA16969; Wed, 16 Apr 1997 12:23:58 -0400 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970416092300.0068df64@mail.teleport.com> X-Sender: dalemw@mail.teleport.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 09:23:00 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Dale M. Wheeler" Subject: Re: Roman's Doxology Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1939 On Tue, 15 Apr 1997, Jim West wrote: > > I would suggest that the Romans situation demonstrates > >that not only can the earliest MS (P46) be quite wrong, but also the > >Alexandrian, Western and Caesarean (?) traditions, and also that a similar > >conclusion can be drawn in regard to the pericope adultera. > > > > I dont see it that way. In fact, what the Romans example illustrates is > that early scribes were more likely to leave things the way they found them > than later scribes. Jim: I'm curious, based on what you said, as to how you would respond to (not necessarily related exclusively to the Rom question): (1) the idea held by many TC'ers that virtually all the changes in the text took place before about the third/forth century (I realize the "growth-theory"'ers don't hold this anymore, but rather seem to see the process as ongoing...I get the impression that you think the same thing...but how do you argue against the other position ?)? (2) the work of Colwell, Zuntz, and Aland's "Wild texts" in characterizing the early papyri scribes as copyists who made accidental errors mainly of ommission rather than being "editors" of the texts who added, clarified, harmonized, etc. It seems to me (a TC agnostic !) that 1 and 2 taken together partially underlie (though rarely if ever made explicit) the Byzantine priority position...I'm sure if I'm wrong here Maurice will tell me, but at least that has been my impression. Also, given your preference for the earliest reading, what's your reaction to the work of Comfort ?? *********************************************************************** Dale M. Wheeler, Th.D. Research Professor in Biblical Languages Multnomah Bible College 8435 NE Glisan Street Portland, OR 97220 Voice: 503-251-6416 FAX:503-254-1268 E-Mail: dalemw@teleport.com *********************************************************************** From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Apr 16 15:15:39 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA17623; Wed, 16 Apr 1997 15:15:38 -0400 From: "Dr Johann Cook" Organization: University of Stellenbosch To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 21:19:25 GMT+0200 Subject: Re: local texts X-Confirm-Reading-To: "Dr Johann Cook" X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.40) Message-ID: <3F0EF511EFB@SEMT.sun.ac.za> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2824 > DT) > Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) > id LAA16787; Wed, 16 Apr 1997 11:48:09 -0400 > X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com > Message-Id: > In-Reply-To: > > References: > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 10:48:54 -0700 > Resent-to: cook@semt.sun.ac.za > To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu > From: "Robert B. Waltz" > Subject: Local text definition (Was: Re: "Western" text of Paul) > Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu > Precedence: bulk > Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu > > On Wed, 16 Apr 1997, Bart Ehrman wrote: > > > Let me say for the record that text-types are decidedly *not* "local > >texts" for obvious reasons (a ms copied in one location can be the > >exemplar of another copied hundreds of miles away). > > I think this is a matter of definition. If by "local text" one means > "the only text used in a particular area," then of course there is > no such thing as a local text. And it is obvious that a manuscript > of a text-type can be found anywhere (as witness that the four > leading manuscripts of the Alexandrian text in the Gospels -- p75 > Aleph B L -- are in Cologny, London, Rome, and Paris). > > But I was using "local text" to mean the text which evolved and > was dominant in a particular area. In this sense, a text-type > can be a local text -- as the Alexandrian text may have been > the local text of Alexandria. If D+F/G are in fact the text > of northern Italy (and I'd still like to see evidence on that), > then they too could be a local text. > > If this is not the sense in which Ehrman uses the term, then it's > probably time we reached a consensus on the meaning. If we can do > so, I'll post it at my web site, and then we can all at least > have something to start from when the next argumentative person > comes along. :-) > > -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- > > Robert B. Waltz > waltzmn@skypoint.com > > Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? > Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn > (A very rough draft of part of the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) > I was wondering whether followers of the Local Text Theory (Cross-school) could not come into the discussion at this point? It will at least bring the OT/Hebrew Bible and NT scholars in contact with one other! > Prof. Johann Cook Department of Ancient Near Eastern Studies University of Stellenbosch 7600 Stellenbosch SOUTH AFRICA tel 22-21-8083207 fax: 22-21-8083480 From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Apr 16 16:29:41 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA17927; Wed, 16 Apr 1997 16:29:40 -0400 Message-Id: <9704162130.AA08515@iris.arcadis.be> Subject: searching text of codex Koridethi Date: Wed, 16 Apr 97 22:34:35 +0200 X-Sender: vale5655@194.111.178.251 X-Mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1 From: Jean VALENTIN To: "TC-List" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1096 Dear TC-ers, I'm in need of the text of codex Koridethi (theta of the Gospels) for my work. I have here a few pages that I photocopied from the edition of Gustav Beermann and Caspar Rene Gregory. Does anyone of you know if this edition is in reprint somewhere? Other possibility would be to find the text of this ms on the Internet. Does anybody know if it's available? (BTW, the text of any important ms would be interesting for me - I already have D and B on paper, but others like Aleph or A or W would interest me). Thanks a lot for your help! ________________________________________________________________ Jean Valentin - 58/7 rue Van Kalck - 1080 Bruxelles - BELGIQUE ________________________________________________________________ email : jgvalentin@arcadis.be *** netmail : 2:291/780.103 ________________________________________________________________ Ce qui est trop simple est faux, ce qui est trop complique est inutilisable. What's too simple is wrong, what's too complicated is unusable. Wat te eenvoudig is, is verkeerd; wat te ingewikkeld is, is onbruikbaar. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Apr 16 16:43:45 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA18065; Wed, 16 Apr 1997 16:43:44 -0400 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970416121653.2fbf4a42@hub.infoave.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 15:44:11 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Local text definition (Was: Re: "Western" text of Paul) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1791 On Wed, 16 Apr 1997, Jim West wrote, in part: >At 10:48 AM 4/16/97 -0700, you wrote: >> >>I think this is a matter of definition. If by "local text" one means >>"the only text used in a particular area," then of course there is >>no such thing as a local text. And it is obvious that a manuscript >>of a text-type can be found anywhere (as witness that the four >>leading manuscripts of the Alexandrian text in the Gospels -- p75 >>Aleph B L -- are in Cologny, London, Rome, and Paris). >> > >I don't see how P75 being at a particular modern library helps us in >determining its relationship to other texts. That has absolutely nothing to >do with its being a "local text". Ahem -- that was *my* point. :-) >The texts cited above belong to the >Alexandrian family "because" they were used (!) in a particular location- >i.e., in the vicinity of Egypt, and not necessarily because they originated >there. I don't see that it matters where a local text originates. The crucial matter is where it's used. [ ... ] >>If this is not the sense in which Ehrman uses the term, then it's >>probably time we reached a consensus on the meaning. If we can do >>so, I'll post it at my web site, and then we can all at least >>have something to start from when the next argumentative person >>comes along. :-) >> > >Hope this isn't me! :) Nope, it's a hypothetical person. My second coming, maybe. Or maybe some KJV-only type. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A very rough draft of part of the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Apr 16 16:43:49 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA18080; Wed, 16 Apr 1997 16:43:49 -0400 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 15:41:41 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Local text definition (Was: Re: "Western" text of Paul) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2860 On Wed, 16 Apr 1997, Bart Ehrman wrote: > Pretty soon R. Waltz and I are going to be arguing about which of us is >more arumentative. :-) Sigh -- no, I fear I am the more argumentative. I don't like it -- but I am in the situation of trying to reform textual criticism in two areas (in the list of text-types we use and in the way we use them). That inherently makes me more argumentative. If there is a crown at stake here, I fear that Maurice Robinson and I are the leading contenders. > It's true of course that the Alexandrian text-type was to some extent >"localized" (Alexandrian!); but even here I'd have to say that we have to >be careful. How do we *know* for example, where P75 was produced? Let >*alone* Codex Vaticanus! This "local" text may have been extremely >widespread -- it's just impossible to say. (This by the way is why the >Patristic analyses, such as those embodied in SBLNTIGF are so absolutely >critical.) (Some of Epps socio-historical probings into the dissemination >of ancient literature and the ancient postal system, btw, while old hat >for a lot of classicists, is quite fruitful for this kind of discussion.) I will concede all the points above. Indeed, I think there is a desperate need to study some of the more obscure writers (such as Didymus -- hats off to Ehrman), because we have a lot of texts that we cannot pinpoint. This still doesn't give us a definition of a local text, though. Anyone? Is mine acceptable, or do we need something else? > With other "texts" though we can't even say this. Where, e.g., was the >so-called "Western" text localized? (NB: this *is* one area that I think >Zuntz can be critiqued: he used the designation Western in a strictly >*geographical* sense rather than as an expression of textual >consanguinity; it's important to bear this in mind when considering his >claims about the strength of Western and Byzantine agreements.) I'm inclined to agree. Zuntz is immensely detailed (frankly, so detailed that I reached the point where I was skipping paragraphs), and thoroughly rigorous -- but I'd have to say that even he was assuming some of his conclusions. He *assumed* the "Western" text, and *assumed* the Alexandrian text, and then compared them with p46. I think his results would have been slightly different had he started without assumptions. Of course, going back to first principles means a *lot* of work -- I know I would never have done it if I hadn't had the computer to help.... -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A very rough draft of part of the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Apr 16 17:14:45 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA18190; Wed, 16 Apr 1997 17:14:44 -0400 Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 17:15:46 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: "Western" text of Paul In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1414 On Wed, 16 Apr 1997, Bart Ehrman wrote: > Let me say for the record that text-types are decidedly *not* "local > texts" for obvious reasons (a ms copied in one location can be the > exemplar of another copied hundreds of miles away). Let me also say for the record that I consider texttypes "local", but perhaps the term "regionalized" might be preferable. I do not question that a MS copied in one location can be used as an exemplar in a totally different location, but I would suggest that such did not occur to such a degree that the regionalized nature of the various texttypes became obscured in any degree; rather the likelihood would be that the extraneous MS used as an exemplar might itself be corrected toward a text more current in the locality in which it found itself, and the same would apply to any copies made from that exemplar in the process of time by comparison and correction with whatever texttype happened to be dominant in that given region. In the interim, "mixed" texts which would appear in many exemplars would reflect that initial clash of texttypes by "extraneous" exemplars. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Apr 16 17:22:24 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA18222; Wed, 16 Apr 1997 17:22:24 -0400 Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 17:23:27 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Roman's Doxology In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19970416092300.0068df64@mail.teleport.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1655 On Wed, 16 Apr 1997, Dale M. Wheeler wrote: > (1) the idea held by many TC'ers that virtually all the changes in the text > took place before about the third/forth century (I realize the > "growth-theory"'ers don't hold this anymore, but rather seem to see the > process as ongoing...I get the impression that you think the same > thing...but how do you argue against the other position ?)? > > (2) the work of Colwell, Zuntz, and Aland's "Wild texts" in characterizing > the early papyri scribes as copyists who made accidental errors mainly of > ommission rather than being "editors" of the texts who added, clarified, > harmonized, etc. > > It seems to me (a TC agnostic !) that 1 and 2 taken together partially > underlie (though rarely if ever made explicit) the Byzantine priority > position...I'm sure if I'm wrong here Maurice will tell me, but at least > that has been my impression. Since I got brought into this particular point of discussion (unwillingly), I will simply reply that I don't see (1) or (2) as "underlying" the Byzantine-priority position, though I would agree with Colwell that virtually all sensible readings probably were created by AD 200. I do not see the early papyrus scribes as merely blunderers, however, since even Colwell's study did tend to show some stylistic "editorial" activity on the part of those scribes. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Apr 16 17:27:40 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA18245; Wed, 16 Apr 1997 17:27:40 -0400 Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 17:28:43 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: TC-List Subject: Re: searching text of codex Koridethi In-Reply-To: <9704162130.AA08515@iris.arcadis.be> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1045 On Wed, 16 Apr 1997, Jean VALENTIN wrote: > I'm in need of the text of codex Koridethi (theta of the Gospels) for my > work. I have here a few pages that I photocopied from the edition of > Gustav Beermann and Caspar Rene Gregory. Does anyone of you know if this > edition is in reprint somewhere? Duke University has the printed edition of Koridethi. I do not think it ever has been reprinted, but the whole could be xeroxed, certainly. > Other possibility would be to find the text of this ms on the Internet. > Does anybody know if it's available? Not to my knowledge; however if anyone has a complete collation of it against either the TR, N26/27, or WH text, I can have a student fairly quickly prepare it in electronic form. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Apr 16 18:04:06 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA18326; Wed, 16 Apr 1997 18:04:06 -0400 Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 18:03:52 -0400 (EDT) From: Bart Ehrman X-Sender: behrman@login1.isis.unc.edu To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Qualifications, Classifications, and Progress In-Reply-To: <199704161609.SAA44546@mail.uni-muenster.de> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 4010 Ulrich, Yeah, actually this particular point (as opposed to the other two, I think) *may* be more of a matter of my simply seeing things from where I sit, since this is in fact the area that I happen to be most interested in. But there *have* been some important and interesting studies. I'd say that Eldon Epp's study of Theological Tendencies was groundbreaking and got things rolling (though he had significant predecessors, of course); about the time I was writing there appeared important articles by Peter Head and Mikeal Parsons (whose book on the ascension tradition in Luke-Acts dealt with related issues as well) and even Bruce Metzger's little piece on MSS of the Fourth Gospel with Hermeneia. More recently (just now, in fact) there have been two very interesting dissertations that I'm aware of, Kim Haines-Eitzen's study of the social location of early Christian scribes (not completed yet, but includes, e.g., a chapter on women scribes in the Greco-Roman world) and John Brogan's study of Athanasius, which argues for specific instances of the trinitarian controversies affecting his text, and further for some instances in which Athanasius's theologically related modifications entered into the MS tradition, specifically with some of the corrections in Codex Sinaiticus (both Kim and John, I think, are on this list). I have to admit, though, that my statement was to some extent driven by reviews of my book, which seem to have seen it as an interesting and significant development in the field (wish I could claim to have come up with the idea of theological alterations of the text myself), and off the cuff comments in other forums (e.g., by Mike Holmes in his essay on Reasoned Eclecticism for The NT in Contemporary Research), as well as lots of conversations with lots of young scholars interested now in the field (can't quantify these of course, and as I said, maybe it's just a matter of where I sit). (But I *don't* think we're going to be hearing too many people now repeat Hort's famous and much quoted dictum about there being, apart from Marcion, no theological modifications of the text.) Another gauge from the American scene is a comparison of the papers read at the national SBL meetings now with the ones read, say, ten or fifteen years ago; there is a *lot* more attention being paid to issues intrinsic to the history of transmission (i.e., in its own right) rather than simply to the question of the "original" text, and correspondingly a greater interest shown in the section by scholars who *never* would have been (or were) seen there before. I should also say, though, that I haven't noticed a move in this direction among colleagues in Germany or France (although, e.g., both Amphoux and Boismard have privately expressed some enthusiasm; Amphoux, though, has told me that he is not going to pursue it himself, because he's not personally interested in the relationship of social history to the changes of the text). I'd be interested in other feedback, though, from others on the list, i.e., whether this is seen (outside my office) as a fruitful avenue of research that hasn't been fully explored heretofore and that is coming to be an area of broader interest. -- Bart Ehrman, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill On Wed, 16 Apr 1997 schmiul@uni-muenster.de wrote: > Since the first mail seems to have been bounced, I'll try it again. > > On Tue, 15 Apr 1997, Bart Ehrman wrote (inter alia): > > > In terms of substantive developments in other subfields, I would > >suggest that the increasingly widespread recognition of the importance of > >theological and other ideological disputes in early Christianity for the > >NT text is a major breakthrough. > > Bart, could you please add some examples of "the increasingly widespread > recognition of the importance of theological and other ideological disputes in > early Christianity for the NT text" apart from your own book, of course. > > Ulrich Schmid, Muenster > From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Apr 16 18:50:44 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA18399; Wed, 16 Apr 1997 18:50:44 -0400 Message-Id: <2.2.16.19970416223930.307f6c46@nd.edu> X-Sender: Larry.Niccum.2@nd.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 17:39:30 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: Curt Niccum Subject: Re: "Western" text of Paul Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1044 >You'll note that I said *relatively* well-represented. It's better >represented in Paul than in any other part of the Bible. (Not that >that's saying much....) > >Put it this way: Of the five discernable text-types in Paul (Alexandrian, >Byzantine, family 1739, p46/B, and "Western"), the "Western" text is >third in the strength of its representation. We have no fewer than >six substantial witnesses: D F+G a b d m (the Vulgate is not purely >"Western," and r is at once fragmentary and much more Alexandrian than >the rest of the Latins). > I unfortunately do not have the time to spare clarifying the issues I brought up, and I apologize for that. It seems to me, however, that the "Western" text of Paul needs to be re-evaluated, especially since five of your "six substantial witnesses" attest (at least in part) a northern Italian text. For the evidence, you may consult my article "The Voice of the Manuscripts on the Silence of Women: The External Evidence for 1 Corinthians 14.34-5" coming out later this year in NTS. Curt Niccum From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Apr 16 19:28:14 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA18476; Wed, 16 Apr 1997 19:28:13 -0400 Date: 16 Apr 1997 23:28:40 -0000 Message-ID: <19970416232840.5271.qmail@np.nosc.mil> From: Vincent Broman To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Character set translation software Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1516 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- I've updated the "tcs" character set translation software to understand the WinGreek v1.9 greek font character encoding, as well as "ANSEL". It already handled Unicode UCS-2 and UTF-8, ISO 8859-*, cp437, and a bunch of other character sets. It only does text files, not word processor documents. The unix and plan9 source code for tcs and GNU/Linux debian-i386 binaries can be found at ftp://archimedes.nosc.mil/pub/transfer/tcs* . The md5sums for the files are as follows. 77ac903dd4573bee54f7b3dc7ea70f5e tcs_1-3.dsc 3d433da13274d0421dba7a376da517e1 tcs_1-3.tar.gz 23d8017f2c79d1b3f923efdfb7936916 tcs_1-3_i386.changes ec1b0a21ea1749e161b9e1e9a9380d8a tcs_1-3_i386.deb The code is quite generic C, so that DOS+TurboC might also compile it. If you want to change the ANSEL character set definition, e.g. you find mistakes, you need Python to regenerate a table in the source. Vincent Broman, code D783 Bayside Email: broman@nosc.mil Naval Command Control and Ocean Surveillance Center, RDT&E Div. San Diego, CA 92152-6222, USA Phone: +1 619 553 1641 === PGP protected mail preferred. For public key finger broman@np.nosc.mil === -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBM1VgU2CU4mTNq7IdAQHYpAP/WeX+5OHxDCdbnQYhGBqFz6LNliPHAvio wnNBXFdSh1LSKNBkAq7eMKRgbfi8H3zTzxBHrrIsgpYqNZvLl3lhYvF43zLARaoR v+L4ONG4sskNtUAtFFwlUYf70BR5aUDbIOuBsmhM8UhCR/juR0KUEmFoAABw7AVH Ipmn6mzI+I0= =ysIh -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Apr 16 20:46:03 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA18645; Wed, 16 Apr 1997 20:46:02 -0400 Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 20:45:37 -0400 (EDT) From: Bart Ehrman X-Sender: behrman@login4.isis.unc.edu To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Classifying witnesses (was Alexandrian Text) In-Reply-To: <19970414234344.4926.qmail@np.nosc.mil> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 4578 Many, many thanks for these substantive comments. I don't know if Rod Mullen is on the list, but I'll forward them to him. I have a couple of responses of a minor kind, which I'll intercalate below. On 14 Apr 1997, Vincent Broman wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > behrman@email.unc.edu wrote: > > ... I would be quite > > interested in an evaluation of my "Comprehensive Profile Method," which is > > used as way to provide nuance to the findings of a Colwell-like > > quantitative method.... The method has been used > > in a number of dissertations recently... > > I think I've read the JBL article, but it's hazy in my memory. > I'm working now with Mullen's book on Cyril of Jerusalem, and he > attributes his use of profiles to Ehrman. So, if I've got the > right set of methods in mind, then I do have comments. > > Observation: > Most of Mullen's convincing findings were obtained > from the CompPM profiles, i.e. from the percentages of agreements > of Cyril with the Uniform+Predominant readings of each text type, > or with the Unique+Distinctive readings of the text types. > (Are U+D the right label names from the second set of profiles?) No, the other set of profiles are Distinctive+Exclusive. (For those who haven't read all these, all the profile categories are strictly defined as kinds of group readings) > Mullen also presented the raw percentages of MS agreements, > but they turned out to be not so useful in his analysis. (Also, the cited > "average percentage of agreement" for each text type is an irrelevancy.) > I'm open to being convinced about the irrelevancy. Statistically, you're obviously right, since these are apples and oranges. My only comment is that it seems use to be of *some* use to know how a witness stacks up in the question of the total number of apples and oranges. But you're probably right. > It seems to me that the difference between agreement with a Uniform > reading of a text type and agreement with a Predominant reading of that > text type is only a difference in the _degree_of_certainty_ you have > that the reading in question really belongs to that text type, > not reflecting some other characteristic of the reading or of the TT. > Right? If so, then counts of agreements with Predominant readings should > be lumped in with counts of Uniform readings, along with a weight factor > that reflects how predominant the reading is. > The resulting statistic would answer the question: how much evidence > is there that the Pater's text could have come from that text type? > Basically you're right; the point, though, I guess, is that Predominant Readings aren't uniform only because some group witnesses have been contaminated by the reading of other groups (I'm speaking a simplistic shorthand here, since it obviously didn't happen, historically, this way, but I think you can see what I mean). This would, in fact, make just your suggestion useful. Explain to me though how the weight factor could be used. (Is it a strict percentage drawn from the number of supporting witnesses for and against, so that instead of counting each reading as "1" it would be counted as ".8" or ".71" or whatever? > A similar argument could be made that the Unique and Distinctive > readings should be lumped together, with a weight factor reflecting > how little support comes from outside the text type in question, > in order to answer the question: how much evidence is there > that the Pater's text could not have come from any other text type? > > These two sets of profiles are really looking at dual questions, > measuring "could belong" vs. "could not belong", or > "might belong" vs. "must belong". > > Phrased this way, it looks like the proper framework to > measure these kinds of textual affinity would be a belief function > like that of Dempster and Shafer. The issues involved are > just like those I've dealt with in Data Fusion for the Navy, > just with a different slant. Considering how many tc-listers > are likely to have read Shafer (~1 I bet) I'll have to develop > that idea myself, I guess. Please! And many thanks > > > Vincent Broman Email: broman@nosc.mil,broman@sd.znet.com = 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 ___ > -- Bart Ehrman, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Apr 16 20:59:40 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA18662; Wed, 16 Apr 1997 20:59:39 -0400 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <2.2.16.19970416223930.307f6c46@nd.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 20:02:47 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: "Western" text of Paul Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1258 On Wed, 16 Apr 1997, Curt Niccum wrote: [ ... ] > We have no fewer than >>six substantial witnesses: D F+G a b d m (the Vulgate is not purely >>"Western," and r is at once fragmentary and much more Alexandrian than >>the rest of the Latins). >> >I unfortunately do not have the time to spare clarifying the issues I >brought up, and I apologize for that. It seems to me, however, that the >"Western" text of Paul needs to be re-evaluated, especially since five of >your "six substantial witnesses" attest (at least in part) a northern >Italian text. For the evidence, you may consult my article "The Voice of the >Manuscripts on the Silence of Women: The External Evidence for 1 Corinthians >14.34-5" coming out later this year in NTS. Can you at least tell us which of the six substantial witnesses is the "odd manuscript out," and what it is if it isn't the same as the other five? -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A very rough draft of part of the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Apr 17 00:26:43 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id AAA19114; Thu, 17 Apr 1997 00:26:43 -0400 Date: Thu, 17 Apr 1997 00:27:46 -0400 (EDT) From: Nichael Cramer To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Java-based BetaCode Translator [was: Character set ...] In-Reply-To: <19970416232840.5271.qmail@np.nosc.mil> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 542 Vincent Broman wrote: > I've updated the "tcs" character set translation software to understand > the WinGreek v1.9 greek font character encoding, as well as "ANSEL".[...] On a related topic: I've been experimenting with a Java BetaCode/Greek translator Applet (using the GreekGIF "font"). If you have a Java-enabled browser, you can check it out at: http://www.sover.net/~nichael/javatest/BCT/index.html Comment, etc. gratefully accepted. Nichael Cramer work: ncramer@bbn.com home: nichael@sover.net http://www.sover.net/~nichael/ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Apr 17 08:33:24 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA19632; Thu, 17 Apr 1997 08:33:23 -0400 Date: Thu, 17 Apr 1997 08:34:26 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by DEV.InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: Roman's Doxology X-Sender: jwest@hub.infoave.net (Unverified) To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970417083254.2e77373a@hub.infoave.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2499 At 09:23 AM 4/16/97 -0700, you wrote: >I'm curious, based on what you said, as to how you would respond to (not >necessarily related exclusively to the Rom question): > >(1) the idea held by many TC'ers that virtually all the changes in the text >took place before about the third/forth century (I realize the >"growth-theory"'ers don't hold this anymore, but rather seem to see the >process as ongoing...I get the impression that you think the same >thing...but how do you argue against the other position ?)? I do think that texts were esentially "fixed" into types by the 300's. Variations that are found after this time are simply mistakes or, on the part of some scribes, intentional theological changes. Further, I would suggest that these theological changes came about in an effort to harmonize the text with the councils of the Church. > >(2) the work of Colwell, Zuntz, and Aland's "Wild texts" in characterizing >the early papyri scribes as copyists who made accidental errors mainly of >ommission rather than being "editors" of the texts who added, clarified, >harmonized, etc. > I think this too is correct. The early scribes were not poisoned by "doctrine" to the extent that the later scribes were.. After all, just imagine the pressure placed on scribes to provide doctrinally correct texts after the council of Nicea! If you were a scribe, would you want someone exiling you because you provided a "heretical" text- even if you had no exemplar for your "theologically purified" text? The "pre-conciliar" scribes were under no such "theologizing" pressure. This seems to me to be a very important concept in discussions of the "growth" of the text (and believe me, it did grow!). >It seems to me (a TC agnostic !) that 1 and 2 taken together partially >underlie (though rarely if ever made explicit) the Byzantine priority >position...I'm sure if I'm wrong here Maurice will tell me, but at least >that has been my impression. > I think just the opposite is the case. The Byzantine texts are not early; and they are clearly dominated by theological "purity". >Also, given your preference for the earliest reading, what's your reaction >to the work of Comfort ?? > I have not read his stuff. Its on my to do list- but I simply, regrettably, have not done so yet. Why do you ask? Does he say something similar to what I have been saying? Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@theology.edu From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Apr 17 09:00:39 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA19724; Thu, 17 Apr 1997 09:00:39 -0400 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970417083254.2e77373a@hub.infoave.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 17 Apr 1997 08:04:02 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Roman's Doxology Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1286 On Thu, 17 Apr 1997, Jim West wrote, in part: [ ... ] >>Also, given your preference for the earliest reading, what's your reaction >>to the work of Comfort ?? >> > >I have not read his stuff. Its on my to do list- but I simply, regrettably, >have not done so yet. >Why do you ask? Does he say something similar to what I have been saying? >From an outsider's viewpoint, Comfort's views are very similar to yours. I've said before that he worships the papyri. It doesn't even matter which papyrus -- it can be something as good as p75 or as bad as p45. Frankly, I find Comfort difficult to read. His analysis of readings seems always to come down to, "This is found in (some papyrus); it should be considered original." Your views seem to be a little more reasonable; at least you look at other evidence. But there is a similarity, in that the date of the witness seems to affect the assessment of its quality. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A very rough draft of part of the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Apr 17 10:46:53 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA20226; Thu, 17 Apr 1997 10:46:53 -0400 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Apocrypha Message-ID: <19970417.074506.10166.0.HILKAP@juno.com> References: <1.5.4.16.19970414125829.27a77884@mail.highland.net> X-Mailer: Juno 1.15 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0,2-32 From: hilkap@juno.com (HILL R KAPLAN) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 1997 10:45:35 EDT Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1081 On Mon, 14 Apr 1997 12:59:52 -0500 (EST) Jim West writes: > >I don't think that Gnostic material qualifies as apocrypha, does it? I specifically referred to this subset as CHRISTIAN APOCRYPHA. >Apocrypha are materials written by Jews or Christians which are >of an orthodox character- but which were not included in the >Canon. I do not think that Nag Hammadi qualifies here. The very fact that Gnostic writings were proscribed denies their orthodox character. Since they are Christian in nature, and dated after 70 CE, the date of the destruction of the Temple, they could not be included in the LXX canon of the Hebrew Bible. Moreover, since they are "Early Christian writings not included in the Christian Bible" they decided fall into Category 2b of the definition of APOCRYPHA in WEBSTER's SEVENTH COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY. Remember, Catholics refer to material in the LXX as Deuterocanonical and other writings as Apocryphal while Protestants often refer to writings in the LXX as Apocryphal and other writings as pseudepigraphic. HILL From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Apr 17 11:37:53 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA20495; Thu, 17 Apr 1997 11:37:52 -0400 From: schmiul@uni-muenster.de Message-Id: <199704171538.RAA31312@mail.uni-muenster.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Thu, 17 Apr 97 17:53:44 +0100 Subject: Theological Tendencies (was: Qualifications, Classifications, and Progress) To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2464 Thanks to Bart Ehrman for providing us with some interesting new projects on Theological/Sociological backgrounds of scribes. To be sure, there are deliberate changes within NT MSS, some of them even emphasizing certain theological/christological options. However, exploring Theological Tendencies out of variant readings seems to be a difficult task, as far as I can see. Two serious obstacles tend to obscure most of the results of studies I am aware of: 1. Some studies only choose few readings of a MS in order to portrait a certain tentency, while at the same time hardly accounting for the rest of the MS's text (readings). This, in my mind, is especially true with Epp's famous study on the Theological Tendency of Codex Bezae in Acts. 2. Studies of Theological Tendencies always have to assume a _possible interpretation_ of a given variant reading to be it's _one and only source_. But in a lot of cases this is open to dispute. For example, arguing for Theological Tendencies on the basis of omissions simply seems hazardous to me, for omissions of all sorts are found in each and every MS as far as I am acquainted with the data. Since the vast majority of variant readings within our MSS are due to accidental scribal plunder so to speak (misreading, misspelling, haplography, dittography, homoioteleuton, line skips, confusion of letters, words, etc.), and, since sometimes even plunder makes sense (e.g. line skips, confusion of letters to some extend), I simply don't know how to ascertain a deliberate scribal effort to be the source of some of the alleged whether "Orthodox" or "Heterodox (e.g., some marcionite readings) Corruptions". Note, my contention is not whether "Orthodox" or "Heterodox Corruptions" existed or not, but how to verify them beyond a reasonable doubt. At least in my view we need to develop solid methods in order to exclude other possible sources for an alleged theologically motivated reading. Anecdotal lists of readings or some ingenious, even _possible_ interpretations will not convince me, as long as there are other _possible_ interpretations. BTW-- The reason why I got increasingly sceptical with respect to _demonstrable_ Theological Tendencies is that I had a hard time to even figure out the shape of Marcion's Theological Tendencies out of the remainders of his NT text. Therfore, I am curious to know how others deal with the problems outlined above. Ulrich Schmid, Muenster From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Apr 17 12:04:25 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA20609; Thu, 17 Apr 1997 12:04:24 -0400 Date: Thu, 17 Apr 1997 12:05:05 -0400 Message-Id: <2.2.16.19970417120514.42efbe14@email.psu.edu> X-Sender: wlp1@email.psu.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "William L. Petersen" Subject: Re: Apocrypha Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 4604 1) In regards to this discussion, it should be noted that Hennecke-Schneemelcher, the standard work on the NT apocrypha, include many Nag Hammadi documents (e.g., the Gospel of Thomas, the Dialogue of the Saviour) among the NT apocrypha. 2) The line between "gnostic" and "orthodox" is essentially non-existent in the earliest church. Examples: A) Clement of Alex., *Stromates,* end of Book I (cp. 29): "But at this point, let our first Miscellany of gnostic notes, according to the true philosophy, come at a close." Strom. I.13: "He who is conversant with all kinds of wisdom, will be pre-eminently a gnostic" (these are the "true" Christians, as per Clement). Strom. I.11: says "Philosophers are *children* unless they have been made *men* by Christ...But strong meat belongs to those that are of *full age*...", a nice recapitulation of the tripartite division of believers in some gnostic systems (the "hylics" [lowest], "psychics," and the "pneumatics" [highest]). Strom. I.9: "And our much-knowing gnostic can distinguish sophistry from philosophy..." (the "gnostic" is the well-instructed Christian). Etc., etc. (whole of the Stromates, esp. Bk. I, is full of such "Christian Gnosticism"). B) Paul has all sorts of gnostic language and ideas: Gal. 4:21-31: the story of Abraham, Sarah, and Hagar is "an allegory" (v. 24), whose meaning is secret (= not obvious), and needs explanation; Gal. 3.19: "the Law was promulgated by angels, assisted by an intermediary." How gnostic can one get? Eph. 5:8-9: "you were darkness once, but now you are light...be like children of light." Col. 2:2-3: "until you really know God's secret in which all the jewels of wisdom and knowledge [gnwsews] are hidden." I Thess. 5:5: "you are all sons of light...we do not belong to the night or to darkness." Col. 3:12: "You are god's chosen race." II Cor. 3:12-18: Jews cannot understand their own scriptures because a "veil" between them and the text keeps them from discerning clearly--Christians, however, can discern because the "veil" has, for them, been lifted. (For more on Paul and Gnosticism, see the by-now "ancient" study of E. Pagels, *The Gnostic Paul* [1975]. Of course, she is only building on the work of Bousset, Kaesemann, Schoeps, and many earlier scholars--who [very oddly] often don't make it into her bibliography...) All of this reeks of gnosticism, and fits the formal definition of gnosticism: esoteric knowledge, hidden from the average person and disguised in the literal reading of the text, but manifest to the knowing "gnostic" who has been "enlightened," and can discern the "hidden" "spiritual" meanings in the text; intermediaries in creation and dealing with men; stratification of people into three levels; the pneumatic gnostics are "children of light," and a "chosen race" apart from the "dusty ones"; knowledge is paramount and identical with the divinity. Allegorical interpretation is the norm. Etc., etc. Therefore, "gnostic" material is (1) formally in the NT (= Christian) apocrypha, as given by the handbooks, editions, and as treated by scholarship; (2) the division between "orthodox" and "gnostic" is useless in first century Christianity--and probably even 2nd cent. Xity--because the definitions could only be applied retrospectively. Of course, on this whole matter of orthodoxy and heresy, see W. Bauer, *Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity.* --Petersen, Penn State Univ. At 10:45 AM 4/17/97 EDT, you wrote: > >On Mon, 14 Apr 1997 12:59:52 -0500 (EST) Jim West >writes: > >> >>I don't think that Gnostic material qualifies as apocrypha, does it? > >I specifically referred to this subset as CHRISTIAN APOCRYPHA. > >>Apocrypha are materials written by Jews or Christians which are >>of an orthodox character- but which were not included in the >>Canon. I do not think that Nag Hammadi qualifies here. > >The very fact that Gnostic writings were proscribed denies their >orthodox character. > >Since they are Christian in nature, and dated after 70 CE, the date >of the destruction of the Temple, they could not be included in >the LXX canon of the Hebrew Bible. > >Moreover, since they are "Early Christian writings not included in the >Christian Bible" they decided fall into Category 2b of the definition of >APOCRYPHA in WEBSTER's SEVENTH COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY. > >Remember, Catholics refer to material in the LXX as >Deuterocanonical and other writings as Apocryphal while >Protestants often refer to writings in the LXX as Apocryphal and >other writings as pseudepigraphic. > > > >HILL > > > From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Apr 17 16:03:13 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA21742; Thu, 17 Apr 1997 16:03:13 -0400 Date: Thu, 17 Apr 1997 16:03:39 -0400 (EDT) From: Bart Ehrman X-Sender: behrman@login0.isis.unc.edu To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: comfort's work Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 373 Several people have mentioned Phil Comfort's work; I don't recall if this has been mentioned before, but anyone wanting to read a penetrating assessment should consult Bill Petersen's _JBL_ review from a couple of years ago, the single most devastating review of any book I've ever seen in the journal. -- Bart D. Ehrman, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Apr 17 16:19:48 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA21843; Thu, 17 Apr 1997 16:19:48 -0400 Date: Thu, 17 Apr 1997 16:19:47 -0400 (EDT) From: "James R. Adair" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: comfort's work In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 280 The exact reference for Petersen's review is JBL 113,3 (1994):529-531. 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 owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Apr 17 16:23:09 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA21910; Thu, 17 Apr 1997 16:23:08 -0400 X-Sender: daiken@mail.bakerbooks.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 17 Apr 1997 16:25:35 -0400 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: Dave Aiken Subject: Re: comfort's work Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 491 Jim: thought you might want to know that Phil Comfort is getting trashed (again) on the text-criticism discussion group. :-( Dave At 4:03 PM -0400 4-17-97, Bart Ehrman wrote: > Several people have mentioned Phil Comfort's work; I don't recall if >this has been mentioned before, but anyone wanting to read a penetrating >assessment should consult Bill Petersen's _JBL_ review from a couple of >years ago, the single most devastating review of any book I've ever seen >in the journal. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Apr 17 17:10:21 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA22154; Thu, 17 Apr 1997 17:10:21 -0400 Date: 17 Apr 1997 21:10:49 -0000 Message-ID: <19970417211049.5468.qmail@np.nosc.mil> From: Vincent Broman To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu In-reply-to: (message from Bart Ehrman on Wed, 16 Apr 1997 20:45:37 -0400 (EDT)) Subject: Re: Classifying witnesses (was Alexandrian Text) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 5128 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- behrman@email.unc.edu wrote: > ...Predominant > Readings aren't uniform only because some group witnesses have been > contaminated by the reading of other groups... > Explain to me though how the weight factor could be > used. (Is it a strict percentage drawn from the number of supporting > witnesses for and against...? The minority defections could be due to mixture from other text types or else from idiosyncratic errors or redaction. But in any case, the model is that an ideal text type has exactly _one_ reading at each point of variation, which is imperfectly (stochastically) reflected in the readings of the extant witnesses. Knowledge of how the ideal text type reads at a point of variation is a probability distribution. The distribution is very concentrated (near 100%) if the witnesses are very united, less lopsided if more defections are found. Even Uniform readings have varying levels of significance, depending on how many (and which) witnesses are extant at that point (how do you know that that witness with a lacuna didn't defect? :-), how strong the temptation to corrupt was at that point, etc. If you want to estimate what percentage of the text to be classified matches the text of an ideal text type, then you add up for each point of variation the probability (or level of certainty) that the text being classified matches the text type at that particular point of variation. Then divide by the number of points of variation. This weight factor, or probability of matching, would be nearly one when you're highly confident of a match, nearly zero when you see a clear mismatch, but it would not be just the percentage of relevant witnesses whose agreement fixes the reading of the text type. Calculation of the factor really should be based on a smart model (based on expert TC knowledge) of the individual control witnesses, accounting for how loyal they are to the text type, how mixed they are, how frequently they innovate, in what ways they innovate, etc. Notice that a text being classified doesn't score _zero_ on points of variation where the text type is badly split or the testee matches a minority reading, it's just that the score is low there. Speaking heuristically, I would guess that agreement with 70% of the witnesses relevant to a text type would give you 90-95% certainty of the reading (not 70%), and that agreement with 30% of the witnesses assigned to a text type would give a 5-10% chance of really matching (not 0% or 30%). A 50-50 split between only two alternatives would still give you a 50% certainty, I suppose. The difference between 70% and 95%, or 30% and 5%, is what highlights trends and deemphasizes random errors. me: >> the "average percentage of agreement" for each text type is an irrelevancy. behrman@email.unc.edu: > ...it seems use to be of *some* use to know how a witness > stacks up in the question of the total number of apples and oranges. Come to think of it -- the "average percentage of agreement", which you compute as an average of the percentage agreement of the testee with each of the witnesses assigned to the text type, is precisely _equal_ to what you would get with the weighting scheme discused above, IF you use the fraction of agreeing witnesses as your weight. (And if there are no lacunas -- lacunas perturb things a bit.) That's why the average agreement is the wrong thing to compute. In terms of practical effects: the reason you want to add things up, or average things together, is to magnify the visibility of the big recurring trends and minimize the total effect of random, nonrecurring aberrations, such as occur in all the witnesses. Voting, and proper weighting of the voting results, allows you to track the trend and eliminate most of the random noise. Even if you don't believe that the great text types and families are due to single archetypes, about whose texts we can draw conclusions, (so you have problems with the model assumed above) you might still want to estimate the affinity of a new MS or Pater with, say, the texts of the broad Alexandrian stream, and as long as you include in that stream both extant and nonextant texts, then you still need to look past the ephemera found in the extant witnesses to grapple with what seems to be recurrent and generalizable. We'll all end up with something like _weighted_ profiles of agreement with Uniform+Predominant+Minority readings. Vincent Broman Email: broman@nosc.mil,broman@sd.znet.com = 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 ___ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBM1aQLWCU4mTNq7IdAQFBjAQAudVncGHGbcnXTdYf0jZDhzXm1a594Yaa VNbO6gE8FdUswLYbSCQy+6KUpRmNvdPecqNz2sxFEjfyB+NBkAJv5Q1001Gg7/8u 3N4yAAhYH2/g8eF0M+VI07OMn73l5OwjRl24MfKyOkhbr5DsKTDJFKc78m4w0p1l Ne+M34o0KxU= =e6OS -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Apr 17 17:58:53 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA22295; Thu, 17 Apr 1997 17:58:53 -0400 Date: Thu, 17 Apr 1997 17:58:56 -0400 From: Mike Bossingham Subject: Electronic Critical Apparatus To: tc list Message-ID: <199704171758_MC2-147B-6B46@compuserve.com> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1264 Hi, >And while we might disagree on the pricing structure of certain e-text >versions of tools, I think the basic principle that "a workman is worthy of >his wages" applies to these enterprises as well...though I must admit I'm >frustrated by the situations I all to often see of the software producers >making tremendous amounts of money from texts they did not create, while >the folks who did create the texts get little benefit to allow them to >continue the work...but that sermon will have to wait for another day... This may be a valid criticism of others, but not of me. I have done that - I created and ran my own software house for many years - God did not call me into the ministry to do it again - I am prepared to distribute this software as freeware. This software is principally a piece of software for my doctorate - to show that such a piece of software can be created and it is possible to have an electronic critical apparatus and that it offers a better option than the printed page - just as printing books was better than writing manuscripts. It is then up to those who publish critical data to decide which format they will use and how much they will charge for the information. Mike Bossingham Maidenhead (by the Thames) in England. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Apr 17 19:35:04 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA22442; Thu, 17 Apr 1997 19:35:04 -0400 Date: Thu, 17 Apr 1997 19:35:00 -0400 (EDT) From: Bart Ehrman X-Sender: behrman@login0.isis.unc.edu To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Classifying witnesses (was Alexandrian Text) In-Reply-To: <19970417211049.5468.qmail@np.nosc.mil> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 5444 Vincent, This is *extremely* useful. Many many thanks. -- Bart Ehrman On 17 Apr 1997, Vincent Broman wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > behrman@email.unc.edu wrote: > > ...Predominant > > Readings aren't uniform only because some group witnesses have been > > contaminated by the reading of other groups... > > Explain to me though how the weight factor could be > > used. (Is it a strict percentage drawn from the number of supporting > > witnesses for and against...? > > The minority defections could be due to mixture from other text types > or else from idiosyncratic errors or redaction. But in any case, > the model is that an ideal text type has exactly _one_ reading > at each point of variation, which is imperfectly (stochastically) > reflected in the readings of the extant witnesses. Knowledge of > how the ideal text type reads at a point of variation is a probability > distribution. The distribution is very concentrated (near 100%) if the > witnesses are very united, less lopsided if more defections are found. > Even Uniform readings have varying levels of significance, depending on > how many (and which) witnesses are extant at that point (how do you know > that that witness with a lacuna didn't defect? :-), how strong the > temptation to corrupt was at that point, etc. > > If you want to estimate what percentage of the text to be classified > matches the text of an ideal text type, then you add up for each point > of variation the probability (or level of certainty) that the text > being classified matches the text type at that particular point of variation. > Then divide by the number of points of variation. > > This weight factor, or probability of matching, would be nearly one > when you're highly confident of a match, nearly zero when you see > a clear mismatch, but it would not be just the percentage of > relevant witnesses whose agreement fixes the reading of the text type. > Calculation of the factor really should be based on a smart model > (based on expert TC knowledge) of the individual control witnesses, > accounting for how loyal they are to the text type, how mixed they are, > how frequently they innovate, in what ways they innovate, etc. > Notice that a text being classified doesn't score _zero_ on points > of variation where the text type is badly split or the testee matches > a minority reading, it's just that the score is low there. > > Speaking heuristically, I would guess that agreement with 70% > of the witnesses relevant to a text type would give you 90-95% > certainty of the reading (not 70%), and that agreement with 30% > of the witnesses assigned to a text type would give a 5-10% chance > of really matching (not 0% or 30%). A 50-50 split between only two > alternatives would still give you a 50% certainty, I suppose. > The difference between 70% and 95%, or 30% and 5%, is what highlights > trends and deemphasizes random errors. > > me: > >> the "average percentage of agreement" for each text type is an irrelevancy. > > behrman@email.unc.edu: > > ...it seems use to be of *some* use to know how a witness > > stacks up in the question of the total number of apples and oranges. > > Come to think of it -- the "average percentage of agreement", > which you compute as an average of the percentage agreement of the testee > with each of the witnesses assigned to the text type, > is precisely _equal_ to what you would get with the weighting scheme discused > above, IF you use the fraction of agreeing witnesses as your weight. > (And if there are no lacunas -- lacunas perturb things a bit.) > That's why the average agreement is the wrong thing to compute. > > In terms of practical effects: the reason you want to add things > up, or average things together, is to magnify the visibility of the big > recurring trends and minimize the total effect of random, nonrecurring > aberrations, such as occur in all the witnesses. Voting, and proper > weighting of the voting results, allows you to track the trend and > eliminate most of the random noise. > > Even if you don't believe that the great text types and families are > due to single archetypes, about whose texts we can draw conclusions, > (so you have problems with the model assumed above) you might still want to > estimate the affinity of a new MS or Pater with, say, the texts of the > broad Alexandrian stream, and as long as you include in that stream > both extant and nonextant texts, then you still need to look past the > ephemera found in the extant witnesses to grapple with what seems > to be recurrent and generalizable. > We'll all end up with something like _weighted_ profiles of agreement > with Uniform+Predominant+Minority readings. > > > Vincent Broman Email: broman@nosc.mil,broman@sd.znet.com = 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 ___ > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: 2.6.2 > > iQCVAwUBM1aQLWCU4mTNq7IdAQFBjAQAudVncGHGbcnXTdYf0jZDhzXm1a594Yaa > VNbO6gE8FdUswLYbSCQy+6KUpRmNvdPecqNz2sxFEjfyB+NBkAJv5Q1001Gg7/8u > 3N4yAAhYH2/g8eF0M+VI07OMn73l5OwjRl24MfKyOkhbr5DsKTDJFKc78m4w0p1l > Ne+M34o0KxU= > =e6OS > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Apr 18 05:58:01 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id FAA23279; Fri, 18 Apr 1997 05:58:01 -0400 From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" Organization: Divinity Faculty To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 10:58:03 +000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: NTTC developments Priority: normal References: <199704161609.SAA44546@mail.uni-muenster.de> In-reply-to: X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.52) Message-ID: <19846DD518A@div.ed.ac.uk> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2369 Having just returned from the Birmingham (First) Internatl. Coolloguium on NT Textual Criticism where I gave an invited paper in which I tried out a list of things indicative of current and future NT TC work, I'd like to respond to Bart Ehrman's query about where others see the field at and going. (The paper is titled "Beyond the Interlude? Developments and Directions in New Testament Textual criticism" and is committed to a planned colloquium volume to be edited by David Parker). 1. I mentioned briefly a number of things that indicate renewed interest & activity: the re-birth of Studies & Documents, the new SBL serieson the Greek Fathers, Amphoux's new series "Histoire due texte biblique", the IGNT vols., the new electronic journal TC, the modest growth in numbers of scholars since Epp's Interlude essay (even since his funereal Requiem essay), growth in attendance at the NTTC sessions at SBL, Pickering's New Testament Textual Research Update bulletin, a modest incrrease in places to do a PhD with someone published & interested in NTTC (viz. Bart at UNC, Parker in Birmingham, and yours truly in Edinburgh, in addition to Elliott at Leeds),. 