From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu May 1 09:17:28 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA01483; Thu, 1 May 1997 09:17:27 -0400 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <199704221509.KAA28476@endeavor.flash.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 1 May 1997 08:21:34 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Studies in the text of Acts (was: 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: 2025 On Wed, 30 Apr 1997, Matthew Johnson wrote, in part: [I'm going to ignore the question of the relationship between D and d, even though it seems obvious to me that the two are closely related -- perhaps not translated from each other, but clearly assimilated -- to get to the question I know more about.] >PS: Is anybody on this list working on a similarly detailed work on >minuscule 1739? What are you hoping for? We obviously can't compare its Greek and Latin sides. :-) But are you interested in a study of 1739, or of 1739 and its relatives? Birdsall's dissertation was a fairly comprehensive look at 1739, 0121, 6, 424**, and 1908 in Paul. You should also study Zuntz on 1739. Gamble had something to say about it in Romans, but I don't agree with his conclusions (he completely ignored the relatives of 1739, which to my mind invalidates his conclusions). French scholars (Duplacy, Amphoux) have done extensive work on the Catholic Epistles, including studying Family 1739. The groups who are working on the text of Acts have also reached some conclusions, but I don't know what they are except that they have established the existence of a Family 1739 there also. Finally, I have been working on 1739, off and on, for about five years now. At the moment I amlooking at 1739's closest relatives in Paul (0243 and 1881, neither of which was known to Birdsall). It will be a while before I get all this material into shape, but you can see an outline of the information at my web site (URL below). I won't claim it's all you'll want, but it's what I could put together in a few hours. Look in the section on the minuscules, then go to the entry on 1739 and family 1739. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 May 1 09:