2. I discussed works that amount to significant contributions and that point the way toward more of the same: --More thorough examination of important witneses, as demonstrated esp. by Parker's study of D, and studies in the SBLNTGF series, and Petersen's Diatessaron volume. --Better knowledge of scribal habits, as advanced in Parker's volume on D, Peter Head & James Royse on papyri. --The Second Century: Epp's arguments about relevance and representativeness of early papyri for complexions of NT in 2nd cent (cf. Koester's radical challenge to text critics in the Petersen volume on textual traditions in the 2nd cent.). --Wider Historical Inquiry: Ehrman's volume on theol. motivations of some variants (few NT text critics should find his data new, but he does seem to have begun to alert studens & non-text critics to the possible "sexiness" of the field!), Gamble's recent vol. on books & readers. --Computerization: continuing efforts of the IGNP for collation software, the Electronic NT MSS project. L. W. Hurtado University of Edinburgh, New College Mound Place Edinburgh, Scotland EH1 2LX Phone: 0131-650-8920 Fax: 0131-650-6579 E-mail: L.Hurtado@ed.ac.uk From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Apr 18 06:12:02 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id GAA23304; Fri, 18 Apr 1997 06:12:02 -0400 From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" Organization: Divinity Faculty To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 11:12:15 +000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Roman's Doxology Priority: normal In-reply-to: <199704161307.PAA28092@mail.uni-muenster.de> References: <1.5.4.16.19970415141147.307f5516@hub.infoave.net> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.52) Message-ID: <19882E77740@div.ed.ac.uk> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 954 On the textual history of Romans (esp. the fnal chapters and the doxology), I haven't seen anyone refer to what is essential reading on the subject: Harry Y. Gamble, _The Textual History of the Letter to the Romans_ (SD 42; Eermans, 1977). Anyone now addressing the question really must interact with Gamble, whose views I find generally persuasive. On the doxology specifically, may I immodestly point to my own essay on that passage in E. J. Epp, G. D. Fee, _NEw Testament Textual criticism, Its Significance for Exegesis: Essays in Honour of Bruce M. Metzger_ (Clarendon Press, 1981)? And also see now N. R. Petersen, "On the Ending(s) to Paul's Letter to Rome," in B. A. Pearson (ed.), _The Future of Early Christianity: Essay in Honor of Helmut Koester_ (Fortress, 1991). L. W. Hurtado University of Edinburgh, New College Mound Place Edinburgh, Scotland EH1 2LX Phone: 0131-650-8920 Fax: 0131-650-6579 E-mail: L.Hurtado@ed.ac.uk From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Apr 18 06:34:04 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id GAA23323; Fri, 18 Apr 1997 06:34:03 -0400 From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" Organization: Divinity Faculty To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 11:34:13 +000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Transmission theories? (was: re: Alexandrian text) Priority: normal In-reply-to: References: <199704121157.HAA15112@mail1y-int.prodigy.net> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.52) Message-ID: <198E11E3E0C@div.ed.ac.uk> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1689 I quite agree that "truth" is welcome from whatever quarter. But life is short and professional scholars are kept quite busy merely to remain up to date in their field, to say nothing of what it takes to try to advance it! So, we demand that purported contributions to a field should be (a) presented in such a way [i.e., following such canons as full presentation of data, showing knowledge of and interaction with previous work on the subject, etc.], and (b) in such a way [e.g., at a conf./colloquium of other scholars competent to critique it, and/or submitted to a refereed journal where it can be assessed by competent scholars as to whether it is fit to publish]. So, it is not too much to ask that those seeking to contribute to and alter opinion in a field do these things. Batting things back 'n forth on this e-list is not the way to deal with substantive, complex, and often massive data. Here we can *react* to and try to *assess* things published in full and preferably in refereed form, but not much more. And so please don't ask us to take valuable time up going to Web sites to pore through un-refereed opinions, which may or may not be worth the time of day. It costs little or nothing to submit essays to major journals, even for those with other things to do than present findings at confs of scholars in the field. We really do need to distinguish between a chat-line electronic bulletin board, and a serious electronic discussion list. Which is that TC-list is? Larry Hurtado L. W. Hurtado University of Edinburgh, New College Mound Place Edinburgh, Scotland EH1 2LX Phone: 0131-650-8920 Fax: 0131-650-6579 E-mail: L.Hurtado@ed.ac.uk From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Apr 18 06:48:42 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id GAA23350; Fri, 18 Apr 1997 06:48:42 -0400 From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" Organization: Divinity Faculty To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 11:49:11 +000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Alexandrian text Priority: normal References: In-reply-to: X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.52) Message-ID: <19920901E94@div.ed.ac.uk> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 3534 Prof. Minton wrote (in part): > (1)The origin of the Byz or Alex or any other text-type is unknown. Uh. Yeah, that's why we're involved in trying to trace the early history of the text. So? > (2)The important Alex text-type mss are generally older, but they are so > diverse (self-contradicting) that they cannot give a solid, or at least > the best, witness to the original text and they certainly do not give a > clue as to a common origin. They are a mixture of who knows what. The > variants in Aleph are over 25% Byz against Alex (and 50% of Aleph _can > be_ classified as Byz). Since you don't give any description of how you arrive at your figures, I simply don't know what on earth to make of them. The alleged percentages are . . . percentages of what? and established how? > (3)The important BYZ representation is later, but the time difference > has been overstated many times. So, what time difference should we all know about & use now, and where is it published? What overstatements are we to avoid? > (4)The BYZ is much more consistent among the many witnesses (some early). What *early* (and what does "early" mean here?) Byz witnesses are so consistent? > (5)If you can tell us where the Byz text came from, then you can possibly > argue that it is later than some other text, otherwise your _guess_ is as > good as mine, but IMHO it is not any better. >there probably is no such thing as a text-type. Some > suggest we say text families or affinities or groupings. The truth is the > text-type concept may even hinder us from objectivity. Though this is > somewhat simplistic, I would basically agree with Aland and Hodges, both > of whom essentially admit only two broad text-types, the Alex and the > Byz. > A text-type is a theoretical arch-type behind the actual mss that have > similar enough texts to be grouped together. I suggest you refer to Epp & > Fee ch. 3-4 in _Studies in the Theory and Method of NT T Cr_. I do not > know the textual affinities of every ms. but the key players are well > known enough to categorize the mss into text-types for that section. There may or may not be such things as "text-types" depending on what you mean by the term. Case in point: You use "text-type" to mean "atheoretical arch-type [sic] behind the actual mss", but in the Epp/Fee vol you cite you will find that the definition of text-type preferred is much more a "kind" or complexion of text evidenced in significant amounts of agreements among clusters of mss. Such clusters may well be the result of the mss in question being copies of a common ancester, but at least some levels of agreement may have been the result of same/similar scribal tendencies/mentalities preferring similar/same readings repeatedly. There manifestly seem to be clusters of mss with significant levels of agreements and recognizably similar textual complexions--that will do for now as definitions of "text-types", which is shorthand for "types of texts". > When the leading players agree, that is pure enough for me. However the > tone of your post suggests that you are an expert in this area, and I am > not one, so please do inform us more perfectly as to "purely Alexandrian" > or "purely anything." I didn't offer any "pure" mss. So I don't quite know why I'm asked for any. I'll pass on that one. L. W. Hurtado University of Edinburgh, New College Mound Place Edinburgh, Scotland EH1 2LX Phone: 0131-650-8920 Fax: 0131-650-6579 E-mail: L.Hurtado@ed.ac.uk From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Apr 18 07:09:42 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id HAA23402; Fri, 18 Apr 1997 07:09:42 -0400 From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" Organization: Divinity Faculty To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 12:10:02 +000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Alexandrian text Priority: normal In-reply-to: References: X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.52) Message-ID: <19979C0174C@div.ed.ac.uk> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 3759 In response to my complaint (and correction of him) about my 1981 volume on Codex W and the "pre-Caesarean text" in Mark, R. Waltz wrote: > I have read it in full twice, and checked it in part at other times. > The reason that I say it ignores mixture is that it *ignores > Streeter's definition of the "Caesarean" text.* I certainly didn't "ignore" Streeter's definition; I described it and critiqued it quite specifically (pp. 1ff. et alia). > > Streeter defined that text as the non-Byzantine readings found in > Theta, 565, 700, 28, family 1, family 13, etc. And I've shown that this "agreement in non-Byzantine readings" is a fallacious procedure, both because it requires one first to presume that there was an early Byzantine text (when there is not sufficient evidence of such to presume this), and in that it is not logically sound. It is much more sound in determining mss relationships to begin with agreement in *total* text/readings, not in some arbitrarily-selected slice/selection of readings. On the basis of looking at and counting the *total* readings in Mark, I've confirmed that Theta and 565 do seem to show strong enough agreement with each other, and distinguishable from other control witnesses I used, to suggest a special relationship. They could, thus, be called "Caesarean" if you want (for old times sake, but no valid historical reason for doing so--i.e., no particular connection with Caesarea). Oh, and to Maurice Robinson, I *did* analyse the mss relationships and count them chapter-by-chapter. > > Now it may be argued that this is a bad definition. As used by Streeter, > it *was* a bad definition, since he used the TR to define the Byzantine > text. But it is a usable definition. "Usable"? How? See above. >And nowhere that I have seen does > Hurtado examine the "Caesearean" text according to this definition -- > i.e. making an examination of the "Caesarean" witnesses and their > level of agreement *where they are non-Byzantine.* Uh, no. I reject Streeter's approach, and for good reasons given in my book, so why should I employ it? So, how is this somehow a failing on my part? > I do not claim to know the result of such a study. I have hints, but no > more. All I say -- as I have said many times -- is that Hurtado has not > done it. That, in my book, is ignoring mixture. (1) I have not made a study of the Caesarean text based on Streeter's approach, for reasons already stated. But please stop stating this as if I somehow failed--If a scholar shows the fault in a method, how can he be criticized for not then employing it?!! (2) I have also not made a thorough study of all the matters connected with the "Caesarean" witnesses (which, I have shown, do *not* include W or P45!). My project was to determine mainly whether the Theta/565 (+700 etc) cluster was directly related to W & P45 and whether the latter were an early form of the "Caesarean" text. Thus, I focused on W and P45. I have shown that there is no evidence of an *early* "Caesarean" text-type among available Greek mss., and have suggested that the "Caesarean" text = a kind of text subjected to a good deal of scribal harmonizations, stylistic fiddling and other such, thus tending in the direction of the "Byzantine" text, though the latter has a number of features that distinguish it. I apologize for these detailed comments, for I'm basically repeating things from my 1981 book, but Mr. Waltz has persisted in inaccurately referring to my work, and I've attempted to give some indication of the nature of this inaccuracy. L. W. Hurtado University of Edinburgh, New College Mound Place Edinburgh, Scotland EH1 2LX Phone: 0131-650-8920 Fax: 0131-650-6579 E-mail: L.Hurtado@ed.ac.uk From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Apr 18 08:40:12 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA23517; Fri, 18 Apr 1997 08:40:12 -0400 Message-Id: From: "Mark Arvid Johnson" To: Subject: Theological tendencies of Athanasius Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 07:40:10 -0500 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2376 To Bart Ehrman and TC-List, Does anyone else have more information on the theological tendencies of Athanasius and how they affected his use of the text of scripture? Frederick Nolan, in his _Inquiry Into the Integrity of the Received Text_, 1815, claimed: "That St. Athanasius was accused of favoring the destruction of the Arian Bibles; that he revised the sacred text immediately after the death of Eusebius; that his prologue, as explanatory of Ps. ii. is directed against the errors of Arius." p. 135 Can anyone help me document and substantiate these charges? What is the reference for John Brogan's study of Athanasius? I would be most interested in any further information anyone could provide. Mark Arvid Johnson ------------------------------ From: Bart Ehrman Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 18:03:52 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Qualifications, Classifications, and Progress Ulrich, Yeah, actually this particular point (as opposed to the other two, I think) *may* be more of a matter of my simply seeing things from where I sit, since this is in fact the area that I happen to be most interested in. But there *have* been some important and interesting studies. I'd say that Eldon Epp's study of Theological Tendencies was groundbreaking and got things rolling (though he had significant predecessors, of course); about the time I was writing there appeared important articles by Peter Head and Mikeal Parsons (whose book on the ascension tradition in Luke-Acts dealt with related issues as well) and even Bruce Metzger's little piece on MSS of the Fourth Gospel with Hermeneia. More recently (just now, in fact) there have been two very interesting dissertations that I'm aware of, Kim Haines-Eitzen's study of the social location of early Christian scribes (not completed yet, but includes, e.g., a chapter on women scribes in the Greco-Roman world) and John Brogan's study of Athanasius, which argues for specific instances of the trinitarian controversies affecting his text, and further for some instances in which Athanasius's theologically related modifications entered into the MS tradition, specifically with some of the corrections in Codex Sinaiticus (both Kim and John, I think, are on this list). [ rest deleted to save space ] - -- Bart Ehrman, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill ------------------------------ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Apr 18 08:40:40 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA23534; Fri, 18 Apr 1997 08:40:39 -0400 Message-Id: <2.2.16.19970418123123.2a872306@nd.edu> X-Sender: Larry.Niccum.2@nd.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 07:31:23 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: Curt Niccum Subject: Re: "Western" text of Paul Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1866 >Can you at least tell us which of the six substantial witnesses is the >"odd manuscript out," and what it is if it isn't the same as the other >five? The following witnesses share at least one passage in 1 Corinthians which originated in Northern Italy. Greek: D F G Old Latin: 61, 75, 76, 77, 78, 89 Vulgate: F (only the corrections introduced by Victor from his second exemplar), R Patristic: Ambrosiaster, Sedulius Scotus First, although having done the bulk of the collations, my immediate concern was with only one passage. Since the Vetus Latina Institut is currently publishing the fascicles on 1 Corinthians (and I should be working on my dissertation and not this), I decided to save the larger issues for later (or let someone else deal with them). Second, I have used the manuscript designations of the Vetus Latina in order to avoid the ambiguity caused between the differing systems of the UBS and NA apparatuses. (BTW, any discrepencies between the above list and the apparatuses of UBS3 and UBS4 are due to errors in the UBS apparatus. If I remember correctly, UBS3 mislabeled certain witnesses as Old Latin and UBS4 is misled concerning the evidence of the Balliol manuscript of Pelagius.) Third, I have listed the Greek and Latin sides of the bilinguals separately since they are distinct witnesses. Now, back to where this all started. Some of the witnesses listed above have been identified as "Western." Since they all can be tied to Northern Italy and the extent of any influence from a Northern Italian text has yet to be determined, any reading shared by them alone cannot *necessarily* be considered "Western." Additional witnesses outside of this bloc must also attest the reading for one to be relatively sure of its "Western" nature, hence my suggestion that Zuntz's delineations be followed until this is sorted out. Curt Niccum From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Apr 18 08:45:47 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA23557; Fri, 18 Apr 1997 08:45:46 -0400 Message-Id: From: "Mark Arvid Johnson" To: "TC List" Subject: Theological tendencies of Athanasius Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 07:43:34 -0500 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2376 To Bart Ehrman and TC-List, Does anyone else have more information on the theological tendencies of Athanasius and how they affected his use of the text of scripture? Frederick Nolan, in his _Inquiry Into the Integrity of the Received Text_, 1815, claimed: "That St. Athanasius was accused of favoring the destruction of the Arian Bibles; that he revised the sacred text immediately after the death of Eusebius; that his prologue, as explanatory of Ps. ii. is directed against the errors of Arius." p. 135 Can anyone help me document and substantiate these charges? What is the reference for John Brogan's study of Athanasius? I would be most interested in any further information anyone could provide. Mark Arvid Johnson ------------------------------ From: Bart Ehrman Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 18:03:52 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Qualifications, Classifications, and Progress Ulrich, Yeah, actually this particular point (as opposed to the other two, I think) *may* be more of a matter of my simply seeing things from where I sit, since this is in fact the area that I happen to be most interested in. But there *have* been some important and interesting studies. I'd say that Eldon Epp's study of Theological Tendencies was groundbreaking and got things rolling (though he had significant predecessors, of course); about the time I was writing there appeared important articles by Peter Head and Mikeal Parsons (whose book on the ascension tradition in Luke-Acts dealt with related issues as well) and even Bruce Metzger's little piece on MSS of the Fourth Gospel with Hermeneia. More recently (just now, in fact) there have been two very interesting dissertations that I'm aware of, Kim Haines-Eitzen's study of the social location of early Christian scribes (not completed yet, but includes, e.g., a chapter on women scribes in the Greco-Roman world) and John Brogan's study of Athanasius, which argues for specific instances of the trinitarian controversies affecting his text, and further for some instances in which Athanasius's theologically related modifications entered into the MS tradition, specifically with some of the corrections in Codex Sinaiticus (both Kim and John, I think, are on this list). [ rest deleted to save space ] - -- Bart Ehrman, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill ------------------------------ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Apr 18 08:47:06 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA23578; Fri, 18 Apr 1997 08:47:05 -0400 Message-Id: <2.2.16.19970418123751.2a9f3f26@nd.edu> X-Sender: Larry.Niccum.2@nd.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 07:37:51 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: Curt Niccum Subject: Re: Theological Tendencies (was: Qualifications, Classifications, and Progress) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2935 Jeff Childers and I have attempted to introduce some methodological controls into this particular problem. Although we both would probably want to nuance what was published, you might want to consult our "'Anti-feminist' Tendency in the 'Western' Text of Acts?" in Essays on Women in Earliest Christianity, Vol. 1, ed. Carroll D. Osburn (Joplin: College Press, 1993) 469-92. Curt Niccum At 05:53 PM 4/17/97 +0100, you wrote: >Thanks to Bart Ehrman for providing us with some interesting new projects on >Theological/Sociological backgrounds of scribes. > >To be sure, there are deliberate changes within NT MSS, some of them even >emphasizing certain theological/christological options. However, exploring >Theological Tendencies out of variant readings seems to be a difficult task, as >far as I can see. Two serious obstacles tend to obscure most of the results of >studies I am aware of: > >1. Some studies only choose few readings of a MS in order to portrait a certain >tentency, while at the same time hardly accounting for the rest of the MS's text >(readings). This, in my mind, is especially true with Epp's famous study on the >Theological Tendency of Codex Bezae in Acts. >2. Studies of Theological Tendencies always have to assume a _possible >interpretation_ of a given variant reading to be it's _one and only source_. But >in a lot of cases this is open to dispute. For example, arguing for Theological >Tendencies on the basis of omissions simply seems hazardous to me, for omissions >of all sorts are found in each and every MS as far as I am acquainted with the >data. Since the vast majority of variant readings within our MSS are due to >accidental scribal plunder so to speak (misreading, misspelling, haplography, >dittography, homoioteleuton, line skips, confusion of letters, words, etc.), >and, since sometimes even plunder makes sense (e.g. line skips, confusion of >letters to some extend), I simply don't know how to ascertain a deliberate >scribal effort to be the source of some of the alleged whether "Orthodox" or >"Heterodox (e.g., some marcionite readings) Corruptions". > >Note, my contention is not whether "Orthodox" or "Heterodox Corruptions" existed >or not, but how to verify them beyond a reasonable doubt. At least in my view we >need to develop solid methods in order to exclude other possible sources for an >alleged theologically motivated reading. Anecdotal lists of readings or some >ingenious, even _possible_ interpretations will not convince me, as long as >there are other _possible_ interpretations. >BTW-- The reason why I got increasingly sceptical with respect to _demonstrable_ >Theological Tendencies is that I had a hard time to even figure out the shape of >Marcion's Theological Tendencies out of the remainders of his NT text. >Therfore, I am curious to know how others deal with the problems outlined above. > >Ulrich Schmid, Muenster > > > From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Apr 18 09:38:43 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA23741; Fri, 18 Apr 1997 09:38:43 -0400 Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 09:39:43 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by DEV.InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: List Participation X-Sender: jwest@hub.infoave.net (Unverified) To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970418093809.23df3ac6@hub.infoave.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1760 With all due respect to Professor Hurtado, who asks us if we wish this list to be a substantive discussion group or an electronic chat room, I must protest what I perceive to be an imperialistic attitude. "I am willing to admit that truth can come from any corner" we are told and then we are informed that, in essence, unless truth comes from the academy, in standardized academic form, then the "experts" will simply not have time to bother with it! Indeed, truth may come from upper Slobovia, but we "experts" won't bother listening to it unless you state it the way we would. I cannot help but believe that the academic imperialism voiced here is as unfortunate as the male imperialism of past ages in academia. If Bob Waltz states a truth, then it behooves any genuine scholar to listen to it. If Maurice Robinson suggests an idea and supports it with reason, it simply makes no difference if it has already been published in the Journal of Biblical Literature. (and may I add, on this point, that the suggestion that editors will publish truth no matter where it comes from is utterly laughable! And anyone who has submitted any essay knows it! If your name is not known, you will not be published, no matter how brilliant your idea). That, in short, is why this very serious and useful forum is so important. For it, and it alone, offers the opportunity for those with real ideas and not merely repeated, heavily footnoted ideas to be heard (at least by those "with an ear to hear"). But I suspect that Professor Hurtado would prefer that only those who are in high visibility academic positions would speak here. Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@theology.edu From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Apr 18 09:54:36 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA23805; Fri, 18 Apr 1997 09:54:36 -0400 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <19882E77740@div.ed.ac.uk> References: <199704161307.PAA28092@mail.uni-muenster.de> <1.5.4.16.19970415141147.307f5516@hub.infoave.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 08:57:05 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Romans Doxology (I finally decided to spell this right) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1201 I'm going to leave the rest of this alone, at least for now, but I have to throw in one comment.... On Fri, 18 Apr 1997, "Professor L.W. Hurtado" wrote, in part: >On the textual history of Romans (esp. the fnal chapters and the >doxology), I haven't seen anyone refer to what is essential reading >on the subject: Harry Y. Gamble, _The Textual History of the Letter >to the Romans_ (SD 42; Eermans, 1977). Anyone now addressing the >question really must interact with Gamble, whose views I find >generally persuasive. One point in Gamble really bothered me. He argues that the text of Origen and 1739 (*not* the same thing, by the way, though they are related) omitted Chapter 16 of Romans. Now there is only one Pauline manuscript (1506) which actually omits chapter 16 -- and 1506 is much closer to Aleph than to 1739. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A very rough draft of part of the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Apr 18 09:54:41 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA23823; Fri, 18 Apr 1997 09:54:41 -0400 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <2.2.16.19970418123123.2a872306@nd.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 08:49:29 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: "Western" text of Paul Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2669 On Fri, 18 Apr 1997, Curt Niccum wrote, in part: >>Can you at least tell us which of the six substantial witnesses is the >>"odd manuscript out," and what it is if it isn't the same as the other >>five? > >The following witnesses share at least one passage in 1 Corinthians which >originated in Northern Italy. Are you really basing your results on one passage? I think most will agree that that is a not a large enough sample set. (I won't even tell you what my statistics professor would say about a student who did such a thing). >Greek: D F G >Old Latin: 61, 75, 76, 77, 78, 89 >Vulgate: F (only the corrections introduced by Victor from his second >exemplar), R >Patristic: Ambrosiaster, Sedulius Scotus In case anyone cares, this translates as Greek: D F G Old Latin: a d (76=e not cited in NA27) g f b Vulgate: fuldensis** regina (I assume) Patristic: Ambrosiaster, Sedulius Scotus [ ... ] >Second, I have used the manuscript >designations of the Vetus Latina in order to avoid the ambiguity caused >between the differing systems of the UBS and NA apparatuses. (BTW, any >discrepencies between the above list and the apparatuses of UBS3 and UBS4 >are due to errors in the UBS apparatus. If I remember correctly, UBS3 >mislabeled certain witnesses as Old Latin This is quite true. UBS3 lists at least four witnesses (c, dem, x, z) which are vulgate with Old Latin readings (z is Old Latin in part of Hebrews, but is cited throughout Paul). >and UBS4 is misled concerning the >evidence of the Balliol manuscript of Pelagius.) Third, I have listed the >Greek and Latin sides of the bilinguals separately since they are distinct >witnesses. I agree that d is. f sometimes is. g? I think it can only be listed where it differs from G. >Now, back to where this all started. Some of the witnesses listed above have >been identified as "Western." Since they all can be tied to Northern Italy >and the extent of any influence from a Northern Italian text has yet to be >determined, any reading shared by them alone cannot *necessarily* be >considered "Western." This is a matter of definition. "Western" is not a geographical designation; it is textual. I would say that a "Western" reading is one shared by the clear majority of the witnesses listed, because that's how we use the term. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A very rough draft of part of the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Apr 18 10:38:22 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA24176; Fri, 18 Apr 1997 10:38:21 -0400 From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" Organization: Divinity Faculty To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 15:38:14 +000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: List Participation Priority: normal In-reply-to: <1.5.4.16.19970418093809.23df3ac6@hub.infoave.net> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.52) Message-ID: <19CF20C0ACB@div.ed.ac.uk> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 3283 Mr West expresses himself with considerable alarm to my posting urging that scholarly standards and procedures of assessing academi "truth" be followed. I hasten to assure him & all that I intend no "academic imperialism", I think. But it's not quite clear what that would be. Is is "imperialistic" to ask that those who wish to be taken seriously in academic discussion present their findings in fora and forms that scholars have found most useful for such things? I have also criticized the Jesus Seminar for its scholarship-by-press-conference approach, and I dislike C. Thiede's sensationalist-book and newspaper-article approach too, presenting as sure things claims that have not been mooted before scholars, whose critical judgement is the only indication of the academic value of claims (the only indication open to us till the eschaton reveals all!). Yes, it *is* very difficult to get published in academic journals (I've been rejected by some of the best myself, but then, as a more celebrated scholar than I has said, " the path to scholarly greatness is paved with rejection slips!"). But there is no conspiracy out there to prevent certain views from being presented . . . unless the presenters can't supply warrants that scholars in the field can recognize. I am very pleased that this list has among its contributors several who are not published in the field, among whom are several with impressive commitments of time and effort to learning something of the field. But my point is that learning the field (or any field) also means includes learning that scholarship is *critical* endeavor, not a town hall meeting in which anyone can speak and every view be treated as of equal value. So, when someone wants to make a major critique of views in a field, attempt a re-orientation, condemn widely held views as naive or poorly based, is it too much to ask that such voices should submit their views for critical appraisal to scholars in the field and in fora and forms by which the field conducts its business? One can say and think what one wishes (no imperialism please!). But if one wishes to have one's views have an impact on the field, then one must pay the price of becoming a scholar, including the procedures of scholarship. This list (I thought) was originally devised to discuss the articles and issues surfacing in the journal TC. It has done precious little of that. In part this is because few things have as yet appeared in TC. While we're waiting for more, there is plenty out there that *has* been vetted by peers as worthy of scholarly consideration that we could deal with on this list--I've mentioned Gamble's recent books 'n readers book; there is Ehrman's recent book with oodles of variants & his proposals about the theological tendencies behind them (many of which are certainly debatable); our Hebrew Bible folk have scarcely been heard from, etc. etc. Honestly, folks, I'm not a mean guy, and don't mean anything mean here. But all should know that the patience of many NT text critics is sometimes tried on this list. L. W. Hurtado University of Edinburgh, New College Mound Place Edinburgh, Scotland EH1 2LX Phone: 0131-650-8920 Fax: 0131-650-6579 E-mail: L.Hurtado@ed.ac.uk From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Apr 18 10:47:09 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA24243; Fri, 18 Apr 1997 10:47:09 -0400 From: schmiul@uni-muenster.de Message-Id: <199704181448.QAA22912@mail.uni-muenster.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Fri, 18 Apr 97 17:03:07 +0100 Subject: Re: Roman's Doxology To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu In-Reply-To: <19882E77740@div.ed.ac.uk> X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 444 On Fri 18 Apr 1997, Larry Hurtado wrote (inter alia): >On the textual history of Romans (esp. the fnal chapters and the >doxology), I haven't seen anyone refer to what is essential reading >on the subject: Harry Y. Gamble, _The Textual History of the Letter >to the Romans_ (SD 42; Eermans, 1977). Sorry, but that's simply not true. In my post on the subject from Tue, 15 Apr 1997, I referred to Gamble's book. Ulrich Schmid, Muenster From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Apr 18 10:55:39 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA24265; Fri, 18 Apr 1997 10:55:39 -0400 Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 10:56:44 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by DEV.InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: list Participation X-Sender: jwest@hub.infoave.net (Unverified) To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970418105510.195f5d5c@hub.infoave.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 710 I thank Professor Hurtado for his clarifiactions. I never assumed that he was "a mean man". Nothing of the sort! I too think that people who discuss things should pay the price of study- and I never intended to imply anything else. But I do believe that far too much in academia is "closed" and perhaps even "incurvate in se". The only way to remedy this is to have open discussion. Perhaps, then, Professor Hurtado would suggest a topic, a book, or a passage for our consideration, and then we can discuss it bringing to bear all our various views and results of research. Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@theology.edu From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Apr 18 12:07:45 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA24609; Fri, 18 Apr 1997 12:07:45 -0400 From: schmiul@uni-muenster.de Message-Id: <199704181608.SAA43320@mail.uni-muenster.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Fri, 18 Apr 97 18:23:46 +0100 Subject: Re: Theological tendencies of Athanasius To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1948 >To Bart Ehrman and TC-List, >Does anyone else have more information on the theological tendencies of >Athanasius and how they affected his use of the text of scripture? >Frederick Nolan, in his _Inquiry Into the Integrity of the Received Text_, >1815, claimed: >"That St. Athanasius was accused of favoring the destruction of the Arian >Bibles; that he revised the sacred text immediately after the death of >Eusebius; that his prologue, as explanatory of Ps. ii. is directed against >the errors of Arius." p. 135 >Can anyone help me document and substantiate these charges? Athanasius was accused for a lot of things, among others for murdering a meletianic bishop named Arsenius, who, in fact, was found alive (c.f. Apologia secunda 65-67). Athanasius was accused, presumably more substantiated, for having oppressed meletianic groups (e.g., for destroying an eucharistic cup). Maybe in the course of some riots of Athanasius' monks and clergy-men against schismatic groups even a meletianic Bible was destroyed (I don't recall all of the charges from off the top of my head; it has to be found in Sozomenos, hist. eccl. II, 25). However, I would seriously question charges of having favoured the destruction of Arian Bibles. Most likely Arian Bibles did not differ from any other Bible. As far as I am aware of the discussions around Arius and the struggles after Nicea, the charge of relying on a different, even corrupted text of the Bible or on different (non-canonical) books was not brought forth from one or the other side, at least, it was not considered decisive. The debates were basically on the exegesis of various texts and not on different readings. BTW-- Equipped with most sensitive exegetical and hermeneutical tools (typology, allegory, etc.), noone really had to alter conciously a biblical passage to make it fit to whatever was required. Maybe John Brogan should carry on... Ulrich Schmid, Muenster From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Apr 18 12:09:01 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA24641; Fri, 18 Apr 1997 12:09:01 -0400 From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" Organization: Divinity Faculty To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 17:08:40 +000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Roman's Doxology Priority: normal In-reply-to: <199704181448.QAA22912@mail.uni-muenster.de> References: <19882E77740@div.ed.ac.uk> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.52) Message-ID: <19E74473496@div.ed.ac.uk> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 995 > On Fri 18 Apr 1997, Larry Hurtado wrote (inter alia): > > >On the textual history of Romans (esp. the fnal chapters and the > >doxology), I haven't seen anyone refer to what is essential reading > >on the subject: Harry Y. Gamble, _The Textual History of the Letter > >to the Romans_ (SD 42; Eermans, 1977). > > Sorry, but that's simply not true. In my post on the subject from Tue, 15 Apr > 1997, I referred to Gamble's book. > > Ulrich Schmid, Muenster Sorry, I must have missed the ref. in going through nearly a week of e-mail piled up during my absence to attend the Birmingham conf. on NT textual criticism. But it is curious that the doxology issues were being raised and proposals made (subsequent to Schmid's noting of Gamble) without taking any account of the major work and cogent analyses Gamble offers. L. W. Hurtado University of Edinburgh, New College Mound Place Edinburgh, Scotland EH1 2LX Phone: 0131-650-8920 Fax: 0131-650-6579 E-mail: L.Hurtado@ed.ac.uk From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Apr 18 12:11:38 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA24676; Fri, 18 Apr 1997 12:11:38 -0400 From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" Organization: Divinity Faculty To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 17:11:47 +000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: list Participation Priority: normal In-reply-to: <1.5.4.16.19970418105510.195f5d5c@hub.infoave.net> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.52) Message-ID: <19E81B44CB5@div.ed.ac.uk> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1292 Jim West wrote: > I thank Professor Hurtado for his clarifiactions. I never assumed that he > was "a mean man". Nothing of the sort! I too think that people who discuss > things should pay the price of study- and I never intended to imply anything > else. But I do believe that far too much in academia is "closed" and > perhaps even "incurvate in se". The only way to remedy this is to have open > discussion. Perhaps, then, Professor Hurtado would suggest a topic, a book, > or a passage for our consideration, and then we can discuss it bringing to > bear all our various views and results of research. I mentioned several matters in my previous posting to which West responds here. I don't need to control the conversation here, so others can offer topics too. I was simply pointing out that scholars work on the basis of critical evaluation of ideas, and on protocols for airing ideas that are intended to give them critical appraisal, and that we may thus not have as much time as some would want for untested ideas that are not offered with evidence of the prior homework and critical testing we require. L. W. Hurtado University of Edinburgh, New College Mound Place Edinburgh, Scotland EH1 2LX Phone: 0131-650-8920 Fax: 0131-650-6579 E-mail: L.Hurtado@ed.ac.uk From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Apr 18 13:42:08 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA24909; Fri, 18 Apr 1997 13:42:07 -0400 Message-ID: <33583A7C.38B9@sn.no> Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 20:22:36 -0700 From: "Mr. Helge Evensen" Organization: SN Internett X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: John 14:14 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2353 I wonder what the tc=B4ers have to say about the variant reading in John=20 14:14: "If ye ask anything in my name, I will do (it)" vs. "If ye ask me=20 anything in my name, I will do (it)". The Byzantine tradition is split over this variant, so it=B4s difficult t= o=20 decide which may be regarded as the "original Byzantine" reading. The H/F= =20 Majority Text omits "me" while the R/P edition places "me" within=20 brackets. "Me" is omitted by codices A D K L Q Ps 1241 but is retained by= =20 Aleph B and (p66)(?). Among the best known earlier printed editions, only= =20 Tischendorf (for obvious reasons) retains "me" in the text, and Lachmann=20 have it included in brackets in his edition. This shows that most=20 of the earlier editors did not regard the "me" reading as original. The=20 modern critical/eclectic text (N/A-UBS), of course, has the "me" reading=20 (after all, Aleph and B _both_ have it). It would be especially interesting to hear what Robinson may have to say=20 about this particular variant, since the case is not a clear cut=20 situation as regards the Byz MSS. Since the R/P Byz edition have "me" in=20 brackets, you may not have a clear cut answer, or do you? There certainly could be raised many questions as to what _theological_=20 implications could be drawn from either the omission or the retainment of= =20 "me". I just want to raise one "theological" point: The context in which verse 14 is found is clearly the subject of=20 *prayer*. If "me" is retained in the text, we have in this verse the=20 _only_ instance where prayer, in the form of "aitew", is addressed to=20 _Jesus_ rather than _the Father_. This circumstance seems to indicate the= =20 inauthenticity of the "me" reading. From this perspective, the "me"=20 reading may be regarded as "the more difficult reading". In the NT, forms= =20 of prayer are addressed to the Father, not to Jesus. If one is accepting the "easier reading" (i.e. the _omission_ of "me"),=20 the "theological" problem is clearly eliminated. In addition, to me it seems somewhat linguistically awkward for Jesus to=20 have stated: "If ye ask *me* anything in *my* name.......". I=B4m not sur= e,=20 but it may not correspond to Johannine usage. I may be wrong, of=20 course.... It would be interesting to hear what ye all have to say about this! --=20 - Mr. Helge Evensen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Apr 18 16:12:25 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA25649; Fri, 18 Apr 1997 16:12:25 -0400 Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 15:13:21 -0500 (CDT) From: "Ronald L. Minton" X-Sender: rminton@orionc0 To: "Mr. Helge Evensen" cc: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: John 14:14 In-Reply-To: <33583A7C.38B9@sn.no> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2505 On Fri, 18 Apr 1997, Mr. Helge Evensen wrote (in part): > I wonder what the tc=B4ers have to say about the variant reading in John= =20 > 14:14: "If ye ask anything in my name, I will do (it)" vs. "If ye ask me= =20 > anything in my name, I will do (it)". >=20 > The Byzantine tradition is split over this variant, so it=B4s difficult t= o=20 > decide which may be regarded as the "original Byzantine" reading. The H/F= =20 > Majority Text omits "me" while the R/P edition places "me" within=20 > brackets. "Me" is omitted by codices A D K L Q Ps 1241 but is retained by= =20 > Aleph B and (p66)(?)....The modern critical/eclectic text (N/A-UBS),=20 > of course, has the "me" reading (after all, Aleph and B _both_ have it). >=20 > There certainly could be raised many questions as to what _theological_= =20 > implications could be drawn from either the omission or the retainment of= =20 > "me". I just want to raise one "theological" point: > The context in which verse 14 is found is clearly the subject of=20 > *prayer*. If "me" is retained in the text, we have in this verse the=20 > _only_ instance where prayer, in the form of "aitew", is addressed to=20 > _Jesus_ rather than _the Father_. This circumstance seems to indicate the= =20 > inauthenticity of the "me" reading. From this perspective, the "me"=20 > reading may be regarded as "the more difficult reading". In the NT, forms= =20 > of prayer are addressed to the Father, not to Jesus. > If one is accepting the "easier reading" (i.e. the _omission_ of "me"),= =20 > the "theological" problem is clearly eliminated. Sometimes, modern translators can teach us something about human nature and= =20 translators/scribes urge to alter a text. The Jehovah's Witness _New=20 World Translation_ is one of the few Bibles that actually says it is from= =20 the "Westcott and Hort text." Yet here they could not find the will to=20 be consistent. Therefore they switched to the TR or another text at this= =20 passage (Jn 14:14). The desire seems to be from doctrine - they did not=20 want prayer addressed to Jesus. They even said in the preface that they=20 would alert the reader (with a footnote) if they abandon the WH text; yet there is no such note to inform the reader here. I think we do have to be aware of tendencies toward the right and the=20 left, to add, to omit, and to change. -- Prof. Ron Minton: rminton@mail.orion.org W (417)268-6053 H 833-9581 Baptist Bible Graduate School 628 E. Kearney St. Springfield, MO 65803 From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Apr 18 16:35:54 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA25693; Fri, 18 Apr 1997 16:35:54 -0400 Message-ID: <3357CDD4.6AFBEE98@repurk.mw.com> Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 12:39:00 -0700 From: Alan Repurk Organization: I do not speak for my organization X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (X11; I; Linux 1.2.8 i586) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu CC: "Mr. Helge Evensen" Subject: Re: John 14:14 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 4010 Ronald L. Minton wrote: > > On Fri, 18 Apr 1997, Mr. Helge Evensen wrote (in part): > > I wonder what the tc´ers have to say about the variant reading in John > > 14:14: "If ye ask anything in my name, I will do (it)" vs. "If ye ask me > > anything in my name, I will do (it)". > > > > The Byzantine tradition is split over this variant, so it´s difficult to > > decide which may be regarded as the "original Byzantine" reading. The H/F > > Majority Text omits "me" while the R/P edition places "me" within > > brackets. "Me" is omitted by codices A D K L Q Ps 1241 but is retained by > > Aleph B and (p66)(?)....The modern critical/eclectic text (N/A-UBS), > > of course, has the "me" reading (after all, Aleph and B _both_ have it). > > > > There certainly could be raised many questions as to what _theological_ > > implications could be drawn from either the omission or the retainment of > > "me". I just want to raise one "theological" point: > > The context in which verse 14 is found is clearly the subject of > > *prayer*. If "me" is retained in the text, we have in this verse the > > _only_ instance where prayer, in the form of "aitew", is addressed to > > _Jesus_ rather than _the Father_. This circumstance seems to indicate the > > inauthenticity of the "me" reading. From this perspective, the "me" > > reading may be regarded as "the more difficult reading". In the NT, forms > > of prayer are addressed to the Father, not to Jesus. > > If one is accepting the "easier reading" (i.e. the _omission_ of "me"), > > the "theological" problem is clearly eliminated. > > Sometimes, modern translators can teach us something about human nature and > translators/scribes urge to alter a text. The Jehovah's Witness _New > World Translation_ is one of the few Bibles that actually says it is from > the "Westcott and Hort text." Yet here they could not find the will to > be consistent. Therefore they switched to the TR or another text at this > passage (Jn 14:14). The desire seems to be from doctrine - they did not > want prayer addressed to Jesus. They even said in the preface that they > would alert the reader (with a footnote) if they abandon the WH text; yet > there is no such note to inform the reader here. > I think we do have to be aware of tendencies toward the right and the > left, to add, to omit, and to change. > > -- > Prof. Ron Minton: rminton@mail.orion.org W (417)268-6053 H 833-9581 > Baptist Bible Graduate School 628 E. Kearney St. Springfield, MO 65803 I'm afraid you're wrong here on two counts. 1) The NWT claims to use the Westcott/Hort text as the primary text, but clearly indicates that it uses other sources in addition to W&H. 2) The footnote on John 14:14 is quite extensive in the REFERENCE edition of the NWT. It lists the manuscripts which favor and omit the 'ME', as well as explains that the reading with 'ME' is not consistent with the context of the other verses in John which explain the same concept. (see below). Surely, with these extensive examples AND the fact that the support for 'ME' in John 14:14 is doubtfull at best, the descision to omit me in the English translation is very well supported. BTW I do not even think that the NWT is the only translation which omits 'ME'. Various (NWT) Joh 14:13 Also, whatever it is that YOU ask in my name, I will do this, in order that the Father may be glorified in connection with the Son. Joh 14:14 If YOU ask anything in my name, I will do it. Joh 15:16 YOU did not choose me, but I chose YOU, and I appointed YOU to go on and keep bearing fruit and that YOUR fruit should remain; in order that no matter what YOU ask the Father in my name he might give it to YOU. Joh 16:23 And in that day YOU will ask me no question at all. Most truly I say to YOU, If YOU ask the Father for anything he will give it to YOU in my name. Joh 16:26 In that day YOU will ask in my name, and I do not say to YOU that I shall make request of the Father concerning YOU. Sincerely, -lars From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Apr 18 16:48:56 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA25780; Fri, 18 Apr 1997 16:48:55 -0400 Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 16:50:01 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by DEV.InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: John 14:14 X-Sender: jwest@hub.infoave.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970418164910.37b721de@hub.infoave.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 465 In regards to the New World Translation (speaking of the importance of text criticism!); the editors falsely attributed their text-base to Westcott- Hort. The NWT is no more based on WH than the NKJV is based on Aleph. As text critics it is important to have the primary facts in hand before progress can be made. Jim ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@theology.edu From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Apr 18 16:52:34 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA25816; Fri, 18 Apr 1997 16:52:34 -0400 Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 13:53:40 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew Johnson Subject: Re: re a Big Idea To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 904 On Tue, 8 Apr 1997, Robert B. Waltz wrote: > On Tue, 8 Apr 1997, Mike Bossingham wrote, > in part: > > >The software runs on a PC under Windows 3.1 (it also works under NT and > >95). When my work is complete (and progress is slow because I am a Part > >Time student and full time Minister) I am prepared to offer it to the TC > >community. > > > So I would ask, what language are you using? (I don't suppose it's > Perl, is it? That would be perfect for the job, and it's available > *free* for Mac, PC, and UNIX.) Second, what flavour of the language? > To which I reply: Yes, Perl would be good, especially if you write in Perl 4.036 rather than the new Perl5 (has Perl5 for NT even been debugged yet?). But why not Java? > Matthew Johnson Waiting for the blessed hope and the appearance of the glory of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ (Ti 2:13). > From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Apr 18 17:07:27 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA25892; Fri, 18 Apr 1997 17:07:27 -0400 Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 14:08:32 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew Johnson Subject: Re: A big idea To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu In-Reply-To: <199704101011_MC2-140F-5F2E@compuserve.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1057 Please allow me to correct some misleading statements you made about portability. 1) You said you are sticking to simple C, and that should make it easily portable. Unfortunately, any calls you make to functions that do Windows I/O are by definition NOT portable, unless you use one of the platform-independent GUI libraries mentioned in the FAQ for comp.os.windows.programmer. 2) You mentioned that WIndows can be emulated on the Mac. This is true, but the emulator is an expensive commercial product. Even worse, the 680x0 version is NOT being maintained; they update only the PowerPC version of the product. In contrast, I saw a shareware (or was it public domain) Mac emulator for IBM-AT compatible machines on ftp.hawaii.edu. So (surprise, surprise) if you write for the Mac (assuming only System 7), you will achieve an even higher level of cross-platform compatibility than if you write for Windows. Matthew Johnson Waiting for the blessed hope and the appearance of the glory of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ (Ti 2:13). From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Apr 18 17:28:20 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA25952; Fri, 18 Apr 1997 17:28:20 -0400 Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 17:29:25 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by DEV.InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: John 14:14 X-Sender: jwest@hub.infoave.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970418172835.1c87e2ac@hub.infoave.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 747 In regards to the question concerning the text of John 14:14- X, f1, 565, b, sy(s)- omit the entire verse. This I think simply because of haplography. me is omitted by A, D, K, L, Q, etc. me is included (apparently- the apparatus of NA26 does not say) by the Byz texts. (yet it is included in NA26!). The choice is a toss up, it seems, on external criteria. Likewise, in my view, the internal criteria are indecisive. This is one of those many examples where there is no clear indication one way or the other. We cannot tell! (Or, to be more modest, I cannot tell) which reading is original. Jim ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@theology.edu From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Apr 18 17:36:14 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA25976; Fri, 18 Apr 1997 17:36:14 -0400 X-Authentication-Warning: shell3.ba.best.com: gjw owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 14:36:08 -0700 (PDT) From: "Gregory J. Woodhouse" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: re a Big Idea In-Reply-To: Message-ID: X-Url: http://www.wnetc.com/ MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1371 Hey, what do you know--I actually get to comment on something from the perspective of my own profession. (With regards to TC, I'm afraid I'm one of those people on the list who work professionally in an other field but still have an interest in textual criticism.) On Fri, 18 Apr 1997, Matthew Johnson wrote: > Yes, Perl would be good, especially if you write in Perl 4.036 rather than > the new Perl5 (has Perl5 for NT even been debugged yet?). > There is no such thing as software which has been "debugged". Even relatively simple programs can be so complex that it's not even possible to exercise all execution paths. > But why not Java? > > Of course, the same comment applies to Java. But I do think working in Java is an excellent idea. I'm starting to use it more and more in my own work. The AWT is pretty rudimentary, but it is still possible to produce attractive user interfaces in Java. Database-wise, there is JDBC, and though I haven't looked at JavaBeans yet, I believe is supports OpenDoc (CORBA's answer to OLE). All in all, it seems like a good approach. > Matthew Johnson > Waiting for the blessed hope and the appearance of the glory of our > great God and Saviour Jesus Christ (Ti 2:13). > > > > --- gjw@wnetc.com / http://www.wnetc.com/home.html If you're going to reinvent the wheel, at least try to come up with a better one. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Apr 18 17:51:52 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA26040; Fri, 18 Apr 1997 17:51:52 -0400 Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 16:52:52 -0500 (CDT) From: "Ronald L. Minton" X-Sender: rminton@orionc0 To: Alan Repurk cc: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu, "Mr. Helge Evensen" Subject: Re: John 14:14 In-Reply-To: <3357CDD4.6AFBEE98@repurk.mw.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1330 On Fri, 18 Apr 1997, Alan Repurk wrote: > Ronald L. Minton wrote: > > On Fri, 18 Apr 1997, Mr. Helge Evensen wrote (in part): > > > I wonder what the tc=B4ers have to say about the variant reading in J= ohn > > > 14:14: "If ye ask anything in my name, I will do (it)" vs. "If ye ask= me > > > anything in my name, I will do (it)". > > Sometimes, modern translators can teach us something about human nature= and > > translators/scribes urge to alter a text. The Jehovah's Witness _New > > World Translation_ is one of the few Bibles that actually says it is fr= om > > the "Westcott and Hort text." Yet here they could not find the will to > > be consistent. Therefore they switched to the TR or another text at th= is > > passage (Jn 14:14). The desire seems to be from doctrine - they did no= t > > want prayer addressed to Jesus. They even said in the preface that the= y > > would alert the reader (with a footnote) if they abandon the WH text; y= et > > there is no such note to inform the reader here. > > I think we do have to be aware of tendencies toward the right and the > > left, to add, to omit, and to change. > I'm afraid you're wrong here on two counts. >=20 > 1) The NWT claims to use the Westcott/Hort text as the primary=20 > text, but clearly indicates that it uses other sources in addition to W&H= From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Apr 18 18:15:58 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA26135; Fri, 18 Apr 1997 18:15:58 -0400 Message-ID: <3357E545.65A2E6C6@repurk.mw.com> Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 14:19:01 -0700 From: Alan Repurk Organization: I do not speak for my organization X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (X11; I; Linux 1.2.8 i586) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Ronald L. Minton" CC: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu, "Mr. Helge Evensen" Subject: Re: John 14:14 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2560 Ronald L. Minton wrote: > > I have two editions, and it is in neither. I have not checked the > edition you mentioned, but it seems they still abandoned > the text for theological reasons. The NWT Reference Bible is the only one with footnotes at the bottom of the page except for the KIT which has some notes on Greek translation. It measures about 8X11. If you are going to critique it, you would be well served to obtain a copy. I have seen them at used book stores. > It is beyond me how anyone can read > John 14 and say "me" is not in the context; it is likely in this context > more than any place in the entire NT. I supplied all the other verses which comment on this context and ALL of them make it crystal clear that we are to ask the Father for things in the name of Jesus. Joh 15:16 ...YOU ask the Father in my name he might give it to YOU. Joh 16:23 ... If YOU ask the Father for anything he will give it to YOU in my name. Joh 16:26 In that day YOU will ask in my name, .. I shall make request of the Father concerning YOU. What is it about this that you don't understand ? I guess these verses would be in TC Lingo, 'internal evidence'. > > > Surely, with these extensive examples AND the fact that the support > > for 'ME' in John 14:14 is doubtful at best, the decision to omit me in > > the English translation is very well supported. > > I do not doubt that a case can be made for both readings. I am > suggesting the NWT team is a case in point where theology makes such > decisions. This seems to be a textual decision based on doctrine just > like "god" (Jn. 1:1) was a theological translation; it is the only time > in 25 applicable texts in John's writings that they translate the anarthrous > theos with a lower case. That is not true, as even a cursory examination reveals. Joh 1:1 EN ARXH HN O LOGOS KAI O LOGOS HN PROS TON QEON KAI QEOS HN O LOGOS Joh 1:1 In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. Joh 1:18 QEON OUDEIS EWRAKEN PWPOTE MONOGENHS QEOS O WN EIS TON KOLPON TOU PATROS EKEINOS ECHGHSATO Joh 1:18 No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is in the bosom [position] with the Father is the one that has explained him. Joh 10:33 APEKRIQHSAN AUTW OI IOUDAIOI PERI KALOU ERGOU OU LIQAZOMEN SE ALLA PERI BLASFHMIAS KAI OTI SU ANQRWPOS WN POIEIS SEAUTON QEON Joh 10:33 The Jews answered him: "We are stoning you, not for a fine work, but for blasphemy, even because you, although being a man, make yourself a god." -lars From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Apr 18 18:22:53 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA26154; Fri, 18 Apr 1997 18:22:53 -0400 Message-ID: <33587C5F.11DA@sn.no> Date: Sat, 19 Apr 1997 01:03:43 -0700 From: "Mr. Helge Evensen" Organization: SN Internett X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: John 14:14 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 364 Ronald L. Minton wrote (in part): > It is beyond me how anyone can read > John 14 and say "me" is not in the context; it is likely in this contex= t > more than any place in the entire NT. Don=B4t think for a second that I=B4m in favor of the NWT or the JW, but=20 could you please just briefly give substance to your above statement? --=20 - Mr. Helge Evensen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Apr 18 18:32:06 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA26196; Fri, 18 Apr 1997 18:32:05 -0400 Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 14:58:36 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew Johnson Subject: Re: Roman's Doxology To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970417083254.2e77373a@hub.infoave.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1889 On Thu, 17 Apr 1997, Jim West wrote: > At 09:23 AM 4/16/97 -0700, you wrote: [snip] > Variations that are found after this time are simply mistakes or, on the > part of some scribes, intentional theological changes. Further, I would > suggest that these theological changes came about in an effort to harmonize > the text with the councils of the Church. I have heard this one before. If this were so, there would be glaring differences between the text of the NT as quoted in early Nicene Patristics and in the Syro-Byzantine tex-type. But I will go out on a limb and say there are NONE. Now I am sure that with this bold statement I will have awakened the skeptic's response in many of you. So I put forth a challenge: show me even ONE passage in St. Basil's letters, Ad Amphilochium, or Contra Celsum, in which substitution of the Alexandrian for the Syro-Byzantine reading breaks the argument. I have never found one. > After all, just > imagine the pressure placed on scribes to provide doctrinally correct texts > after the council of Nicea! [snip] > If you were a scribe, would you want someone exiling you because you > provided a "heretical" text- even if you had no exemplar for your > "theologically purified" text? The "pre-conciliar" scribes were under no But this is the wild imagination of a late 20th century man imposing his prejudices on the Ancient World. Again, I ask the members of this list to show me even ONE case of scribe who was exiled for following an older text type because it was only (or best) exemplar he had. For example, Codex Bezae was copied in this period. Codex W and Theta were based (at least in part) on exemplars that very likely were of this period too (although we may never know for sure). Matthew Johnson Waiting for the blessed hope and the appearance of the glory of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ (Ti 2:13). From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Apr 18 18:36:51 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA26232; Fri, 18 Apr 1997 18:36:50 -0400 Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 18:37:54 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by DEV.InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: John 14:14 X-Sender: jwest@hub.infoave.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970418183704.0c47c988@hub.infoave.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1262 >Joh 1:1 EN ARXH HN O LOGOS KAI O LOGOS HN PROS TON QEON KAI QEOS HN O LOGOS >Joh 1:1 In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, >and the Word was a god. > >Joh 1:18 QEON OUDEIS EWRAKEN PWPOTE MONOGENHS QEOS O WN EIS TON KOLPON TOU PATROS >EKEINOS ECHGHSATO > >Joh 1:18 No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who >is in the bosom [position] with the Father is the one that has explained him. > >Joh 10:33 APEKRIQHSAN AUTW OI IOUDAIOI PERI KALOU ERGOU OU LIQAZOMEN SE ALLA PERI >BLASFHMIAS KAI OTI SU ANQRWPOS WN POIEIS SEAUTON QEON > >Joh 10:33 The Jews answered him: "We are stoning you, not for a fine work, but for >blasphemy, even because you, although being a man, make yourself a god." > >-lars > That these texts are tendentiously translated is self evident and needs no further comment. That the Greek text relies on WH is also unsupportable. In short, the NWT is a doctrinaire, tendentious and therefore useless translation is self evident to all. That a translation should be suggested as the basis for a text-critical discussion is unrealistic and silly. Jim ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@theology.edu From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Apr 18 18:44:22 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA26302; Fri, 18 Apr 1997 18:44:22 -0400 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 17:47:49 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Programming Stuff (Was: Re: re a Big Idea) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 3333 On Fri, 18 Apr 1997, Matthew Johnson wrote: [ ...Those not interested in programming would be wise to omit... ] >> So I would ask, what language are you using? (I don't suppose it's >> Perl, is it? That would be perfect for the job, and it's available >> *free* for Mac, PC, and UNIX.) Second, what flavour of the language? >> >To which I reply: > >Yes, Perl would be good, especially if you write in Perl 4.036 rather than >the new Perl5 (has Perl5 for NT even been debugged yet?). > >But why not Java? Several reasons, all minor in themselves but adding up to a major one: 1. Java is *slow*. It will get faster -- but as an object-oriented language with a zillion classes, it will never be really fast. 2. Perl has all sorts of constructs for database work and text munging. Java doesn't have very many. It's a bigger programming task. 3. Not many people really understand Java yet. Of course, not all that many people understand Perl either.... 4. Perl is everywhere on the net, and can be used to serve the data. Java runs on the user's machine, and is not such a competent server. Java is, of course, the up-and-coming language, and if the programming task were easy, it would be the first choice. But it's so *un*-ideal that I would be inclined to avoid it. On Fri, 18 Apr 1997, Matthew Johnson further wrote, in part: >2) You mentioned that WIndows can be emulated on the Mac. This is true, >but the emulator is an expensive commercial product. Even worse, the >680x0 version is NOT being maintained; they update only the PowerPC >version of the product. Actually, there is good news on that count. Connectix (the people who made Mode32, SpeedDoubler, etc.) are planning to come out with a PC emulator in the next year or so. Official pricing has not been set, but they sound like it will be less than $100. And my guess is that it will be *fast*. But that still doesn't solve the UNIX problem. "Gregory J. Woodhouse" wrote, in part: >Of course, the same comment applies to Java. But I do think working in >Java is an excellent idea. I'm starting to use it more and more in my own >work. The AWT is pretty rudimentary, but it is still possible to produce >attractive user interfaces in Java. Database-wise, there is JDBC, and >though I haven't looked at JavaBeans yet, I believe is supports OpenDoc >(CORBA's answer to OLE). All in all, it seems like a good approach. Unfortunately, OpenDoc is dead. Not buried, but dead. Both Apple and IBM have ceased to update it. Apple has announced that they will not port it to Rhapsody (the Mac version of NextStep). So, on Apple machines, it will have to run in emulations. PC clones probably never will support it properly. One of Apple's stupider moves, but I think -- given the current generally lousy stability of OpenDoc dependent programs -- that developers would be well advised to stay away from anything that even smells of OpenDoc. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A very rough draft of part of the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Apr 18 18:44:38 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA26318; Fri, 18 Apr 1997 18:44:38 -0400 Message-ID: <3357EC03.13A61AF0@repurk.mw.com> Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 14:47:47 -0700 From: Alan Repurk Organization: I do not speak for my organization X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (X11; I; Linux 1.2.8 i586) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: John 14:14 References: <1.5.4.16.19970418183704.0c47c988@hub.infoave.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1280 Jim West wrote: > > >Joh 1:1 EN ARXH HN O LOGOS KAI O LOGOS HN PROS TON QEON KAI QEOS HN O LOGOS > >Joh 1:1 In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, > >and the Word was a god. > > > >Joh 1:18 QEON OUDEIS EWRAKEN PWPOTE MONOGENHS QEOS O WN EIS TON KOLPON TOU > PATROS > >EKEINOS ECHGHSATO > > > >Joh 1:18 No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who > >is in the bosom [position] with the Father is the one that has explained him. > > > >Joh 10:33 APEKRIQHSAN AUTW OI IOUDAIOI PERI KALOU ERGOU OU LIQAZOMEN SE > ALLA PERI > >BLASFHMIAS KAI OTI SU ANQRWPOS WN POIEIS SEAUTON QEON > > > >Joh 10:33 The Jews answered him: "We are stoning you, not for a fine work, > but for > >blasphemy, even because you, although being a man, make yourself a god." > > > >-lars > > > > That these texts are tendentiously translated is self evident and needs no > further comment. That the Greek text relies on WH is also unsupportable. > In short, the NWT is a doctrinaire, tendentious and therefore useless > translation is self evident to all. > That a translation should be suggested as the basis for a text-critical > discussion is unrealistic and silly. > > Jim It is my perception that your criticisms are long on rhetoric and short on evidence :) -lars From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Apr 18 18:45:35 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA26337; Fri, 18 Apr 1997 18:45:34 -0400 Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 18:46:41 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by DEV.InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: Roman's Doxology X-Sender: jwest@hub.infoave.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970418184550.0c47fa78@hub.infoave.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2655 At 02:58 PM 4/18/97 -0700, you wrote: >I have heard this one before. If this were so, there would be glaring >differences between the text of the NT as quoted in early Nicene >Patristics and in the Syro-Byzantine tex-type. But I will go out on a >limb and say there are NONE. None!? > >Now I am sure that with this bold statement I will have awakened the >skeptic's response in many of you. So I put forth a challenge: show me >even ONE passage in St. Basil's letters, Ad Amphilochium, or Contra >Celsum, in which substitution of the Alexandrian for the Syro-Byzantine >reading breaks the argument. I have never found one. > Rather, since you make the assertion, you show one place where the wording of the Fathers is exactly, word for word similar to any of the NT texts, either in the Byzantine or Alexandrian text types. You will of course find one or two. And now you must assure us that the date of the father you quote is early and that the quotation has not been tampered with by theological harmonizers along the way. >> After all, just >> imagine the pressure placed on scribes to provide doctrinally correct texts >> after the council of Nicea! >[snip] >> If you were a scribe, would you want someone exiling you because you >> provided a "heretical" text- even if you had no exemplar for your >> "theologically purified" text? The "pre-conciliar" scribes were under no > >But this is the wild imagination of a late 20th century man imposing his >prejudices on the Ancient World. Not prejudices; on the contrary- realism, not predetermined by a dogmatic substructure. Wild- not hardly. Reasoned and reasonable. > Again, I ask the members of this list to >show me even ONE case of scribe who was exiled for following an older text >type because it was only (or best) exemplar he had. For example, Codex >Bezae was copied in this period. > Perhaps you have never heard of what happened to Jerome when Jonah was read in his new translation? If this happened to Jerome you can rest assured that many a disgruntled Abbot would scourge, exile or exterminate an obdurate scribe. >Codex W and Theta were based (at least in part) on exemplars that very >likely were of this period too (although we may never know for sure). And they demonstrate the very tampering I have suggested. > >Matthew Johnson >Waiting for the blessed hope and the appearance of the glory of our >great God and Saviour Jesus Christ (Ti 2:13). Your signature, by the way, demonstrates your theological axe. Jim ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@theology.edu From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Apr 18 19:18:36 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA26422; Fri, 18 Apr 1997 19:18:35 -0400 Message-ID: <3357F3F6.2A39250F@repurk.mw.com> Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 15:21:42 -0700 From: Alan Repurk Organization: I do not speak for my organization X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (X11; I; Linux 1.2.8 i586) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Roman's Doxology References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 513 Matthew Johnson wrote: > > I have heard this one before. If this were so, there would be glaring > differences between the text of the NT as quoted in early Nicene > Patristics and in the Syro-Byzantine tex-type. But I will go out on a > limb and say there are NONE. > Matthew Johnson I remembered this archive from last year on the quotes from the Fathers who said that "One is good, the/my Father in the heavens." -lars From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Apr 18 21:05:16 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA26549; Fri, 18 Apr 1997 21:05:15 -0400 Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 21:06:21 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by DEV.InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: John 14:14 X-Sender: jwest@hub.infoave.net (Unverified) To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970418210534.25c737c0@hub.infoave.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 471 At 02:47 PM 4/18/97 -0700, you wrote: >It is my perception that your criticisms are long on rhetoric and short on >evidence :) > >-lars > Dear Eck, si quis venit ad vos et hanc doctrinam non adfert nolite recipere eum in domum nec have ei dixeritis; qui enim dicit illi have communicat operibus illius maliginis. finis. jim ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@theology.edu From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Apr 18 21:31:21 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA26597; Fri, 18 Apr 1997 21:31:21 -0400 Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 21:32:25 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by DEV.InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: John 14:14 X-Sender: jwest@hub.infoave.net (Unverified) To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970418213138.222f38a6@hub.infoave.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1595 Sorry that the private post to Lars was sent to the list. In regards to his accusation that I am long on rhectoric and short on evidence- let me suggest that: 1- a simple comparison between the WH and the NWT will resolve any dispute over the NWT putative use of WH. 2- this comparison could either consist of a simple sampling of various texts or a verse by verse comparison of every text. 3- The second alternative is both too time consuming and totally unnecessary; a simple sounding of the texts will suffice. Therefore, when I am free enough to do it I will send along to the list a sample of texts comparing NWT and WH. Yet I suspect that this procedure (long on rhetoric and short of evidence) will not suffice for Lars simply because it will be a comparison of apples (WH) and eggs (NWT)- for the NWT is a translation and WH is a Greek Text. What would have to be done for an accurate comparison to take place is that NWT would have to be retroverted into Greek. Then an actual comparison would work. Yet, I suspect, even this would not be enough for Lars, who would then simply suggest that the retroversion is incorrect. Thus, no matter what evidence is presented I suspect that Lars will find it unconvincing (which was the gist of my private post). For some folks aren't convinced by evidence even if it bites them on the @##. Instead they divert attention from the issue by maintaining that others are longwinded airbags. Jim ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@theology.edu From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Apr 19 05:07:46 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id FAA26990; Sat, 19 Apr 1997 05:07:45 -0400 From: schmiul@uni-muenster.de Message-Id: <199704190908.LAA26444@mail.uni-muenster.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Sat, 19 Apr 97 11:22:52 +0100 Subject: Re: Roman's Doxology To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970418184550.0c47fa78@hub.infoave.net> X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 4353 On Fri, 18 Apr 1997, Jim West wrote: [quoting Matthew Johnson:] >>I have heard this one before. If this were so, there would be glaring >>differences between the text of the NT as quoted in early Nicene >>Patristics and in the Syro-Byzantine tex-type. But I will go out on a >>limb and say there are NONE. >None!? > >>Now I am sure that with this bold statement I will have awakened the >>skeptic's response in many of you. So I put forth a challenge: show me >>even ONE passage in St. Basil's letters, Ad Amphilochium, or Contra >>Celsum, in which substitution of the Alexandrian for the Syro-Byzantine >>reading breaks the argument. I have never found one. > >Rather, since you make the assertion, you show one place where the wording >of the Fathers is exactly, word for word similar to any of the NT texts, >either in the Byzantine or Alexandrian text types. >You will of course find one or two. And now you must assure us that the >date of the father you quote is early and that the quotation has not been >tampered with by theological harmonizers along the way. Jim, you have been asked to give examples of how early Nicean (or to put it my way: ante Nicean) fathers display different readings when compared to post Nicean fathers that have to be judged as theologicaly motivated with respect to the decision of Nicea. Remember this is YOUR bold statement (c.f. the next quote). [West:] >>> After all, just >>> imagine the pressure placed on scribes to provide doctrinally correct texts >>> after the council of Nicea! >>[snip] >>> If you were a scribe, would you want someone exiling you because you >>> provided a "heretical" text- even if you had no exemplar for your >>> "theologically purified" text? The "pre-conciliar" scribes were under no > [Johnson:] >>But this is the wild imagination of a late 20th century man imposing his >>prejudices on the Ancient World. [West:] >Not prejudices; on the contrary- realism, not predetermined by a dogmatic >substructure. >Wild- not hardly. Reasoned and reasonable. Unsubstantiated, to say the least, up to now. >> Again, I ask the members of this list to >>show me even ONE case of scribe who was exiled for following an older text >>type because it was only (or best) exemplar he had. For example, Codex >>Bezae was copied in this period. > >Perhaps you have never heard of what happened to Jerome when Jonah was read >in his new translation? If this happened to Jerome you can rest assured >that many a disgruntled Abbot would scourge, exile or exterminate an >obdurate scribe. The example of Jerome is way off the mark in my view. A new _translation_ is totally different from simply copying texts. Jerome's translation was known to be _new_ and recently worked out, whereas the newness of recently copied MSS usually was not subjected to any suspicion. Without any evidence "that many (!) a disgruntle Abbot would scourge, exile or exterminate (!) an obdurate scribe" I have to agree with Matthew's charge: This is indeed "wild speculation". >>Codex W and Theta were based (at least in part) on exemplars that very >>likely were of this period too (although we may never know for sure). >And they demonstrate the very tampering I have suggested. Matthew's argument, as far as I can see, rests on the post Nicean date of D, W, and Theta. Please note, that you are in danger of getting self-contradictory with respect to your initial thesis (ante Nicean versus post Nicean attitudes of scribes). > >>Matthew Johnson >>Waiting for the blessed hope and the appearance of the glory of our >>great God and Saviour Jesus Christ (Ti 2:13). >Your signature, by the way, demonstrates your theological axe. Jim, I don't care of your own theological axe, but, please, stop using this type of hermenteutical suspicion. This is exactly the Martin Bernal way of reasoning. However, rhetorics cannot entirely compensate the lack or misuse of evidence. Get back to scholarly discussion, i.e. presenting evidence instead of rhetorics, performing carefully reasoned inferrences from the evidence instead of wild speculations. Note, I do not think that your case (ante versus post Nicean attitudes of scribes) may not be pursued. However, the way you presented it so far is simply untenable with respect to scholarly standards (IMHO). Ulrich Schmid, Muenster From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Apr 19 05:54:50 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id FAA27020; Sat, 19 Apr 1997 05:54:50 -0400 Message-Id: <9704191055.AA18248@iris.arcadis.be> Subject: John 14.14 in several versions. Date: Sat, 19 Apr 97 11:59:48 +0200 X-Sender: vale5655@194.111.178.251 X-Mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1 From: Jean VALENTIN To: "TC-List" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 4189 Jim West mentioned that John 14.14 is absent from the old syriac = (sinaitic) version. However, this version is not the only one where = it happens. >>X, f1, 565, b, sy(s)- omit the entire verse. This I think simply = because of >>haplography. In Armenian, the verse is omitted from the text published by Zohrab. In Georgian, the verse is omitted from the Adysh codex (geoC). It is = also omitted from the mss of the second version, as the editions of = Lake-Briere (mss Tbeth & Opiza : A and B) and Shanidze (mss Jruch and = Parkhal : D and E) show. It appears in the georgian vulgate, the = latest of the three georgian versions, and in the form without "me". In Syropalestinian, the three mss of the lectionary published by A.S. = Lewis and M.D. Gibson omit the verse. I haven't yet found Arabic mss where the verse is absent. But Sin. = arb. 71 ends at Lk 8, and I don't have John for several other mss = (photocopies are expensive, so we'll have to wait). Here comes something interesting : in the _west_, the verse is = omitted in dutch by the Liege diatessaron, in italian by _all_ the = mss of the Toscan diatessaron (but it is present in the Venetian = diatessaron). What conclusions can we draw from this? 1=B0 The concurrence of f1, 565, arm, geoABDE, sypal : these greek = mss and versions often share the same variants. Though Theta is = absent, they are all witnesses of what is usually called the = "cesarean" text (I prefer to call it "palestinian". 2=B0 Another series of witnesses points to an older text, of which = the Palestinian text hold some elements. Sys and b point to the old = interconnection of the syriac and latin tradition. In the west, b is = followed by several harmonies. Is it an omission in our texts, or is the verse an addition in the = others? The agreement of B and D on the inclusion of the verse is a = strong argument for its originality, but the concurrence of old = syriac and old latin witnesses (texts that are also supposed to go = back to the second century) is important also. The evidence is divided in two : - On the one side, B and D followed by most of the Greek mss and most = versions (syp, cop, lat-vg and old latin except b), have verse 14. = As to the presence or absence of "me", it goes back to the division = between B-Aleph and D. - On the other side, the Diatessaron seems not to have known or = included this verse. It is followed in greek by the palestinian mss = and the versions that go back to this text-type, and by several = western harmonies. Can we build a relative chronology from all this? Logically (what = does our mathematician think of this?) the division of sy-lat from = D-B occurred before the division of D and B. Of course, it's risky to = say such a thing based on one variant, so if all of you flame me for = this, you'll probably be right :-) An interesting passage, which shows an example of the recurrent = agreement of the "palestinian" witnesses with most of the oriental = versions. Mr Hurtado, as compared to you, I'm new in the field (I see = you were publishing in 1981, I was still in the middle of my teens!) = : I'm eager to see your comments about this in regard to your work on = the so-called "cesarean" text! And, Mr Petersen, am I right when = saying wo go back to at leat Tatian with this reading?. As to the = "simply because of haplography" of Jim West, may be it's that simple, = maybe not. In any case, the addition or omission occurred very early. If I see correctly, this division probably took place in the IInd = century. But this doesn't bring us back to the Ist century, probably = some other criteria could help us? ________________________________________________________________ Jean Valentin - 58/7 rue Van Kalck - 1080 Bruxelles - BELGIQUE ________________________________________________________________ email : jgvalentin@arcadis.be *** netmail : 2:291/780.103 ________________________________________________________________ Ce qui est trop simple est faux, ce qui est trop complique est = inutilisable. What's too simple is wrong, what's too complicated is unusable. Wat te eenvoudig is, is verkeerd; wat te ingewikkeld is, is = onbruikbaar. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Apr 19 08:49:03 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA27122; Sat, 19 Apr 1997 08:49:02 -0400 Date: Sat, 19 Apr 1997 08:50:07 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by DEV.InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: Roman's Doxology X-Sender: jwest@hub.infoave.net (Unverified) To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970419084830.250f39e0@hub.infoave.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 790 Our discussion of the patristic evidence has led to the suggestion (by me) that the use of the father's as evidence for a textual reading is hazardous. Others have asked for evidence; so, here is a list of apparent quotations from the fathers which do not seem to reflect the text as we have it. Chrysostom- hom. 48 in John (on Jn 7:1) Origen- On Prayer (on the Lord's Prayer from Mt and Lk). Origen- hom 6.40 in John. Epiphanius- Panarion (on Mk 5:2-14). Amphilochius- hom on Luke 7:36-50 further, the following texts are used by various of the fathers with various texts; Lk 10:42 John 7:1 (See Fee, "Studies in the Theory and Method of NT TC", p. 344ff) Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@theology.edu From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Apr 19 09:35:22 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA27168; Sat, 19 Apr 1997 09:35:21 -0400 Date: Sat, 19 Apr 1997 09:40:48 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199704191340.JAA05273@mail3.voicenet.com> X-Sender: cbtslibr@popmail.voicenet.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "L. Mark Bruffey" Subject: Re: Transmission theories? (was: re: Alexandrian text) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1925 I do agree that academia tends to stifle views that would contradict "conclusions" already established, and hence tends to classify research and discussion which does not conform technically to those conclusions and the methods employed in reaching those conclusions as unimportant, incompetent, or simply uninformative. I do see it as a rather exclusivist mindset. Nevertheless, the academy does serve a useful purpose for me, and I have benefited in many ways from the research of those involved with the academy, though often I find myself using the valuable data presented by academicians to reach different and better conclusions than that which has been formally presented. The point, however, of my posting is to agree with Prof. Hurtado that formally distinguishing between various levels of discussion would be helpful. How about (1) tc.chat.list (or tc.discuss.list or tc.informal.list) for "short note" type discussions or discussions involving attention to some particular detail or idea or for "brainstorming" and (2) tc.formal.list (or tc.papers.list) for extended discussions or formal presentation of research or discussions of the articles published in TC. Having two such lists would allow fitting vehicles both for those who specialize in TC and for those who like myself have a serious interest in the subject but lack the expertise and time to do extensive formal research necessary to make significant large scale contributions in the field. L. Mark Bruffey mbruffey@voicenet.com >We really do need to distinguish between a chat-line electronic >bulletin board, and a serious electronic discussion list. Which is >that TC-list is? >Larry Hurtado > >L. W. Hurtado >University of Edinburgh, >New College >Mound Place >Edinburgh, Scotland EH1 2LX >Phone: 0131-650-8920 >Fax: 0131-650-6579 >E-mail: L.Hurtado@ed.ac.uk > > L. Mark Bruffey CBTS Library 1380 S Valley Forge Rd. Lansdale PA 19446 From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Apr 19 10:21:16 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA27224; Sat, 19 Apr 1997 10:21:16 -0400 From: Alan Repurk Message-Id: <199704191324.GAA01014@repurk.mw.com> Subject: Re: John 14:14 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Sat, 19 Apr 1997 06:24:19 -0700 (PDT) Cc: lars@repurk.mw.com (Alan Repurk) In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970418213138.222f38a6@hub.infoave.net> from "Jim West" at Apr 18, 97 09:32:25 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1866 > > Sorry that the private post to Lars was sent to the list. In regards to his > accusation that I am long on rhectoric and short on evidence- let me suggest > that: Apology accepted, I was not aware that it was meant to be private. > > 1- a simple comparison between the WH and the NWT will resolve any dispute > over the NWT putative use of WH. > > 2- this comparison could either consist of a simple sampling of various > texts or a verse by verse comparison of every text. > > 3- The second alternative is both too time consuming and totally > unnecessary; a simple sounding of the texts will suffice. > > Therefore, when I am free enough to do it I will send along to the list a > sample of texts comparing NWT and WH. > > Yet I suspect that this procedure (long on rhetoric and short of evidence) > will not suffice for Lars simply because it will be a comparison of apples > (WH) and eggs (NWT)- for the NWT is a translation and WH is a Greek Text. > What would have to be done for an accurate comparison to take place is that > NWT would have to be retroverted into Greek. Then an actual comparison > would work. > Yet, I suspect, even this would not be enough for Lars, who would then > simply suggest that the retroversion is incorrect. > Thus, no matter what evidence is presented I suspect that Lars will find it > unconvincing (which was the gist of my private post). For some folks aren't > convinced by evidence even if it bites them on the @##. Instead they divert > attention from the issue by maintaining that others are longwinded airbags. > > > Jim Well, Jim, it sounds like you have talked yourself out of makeing _any_ attempt to back up your statements. I can assure you that I am much more open-minded than you make me out to be. Why not just start with two or three examples ? Neither longwinded or an airbag :) -lars From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Apr 19 10:28:17 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA27270; Sat, 19 Apr 1997 10:28:17 -0400 Date: Sat, 19 Apr 1997 10:29:11 -0400 (EDT) From: Bart Ehrman X-Sender: behrman@login6.isis.unc.edu To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Academic imperialism Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 3169 I'm in full sympathy with the concern expressed by Jim West and others that the academic community can be highly imperialistic in protecting its domain. I would like to point out a couple of mediating factors, though. The first is that the major journals that I've worked closely with have their articles refereed "blind" (i.e., the scholars evaluating submissions do not know who wrote them). I've just refereed an article this week for _Early Christian Studies_ (edited by Liz Clark), and so the issue is fresh on my mind (I'd love to know who *did* write it); and I know that's the case with the Journal of Biblical Literature, which I serve as an associate editor. Final decisions on the articles, of course, are made by the editor, who *does* know who submitted them; but I know of no policy, spoken or unspoken, of limiting acceptances to submissions by established scholars. If anything, it is quite the contrary; i.e., there seems to be a tendency to want to get younger scholars involved and to look for interesting new ideas instead of the same ole stodgy stuff) Second, I should say as book review editor for JBL, that my experience (and Larry Hurtado may want to confirm this for Critical Review of Books in Religion) indicates that a *ton* of stuff gets published, some of it by major publishing houses, that is by unknown scholars, a lot of it, in my judgment, that has absolutely no *business* getting published. Publishers with standing orders with libraries know that the more books they crank out, the more money they'll make, and so the pressure is on to secure manuscripts as quickly as possible, relax evaluation procedures, reduce quality control, push heavily in an initial advertisement blitz, and then forget about the books (which is just as well, in many instances) as soon as the subscriptions have been sold. I think it's a very dangerous situation that our field has gotten into as a result, since anything "published" automatically has a kind of implicit authority, and people who don't know a field well have little means for discerning wheat from chaff. I'm a firm believer in letting everyone have his or her say, and think that the internet possibilities are fantastic for this. But I'm also a strong proponent for having ideas and analyses of data evaluated by experts in a field before having them placed in published circulation. Over the years I've heard lots of scholars complain that they can't get a book or an article published and intimate some kind of conspiracy theory against them or their work to account for it. It's possible that that sort of thing does go on -- I have no way of knowing; but given what I do know about the kinds of stuff that does get published and the people who publish it, I suspect that far far more frequently the problem is that the piece simply doesn't pass muster (especially if it gets turned down all over the map -- which, I'll agree with Larry, has happened to *all* of us!) (I have a really hot piece on the Phibionites, too dated now, I suppose, that made *me* hatch a conspiracy theory once!). -- Bart Ehrman, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Apr 20 04:58:30 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id EAA28251; Sun, 20 Apr 1997 04:58:29 -0400 Date: Sun, 20 Apr 1997 01:59:38 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew Johnson Subject: Re: Roman's Doxology To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu In-Reply-To: <3357F3F6.2A39250F@repurk.mw.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1837 On Fri, 18 Apr 1997, Alan Repurk wrote: > Matthew Johnson wrote: > > > > > I have heard this one before. If this were so, there would be glaring > > differences between the text of the NT as quoted in early Nicene > > Patristics and in the Syro-Byzantine tex-type. But I will go out on a > > limb and say there are NONE. > > > Matthew Johnson > > I remembered this archive from last year on the quotes from the Fathers who > said that "One is good, the/my Father in the heavens." > > > > -lars > To which I reply: Thank you, lars, for the very interesting information. That archive IS enlightening. But I noticed that all the Fathers mentioned by name in that posting are Ante-Nicene, whereas I asked specifically about early Nicene Fathers. I also asked specifically about a difference in that text that spoils the argument in which the text is cited. The post in the archive lists none. I will admit that the term I used in the post, "glaring differences between the text of the NT as quoted" may have mislead people into thinking that my question was answered by the post you cite from the archive. But the difference discussed, "there is none good but God", though a little embarassing for Nicene Christology, does not break any of the arguments of St. Basil, not even in the 'Western' versions advocated in that post. Matthew Johnson Waiting for the blessed hope and the appearance of the glory of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ (Ti 2:13). PS: as for the alleged "theological axe" in my sig file, please note that NA lists no significant variants for Ti 2:13, and "Saviour" is never anarthrous in that position (i.e., between 'and' followed by the article and the posessive pronoun) in Paul's epistles. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Apr 20 09:38:31 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA28550; Sun, 20 Apr 1997 09:38:30 -0400 Date: Sun, 20 Apr 1997 09:39:39 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: John 14:14 In-Reply-To: <33583A7C.38B9@sn.no> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2299 On Fri, 18 Apr 1997, Mr. Helge Evensen wrote: > I wonder what the tc-ers have to say about the variant reading in John > 14:14: "If ye ask anything in my name, I will do (it)" vs. "If ye ask me > anything in my name, I will do (it)". [snip] > It would be especially interesting to hear what Robinson may have to say > about this particular variant, since the case is not a clear cut > situation as regards the Byz MSS. Since the R/P Byz edition have "me" in > brackets, you may not have a clear cut answer, or do you? Robinson _could_ provide an answer, but, since his discussion of this variant unit has _not_ been published in a refereed journal nor in any of those numerous publications-for-profit out there, it seems that his serious discussion of a textual variant obviously deemed "non-relevant" by the recognized scholarly community should _not_ appear on this tc-list. I would suggest that you first persuade recognized scholars in the field to publish an article on that variant unit in order that it properly may be discussed on the tc-list, since this list apparently offers no blanket invitation or intention for free and open discussion regarding anything and everything related to textual criticism. Should that variant be discussed in the "approved" printed media, then of course it could be discussed, but then _only_ in response and reaction to that which already has been published, in which case my own opinions (which _might_ be new and different) should not be inserted into the discussion. Better to persuade those who publish a discussion on that variant to take note of my opinion privately, and then react to it in print, so that my opinion could then fairly become a topic of discussion on this list. Of course, just _how_ they are to become aware of my private opinion, since it is not otherwise circulating in their journals etc. is another matter, but I do trust you will understand my position. [[ Where is Billy Jack when you want him? ]] _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Apr 20 10:02:34 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA28603; Sun, 20 Apr 1997 10:02:34 -0400 Message-ID: <335AAA17.1A6C@sn.no> Date: Sun, 20 Apr 1997 16:43:19 -0700 From: "Mr. Helge Evensen" Organization: SN Internett X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: John 14:14 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2542 Maurice Robinson wrote: >=20 > On Fri, 18 Apr 1997, Mr. Helge Evensen wrote: >=20 > > I wonder what the tc-ers have to say about the variant reading in Joh= n > > 14:14: "If ye ask anything in my name, I will do (it)" vs. "If ye ask= me > > anything in my name, I will do (it)". >=20 > [snip] >=20 > > It would be especially interesting to hear what Robinson may have to = say > > about this particular variant, since the case is not a clear cut > > situation as regards the Byz MSS. Since the R/P Byz edition have "me"= in > > brackets, you may not have a clear cut answer, or do you? >=20 > Robinson _could_ provide an answer, but, since his discussion of this > variant unit has _not_ been published in a refereed journal nor in any = of > those numerous publications-for-profit out there, it seems that his > serious discussion of a textual variant obviously deemed "non-relevant"= by > the recognized scholarly community should _not_ appear on this tc-list. >=20 > I would suggest that you first persuade recognized scholars in the fiel= d > to publish an article on that variant unit in order that it properly ma= y > be discussed on the tc-list, since this list apparently offers no blank= et > invitation or intention for free and open discussion regarding anything > and everything related to textual criticism. >=20 > Should that variant be discussed in the "approved" printed media, then = of > course it could be discussed, but then _only_ in response and reaction = to > that which already has been published, in which case my own opinions > (which _might_ be new and different) should not be inserted into the > discussion. >=20 > Better to persuade those who publish a discussion on that variant to ta= ke > note of my opinion privately, and then react to it in print, so that my > opinion could then fairly become a topic of discussion on this list. Of > course, just _how_ they are to become aware of my private opinion, sinc= e > it is not otherwise circulating in their journals etc. is another matte= r, > but I do trust you will understand my position. >=20 > [[ Where is Billy Jack when you want him? ]] > _______________________________________________________________________= __> Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testa= ment > Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Caroli= na > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~= ~~ I think I see the problem, even though it=B4s beyond me....... --=20 - Mr. Helge Evensen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Apr 20 10:24:08 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA28626; Sun, 20 Apr 1997 10:24:07 -0400 Message-ID: <335AAF29.3FCF@sn.no> Date: Sun, 20 Apr 1997 17:04:57 -0700 From: "Mr. Helge Evensen" Organization: SN Internett X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: John 15:5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 472 "For WITHOUT me ye can do nothing" (John 15:5). I wonder about the word "without" (CWRIS). As I see it, from the Greek it can be translated "severed from" or "apart from". But what is the *Syriac* versional evidence here? That version may in some points be quite near to the words Jesus used in aramaic. My question is: Are there some suggestions as to what word Jesus may have used here and what the fundamental meanings of that word is?? -- - Mr. Helge Evensen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Apr 20 14:11:55 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA28916; Sun, 20 Apr 1997 14:11:54 -0400 Date: Sun, 20 Apr 1997 14:12:58 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by DEV.InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: NWT Rom 10:13 X-Sender: jwest@hub.infoave.net (Unverified) To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970420141200.19873d24@hub.infoave.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 594 The NWT of Rom 10:13 reads "for all who call on the name of Jehovah shall be saved". There is simply no reason to translate "kurios" as Jehovah. The numerous verses in the NT where this is done (as in Rom 10:13) simple prove, to any reasonable person, that the NWT is motivated not by the text but by a theologically a priori position. Further, any suggestion that such a translation is based on the WH edition of the GNT is verifiably false. Jim ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@theology.edu From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Apr 20 15:14:33 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA28985; Sun, 20 Apr 1997 15:14:32 -0400 Message-Id: <9704202015.AC18415@iris.arcadis.be> Subject: Re: John 15:5 Date: Sun, 20 Apr 97 21:19:38 +0200 X-Sender: vale5655@194.111.178.251 X-Mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1 From: Jean VALENTIN To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2039 >"For WITHOUT me ye can do nothing" (John 15:5). > >I wonder about the word "without" (CWRIS). As I see it, from the Greek it >can be translated "severed from" or "apart from". But what is the >*Syriac* versional evidence here? That version may in some points be >quite near to the words Jesus used in aramaic. > >My question is: Are there some suggestions as to what word Jesus may have >used here and what the fundamental meanings of that word is?? > Here's what we find in the syriac and syropalestinian versions : vetus syra (sys, deest syc) : bel(oday "without me" peshitto : d-lo eno "without me" syropalestinian (lectionaries, deest Climacus) : l-bar menni "outside of me" As you see, all three are different! This is not really textual criticism though. The research of the "ipsissima verba" of Jesus through the use of the aramaic versions raises many problems... Several books were published here in Europe about this (or about hebrew versions, with the same method or lack of it), and often they come from un-scholarly integrist or fundamentalistic circles... Their affirmations have been severely criticized by renowned biblical scholars. As to the Aramaic that Jesus could have used, though the syropalestinien version seems to appear later chronologically, it has the advantage of being a western aramaic dialect, probably closer to what Jesus spoke. Syriac is eastern aramaic, though some scholars noticed several slight western influences in the old syriac version. ________________________________________________________________ Jean Valentin - 58/7 rue Van Kalck - 1080 Bruxelles - BELGIQUE ________________________________________________________________ email : jgvalentin@arcadis.be *** netmail : 2:291/780.103 ________________________________________________________________ Ce qui est trop simple est faux, ce qui est trop complique est inutilisable. What's too simple is wrong, what's too complicated is unusable. Wat te eenvoudig is, is verkeerd; wat te ingewikkeld is, is onbruikbaar. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Apr 20 16:14:48 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA29097; Sun, 20 Apr 1997 16:14:48 -0400 From: Alan Repurk Message-Id: <199704201917.MAA01902@repurk.mw.com> Subject: Re: NWT Rom 10:13 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Sun, 20 Apr 1997 12:17:41 -0700 (PDT) Cc: lars@repurk.mw.com (Alan Repurk) In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970420141200.19873d24@hub.infoave.net> from "Jim West" at Apr 20, 97 02:12:58 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1104 > > The NWT of Rom 10:13 reads "for all who call on the name of Jehovah shall be > saved". > > There is simply no reason to translate "kurios" as Jehovah. The numerous > verses in the NT where this is done (as in Rom 10:13) simple prove, to any Then why does the United Bible Society in their translation of the Greek scriptures, 1979, translate it to YHWH in Rom 10:13. > reasonable person, that the NWT is motivated not by the text but by a > theologically a priori position. Since you are such a stickler for accuracy in translation perhaps you could comment on your postion relative the the tetrgrammaton YHWH being translated into LORD or LORD GOD over 6000 times in the major English translations of the Hebrew scriptures. > Further, any suggestion that such a translation is based on the WH edition > of the GNT is verifiably false. Who made this suggestion. ? Could you provide the complete quote ? > > Jim > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > Jim West, ThD > Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology > jwest@theology.edu > Respectfully, -lars From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Apr 20 17:36:55 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA29192; Sun, 20 Apr 1997 17:36:55 -0400 Message-ID: <335B1499.11DA@sn.no> Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 00:17:45 -0700 From: "Mr. Helge Evensen" Organization: SN Internett X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: NWT Rom 10:13 References: <1.5.4.16.19970420141200.19873d24@hub.infoave.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 4778 Jim West wrote: >=20 > The NWT of Rom 10:13 reads "for all who call on the name of Jehovah sha= ll be > saved". >=20 > There is simply no reason to translate "kurios" as Jehovah. The numero= us > verses in the NT where this is done (as in Rom 10:13) simple prove, to = any > reasonable person, that the NWT is motivated not by the text but by a > theologically a priori position. > Further, any suggestion that such a translation is based on the WH edit= ion > of the GNT is verifiably false. >=20 > Jim >=20 > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > Jim West, ThD > Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology > jwest@theology.edu I seem to recall that the reason for the NWT=B4s rendering of "kyrios" in= to=20 "Jehovah" is that some times OT passages quoted in the NT in which the=20 Hebrew "Jehovah" occur is rendered by the NT author into the Greek=20 "kyrios".=20 There is no New Testament Greek word which is equivalent to "Jehovah", so= =20 if Jehovah is to be mentioned in the NT, the NT authors had to use a word= =20 available in Greek. The question is: Can "kyrios" be equivalent to=20 "Jehovah" in those OT quotations in the NT where the Hebrew has=20 "Jehovah"?? (The LXX translators obviously thought that Jehovah could be=20 rendered "kyrios"!) But I have not checked all the occurences in the NWT to see if the=20 translators have rendered "kyrios" into Jehovah in other instances. Since the JW deny that _Jesus_ is Jehovah, they try to avoid any=20 reference to Him as such. And they seem to use comparatively logical=20 methods in order to do this. But they seem to forget that their use of=20 Jehovah in the NT sometimes can testify to the Deity of Jesus. For=20 instance, in Mark 1:3 the NWT reads: "Prepare the way of Jehovah, YOU=20 people, make his roads straight". This is quoting Is.40:3. We know from=20 more than one scripture that the main purpose of the ministry of John the= =20 Baptist was to go before _Jesus_ and prepare his way.=20 Many times they have translated the Greek in harmony with their=20 doctrines. But in many of those instances they have not _twisted_ the=20 _Greek text_, but have just rendered it in _one_ of several *possible*=20 ways. For instance, in 2.Pet.1:1 the NWT has: "the righteousness of our=20 God and [the] savior Jesus Christ" instead of: "the righteousness of our=20 God and savior, Jesus Christ" (NASV). But we can=B4t say that they have=20 *mistranslated* the Greek text here. We may, however, suspect that the=20 rendering was motivated by doctrine. (*No* translator, by the way,=20 ignores doctrine when he translates. The NASV translators certainly did=20 *not*, especially not in this case!). Of course, some times they _have_ both added to the text and twisted it!=20 One example of that is in Colossians chapter one, where they have=20 supplied the word "other* in brackets. There=B4s no excuse for that. But=20 *all* translations add things to the text. Another example is in=20 Philippians 2:6, where the NWT-translators have twisted the grammar=20 slightly, obviously with the intention to weaken the Deity of Jesus:=20 "that he should be equal to God" (instead of: "to be equal with God"). In= =20 their Interlinear they have followed the Greek grammar. This is an=20 example of how _slight_ changes in grammar _can_ alter the meaning=20 *doctrinally*! (One of the more grave instances of mistranslation for=20 doctrinal purposes in the NWT is the rendering of Rev.3:14). Note also that the whole verse 6 in Philippians 2 is reworded to match=20 this rendering. I don=B4t think it can be demonstrated that the NWT here=20 has an _indefensible_ rendering of the Greek, though! I=B4m sure there ma= y=20 be places where _protestant_ translations have similar renderings of=20 Greek words and sentences, but maybe not in "doctrinal" passages (unless=20 the translators wanted to *strenghten* some conservative doctrine).=20 Grammatically speaking many protestant translators may have done the same= =20 thing several times. In many instances of translating, the JW may accuse us traditional=20 Christians of rendering the Biblical text in a way that is theologically=20 favorable to our own traditional doctrines! Many times tha Greek text=20 says one thing, and protestant (and Roman Catholic) translation says=20 something else. Many texts in the Bible are translated the way they are,=20 not because the Hebrew/Greek necessitates it, but because of established=20 translation methods and traditional doctrines. I know of at least one=20 English translation that has a clearly Calvinistic bias in some passages. I apologize for this lenghty discussion on the NWT. But I couldn=B4t hold= =20 my peace! That=B4s one of my problems, you see! --=20 - Mr. Helge Evensen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Apr 20 19:31:16 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA29348; Sun, 20 Apr 1997 19:31:15 -0400 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 20 Apr 1997 16:39:13 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Academic Imperialism (An Outsider's View) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 3309 Since the thread on Academic Imperialism continues, I suppose I have to add my opinions. After all, I am one of the "outsiders." I am not a textual critic by profession. I am a mathematician and physicist. I chose these fields because I am good at them, and there is need of them. Does the fact that I did not choose to be a textual critic mean I am incapable of it? I don't claim to know all there is to know about Greek language and literature. I won't claim that I have studied every heterodox or orthodox interpretation of various passages. But I know the scientific method. I know statistics. And I know better than to assume the solution. This causes me to look at TC in a light which is -- to say the least -- not normal for TCers. The net result: Many of you (certainly not all) refuse to listen because I don't come from your preferred background. Similarly, if Maurice Robinson or Jim West posts a message, you ignore them because their theories are unusual. This is a frightening thought. Surely you do not believe that conventional wisdom is always right -- do you? I would think that people would appreciate ideas from scholars who have not published. It makes available information that would not otherwise be available. For that matter, it leaves space available in the journals for *your* publications. Nor is there logical consistency here. One person wants to see publications before listening. Another believes that even publications have no value. Given a choice between publishing an common and an uncommon opinion, will not most publications choose the ordinary, common opinion? It is, after all, the safe thing to do. It makes it very hard to break down the walls. I know that an unmoderated list will see a number of far-fetched, unsubstantiated theories. But I don't think we've seen much of that here. The theories may be obscure, but they are documented. Jim West presents his evidence; it may not be convincing, but he offers it. Maurice Robinson's views do not agree with the rest of ours, but they are clearly and understandably stated. As for my views, when I have offered an opinion, I have usually offered the statistics to back it. I also have half a megabyte of files on my web site clarifying my opinions. Surely this is adequate documentation! And if it isn't, I am perfectly willing to offer the databases I used -- including some hundreds of hours of custom programming. If this were truly a high-traffic list, it might be reasonable moderate it -- or at least break it into two lists, one devoted solely to textual orthodoxy and one open to speculation. But this is a quiet list. If you don't want to read what I, or Robinson, or (insert your favorite enemy here) says, just ignore our posts. If nothing else, we provide much of the discussion on what would otherwise be an even quieter list.... I don't really care if you listen to me or not. I'm on this list because it's interesting, not because it's my job. Neither is my Bible text affected, since I can edit one based on my own principles. I have tried to offer new perspectives -- a chance to move TC forward, rather than stick in the past. Is that truly a reason to squelch me (or Robinson, or West, or Elliot, or Dearing, or whoever the day's preferred victim is)? Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Apr 20 22:54:39 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA29627; Sun, 20 Apr 1997 22:54:38 -0400 From: "John Brogan" Organization: Calvin College To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Sun, 20 Apr 1997 22:54:37 EST5EDT Subject: Athanasius and the Text of the NT Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.23) Message-ID: <1517E660FA@legacy.calvin.edu> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 4907 Members of the TC List, Although I should be making final revisions to my dissertation (either that or grading the mounds of papers and exams on my desk), I felt I needed to respond to the requests for further information concerning Athanasius and his influences on the transmission of the NT. I have recently defended my dissertation entitled "The Text of the Four Gospels in the Writings of Athanasius" at Duke University. As other dissertations, it will be copyrighted and distributed by UMI on microfische (although I am uncertain how quickly it will be available). I also hope to submit it for review for publication in SBLNTGF this month, but who knows how long that whole process will take! On Wed, 16 Apr 1997, Bart Ehrman responded to Ulrich Schmid with the following comments concerning "ideological and theological disputes in the early church" and their influences on the transmission of the NT text... > Ulrich, > > [snip] > > ... More recently (just now, in fact) there have been two very > interesting dissertations that I'm aware of, Kim Haines-Eitzen's > study of the social location of early Christian scribes (not > completed yet, but includes, e.g., a chapter on women scribes in > the Greco-Roman world) and John Brogan's study of Athanasius, which > argues for specific instances of the trinitarian controversies > affecting his text, and further for some instances in which > Athanasius's theologically related modifications entered into the > MS tradition, specifically with some of the corrections in Codex > Sinaiticus... The results of my study of Athanasius' text of the Gospels (stated briefly) confirm that Athanasius preserves an Alexandrian form of the text. I used a full quantitative analysis (Colwell and Tune) which showed that Athanasius displays a higher percentage of agreement with Alexandrian witnesses than those from other groups. A Comprehensive Profile analysis (Ehrman) reveals that Athanasius' text is more closely aligned to the "Secondary Alexandrians" rather than the "Primary Alexandrians." If anyone is interested, I would be willing to send copies of my statistics to them (or post them on this list if desired). Closer examination of the types of changes Athanasius made to his text reveals that he corrupts his NT texts for polemical and theological reasons. For example, in his 39th Paschal Letter, when citing Jn 5:39, Athanasius omits the portion of the verse "you think that in them you have eternal life." This omission is supported only by a citation by Didymus. In the case of Athanasius, I argue that he omits this portion of the verse because it could appear as a negative comment about scripture and would weaken his argument that the canonical scriptures are "the fountains of salvation." Several other omissions, substitutions of words, additions, grammatical changes, and conflations exist in Athanasius' references to the Gospels. These corruptions are made for rhetorical purposes. Interestingly, Athanasius shows a peculiar affinity to the corrections of Sinaiticus. Within the text of the Gospels preserved by Athanasius, there exists 25 units of significant variation (non-singular readings) where Sinaiticus and its Correctors split. Athanasius agrees with the Correctors in 23 instances (92%). Comparative studies indicate that Athanasius' level of agreement with AlephCor is much higher than any other witness or father. This shows that the types of changes attested, or in some cases even produced, by Athanasius eventually make their way into the stream of textual transmission. Why is this the case? As an important leader of the church, Athanasius' writings and teachings influenced many of the nameless Alexandrian scribes responsible for copying the NT texts. In other words, Athanasius was an influential member of the "interpretive community" to which these scribes belonged. As scribes read the texts they were copying, they remembered how that text had been interpreted in their community (e.g. what they had read or heard leaders such as Athanasius say about the text). In certain instances, in copying the NT text, these scribes made it "read" what they already knew it to "mean." As a final point, I would argue that the text of the NT was more fluid in the 4th century than most textual critics (e.g. Colwell and recently Robinson) have been willing to admit. The changes that can be seen in the Alexandrian text supports this. As theology and canon became fixed in the late-4th and 5th centuries, the text also became fixed (in the Byzantine text-type). Thus, ideological and theological disputes played an important role in the shaping and transmission of the NT text. I am open to comments and critiques... John Brogan ==================================== John J. Brogan Assistant Professor of Religion Department of Religion and Theology Calvin College (616) 957-6322 From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Apr 20 23:04:03 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id XAA29647; Sun, 20 Apr 1997 23:04:02 -0400 From: "John Brogan" Organization: Calvin College To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Sun, 20 Apr 1997 23:03:58 EST5EDT Subject: Re: Theological tendencies of Athanasius Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.23) Message-ID: <1540134178@legacy.calvin.edu> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1503 On Friday, April 18, 1997, Mark Arvid Johnson requested... > Does anyone else have more information on the theological tendencies of > Athanasius and how they affected his use of the text of scripture? > Frederick Nolan, in his _Inquiry Into the Integrity of the Received Text_, > 1815, claimed: > > "That St. Athanasius was accused of favoring the destruction of the Arian > Bibles; that he revised the sacred text immediately after the death of > Eusebius; that his prologue, as explanatory of Ps. ii. is directed against > the errors of Arius." p. 135 > > Can anyone help me document and substantiate these charges? What is the > reference for John Brogan's study of Athanasius? I would be most > interested in any further information anyone could provide. Mark, Please see my previous post for further information on my study of Athanasius. I am interested in Nolan's claim about Athanasius destroying "Arian Bibles." I am not aware of any charges (or praises) that Athanasius was involved in such activities. Do you know if Nolan cited any primary evidence to support this claim? I am also unaware of any claims that Athanasius was responsible for a "revision" of the biblical text. Finally, to what "prologue" is Nolan referring? I would appreciate any info from you or others on the list concerning these matters... Thanks, John ==================================== John J. Brogan Assistant Professor of Religion Department of Religion and Theology Calvin College (616) 957-6322 From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Apr 20 23:09:26 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id XAA29664; Sun, 20 Apr 1997 23:09:26 -0400 Date: Sun, 20 Apr 1997 20:10:35 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew Johnson Subject: Re: Academic Imperialism (An Outsider's View) To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 3668 On Sun, 20 Apr 1997, Robert B. Waltz wrote: > Since the thread on Academic Imperialism continues, I suppose I have to > add my opinions. After all, I am one of the "outsiders." So am I. But I do not think you are being fair to the professional textual critics. > > I am not a textual critic by profession. I am a mathematician and > physicist. I chose these fields because I am good at them, and > there is need of them. Does the fact that I did not choose > to be a textual critic mean I am incapable of it? > Certainly not. But you have to admit that you and I are at a disadvantage, just as Metzger would be at a disadvantage if he tried to explain Kaluze-Klein theories of modern cosmology relying mainly on his understanding of Genesis. > I don't claim to know all there is to know about Greek > language and literature. I won't claim that I have studied every > heterodox or orthodox interpretation of various passages. > Nobody knows _all_ about these. But I must admit, the more I read Metzger's work, the more impressed I am with his detailed knowledge of the variety of theological beliefs throughout the period before the printing press. So he gets embarassingly close, which represents an ideal for TCers. > But I know the scientific method. I know statistics. And I know better > than to assume the solution. This causes me to look at TC in a light > which is -- to say the least -- not normal for TCers. > I am hoping that with your background of using statistics you can help catch some of the common errors in using statistics that people with humanities backgrounds (including TCers!) are more prone to. > The net result: Many of you (certainly not all) refuse to listen > because I don't come from your preferred background. Similarly, > if Maurice Robinson or Jim West posts a message, you ignore them > because their theories are unusual. > Now this is where I think you are being unfair to the professional textual critic. The reason Robinson gets the treatment he does is that he persists in pushing theories that have already been thoroughly debunked. The theory of Byzantine priority was thoroughly debunked in Westcott and Hort's time. It is a topic more proper for elementary TC textbooks than for the list. As for West's theories, I am not in as good a position to comment on them. As I try to remember them right now, I think I am confusing his with others posted here. But I seem to recall an undue haste to abandon Alexandrian readings and prefer Western ones. The Alexandrian text-type comes from some of the best recensionists and editors the early Byzantine empire had to offer. Nobody really knows who did the Western recensions. Until we do (if we ever do), this preference is rash. > This is a frightening thought. Surely you do not believe that > conventional wisdom is always right -- do you? > Now this line of yours reminds me of certain writers you as a physicist are probably already familiar with: I have in mind a certain character (I forget the name), who insists that Millikan mismeasured the mass of the electron by a factor of two. He insists that all of elementary particle physics should be rewritten on this basis, even though no professional physicist agrees with him. Do you think _his_ theories are worthy of consideration? Beware of doing the same thing in TC. Matthew Johnson Waiting for the blessed hope and the appearance of the glory of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ (Ti 2:13). PS: a good TCer should know Greek Grammar well enough to know why my sig file is the preferred tranlsation (over the KJV) for "tou megalou theou kai so^te^ros he^mo^n IY XY" From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Apr 20 23:21:24 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id XAA29708; Sun, 20 Apr 1997 23:21:24 -0400 From: "John Brogan" Organization: Calvin College To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Sun, 20 Apr 1997 23:21:21 EST5EDT Subject: Re: Theological tendencies of Athanasius Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.23) Message-ID: <158A034E66@legacy.calvin.edu> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2670 On Fri, 18 Apr 97, Ulrich Schmid wrote... > Athanasius was accused for a lot of things, among others for > murdering a meletianic bishop named Arsenius, who, in fact, was > found alive (c.f. Apologia secunda 65-67). Athanasius was accused, > presumably more substantiated, for having oppressed meletianic > groups (e.g., for destroying an eucharistic cup). Maybe in the > course of some riots of Athanasius' monks and clergy-men against > schismatic groups even a meletianic Bible was destroyed (I don't > recall all of the charges from off the top of my head; it has to > be found in Sozomenos, hist. eccl. II, 25). However, I would > seriously question charges of having favoured the destruction of > Arian Bibles. Most likely Arian Bibles did not differ from any > other Bible. I agree with Ulrich on this matter. Athanasius was accused of many attrocities (some of which were most likely true!), but never for Bible burning (as far as I know)... > As far as I am aware of the discussions around Arius and the > struggles after Nicea, the charge of relying on a different, even > corrupted text of the Bible or on different (non-canonical) books > was not brought forth from one or the other side, at least, it was > not considered decisive. The debates were basically on the exegesis > of various texts and not on different readings. BTW-- Equipped with > most sensitive exegetical and hermeneutical tools (typology, > allegory, etc.), noone really had to alter conciously a biblical > passage to make it fit to whatever was required. Exactly... Athanasius had little concern over the actual words of scripture. He was not trained in philological concerns like Origen was. He makes no arguments for one reading over another. Instead, Athanasius was much more concerned about what he called the "sense" of scripture. For this reason, he could accuse the Arians of using "non-scriptural words," and then turn around in the next sentence and defend the Nicene's use of the non-scriptural word "homoousios" because it contained the "sense of scripture." I would argue further that Athanasius' "cavalier" treatment of scripture was the norm rather than the exception in the early church. The corruptions made by church fathers such as Athanasius eventually found their way into the stream of transmission of the NT text. > Maybe John Brogan should carry on... Thanks for the invitation. I guess I've put in more than my "two cents" worth tonight, so its back to more mundane matters... John Brogan ==================================== John J. Brogan Assistant Professor of Religion Department of Religion and Theology Calvin College (616) 957-6322 From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Apr 20 23:37:47 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id XAA29726; Sun, 20 Apr 1997 23:37:47 -0400 From: "John Brogan" Organization: Calvin College To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Sun, 20 Apr 1997 23:37:45 EST5EDT Subject: Re: Roman's Doxology Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.23) Message-ID: <15CFE93EE8@legacy.calvin.edu> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2075 On Sat, 19 Apr 1997, Jim West wrote... > Our discussion of the patristic evidence has led to the suggestion (by me) > that the use of the father's as evidence for a textual reading is hazardous. Jim, why is the consideration of patristic evidence "hazardous?" Hazardous for what? What is the apparent "danger?" Whom else (besides the versions) shall we consult for evidence of the history of the transmission of the NT text? The fathers' treatment of the text is precisely the type of evidence we need to understand how and why the biblical text was being changed... > Others have asked for evidence; so, here is a list of apparent quotations > from the fathers which do not seem to reflect the text as we have it. > > Chrysostom- hom. 48 in John (on Jn 7:1) > Origen- On Prayer (on the Lord's Prayer from Mt and Lk). > Origen- hom 6.40 in John. > Epiphanius- Panarion (on Mk 5:2-14). > Amphilochius- hom on Luke 7:36-50 > > further, the following texts are used by various of the fathers with various > texts; > Lk 10:42 > John 7:1 > > (See Fee, "Studies in the Theory and Method of NT TC", p. 344ff) Please expand on this. I am not quite certain what this list represents or why it proves your point that patristic evidence is "hazardous." In the case of patristic readings, I would argue that two possibilities exist. Either... (1) The father is citing a text that is available to him, thus making his citation an important witness for discussing variant readings... or... (2) The father has "created" the reading, thus making it important to see if his citation had any influence on the transmission of the text. In either case, a close examination of how and why the father cites his text in this way is extremely important... John Brogan > > Jim > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > Jim West, ThD > Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology > jwest@theology.edu > > ==================================== John J. Brogan Assistant Professor of Religion Department of Religion and Theology Calvin College (616) 957-6322 From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Apr 21 04:20:01 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id EAA00044; Mon, 21 Apr 1997 04:20:01 -0400 Message-ID: <335BAB4B.5A4F@sn.no> Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 11:00:43 -0700 From: "Mr. Helge Evensen" Organization: SN Internett X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Academic Imperialism (An Outsider's View) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 3648 Matthew Johnson wrote (in part), responding to R. Waltz: >=20 > On Sun, 20 Apr 1997, Robert B. Waltz wrote: >=20 > > Since the thread on Academic Imperialism continues, I suppose I have = to > > add my opinions. After all, I am one of the "outsiders." >=20 > So am I. But I do not think you are being fair to the professional tex= tual > critics. >=20 > > > > I am not a textual critic by profession. I am a mathematician and > > physicist. I chose these fields because I am good at them, and > > there is need of them. Does the fact that I did not choose > > to be a textual critic mean I am incapable of it? > > >=20 > Certainly not. But you have to admit that you and I are at a > disadvantage, just as Metzger would be at a disadvantage if he tried to > explain Kaluze-Klein theories of modern cosmology relying mainly on his > understanding of Genesis. It depends on whether or not he has _studied_ in the field. Metzger could= very well have=20 understood "Kaluze-Klein theories" if he had done consederable study in t= he field! >=20 > > The net result: Many of you (certainly not all) refuse to listen > > because I don't come from your preferred background. Similarly, > > if Maurice Robinson or Jim West posts a message, you ignore them > > because their theories are unusual. > > >=20 > Now this is where I think you are being unfair to the professional text= ual > critic. The reason Robinson gets the treatment he does is that he > persists in pushing theories that have already been thoroughly debunked. That=B4s why we need even _more_ open forums where other than the "accept= ed" text critics can=20 contribute. Just because Robinson=B4s theories have been "thoroughly debu= nked" by established=20 scholars, does not make his theories _untrue_. He has presented a _histor= y_ of textual=20 transmission which is far more realistic than the theories of modern ecle= ctics. > The theory of Byzantine priority was thoroughly debunked in Westcott an= d > Hort's time. Yes, and many things have changed since their time: 1) Many elements in W&H=B4s theories have (as I see it) been "thoroughly = debunked" by many=20 scholars in subsequent time. 2) Scholars today are far more open to Byzantine _readings_ than scholars= of W&H=B4s time were. 3) Both studies and finds since W&H=B4s time have _increased_ the possibi= lity of having a=20 sensible "Byzantine priority" theory, not _decreased_ it!! 4)=20 > It is a topic more proper for elementary TC textbooks than > for the list. This is, of course, simply _not true_!! The tc-list is the place for such= discussions. The=20 problem with textbooks is that most of them dismiss the Byzantine text wi= thout giving it a fair=20 chance! Maybe some of the Byzantine priority advocates should publish ele= mentary TC textbooks,=20 so that we could have an even balance in the field! Most textbooks are in= serious lack of=20 objectivity, not to mention the lack of giving the Byzantine text a fair = consideration! >=20 > Matthew Johnson > Waiting for the blessed hope and the appearance of the glory of our > great God and Saviour Jesus Christ (Ti 2:13). >=20 Robert Waltz is probably right in his statements regarding "academic impe= rialism" (i.e. his=20 post dated 20 April 16:39).=20 And let me also use this opportunity to thank him for his courage to pres= ent his views and the=20 results of his studies (which many times are far better and far more sens= ible than the=20 "scholarly consensus"). I must admit, without Bob Waltz=B4s and Dr. Robin= son=B4s contributions,=20 this list would be rather "grey"! So thanks to both of you..... --=20 - Mr. Helge Evensen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Apr 21 05:38:57 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id FAA00108; Mon, 21 Apr 1997 05:38:57 -0400 From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" Organization: Divinity Faculty To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 10:38:47 +000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Academic Imperialism (An Outsider's View) Priority: normal In-reply-to: References: X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.52) Message-ID: <1DFF741399C@div.ed.ac.uk> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2224 I'd like to join in condemning "academic imperialism", which I take to mean the forcible prevention of a given view being circulated in spite of the documentation/arguments in its favor. No question. Any such prohibition would ruin scholarship and rob the term of any meaning. As it appears that a few on this list have mis-read my earlier postings, let me reiterate and (hopefully) clarify things. 1) No one has proposed "squelching" people. I have repeatedly asked people with strong views to supply the evidence and rationale for them, and in a forum and form where these can be assessed. Item: A dictionary article of a few hundred words making unsupported statements is *not* such argumentation or documentation. Nor are various unsupported statements such as that this or that scholarly work has been "debunked", or that a whole discipline is "stuck in the mud" etc., especially when coming from individuals who have not established any authority for their judgments by critically-tested research publications. 2) In the case of emergent scholars with no publications (yet), there is fully room to speak up, but they will have to provide evidence & arguments (not merely assertions) just like established scholars must do. That is, if they expect their views to be granted any impact on the opinion of critical scholars in the field. 3) Self-taught scholarship has a noble history. In TC, perhaps Tregelles is the most famous example. But as T. shows, self-taught scholarship, just like formally trained scholarship, exbibits itself as valid through the hard work of research and the submission of such research to the critical judgment of scholars in the field. 4) This is an unmoderated list. Which means that people can make the kind of unsupported assertions I've complained about above, and can trot out their pet theories and make great claims for them. It also means that scholars concerend with critically-established ideas and are free to "ignore" unsupported ideas and complain about them--just as I've done! L. W. Hurtado University of Edinburgh, New College Mound Place Edinburgh, Scotland EH1 2LX Phone: 0131-650-8920 Fax: 0131-650-6579 E-mail: L.Hurtado@ed.ac.uk From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Apr 21 08:06:51 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA00280; Mon, 21 Apr 1997 08:06:51 -0400 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 08:07:30 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: Nichael Lynn Cramer Subject: Re: Academic Imperialism (An Outsider's View) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1896 Matthew Johnson wrote: >Robert B. Waltz wrote: > [...] >So am I. But I do not think you are being fair to the professional textual >critics. At the risk of posting a "me-too" message, I'd like to thank Mr Johnson for his posting, and to add a hearty "amen". Helge Evensen wrote: >> The >problem with textbooks is that most of them dismiss the Byzantine text >without giving it a fair >chance! Maybe some of the Byzantine priority advocates should publish >elementary TC textbooks, >so that we could have an even balance in the field! Most textbooks are in >serious lack of >objectivity, not to mention the lack of giving the Byzantine text a fair >consideration! This, I feel, is simply not accurate. While it is true that most intorductory TC texts may not contain long chapters on the Byzantine text model, virtually all contain extensive pointers into the literature on the topic. No volume can hold *all* that has ever been thought or written about a field; but for those who wish to persue the topic enormous documentation is almost always provided --albeit indirectly. (And which, I think it is safe to say, provides overwhelming evidence why this position can no longer be considered tenable.) To continue the Physics analogy from earlier in this thread: No modern introductory text on Physics contains chapters on the "Caloric Fluid" theory of heat. But all explain why it no longer credited (and provided any desired level of supplimentary argumentation for anyone willing to make a trip to the library.) Is that theory being dismissed "out of hand"? Certainly not. But neither is there any need --particularly given the constraints of such a text-- to completely rehash the old --readily available-- material. Nichael nichael@sover.net "Did I forget, forget to mention Memphis, http://www.sover.net/~nichael/ Home of Elvis and the ancient Greeks..." From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Apr 21 09:31:19 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA00483; Mon, 21 Apr 1997 09:31:19 -0400 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 08:06:20 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Here we go again... sorry (Was: Re: Academic Imperialism (An Outsider's View) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 4719 Remember, folks, all I was doing was asking for a fair hearing. This sort of argument is neither good nor Christian. And, in my case at least, it takes free time away from the work I am doing (in this case, a detailed study of family 1739 in 2 Corinthians, which I hope will set the history of the family on a firmer footing). I'm not going to respond to everything, since some things either are true or are not. I'll try to confine myself to areas where I have something to add (like physics :-). Matthew Johnson wrote: >I am hoping that with your background of using statistics you can help >catch some of the common errors in using statistics that people with >humanities backgrounds (including TCers!) are more prone to. That's one of the things that has upset me. I've seen a lot of bad mathematical methodology in textual criticism, but when I speak up, I am told that it's obvious that so-and-so's method is right/wrong/ obvious/absurd/whatever. I'm not a pure statistician; as a physicist, I spent most of my time in analysis (my seminar project was on Fourier theory and orthogonal polynomials). But at least I've studied the matter. >> The net result: Many of you (certainly not all) refuse to listen >> because I don't come from your preferred background. Similarly, >> if Maurice Robinson or Jim West posts a message, you ignore them >> because their theories are unusual. >> > >Now this is where I think you are being unfair to the professional textual >critic. The reason Robinson gets the treatment he does is that he >persists in pushing theories that have already been thoroughly debunked. >The theory of Byzantine priority was thoroughly debunked in Westcott and >Hort's time. It is a topic more proper for elementary TC textbooks than >for the list. Robinson will point out how everybody jumps in to condemn his views as soon as they come up. I would note that I have had more battles with Robinson than almost anyone on this list. Certainly I do not agree that the Byzantine text contains the original text. And yet, the basic condemnation of the Byzantine text remains that of Hort. Since that time, Hort's refutation of the text has simply been accepted. But it is worth noting that the single most important basis of Hort's condemnation of the Byzantine text is conflations. Hort lists a total of eight Byzantine conflations. It has been shown (I admit I forget who showed it) that this is very nearly the *entire* list of Byzantine conflations. And it is too short to mean much -- especially since the other text-types also contain some conflations. Now I personally still think the Byzantine text to be late. It appears to me to be much more harmonistic than the Alexandrian text. But that is based on *casual observation.* Even that point has been questioned (by Wisselink). Perhaps it's time we gave the matter another look. None of that, however, is the point. The point is his (or my) freedom to speak -- and, preferably, to be listened to. (Wouldn't you know, I finally get listened to when I say something not about TC. :-) I do not expect to be convinced by Robinson. But I am at least willing to offer him a chance. [ ... ] >Now this line of yours reminds me of certain writers you as a physicist >are probably already familiar with: I have in mind a certain character (I >forget the name), who insists that Millikan mismeasured the mass of the >electron by a factor of two. He insists that all of elementary particle >physics should be rewritten on this basis, even though no professional >physicist agrees with him. Do you think _his_ theories are worthy of >consideration? Beware of doing the same thing in TC. Counter-argument based on the same experiment... When Millikan did his work, he had a handful of observations where he seemed to get a fractional charge (1/3 the normal value). He assumed -- as I freely admit I would have assumed -- that they were observational error. Nowadays we have quark theory, and everybody (except maybe me) believes in fractional charges. So suddenly everyone is looking at Millikan's results and saying, "Hey! He caught a quark." I'm not saying we should accept crackpot theories. I merely ask that we be willing to *listen* until the evidence is in. If evidence is requested and is not forthcoming, that's plenty of time to ignore what shows up. :-) -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A very rough draft of part of the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Apr 21 09:53:45 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA00595; Mon, 21 Apr 1997 09:53:44 -0400 Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 09:52:34 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Athanasius and the Text of the NT In-Reply-To: <1517E660FA@legacy.calvin.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1988 On Sun, 20 Apr 1997, John Brogan wrote: > As a final point, I would argue that the text of the NT was more > fluid in the 4th century than most textual critics (e.g. Colwell and > recently Robinson) have been willing to admit. The changes that can > be seen in the Alexandrian text supports this. As theology and > canon became fixed in the late-4th and 5th centuries, the text also > became fixed (in the Byzantine text-type). Thus, ideological and > theological disputes played an important role in the shaping and > transmission of the NT text. This is the only part of Brogan's post which involves me, and I must say that I basically concur with his observations and am not at all surprised. As I have mentioned in private correspondence to Bob Waltz, even the MSS which most closely pertain to the Byzantine Textform are not all one nor all alike, but individually contain many non-Byzantine readings. Looking at this _de majoris ad minores_, it should be no surprise that the Alexandrian witnesses from the fourth century onward might have been particularly liable to corrective influence from non-Alexandrian readings, whether theologically-based or manuscript-based. However, I also must take exception to the claim that the Byzantine Textform seems to become inviolably fixed after the 4th-5th centuries. The "fluid" nature of readings and continued "mixture" clearly persists into most MSS of the later minuscule era, even though not obliterating the assignation of such MSS to the Byzantine Textform (the readings of a certain minuscule designated by NA27 as "Byzantine" and a component part of "M" happened to have been in view in my private discussion with Waltz). _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Apr 21 10:04:35 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA00635; Mon, 21 Apr 1997 10:04:35 -0400 Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 10:05:34 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Academic Imperialism (An Outsider's View) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2207 On Sun, 20 Apr 1997, Matthew Johnson wrote: > Now this is where I think you are being unfair to the professional textual > critic. The reason Robinson gets the treatment he does is that he > persists in pushing theories that have already been thoroughly debunked. > The theory of Byzantine priority was thoroughly debunked in Westcott and > Hort's time. It is a topic more proper for elementary TC textbooks than "> for the list. Excuse me, Matthew? Speak at whatever point you desire regarding the "thoroughly debunked" nature of the Byzantine-priority hypothesis and I will be happy to provide a case which will satisfy the normal theoretical criteria demanded of any hypothesis within the scientific method. If Hort supposedly debunked the matter, then why are scholars not retaining Hort's specific "debunking" solution, i.e. the "AD 350 Syrian recension" hypothesis? The point I have continually been making is that there _is_ another transmissional hypothesis out there which _can_ support the priority of the Byzantine Textform, and that it _can_ be established not only in regard to transmissional theory, but to the point of defense of the Byzantine reading in multiplied textual variant units (or have you not been noticing the substance of my posts?). Basically I consider your above statement text-critcially irresponsible. Provide some examples and proof of such assertions which cannot be readily replied to, and maybe we can talk...... [from the response to West:] > The Alexandrian text-type > comes from some of the best recensionists and editors the early Byzantine > empire had to offer. Wow.....I will fully accept the first part of this one (not the "early Byzantine empire" part however, unless you define "early" differently than I do, i.e. AD 160-175). But _thank you_ for concurring with my point regarding the recensional nature of the Alexandrian texttype.... _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Apr 21 10:29:13 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA00763; Mon, 21 Apr 1997 10:29:12 -0400 From: dwashbur@wave.park.wy.us Message-Id: <199704211333.HAA08151@wavecom.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 07:27:22 -7000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Academic Imperialism (An Outsider's View) Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.42a) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2083 Mr. Helge Evensen wrote, responding to Matthew's comments: [snip] > > It is a topic more proper for elementary TC textbooks than > > for the list. > > This is, of course, simply _not true_!! The tc-list is the place for such discussions. The > problem with textbooks is that most of them dismiss the Byzantine text without giving it a fair > chance! Maybe some of the Byzantine priority advocates should publish elementary TC textbooks, > so that we could have an even balance in the field! Most textbooks are in serious lack of > objectivity, not to mention the lack of giving the Byzantine text a fair consideration! I agree, and would dearly love to see such a textbook. I frankly find Hort's assertions to be more than a little arrogant, and based on slim evidence indeed. I find Robinson's theory to be at least as plausible as Metzger's; I confess I don't usually read Maurice's posts all the way through simply because of their (general) length and my lack of time to give them the attention they deserve. The fact that a TC scholar such as Metzger can do no better than to parrot Hort's ideas about the Byzantine textform simply shows a lack of balanced scholarship for the past 100 years or so. This should be cause for alarm, if not a little shamefacedness. At the same time, I can't help but wonder: if someone such as Maurice did publish a TC textbook of the type Mr. Evensen describes, how many institutions would adopt it and use it? The Hort-Metzger theories are too often elevated to the status of established fact, as Matthew's grossly uninformed post shows. That being the case, I do wonder how many teachers of TC would be willing to adopt a textbook that goes against the flow. Since I am not a professional text critic either, and do other things besides teaching these topics to earn my daily bread, I'd be interested in the opinions of those who are on the "front lines"... Dave Washburn http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur/home.html "You're so open-minded that your brain leaked out." -Steve Taylor From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Apr 21 10:48:49 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA00858; Mon, 21 Apr 1997 10:48:49 -0400 Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 10:49:58 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Academic Imperialism (An Outsider's View) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 4555 On Mon, 21 Apr 1997, Nichael Lynn Cramer wrote: > While it is true that most intorductory TC texts may not contain long > chapters on the Byzantine text model, virtually all contain extensive > pointers into the literature on the topic. I beg to differ. For example, Metzger's _Text of the NT_ makes Burgon the model for Byzantine-priority and dismisses him with a blatant _ad hominem_ argument (he opposed admitting women to Oxford; shades of the Citadel!) coupled with a quoted portion of bombast from Burgon. Other pro-Byzantine defenders like Edward Miller (a disciple of Burgon, but without the bombast) are not mentioned nor quoted; neither is the _theory_ of either Burgon or Miller actively engaged. Rather, Burgon's position is linked with a defense of the TR and KJV, and from there to the KJV-only defense of E.F. Hills. All of it becomes totally tied to a theological agenda, and the same guilt by association and theological argument persists even in the 1994 appendix addition. Similarly, Aland and Aland in their _Text of the NT merely link the Hodges/Farstad majority text with a return to the TR, and not to something which is actually quite different. _Nowhere_ in Metzger or Aland is a case for Byzantine-priority seriously discussed or seriously dismissed. I will allow that Wallace in the Ehrman/Holmes volume _does_ attempt to provide some interaction with the various pro-Byzantine theories, but even there in such a distorted manner that (as I stated previously), were what Wallace describes actually my own theory, *I* would not even hold it.... > No volume can hold *all* that > has ever been thought or written about a field; but for those who wish to > persue the topic enormous documentation is almost always provided --albeit > indirectly. And which documentation refuting the theory is so "enormous", beyond the ad hominem and guilt-by-association material? If you are merely speaking of the other theories and developments in the field of NTTC, I happen to follow and in general accept most of their data and conclusions as well, differing only on the point of Byzantine-priority. I do not think such valid research affects the theoretical underpinning to the degree you claim, even though it is certain that none of the modern eclectics hold to a Byzantine-priority position (which if they did, would instantly place them out of the loop and not exactly _persona grata_ within the club). > (And which, I think it is safe to say, provides overwhelming > evidence why this position can no longer be considered tenable.) If the position is untenable, then why not interact with my defense of individual Byzantine readings and show _where_ within "normal" modern eclectic principles (which I attempt strenuously to apply _in pleno_ and not merely selectively) I supposedly have no case. Certainly, I have commented on a large number of variant units on this list, and generally my comments merely go by the wayside. If there are disagreements and serious considerations which might overturn my claims, I most certainly am willing to consider them, but for whatever reason (perhaps simply the deliberate desire to ignore and not respond to them as espoused by Hurtado?) very little serious interaction occurs in regard to such variants as soon as I stick my 2 cents in..... I suspect this all reflects the point Wallace made in his critique essay where he called for pro-Byzantine supporters virtually to prepare a textual commentary on _every_ variation from UBS or NA27. Based on what I see from within this discussion group, my suspicion is that -- even if this were totally done in a scientific and detailed manner, using every internal and external principle known to modern eclecticism -- this still would not be sufficient to convince those who do not with to consider an alternate position. That is why I am not in the business of trying to change the entire text-critical worldview merely by my comments; I know far better the typical reaction to anti-establishment theories in any genre -- especially when such theories might be supported by what would be considered abundantly sufficient evidence were the external supporting data of MSS, Versions, and Fathers _reversed_ in any given situation. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Apr 21 11:10:17 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA00927; Mon, 21 Apr 1997 11:10:16 -0400 From: schmiul@uni-muenster.de Message-Id: <199704211511.RAA44756@mail.uni-muenster.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Mon, 21 Apr 97 17:26:27 +0100 Subject: Re: Athanasius and the Text of the NT To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu In-Reply-To: <1517E660FA@legacy.calvin.edu> X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 4873 Thanks to John Brogan for sharing very interesting results from his study on Athanasius' Gospel text. I would be delighted to get in touch with the concrete data. On Sun, 20 Apr 1997, John Brogan wrote: >Although I should be making final revisions to my dissertation >(either that or grading the mounds of papers and exams on my desk), I >felt I needed to respond to the requests for further information >concerning Athanasius and his influences on the transmission of the >NT. I have recently defended my dissertation entitled "The Text of >the Four Gospels in the Writings of Athanasius" at Duke University. >As other dissertations, it will be copyrighted and distributed by >UMI on microfische (although I am uncertain how quickly it will be >available). I also hope to submit it for review for publication in >SBLNTGF this month, but who knows how long that whole process will >take! Congratulations and good luck! [snip] >Closer examination of the types of changes Athanasius made to his >text reveals that he corrupts his NT texts for polemical and >theological reasons. For example, in his 39th Paschal Letter, when >citing Jn 5:39, Athanasius omits the portion of the verse "you think >that in them you have eternal life." This omission is supported >only by a citation by Didymus. In the case of Athanasius, I argue >that he omits this portion of the verse because it could appear as a >negative comment about scripture and would weaken his argument that >the canonical scriptures are "the fountains of salvation." Several >other omissions, substitutions of words, additions, grammatical >changes, and conflations exist in Athanasius' references to the >Gospels. These corruptions are made for rhetorical purposes. Good point. Rhetorical purposes, in my experience, should be addressed more seriously when assessing Church Father testimonies, especially singular readings. >Interestingly, Athanasius shows a peculiar affinity to the >corrections of Sinaiticus. Within the text of the Gospels preserved >by Athanasius, there exists 25 units of significant variation >(non-singular readings) where Sinaiticus and its Correctors split. >Athanasius agrees with the Correctors in 23 instances (92%). >Comparative studies indicate that Athanasius' level of agreement >with AlephCor is much higher than any other witness or father. Now, this is extremely fascinating. I would love to have the readings. >This shows that the types of changes attested, or in some cases even >produced, by Athanasius eventually make their way into the stream of >textual transmission. What types of changes are involved? How can you assure that it was Athanasius who produced them? What correctors hand's readings of Aleph are involved and how are the datings? Fascinating stuff, indeed. >Why is this the case? As an important leader of the church, >Athanasius' writings and teachings influenced many of the nameless >Alexandrian scribes responsible for copying the NT texts. In other >words, Athanasius was an influential member of the "interpretive >community" to which these scribes belonged. As scribes read the >texts they were copying, they remembered how that text had been >interpreted in their community (e.g. what they had read or heard >leaders such as Athanasius say about the text). In certain >instances, in copying the NT text, these scribes made it "read" what >they already knew it to "mean." Given the fact that there is substantial evidence to the claim that Athanasius or like-minded "interpretive communities" were indeed resposible for creating these readings, I would consider this a valuable hypotheses. I really would love to have the whole argument rather than only the readings. >As a final point, I would argue that the text of the NT was more >fluid in the 4th century than most textual critics (e.g. Colwell and >recently Robinson) have been willing to admit. Sorry, but I can't really deal with points like that. What does it mean "that the text of the NT was more fluid in the 4th century..." I suspect that we usually do not take into account the "fluidy" of some 9-14th centuries MSS despite of the relative stability of the text-type the vast majority of them displays. > The changes that can >be seen in the Alexandrian text supports this. As theology and >canon became fixed in the late-4th and 5th centuries, the text also >became fixed (in the Byzantine text-type). Thus, ideological and >theological disputes played an important role in the shaping and >transmission of the NT text. Overall conclusion like this somehow sound both logic and exciting, but let's look at the evindence... >I am open to comments and critiques... >John Brogan Again, I would love to get in touch with the data as well as the whole argument. Thanks so far for stimulating bits and bites. Ulrich Schmid, Muenster From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Apr 21 11:28:09 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA01003; Mon, 21 Apr 1997 11:28:09 -0400 Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 11:29:11 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Academic Imperialism (An Outsider's View) In-Reply-To: <199704211333.HAA08151@wavecom.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1368 On Mon, 21 Apr 1997 dwashbur@wave.park.wy.us wrote: > I confess I don't usually read Maurice's > posts all the way through simply because of their (general) length > and my lack of time to give them the attention they deserve. This one is mercifully short, just for you, Dave. :-) > At the same time, I can't help but wonder: if someone such as Maurice > did publish a TC textbook of the type Mr. Evensen describes, how many > institutions would adopt it and use it? Rough estimate off the top of my head: none whose professors are of the modern eclectic variety. > That being the case, I do > wonder how many teachers of TC would be willing to adopt a textbook > that goes against the flow. Just in the interest of "fairness", I am teaching NTTC on the M.Div. classroom and Ph.D. seminar level this semester. The two primary textbooks are Metzger and Aland & Aland. This should not be surprising, I would think, and I certainly would consider this "fair" by any estimation. Of course, reciprocity in some degree might also be a nice idea...... _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Apr 21 11:37:07 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA01036; Mon, 21 Apr 1997 11:37:07 -0400 Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 11:38:15 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: Academic Imperialism (An Outsider's View) X-Sender: jwest@hub.infoave.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970421113632.26276f6c@hub.infoave.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1533 At 11:29 AM 4/21/97 -0400, you wrote: >> At the same time, I can't help but wonder: if someone such as Maurice >> did publish a TC textbook of the type Mr. Evensen describes, how many >> institutions would adopt it and use it? > >Rough estimate off the top of my head: none whose professors are of the >modern eclectic variety. Beg to differ- but if such a text were produced I would use it as supplemental reading. > >> That being the case, I do >> wonder how many teachers of TC would be willing to adopt a textbook >> that goes against the flow. > >Just in the interest of "fairness", I am teaching NTTC on the M.Div. >classroom and Ph.D. seminar level this semester. The two primary >textbooks are Metzger and Aland & Aland. This should not be surprising, I >would think, and I certainly would consider this "fair" by any estimation. >Of course, reciprocity in some degree might also be a nice idea...... > On those occasions I do teach TC I used Aland (no surprise) but I also have them read Westcott and Hort's Intro... I would use a good byzantine intro if I could find one (because, in truth, scholarship takes place when students are offered the alternatives and allowed to make up their own minds). Jim (a lurker on the list)(I have decided not to address any NWT posts as Lars has shown he has no interest in listening. My response on Ro 10:13 only generated a "yeah, but....") +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology jwest@theology.edu From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Apr 21 12:02:14 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA01131; Mon, 21 Apr 1997 12:02:14 -0400 From: schmiul@uni-muenster.de Message-Id: <199704211603.SAA26710@mail.uni-muenster.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Mon, 21 Apr 97 18:18:23 +0100 Subject: Re: Academic Imperialism (An Outsider's View) To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1823 On Mon, 21 Apr 1997, Maurice Robinson wrote: >On Mon, 21 Apr 1997 dwashbur@wave.park.wy.us wrote: >> I confess I don't usually read Maurice's >> posts all the way through simply because of their (general) length >> and my lack of time to give them the attention they deserve. >This one is mercifully short, just for you, Dave. :-) >> At the same time, I can't help but wonder: if someone such as Maurice >> did publish a TC textbook of the type Mr. Evensen describes, how many >> institutions would adopt it and use it? >Rough estimate off the top of my head: none whose professors are of the >modern eclectic variety. >> That being the case, I do >> wonder how many teachers of TC would be willing to adopt a textbook >> that goes against the flow. >Just in the interest of "fairness", I am teaching NTTC on the M.Div. >classroom and Ph.D. seminar level this semester. The two primary >textbooks are Metzger and Aland & Aland. This should not be surprising, I >would think, and I certainly would consider this "fair" by any estimation. >Of course, reciprocity in some degree might also be a nice idea...... I really would love to be "fair" when teaching NTTC. However, at present there are two basic withdrawls: a) Lack of a teaching position (subjective perspective); b) lack of Maurices's TC textbook (objective perspective). To Maurice, Washburn and Evensen: Please do not complain in advance for not being read as long as the objective perspective is still lacking. To Maurice: I really would love to see a book out there from your pen on the Byzantine priority hypotheses. I'm pretty sure that it will be free from theologically biased assertions solely relying on your interpretation of the evidence within a scholarly framework as you repeatedly ascertain. Ulrich Schmid, Muenster From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Apr 21 15:15:31 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA01833; Mon, 21 Apr 1997 15:15:30 -0400 Message-ID: <335BBD0F.6ABF@concentric.net> Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 12:16:31 -0700 From: kdlitwak X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Languages for specific biblical books in TC References: <199704211333.HAA08151@wavecom.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 960 Given that even within a given MS, the "text type" may vary, I'd like to ask a question about versions. My area of focus, atleast for my doctoral study, is Luke=Acts. Obviously, an acquaintance with D in Greek is important for that. Beyond Greek MSS, however, which langauge would be next of importance? Latin, Syriac? Or am I mistaken in thinking that the particular text might determine which version(s) would be of most value? Going back to D, I know the question of the text of Acts is very complex, based on what readng I've done. I'd be interested in what othes think the most likely "solution" to this problem might be. Since trying to find Lukanisms in D seems to have not borne adequate fruit, some other approach to assessing the value of the readings of D seems in order but I haven't figured out a way, though I'm interested in Osborne's view (I think that's the right name). Thanks. Ken Litwak Graduate Theological Union Berkeley, CA From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Apr 21 15:24:56 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA01885; Mon, 21 Apr 1997 15:24:56 -0400 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199704211603.SAA26710@mail.uni-muenster.de> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 14:27:36 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Textbooks? Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2933 It's interesting to see all the people saying that they would use a textbook from Maurice Robinson if they could. I wonder, though, if that really solves the problem. Adding another textbook to a course that already uses two or three is not my idea of helpful. As someone who lived through ten semesters of college math and thirteen of physics, I think I can safely say I know bad textbooks. (Believe me, you don't know bad until you've seen a bad Advanced Calculus book....) It seems to me that there is a desperate need for a good *general* textbook on textual criticism. I look at what's on my shelf, and it's not a pretty list: * Metzger. Good on principles and history, but very weak on the manuscripts. Also, it's very "Hortian." * Aland & Aland: The manuscript lists are nice (though it would be even nicer if it told the nature of the manuscripts' texts, not just how Byzantine they are), but the actual practice of criticism gets very little coverage. * Greelee: Nice supplementary features (how to collate a manuscript, how to read a critical apparatus), but the manuscript lists are badly in error and there isn't much coverage of practice. * Vaganay & Amphoux: Spends more time complaining than teaching. Unorthodox theories are presented without much support. Few examples. * Kenyon (_Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts_) has a lot of good material but is not a TC textbook * Hammond (the first manual I saw) is ninety-four years out of date * Hort is more than twenty years older than that * Black is too short (and the manuscript lists are bad) * Lake is even shorter * The less said about Comfort, the better.... Have I forgotten anyone? I realize that omits Elliot (I don't have that one yet), but it's a pretty undistinguished list. To get a reasonably complete picture even of the modern eclectic viewpoint takes about four books, which is too many. Is it not time to create a balanced textbook? A collaborative effort might be best. That would let all the various sorts of practitioners (Robinson, Elliot, perhaps Ehrman or Holmes, West or Comfort, maybe even a historical critic like myself if we can find one with a relevant degree) could write about how *they* practice the discipline. This might also let a manuscript expert describe the texts of the various manuscripts, and a historical expert write the history of the printed text. The net result, if we could find the right editor (I would suggest Epp, who is even a fairly good writer) could be by far the best textbook available in the field. Or am I crazy? (Don't answer that.) -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A very rough draft of part of the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Apr 21 15:32:01 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA01964; Mon, 21 Apr 1997 15:32:01 -0400 Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 15:32:43 -0400 (EDT) From: Bart Ehrman X-Sender: behrman@login1.isis.unc.edu To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Languages for specific biblical books in TC In-Reply-To: <335BBD0F.6ABF@concentric.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1564 Ken, If you're interested in Bezae in Acts, then Latin is obviously a sine qua non. On the surrounding relevant questions, for my money the best ever and destined to be so for a long time (that's one adjective) study is David Parker, _Codex Bezae_. It's an amazing book. Also, of course, is the volume of essays edited by Parker and Amphoux in New Testament Tools and Studies, vol. 22 (1996): _Codex Bezae: Studies from the Lunel Colloquium June 1994_. -- Bart Ehrman, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill On Mon, 21 Apr 1997, kdlitwak wrote: > Given that even within a given MS, the "text type" may vary, I'd > like to ask a question about versions. My area of focus, atleast for my > doctoral study, is Luke=Acts. Obviously, an acquaintance with D in > Greek is important for that. Beyond Greek MSS, however, which langauge > would be next of importance? Latin, Syriac? Or am I mistaken in thinking > that the particular text might determine which version(s) would be of > most value? > > Going back to D, I know the question of the text of Acts is very > complex, based on what readng I've done. I'd be interested in what > othes think the most likely "solution" to this problem might be. Since > trying to find Lukanisms in D seems to have not borne adequate fruit, > some other approach to assessing the value of the readings of D seems in > order but I haven't figured out a way, though I'm interested in > Osborne's view (I think that's the right name). Thanks. > > > Ken Litwak > Graduate Theological Union > Berkeley, CA > From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Apr 21 15:35:36 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA02014; Mon, 21 Apr 1997 15:35:35 -0400 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <335BBD0F.6ABF@concentric.net> References: <199704211333.HAA08151@wavecom.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 14:38:46 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Languages for specific biblical books in TC Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2438 On Mon, 21 Apr 1997, kdlitwak wrote: >Given that even within a given MS, the "text type" may vary, I'd >like to ask a question about versions. My area of focus, atleast for my >doctoral study, is Luke=Acts. Obviously, an acquaintance with D in >Greek is important for that. Beyond Greek MSS, however, which langauge >would be next of importance? Latin, Syriac? Or am I mistaken in thinking >that the particular text might determine which version(s) would be of >most value? > > Going back to D, I know the question of the text of Acts is very >complex, based on what readng I've done. I'd be interested in what >othes think the most likely "solution" to this problem might be. Since >trying to find Lukanisms in D seems to have not borne adequate fruit, >some other approach to assessing the value of the readings of D seems in >order but I haven't figured out a way, though I'm interested in >Osborne's view (I think that's the right name). Thanks. Personal opinions only, of course, but I would say that the most important version(s) for Acts is (are) the Old Latin. This goes back to the problem of D. (I've said this before, but I'll say it again.) The reasons is that D contains at least one reading which is the result of editing: In Luke 3, it uses Matthew's genealogy of Jesus. Now one edited reading does not an edited text make -- but it means we have to be cautious with D. The Old Latin is very important as a control on the "Western" text. As for what is next on the list, I would seriously argue for the Armenian and the Georgian. Yes, they are later than the Coptic and the Syriac -- but the Coptic represents the Alexandrian text so well represented by B Aleph A etc., while the most important Syriac version (the Harklean) parallels family 2138. The Armenian and the Georgian, by contrast, *may* represent something new and different. Having said that, I should point out that I know relatively little about the text of Acts; about 75% of my studies have been devoted to Paul and the Catholics, and most of the rest to the Gospels.... -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A very rough draft of part of the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Apr 21 15:50:00 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA02066; Mon, 21 Apr 1997 15:50:00 -0400 Message-ID: <335BC3E5.77DB@skyenet.net> Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 14:45:41 -0500 From: "Robert A. Weiter, M.S.W., C.C.S.W." Organization: Consultation, Assessment and Treatment Services X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: LURKER'S VIEW ON RECENT TONE [ was Re: Academic Imperialism (An Outsider's View) References: <1DFF741399C@div.ed.ac.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 3367 Professor L.W. Hurtado wrote: > > I'd like to join in condemning "academic imperialism", which I take > to mean the forcible prevention of a given view being circulated in > spite of the documentation/arguments in its favor. No question. Any > such prohibition would ruin scholarship and rob the term of any > meaning. Greetings, I have been a rather longtime "lurker" on this list (largely because all of exegetical and TC texts are packed away in storage in Missouri). I earned a theological degree from St. Louis University and also did M.Div. studies back in the early eighties at Christ Seminary -- Seminex, and worked in professional religious / theological education and did special graduate studies in the Department of Theology at The University of Notre Dame (1990). I currently editing the second edition of a Christology text which was written by one my former professors. For over ten years, I have been working as a psychotherapist / clinical social worker. I am highly respected in that field and have published, lectured and taught extensively -- particularly in Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Services, treatment of juvenile sex offenders, sexual orientation issues, and religious issues in psychotherapy and disability issues. Now that I am in the midst of "student in care" process within my denomination, United Church of Christ, and returning to seminary to complete M.Div. studies (in fall, 1997) as a prerequisite to Ordination, my interest in Textual Criticism has certainly resurfaced. (Theological study and discourse has always been my first love .) My reason for moving from "lurker" status right now is the recent extremely nasty tone which this mailing list has taken. I would expect much more mature and professional behavior from educated adults in the tradition of the "academy". A list such as this needs to take into account the various academic, theological and (to some extent) religious backgrounds of participants. If some folks want only those who are professional textual critical scholars to subscribe than perhaps a closed list for academics is best. (I belong to several lists which required proof of my professional licenses and qualifications before I was allowed to subscribe. In one case, I had to send a copy of my Indiana Health Professions License to a university.) It seems that what is accepted as scholarship or "debunked" often depends on theological or ideological positions of the various people in the discussion. This isn't only true in Biblical Scholarship, it's true in my other field, psychology / psychotherapy. I note by the signatures at the end of posts just how diverse the participants on this list are. I remember the aphorism by Rupertus Meldinius (Peter Meiderlin) written during the bitter theological disputes of the Thirty Years' War: In essentials unity, In perspectives liberty, In all things charity. The folks who have been particularly nasty recently, might remember this aphorism next time you want to flame. Yours in Christ, Robert A. Weiter, M.S.W., C.C.S.W. Indiana State (Licensed) Certified Clinical Social Worker Psychotherapist Consultation Assessment and Treatment Services 18115 State Road #23 #175 South Bend, Indiana 46637 " From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Apr 21 15:57:45 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA02114; Mon, 21 Apr 1997 15:57:45 -0400 Message-ID: <335BC5BE.7ED9@skyenet.net> Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 14:53:34 -0500 From: "Robert A. Weiter, M.S.W., C.C.S.W." Organization: Consultation, Assessment and Treatment Services X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: LURKER'S VIEW ON RECENT TONE [ was Re: Academic Imperialism (An Outsider's View) References: <1DFF741399C@div.ed.ac.uk> <335BC3E5.77DB@skyenet.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 346 Robert A. Weiter, M.S.W., C.C.S.W. wrote: > and did > special graduate studies in the Department of Theology at The University > of Notre Dame (1990). I currently editing the second edition of a > Christology text which was written by one my former professors. Personal Nitpick: I'm SORRY - WRONG DATE. University of Notre Dame was 1991. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Apr 21 16:15:54 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA02195; Mon, 21 Apr 1997 16:15:53 -0400 Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 16:17:02 -0400 Message-Id: <2.2.16.19970421161701.4297ea94@email.psu.edu> X-Sender: wlp1@email.psu.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "William L. Petersen" Subject: Re: Languages for specific biblical books in TC Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 930 At 12:16 PM 4/21/97 -0700, Ken Litwack wrote: >Given that even within a given MS, the "text type" may vary, I'd >like to ask a question about versions. My area of focus, atleast for my >doctoral study, is Luke=Acts. Obviously, an acquaintance with D in >Greek is important for that. Beyond Greek MSS, however, which langauge >would be next of importance? Latin, Syriac? Or am I mistaken in thinking >that the particular text might determine which version(s) would be of >most value? Since D is a bilingual, I would presume you would be interested in *both* of its languages, right? That means Latin... Because of Bezae's strong textual link with the East, and its numerous singular readings with the Syriac (or trilateral readings, with the Syriac and the Latin), putting Syriac in your toolbox would also be highly recommended. See, for example, F.H. Chase's studies about a century ago... --Petersen, Penn State Univ. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Apr 21 16:20:48 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA02217; Mon, 21 Apr 1997 16:20:48 -0400 Date: 21 Apr 1997 20:20:57 -0000 Message-ID: <19970421202057.6188.qmail@np.nosc.mil> From: Vincent Broman To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu In-reply-to: <335BBD0F.6ABF@concentric.net> (message from kdlitwak on Mon, 21 Apr 1997 12:16:31 -0700) Subject: Re: Languages for specific biblical books in TC Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1154 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Ken, Make sure you check out this one: Le texte occidental des actes des apotres : reconstitution et rehabilitation / M.E. Boismard et A. Lamouille. Paris : Editions Recherche sur les civilisations, 1984. Series title: Synthese (Editions Recherche sur les civilisations) ; no 17. GTU Library BS2621.3 .B65 1984 UCB Main BS2621.3 .B65 1984 t. 1-2 (1984) UCLA URL BS 2621.3 B65 1984 UCSB Main Lib BS2621.3 .B65 1984 I cannot remember whether I skimmed parts of this years ago, or just read someone quoting from it; I did read a favorable review of it in JBL. It seems to be quite comprehensive in its view of the textual resources related to the Western text: MSS, versions, patristic citations. You should get a good idea of where the most ore to be mined is. Vincent Broman -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBM1vLyGCU4mTNq7IdAQGa6gQAiyhyjQ/k9ZOn5QyQz7eoigNmja9RwZ0Z 0RWUqkVG+UvKOPzYAikeW6tm+8I4W5TX5IB8O5hW8VKYKIVQWH7EOuGGu3gp1uIX 3gQCM2G2QS3nlUPvvpu5umtdPKuSBlwS5VYU1Gndm/3QkdOCBN4juA5Z2uiGdJWf U9CLqttyDy0= =uGF0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Apr 21 17:12:22 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA02331; Mon, 21 Apr 1997 17:12:22 -0400 Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 16:13:05 -0500 (CDT) From: "Ronald L. Minton" X-Sender: rminton@orionc0 To: Alan Repurk cc: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu, "Mr. Helge Evensen" Subject: Re: John 14:14 In-Reply-To: <3357E545.65A2E6C6@repurk.mw.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1757 On Fri, 18 Apr 1997, Alan Repurk wrote: Ron Minton said: > > I do not doubt that a case can be made for both readings. I am > > suggesting the NWT team is a case in point where theology makes such > > decisions. This seems to be a textual decision based on doctrine just > > like "god" (Jn. 1:1) was a theological translation; it is the only time > > in 25 applicable texts in John's writings that they translate the anarthrous > > theos with a lower case. > > That is not true, as even a cursory examination reveals. You noted John 1:18 and 10:33. I did not consider 1:18 because of the variant, but you are right; it should be counted. I did not consider 10:33-4 as applicable, but if 10:33 is considered, then the NWT translates the anarthrous theos in John's works as "God" 24 times and as "a god" 3 times (the only three that Jesus is in view). I think that it is conclusive: the NWT is theologically slanted in the extreme. The fact that they rejected the Greek "me" in 14:14 says the text was theologically chosen at least in this case (unless we can demonstrate which of their claimed sources do not have that word, and I do not have all of them). All I wanted to demonstrate here was the fact that "me" was common in the immediate context, and it is; cf. believe me, ask me, love me. It may be that Jim West was correct and the NWT does not follow W-H as claimed. If that is the case, what I said doesn't mean much because all I did was show one place where they did not use W-H. I would like to know if any study has been done to validate or invalidate their statement. -- Prof. Ron Minton: rminton@mail.orion.org W (417)268-6053 H 833-9581 Baptist Bible Graduate School 628 E. Kearney St. Springfield, MO 65803 From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Apr 21 17:41:06 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA02393; Mon, 21 Apr 1997 17:41:06 -0400 From: dwashbur@wave.park.wy.us Message-Id: <199704212045.OAA26277@wavecom.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 14:39:20 -7000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Textbooks? Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.42a) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1340 Bob Waltz wrote in part: > * Kenyon (_Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts_) has a lot of > good material but is not a TC textbook It's also quite dated. A.T. Robertson wrote one too; one of the more fascinating phenomena of this century is the way that, right after Hort's book gained acceptance, everybody else wrote one that basically parroted Hort. Kenyon did write a TC textbook, by the way, but I've only seen one copy of it in all my travels. [snip] > Is it not time to create a balanced textbook? A collaborative effort > might be best. That would let all the various sorts of practitioners > (Robinson, Elliot, perhaps Ehrman or Holmes, West or Comfort, maybe > even a historical critic like myself if we can find one with a > relevant degree) could write about how *they* practice the discipline. This is the best idea I've seen yet. If a bunch of us (yes, I'd be interested in participating) could get together and write such a book, and perhaps the professors on this list commit to using it to help it gain a foothold, some really good things could happen. [snip] > Or am I crazy? (Don't answer that.) You say that as though being crazy is a bad thing :-) Dave Washburn http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur/home.html "You're so open-minded that your brain leaked out." -Steve Taylor From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Apr 21 17:43:16 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA02414; Mon, 21 Apr 1997 17:43:16 -0400 Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 16:44:21 -0500 (CDT) From: "Ronald L. Minton" X-Sender: rminton@orionc0 To: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" cc: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Egyptian text In-Reply-To: <19920901E94@div.ed.ac.uk> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 342 I think this has been noted before, but can someone clarify what Aland means by Egyptian text? TEXT, p. 106 seems to mean Alexandrian text plus BYZ influence, yet to me he is not consistent. -- Prof. Ron Minton: rminton@mail.orion.org W (417)268-6053 H 833-9581 Baptist Bible Graduate School 628 E. Kearney St. Springfield, MO 65803 From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Apr 21 18:02:19 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA02465; Mon, 21 Apr 1997 18:02:18 -0400 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199704212045.OAA26277@wavecom.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 17:04:54 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Web Site Update Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1386 Amid all this flap about who is or is not qualified to participate on this list, I've done an update to my web site. Every article has been revised (read: had at least a few typos removed -- though I doubt not that many more remain). Over half (including my pride and joy, the article on text-types) contain new material of some sort. There is also one new article: A catalog of gospel manuscripts similar to those I did earlier for Paul and the Catholics. (Though this one has fewer remarks from me, since I don't know the Gospels as well.) Given the discussion about my (lack of) qualifications, I am no longer claiming the site is affiliated with the Encyclopedia of NTTC. I still admit to inspiration -- but will admit that everything currently posted there is mine, and based on my ideas. Just a notice: The article on Family 1739 is incomplete (though the article on 1739 itself is fine). I will be expanding it as time permits. Thanks to the several hundred of you who have visited the page. I hope you will continue to find it useful. Notice the new sig: -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Apr 21 18:13:02 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA02489; Mon, 21 Apr 1997 18:13:01 -0400 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <19920901E94@div.ed.ac.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 17:15:16 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Egyptian text Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1210 On Mon, 21 Apr 1997, "Ronald L. Minton" wrote: >I think this has been noted before, but can someone clarify what Aland >means by Egyptian text? TEXT, p. 106 seems to mean Alexandrian text plus >BYZ influence, yet to me he is not consistent. I read it a little differently. I think he means the later forms of the Alexandrian text, after it had evolved a bit. The primary result of this evolution was, of course, the introduction of Byzantine readings, but there were some non-Byzantine variants introduced, as well (e.g. the alternate Markan ending of L Psi 579 etc.) I suspect the idea was conditioned by Hort's "Alexandrian" text (as opposed to Hort's "Neutral" text). I would simply think of it as the "late Alexandrian text" -- that is, something very like the early Alexandrian text of B, but with more mixture, more Byzantine readings, and more errors. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Apr 21 19:42:59 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA02721; Mon, 21 Apr 1997 19:42:59 -0400 Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 19:43:43 -0400 (EDT) From: Bart Ehrman X-Sender: behrman@login0.isis.unc.edu To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Textbooks? In-Reply-To: <199704212045.OAA26277@wavecom.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2275 I should say that one of the reasons Mike Holmes and I structured _The Text of the NT in Contemporary Research_ the way we did (with essays giving the state of the question for the major areas of ongoing research in the field, written by recognized scholars of each area) was precisely to facilitate its use in the classroom. I've used it this term with my graduate seminar in textual criticism with, I think, good success (then again, my students aren't likely to trash it). The books I used were: -- Alands -- Metzger -- Ehrman and Holmes -- "My" (!) Orthodox Corruption of Scripture (I'm not urging this as a textbook, but I thought it would be crazy for me personally not to use it) -- Westcott and Hort -- Sundry articles, esp. by Colwell, Epp, and Fee. Let me say with respect to Hort, that he seems to be getting a lot of bad press on this list. Even though I disagree with a lot of what he said (e.g. about a "neutral" text -- the meaning he ascribed to this term, by the way, does not seem to be generally understood -- and its differentiation from an Alexandrian text), I have to say that in my judgment it is hands down the most brilliant book in the field ever produced, and that everyone in the field should read it *carefully*. I had my students produce a 10-page single-space summary (they've yet to forgive me), and I think it's the most important assignment I give in any of my seminars. The clarity and persuasiveness of the position -- easily discounted by summarizing it -- is completely compelling in many respects. And Hort's recognition of such things as the (OK, poorly named) Western non-interpolations, the least tendentious thing about his analysis of the tradition (tho frequently maligned and treated as if it were outdated by the discovery of the papyri) (which of course is simply untrue, as anyone who reads the discussion itself will realize) (it's too easy to kick a dead hort), was, IMHO, completely inspired. But that's a minor point, really; the entire system was quickly parrotted by so many brilliant and impressive scholars simply because they could recognize it for what it was, the most important analysis of the textual tradition ever produced. -- Bart Ehrman, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Apr 21 19:51:27 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA02772; Mon, 21 Apr 1997 19:51:27 -0400 Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 19:52:10 -0400 (EDT) From: Bart Ehrman X-Sender: behrman@login0.isis.unc.edu To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Egyptian text In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 513 Speaking of "later" forms of the Alexandrian text (R. Waltz): if anyone has any opinions about my argument that we shouldn't use the traditional designations "Early Alexandrian" and "Late Alexandrian," but should instead speak in terms of "Primary Alexandrian" and "Secondary Alexandrian" (Carlo Martini's article on Didymus got me started on this issue in the early 80s), as laid out at the end of my Didymus book, I'd be very happy to hear them. -- Bart Ehrman, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Apr 21 21:24:48 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA02895; Mon, 21 Apr 1997 21:24:48 -0400 Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 20:25:30 -0500 (CDT) From: "Ronald L. Minton" X-Sender: rminton@orionc0 To: Matthew Johnson cc: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Academic Imperialism (An Outsider's View) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1147 On Sun, 20 Apr 1997, Matthew Johnson wrote: > > Nobody knows _all_ about these. But I must admit, the more I read > Metzger's work, the more impressed I am with his detailed knowledge of the > variety of theological beliefs throughout the period before the printing > press. I too like Metzger's NT TEXT. He was (and is) remarkable to say the least. I have read some chapters or sections ten times and still learn each time. However he is obviously biased against the BYZ text. I suppose most writers on the text are; Greenlee and definitely Aland. That does not diminish the value in my opinion. I read none of them to find truth, but to gain more information on how to evaluate the text. > The reason Robinson gets the treatment he does is that he > persists in pushing theories that have already been thoroughly debunked. > The theory of Byzantine priority was thoroughly debunked in Westcott and > Hort's time. Even a beginner like me knows this is either a joke or a faux pas -- Prof. Ron Minton: rminton@mail.orion.org W (417)268-6053 H 833-9581 Baptist Bible Graduate School 628 E. Kearney St. Springfield, MO 65803 From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Apr 22 00:24:18 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id AAA03119; Tue, 22 Apr 1997 00:24:18 -0400 Message-ID: <335C3E75.3868@accesscomm.net> Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 23:28:37 -0500 From: Jack Kilmon X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Web Site Update References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 723 Robert B. Waltz wrote: > Given the discussion about my (lack of) qualifications, I am > no longer claiming the site is affiliated with the Encyclopedia > of NTTC. I still admit to inspiration -- but will admit that > everything currently posted there is mine, and based on my > ideas. Your "lack of qualifications??" Bob, I am not a textual critic but I have found the field fascinating for over 40 years. On the other hand, I am not a neophyte either. I don't know what the "qualifications" of a textual critic are supposed to be but if the WORTH of a TCer is assessed on what he teaches and imparts to others, you are numero uno in my multiply redacted text type. Jack Jack Kilmon Houston, Tx jpman@accesscomm.net From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Apr 22 06:49:05 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id GAA03367; Tue, 22 Apr 1997 06:49:05 -0400 Message-ID: <335CB3CF.4FDF@online.no> Date: Tue, 22 Apr 1997 12:49:19 +0000 From: Rolf Furuli X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Macintosh; I; PPC) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Ree: John 14:14 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 4956 Dear Ron (Jim and Allan), Ron Minton wrote: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA03798; Tue, 22 Apr 1997 10:15:04 -0400 From: "John Brogan" Organization: Calvin College To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Tue, 22 Apr 1997 10:15:07 EST5EDT Subject: Re: Athanasius and the Text of the NT Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.23) Message-ID: <3871006D6E@legacy.calvin.edu> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 4552 On Mon, 21 Apr 97, Ulrich Schmid responded to my previous post... > >Interestingly, Athanasius shows a peculiar affinity to the > >corrections of Sinaiticus. Within the text of the Gospels preserved > >by Athanasius, there exists 25 units of significant variation > >(non-singular readings) where Sinaiticus and its Correctors split. > >Athanasius agrees with the Correctors in 23 instances (92%). > >Comparative studies indicate that Athanasius' level of agreement > >with AlephCor is much higher than any other witness or father. > > Now, this is extremely fascinating. I would love to have the > readings. > > >This shows that the types of changes attested, or in >> some cases even produced, by Athanasius eventually make their way >> into the stream of textual transmission. > > What types of changes are involved? How can you assure that it was > Athanasius who produced them? I hope to explore some of these questions more fully in the future. I don't think we can be *assured* that for any particular reading, Athanasius produced it (much depends on what would constitute *assurance*!). There is always the possibility that he took the reading from a manuscript. I am convinced, however, that Athanasius at times corrupted his biblical text when citing it. Furthermore, Athanasius is the earliest witness of some of the readings he attests (at least as far as my own collations and checking the collations of Tischendorf, von Soden, Legg, etc. reveal). Some of these readings eventually found there way into a manuscript (as can be seen in the corrections of Aleph) and into the broader stream of textual transmission. I think it is likely that some of Athanasius' corruptions became part of the transmission through his influence on the theology of the scribes who were copying manuscripts. Even if Athanasius were not responsible for creating the reading, he would have been influential in preserving and propagating the reading. > What correctors hand's readings of Aleph are involved and how are > the datings? Fascinating stuff, indeed. For indentifying the dates of the hands of the correctors of Aleph, I followed Milne's and Skeat's categories and dates (See _Scribes and Correctors of the Codex Sinaiticus_, London: British Museum, 1938). They date Correctors "A" and "B" as contemporaneous with the original scribe (and thus contemporaneous with Athanasius). The "C" corrector(s) are dated from the 5th-to-7th centuries. Athanasius agrees with the corrections of Aleph against the original hand in the following places (sorted by corrector): Corrector "A" - Mt 6:28 Corrector "B" - Mt 6:25, 6:26, 13:25, 18:20; Jn 1:18 Corrector "Ca" - Lk 1:27, 17:2, 24:39; Jn 1:3, 1:13, 1:18, 6:38, 6:39, 6:46, 8:59, 12:32, 14:16, 14:28, 16:15, 17:5, 17:22, 18:37, 19:39(2x) Athanasius agrees with the original hand of Aleph against a correction only in Lk 17:2. In Jn 1:18, Athanasius disagrees with both Aleph* and AlephC. > Given the fact that there is substantial evidence to the claim > that Athanasius or like-minded "interpretive communities" were > indeed resposible for creating these readings, I would consider > this a valuable hypotheses. I really would love to have the whole > argument rather than only the readings. I hope to get "the whole argument" out as soon as possible. I would appreciate any comments you might have. > Sorry, but I can't really deal with points like that. What does it > mean "that the text of the NT was more fluid in the 4th > century..." I suspect that we usually do not take into account the > "fluidy" of some 9-14th centuries MSS despite of the relative > stability of the text-type the vast majority of them displays. By "fluidity" I was hoping to challenge the commonly accepted text-critical notion that *all* sensible variants in the NT text were introduced in the 2nd-to-3rd centuries. I want to push this date into the late-4th or 5th centuries at least. Significant (theological) changes were still being made to the NT text during this time. I think the fluidity of canon and theology in the 4th century contributed to this. Of course, there is always an element of "fluidity" in the transmission of any text. As both you and Maurice Robinson have correctly pointed out, even the Byzantine text-type is never fully fixed. John Brogan ==================================== John J. Brogan Assistant Professor of Religion Department of Religion and Theology Calvin College (616) 957-6322 From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Apr 22 11:12:16 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA04046; Tue, 22 Apr 1997 11:12:16 -0400 Message-Id: <199704221509.KAA28476@endeavor.flash.net> From: "Perry L. Stepp" To: Subject: Studies in the text of Acts (was: Languages for specific biblical books in TC) Date: Sun, 20 Apr 1997 16:56:41 -0500 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 3701 Ken Litwak wrote: > Going back to D, I know the question of the text of Acts is very > complex, based on what readng I've done. I'd be interested in what > othes think the most likely "solution" to this problem might be. Since > trying to find Lukanisms in D seems to have not borne adequate fruit, > some other approach to assessing the value of the readings of D seems in > order but I haven't figured out a way, though I'm interested in > Osborne's view (I think that's the right name). Thanks. In a Ph.D. seminar on Textual Criticism, we've just finished (yesterday) working through a series of monographs, most concerned with the 'Western' text of Acts. My observations: 1.) James Ropes's offering in *The Beginnings of Christianity* provides a very detailed (if dated) overview of all the pertinent textual material. His thesis--that the Western text was the product of an intentional rewriting of a fairly laconic earlier text (something like the text behind B) to fit the needs of a primitive canon--while not ultimately proven, is certainly interesting and suggestive. I thought Ropes's monograph was the best of the bunch, but I'm the one who reviewed it, so I'm biased. 2.) Parker's *Codex Bezae: An Early Christian Manuscript and Its Text* provides an extremely detailed study of the physical characteristics of Bezae--the person who reviewed it referred to it as "an autopsy." The detail is mind-numbing, the argument is difficult to follow, and the reconstruction of the history of D seems to be a reach, at times. 3.) Epp's *Theological Tendency* provides a solid foundation for the later work of Ehrman, Parsons, et. al. This is a terribly valuable work, although Epp's not always consistent with his methodology. 4.) Wilcox's *Semitisms of Acts* doesn't seem to lead anywhere: Daryl Schmidt has published an article--I think in NT Studies--on the difficulties of attempting to categorize Semitisms, Septuagintalisms, etc. The article focuses on Revelation, as I recall, but I think he's published a similar paper on Acts. Or possibly he delivered it at a meeting--I can't recall. 5.) Strange's *The Problem of the Text of Acts*, which I haven't completely digested yet, offers a series of fascinating suggestions for how the two texts originated. I'm not as taken with his central thesis--that both texts came from Luke, published posthumously (spelling?) by his friends. Luke wrote a history of the early Church, circulated it privately to a small group of friends, then annotated one copy (via marginal notes, etc.) according to his friends' suggestions. When he died, both copies ended up in print: the pre-Western text includes the marginal notes/comments, the pre-Alexandrian text doesn't. Strange follows many of the same ideas as Harry Gamble (*Books and Readers in the Early Church*), and makes many fascinating suggestions that are tangential to his thesis. I need to spend some time with this book. 6.) A. Klijn suggests that the pre-Western text was not recensional, it is rather a gathering of traditional material coming from certain communities in the Church. It and the pre-Alexandrian texts of Acts arose from different milieu, possibly Jewish vs. Gentile or urban vs. rural. It was an interesting session. PLStepp ************************************************************ Pastor, DeSoto Christian Church, DeSoto TX Ph.D. candidate in New Testament, Baylor University "A system of morality which is based on relative emotional values is a mere illusion, a thoroughly vulgar conception which has nothing sound in it and nothing true." Phaedo 69b ************************************************************ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Apr 23 07:47:36 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id HAA05886; Wed, 23 Apr 1997 07:47:36 -0400 From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" Organization: Divinity Faculty To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 12:47:12 +000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Web Site Update Priority: normal In-reply-to: References: <199704212045.OAA26277@wavecom.net> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.52) Message-ID: <2121C7514D2@div.ed.ac.uk> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2411 If readers of this list will check the exchanges, they will confirm that nothing has been said about anyone's "qualifications" (by which I presume those alleging otherwise mean formal training in the field). I (and other working scholars in the field) have asked repeatedly for provision of evidence & argument in support of claims, and have asked it to be provided in a form such that it can be analyzed and considered. Thus, short summaries of one's views in a dictionary article (Web sit or otherwise) offer only summary statements, not defenses and justifications sufficient to establish a new or controversial view. So, nobody is asked Mr. Waltz or anyone else to enter some further degree programme. What I'm asking is that anyone seeking to engage in scholarly debate and controversy should do so in a scholarly manner: which means submitting full data and analysis in a form accessible to others, preferably "refereed" publication (which means a couple of scholars have given a preliminary judgment that a piece is worth the attention of busy scholars, which is a criterion all publishing scholars have to meet regularly). I'm also interested in knowing where Maurice Robinson's firmly held theory(ies?) about the early history of the text are likewise available for analysis. It's the *lack* of such availability that makes for scholars not taking notice of such views. How *can* one take notice when the theory is not published and available in a form one can evaluate? Now, sometimes things are so new that they haven't appeared yet. But such things get presented as conf. papers, and circulated among other scholars for preliminary assessment. Are such presentations of your views available, Dr. Robinson? Till a view has been circulated in some accessible form, and till it has been assessed by scholarly peers, a view has no status in scholarship. Nothing personal; it's just what we call scholarship instead of other forms of communication, such as rumor, unsupported assertions, trial balloons, whatever. Is that any clearer to all those souls about mean old scholars beating up on certain people? No conspiracy. Just a demand for ordinary scholarly standards and procedures to be met. ] L. W. Hurtado University of Edinburgh, New College Mound Place Edinburgh, Scotland EH1 2LX Phone: 0131-650-8920 Fax: 0131-650-6579 E-mail: L.Hurtado@ed.ac.uk From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Apr 23 08:06:02 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA05910; Wed, 23 Apr 1997 08:06:02 -0400 Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 08:07:13 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: You must be kidding X-Sender: jwest@hub.infoave.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970423080524.274f8be0@hub.infoave.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2577 At 12:47 PM 4/23/97 +0000, you wrote: > Till a view has >been circulated in some accessible form, and till it has been >assessed by scholarly peers, a view has no status in scholarship. Or, unless you can break through the lead ceiling of the academic club, you might as well admit that your ideas are worthless, and certainly not worth the time of the "established scholars' (by the way- who "established" these scholars? I was of the opinion that since the Enlightenment Biblical scholarship has done its best to break free of the fetters of dogma. But here we are preesented with a new dogma; i.e., you must have a position before we will listen to you- and you cannot have a position unless we listen to you first.) >Nothing personal; it's just what we call scholarship instead of other >forms of communication, such as rumor, unsupported assertions, trial >balloons, whatever. Please. It is intentionally personal and quite intentionally demeaning. It is, in sum, "we have the power to present our views and you don't. Therefore you are not worth the time of day". Is anyone really convinced that this is otherwise? By the way, Luther had bloody well better be glad that he isn't alive today. His 95 theses would have never made the news because they were not approved by a journal of his peers before he nailed them on the Chapel door. Lucky Luther, he died before academics replaced ecclesiastics with the keys to the kingdom of truth. > Is that any clearer to all those souls about >mean old scholars beating up on certain people? No conspiracy. Just >a demand for ordinary scholarly standards and procedures to be met. Again, Barth is lucky that he didn't have to submit the first edition of Romans to the Church officials before his friend could publish it (at an obscure publishing house!!!). Otherwise one of the most important movements in modern theology would never have seen the light of day. (and, again, this tone is quite demeaning). On a personal note- it is this attitude of superiority and exclusivism which has led me to leave my academic post and return to the pulpit. There is simply no use in arguing with the establishment- for it will not listen to you unless you are a member of it; and you cannot be a member unless you are listened to by it. Talk about "conspiracy"! >L. W. Hurtado > Jim (with appropriate penance in advance for having upset, offended, offered any politically incorrect statement, or otherwise disturbed the status quo (ante bellum). +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West jwest@hub.infoave.net From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Apr 23 08:07:18 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA05927; Wed, 23 Apr 1997 08:07:17 -0400 From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" Organization: Divinity Faculty To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 13:07:30 +000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Athanasius and the Text of the NT Priority: normal In-reply-to: <3871006D6E@legacy.calvin.edu> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.52) Message-ID: <21273546F94@div.ed.ac.uk> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1336 Dr. Brogan wrote: > By "fluidity" I was hoping to challenge the commonly accepted > text-critical notion that *all* sensible variants in the NT text > were introduced in the 2nd-to-3rd centuries. I want to push this > date into the late-4th or 5th centuries at least. Significant > (theological) changes were still being made to the NT text during > this time. I think the fluidity of canon and theology in the 4th > century contributed to this. > > Of course, there is always an element of "fluidity" in the > transmission of any text. As both you and Maurice Robinson have > correctly pointed out, even the Byzantine text-type is never fully > fixed. I'm interested to find you supporting a notion I have held for a number of years (and recently mooted briefly in my Birmingham TC conf. paper)--that textual variation continues robustly beyond the 2nd & 3rd cents. Likewise, as I tend to see "text-types" as textual traditions, having much to do with scribal tendencies, etc., and and the evidence I'm acquainted with agrees, I'm inclined also to agree that the Byzantine text-type is not "fully fixed", at least in the Byzantine/early medieval period. L. W. Hurtado University of Edinburgh, New College Mound Place Edinburgh, Scotland EH1 2LX Phone: 0131-650-8920 Fax: 0131-650-6579 E-mail: L.Hurtado@ed.ac.uk From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Apr 23 08:21:56 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA05955; Wed, 23 Apr 1997 08:21:56 -0400 From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" Organization: Divinity Faculty To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 13:22:09 +000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: You must be kidding Priority: normal In-reply-to: <1.5.4.16.19970423080524.274f8be0@hub.infoave.net> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.52) Message-ID: <212B2056C04@div.ed.ac.uk> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2950 I patiently ask again that people read postings carefully before erupting into outrage: Thus, I wrote, > > Till a view has > >been circulated in some accessible form, and till it has been > >assessed by scholarly peers, a view has no status in scholarship. And the response comes back: > Or, unless you can break through the lead ceiling of the academic club, you > might as well admit that your ideas are worthless, and certainly not worth > the time of the "established scholars' (by the way- who "established" these > scholars? I was of the opinion that since the Enlightenment Biblical > scholarship has done its best to break free of the fetters of dogma. But > here we are preesented with a new dogma; i.e., you must have a position > before we will listen to you- and you cannot have a position unless we > listen to you first.) > > >Nothing personal; it's just what we call scholarship instead of other > >forms of communication, such as rumor, unsupported assertions, trial > >balloons, whatever. > > Please. It is intentionally personal and quite intentionally demeaning. It > is, in sum, "we have the power to present our views and you don't. > Therefore you are not worth the time of day". Is anyone really convinced > that this is otherwise? > By the way, Luther had bloody well better be glad that he isn't alive today. > His 95 theses would have never made the news because they were not approved > by a journal of his peers before he nailed them on the Chapel door. Lucky > Luther, he died before academics replaced ecclesiastics with the keys to the > kingdom of truth. > > > Is that any clearer to all those souls about > >mean old scholars beating up on certain people? No conspiracy. Just > >a demand for ordinary scholarly standards and procedures to be met. > > Again, Barth is lucky that he didn't have to submit the first edition of > Romans to the Church officials before his friend could publish it (at an > obscure publishing house!!!). Otherwise one of the most important movements > in modern theology would never have seen the light of day. > (and, again, this tone is quite demeaning). > > On a personal note- it is this attitude of superiority and exclusivism which > has led me to leave my academic post and return to the pulpit. There is > simply no use in arguing with the establishment- for it will not listen to > you unless you are a member of it; and you cannot be a member unless you are > listened to by it. Talk about "conspiracy"! > > >L. W. Hurtado > > > > > Jim > > (with appropriate penance in advance for having upset, offended, offered any > politically incorrect statement, or otherwise disturbed the status quo (ante > bellum). > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > Jim West > jwest@hub.infoave.net > > L. W. Hurtado University of Edinburgh, New College Mound Place Edinburgh, Scotland EH1 2LX Phone: 0131-650-8920 Fax: 0131-650-6579 E-mail: L.Hurtado@ed.ac.uk From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Apr 23 08:39:47 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA05978; Wed, 23 Apr 1997 08:39:46 -0400 From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" Organization: Divinity Faculty To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 13:39:36 +000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: You must be kidding Priority: normal In-reply-to: <1.5.4.16.19970423080524.274f8be0@hub.infoave.net> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.52) Message-ID: <212FC425851@div.ed.ac.uk> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 3369 I request that people read postings carefully, and avoid reading *into* them their own fears or whatever. Thus, in response to my simple statement of facts that scholarship does not grant recognition to views until they have established themselves through presentation & publication and been assessed, Mr. West wrote: > Or, unless you can break through the lead ceiling of the academic club, you > might as well admit that your ideas are worthless, and certainly not worth > the time of the "established scholars' (by the way- who "established" these > scholars? I was of the opinion that since the Enlightenment Biblical > scholarship has done its best to break free of the fetters of dogma. But > here we are preesented with a new dogma; i.e., you must have a position > before we will listen to you- and you cannot have a position unless we > listen to you first.) Pa-leese note! I said nothing about being in any "position" (e.g., holding a formal academic appointment), just as I have said nothing about holding particular degrees. Nor have I espoused any "dogma", certainly not the one West has falsely attributed to me. I have called for all putting forth controversial views or revisionist views to provide support for them and to present the arguments sufficiently accessible and fully to promote scholarsly assessment of them. That all. Full stop. West also responds to my distinguishing of scholarly,critically-tested views and assertions by saying: > Please. It is intentionally personal and quite intentionally demeaning. It > is, in sum, "we have the power to present our views and you don't. > Therefore you are not worth the time of day". Is anyone really convinced > that this is otherwise? No intention to demean. But it's simply a fact in any field that assertion = nothing without adequate evidence and argumentation. West's invocation of Luther and Barth is so wide of the mark as to require no response. > On a personal note- it is this attitude of superiority and exclusivism which > has led me to leave my academic post and return to the pulpit. There is > simply no use in arguing with the establishment- for it will not listen to > you unless you are a member of it; and you cannot be a member unless you are > listened to by it. Talk about "conspiracy"! No, no, Mr. West. The scholarly world insists precisely on *argument* and *evidence*, and is pretty rough on those who can't or won't provide this for their views. But this is what makes the difference between scholarly views and . . . but we've been through that. Is it a conspiracy that courts of law will not enter as evidence unfounded testimony? Please. We're all fallen humans, of course, and not immune to peevishness and pettiness. But it is unfair to portray as snobbishness the scholarly distinction between views that have been presented with proper evidence and argumentation and have won assent, from views that have not because they are (a) not presented before qualified scholars for their assessment, or (b) presented with inadequate supporting evidence or on the basis of unfounded premises, or (c) shown to be incorrect when they have been presented. L. W. Hurtado University of Edinburgh, New College Mound Place Edinburgh, Scotland EH1 2LX Phone: 0131-650-8920 Fax: 0131-650-6579 E-mail: L.Hurtado@ed.ac.uk From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Apr 23 09:17:19 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA06089; Wed, 23 Apr 1997 09:17:19 -0400 Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 09:18:31 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: You must be kidding X-Sender: jwest@hub.infoave.net (Unverified) To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970423091642.25bf3644@hub.infoave.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1336 A final thought on the thread. Note, if you will, that Professor Hurtado refuses to address me as Dr., even though he does address Dr. Robinson this way. This means, that since I do not hold an academic position, that I am not due the honor which others are who likewise posess an earned doctorate. His suggestion (not so subtle) that I have no academic position because my scholarship is faulty is a red herring. It may be quite true that I am an ignorant dolt, a fact I freely admit! :-) But this does not invalidate my comments. Finally, his suggestion that my "invocation" of Luther and Barth is irrelevant is simply wrong. He is the one who suggested that one must have a peer review before one can be taken seriously! I simply offered what I believe to be 2 excellent examples to the contrary. If Professor Hurtado (notice my respectful tone!) wishes to discuss peer review as a pre-requirement to publication then is it not correct to examine EVERY document which has come into public view and if it has not been reviewed, then must we not dismiss it? I now slink into the dark wasteland of oblivion and silence, where me and my kind belong.... so that I may listen and learn- as I clearly am too stupid to have anything worthwhile to listen to..... Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West jwest@hub.infoave.net From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Apr 23 09:23:32 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA06122; Wed, 23 Apr 1997 09:23:32 -0400 Message-ID: <335E2A0C.3CE4@ccmail.fingerhut.com> Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 08:26:04 -0700 From: Hubert Bahr Organization: Fingerhut X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Win16; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: You must be kidding References: <212FC425851@div.ed.ac.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 631 Please Jim, This is a textual criticism list, not a academic injustice list. I personally hope that none of my questions ofended anyone on the list. I am seeking to learn this field. Professor Hurtado, I realize my posts are not material for academic journals, I am not at that level yet. I am hoping one day to be at that level, and those on this list have taught me much. Perhaps I should just be a silent lurker, but when I have a question, I have learned that asking it is the best way to get an answer. Thank you for your time. --Huey Bahr home: hbahr@usinternet.com office: hubert.bahr@ccmail.fingerhut.com From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Apr 23 09:43:43 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA06174; Wed, 23 Apr 1997 09:43:43 -0400 Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 09:44:47 -0400 (EDT) From: ANDREW SMITH To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: You must be kidding In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970423080524.274f8be0@hub.infoave.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 251 > > Till a view has > >been circulated in some accessible form, and till it has been > >assessed by scholarly peers, a view has no status in scholarship. **************************** Or 'til the farmers till their fields... (cf. 'til vs. till) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Apr 23 09:47:17 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA06212; Wed, 23 Apr 1997 09:47:17 -0400 X-Authentication-Warning: shell3.ba.best.com: gjw owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 06:48:03 -0700 (PDT) From: "Gregory J. Woodhouse" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: The IETF (Re: You must be kidding) In-Reply-To: <212FC425851@div.ed.ac.uk> Message-ID: X-Url: http://www.wnetc.com/ MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2025 I have a lot of sympathy with those that are concerned that detailed arguments in the areas of textual criticism go through peer reviewed journals. For one thing, I recognize that it is easy for people like me without formal training in the field to *think* they know a lot more about the subject than they actually do. This is something of a concern to me because I recognize that I am very much a beginner in the field. (Indeed, I did once consider studying it formally, but I took my degree in mathematics and now work in the software industry.) Still, I am not convinced that serious scholarly discussion is not feasible in an electronic forum such as this. To take an example, I believe network engineering is as technically demanding a field as textual criticism. (Sure it's not that difficult to learn to write basic programs using the socket API, or read a book and learn how to configure BIND on a Unix system, but this is only a beginning.) Nevertheless, the Internet Engineering Task force (IETF), which is the body which specifies and standardizes the TCP/IP suite of protocols, operates entirely through mailing lists and meetings held every four months (plus less formal meeting held by individual working groups). By charter, all meetings and working groups are open to anyone wishing to participate. Does this mean that the TCP/IP protocol suite is an inferior to other options like SPX/IPX or Banyan VINES? I think the easiest answer to this question is that the Internet, by its sheer size, is the ultimate stress test. The TCP/IP protocol suite has proven itself time and time again (not that I mean to disparage any other product such as NetWare. NetWare is a fine product.) My point should be obvious: At least in the area of engineering, it is quite possible to produce work that meets a high standard of quality through mailing lists and other public means. --- gjw@wnetc.com / http://www.wnetc.com/home.html If you're going to reinvent the wheel, at least try to come up with a better one. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Apr 23 10:19:55 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA06265; Wed, 23 Apr 1997 10:19:55 -0400 From: dwashbur@wave.park.wy.us Message-Id: <199704231323.HAA17338@wavecom.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 07:18:05 -7000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: You must be kidding Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.42a) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 4722 > Pa-leese note! I said nothing about being in any "position" (e.g., > holding a formal academic appointment), just as I have said nothing > about holding particular degrees. Nor have I espoused any "dogma", > certainly not the one West has falsely attributed to me. > I have called for all putting forth controversial views or > revisionist views to provide support for them and to present the > arguments sufficiently accessible and fully to promote scholarsly > assessment of them. That all. Full stop. Uh-huh. And this sounds great in theory. In practice, and especially in TC, there is no good forum for "putting forth" views that challenge the status quo, and "scholarsly [sic] assessment of them" tends to consist of "everybody knows this is wrong, so we won't even publish it or consider it." The way that Maurice's evidence is consistently ignored or brushed aside on this list is plenty of evidence of that "lead ceiling" that Jim spoke of. > West also responds to my distinguishing of > scholarly,critically-tested views and assertions by saying: > > > Please. It is intentionally personal and quite intentionally demeaning. It > > is, in sum, "we have the power to present our views and you don't. > > Therefore you are not worth the time of day". Is anyone really convinced > > that this is otherwise? > No intention to demean. But it's simply a fact in any field that > assertion = nothing without adequate evidence and argumentation. Trouble is, in TC at least, no amount of evidence and argumentation will ever be enough to convince the establishment. The field has been set up in such a way that everything is judged by the currently accepted view, and the mere fact that a viewpoint doesn't conform to that is sufficient to brand it as useless. I'm sorry, Larry, but that's not true scholarship. The Alands consistently infuriate me in their book when they speak of which variants diverge from and relate to the "original" text. Have they really established the original text so completely and adequately? "I don't think so, Tim." But the question has been posed in such a way that only a reply that conforms to the current trend will be considered to have "sufficient evidence." > West's invocation of Luther and Barth is so wide of the mark as to > require no response. Cop-out. > > On a personal note- it is this attitude of superiority and exclusivism which > > has led me to leave my academic post and return to the pulpit. There is > > simply no use in arguing with the establishment- for it will not listen to > > you unless you are a member of it; and you cannot be a member unless you are > > listened to by it. Talk about "conspiracy"! > > No, no, Mr. West. The scholarly world insists precisely on > *argument* and *evidence*, and is pretty rough on those who can't or > won't provide this for their views. But it is also that "scholarly world" that decides how much argument and evidence is needed to shake their collective tree. And again, the only viewpoints that are thought to have sufficient argument and evidence are those that agree with what the consensus already believes. Again, that's not scholarship. It's arrogance. [snip] > But it is > unfair to portray as snobbishness the scholarly distinction between > views that have been presented with proper evidence and argumentation > and have won assent, from views that have not because they are (a) > not presented before qualified scholars for their assessment, or (b) > presented with inadequate supporting evidence or on the basis of > unfounded premises, or (c) shown to be incorrect when they have been > presented. Okay, let's have you take one or two of Maurice's examples - he's certainly provided enough of them - and apply these principles to yourself. Maurice has consistently done (a), by offering his materials here; no one has yet *shown* him to be guilty of (b), they merely assert it (by your own definition, this is inadequate and not scholarship, and thus should be treated "roughly"), and when someone recently made a blanket statment of type (c) about the Byzantine priority view, even the eclectics jumped down his throat. So I take it that (c) has not been done wrt Maurice's materials. If you don't have any of his posts to work from, let me know; I have a nice backlog of them that I will be glad to share. I'm not that familiar with Jim's views (mea culpa entirely), but I would suggest you do the same with his and provide some "argumentation and evidence." Dave Washburn http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur/home.html "You're so open-minded that your brain leaked out." -Steve Taylor From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Apr 23 10:34:36 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA06302; Wed, 23 Apr 1997 10:34:36 -0400 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <1.5.4.16.19970423080524.274f8be0@hub.infoave.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 09:38:06 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Till versus 'til Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 735 On Wed, 23 Apr 1997, ANDREW SMITH wrote: >> > Till a view has >> >been circulated in some accessible form, and till it has been >> >assessed by scholarly peers, a view has no status in scholarship. > >**************************** > >Or 'til the farmers till their fields... (cf. 'til vs. till) I was hoping to stay off this forum for a while till people decided whether I belonged or not... but since we've descended into pedantry, I guess it's time to make sure we get our pedantry right. There is no word "'til." The correct contraction for "until," strange as it may seem, is "till." Look it up! (American Heritage Dictionary, 2nd edition, p. 1345, item till2.) Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Apr 23 11:54:39 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA06523; Wed, 23 Apr 1997 11:54:39 -0400 Date: 23 Apr 97 17:59:55 +0200 Subject: MT 23.32-34 in four text-types From: "Jean Valentin" To: "TC-List" X-Mailer: Cyberdog/2.0 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 3780 My dear friends of the TC-list, After all these harsh posts about "academic imperialism", let's come back to our studies and keep our humour! At http://scholar.cc.emory.edu/scripts/TC/extras/Mt_23:32-34.gif you will find a synopsis of a few verses in Mt 23 (D-B-Theta-TR) about which I would like to have some comments. Some time ago, one of you mentioned the problem of theological perspective in Codex Bezae (alias D 05), and specially of its supposed anti-judaism. Mt 23 might be an interesting place for a comparison, as its content is polemical against pharisaism. Of course, it is only one passage and I'm aware that we shouldn't too quickly infer general conclusions from this. (1) How do you understand the changes in the tenses in verses 32 and 34? (1.1) In verse 32, D has an aorist. B has a future. Theta and TR have an imperative. Would you agree with me that B (which is totally isolated, the other Alexandrian witnesses don't follow it) is the harshest of all, since it seems to exclude any future change in judaism's rejection of Jesus? In this case then, the hardest polemics against judaism would be found in B and not in D. (1.2) In verse 34, how do you understand the change in the tense : D has a future while the other texts have a present _and_ the addition of PROS YMAS "to you". Is B (and Theta and TR) more limitative as to those to which the Apostles will be sent, this being again a way to underline that the apostolic preaching was rejected by _judaism_? (1.3) In those two cases then, it would that, seen against D, it's B that has the hardest tone against judaism. (2) Just a remark about harmonizations : in verse 34, the phrase KAI EX AUTWN MASTIGWSETE EN TAIS SYNAGWGAIS UMWN is omitted by D / added by the other texts. (2.1) It's interesting because these words are probably an harmonization (perhaps from Mt 10.17). In this case, D is the only one that doesn't harmonize - for once, a derogation to its supposed harmonistic character. In the hypothese that B is earlier than Theta and D and is the source for their reading (though probably Maurice wouldn't agree with this hypothese, but it's the most accepted one and we just want to test it), this would, for once, be a case where B also shows an harmonistic tendency. (2.2) If it's an addition in the other texts, then a possible reason for this is to add even more "sins" to the behaviour of judaism. So once again, B would be harsher than D in what concerns its supposed anti-judaistic tone. (2.3) Of course, we could say that the source for the omission in D is homeoarkton (KAI... KAI) but if all three variants seem to be related by a theological (or, let's say, ideological) intention, a project in the plan of some recensor/revisor, then perhaps we should prefer to examine all three together instead of recurring too easily to some graphical accident. So if I'm right, for once (a) D is less anti-judaistic than its counterparts, and especially B, (b) B is harmonisitc while D is not, (c) we would have an example of a redactor at work in B. If B is later than D, this anti-judaistic bias could be explained by a still growing gap and hostility between judaism and the early church, and B would harden the tone as the break has now become irreversible. And also, we have a case where B, supposed to be the best representative of the Alexandrian family, goes its own way! Quite an a-typical passage, isn't it? I'm probably going too far in my analysis, but still I ask : any comments? --------------------------------------------------------- Jean Valentin - Brussels - Belgium --------------------------------------------------------- "Ce qui est trop simple est faux, ce qui est trop complique est inutilisable" --------------------------------------------------------- From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Apr 23 12:05:10 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA06564; Wed, 23 Apr 1997 12:05:10 -0400 Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 12:06:23 -0400 Message-Id: <2.2.16.19970423120623.0bd7c7f0@email.psu.edu> X-Sender: wlp1@email.psu.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "William L. Petersen" Subject: Acadmeic imperialism, etc., etc., etc. Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 7778 I have watched this discussion unfold with amusement. It is, in many ways, a perfect example of the wild charges and half-cocked ideas which end up on the list, bereft of fact.. First, the "bereft of fact." (1) It has been asserted that you "can't get published unless you are already published." This is so patently nonsensical that it hardly bears comment. *Every* published author was, at one time, *unpublished*! If the assertion that you "can't get published unless you are already published" were true, then *no one* would be published: it is simple logic. Case in point--and to the matter of minority opinions getting heard in the academy: (2) My first article in a refereed journal (Novum Testamentum) appeared in 1981 when I was an *unpublished* graduate student. It introduced a new idea--which is obviously a *minority,* *non-accepted* argument--and yet it was accepted for publication. It argued (on the basis of rabbinic parallels and--with a nod to a thread recently on the list--differing theologies between Gentile and Judaic Christianity) that the version of the Parable of the Lost Sheep in the Gospel of Thomas was more ancient than *either* of the (contradictory) synoptic versions... Gee, I wonder how I "slipped" through??? As for the claim that only stuff "acceptable" to some amorphous "academic" cabal gets published, and concerning the evil standards they use to weed out "brilliant" contributions with which they don't agree: (3) Bart Ehrman recently drew attention on the list to my review (in *JBL* 113 [1994], 529-531) of Philip Comfort's *The Quest for the Original Text of the New Testament* (Baker Book House 1992). The book has been positively cited on the list from time to time, as a useful contribution (some list participants have differed...) In his book, Comfort states: "In a recent study (1989) Barbara Aland dates the manuscript [Comfort is talking about P75] closer to 175. I agree with this date--and urge that it is probably near 175." (Comfort, p. 98). My comment in the review: "Aland, however, makes no such assertion in the article; Comfort is inventing evidence." Nor does she redate P75 anywhere else in her oeuvre--so it is not just an incorrect citation (= should have been some *other* article of hers...). Now, list members, this is *precisely* what scholars object to: claims--in this case, attributed to one of the leading figures in the discipline--which are (1) untrue, and (2) unsubstantiated (it was substantiated by a reference which is wrong--and attributes something to Aland which she has never said anywhere!). *Yet it got published!* Another example: Comfort states: "...textual scholars have determined that the New Testament text used by Clement of Alexandria and Origen aligns with those Alexandrian manuscripts that are considered the best witnesses to the text." (Comfort, p. 52). My comment in the review: "This is simply not true. M. Mees' definitive study (1970) of Clement's NT citations examined each pericope individually: his conclusions directly contradict Comfort's unsubstantiated assertion." Mees' book is *Die Zitate aus dem Neuen Testament bei Clemens von Alexandrien*; he lists his results individually for *each* book--lest he mischaracterize his findings. The results are extremely nuanced (not a strength of this list...) and detailed (the book is over 250 pages long [while posts may be long on the list, they are usually weak on detail...]). For Matthew: "Clemens Mth.-Zitate koennen nicht einfachin (sic) der neutrale Text sein, noch gehoeren sie einer B besonders nahestehenden Gruppe an. Dazu sind sie viel zu eigenwillig. Zudem lassen sie zuweilen Absichten ersichtlich werden, die B fremd sind... Der Clemenstext kann aber auch nicht der Volkstext des 2. Jahrhunderts sein. Dazu ist er viel zu detailiert und traegt ein viel zu persoenliches Gepraege an sich.... Damit kann man aber nicht einfach Clemens als einen Zeugen des westlichen Textes (D, vet. lat. syr. vet) abstempeln..." (p. 53 in Mees). Who are these unnamed "textual scholars" which Comfort says "have determined" the character of Clement's text??? He does not tell us. Why have they not--and why does Comfort not--interact with the most extensive, detailed, and recent study of Clement's text, namely that of Mees??? This again is *exactly* what scholars object to: Mees has done the work. It is competent. His views are authoritative, until bested. It is *your* responsibility to master the literature of the area in which you wish to publish, lest you make blunders like this, and mislead people. Another example, this time of logic (important, as it is apparent that not all on the list understand what an *e silentio* argument is...): Comfort states that the Alands' dating of the papyri is "too conservative, inasmuch as they date only one manuscript (P52) in the second century" (Comfort, p. 30). The logic here is absurd: *because* you date only one MS to the second century, your dating is *too conservative*??? The grounds on which papyri are dated (and by their editors, *not* by the Alands...) rests on *standardized* tests: papyrology, paleography, text-type, etc., etc. Comfort doesn't seem to understand this, for he never produces a single argument on the basis of paleography, text-type, paprology, etc., to redate *any* papyri to the second century. Yet he criticizes the Alands for being "too conservative"... Hunh??? I will end here, for Ehrman's merely *naming* my review on the list brought howls of protest (from Baker Book House, nota bene!) that Comfort was "being trashed again on the list" (as I recall the words: I will not take the time to look them up). Wrong. It is the truth which is being trashed--and not by me. Read the review. The book was published. Each and every criticism I directed against the book turns on a point of fact: *Does* Aland redate P75? No. *Do* scholars say Clement's text "aligns" with the "Alexandrian manuscripts that are considered the best witnesses to the text"? No. The points directed against Comfort's book are *not* "interpretation" or prejudice, they are simply honesty and competence: can you footnote correctly? can you read German adequately? can you command the relevant literature correctly? If not, you can *still* get published (and this book is evidence of it), but you may *not* get into the best refereed journals, or published by the best houses! The reason scholars get concerned about this--and try *not* to give "loud-mouthed opinions"--is for the reason I gave in the last paragraph of the review: "This book...serves as an example of a particular genre of pseudo-scholarship, which finds its way into certain schools and churches and then into students. This is unfortunate, for the *un*learning of this volume's half-truths and outright untruths will be a painful experience for the student and an unwarranted waste of time for the professor." In conclusion: (1) Anyone *can* get published. To claim otherwise is simply nonsense--vanity presses *always* publish! (2) Minority positions are heard in the academy, in refereed journals. My debut aritcle proves it, as do many other of my own and other scholars' articles and books. (3) The criteria for getting into the best journals and presses are competence, the ability to be *self*-critical, and to offer sharp, new insights, supported by convincing evidence. The problem, of course, is that we *all* imagine ourselves to be "competent" and "self-critical." And, of course, all our insights are "sharp, new." In academe, as in any other discipline in life, those judgements are best made by others, not ourselves. Any you may not be happy with the judgement rendered. --Petersen, Penn State University. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Apr 23 12:09:21 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA06607; Wed, 23 Apr 1997 12:09:20 -0400 From: "GLENN WOODEN" Organization: Acadia University To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 13:10:18 AST4ADT Subject: "Scholarship" and Re: You must be kidding Priority: normal In-Reply-To: <199704231323.HAA17338@wavecom.net> X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.53/R1) Message-Id: Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2732 I would like to interject here, with a mediating perspective on the nature of this "debate". I do not offer anything new, suggestion that both sides step back, take a breath and look at the dynamics at work here-in a scholarly sense. Those on the inside of the dominant competing paradigms must be aware of their own part in the systemic bias against ill-fitting evidence and, even well reasoned arguments against the paradigms. Those on the outside must realize that dominant theories do not just roll over and play dead. "Outsiders" must argue their case piece of evidence by piece of evidence; they must do it in a more rigourous way than will be accepted for those working on the inside. This is, and will always be the way in which knowledge moves forward due to human nature. Scholarship is not an exercise that is devoid of subjectivity. It cannot be. I refer here, not to individual pieces of work, but to the way that fields of interest as a whole operate. Regardless of who we are, we all work with paradigms (Thomas Kuhn, _The Nature of Scientific Revolutions_.) It is this very fact that has given rise to the present, at times, nasty debate. On the one hand, it is necessary to have predominant paradigms, or widely accepted models that guide ongoing research. Without such models it is impossible to organize data and speak about it intelligibly. It is the normal scholarly process of publication after peer review that ensures that materials being published are, in some way, credible, that is, that accepted, well applied methodologies using accepted models and presenting the work in such a way that it can be understood and falsified or verified by rigourous examination and further research. Admittedly, this works better in the hard sciences than in the softer disciplines (TC is a soft discipline). But, such a system has systemic predjuice against the unconventional, or contra-paradigmatic. This is part of what Kuhn looked at in his work on scientific paradigms and how they change. What he discovered was that the dominant paradigms are replaced slowly. It takes time for evidence that does not fit within the accepted modes of thinking to be accepted; acceptance comes only after too many holes have been poked in a paradigm for it to stand any longer. This is natural; it is, I would argue, necessary, else chaos reigns. An interesting, non TC example of how difficult it can be to challenge a dominant theory is that of Golb and his theory of the Dead Sea Scrolls, etc. His book _Who wrote the dead Sea Scrolls?_ is interesting. And he has hold an academic position! Enough said. Humbly, Glenn Wooden Acadia Divinity College Wolfville N.S. Canada wooden@acadiau.ca From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Apr 23 12:25:52 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA06651; Wed, 23 Apr 1997 12:25:52 -0400 Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 12:25:51 -0400 (EDT) From: "James R. Adair" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: You must be kidding (END OF THREAD) In-Reply-To: <199704231323.HAA17338@wavecom.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 3917 I think we've had more than enough discussion (and bombast) on this particular thread, so let's all agree to end it here. If you feel compelled to respond further, please do so off-list. I will try to summarize some thoughts that I believe all participants in the thread (and most on the list) agree with, then I will offer some ideas for progress (which people may of course respond to, but with a different subject line in the e-mail post). First, a general thought, in my role as listowner of the tc-list. I feel the need to remind members of the list that ad hominem attacks are NOT welcome, and responses to posts should be carefully considered. Posts should only be made that contribute positively to a discussion. Spleen-venting can be done off-list. Before posting anything to the list, ask yourself this question, "Does my post in any way further the goal of working together as a community of scholars and students of textual criticism in order to advance our understanding of the biblical text?" If not, don't post it. Now on to more substantive matters. All agree that rhetoric without data is useless, as is argument based _primarily_ on one's doctrinal stance. I have not seen any arguments by participants in this thread that rely primarily on a particular doctrinal position (e.g., no one favors the TR or KJV), so this issue is moot. Everyone also agrees that no particular degree or academic affiliation is a prerequisite for having one's ideas heard. How we address one another (Mr., Dr., first name, or whatever) is a non-issue, as far as I'm concerned, and nothing should be read into the use (or lack thereof) of titles. If we all agree on these matters, then let's move on to a discussion of evidence. Assured results and authorities are no substitute for the evidence itself. Having said that, let me point out that the tc-list is a unique forum for discussing issues. The ideas expressed here are not peer-reviewed, and many are simply trial balloons, but that's what the list is for. Even so, people contributing to the list should provide the evidence that they believe supports their case. Web pages can also be used to provide data for discussion. The TC-Links page provides links to many examples of such data (online articles, etc.), and people on the list are welcome to submit their data to me to add to this page. Any material linked to from this page should be considered "pre-pub" (similar to "pre-print"), and contributors should expect to have their ideas challenged if others feel they don't pass scholarly muster. Finally, let me remind everyone, particularly those who have complained about the lack of a forum for publishing non-mainstream ideas, that you do have a forum. The e-journal TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism is a peer-reviewed journal, and it is not devoted to promoting the "scholarly orthodoxy" of the moment. Does that mean that everything submitted to it will be published? No. Everything will be reviewed by competent scholars in the field. I should note, however, that I raised the issue of "scholarly orthodoxy" with the editorial board more than a year ago, and we all agree that we will try to give all articles that are submitted a fair shake. As general editor, I make the final decisions regarding publication, and if I were to think that a paper was rejected on the grounds of its unorthodox views, rather than on the basis of weak argumentation and so forth, I would override the recommendation of the reviewer. Let me hasten to add, however, that to date this has not been a problem, nor do I anticipate that it will be. Now let's get back to the discussion of data and ideas. Jimmy Adair, Listowner, TC-List 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 owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Apr 23 12:44:09 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA06721; Wed, 23 Apr 1997 12:44:08 -0400 Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 12:45:20 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Publish X-Sender: jwest@hub.infoave.net (Unverified) To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970423124413.24675710@hub.infoave.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 760 I know I said I would be silent, but... (and this really will be my final comment) :>) We have assurance from Petersen of Penn State that worthwhile essays are published- even by undergrads! So, Maurice, send along an article to JBL (because it will surely get a fair hearing by impartial referees); and lets see if its true. A simple demonstration of the truthfulness of the suggestions by Hurtado and Petersen that anybody can be published! Maurice, do let us know how you fare; and while your at it- send along a copy of your article to TC- the Electronic Journal, and then we can all look at it and see if JBL is partial or impartial! Jim (just along for the ride in the search for "truth"). +++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West jwest@hub.infoave.net From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Apr 23 12:53:52 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA06763; Wed, 23 Apr 1997 12:53:52 -0400 From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" Organization: Divinity Faculty To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 17:54:09 +000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: courtesies Priority: normal In-reply-to: <1.5.4.16.19970423091642.25bf3644@hub.infoave.net> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.52) Message-ID: <2173A484B05@div.ed.ac.uk> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 612 As Dr. (I didn't know) West has accused me now of deliberately refusing him his due courtesy, I hope it is permitted on this list to assure him and all that neither I nor (surely) anyone else on the list seeks deliberately to do so, to him or anyone else. As Dr. West signs his posts simply "Jim West", and as I do not otherwise know of him, I did not know that he carries a doctorate. No offense intended, and, now I hope, none taken by him. L. W. Hurtado University of Edinburgh, New College Mound Place Edinburgh, Scotland EH1 2LX Phone: 0131-650-8920 Fax: 0131-650-6579 E-mail: L.Hurtado@ed.ac.uk From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Apr 23 13:03:12 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA06792; Wed, 23 Apr 1997 13:03:11 -0400 Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 13:04:19 -0400 (EDT) From: Nichael Cramer To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Publish In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970423124413.24675710@hub.infoave.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 643 Jim West wrote: > [...] > A simple demonstration of the truthfulness of the suggestions by Hurtado and > Petersen that anybody can be published! [...] > Maurice, do let us know how you fare; and while your at it- send along a > copy of your article to TC- the Electronic Journal, and then we can all look > at it and see if JBL is partial or impartial! Sigh... I'm sorry Jim, but I have to ask; Do you really not understand the distinction between these cheap shots and the (quite reasonable) points that Profs Hurtado and Petersen have made? Nichael Cramer work: ncramer@bbn.com home: nichael@sover.net http://www.sover.net/~nichael/ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Apr 23 15:09:45 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA08913; Wed, 23 Apr 1997 15:09:44 -0400 From: "GLENN WOODEN" Organization: Acadia University To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 16:10:40 AST4ADT Subject: Re: "Scholarship" and Re: You must be kidding Priority: normal References: <199704231323.HAA17338@wavecom.net> In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.53/R1) Message-Id: <1798F9A1E48@mailnw.acadiau.ca> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 269 In my recent post, I did not give the correct title for Kuhn's book. It shold have been _The Structure of Scientific Revolutions_, rather than _The Nature ..._. My apologies to the list. Glenn Wooden Acadia Divinity College Wolfville N.S. Canada wooden@acadiau.ca From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Apr 23 15:49:28 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA09197; Wed, 23 Apr 1997 15:49:28 -0400 Date: 23 Apr 1997 19:49:45 -0000 Message-ID: <19970423194945.6777.qmail@np.nosc.mil> From: Vincent Broman To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu In-reply-to: (message from Bart Ehrman on Wed, 16 Apr 1997 20:45:37 -0400 (EDT)) Subject: Re: Classifying witnesses Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 3352 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- I've been carefully re-reading Ehrman's JBL article which describes his Comprehensive Profiles and sketches their application to the NT text of Didymus the Blind. We've already discussed here his profiles of Uniform and Predominant readings, which evaluate textual affinity to groups of witnesses _as_groups_, not just affinity to the individual control witnesses that belong to the groups. These profiles have new/independent value. What I've been stewing about is the meaning of the complementary profiles which measure affinity of a text to groups of witnesses by examining the "Distinctive", "Primary", and "Exclusive" readings of the group. Their purpose seems to be in refining an initial evaluation that text T is close to group G, so as to be able to conclude that T belongs to group G and to no other. It is pretty clear that the agreement statistics that were computed for this purpose should be _highly_correlated_ with the intuitive concept that we are trying to measure, but what I just couldn't convince myself of was that these agreement statistics could be meaningfully compared, from one text-type to another. E.g. if Didymus were to agree with 50% of the Alexandrian Exclusive readings and only 25% of the Western Exclusive readings, I cannot tell whether the 50% is any better than the 25% or any worse. They're not in the same units, on the same scale. Some of the problem was noted in the JBL article, e.g. that many of the Primary and Exclusive readings are not also Predominant, making it debatable which of the readings are accidents, indicative of a subgroup split, or what. Also, the criteria for a reading being Primary (or...) depend on which text type is under consideration, so that the statistics will depend on how loose the criteria are. Besides, the text types vary a lot in their homogeneity. The Westerns exhibit lots of unique readings, but even firm members of the text type (assuming that we can treat it as a text type for the present purpose) will vary widely as to which of those readings they will have. A Kx Byzantine will have very few exclusive readings, because of the pervasive mixture coming from Kx throughout later history. Now, there would be no problem if the complicated criteria defining the profiles for each text type were precisely formulated so as to match and counteract the unique characteristics of each textual group, making the agreement percentages all have the same statistical meaning and significance..., but I didn't see that being claimed (or achieved). A bit later I'll try attacking the problem of: Why do we need to find distinctive readings and not just distinctive patterns of readings? Some ideas are digesting first. Vincent Broman Email: broman@nosc.mil,broman@sd.znet.com = 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 ___ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBM15mbWCU4mTNq7IdAQHX2QQAvZbhURhq+D4MAcsqb4OWYdRzJqj7Xsm6 8U4ze54cOpivvcgOBwTfWtcz6UvyGEiIC+dqkLzlGsGcT16cbU0a5TnM+Q6DD4vO wmBl2Ghpj2Cz3crl4bh8TwCkTw2sauKTVKGeYEjylHWLPGrHZoer2r30yUwtAy1I h3kguQLTvLE= =ETlw -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Apr 23 17:11:42 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA09624; Wed, 23 Apr 1997 17:11:41 -0400 Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 16:11:45 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <199704232111.QAA05422@homer.bethel.edu> X-Sender: holmic@mailhost.bethel.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: Michael Holmes Subject: Re: MT 23.32-34 in four text-types Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2411 At 05:59 PM 4/23/97 +0200, Jean Valentin wrote: >My dear friends of the TC-list, [snip] >At http://scholar.cc.emory.edu/scripts/TC/extras/Mt_23:32-34.gif you will >find a synopsis of a few verses in Mt 23 (D-B-Theta-TR) about which I would >like to have some comments. Jean then raises some interesting questions about "supposed anti-judaic" tendencies and harmonization in D in Matthew. His comments prompt me to share what little I know on these two points, in the hope of prompting further discussion. NOTA BENE: the variants in D present a very complex picture; they include at least: (1) singular D readings; (2) D + "Western" and/or misc. support; (3) D + "Western" and/or + Byz support. The readings in (3) likely ante-date the particular textual tradition preserved in D, and the singular readings present problems of their own in trying to determine their date and origin. So, the following comments apply only to readings in (2)--readings that are, apparently, both early and generally "Western". (For further amplification of this point, see first of the bibliographic entries below, pp. 123-128.) "Anti-Judaic" tendencies: in D in Matthew--in sharp contrast to Acts--"anti-judaic" tendencies are notable by their almost complete absence. There is a cluster of about 7 variants in Matt 27 (in vv. 22, 26, 60, 61, and 66) that may be read as "anti-judaic" or tendentious variants, but that is about all. Harmonization: D in Matthew is as likely to harmonize to other passages in Matthew (either the immediate context, or more distant passages; the Matthean divorce passages offer a particular striking example) as it is to harmonize to other Gospels (see also Parker, _Codex Bezae_, 252). Also, there are many places, as Jean has pointed out, where D does not harmonize when one might have expected it to. In short, the situation is *very* complex and difficult to generalize about. (Jean's signature line seems particularly appropriate in this case!) [For those interested, some of the evidence underlying these conclusions can be found in "Codex Bezae as a Recension of the Gospels," in Parker and Amphoux, eds., _Codex Bezae_ (Brill, 1996) 123-160 (a summary of an unpublished dissertation), and in "The Text of the Matthean Divorce Passages: A Comment on the Appeal to Harmonization in Textual Decisions," _JBL_ 109 (1990) 651-664.] Mike Holmes Bethel College From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Apr 23 17:23:53 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA09694; Wed, 23 Apr 1997 17:23:53 -0400 Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 16:24:19 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <199704232124.QAA08237@homer.bethel.edu> X-Sender: holmic@mailhost.bethel.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: Michael Holmes Subject: Re: Athanasius and the Text of the NT Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2476 Both Brogan and Hurtado have commented on the question of "textual fluidity" and the later date (than traditionally accepted) to which it continued. In this context, the recent work of Klaus Wachtel is worth noting and adding to the discussion: DER BYZANTINISCHE TEXT DER KATHOLISCHEN BRIEFE: EINE UNTERSUCHUNG ZUR ENTSTEHUNG DER KOINE DES NEUEN TESTAMENTS. By Klaus Wachtel. Arbeiten zur Neutestamentlichen Textforschung 24. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter, 1995. Pp. viii + 463; 1 folding chart, 4 inserted tables. Cloth, DM 248, ISBN 3-11-014691-6. His investigation of the origin and spread of the Byzantine text of the Catholic epistles leads him to conclude: it is the result of a long process (traces of which are evident already in the earliest period) of smoothing and standardization, and reached its definitive form in the ninth century. It is very unlikely that its origin is the result of a formal recension of the fourth century; instead, one must reckon with a series of editorial revisions (i.e., diorthosis) in every epoch. Such findings, he argues, substantially relativize the idea of "text types," to the extent that they are associated with recensional theories. Mike Holmes Bethel College At 01:07 PM 4/23/97 +000, Hurtado wrote: >Dr. Brogan wrote: > >> By "fluidity" I was hoping to challenge the commonly accepted >> text-critical notion that *all* sensible variants in the NT text >> were introduced in the 2nd-to-3rd centuries. I want to push this >> date into the late-4th or 5th centuries at least. Significant >> (theological) changes were still being made to the NT text during >> this time. I think the fluidity of canon and theology in the 4th >> century contributed to this. >> >> Of course, there is always an element of "fluidity" in the >> transmission of any text. As both you and Maurice Robinson have >> correctly pointed out, even the Byzantine text-type is never fully >> fixed. > >I'm interested to find you supporting a notion I have held for a >number of years (and recently mooted briefly in my Birmingham TC >conf. paper)--that textual variation continues robustly beyond the >2nd & 3rd cents. Likewise, as I tend to see "text-types" as textual >traditions, having much to do with scribal tendencies, etc., and and >the evidence I'm acquainted with agrees, I'm inclined also to agree >that the Byzantine text-type is not "fully fixed", at least in the >Byzantine/early medieval period. > >L. W. Hurtado From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Apr 23 17:32:43 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA09728; Wed, 23 Apr 1997 17:32:42 -0400 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 16:35:32 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: MT 23.32-34 in four text-types Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2383 On 23 Apr 97, "Jean Valentin" wrote: [Most of the variants mentioned here are of a rather technical nature -- meanings of verb tenses and the like -- so I will confine my comments to those areas I consider myself to know something about: text-types.] >(1) How do you understand the changes in the tenses in verses 32 and 34? >(1.1) In verse 32, D has an aorist. B has a future. Theta and TR have an >imperative. Would you agree with me that B (which is totally isolated, the >other Alexandrian witnesses don't follow it) is the harshest of all, since >it seems to exclude any future change in judaism's rejection of Jesus? As noted, I leave that to theologians. I'm going to list supporting witnesses. :-) Future: B* lect844 e sa-ms Aorist: D H 544 1604 1775 al Imperative: Aleph B** C E K L W Delta Theta fam1 fam13 33 579 892 Byz This brings out a point I brought up once before, and got hooted down for: There seems to be at least some separation in the Alexandrian text between a "B group" (p75 B T sa) and an "Aleph group" (Aleph Z bo, probably most of the minuscules). Here L joins Aleph, but that is probably Byzantine mixture rather than a departure from B. Since B* has the support of at least one Sahidic manuscript, we may speculate that this is a reading of the B sub-text-type. [ ... ] >(2) Just a remark about harmonizations : in verse 34, the phrase KAI EX >AUTWN MASTIGWSETE EN TAIS SYNAGWGAIS UMWN is omitted by D / added by the >other texts. (2.1) It's interesting because these words are probably an >harmonization (perhaps from Mt 10.17). In this case, D is the only one that >doesn't harmonize - for once, a derogation to its supposed harmonistic >character. We should remember that all manuscripts harmonize at least occasionally. But I wouldn't make too much of this particular "non-harmonization." Again checking the witnesses, we find the phrase omitted only by D a Lucifer. The phrase is found in b e ff2 and the rest of the Latins, as well as in the Old Syriac (sin, anyway; hiat cur). So this is not necessarily a "Western" reading. Just something to keep in mind.... *** I doubt this answers the questions anyone wanted answered (since the questions were more about interpretation), but I wanted to be sure that the facts were available for all you interpreters out there. :-) Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Apr 23 18:36:16 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA09881; Wed, 23 Apr 1997 18:36:16 -0400 Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 18:37:29 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: You must be kidding In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970423091642.25bf3644@hub.infoave.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 5032 On Wed, 23 Apr 1997, Jim West wrote: > A final thought on the thread. Note, if you will, that Professor Hurtado > refuses to address me as Dr., even though he does address Dr. Robinson this > way. This means, that since I do not hold an academic position, that I am > not due the honor which others are who likewise posess an earned doctorate. I suspect this is reading more into the matter than is there, Jim. Basically all of us in academia don't even use "Dr." among ourselves, but are usually on a first name basis in our institutions and generally refer to other scholars on a last name basis without titles attached, even in scholarly articles. I suspect the biggest problem in this whole thread is the notion that somehow peer review and acceptance into refereed journals makes a scholarly work valid or accepted by all academics. This certainly is not the case. As Hurtado has pointed out, it may only be the approval of one or two scholars on such boards which allows an article to become published, and I certainly would not read into this a blanket approval or at least "scholarly acceptance" for any given theory by the entire academic community, nor even by the peer reviewers. But also I would _not_ consider rejection and non-publication of any article an assessment that its premise or conclusions are automatically invalid either, and I think this is the key problem intimated by the postings on this subject, viz. that only published articles in the "approved" refereed journals have any merit whatsoever. That this is _not_ true is evidenced by the _many_ fine papers which never see the light of print such as are presented at scholarly meetings like ETS, SBL, SNTS etc. The real problem (and the original reason for the rise of "refereed journals") is the cost and space requirement faced by academic publishing. Simply put, the journals _cannot_ possibly accept any and all submissions, even if only those which were genuinely meritorious were sifted from the incompetent and erroneous. The journals _have_ to make decisions among _many excellent_ submissions, most of which _never_ become published due to the space/cost factor. In the 19th century, when there were few writing scholars who submitted to the few scholarly journals that were out there (most scholars then simply wrote or contributed to books -- many of which were published and sold on a subscription basis), the journals had a tendency to accept almost anything submitted, since they _needed_ articles. Today things have reversed themselves, and now we have more journals but even more scholars wishing to contribute, and many if not most of them are going to be greatly disappointed if they think that their wonderful theory or idea is going to be accepted into a refereed journal and be published (regardless of the merits of the theory or idea or field of study in question). I long ago discovered that some of the most important and significant research was being reported on in circles _outside_ of the journals, and this is why for myself I have been quite content to present my own text-critical views within the national and regional ETS meetings. Certainly I have on occasion submitted some of these papers to the refereed journals, and was _not_ shocked or greatly disappointed when the rejection slips came (my first article -- not on textual criticism -- was rejected by JBL because [as one of the blind referees stated] "Robinson obviously thinks the book of Acts is historical", which, though true, was not acceptable to JBL, but for whatever reason caused _no_ problem with Biblica, where it was accepted and appeared in 1975). That I have had text-critical articles rejected by some refereed journals certainly does not deter me nor make me think my own theories are either worthless or indefensible; but it _does_ make me more interested in pursuing truth wherever it may lead and wherever it may be listened to. If the refereed journals do not happen to offer me a forum, I find the tc-list to be a reasonable sounding board, just as I do the ETS meetings. Someday perhaps I will have a book on the subject, but even that will not meet any refereed muster, but will probably be considered just another one of those publish-for-profit items which "flood the market" and have already been complained about by those from the "referees club". In any case, I am probably the _least_ worried about popular acceptance by list members regarding _any_ of my text-critical theories, and certainly do _not_ think that only refereed acceptance will suddenly make my views any more legitimate merely because a few editors think them sufficiently worthy to override space and cost factors in publishing decisions. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Apr 23 19:25:23 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA10008; Wed, 23 Apr 1997 19:25:23 -0400 From: dwashbur@wave.park.wy.us Message-Id: <199704232229.QAA13640@wavecom.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 16:23:37 -7000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: majoring on minors, was Re: You must be kidding Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.42a) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1633 Maurice wrote: > > On Wed, 23 Apr 1997, Jim West wrote: > > > A final thought on the thread. Note, if you will, that Professor Hurtado > > refuses to address me as Dr., even though he does address Dr. Robinson this > > way. This means, that since I do not hold an academic position, that I am > > not due the honor which others are who likewise posess an earned doctorate. > > I suspect this is reading more into the matter than is there, Jim. > Basically all of us in academia don't even use "Dr." among ourselves, but > are usually on a first name basis in our institutions and generally refer > to other scholars on a last name basis without titles attached, even in > scholarly articles. I tend to have the opposite problem, with too many people addressing me (generally in writing or email) as "Dr." when I don't have a claim to the title. I generally try to give a gentle correction (while sometimes light-heartedly thanking the person for the promotion!) because I feel guilty being classed with those of you who have paid your dues and earned the title. In general practice, I prefer to be "Dave" to everybody, whether scholars, acquaintances, or even children. As many have pointed out, it's hard to discern from his sig that Jim is a "Dr.", but I'm certain that omission of the title doesn't constitute a slap in the face. If, God willing, I ever do get my doctorate, I suspect I will still prefer to be called "Dave." It's just easier to say :-) Dave Washburn http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur/home.html "You're so open-minded that your brain leaked out." -Steve Taylor From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Apr 23 19:52:52 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA10038; Wed, 23 Apr 1997 19:52:51 -0400 Message-Id: <9704240053.AA19943@iris.arcadis.be> Subject: Luke 3.10-14 in B and D Date: Thu, 24 Apr 97 01:57:47 +0200 X-Sender: vale5655@194.111.178.251 X-Mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1 From: Jean VALENTIN To: "TC-List" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 4145 Dear TC-ers, Here is an interesting text in which I find there might be something in favour of Amphoux's theory for the priority of D. I just would like to have your opinion about this: Lk 3.10-14 B 10 kai ephrwtwn auton oi ocloi legontes ti oun poihsomen; 11 apokriqeis de elegon autois o ecwn duo citwnas metadotw tw mh econti, kai o ecwn brwmata omoiws poieitw 12 hlqon de kai telwnai baptisqhnai, kai eipon pros auton didaskale, ti poihsomen; 13 o de eipen pros autous mhden pleon para to diatetagmenon umin prassete. 14 ephrwtwn de auton kai strateuomenoi legontes ti poihswmen kai hmeis; kai eipen autois mhdena diaseishte mhde sukofanthshte, kai arkeisqe tois opswniois umwn Lk 3.10-14 D 10 kai ephrwthsan auton oi ocloi legontes ti poihsomen ina swqwmen; 11 apokriqeis de legei autois o ecwn duo citwnas metadotw tw mh econti, kai o ecwn brwmata omoiws poieitw 12 hlqon de kai telwnai omoiws baptisqhnai, kai eipan pros auton didaskale, ti poihsomen ina swqwmen; 13 o de eipen autois mhden pleon prassete para to diatetagmenon umin prassein. 14 ephrwthsan de kai strateuomenoi legontes ti poihswmen ina swqwmen; o de eipen autois mhdena diaseishte mhde sukofanthshte, kai arkeisqe tois opswniois umwn If we compare these two texts we find quite a lot of small variants. There are a couple of times where B has more "classical" verbal forms as against D (ephrwtwn vs. ephrwthsan in v. 10, eipon vs. eipan in v. 12). But this is not my point, though it might show that B attempts to use a more litterary greek - an argument in favour of its recensional nature. Here's what interests me in this passage: D has three times the question TI POIHSWMEN INA SWQWMEN. Exactly the same words, while B has variation. Now, Amphoux has pointed in several studies to passages in D where rhythmical elements are present, that could point to oral transmission of the Gospel transmission. Also, the fact that this question appears THREE times (an important number in biblibal symbolism) should also attract the attention to anybody acquainted with Amphoux's theories, as the French master considers the D-text to be some kind of wisdom or hermetic literature, where rhythmical and numerical elements are transmitted as hints to interpretation of the text (see, for example, his studies on the Lord's prayer), while B revises that text to make it more accessible for popular audience. Though I never heard him speak about this passage, I had the impression that this could be a good example... As to other witnesses. D seems to be the only one with the triple occurrence of this question in the same words. For the first occurrence though (v.10), it is followed by several versional mss. What's interesting is that they translate : "what shall we do in order that we _live_" (quid faciemus ut vivamus in b and q). The use of "to live" instead of "to be saved" is a syriacism! And indeed, it is found in syc (sys has the shorter text). Would there be any direct influence of the old syriac, or of aramaic usage, on the old latin texts, or is Tatian behind all this? A little further (3.16), there is also this variant : D epignous ta dianohmata autwn eipen B apekrinato legwn pasin o Iwannhs In D, John has the gift of reading in the hearts. Could it be that B eliminates this qualification because, in its christology (perhaps under the influence of later NT books like the revelation where Christ is kardiognwsths) it is not suitable to attribute it to any other than Jesus? I'd be interested knowing what other interpretations have been proposed for these variations. ________________________________________________________________ Jean Valentin - 58/7 rue Van Kalck - 1080 Bruxelles - BELGIQUE ________________________________________________________________ email : jgvalentin@arcadis.be *** netmail : 2:291/780.103 ________________________________________________________________ Ce qui est trop simple est faux, ce qui est trop complique est inutilisable. What's too simple is wrong, what's too complicated is unusable. Wat te eenvoudig is, is verkeerd; wat te ingewikkeld is, is onbruikbaar. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Apr 23 22:17:19 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA10312; Wed, 23 Apr 1997 22:17:18 -0400 Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 22:18:32 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: 'Til we till In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 931 On Wed, 23 Apr 1997, ANDREW SMITH wrote: > > > Till a view has > > >been circulated in some accessible form, and till it has been > > >assessed by scholarly peers, a view has no status in scholarship. > > Or 'til the farmers till their fields... (cf. 'til vs. till) At first I thought we had a new textual variant here, but my unabridged dictionary does say "'til" is ok, but only as an obsolete expression. Otherwise "till" as equivalent to "until" is perfectly proper, and also can be used for tilling fields as well. As Humpty Dumpty said to Alice, when a word does additional duty, we are bound to pay it extra. :-) _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Apr 23 22:24:25 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA10354; Wed, 23 Apr 1997 22:24:25 -0400 Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 21:25:32 -0500 (CDT) From: "Ronald L. Minton" X-Sender: rminton@orionc0 To: Jim West cc: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: You must be kidding In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970423091642.25bf3644@hub.infoave.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 478 On Wed, 23 Apr 1997, Jim West wrote: > A final thought on the thread. Note, if you will, that Professor Hurtado > refuses to address me as Dr., even though he does address Dr. Robinson this > way. Do not feel too bad Jim. In England I found that real scholars (as Dept. heads) are Mr. while low life profs are only Dr. :) -- Prof. Ron Minton: rminton@mail.orion.org W (417)268-6053 H 833-9581 Baptist Bible Graduate School 628 E. Kearney St. Springfield, MO 65803 From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Apr 23 22:47:38 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA10392; Wed, 23 Apr 1997 22:47:37 -0400 Message-ID: <335EC7CC.24A0@3-cities.com> Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 19:39:08 -0700 From: ray X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-KIT (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Geneology question? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 511 Excuse me folks .. uuhhmm .. if it's OK to ask .. I know it's not the "forum" of this site but why not "change the decorum a little"! :-) Since it appears you gentleman are "knowledgable of such things" ... could one please address the subject of .."where Cain got his wife?" And, as well, who was "Lilith" .. was she in the "picture"??? A Humble Laymen :-) (Who dare not address this to his "mentors"!) Ray From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Apr 23 22:59:44 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA10423; Wed, 23 Apr 1997 22:59:44 -0400 Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 22:00:54 -0500 (CDT) From: "Ronald L. Minton" X-Sender: rminton@orionc0 To: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" cc: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: You must be kidding In-Reply-To: <212B2056C04@div.ed.ac.uk> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1183 Now lets see if I got this straight. I pointed out that Aland's TEXT has one of his manuscripts backwards and he was a published scholar, so I am allowed to be a lurker on the TC list. I read a TC paper at SBL so I am allowed to ask questions on the TC list. If I ever get my book published, then I can post freely (providing of course I do not disagree with the established TC Creed). Just kidding of course, but that is not far from the way prof Hurtado sounds. To such folks, I say "cool your jets, I get enough flak from the KJVO movement and I don't need the same from TCers who should know better." Why don't we make a rule that unless one reads every publication from the Majority Text Society, he or she is not really a scholar. Oooo, that was creedal. OK, now I repent so I wont (is that a word?) get booted off the list. In many ways, I am a learner, and I love to be corrected in anything I say concerning TC. However, perhaps some of the scholars could correct more gently so as not to discourage. -- Prof. Ron Minton: rminton@mail.orion.org W (417)268-6053 H 833-9581 Baptist Bible Graduate School 628 E. Kearney St. Springfield, MO 65803 From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Apr 23 23:10:54 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id XAA10449; Wed, 23 Apr 1997 23:10:53 -0400 Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 22:12:02 -0500 (CDT) From: "Ronald L. Minton" X-Sender: rminton@orionc0 To: "William L. Petersen" cc: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Acadmeic imperialism, etc., etc., etc. In-Reply-To: <2.2.16.19970423120623.0bd7c7f0@email.psu.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 211 William, that was a good post that made me think. Thank you. -- Prof. Ron Minton: rminton@mail.orion.org W (417)268-6053 H 833-9581 Baptist Bible Graduate School 628 E. Kearney St. Springfield, MO 65803 From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Apr 23 23:55:26 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id XAA10594; Wed, 23 Apr 1997 23:55:25 -0400 Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 23:56:39 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Publish In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970423124413.24675710@hub.infoave.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2174 On Wed, 23 Apr 1997, Jim West wrote: > I know I said I would be silent, but... (and this really will be my final > comment) :>) Mine too, I trust. > We have assurance from Petersen of Penn State that worthwhile essays are > published- even by undergrads! So, Maurice, send along an article to JBL > (because it will surely get a fair hearing by impartial referees); and lets > see if its true. My brief reply to all of this is that my first published article mentioned earlier was in _Biblica_, which is a refereed journal. At the time it was accepted I was a mere M.Div. student (though it was published after I was in the Th.M. program), so Petersen certainly is correct in that regard. Also, I have (even last summer) sent articles to refereed journals and got the rejection slips Hurtado mentioned. But as I stated in a previous post, the primary issue in my opinion is still space/cost considerations, and not necessarily rejection due to lack of quality or interpretative views or theories (though these may affect the judgments of some of the peer reviewers). Certainly I will continue to offer various studies to peer reviewed journals in the future, but as I also mentioned, I expect rejection as a matter of course, since only a relatively few articles actually do get accepted. Basically, I remain quite content with presenting papers at scholarly meetings such as ETS, and am not exactly devastated that my text-critical views have not appeared in any refereed journal to date. For all I know they may never be, but I am unconcerned, since there remain many other avenues of publication, even such as our own in-house seminary journal (in which two of the previously rejected articles are appearing). This for me is perfectly satisfactory, and may even be preferable to some degree, since I retain some authorial/editorial control over the content. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Apr 24 00:05:26 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id AAA10621; Thu, 24 Apr 1997 00:05:26 -0400 Date: Thu, 24 Apr 1997 00:06:40 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Classifying witnesses In-Reply-To: <19970423194945.6777.qmail@np.nosc.mil> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1311 On 23 Apr 1997, Vincent Broman wrote: > A bit later I'll try attacking the problem of: > Why do we need to find distinctive readings and not just > distinctive patterns of readings? > Some ideas are digesting first. This is a question that concerns me also, and goes back to the primary question of "what is a texttype?" It basically comes to the question whether, if a _pattern_ of readings is primary for categorizing a texttype (as I believe), does a texttype also have to possess "distinctive" readings peculiar to that texttype, and if so, in what quantity? I do not doubt that most texttypes have distinctive readings (unless the Caesarean, if "real", be an exception), but do these distinctive readings really provide the "essence" of the textype or merely "indicators" such as might be determined by the 1000 Textstellung in the _Text und Textwert_ series? I know my primary goal is discernment of patterns of agreement; the distinctive texttype readings just happen to come along for the ride. _________________________________________________________________________ Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Apr 24 07:15:34 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id HAA10982; Thu, 24 Apr 1997 07:15:34 -0400 Date: Thu, 24 Apr 1997 07:16:36 -0400 (EDT) From: Nichael Cramer To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu cc: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" Subject: Close Reading In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1506 Ronald L. Minton wrote: > Now lets see if I got this straight. I pointed out that Aland's TEXT > has one of his manuscripts backwards and he was a published scholar, so > I am allowed to be a lurker on the TC list. I read a TC paper at SBL so > I am allowed to ask questions on the TC list. If I ever get my book > published, then I can post freely (providing of course I do not disagree > with the established TC Creed). > > Just kidding of course, but that is not far from the way prof Hurtado > sounds. [...] This is (at least nominally) a list devoted to Textual Criticism, a discipline in which close, detailed reading would seem to be sine qua non. Am I the only one who finds it more than a little ironic that on such a list Prof Hurtado's perfectly reasonable[*] comments on scholarship could be _repeatedly_ distorted and misread into the absurd positions which are suggested here and have been suggested elsewhere in the last few days? [* And here I use "reasonable" in the generous sense that in many similar forums one would expect to find it vaguely embarrassing that he would even have to make such comments, let alone defend himself for making them.] Is the need for minimal scholarly standards --and the distinction between such standards and the imposing of an overbearing orthodoxy-- really so difficult to grasp as these letters would make it appear to be? Nichael Cramer work: ncramer@bbn.com home: nichael@sover.net http://www.sover.net/~nichael/ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Apr 24 09:07:14 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA11097; Thu, 24 Apr 1997 09:07:14 -0400 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <19970423194945.6777.qmail@np.nosc.mil> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 24 Apr 1997 08:10:49 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Classifying witnesses Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2674 On Thu, 24 Apr 1997, Maurice Robinson wrote: >On 23 Apr 1997, Vincent Broman wrote: > >> A bit later I'll try attacking the problem of: >> Why do we need to find distinctive readings and not just >> distinctive patterns of readings? >> Some ideas are digesting first. > >This is a question that concerns me also, and goes back to the primary >question of "what is a texttype?" It basically comes to the question >whether, if a _pattern_ of readings is primary for categorizing a texttype >(as I believe), does a texttype also have to possess "distinctive" >readings peculiar to that texttype, and if so, in what quantity? > >I do not doubt that most texttypes have distinctive readings (unless the >Caesarean, if "real", be an exception), but do these distinctive readings >really provide the "essence" of the textype or merely "indicators" such as >might be determined by the 1000 Textstellung in the _Text und Textwert_ >series? I know my primary goal is discernment of patterns of agreement; >the distinctive texttype readings just happen to come along for the ride. Before I get attacked, I will point out that I have not yet been able to read Ehrman's article (I hope to get over to the seminary archives today). But I have two comments: First, Ehrman is right; classified agreements are the way to go. A characteristic agreement is much more important than one shared by a large fraction of the tradition. But I have to agree with and amplify Robinson: A text-type need not have many, perhaps *any*, characteristic readings. Moreover, I distrust having a human editor determine the status of a reading. My method -- which like Ehrman's does several different sorts of comparison -- is entirely computer-driven. A large number of manuscripts are surveyed at the relevant points, and for each manuscript we determine how many witnesses agree with it for each reading. If the number is small enough, the reading is "near-singular" and goes in its own category. Note that these are characteristic readings *of the manuscript,* not of its (supposed) type. This avoids any biases on the part of the profiler. It's one of the great rules of proper mathematical technique: Don't assume the solution! You may *test for* a particular solution (that's the scientific method), but you must not bias your tests for it. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Apr 24 09:28:43 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA11191; Thu, 24 Apr 1997 09:28:43 -0400 Date: Thu, 24 Apr 1997 09:28:59 -0400 (EDT) From: Bart Ehrman X-Sender: behrman@login5.isis.unc.edu To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Classifying witnesses In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 4737 Well, the fireworks were fun while they lasted (speaking personally), but it's also nice now to get to some substance. Looks like R. Waltz and I see eye to eye on some important aspects of classifying witnesses (which probably means that the end is near!). My response here isn't really about *that* per se, but with the tangental business that I'm also interested in, about whether we should distrust a human editor to determine the status of a reading. It's not that I don't think it would be nice to *avoid* the problem, but the reality is, in my opinion, that we *can't* avoid it. I went into textual criticism thinking that it was the one "objective" aspect of NT studies. But then actually doing what should have been the most objective part of this objective sub-discipline quickly made a postmodernist out of me. There's no way to avoid the human subjective element (I'm using a simplified schema here, cause in point of fact, I think the subjective-objective dicotomy is itself precisely what was exploded when the myth of modernism took a nose dive) even in making decisions about how to classify witnesses. Sure the computer can crunch the numbers; but *you* have to tell it what to look for. This is evident in the obviously desirable move to eliminate "nearly" singular readings that you describe below. What are the "objective" criteria for deciding what to count? There aren't any. You had to come up with some yourself. Etc. The human element comes in, up and down the line. I'm not here (for a change, you may think) attacking your method at all, or even discussing the best way to classify witnesses, but simply emphasizing something that seems to me underplayed somewhat among us, that this is not a purely mathematical enterprise that can be removed from the judgments of its human operators. -- Bart D. Ehrman, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill On Thu, 24 Apr 1997, Robert B. Waltz wrote: > On Thu, 24 Apr 1997, Maurice Robinson > wrote: > > >On 23 Apr 1997, Vincent Broman wrote: > > > >> A bit later I'll try attacking the problem of: > >> Why do we need to find distinctive readings and not just > >> distinctive patterns of readings? > >> Some ideas are digesting first. > > > >This is a question that concerns me also, and goes back to the primary > >question of "what is a texttype?" It basically comes to the question > >whether, if a _pattern_ of readings is primary for categorizing a texttype > >(as I believe), does a texttype also have to possess "distinctive" > >readings peculiar to that texttype, and if so, in what quantity? > > > >I do not doubt that most texttypes have distinctive readings (unless the > >Caesarean, if "real", be an exception), but do these distinctive readings > >really provide the "essence" of the textype or merely "indicators" such as > >might be determined by the 1000 Textstellung in the _Text und Textwert_ > >series? I know my primary goal is discernment of patterns of agreement; > >the distinctive texttype readings just happen to come along for the ride. > > Before I get attacked, I will point out that I have not yet been able to > read Ehrman's article (I hope to get over to the seminary archives today). > But I have two comments: > > First, Ehrman is right; classified agreements are the way to go. A > characteristic agreement is much more important than one shared by > a large fraction of the tradition. > > But I have to agree with and amplify Robinson: A text-type need not > have many, perhaps *any*, characteristic readings. > > Moreover, I distrust having a human editor determine the status of > a reading. My method -- which like Ehrman's does several different > sorts of comparison -- is entirely computer-driven. A large number > of manuscripts are surveyed at the relevant points, and for each > manuscript we determine how many witnesses agree with it for each > reading. If the number is small enough, the reading is "near-singular" > and goes in its own category. Note that these are characteristic > readings *of the manuscript,* not of its (supposed) type. This > avoids any biases on the part of the profiler. > > It's one of the great rules of proper mathematical technique: Don't > assume the solution! You may *test for* a particular solution (that's > the scientific method), but you must not bias your tests for it. > > -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- > > Robert B. Waltz > waltzmn@skypoint.com > > Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? > Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn > (A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) > > From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Apr 24 12:35:19 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA11739; Thu, 24 Apr 1997 12:35:18 -0400 From: schmiul@uni-muenster.de Message-Id: <199704241636.SAA61302@mail.uni-muenster.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Thu, 24 Apr 97 18:51:28 +0100 Subject: Re: MT 23.32-34 in four text-types To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 6791 On Wed, 23 Apr 1997, Jean Valentin wrote: >Some time ago, one of you mentioned the problem of theological perspective >in Codex Bezae (alias D 05), and specially of its supposed anti-judaism. Mt >23 might be an interesting place for a comparison, as its content is >polemical against pharisaism. Of course, it is only one passage and I'm >aware that we shouldn't too quickly infer general conclusions from this. >(1) How do you understand the changes in the tenses in verses 32 and 34? >(1.1) In verse 32, D has an aorist. B has a future. Theta and TR have an >imperative. Would you agree with me that B (which is totally isolated, the >other Alexandrian witnesses don't follow it) is the harshest of all, since >it seems to exclude any future change in judaism's rejection of Jesus? In >this case then, the hardest polemics against judaism would be found in B >and not in D. In my judgement the future tense (B*) and the aorist (D) are both smoothings of the somehow awkward imperative. The whole section (29-33) culminates in the indirect (self-)testimony of the Pharisees that they "_are_ sons of those who killed (aorist participle) the prophets. In 34 it is said that _they_ _will_ go on (future tenses in 34b) killing, crucifying, etc. prophets, etc.. Therefore, the future of B* in 32 is due to the logic of the immediate context. In my view the whole woe-section 29-36 is harsh to the extreem. The future in 32 hardly adds more fuel to the fire. >(1.2) In verse 34, how do you understand the change in the tense : D has a >future while the other texts have a present _and_ the addition of PROS YMAS >"to you". Is B (and Theta and TR) more limitative as to those to which the >Apostles will be sent, this being again a way to underline that the >apostolic preaching was rejected by _judaism_? The future tense in my view is indicative of either extending the future tenses of 34b to 34a or a simple error, since in D the first verb in 34b is presumably also a mistake (APOKT_EI_NEITE), thus, indicating some confusion in D at that point. The omission of PROSYMAS before PROFHTAS, in my view, is simply due to oversight of two very similar sets of letters. BTW -- I do not really understand what the alleged "limitation" may consist of. To me this interpretation seems so remote that I would not consider it as adding more fuel to the fire. >(1.3) In those two cases then, it would that, seen against D, it's B that >has the hardest tone against judaism. To me the tone with respect to so-called antijudaism within the whole section sounds so overwhelmingly harsh both in B and in D (apart from the readings in question) that I would consider your interpretation remote. >(2) Just a remark about harmonizations : in verse 34, the phrase KAI EX >AUTWN MASTIGWSETE EN TAIS SYNAGWGAIS UMWN is omitted by D / added by the >other texts. (2.1) It's interesting because these words are probably an >harmonization (perhaps from Mt 10.17). Harmonizations are found in every MS. However, why do you add "_perhaps_ from Mt 10.17"? Are there other possible passages to be considered? Or are you simply not sure, because the alleged parallel (Mt 10.17) appears to be remote to some extend? I think you should be more precise on the that (IMHO). >In this case, D is the only one that >doesn't harmonize - for once, a derogation to its supposed harmonistic >character. In the hypothese that B is earlier than Theta and D and is the >source for their reading (though probably Maurice wouldn't agree with this >hypothese, but it's the most accepted one and we just want to test it), >this would, for once, be a case where B also shows an harmonistic tendency. >(2.2) If it's an addition in the other texts, then a possible reason for >this is to add even more "sins" to the behaviour of judaism. So once again, >B would be harsher than D in what concerns its supposed anti-judaistic >tone. Again, your interpretation with respect to the alleged "anti-judaistic tone" is remote in my view. Does "slapping" really add something to "killing" and "crucifying"? >(2.3) Of course, we could say that the source for the omission in D is homeoarkton (KAI... KAI) This seems to be the safest conclusion, as far as I can see. Note, there is even more that favours this explanation: The parataxis in 34b (D) runs as follows: _KAI_ EX AYTWN...KAI...KAI... The parablepsis is favoured, if you consider the MT text KAI placed in front of the first EX AYXTWN in D. Furthermore, you find, apart from latin a d omitting the same portion of text as D, MS E* omitting only KAI EX AYTWN MASTIGWSETE, which results in the strange expressinon "you will crucify in your synagogues". This may be indicative of an independent parablepsis caused through having twice the expression KAI EX AYTWN within the verse. >but if all three variants seem to be related by a >theological (or, let's say, ideological) intention, a project in the plan >of some recensor/revisor, then perhaps we should prefer to examine all >three together instead of recurring too easily to some graphical accident. The intention, not to mention "a project", simply disappears in my view. The alleged indicators are too remote within the context of 29-36 and the individual readings can be accounted for in a way that fits "usual" TC reasoning. >So if I'm right, for once (a) D is less anti-judaistic than its >counterparts, and especially B, (b) B is harmonisitc while D is not, (c) we >would have an example of a redactor at work in B. If B is later than D, >this anti-judaistic bias could be explained by a still growing gap and >hostility between judaism and the early church, and B would harden the tone >as the break has now become irreversible. Learned but remote scholarly guesswork in my view, at least on the basis of Mt 23.29-36. >And also, we have a case where B, supposed to be the best representative of >the Alexandrian family, goes its own way! Quite an a-typical passage, isn't >it? If we take three of the most prominent representatives of the Alexandrian family (Early/Late Alexandrian doesn't bother), Aleph, B, and 33, comparing them at the five readings under discussion we find the following: 32 PLHRWSATE Aleph 33 PLHRWSETE B 34(1) APOSTELLW Aleph B APOSTELW 33 (!!!) 34(2) PROS YMAS Aleph B 33 34(3) no KAI before the first EX AYTWN Aleph B 33 34(4) KAI EX AYTWN MAST(E)IGWSETE B 33 EX AYTWN KAI MASTIGWSETE Aleph* At 34(2+3) they are all united, whereas otherwise each of Alexandrians takes its brake individually, or to use your words "goes its own way". >I'm probably going too far in my analysis, Indeed, you did, in my view. >but still I ask : any comments? See above. (No offense intended, its just fun) Ulrich Schmid, Muenster From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Apr 24 14:28:00 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA12117; Thu, 24 Apr 1997 14:28:00 -0400 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <198E11E3E0C@div.ed.ac.uk> References: <199704121157.HAA15112@mail1y-int.prodigy.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 24 Apr 1997 13:20:07 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Latin side of Merk Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1067 Question for whoever knows the answer: Has anyone on this list ever had occasion to examine the Latin side of Merk's New Testament? I don't mean the text (which is of course the Clementine Vulgate), I mean the apparatus. If it's accurate, it is clearly the best pocket vulgate edition -- but I've no good way to check its accuracy. Merk's Greek side is, of course, an abridgement of von Soden, translated into Gregory numbers and with a few papyri thrown in. Since von Soden's collations are bad to begin with, and his apparatus is difficult, Merk's Greek citations can be doubtful. But that shouldn't affect the Latin. I have observed that it seems to omit a lot of variants in am and ful found in the Nestle apparatus. Anyone know any more? -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Apr 25 00:00:56 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id AAA13212; Fri, 25 Apr 1997 00:00:55 -0400 Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 00:01:51 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199704250401.AAA10695@loki.atcon.com> X-Sender: tmclay@mail.auracom.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: tmclay@auracom.com (Tim McLay) Subject: Re: Acadmeic imperialism, etc., etc., etc. Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1271 Apologies to Jimmy Adair and the list for another comment, It has been mentioned that many worthy articles get rejected. It would be nice if someone in the know could give us the percentage of articles submitted that get rejected. I have been told that it is very high in the humanities. Obviously, some of those that are rejected are less deserving of print than others. However, Biblical/religious scholars have probably more access to publication than most disciplines. I also believe that there is generally integrity in the process. I say "generally" because some approaches or style may be nixed by one reader and embraced by another. Finally, I think we would be kidding ourselves if we didn't admit to there being at least some "imperialism" (for lack of a better word.) What I mean is that people get asked for contributions to journals or books because of their expertise and their associations. This of course takes some space from others, but people become acknowledged scholars and are asked for their contributions because they produce quality material. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim McLay tmclay@atcon.com Surface: 2415 Prospect Rd. Hatchet Lake, NS B3T 1V2 Canada From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Apr 25 01:14:36 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id BAA13429; Fri, 25 Apr 1997 01:14:36 -0400 Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 01:14:36 -0400 From: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-Id: <199704250514.BAA13429@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> Apparently-To: tc-list-outgoing content-length: 1126 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 18:58:50 +0100 From: habrehm@ix.netcom.com To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Bickering Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu Would all of you kindly continue your spat off-line? I realize that there is benefit in discussing the various theories of TC, but this has gotten out of hand. If this continues, the "static" on this list will, IMHO, outweigh its informational value. I will be forced to unsubscribe, and I suspect others may be thinking the same thing. Can we get back to the business at hand? -- H. Alan Brehm, Ph. D. Assistant Professor of NT 3000 6th Avenue Southwestern Baptist Theol. Sem. Fort Worth, Texas 76110 P. O. Box 22000 817-923-3008 Ft. Worth, TX 76122 817-922-9005 FAX 817-923-1921, ext. 6800 habrehm@ix.netcom.com 817-921-8760 FAX hab@swbts.swbts.edu Visit My Home Page-->http://pw1.netcom.com/~habrehm/professor.html "The highest reward for man's toil is not what he earns for it but what he becomes by it" --John Ruskin From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Apr 25 10:23:52 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA14107; Fri, 25 Apr 1997 10:23:51 -0400 Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 10:25:07 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Comfort's book X-Sender: jwest@hub.infoave.net (Unverified) To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970425102312.0c3f3810@hub.infoave.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1317 William Petersen says of Comfort's book, "The Quest....", "... the unlearning of this volume's half-truths and outright untruths will be a painful experience for the student and an unwarrented waste of time for the professor. The publisher and external reviewers are to be rebuked for allowing such nonsense into print." while I.H. Marshall says "... the case which is being put forward is sufficiently important to demand serious attention by scholars, and it is to be hoped that Dr. Comfort will find opportunity elsewhere to assess the arguments of other scholars in detail and justify his approach over agains theirs in greater detail". and Jon Paulien concludes "... the book is readable enough and stimulating enough to recommend it to anyone who is interested in the latest developments in the text criticism of the New Testament." All three of these text critics have in common that they criticize Comfort for failing to present evidence for some of his statements. My question- is there any evidence that the Papyri are less reliable than the "great" texts like Aleph, B, or D? If not, what is erroneous in Comfort's logic? (I agree, he fails to present evidence at points- but if his logic is sound is that not evidence as well?) Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West jwest@hub.infoave.net From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Apr 25 11:05:51 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA14345; Fri, 25 Apr 1997 11:05:51 -0400 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970425102312.0c3f3810@hub.infoave.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 10:08:57 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Comfort's book Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2027 On Fri, 25 Apr 1997, Jim West wrote, in part: >My question- is there any evidence that the Papyri are less reliable than >the "great" texts like Aleph, B, or D? If not, what is erroneous in >Comfort's logic? (I agree, he fails to present evidence at points- but if >his logic is sound is that not evidence as well?) *Less* reliable? No. (If one excepts p45, which Colwell has shown to be edited.) But the defect of Comfort, as I see it, is failing to put the papyri in context. Papyri are manuscripts; they are therefore subject to error. Some errors are obvious, but some are not. And, since the text of a manuscript is always older than the manuscript itself, we need to examine the manuscripts in light of their text-types. When we know the relatives of a papyrus, we are in a better state to assess its readings. For any given reading, we must ask, "Does it agree with its relatives?" If so, then its age does add weight (at least some) to the attestation for its reading. But if not, then the weight of the papyrus is at least somewhat lessened. In my experience, there are significant numbers of readings where the text-types (the first line of defense) split. Very often in such cases the internal evidence is also indecisive. (At least by my standards; I don't like following internal evidence unless it clearly favours one reading over another.) In that case I will likely choose the reading supported by the oldest manuscript, whatever that may be. But Comfort, to my mind, follows the papyri uncritically, accepting their testimony whenever they have any sort of support, whether it is relevant support or not. (Yet another argument for classified agreements, sez I). -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Apr 25 11:54:07 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA14574; Fri, 25 Apr 1997 11:54:06 -0400 Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 11:55:13 -0400 (EDT) From: Nichael Cramer To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Comfort's book In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970425102312.0c3f3810@hub.infoave.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 450 Jim West wrote: > (I agree, he fails to present evidence at points- but if > his logic is sound is that not evidence as well?) ???? Hardly. While logical consistency is a minimal necessity for a theory or an explanatory model, it is hardly sufficient. The Ptolemaic model of the Solar System or the various "humor" models of disease propogation were perfectly logically consistent. They simply happened to be based on erroneous data. N From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Apr 25 12:12:25 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA14724; Fri, 25 Apr 1997 12:12:25 -0400 Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 12:11:33 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Logic in TC X-Sender: jwest@hub.infoave.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970425120938.276f355c@hub.infoave.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1251 >While logical consistency is a minimal necessity for a theory or >an explanatory model, it is hardly sufficient. > But, Nichael, is not the whole of TC based on hypotheses which are constructed logically, and then verified or falsified? For example, a logical a priori is operative in TC that the manuscripts have either been "tampered with" (accidentally or intentionally), or that they have not been tampered with. With this logical hypothesis in place TC'ers examine mss and either verify or falsify the a priori. Therefore the whole discipline is based on logic. My question, then, again, if this logic is in place, and it is followed- then must not the result be called "evidence"? >The Ptolemaic model of the Solar System or the various "humor" models of >disease propogation were perfectly logically consistent. They simply >happened to be based on erroneous data. > Indeed- but the data themselves were wrong. What if, in TC, the a priori assumptions are wrong? What if changes arose "only" because of accidental changes? In short, how can the a priori presuppostions be verified or falsified in TC since we cannot ask any scribes of the first 4 centuries? >N Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West jwest@hub.infoave.net From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Apr 25 12:47:32 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA14922; Fri, 25 Apr 1997 12:47:31 -0400 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970425120938.276f355c@hub.infoave.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 11:51:20 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Logic in TC Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1100 On Fri, 25 Apr 1997, Jim West wrote (quoting someone, though I missed the original post): >>While logical consistency is a minimal necessity for a theory or >>an explanatory model, it is hardly sufficient. Actually, "logical consistency" is not absolutely necessary. All that is needed is statistical repeatability. If you don't believe me, try quantum mechanicas. It makes no sense, it is truly weird and logically inconsistent with Newtonian mechanics -- but, statistically, it works (at least until you reach relativistic speeds). This is *not* a nitpick (though I don't expect anyone to buy the argument). This is why I think valid statistical methods are so important in TC -- and part of why I am so upset at the bad statistical methods I've seen. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Apr 25 13:09:28 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA14995; Fri, 25 Apr 1997 13:09:28 -0400 From: schmiul@uni-muenster.de Message-Id: <199704251710.TAA54622@mail.uni-muenster.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Fri, 25 Apr 97 19:25:45 +0100 Subject: Re: Athanasius and the Text of the NT To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu In-Reply-To: <3871006D6E@legacy.calvin.edu> X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 4106 On Tue, 22 Apr 1997, John Brogan wrote (inter alia): >> >This shows that the types of changes attested, or in >>> some cases even produced, by Athanasius eventually make their way >>> into the stream of textual transmission. > >> What types of changes are involved? How can you assure that it was >> Athanasius who produced them? >I hope to explore some of these questions more fully in the future. >I don't think we can be *assured* that for any particular reading, >Athanasius produced it (much depends on what would constitute >*assurance*!). This is indeed the crucial point. >There is always the possibility that he took the >reading from a manuscript. If his readings are found in MSS, this seems to be the first and most natural suggestion. >I am convinced, however, that Athanasius >at times corrupted his biblical text when citing it. Can we clarify our use of the term corrupting/corruption? As far as I can see, in TC corruption is the technical term for scribal alterations in the course of _copying_ MSS. _Citing_ (part of) a text within the context of another text is categorically different from copying texts. When citing a text one is simply adding a totally different context to the source text, thereby, from a formcritical perspective, employing the *Gattung* "citation". In so doing the source text gets a new "Sitz im Leben" within the context of the new text. Citation as a *Gattung* follows "principles" that are partly different from mere copying. Therefore, alterations within citations have to be firstly addressed from within the *Gattung*. They should not be confused with corruptions, i.e. alterations within the course of MSS copying processes. >Furthermore, >Athanasius is the earliest witness of some of the readings he attests >(at least as far as my own collations and checking the collations of >Tischendorf, von Soden, Legg, etc. reveal). What datings of MSS do you use, e.g., is Athanasius older than Aleph or B? Most likely you know that the age of a witness not necessarily points to the age of origin of its readings. >Some of these readings >eventually found there way into a manuscript (as can be seen in the >corrections of Aleph) and into the broader stream of textual >transmission. I think it is likely that some of Athanasius' corruptions became part of the transmission through his influence on the theology of the scribes who were copying manuscripts. How could Athanasius have influenced the theology of scribes so that they conformed their MSS to another standard. Are Athanasius' readings related to theological concerns? I thought we already agreed on the fact (a) that different readings never played a role in the theological debates of the fourth century, and (b) that each participant could make sense of whatever proof-text in whatever textual form within his own theological framework. If this is the case, you need strong and coherent internal evidence for theologically motivated textual alterations with respect to Athanasius, for there is simply no external evidence. >Even if >Athanasius were not responsible for creating the reading, he would >have been influential in preserving and propagating the reading. How could someone "propagate" readings apart from making an edition? Did Athanasius make an edition? [snip] >Athanasius >agrees with the corrections of Aleph against the original hand in the >following places (sorted by corrector): >Corrector "A" - Mt 6:28 >Corrector "B" - Mt 6:25, 6:26, 13:25, 18:20; Jn 1:18 >Corrector "Ca" - Lk 1:27, 17:2, 24:39; Jn 1:3, 1:13, 1:18, 6:38, > 6:39, 6:46, 8:59, 12:32, 14:16, 14:28, > 16:15, 17:5, 17:22, 18:37, 19:39(2x) >Athanasius agrees with the original hand of Aleph against a >correction only in Lk 17:2. In Jn 1:18, Athanasius disagrees with >both Aleph* and AlephC. Could you please add the readings pertinent to your analysis. To me it was not always clear how to figure them out (c.f., e.g., Jn 1:18?). Thank you very much in advance. Ulrich Schmid, Muenster From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Apr 25 13:20:33 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA15051; Fri, 25 Apr 1997 13:20:32 -0400 Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 13:21:41 -0400 (EDT) From: Nichael Cramer To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Logic in TC In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970425120938.276f355c@hub.infoave.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1759 Jim West wrote: > Therefore the whole discipline [of TC] is based on logic. Again, in part, obviously. In total, no. > ... My question, then, again, if this logic is in place, and it is > followed- then must not the result be called "evidence"? Only by someone having no understanding of what consitutes either "evidence" or "logic". > Indeed- but the data themselves were wrong. What if, in TC, the a priori > assumptions are wrong? What if changes arose "only" because of accidental > changes? In short, how can the a priori presuppostions be verified or > falsified in TC since we cannot ask any scribes of the first 4 centuries? In precisely the way in which such things are verified in _any_ discipline in which straightforward laboratory experiments are not directly possible. Astronomy, evolutionary biology, or elementary particle physics (to pick some obvious examples) all deal with exactly this problem, quite successfully. How those questions are answered in each respective discipline --i.e. how the practicioneers of that discipline develop tools and techniques to answer the questions relevant to their field-- is much of what makes that discipline challenging (and exciting). As to how such questions should be answered specifically in TC, I can only refer you to the standard references on the topic, where the methods and techniques developed to deal these questions are spell out in detail. Equally, and in exactly the same way, it is up to someone, anyone who wishes to challenge the standard model to propose techniques for providing hard, concrete data that supports their position. But simply claiming that it is "logical" that these scribes acted in one or another way is a --precisely-- meaningless statement. N From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Apr 25 13:39:52 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA15098; Fri, 25 Apr 1997 13:39:51 -0400 Message-ID: <33610916.1307@ccmail.fingerhut.com> Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 12:42:14 -0700 From: Hubert Bahr Organization: Fingerhut X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Win16; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Logic in TC References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 715 Robert B. Waltz wrote: > this is *not* a nitpick (though I don't expect anyone to buy > the argument). This is why I think valid statistical methods > are so important in TC -- and part of why I am so upset at > the bad statistical methods I've seen. Are their any books on TC and statistics or statistics in general, that can be understood by someone who has been away from mathematics (checkbooks and tax forms excepted)? When I was a Biblical Studies major four semesters of Greek was a requirement but Statistics wasn't even recommended coursework. I recognize the void in my education, but where do I begin to fill it. -- --Huey Bahr home: hbahr@usinternet.com office: hubert.bahr@ccmail.fingerhut.com From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Apr 25 14:55:28 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA15413; Fri, 25 Apr 1997 14:55:28 -0400 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <33610916.1307@ccmail.fingerhut.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 13:57:46 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Logic in TC Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2365 OnFri, 25 Apr 1997, Hubert Bahr wrote: >Robert B. Waltz wrote: >> this is *not* a nitpick (though I don't expect anyone to buy >> the argument). This is why I think valid statistical methods >> are so important in TC -- and part of why I am so upset at >> the bad statistical methods I've seen. > >Are their any books on TC and statistics or statistics in general, >that can be understood by someone who has been away from mathematics >(checkbooks and tax forms excepted)? When I was a Biblical Studies >major four semesters of Greek was a requirement but Statistics wasn't >even recommended coursework. I recognize the void in my education, but >where do I begin to fill it. By comparison, when I was going to college, it wasn't even *possible* to take more than two religion courses, because I couldn't have met all my requirements otherwise. (As it was, to complete a full physics load and the liberal arts requirements, I had to take the absolute minimum number of math courses required for a major.) I've never seen a prob & stats book for TC. Indeed, if there is such a thing, I'm sure it's been widely ignored. I wish there were such a thing; it might help me determine the pathology of this sick distribution I'm struggling with now. I have done my best on my web page to begin addressing the issues. Unfortunately, I am *not* a statistics expert (as I noted previously, I spent most of my time in analysis, not statistics). And I'm rather rusty. I'd suggest trying the web page, then asking me questions. (Or maybe Nichael; from the sound of it, he may have more recent training than I do.) If the questions make sense, I may be able to improve the web page. I have a book called "Probability Without Tears," but I didn't like it much. If I find something better, I will let people know. Wish I could do more for you. If it helps any, I will point out that I am a mathematician first and a TCer second; there are a lot of people out there who disapprove of my calls for mathematical rigour. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Apr 25 16:33:17 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA15763; Fri, 25 Apr 1997 16:33:16 -0400 From: David Washburn Message-Id: <199704251937.NAA06014@wavecom.net> Subject: Re: Logic in TC To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 13:37:07 -0600 (MDT) In-Reply-To: from "Nichael Cramer" at Apr 25, 97 01:21:41 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 3064 Nichael wrote: > Jim West wrote: > > Therefore the whole discipline [of TC] is based on logic. > > Again, in part, obviously. In total, no. In total it can't be. See below. [snip] > > Indeed- but the data themselves were wrong. What if, in TC, the a priori > > assumptions are wrong? What if changes arose "only" because of accidental > > changes? In short, how can the a priori presuppostions be verified or > > falsified in TC since we cannot ask any scribes of the first 4 centuries? > > In precisely the way in which such things are verified in _any_ discipline in > which straightforward laboratory experiments are not directly possible. > Astronomy, evolutionary biology, or elementary particle physics (to pick some > obvious examples) all deal with exactly this problem, quite successfully. But in those sciences there are ways to observe phenomena that are still going on: motion of planets and galaxies, cell and DNA behavior, behavior of particles when accelerated or split or whatever - with TC we can't do this, because we're dealing with history. By definition, historical events such as the copying/production of a particular manuscript cannot be repeated, and if the event is far enough removed from us observers it can't be observed. We have to try and make educated (sort of) guesses as to what was going through a scribe's mind at a particular time and place. This brings me to my next point: the phenomena we observe to have happened may or may not fit any brand of logic. We are dealing with the unpredictable nature and actions of various and sundry human minds in TC, i.e. the scribes. What were they thinking? What were their particular biases? Did they try to step around those when copying? Were some of them just air-heads? In the case of some documents, like D or 11QPs(a), we end up using little more than the SWAG method. Because of those unpredictability factors, the statement that we have to require logic and consistency in TC may or may not be accurate. [snip] > As to how such questions should be answered specifically in TC, I can only > refer you to the standard references on the topic, where the methods and > techniques developed to deal these questions are spell out in detail. But those "standard references" are based essentially on the same SWAG method. Nobody from the beginnings of TC until the present can really say their reconstruction of scribal behavior is scientific. > Equally, and in exactly the same way, it is up to someone, anyone who wishes > to challenge the standard model to propose techniques for providing hard, > concrete data that supports their position. But simply claiming that it is > "logical" that these scribes acted in one or another way is a --precisely-- > meaningless statement. This cuts both ways, as I'm sure you already know. The major claims of the "standard model" are that 1) it's the standard model, and 2) it's logical and consistent. 1) is meaningless, and 2) may or may not be a valid criterion by which to evaluate it. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Apr 25 17:33:29 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA15836; Fri, 25 Apr 1997 17:33:29 -0400 Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 17:34:04 -0400 (EDT) From: Nichael Cramer To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Logic in TC In-Reply-To: <199704251937.NAA06014@wavecom.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 864 David Washburn wrote: > ... The major claims of > the "standard model" are that 1) it's the standard model, and 2) it's > logical and consistent. 1) is meaningless, and 2) may or may not be a > valid criterion by which to evaluate it. No, the major claim of the Standard Model is that it is a very powerful tool for explaining the available data.[*] This is the _only_ (meaningful) criterion by which these matters can be judged. When the competitors to a Standard Model can present a theory with comparable or greater explanatory power, then they will be taken seriously. Until then, not. This is how scholarship in these matters works. And how it has worked. And how so far, by and large it has managed to do a damn fine job. [* This is true in TC as in any discipline. This is, after all, how a model becomes the Standard Model.] N From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Apr 25 17:40:19 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA15864; Fri, 25 Apr 1997 17:40:19 -0400 Message-Id: <9704252240.AB20576@iris.arcadis.be> Subject: Re: MT 23.32-34 in four text-types Date: Fri, 25 Apr 97 23:45:36 +0200 X-Sender: vale5655@194.111.178.251 X-Mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1 From: Jean VALENTIN To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 9053 Ulrich, I think there are many good points in the answers you wrote to my remarks concerning the passage in Mt 23. >In my judgement the future tense (B*) and the aorist (D) are both >smoothings of >the somehow awkward imperative. The whole section (29-33) culminates in the >indirect (self-)testimony of the Pharisees that they "_are_ sons of those >who >killed (aorist participle) the prophets. In 34 it is said that _they_ >_will_ go >on (future tenses in 34b) killing, crucifying, etc. prophets, etc.. >Therefore, >the future of B* in 32 is due to the logic of the immediate context. In my >view >the whole woe-section 29-36 is harsh to the extreem. The future in 32 hardly >adds more fuel to the fire. By "awkward", do you mean the imperative is a lectio difficilior? > >>(1.2) In verse 34, how do you understand the change in the tense : D has a >>future while the other texts have a present _and_ the addition of PROS YMAS >>"to you". Is B (and Theta and TR) more limitative as to those to which the >>Apostles will be sent, this being again a way to underline that the >>apostolic preaching was rejected by _judaism_? > >The future tense in my view is indicative of either extending the future >tenses >of 34b to 34a or a simple error, since in D the first verb in 34b is >presumably >also a mistake (APOKT_EI_NEITE), thus, indicating some confusion in D at >that >point. >The omission of PROSYMAS before PROFHTAS, in my view, is simply due to >oversight >of two very similar sets of letters. BTW -- I do not really understand >what the >alleged "limitation" may consist of. To me this interpretation seems so >remote >that I would not consider it as adding more fuel to the fire. By limitation, I meant that the preaching would have been rejected by those to whom it was (at least in the perspective suggested by this reading) destined. This would be a way to point to the responsibility of those who rejected the gospel. Sorry if I wasn't clear. I agree that the omission of PROS YMAS can be due simply to a graphical oversight. BUt it makes many graphical accidents and I want to remain oepn to the other alternative, viz. that there would be an intention in the supposed changes made by D. Though, it's true, your argument shouldn't be too quickly rejected. The alternative is between a series of accidents in D and a delibarate intention in B. As I work more in the Arabic mss than in the early history of the Greek text, I consider that the last word oin this shouldn't belong to me... > >>(1.3) In those two cases then, it would that, seen against D, it's B that >>has the hardest tone against judaism. > >To me the tone with respect to so-called antijudaism within the whole >section >sounds so overwhelmingly harsh both in B and in D (apart from the readings >in >question) that I would consider your interpretation remote. A very good point indeed. I ask myself if I haven't been typically Belgian here. When we make humour about our country's politics, we say : "Why make it simple if it can be complicated?". This is probably the reason why such a small country has three communities, four regions and five governments... To some extent, there's probably been such a thing in my way of reasoning about these verses... > >>(2) Just a remark about harmonizations : in verse 34, the phrase KAI EX >>AUTWN MASTIGWSETE EN TAIS SYNAGWGAIS UMWN is omitted by D / added by the >>other texts. (2.1) It's interesting because these words are probably an >>harmonization (perhaps from Mt 10.17). > >Harmonizations are found in every MS. However, why do you add "_perhaps_ >from Mt >10.17"? Are there other possible passages to be considered? Or are you >simply >not sure, because the alleged parallel (Mt 10.17) appears to be remote to >some >extend? I think you should be more precise on the that (IMHO). There are also some synoptic passages and I didn't want to make a firm decision here... The fact that there are harmonizations in every ms is a very important point for method though. No text-type or no ms should be blindly followed when we realize this. >>(2.2) If it's an addition in the other texts, then a possible reason for >>this is to add even more "sins" to the behaviour of judaism. So once again, >>B would be harsher than D in what concerns its supposed anti-judaistic >>tone. > >Again, your interpretation with respect to the alleged "anti-judaistic >tone" is >remote in my view. Does "slapping" really add something to "killing" and >"crucifying"? Not really, but making the "catalogue" more complete may show an intention in the mind of a redactor, or if not, at least, a tendency towards more anti-semitism in the Church, which tendency can have influenced the transmission of the text. Of course, these are conclusions that should be made only after a much broader study than this. > >>(2.3) Of course, we could say that the source for the omission in D is >homeoarkton (KAI... KAI) > >This seems to be the safest conclusion, as far as I can see. Note, there >is even >more that favours this explanation: The parataxis in 34b (D) runs as follows: >_KAI_ EX AYTWN...KAI...KAI... The parablepsis is >favoured, if >you consider the MT text KAI placed in front of the first EX AYXTWN in D. >Furthermore, you find, apart from latin a d omitting the same portion of >text as >D, MS E* omitting only KAI EX AYTWN MASTIGWSETE, which results in the >strange >expressinon "you will crucify in your synagogues". This may be indicative >of an >independent parablepsis caused through having twice the expression KAI EX >AYTWN >within the verse. Interesting! Of course, here we have to do again with graphical accidents, in my opinion the case of E* is much clearer than that of D a b. If I understand you, the copyist that produced D was not very careful? > >The intention, not to mention "a project", simply disappears in my view. The >alleged indicators are too remote within the context of 29-36 and the >individual >readings can be accounted for in a way that fits "usual" TC reasoning. This is prbably where you differ from me : you explain each reading "individually" while I try to find a more global approach (Is it in some way the difference between the German and French schools?). I want to remain open for both, but once again, I find I must listen to you because you are more specialized in Greek texts than I am! > >>So if I'm right, for once (a) D is less anti-judaistic than its >>counterparts, and especially B, (b) B is harmonisitc while D is not, (c) we >>would have an example of a redactor at work in B. If B is later than D, >>this anti-judaistic bias could be explained by a still growing gap and >>hostility between judaism and the early church, and B would harden the tone >>as the break has now become irreversible. > >Learned but remote scholarly guesswork in my view, at least on the basis >of Mt >23.29-36. That's what I think also! I didn't mean to produce global conclusions based on this sole passage. >If we take three of the most prominent representatives of the Alexandrian >family >(Early/Late Alexandrian doesn't bother), Aleph, B, and 33, comparing them >at the >five readings under discussion we find the following: > >(...) > >At 34(2+3) they are all united, whereas otherwise each of Alexandrians >takes its >brake individually, or to use your words "goes its own way". This raises another question, on which I do not think I have the answer : is it possible to reconstruct an archetyp of the Alexandrian text in such a case? What would be your method? When I consider such passages, I have the impression that categorizing each witness in a "text-type" is oversimplistic. Is this why the Alands use other categories in their textbook? And, when somebody like me who works in the versions wants to describe them in a short way so as to be accessible to text-critics that work in Greek, how are we to describe the kind of text that we study in order to give you an idea as to its place relative to Greek mss - in other words, how can we be describe our texts in a way that's useful to you? > >>I'm probably going too far in my analysis, > >Indeed, you did, in my view. CF. higher my remarks on the belgian proverb! > >>but still I ask : any comments? > >See above. (No offense intended, its just fun) It was nice to read your remarks, and I appreciate the sobriety of your method. I'll try to learn from this. Thank you! ________________________________________________________________ Jean Valentin - 58/7 rue Van Kalck - 1080 Bruxelles - BELGIQUE ________________________________________________________________ email : jgvalentin@arcadis.be *** netmail : 2:291/780.103 ________________________________________________________________ Ce qui est trop simple est faux, ce qui est trop complique est inutilisable. What's too simple is wrong, what's too complicated is unusable. Wat te eenvoudig is, is verkeerd; wat te ingewikkeld is, is onbruikbaar. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Apr 25 18:31:13 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA15932; Fri, 25 Apr 1997 18:31:13 -0400 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <199704251937.NAA06014@wavecom.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 17:33:03 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Logic in TC Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1896 On Fri, 25 Apr 1997, Nichael Cramer wrote: >David Washburn wrote: >> ... The major claims of >> the "standard model" are that 1) it's the standard model, and 2) it's >> logical and consistent. 1) is meaningless, and 2) may or may not be a >> valid criterion by which to evaluate it. > >No, the major claim of the Standard Model is that it is a very powerful >tool for explaining the available data.[*] This is the _only_ >(meaningful) criterion by which these matters can be judged. [ ... ] > [* This is true in TC as in any discipline. This is, after all, how a > model becomes the Standard Model.] This is *not* true. There are at least two instances of "standard models" that do *not* explain the available data -- and those two are the Standard Model itself (the one in nuclear physics) and the Standard Model of the Big Bang. Oh, I'm overstating here -- but has anyone observed how much patching has gone into each? Can anyone here explain a Higgs Boson? Or an inflation theory? Remember when all quarks were supposed to have the same mass? And whoever heard of fractional charges.... I concede that I can't come up with a decent alternative to the Big Bang, and I am simply not clever enough to offer alternatives to the Standard Model. But in the latter case, in particular, the Standard Model stands mostly because a certain physicist whose initials are MGM proposed it. And for those of you who don't believe in the Big Bang or quarks or any such thing, just ignore us, we're talking scientific theory among ourselves. :-) -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Apr 25 18:38:43 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA15956; Fri, 25 Apr 1997 18:38:43 -0400 Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 18:39:59 -0400 Message-Id: <2.2.16.19970425183957.3e7f426e@email.psu.edu> X-Sender: wlp1@email.psu.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "William L. Petersen" Subject: Re: Comfort's book Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 7880 At 10:25 AM 4/25/97 -0500, Jim West wrote: >William Petersen says of Comfort's book, "The Quest....", "... the >unlearning of this volume's half-truths and outright untruths will be a >painful experience for the student and an unwarrented waste of time for the >professor. The publisher and external reviewers are to be rebuked for >allowing such nonsense into print." > >while I.H. Marshall says "... the case which is being put forward is >sufficiently important to demand serious attention by scholars, and it is to >be hoped that Dr. Comfort will find opportunity elsewhere to assess the >arguments of other scholars in detail and justify his approach over agains >theirs in greater detail". > >and Jon Paulien concludes "... the book is readable enough and stimulating >enough to recommend it to anyone who is interested in the latest >developments in the text criticism of the New Testament." > >All three of these text critics have in common that they criticize Comfort >for failing to present evidence for some of his statements. > >My question- is there any evidence that the Papyri are less reliable than >the "great" texts like Aleph, B, or D? If not, what is erroneous in >Comfort's logic? (I agree, he fails to present evidence at points- but if >his logic is sound is that not evidence as well?) > >Jim > >+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >Jim West >jwest@hub.infoave.net You question is based on certain erroneous assumptions, which are addressed in my review, which you have obviously read, since you quote the final sentence, which I omitted from my post out of charity towards Baker Book House. To your question: no, the papyri are *no more* *or less* reliable than any other MSS. But that is not the issue. As I point out in the review, Comfort claims: "the early period of textual transmission...was not completely marred by textual infidelity and scribal liberty"..."Certain NT books, such as the four Gospels, Acts, and Paul's epistles were considered inspired literature from the onset" (Comfort, p. 21--quoted in my review which you have already read). My comment in my review: "Comfort's assertion that the Gospels were "copied with reverential fidelity" because they "were considered inspired literature from the onset" is contradicted by the liberties the Gospel writers took with each other's works." All you need do is compare the synoptics in a synopsis: we *know* someone is copying from someone, and changing the text of his exemplar constantly--and it doesn't matter whether you are a Griesbachian or a "four-sourcer": the gospel being copied from is *not* being copied with "reverential fidelity"--otherwise the Lord's Prayer, the Beatitudes, etc., would agree exactly. In the review I continue: "This freedom continued in the second century, as demonstrated by the text of Justin Martyr, Tatian (who harmonized the Gsopels, and threw in a dash of extracanonical material) and the *Gospel of Thomas.* Still later, scribes continued playing with the text, as shown by the "Western *non-* interpolations.... Where is the evidence of Comfort's "reverential fidelity"? Our earliest evidence betrays no shred of it. Since the earliest citations from the NT are "Western" in form, how, then, can Comfort conclude that the Alexandrian form is the "original text"?" As with the other excerpts from my review, here again it is simply a point of *fact*: we have *no* evidence that the Gospels or Acts were seen as "inspired literature from the onset" and "copied with reverential fidelity." Quite the contrary: *all* of our *empirical* evidence indicates *exactly the opposite*!!! Once again, Comfort is making grand statements which are directly contradicted by the empirical evidence. That is a scholarly no-no. Pastors can get away with it from their pulpits; in publications, university professors cannot. I do not understand why I need to merely reproduce here (= retype) what is already in print, and has been read... Is my review not clear enough? I have neither the time nor the inclination to reproduce the entire review. Read it. Think about it. I shall summarize one more point from the review, since it goes exactly to the matter of the papyri you raised--and have, apparently, already read. As to the papyri themselves, Comfort says: "Aside from some obvious scribal errors, the testimony of P75 should be followed meticulously" (Comfort, p. 99). Comfort never says what these "obvious scribal errors" are: one would presume they are the usual things we see: a past tense for a present, an innocuous change of spelling, an omission due to homoioteleuton, etc. My comment in the review: "P75 is unique in reading "the *shepherd*" for "the *door*" at John 10:7. In *A Textual Commentary on the Greek NT* (1971), Metzger records the committee's view that P75's reading "is an early alleviation of the text, *introduced by copyists* who found the expression "the door of the sheep" *too difficult.*" In short, there may be--indeed, probably is--textual corruption even in P75. This substitution is *not* an "obvious scribal error," to use Comfort's words. Rather, it is an undetectable (unless you have other MSS against which to compare P75) *improvement* in the text found in all other MSS. The bottom line is that P75 appears to have undergone theological/stylistic redaction even at its "early" date. Hence, the papyri deserve *no* special privilege beyond any other MSS. Two final comments: (1) Comfort's great desire is to work with the earliest sources possible--even to the point of claiming that Barbara Aland has redated P75. But the most curious fact in this is that he *completely* ignores all the earliest evidence--namely the second and early third century fathers and apocryphal works (Justin, Clement Al, Origen, Didache, the Judaic-Christian gospels, etc., etc.). This is a scholarly no-no, for if you wish to ignore these works, you have to explain *why*--and simply saying you don't have the languages, or they are too difficult to work with will *not* do. Look at Alfred Resch's *Agrapha* (1906) or Ennulat's *Die "Minor Agreements"* (1994), or the many works in between and see the excellent work which has *already* been done with these sources. No *serious* scholar can ignore the fathers in attempting to reconstruct the earliest strata of the NT text. Yet Comfort does--save for his claim that Clement and Origen agree with the "best Alexandrian witnesses"--a claim which is simply, empirically, wrong. Where does this nonsense end??? (2) The query "if his logic is ok, then what's wrong"? has already been dealt with adequately by N. Cramer and others. Flawless logic won't get you anywhere if (1) you begin with a flawed presupposition (that certain books were accurately copied, because they were considered inspired from the outset...), or if you ignore pertinent data (the fact that the Fathers show a different text, in flux, from what we have in the "great" uncials...and the Fathers are *earlier* than even the papyri!!!). One more note: I urge you to compare my review with the other two you cite. Which has the more specific critique? Do they pick up of the false claim that Aland has "redated" P75? Do they catch the error on the claim about Clement and Origen agreeing with the Alexandrian text? Hmmm... I leave it to you to judge who you would want as your lawyer critiquing a suit brought against you. I *never* pay attention to "fluff" reviews ("interesting thesis, worthy of investigation; much here for further study"...etc.). I pay attention to how *concrete* the criticisms are, backed by fact, for in the end, it is only the *facts* that matter--and no rhetoric can cover that: cp. Galileo: eppur, si mouve ("nevertheless, it moves!"). And the facts may not agree with what you like to believe. --Petersen, Penn State Univ. (not proofed) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Apr 25 19:19:49 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA16047; Fri, 25 Apr 1997 19:19:48 -0400 From: David Washburn Message-Id: <199704252223.QAA14181@wavecom.net> Subject: Re: Logic in TC To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 16:23:45 -0600 (MDT) In-Reply-To: from "Nichael Cramer" at Apr 25, 97 05:34:04 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2018 Nichael wrote: > David Washburn wrote: > > ... The major claims of > > the "standard model" are that 1) it's the standard model, and 2) it's > > logical and consistent. 1) is meaningless, and 2) may or may not be a > > valid criterion by which to evaluate it. > > No, the major claim of the Standard Model is that it is a very powerful > tool for explaining the available data.[*] This is the _only_ > (meaningful) criterion by which these matters can be judged. However, as you stated, it is a claim, not a fact. As such, it is not good history/science to set it up as the plumbline for all other approaches. > When the competitors to a Standard Model can present a theory with > comparable or greater explanatory power, then they will be taken seriously. The question then becomes one of who defines "comparable or greater explanatory power," all of which is after all based on varying presuppositions of one type or another, and how said definition is arrived at. Wilbur Pickering presented a statistical-explanatory model many years ago to show that the most widely disseminated reading is most likely the original, a model that certainly appeared to have much greater explanatory power than the speculations of Hort and his successors. I have yet to see a response that didn't resort to presuppositions as already defined by the "standard model". His model may or may not be correct, but its explanatory power, like that of the "standard model," depends on a whale of a lot of presuppositions and arbitrary definitions. > Until then, not. This is how scholarship in these matters works. And how > it has worked. This merely states the way things are, not necessarily the way they should be... > And how so far, by and large it has managed to do a damn > fine job. And this, of course, is purely a matter of opinion. > [* This is true in TC as in any discipline. This is, after all, how a > model becomes the Standard Model.] And this is overly simplistic. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Apr 25 20:44:13 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA16136; Fri, 25 Apr 1997 20:44:13 -0400 Message-Id: <199704260046.UAA04984@fs.IConNet.NET> From: "RONALD DAVID LARGE" To: Subject: Re: Theological tendencies and the Text Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 21:10:25 -0400 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1161 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1144 Greetings, all :-) The recent thread regarding Brogan's work on Athanasius, and collateral concerns about the effect of theological tendencies on textual transmission, bring me to posit a couple of questions: 1) Has anyone suspected, as I have at times, that the hardening of trinitarian thought, especially the development of logos-christological concepts as expounded by, among others, Irenaeus, Tertullian and Athenogoras, had any effect upon the transmission of the text? I am specifically thinking of variants such as John 1:18, Acts 20:28 and I Timothy 3:16. Is anyone aware of any studies that con- firm or abrogate such conclusions? Thoughts or comments, anyone? 2) Conybeare wrote of Eusebius' citations of Matthew 28:19 (eighteen in all) in works between 300-336 A.D.,and invariably found them to be in the following form, "Go ye and make disciples of all nations, IN MY NAME, teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I have commanded you.". Is anyone intimate with the evidence here? Does Patristic research shed any light on this "variant" ? Thoughts.... comments? Thanks in advance, and God bless... David Large From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Apr 25 21:53:48 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA16195; Fri, 25 Apr 1997 21:53:47 -0400 Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 21:55:02 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: Comfort's book X-Sender: jwest@hub.infoave.net (Unverified) To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970425215345.244f3c46@hub.infoave.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1099 William, At 06:39 PM 4/25/97 -0400, you wrote: > >One more note: I urge you to compare my review with the other two you cite. >Which has the more specific critique? Do they pick up of the false claim >that Aland has "redated" P75? Do they catch the error on the claim about >Clement and Origen agreeing with the Alexandrian text? Hmmm... I leave it >to you to judge who you would want as your lawyer critiquing a suit brought >against you. I *never* pay attention to "fluff" reviews ("interesting >thesis, worthy of investigation; much here for further study"...etc.). I >pay attention to how *concrete* the criticisms are, backed by fact, for in >the end, it is only the *facts* that matter--and no rhetoric can cover that: >cp. Galileo: eppur, si mouve ("nevertheless, it moves!"). And the facts may >not agree with what you like to believe. > > >--Petersen, Penn State Univ. (not proofed) > > There is no doubt at all that your review is more thorough- I thank you for your work. "Almost thous convincest me to become....." Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West jwest@hub.infoave.net From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Apr 26 07:36:00 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id HAA16649; Sat, 26 Apr 1997 07:35:59 -0400 Message-ID: <336270E5.1FA7@sn.no> Date: Sat, 26 Apr 1997 14:17:25 -0700 From: "Mr. Helge Evensen" Organization: SN Internett X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Logic in TC References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 387 This is really an interesting discussion, but isn=B4t the whole thing a=20 matter of *some* kind of *interpretation*? You know, the autographa has=20 not yet been discovered!=20 And if it *is* discovered in the future, who is to be the judge as to its= =20 "autographness"?? (Of course, I know that ye all have to work from within the science of=20 TC.....) --=20 - Mr. Helge Evensen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Apr 26 08:57:29 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA16698; Sat, 26 Apr 1997 08:57:28 -0400 From: schmiul@uni-muenster.de Message-Id: <199704261258.OAA39032@mail.uni-muenster.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Sat, 26 Apr 97 15:13:46 +0100 Subject: Re: MT 23.32-34 in four text-types To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu In-Reply-To: <9704252240.AB20576@iris.arcadis.be> X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 8664 On Fri, 25 Apr 1997, Jean Valentin wrote (inter alia:) >By "awkward", do you mean the imperative is a lectio difficilior? Well, interpreting the imperative in Mt 23:32 within the context of the whole passage forces us to think twice, for most likely this imperative has to be understood as ironical; the background seems to be prophetic judgement rhetorics (cf. Amos 4,4), which by the way is very much to the point (in Mt 23). However, since you have to think twice, the imperative appears to be the reading most likely not to be introduced lateron. BTW -- If you miss the irony, you might even think Jesus is urging them to go on the way their fathers did. Is this really nicer than simply predicting or stating it? [snip] >I agree that the omission of PROS YMAS can be due simply to a graphical >oversight. BUt it makes many graphical accidents and I want to remain >oepn to the other alternative, viz. that there would be an intention in >the supposed changes made by D. Though, it's true, your argument >shouldn't be too quickly rejected. The alternative is between a series of >accidents in D and a delibarate intention in B. As I work more in the >Arabic mss than in the early history of the Greek text, I consider that >the last word oin this shouldn't belong to me... I really don't know what actually happens in Arabic MSS. However, I assume that even there you happen to stumble across defects simply due to accident. The more I look at real MSS, the more I'm inclined to think that we somehow underrate the possibility of accidental defects, strange "nonsense in context readings", stupidity of scribes that make you laugh or your face pale or red. I think it would be worth just mentioning two or three of them: The famous Codex Alexandrinus reads the following at James 2.16: QERMAINESQE KAI ORGAZESQE (just consult Liddle-Scott, s.v. ORGASMOS). In the course of the *Teststellen* collations here at the Muenster Institut probably the most offending reading to traditional christology was unearthed at Luke 10.38: The 15th century MS 2692* reads MARQA hYPEDEKSATO AYTON EIS TON _KOLPON_ AYTHS. Long since a lot of remarkable "scholars" (e.g., Baigent/Leigh) assumend that Jesus hat a girl friend. Maria of Magdala usually is the first joice, but, thanks to a confused (celibatary?, kidding?, brave?) monk at Meteora (where the MS happened to be found), we now know that it actually was Martha. And, indeed, what we would have expected, really happened, a zelous, orthodox abbot (or boss of the scriptorium) corrected it, in fact, "corrupted" it. [snip] >The fact that there are harmonizations in every ms is a very important >point for method though. No text-type or no ms should be blindly followed >when we realize this. It was never assumed, as far as I can see, that "blindly following" is a scientific method. [With respect to the alleged harmonization at Mt 23.34] >Not really, but making the "catalogue" more complete may show an >intention in the mind of a redactor, or if not, at least, a tendency >towards more anti-semitism in the Church, which tendency can have >influenced the transmission of the text. Of course, these are conclusions >that should be made only after a much broader study than this. Indeed, completeness is a motive that really is detectable. You might look, e.g., at Luke 11.2, where D adds Mt 6.7 to make the introduction to the Lord's Prayer more complete with respect to the Mattheian version. [Concerning the alleged parablepsis at Mt 23.34 D] >Interesting! Of course, here we have to do again with graphical >accidents, in my opinion the case of E* is much clearer than that of D a >b. If I understand you, the copyist that produced D was not very careful? Just consider the randomly chosen chapter Luke 9 in D. At verse 15 the second KAI colon is missing, at 48 the second relative clause up to DEXETAI is missing, and at 46 a whole line (EISHLQEN...AYTOIS) is missing with no graphical indicator leaving the text virtually senseless. Now, what do you think? Is it possible to ascribe a certain coherent meaning to these omissions (or additions)? Or should we prefer the hypothesis that either the scribe of the actual MS (or someone prior to him) was careless at times? >>The intention, not to mention "a project", simply disappears in my view. The >>alleged indicators are too remote within the context of 29-36 and the >>individual >>readings can be accounted for in a way that fits "usual" TC reasoning. >This is prbably where you differ from me : you explain each reading >"individually" while I try to find a more global approach (Is it in some >way the difference between the German and French schools?). I want to >remain open for both, but once again, I find I must listen to you because >you are more specialized in Greek texts than I am! I don't know, if there is a German school. But scholars like Boismard, Lamouille, Prigent, and Amphoux, not to mention Hubert Pernot really tend to global approaches. No doubt their work is stimulating, but usually too much focussed on selected passages. If you wish, I could substantiate this broad statement especially with reference to Christian-Bernard Amphoux. By the way why solely looking at the "French school"? What about Joel Delobel and Frans Neirynck? [snip] >>At 34(2+3) they are all united, whereas otherwise each of Alexandrians >>takes its >>brake individually, or to use your words "goes its own way". >This raises another question, on which I do not think I have the answer : >is it possible to reconstruct an archetyp of the Alexandrian text in such >a case? What would be your method? When I consider such passages, I have >the impression that categorizing each witness in a "text-type" is >oversimplistic. Is this why the Alands use other categories in their >textbook? And, when somebody like me who works in the versions wants to >describe them in a short way so as to be accessible to text-critics that >work in Greek, how are we to describe the kind of text that we study in >order to give you an idea as to its place relative to Greek mss - in >other words, how can we be describe our texts in a way that's useful to >you? I'm not focussed on reconstructing, e.g., an archetype of the Alexandrian text, for the sole reason that I do not know enough about individual witnesses, in order to execute this job. Up to now, I only know that each and every witness and each and every postulated text-type seems to contain secondary readings when compared to other witnesses/text-types. There are other issues that make me pause when dealing with text-types. Firstly, I do not think that we use to adequately deal with hypothesis concerning the archetype of our extant textual transmission (collection verus individual writing). Secondly, I think there is a tendency towards somehow naively extrapolating from findings (of text-types) within the Gospels to other parts of the NT (some are looking for the "Western" text of the Catholic epistles, because there seems to be one in the Gospels, the same goes for the Caesaren text, etc.). Thirdly, what could be considered as text-types varies considerably with respect to intra-text-type relationships (e.g., MSS belonging to the Byzantine text show markedly higher agreements among each other, than so-called Alexandrian MSS). This seems to be somehow related to different periods within textual transmission. However, employing somehow unified text-type definitions throughout the whole time span could be anachronistic to some extent, not to mention all of the greatly varying and often interfering concepts of how text-types came into being (recensension?, carefully worked out?, Alexandrian philological tradition?, popular missionary text?, etc.). With respect to versions I think you should make first of all somehow sense of the versional transmission itself. If you compare versional evidence with Greek evidence, after all you have to rely on readings and shared readings with witnesses. (BTW -- Consider the really fantastic finding of descendents of the Harklensis-Vorlage in some misuscules). If you want to make overall descriptions with respect to text-type relations, you should consult the manuals and make your own decision, what framework to follow. Personally, I will not care too much about overall descriptions. When dealing with versions (and MSS), I will always look at the readings. [snip] >It was nice to read your remarks, and I appreciate the sobriety of your >method. I'll try to learn from this. Thank you! dito Ulrich Schmid, Muenster From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Apr 26 12:24:26 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA16909; Sat, 26 Apr 1997 12:24:26 -0400 Message-Id: From: "Mark Arvid Johnson" To: Cc: Subject: Theological tendencies of Athanasius Date: Sat, 26 Apr 1997 10:17:55 -0500 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 893 Frederick Nolan cites the following evidence to support his claims: 1. An edition prepared by Athanasius: S. Athan. Apol ad Constant. §. 4. Tom. I. p.297. ed. Benned Vit. S. Athan. p. xxxiii. §. 4 2. Athanasius charged with burning Bibles of Arian faction Socrat. Hist. Eccl. Lib. I. cap. xxvii. p.64.1.10 -------- <> From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Apr 26 16:32:16 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA17165; Sat, 26 Apr 1997 16:32:15 -0400 Date: 26 Apr 97 22:37:40 +0200 Subject: text divisions of the Gospels From: "Jean Valentin" To: "TC-List" X-Mailer: Cyberdog/2.0 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2932 I need some information as to the divisions of the text of the gospel in greek mss for my work on the Arabic version of Sinai arb 71. This ms has in the margins several indications, numbers and signs, about which I find no explanation for the moment. It would be very useful for me if one of you could provide me with indications as to the divisions of the text in Greek. Our texts are divided in chapters and verses. Of course this division is modern and we don't find it in our mss (except for late Vulgate mss if my memory is good). I know there have been several systems in Greek, one of which is in the margins of the NA edition. It doesn't seem to correspond with what I find in my ms, so I suspect it follows another system or has its own. There are three series of signs in my margins : (1) occasional indications of the Eusebian canons, this isn't a problem since it is well known. (2) Big Roman numbers occurring more or less regularly, indicating portions of text having approximately the size of our chapters (but not cutting the text at eh same places). I give a table of these, so that one of you who is acquainted with text divisions in the mss might eventually recognize if it corresponds to a system he knows. In this system, Mt has 28 "chapters" and Mk has 14. (3) Other signs I haven't been able to read : one looks like a digamma (or an the armenian letter corresponding to beta), and the other looks like a nu or a pi (or the armenian letter corresponding to o-micron). division folio verse remarks Matthieu XXIIII 1 r=B0 23.13 [XXV] 2 r=B0 23.37 wrongly written XV XXVI 5 v=B0 26.1 XXVII 6 v=B0 26.30 in front of the preceding verse XXVIII 9 v=B0 27.26 Marc I is not indicated; probably beginning of Mk II 12 v=B0 1.29 III 14 r=B0 2.17 mddle of a pericope! IIII 15 v=B0 3.31 with annotation in Arabic : "4th chap." V 17 v=B0 5.21 alinea after the verse VI 19 v=B0 6.30 VII 21 v=B0 7.24 VIII 24 r=B0 9.30 [VIIII] 26 r=B0 10.32 wrongly written VIIIII X 28 r=B0 11.27 XI 30 r=B0 13.3 XII 31 r=B0 13.37 or 14.1 XIII absent, but fol. 32 is mutilated (misses a corner) XIIII 33 v=B0 14.60 Luc I 37 v=B0 1.21 thus not 1.1 ! middle of a pericope II 40 v=B0 2.34 middle of a pericope III 41 r=B0 3.1 IIII 42 v=B0 4.1 V 45 r=B0 5.16 VI 48 r=B0 7.1 OTHER UNIDENTIFIED SIGNS folio verse Matthieu 1 r=B0 23.9 5 v=B0 26.1 8 v=B0 27.2 Marc 12 r=B0 1.9 with a mark in the text. 13 r=B0 1.35 16 r=B0 4.10 18 r=B0 6.1 21 r=B0 7.17 22 v=B0 8.27 23 v=B0 9.11 24 r=B0 9.29 27 r=B0 11.1 33 v=B0 14.64 Luc 37 v=B0 1.26 41 r=B0 2.41 42 r=B0 3.18 43 v=B0 4.23 " " 4.28 45 v=B0 5.27 46 r=B0 6.13 Thanks for your help! --------------------------------------------------------- Jean Valentin - Brussels - Belgium --------------------------------------------------------- "If love is the answer, would you please repeat the question?" --------------------------------------------------------- From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Apr 26 16:54:26 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA17198; Sat, 26 Apr 1997 16:54:26 -0400 Message-Id: <199704262051.PAA22664@endeavor.flash.net> From: "Perry L. Stepp" To: "William L. Petersen" , Subject: Re: Comfort's book Date: Thu, 24 Apr 1997 06:00:59 -0500 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 3162 William L. Petersen wrote: > As I point out in the review, > Comfort claims: "the early period of textual transmission...was not > completely marred by textual infidelity and scribal liberty"..."Certain NT > books, such as the four Gospels, Acts, and Paul's epistles were considered > inspired literature from the onset" (Comfort, p. 21--quoted in my review > which you have already read). > > My comment in my review: "Comfort's assertion that the Gospels were "copied > with reverential fidelity" because they "were considered inspired literature > from the onset" is contradicted by the liberties the Gospel writers took > with each other's works." All you need do is compare the synoptics in a > synopsis: we *know* someone is copying from someone, and changing the text > of his exemplar constantly--and it doesn't matter whether you are a > Griesbachian or a "four-sourcer": the gospel being copied from is *not* > being copied with "reverential fidelity"--otherwise the Lord's Prayer, the > Beatitudes, etc., would agree exactly. It seems to me that you're treating two different forms of "copying" differently. In one, authoritative figures in the early church are using sources to supplement their own preaching--or to build their own preaching upon. The results become codified after they have gone through the mill, so to speak--after they've been "preached over" (and we all know how painful that can be). In the other, texts that are viewed as authoritative (in *some* sense, which we've yet to perfectly define) are *transmitted* (which strikes me as an important difference), sometimes in perfect reproduction, sometimes in very imperfect reproduction, by authoritative figures within the community. It's a different situation. This isn't Heraclides or somesuch epitomizing earlier works, which seems to me to be more analogous (but not perfectly analogous) to the writing of the gospels. In this second scenario, it's the copying of texts, not the writing of new texts *per se*. > As with the other excerpts from my review, here again it is simply a point > of *fact*: we have *no* evidence that the Gospels or Acts were seen as > "inspired literature from the onset" and "copied with reverential fidelity." > Quite the contrary: *all* of our *empirical* evidence indicates *exactly > the opposite*!!! I intend no disrespect, but you've clearly spoken with Comfortian hyperbole here. You've built a platform on uneven legs--the two situations are not analogous, as I state above. > Pastors can get away with it from their pulpits; in publications, > university professors cannot. Some pastors don't get away with it. But this isn't the forum for that discussion, is it? Perry L. Stepp ************************************************************ Pastor, DeSoto Christian Church, DeSoto TX Ph.D. candidate in New Testament, Baylor University "A system of morality which is based on relative emotional values is a mere illusion, a thoroughly vulgar conception which has nothing sound in it and nothing true." Phaedo 69b ************************************************************ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Apr 26 18:52:45 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA17319; Sat, 26 Apr 1997 18:52:45 -0400 Message-Id: <199704262250.RAA06070@endeavor.flash.net> From: "Perry L. Stepp" To: Subject: Re: Comfort's book Date: Thu, 24 Apr 1997 08:01:27 -0500 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 896 Well, it made sense when I wrote it. In my reply to Wm Petersen, I wrote: > It seems to me that you're treating two different forms of "copying" > differently. What I meant (I think) to write is: "It seems to me that you're treating two different forms of "copying" as if they were the same, when they need to be treated differently." All scribes, please emend your text accordingly . (Sorry to have introduced a variant into the text of the discussion.) PLStepp ************************************************************ Pastor, DeSoto Christian Church, DeSoto TX Ph.D. candidate in New Testament, Baylor University "A system of morality which is based on relative emotional values is a mere illusion, a thoroughly vulgar conception which has nothing sound in it and nothing true." Phaedo 69b ************************************************************ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Apr 26 23:10:09 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id XAA17563; Sat, 26 Apr 1997 23:10:08 -0400 Message-Id: <199704270311.XAA46272@r02n02.cac.psu.edu> X-Sender: wlp1@email.psu.edu (Unverified) X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 26 Apr 1997 23:10:17 -0400 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: wlp1@psu.edu (William L. Petersen) Subject: Re: Comfort's book Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 7521 Perry L. Stepp writes: >It seems to me that you're treating two different forms of "copying" >differently. In one, authoritative figures in the early church are using >sources to supplement their own preaching--or to build their own preaching >upon. The results become codified after they have gone through the mill, >so to speak--after they've been "preached over" (and we all know how >painful that can be). > >In the other, texts that are viewed as authoritative (in *some* sense, >which we've yet to perfectly define) are *transmitted* (which strikes me as >an important difference), sometimes in perfect reproduction, sometimes in >very imperfect reproduction, by authoritative figures within the community. > It's a different situation. This isn't Heraclides or somesuch epitomizing >earlier works, which seems to me to be more analogous (but not perfectly >analogous) to the writing of the gospels. In this second scenario, it's >the copying of texts, not the writing of new texts *per se*. *In the context of Comfort's book,* and *given _his_ definition* of the "published" text as the "original" text (the exact words are cited at the beginning of my review; I am now citing from memory, for I have neither his book nor the review at hand), I fail to see the pertinence of the distinction you draw. I will be the first to agree that Patristic citations (which is what I assume you mean by your obtuse reference to "authoritative figures within the community") sometimes offer an "imperfect reproduction" (again quoting your terminology). But since *Comfort* views the "published" text of a gospel (say, Mark) as the "original" text, which gets "copied with reverential fidelity" because it is perceived of as "inspired literature from the onset," then *he* should deal with the obvious "trashing" Mark receives at the hands of Luke and Matthew (if you are a "four sourcer"; Griesbachians should make the necessary substitutions: the trashing Matthew gets at the hands of Mark and Luke...). It is *Comfort* who has posited that once Mark is "published," it is respected as "inspired literature from the onset." If so, then why is this "inspired" work so messed about with by other "inspired" writers (e.g. Matt and Luke)? Hence, *your* comparison to Heraclides epitomizing earlier works is not applicable--because of *Comfort's* definition. As for your statement that "authoritative figures within the community" sometimes offer a "very imperfect reproduction," indeed, this is so. But how can you tell where they are giving such an "imperfect reproduction" and where they are *accurately* reproducing an early exemplar? Three examples: (1) Justin gives the "full" citation of Ps. 2.7 in his account of the baptism of Jesus: "You are my son, *this day I have begotten you.*" Compared against either the Byzantine Text or the N-A/UBS text (= essentially the Alexandrian text), I assume you would say this is one of those places where an "authoritative figure within the community" (= "St." Justin, the Martyr...) offers a "very imperfect reproduction." (2) Also in the context of the baptism, Justin speaks of a "great light" which shines in the Jordan (Dial. 88) when Jesus emerges from the water. Again, I presume you would say this is a case where an "authoritative figure" offers an "imperfect reproduction." (3) In Clement of Al., *Quis dives salvetur,* 4, he offers some odd variants in his citations from Mark 10.17-31. Again, I assume you would characterize these as "slips of the pen" or "homiletic excesses" by an "authoritative figure." However: (1) The "full" citation of Ps. 2.7 at the baptism is *also* found in Clement Al, Origen, etc., etc. (among the fathers), Codex Bezae, and vetus latina MSS a b c d ff2 l r1 (in other words, by 7 of 11extant v.l. MSS--including the oldest vetus lat. ms: a [4th cent.]). How do we *know* Justin is giving us an "imperfect reproduction" (to use your phrase) here? Might he not be citing the same tradition found in the other fathers, D, and the v.l.??? Regardless of how one answers that question, *someone* is not reproducing with "reverential fidelity": none of the papyri (all later than Justin) offer Justin's reading. Either Justin--*and* Clement, Origen, Bezae, and a majority of the v.l. MSS--*or* the Alexandrian/Byzantine MSS are *not* reproducing with "reverential fidelity." Incidentally, Justin is the *oldest* source of quotations about the baptism--far older than any MSS of the gospels. (2) The "great light" or "fire" in the Jordan is found not just in Justin, but also in the Sibylline Oracles, Tatian, the Gospel acc. to the Hebrews (as per Epiphanius), and in two "canonical" manuscripts of Matthew: v.l. mss a and g1. Again, recall that v.l. MS a is the oldest extant v.l. MS, and Justin is the oldest extant source who reproduces the baptismal account. Who, pray tell, is copying with "reverential fidelity"?? Justin, or the papyri and the Alexandrian and Byzantine MSS? How do you know? (3) Clement's odd citations in QDS are *also* paralleled in the MS tradition. So it would apprear that he is *not* "inventing" these variants for homiletical, paraenetic, or apologetical purposes. But since--like Justin's citations in #s 1 and 2 above--these are the *most ancient* citations of these passages, and the *identical* readings are found *within* the *earliest* MS tradition, *who* is copying with "reverential fidelity"? In passing, I note you ignore the example I gave from P75--Comfort's "parade horse," whose testimony *he* says we should follow "meticulously" (Comfort's word)--an example which cannot by any stretch of language be termed an "obvious scribal error," for it is an improvement to the text. Again, *where* is the "reverential fidelity"? In P75 or in the rest of the tradition? You continue, then, by quoting me again: >> As with the other excerpts from my review, here again it is simply apoint >> of *fact*: we have *no* evidence that the Gospels or Acts were seen as >> "inspired literature from the onset" and "copied with reverential fidelity." >> Quite the contrary: *all* of our *empirical* evidence indicates *exactly >> the opposite*!!! You reply: >I intend no disrespect, but you've clearly spoken with Comfortian hyperbole >here. You've built a platform on uneven legs--the two situations are not >analogous, as I state above. I have often told the list how ignorant I am, and how limited my knowledge is; perhaps I have missed something here. So I ask you: tell me, please, where, in the first or second century (for by 200, I am sure you would agree that the "text" has been "published" [harkening back to Comfort's definition]) there is evidence--*empirical textual evidence in citations or manuscripts*--that the Gospels or Acts were "copied with reverential fidelity." Obviously you must know of such instances, otherwise you would not have written what you did... I will give you a head start in assembling your list by saying that we have already ruled out P75, as well as Justin, and Tatian (the heretic!), and Clement of Alexandria, and Origen (the heretic!), and the Sibylline Oracles. Perhaps you mean the Didache? Or perhaps the Protevangelium Iacobi? Or maybe the Gospel of Thomas? The Gospel according to the Hebrews? Where? WHERE??? Since you say I am wrong (which I may well be...), and engaging in "Comfortian hyperbole," then you *must* have some specific cases in mind. Please--share them with us! --Petersen, Penn State Univ. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Apr 27 19:07:56 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA18769; Sun, 27 Apr 1997 19:07:56 -0400 X-Authentication-Warning: mail3.voicenet.com: ivyland405.voicenet.com [207.103.7.24] didn't use HELO protocol Message-ID: <3363CE49.4652@voicenet.com> Date: Sun, 27 Apr 1997 18:08:09 -0400 From: mbruffey X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: MT 23.32-34 in four text-types References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1032 Hi! I have a question about the texts as presented in the *.gif file. My question is not meant to undermine the main points of the discussion but arises from personal curiosity concerning presentation of electronically produced texts. In comparison with _New Testament Greek Manuscripts_ : Matthew, ed R. Swanson, pub Sheffield Ac Pr, 1995, I note a few variations: (1) Swanson has FUGETAI for FUGETE, D, v33 (2) OFIS for OFEIS, B,THETA, v33 (3) APOKTEINEITE for APOKTENEITE, D, v34 (4) MASTEIGWSETE for MASTIGWSETE, B, v34 Again, I ask these questions for the purpose of learning, since I am clearly no expert in either text criticism or orthography. Is it the illegibility of the original texts from which such variations arise? Is Swanson's NTGM to be regarded with caution as to its accuracy? Are there errors in Jean Valentin's text? What other factors are at work here? NB It appears that Swanson does not list these four in his orthographic apparatus. Thank you, L. Mark Bruffey mbruffey@voicenet.com From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Apr 27 22:38:32 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA19033; Sun, 27 Apr 1997 22:38:32 -0400 From: dwashbur@wave.park.wy.us Message-Id: <199704280142.TAA14128@wavecom.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Sun, 27 Apr 1997 19:36:29 -7000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: MT 23.32-34 in four text-types Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.42a) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1375 > In comparison with _New Testament Greek Manuscripts_ : Matthew, ed R. > Swanson, pub Sheffield Ac Pr, 1995, I note a few variations: > > (1) Swanson has FUGETAI for FUGETE, D, v33 > > (2) OFIS for OFEIS, B,THETA, v33 > > (3) APOKTEINEITE for APOKTENEITE, D, v34 > > (4) MASTEIGWSETE for MASTIGWSETE, B, v34 > > Again, I ask these questions for the purpose of learning, since I am > clearly no expert in either text criticism or orthography. Is it the > illegibility of the original texts from which such variations arise? Is > Swanson's NTGM to be regarded with caution as to its accuracy? Are > there errors in Jean Valentin's text? What other factors are at work > here? They appear to be itacisms, a.k.a. alternate spellings. A lot of mss, especially the uncials, frequently use I for EI and other similar vowel variations (cf. English "color" vs. "colour" - same idea). It wasn't until some time after printing, as I recall, that Greek spelling got standardized the way we see it in printed editions and some transcriptions/collations. An awful lot of the actual variations among the mss. are simple spelling errors/variations. Most printed editions and critical tools don't note these. Dave Washburn http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur/home.html "You're so open-minded that your brain leaked out." -Steve Taylor From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Apr 28 10:54:12 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA20064; Mon, 28 Apr 1997 10:54:12 -0400 Message-Id: <9704281554.AA19055@iris.arcadis.be> Subject: Re: MT 23.32-34 in four text-types Date: Mon, 28 Apr 97 16:55:42 +0200 X-Sender: vale5655@194.111.178.251 X-Mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1 From: Jean VALENTIN To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 742 >In comparison with _New Testament Greek Manuscripts_ : Matthew, ed R. >Swanson, pub Sheffield Ac Pr, 1995, I note a few variations: > > (1) Swanson has FUGETAI for FUGETE, D, v33 > > (2) OFIS for OFEIS, B,THETA, v33 > > (3) APOKTEINEITE for APOKTENEITE, D, v34 > > (4) MASTEIGWSETE for MASTIGWSETE, B, v34 Indeed, I have "normalized" the orthography. ________________________________________________________________ Jean Valentin - 58/7 rue Van Kalck - 1080 Bruxelles - BELGIQUE ________________________________________________________________ email : jgvalentin@arcadis.be *** netmail : 2:291/780.103 ________________________________________________________________ If love is the answer, would you please repeat the question? From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Apr 28 14:06:56 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA20852; Mon, 28 Apr 1997 14:06:56 -0400 Date: 28 Apr 1997 18:07:12 -0000 Message-ID: <19970428180712.7275.qmail@np.nosc.mil> From: Vincent Broman To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu In-reply-to: <33610916.1307@ccmail.fingerhut.com> (message from Hubert Bahr on Fri, 25 Apr 1997 12:42:14 -0700) Subject: Re: Logic in TC Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1656 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Are their any books on TC and statistics or statistics in general, > that can be understood by someone who has been away from mathematics? I think any good course in Probability and Statistics will give you what's needed. For TC you won't need to work much with continuous random variables like the Gaussian, beautiful as it may be, but the discrete random variables used in TC still require understanding of these elementary concepts: Probability of Events (and Conditional Events) Distributions Independence and Correlation Measures of central tendency and Variance Estimation Hypothesis Testing Choosing Sample Size Confidence levels and statistical significance Cluster Analysis (which is not found in elementary books) You might get by without knowing Calculus if you just swallow some cookbook methods, but your understanding would be handicapped. You really need to understand logarithms and exponents to have a chance at statistics. When you grasp the concepts above you'll be 'way ahead of the pack. Vincent Broman, code D783 Bayside Email: broman@nosc.mil Naval Command Control and Ocean Surveillance Center, RDT&E Div. San Diego, CA 92152-6222, USA Phone: +1 619 553 1641 === PGP protected mail preferred. For public key finger broman@np.nosc.mil === -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBM2Tm6GCU4mTNq7IdAQEtMAP+JlpJMS3wU0FPrpG6zybpngcyn4/KHqnJ UwN8k7yoDkfPo1N/GhZDhE0YeDM++ZyoLs3lxv41uUN4ntdp+Kv7ein3jPoI0X/P mr89EQpebT/MyvLogQbN9ZtOy9tx2kRYrHKGlq3wlgdjMtoCLNAZh060tdi8/WWp gseSSqFzyzg= =rGaV -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Apr 28 14:24:11 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA20885; Mon, 28 Apr 1997 14:24:10 -0400 Message-Id: <007U59@MAIL.REDWOODS.CC.CA.US> X-Mailer: DeskLink [Version B.04 96/06/12] MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: 28 Apr 97 11:24 +0000 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Peshitta/Codex Antioch X-HPDESK-ID: 19732203 0 0 0 "NTMAIL " X-HPDESK-PRIORITY: 3 X-HPDESK-SYSTEM: 525 From: Paul_CHOWN@mail.redwoods.cc.ca.us (Paul CHOWN) X-HPDESK-TO: "TC-LIST"@[tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu] Content-Type: text/plain; Name="C1841106.txt" Content-Disposition: inline; Filename="C1841106.txt" X-HPDESK-SUBJECT: Peshitta/Codex Antioch Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 300 This list has been suggested to me as a place where I could forward this question. >>Can any of you scholars (or anyone else) give me a brief introduction >>to the Antiochian Manuscripts. I am interested in who, when, and >>where they were used prior to Erasmus. paul chown@mail.redwoods.cc.ca.us From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Apr 28 16:26:37 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA21244; Mon, 28 Apr 1997 16:26:36 -0400 Message-Id: <9704282127.AA03949@iris.arcadis.be> Subject: Re: Peshitta/Codex Antioch Date: Mon, 28 Apr 97 22:28:12 +0200 X-Sender: vale5655@194.111.178.251 X-Mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1 From: Jean VALENTIN To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2632 >This list has been suggested to me as a place where I could forward >this question. > >>>Can any of you scholars (or anyone else) give me a brief introduction >>>to the Antiochian Manuscripts. I am interested in who, when, and >>>where they were used prior to Erasmus. The subject line of this message suggests you are speaking about syriac manuscripts. In fact, when "scholars" speak about Antiochene manuscripts, they speak about Greek manuscripts that, according to certain theories, reflect a recension of the Greek text that was produced (IVth century?) in Antioch. It has become more usual, nevertheless, to speak of the Byzantine text. It is by far the text that is represented in the biggest number of Greek manuscripts (If I remember, somebody gave the figure of 80 percent, am I right?). As to the peshitto, it is a syriac version (syriac = the Aramaic dialect of the Christians of Northern Mesopotamia). Though it was usually said - too simply - to reflect this same greek text, it is now recognized that it is a revision of older syriac texts, that had another textual base. The peshitto, though introducing in the syriac tradition many variants that lead to suppose that its revision base was probably something close to the Byzantine text, has kept an important layer of variants going back to the Old Syriac version. As an example, one day I made a study of Mt 23 in the Syriac tradition. I give the ciphers by memory, if some are interested, I will post something about it later with more precise data: of 25 variants that exist in this chapter in the Old Syriac version and that have no support from any known greek manuscripts, 8 are still present in the peshitto. When I say above that the revisors of the peshitto used "something close to" the Byzantine text, I say that because all the variants that are introduced - at least for this chapter - are also present in other eastern Greek mss (like 575 700 fam1 and fam13). The one or two variants that are found _only_ in the Byz text were not taken by the Peshitto. Of course, this is only a survey I made some time ago, but it gives me the impression that the popular idea that the peshitto is mostly Byzantine could be quite easily challenged. ________________________________________________________________ Jean Valentin - 58/7 rue Van Kalck - 1080 Bruxelles - BELGIQUE ________________________________________________________________ email : jgvalentin@arcadis.be *** netmail : 2:291/780.103 ________________________________________________________________ If love is the answer, would you please repeat the question? From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Apr 29 06:37:41 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id GAA22253; Tue, 29 Apr 1997 06:37:41 -0400 Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 06:37:58 -0400 (EDT) From: Bart Ehrman X-Sender: behrman@login5.isis.unc.edu To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Theological tendencies and the Text In-Reply-To: <199704260046.UAA04984@fs.IConNet.NET> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2013 On Fri, 25 Apr 1997, RONALD DAVID LARGE wrote: > > Greetings, all :-) > > The recent thread regarding Brogan's work on Athanasius, and collateral > concerns about the effect of > theological tendencies on textual transmission, bring me to posit a couple > of questions: > 1) Has anyone suspected, as I have at times, that the hardening of > trinitarian thought, especially the development of logos-christological > concepts as expounded by, among others, Irenaeus, Tertullian and > Athenogoras, had any effect upon the transmission of the text? I am > specifically thinking of variants such as John 1:18, Acts 20:28 > and I Timothy 3:16. Is anyone aware of any studies that con- firm or > abrogate such conclusions? Thoughts or comments, anyone? > > 2) Conybeare wrote of Eusebius' citations of Matthew 28:19 (eighteen in > all) in works between 300-336 A.D.,and invariably found them to be in the > following form, "Go ye and make disciples of all nations, IN MY NAME, > teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I have commanded you.". > Is anyone intimate with the evidence here? Does Patristic research shed any > light on this "variant" ? > > Thoughts.... comments? > Thanks in advance, and God bless... > David Large > Scholars have indeed suspected just what you suggest. It's the subject of my book _The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture_ New York: Oxford University Press, 1993; I give a full bibliography of everyone else who's worked on the problem and deal at length with the variants you mention, and dozens more (with every variant that I could find in the tradition, in fact, that appeared to be related to the christological controversies). I don't deal, though, with the suggestion of Conybeare (and K. Lake and others) about Matt. 28:19-20 simply because there is no actual manuscript evidence (only some interesting patristic quotations which are, though, problematic) to support it. Hope this helps. -- Bart D. Ehrman, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Apr 29 10:52:07 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA22651; Tue, 29 Apr 1997 10:52:06 -0400 Message-Id: <199704291449.JAA24456@endeavor.flash.net> From: "Perry L. Stepp" To: "William L. Petersen" , Subject: Re: Comfort's book Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 02:26:54 -0500 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 8423 Sorry to have been so confusing. Let me spell this out. 1.) You obviously have me confused with someone who wants to defend Philip Comfort and his views. To quote the great biblical scholar Robert Zimmerman (aka Dylan), "It ain't me." (Or Saint Ronnie [Van Zandt], if you wish: "I ain't the one.") 2.) You quote me: > From: William L. Petersen > Perry L. Stepp writes: > > >It seems to me that you're treating two different forms of "copying" > >differently. [should read: "It seems to me that you're treating two different forms of "copying" as if they were the same, when they need to be treated differently," as per my second message.] > > In one, authoritative figures in the early church are using > >sources to supplement their own preaching--or to build their own > >preaching upon. The results become codified after they have gone > >through the mill, so to speak--after they've been "preached over" > >(and we all know how painful that can be). Here I speak of the evangelists, who were preachers handling sermonic material before they were writers. Some of that material was passed to them by other preachers in the guise of sermonic material, some of it was passed to them in texts. Their central concerns were polemical, hortatory, evangelistic, practical, etc. They were *not* centrally concerned with transmitting to others the texts they'd received. > >In the other, texts that are viewed as authoritative (in *some* sense, > >which we've yet to perfectly define) are *transmitted* (which strikes > >me as an important difference), sometimes in perfect reproduction, > >sometimes in very imperfect reproduction, by authoritative figures > >within the community. Here I in my obtuseness refer to *scribes* who copied texts--"authoritative figures" was an infelicitous choice, I admit. Their central concern was taking the text they'd received and transmitting/preserving it for the then and future needs of their community. Other concerns entered into their handling of the text--Epp, Ehrman, et. al., have shown that this happened, although we can quibble about the extent and details of these occurrences. Whatever the case, their use of the text centered on preservation/transmission. You take me to be referring to the Fathers--which I'm not. The Fathers' purposes in presenting the text are more analogous to those of the evangelists than to the scribes. Their *central* concerns were polemical, hortatory, evangelistic, practical, etc. They were not centrally concerned with the transmission/preservation of the text. Which is one reason the use of the Fathers in NT textual criticism is so problematic, as you know. Here's the crux: you cannot take the way group A handled the text and extrapolate from their attitude--assuming you've properly reconstructed it--what group B believed about the inspiration of the text or what their views must have been. The situations are not analogous, because the purposes and motivations of the "users" (for lack of a better term) of the text are different. 3.) You quote me quoting you: > >> As with the other excerpts from my review, here again it is simply > >>a point of *fact*: we have *no* evidence that the Gospels or Acts > >>were seen as "inspired literature from the onset" and "copied with > >>reverential fidelity." Quite the contrary: *all* of our *empirical* > >>evidence indicates *exactly the opposite*!!! You quote my reply: > >I intend no disrespect, but you've clearly spoken with Comfortian > >hyperbole here. You've built a platform on uneven legs--the two > >situations are not analogous, as I state above. To which you reply: > I have often told the list how ignorant I am, and how limited my > knowledge is; perhaps I have missed something here. So I ask > you: tell me, please, where, in the first or second century (for by > 200, I am sure you would agreethat the "text" has been "published" > [harkening back to Comfort's definition]) there is evidence-- > *empirical textual evidence in citations or manuscripts*--that the > Gospels or Acts were "copied with reverential fidelity." Obviously > you must know of such instances, otherwise you would not > have written what you did... > > I will give you a head start in assembling your list by saying that we > have already ruled out P75, as well as Justin, and Tatian (the heretic!), > and Clement of Alexandria, and Origen (the heretic!), and the Sibylline > Oracles. Perhaps you mean the Didache? Or perhaps the > Protevangelium Iacobi? Or maybe the Gospel of Thomas? The > Gospel according to the Hebrews? Where? WHERE??? Since you > say I am wrong (which I may well be...), and engaging in "Comfortian > hyperbole," then you *must* have some specific cases in mind. > Please--share them with us! Hey, caustic sarcasm! Heat without light! Allllllright! Look, I enjoy a long-distance spitting contest as much as the next person. But sheathe that rapier wit, doc--you've got me mixed up with someone else. I haven't labeled anyone or anything "heretical." Nor am I defending Comfort. The hyperbole to which I refer is the absolute language of your statement (and I quote): > >> As with the other excerpts from my review, here again it is simply > >> apoint of *fact*: we have *no* evidence that the Gospels or Acts > >> were seen as "inspired literature from the onset" and "copied with > >> reverential fidelity." Quite the contrary: *all* of our *empirical* > >> evidence indicates *exactly the opposite*!!! The *facts* are: a-We have practically no New Testament material from the second century that was not copied for primarily polemical purposes--the early papyri (which you so casually dismiss) are *it*. They are the only *empirical* evidence of how early *scribes* understood the inspiration and authority of the text. They are the only *empirical* evidence--with a few patristic exceptions--of how the practices attending the transmission of the text intersected with the Church's view of inspiration. b-We have a small group of early papyrii that are almost identical to one another and almost identical to Vaticanus. These mss are quite fragmentary, but they're there. (Remember, I'm not the one who claimed that it was a "point of fact" that "*all* of our *empirical* evidence indicates *exactly the opposite*!!!") Their uniformity is the opposite of Byzantine uniformity: the latter is the result of recensional activity, the former is the result of a very respectful, controlled, careful attitude toward the copying of texts. c-The imperfections in p75 do not change the fact that it presents a text that is "virtually identical" to B, and gives evidence of a stream of very precise scribal activity--admittedly not "perfectly faithful". But it is anachronistic to project a modern evangelical's understanding of inspiration back into the first and second century--if that's what Comfort does (and again, I didn't jump into this aiming to defend him), he's wrong. The fact that some scribes in the stream felt free to add/alter material to/in the text doesn't change the overall character of the stream. It's ludicrous to create two falsely exclusive alternatives, as you seem to do: either early scribes and fathers (anachronistically) viewed texts as authoritative and inspired according to a 20th century evangelical model (a model which clearly sets your teeth on edge), or they didn't view them as inspired and authoritative, or quote them with "reverential fidelity." Scribes need not have signed the Chicago statement on inerrancy, or the Evangelical Theological Society's statement of faith, or even to have agreed with them verbatim, to have viewed the texts as authoritative and inspired from the earliest periods. The evidence *pertaining to scribes* is too fragmentary to make a conclusive case either way: "in point of fact," it suggests the opposite of what you assert. Perry L. Stepp ************************************************************ Pastor, DeSoto Christian Church, DeSoto TX Ph.D. candidate in New Testament, Baylor University "A system of morality which is based on relative emotional values is a mere illusion, a thoroughly vulgar conception which has nothing sound in it and nothing true." Phaedo 69b ************************************************************ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Apr 29 12:26:43 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA22890; Tue, 29 Apr 1997 12:26:43 -0400 From: schmiul@uni-muenster.de Message-Id: <199704291627.SAA60588@mail.uni-muenster.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Tue, 29 Apr 97 18:43:18 +0100 Subject: Re: text divisions of the Gospels To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2285 >I need some information as to the divisions of the text of the gospel >in greek mss for my work on the Arabic version of Sinai arb 71. This >ms has in the margins several indications, numbers and signs, about >which I find no explanation for the moment. It would be very useful >for me if one of you could provide me with indications as to the >divisions of the text in Greek. >Our texts are divided in chapters and verses. Of course this division >is modern and we don't find it in our mss (except for late Vulgate mss >if my memory is good). I know there have been several systems in >Greek, one of which is in the margins of the NA edition. It doesn't >seem to correspond with what I find in my ms, so I suspect it follows >another system or has its own. With respect to text divisions you should consult H. von Soden, Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments..., I. Teil: Untersuchungen, I. Abteilung: Die Textzeugen, Goettingen, 1911, pp. 388-485. Following O. Schmid, Ueber verschiedene Einteilungen der Heiligen Schrift, Graz, 1892, von Soden (pp. 476.483) points out that our modern chapter division goes back to Stephan Langton prior to 1206 AD, whereas our modern verse division goes back to Stephanus' editions (1551, 1555). >There are three series of signs in my margins : (1) occasional >indications of the Eusebian canons, this isn't a problem since it is >well known. (2) Big Roman numbers occurring more or less regularly, >indicating portions of text having approximately the size of our >chapters (but not cutting the text at eh same places). I give a table >of these, so that one of you who is acquainted with text divisions in >the mss might eventually recognize if it corresponds to a system he >knows. In this system, Mt has 28 "chapters" and Mk has 14. The latin mumbers from the margin of your arabic MS seem to roughly equate our modern chapter division, as far as I understand. Since this modern _latin_ chapter division also made its way in some (late) Greek MSS, maybe it's also the source for the arabic MS. BTW -- What is the date of your arabic MS? Are there different hands detectable? Do the marginal notes belong to the original scribe? >(3) Other signs I haven't been able to read : You should check von Soden. Ulrich Schmid, Muenster From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Apr 29 14:05:11 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA23193; Tue, 29 Apr 1997 14:05:11 -0400 From: "GLENN WOODEN" Organization: Acadia University To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 15:06:05 AST4ADT Subject: Re: Acadmeic imperialism, etc., etc., etc. Priority: normal In-Reply-To: <199704250401.AAA10695@loki.atcon.com> X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.53/R1) Message-Id: <140E6900CE4@ace.acadiau.ca> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 642 In repsonse to Tim McLay's question (below): While a student, I did research for a paper on the scholarly communication process. One author claimed that the rejection rate in the humanities was about 80%. If there are editors on the list, it would be interesting to how they react to that in light of their experience. > It has been mentioned that many worthy articles get rejected. It would be > nice if someone in the know could give us the percentage of articles > submitted that get rejected. I have been told that it is very high in the > humanities. Glenn Wooden Acadia Divinity College Wolfville N.S. Canada wooden@acadiau.ca From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Apr 29 18:15:45 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA23688; Tue, 29 Apr 1997 18:15:44 -0400 Date: 30 Apr 97 00:11:24 +0200 Subject: Re: text divisions of the Gospels From: "Jean Valentin" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu X-Mailer: Cyberdog/2.0 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2225 On Mar 29 Avr 1997 19:43, schmiul@uni-muenster.de wrote: > With respect to text divisions you should consult H. von Soden, Die Schriften > des Neuen Testaments..., I. Teil: Untersuchungen, I. Abteilung: Die > Textzeugen, > Goettingen, 1911, pp. 388-485. Following O. Schmid, Ueber verschiedene > Einteilungen der Heiligen Schrift, Graz, 1892, von Soden (pp. 476.483) points > out that our modern chapter division goes back to Stephan Langton prior to > 1206 > AD, whereas our modern verse division goes back to Stephanus' editions (1551, > 1555). Thanks for the reference from von Soden, I'll check it! > > The latin mumbers from the margin of your arabic MS seem to roughly equate > our > modern chapter division, as far as I understand. Since this modern _latin_ > chapter division also made its way in some (late) Greek MSS, maybe it's also > the > source for the arabic MS. Very roughly then... But my ms is much earlier, as it is (paleographically) dated from the Xth century. > BTW -- What is the date of your arabic MS? Are there different hands > detectable? > Do the marginal notes belong to the original scribe? > The Arabic ms is from the Xth century. I haven't been able to determine if the marginal notes were of the same hand as the Arabic writing. I have only a microfilm (black and white...). As to the "latin" numerals, the "X" is written as it is sometimes in greek or even in coptic (a bit curved). Ideally, I should post a gif of a page, but for that I should find somebody with a scanner. > >(3) Other signs I haven't been able to read : > > You should check von Soden. Definitely I will. I'll also check in the lectionaries as these could be liturgical marks. --------------------------------------------------------- Jean Valentin - Brussels - Belgium --------------------------------------------------------- email : jgvalentin@arcadis.be /// netmail : 2:291/780.103 --------------------------------------------------------- "Si l'amour est la reponse, voulez-vous bien me rappeler quelle etait la question?" "If love is the answer, would you please remind me what the question was?" --------------------------------------------------------- From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Apr 30 04:44:27 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id EAA24679; Wed, 30 Apr 1997 04:44:27 -0400 From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" Organization: Divinity Faculty To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 09:44:27 +000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Acadmeic imperialism, etc., etc., etc. Priority: normal References: <199704250401.AAA10695@loki.atcon.com> In-reply-to: <140E6900CE4@ace.acadiau.ca> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.52) Message-ID: <4362D038E7@div.ed.ac.uk> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 3083 > From: "GLENN WOODEN" > Organization: Acadia University > In repsonse to Tim McLay's question (below): > While a student, I did research for a paper on the scholarly > communication process. One author claimed that the rejection rate in > the humanities was about 80%. If there are editors on the list, it > would be interesting to how they react to that in light of their > experience. > > > It has been mentioned that many worthy articles get rejected. It would be > > nice if someone in the know could give us the percentage of articles > > submitted that get rejected. I have been told that it is very high in the > > humanities. Having served on the editorial boards of a couple of journals and having been involved for the last few years in promoting the development of Internet-based journals across the disciplines, I can report the following. The acceptance/rejection rates of journals vary (a) within the same field depending on the prestige factor of the journal and thus how massive the submission flow--for the number of annual pages is fixed and only so many articles can be published each year regardless of the number of submissions, (b) from field to field--science journals have *acceptance* rates of about 40-60%, whereas top Humanities journals have acceptance rates of about 10-25%. This is in part because science journals are bigger overall, publish often monthly not quarterly, and the articles are shorter permitting more to be published. Thus, it is true that rejection by a given journal in the Humanities does not necessarily mean that the article is garbage or not up to scratch. It may mean all that! But rejection may also mean (a) the article doesn't fit the editorial scope of the journal--e.g., JBL doesn't tend to publish just now review-essays; (b) the article while good isn't among the 20-30 that can be accommodated from the hundreds submitted. One is always advised to read the assessors' comments very carefully, and learn from them. It may often be the case that basically the same article might be published in another journal whose editorial policies and scope fit it better or whose submission rate is not as great, or for other reasons. But, when one has submitted an article to two or three good journals and gotten back similar criticisms as a basis for rejection, one simply has to reckon with the real probability that one's work is somehow seriously short of the mark. It is, of course, always a theoretical possibility that one is simply so far ahead of one's time that the dolts assessing don't know solid gold when they see it. But it is a rather daring person who thinks that more probable than the alternative. One should at least look for *some* kind of critically-valid encouragment, preferably from scholars whose own position does not dictate that they must agree with one! L. W. Hurtado University of Edinburgh, New College Mound Place Edinburgh, Scotland EH1 2LX Phone: 0131-650-8920 Fax: 0131-650-6579 E-mail: L.Hurtado@ed.ac.uk From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Apr 30 06:48:09 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id GAA24771; Wed, 30 Apr 1997 06:48:09 -0400 Message-Id: <199704301049.GAA58996@r02n02.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, 30 Apr 1997 06:48:16 -0400 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: wlp1@psu.edu (William L. Petersen) Subject: Re: Theological tendencies and the Text Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1282 > >On Fri, 25 Apr 1997, RONALD DAVID LARGE wrote: >> 2) Conybeare wrote of Eusebius' citations of Matthew 28:19 (eighteen in >> all) in works between 300-336 A.D.,and invariably found them to be in the >> following form, "Go ye and make disciples of all nations, IN MY NAME, >> teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I have commanded you.". >> Is anyone intimate with the evidence here? Does Patristic research shed any >> light on this "variant" ? >> >> Thoughts.... comments? >> Thanks in advance, and God bless... >> David Large >> George Howard--who is on this list--wrote an article on Matt 28:19 some years ago; my recollection is that it appeared in JBL (I will check tomorrow in the office; Prof. Howard may be able to answer directly...). Also: Howard's "Hebrew Matthew" (Shem-Tob's, actually...) has a *most* interesting end to Matt--which runs along the lines of Eusebius's. It seems clear on "internal" criteria (internal within the NT, that is...) that Matt 28:19 is a later addition, for otherwise the actions of Peter in Acts 10-11 and Paul's contratemps with the "pillars" in Jerusalem (James, Cephas, and John are named in Gal. 2:9; Peter is, indirectly, under the same stricture in Gal. 2:8) are incomprehensible. --Petersen, Penn State Univ. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Apr 30 10:53:05 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA25606; Wed, 30 Apr 1997 10:53:05 -0400 Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 10:54:25 -0400 Message-Id: <2.2.16.19970430105424.502f454a@email.psu.edu> X-Sender: wlp1@email.psu.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "William L. Petersen" Subject: Papyri in the second century (was Comfort's book) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 8308 Re Perry L. Stepp's comments/message: >Here I in my obtuseness refer to *scribes* who copied texts--"authoritative >figures" was an infelicitous choice, I admit. Clarity is no minor thing...I never would have guessed what you meant by "authoritative figures." Scribes are usually fairly anonymous, insignificant creatures: I cannot *name* any scribes from antiquity who would even remotely be classified as an "authority figure"... I largely agree with you that there is a difference between scribes (sometimes mindlessly copying...) and evangelists/patristic figures. But I don't see how any of this fits into your criticism of my assertion. I'm not sure we can drop Comfort from the discussion, for my statement was made in the context of *his* claim that the "original text" is the "published text" (see my review or his book, p. 19). Hence, the evangelists themselves--preaching, modifying, etc.--are out of the picture. He is talking about the transmission of the fixed text, once they got done with it. It is at that point that I criticized his scenario, according to which certain works (he names the gospels and Acts) were "copied with reverential fidelity" *because* they were "considered inspired literature from the outset"--this is where he gets the "evidence" for his assertion that "the eraly period of textual transmission...was not completely marred by textual indifelity and scribal liberty" (p. 21 in Comfort, also cited in the review). This is the context in which the statement was made, and my reply was crafted to meet it. You then characterize my request for specific evidence of such texts as > caustic sarcasm! Heat without light! Allllllright!....I enjoy a long-distance spitting contest as much as > the next person ...which I shall ignore... You continue by stating: >The *facts* are: > >a-We have practically no New Testament material from the second century >that was not copied for primarily polemical purposes--the early papyri >(which you so casually dismiss) are *it*. They are the only *empirical* >evidence of how early *scribes* understood the inspiration and authority of >the text. They are the only *empirical* evidence--with a few patristic >exceptions--of how the practices attending the transmission of the text >intersected with the Church's view of inspiration. There are two assumptions here which are, to my mind, highly questionable. (1) Apparently you view *all* (or nearly all) of the patristic/apocryphal material is polemical. This is not correct: many of these works were pious, esoteric, paraenetic, etc.; what is the Didache? Not polemic. What is the Diatessaron? Not polemic. What is the Gospel of Thomas? Parts *may* be polemic, but others certainly are not.... (2) Your statement indicates that you think polemic works, *a priori,* cannot transmit the text accurately. This is not true. When Luther supposedly carved "Hoc est corpus meum" on a table top in his meeting with Zwingli, in their nearly-violent debate over the nature of the eucharist [symbolic or "real presence"], he was *certainly* involved in polemic; did he, however, change the scripture for his benefit? Answer: No. *What evdience* [this is the second time I am asking for evidence, and now on a second topic...] do you have for your assertion? I will be the first to say that texts were sometimes changed for polemic or other purposes, but one *cannot* dismiss *all* patristic and apocryphal citations by [1] erroneously characterizing them as "polemic"; and then [2] incorrectly asserting that all polemic works have inaccurate citations, changed for the sake of polemic! You continue: >The *facts* are: > >a-We have practically no New Testament material from the second century >that was not copied for primarily polemical purposes--the early papyri >(which you so casually dismiss) are *it*. (We have already dealt with your dismissal of allegedly "polemic" literature, but it is instructive to see how it guides your thinking on this topic...) Your use the word "papyri" here intrigues me. Will you please tell me how many papyr*i* are dated to the second century? (If there is a range, then please give the mid-point of the range: e.g., Martin and Kasser date P75 to *between* 175 and 225, so its midpoint is 200...). To the best of my knowlege, there is only *one* papyrus (singular)--not papyri (plural)--which stems from the second century. Again,--no sarcasm, or long-distance spitting--but please, tell me: where are you discovering more than one papyrus from the second century (i.e., pre-200; 199 and earlier)??? As *I* understand it, we have *only one* papyr*us*, namely P52, which is clearly second century--and it contains only seven fragmentary lines... P75 is about 200 (+/- 25 years), P32 is "um 200", as are P46, P 64+67, and P66. Moving on: I would appreciate your reaction to my chapter "What Text Can New Testament Textual Criticism Reach?" in B. Aland & J. Delobel, *New Testament Textual Criticism, Exegesis, and Early Church History* (1994), pp. 136-152, which explicitly deals with the early papyri, the link *some* of them have with B, and the patristic evidence; since it is in print, there is no need to reproduce the evidence and argumentation here. Similarly, I would appreciate your comment on pp. 1-26, in my book *Tatian's Diatessaron* (1994), which explores the same terrain, but from the standpoint of patristic/apocryphal evidence. Back to your statement, however: the papyri are *not* "it" for two reasons: (1) there is only one papyrus which is clearly second century; (2) we have abundant patristic/apocryphal material, some polemic, some not, some reliable, some not. Why "dismiss" it (to use the word you used to characterize what you *assume* to be my view of the papyri...)? >b-We have a small group of early papyrii that are almost identical to one >another and almost identical to Vaticanus. These mss are quite >fragmentary, but they're there. (Remember, I'm not the one who >claimed that it was a "point of fact" that "*all* of our *empirical* >evidence indicates *exactly the opposite*!!!") Their uniformity is the >opposite of Byzantine uniformity: the latter is the result of recensional >activity, the former is the result of a very respectful, controlled, >careful attitude toward the copying of texts. > I have already dealt with the "early papyri"--which are not so early, and also not "almost identical"--unless you take a very liberal view of that term... More interesting is your claim that one can detect a difference between the "uniformity" of the papyri--whose uniformity comes from a "very respectful, controlled, careful attitude toward the copying of texts," and the uniformity of the Byzantine text, whose uniformity is the result of "recensional activity." Maurice Robinson may have something to say about the Byzantine text *not* being the result of a "very respectful, controlled, careful attitude toward the copying of texts"... How do you *know* what motives were in the mind of the copyist of a papyrus??? (And, of course, the presumption you express that the text of the papyri is "uniform" is one with which I would quibble....) Finally, I note that you have not acceded to my request, which I ask once again (concrete examples, not rhetoric are the deciding matters): > So I ask > you: tell me, please, where, in the first or second century (for by > 200, I am sure you would agreethat the "text" has been "published" > [harkening back to Comfort's definition]) there is evidence-- > *empirical textual evidence in citations or manuscripts*--that the > Gospels or Acts were "copied with reverential fidelity." Obviously > you must know of such instances, otherwise you would not > have written what you did... I have given you examples from the second-century Fathers and even the earliest gospel mss in Latin, which agree with them. My publications contain other readings which appear to be second-century, for they are attested by multiple second-century authors. But now I ask for your evidence. Maybe there are more second-century papyri; maybe there are examples which show "reverential fidelity"--but I have not yet come across them. You must feel you have, so please, share them. --Petersen, Penn State Univ. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Apr 30 11:09:56 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA25766; Wed, 30 Apr 1997 11:09:56 -0400 Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 11:11:17 -0400 Message-Id: <2.2.16.19970430111115.502f5c64@email.psu.edu> X-Sender: wlp1@email.psu.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "William L. Petersen" Subject: Eusebius's quotation of Matt 28:19 (follow up) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2416 A follow-up on Large's question, with the exact reference (at end of post): >>On Fri, 25 Apr 1997, RONALD DAVID LARGE wrote: > >>> 2) Conybeare wrote of Eusebius' citations of Matthew 28:19 (eighteen in >>> all) in works between 300-336 A.D.,and invariably found them to be in the >>> following form, "Go ye and make disciples of all nations, IN MY NAME, >>> teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I have commanded you.". >>> Is anyone intimate with the evidence here? Does Patristic research shed any >>> light on this "variant" ? >>> >>> Thoughts.... comments? >>> Thanks in advance, and God bless... >>> David Large >>> > > >George Howard--who is on this list--wrote an article on Matt 28:19 some >years ago; my recollection is that it appeared in JBL (I will check >tomorrow in the office; Prof. Howard may be able to answer directly...). >Also: Howard's "Hebrew Matthew" (Shem-Tob's, actually...) has a *most* >interesting end to Matt--which runs along the lines of Eusebius's. > >It seems clear on "internal" criteria (internal within the NT, that is...) >that Matt 28:19 is a later addition, for otherwise the actions of Peter in >Acts 10-11 and Paul's contratemps with the "pillars" in Jerusalem (James, >Cephas, and John are named in Gal. 2:9; Peter is, indirectly, under the >same stricture in Gal. 2:8) are incomprehensible. > >--Petersen, Penn State Univ. > The article is HThR (not JBL), and the reference is: G. Howard, "A Note on the Short Ending of Matthew," HThR 81 (1988), 117-120. The pagination may be only partial, as I have drawn the reference from a footnote in Howard's latest edition of Shem-Tob (p. 192, n. 30). Howard also lists an article by F.C. Conybeare, "The Eusebian Form of the Text Matt. 28, 19," in ZNW 2 (1901), 275-288. Although often too enthusiastic about his (MS) discoveries, Conybeare's knowledge of early Chrisitan lit was unrivaled. Years ago I did a thorough investigation of the Judaic-Christian, patristic (pre-Eusebius), and Diatessaronic witnesses, on the hunch that such a variant--which is quite clearly sympathetic to Judaic-Christians--should show up somewhere else in this matrix of sources. I drilled a dry hole, for no evidence showed up. I suspect that the orthodox corrupters did their work *very* thoroughly...just as they did with the Gospel of the Hebrews/Ebionites/Nazoraeans, and even Thomas.... --Petersen, Penn State Univ. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Apr 30 11:10:37 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA25784; Wed, 30 Apr 1997 11:10:36 -0400 Date: Wed, 30 Apr 97 10:04:29 EDT From: george howard Subject: Re: Theological tendencies and the Text To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu In-Reply-To: <199704301049.GAA58996@r02n02.cac.psu.edu> X-Mailer: MailBook 96.01.000 Message-Id: <970430.100822.EDT.HOWARD@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 568 On Wed, 30 Apr 1997 06:48:16 -0400 William L. Petersen said: > >George Howard--who is on this list--wrote an article on Matt 28:19 some >years ago; my recollection is that it appeared in JBL (I will check >tomorrow in the office; Prof. Howard may be able to answer directly...). >Also: Howard's "Hebrew Matthew" (Shem-Tob's, actually...) has a *most* > >--Petersen, Penn State Univ. > My article on the short end of Matthew is: "A Note on the Short Ending of Matth ew," HTR 81 (1988): 117-20. George Howard UGA From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Apr 30 22:52:50 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA29314; Wed, 30 Apr 1997 22:52:50 -0400 Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 19:54:11 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew Johnson Subject: Re: Languages for specific biblical books in TC To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu In-Reply-To: <2.2.16.19970421161701.4297ea94@email.psu.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 885 On Mon, 21 Apr 1997, William L. Petersen wrote: > At 12:16 PM 4/21/97 -0700, Ken Litwack wrote: [snipped] > > Beyond Greek MSS, however, which langauge > >would be next of importance? Latin, Syriac? Or am I mistaken in thinking > >that the particular text might determine which version(s) would be of > >most value? > > Since D is a bilingual, I would presume you would be interested in *both* of > its languages, right? That means Latin... Because of Bezae's strong Actually, as Parker points out in his fascinating book, "Codex Bezae", the Latin and Greek Texts of D are mostly independent. But Latin is still of great interest for Western texts in general, not just D, because of the Old Latin's close relation to the Western text-type. > Matthew Johnson Waiting for the blessed hope and the appearance of the glory of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ (Ti 2:13). From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Apr 30 23:19:39 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id XAA29355; Wed, 30 Apr 1997 23:19:39 -0400 Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 20:20:58 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew Johnson Subject: Re: Studies in the text of Acts (was: Languages for specific biblical books in TC) To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu In-Reply-To: <199704221509.KAA28476@endeavor.flash.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1824 On Sun, 20 Apr 1997, Perry L. Stepp wrote: > Ken Litwak wrote: > > > Going back to D, I know the question of the text of Acts is very [snipped] > > In a Ph.D. seminar on Textual Criticism, we've just finished (yesterday) > working through a series of monographs, most concerned with the 'Western' > text of Acts. My observations: > [snipped] > > 2.) Parker's *Codex Bezae: An Early Christian Manuscript and Its Text* > provides an extremely detailed study of the physical characteristics of > Bezae--the person who reviewed it referred to it as "an autopsy." The > detail is mind-numbing, the argument is difficult to follow, and the > reconstruction of the history of D seems to be a reach, at times. I am glad to see so many members of this list agree with me that this is a good book. My praise for this book might have sounded a bit exaggerated, but I praise it so highly because what you refer to as "mind-numbing detail", I consider the bare minimum to properly evaluate the quality of the copying work. Even this might sound exaggerated, and of course, this level of detail is not possible with many of the much smaller fragmentary manuscripts. But Parker's example remains an ideal even in those cases, as did Colwell's work. > > 3.) Epp's *Theological Tendency* provides a solid foundation for the later > work of Ehrman, Parsons, et. al. This is a terribly valuable work, > although Epp's not always consistent with his methodology. Parker has the same complaint about Epp's work, and offers some promising corrections. But even Parker finds much useful in Epp's work. > Matthew Johnson Waiting for the blessed hope and the appearance of the glory of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ (Ti 2:13). PS: Is anybody on this list working on a similarly detailed work on minuscule 1739?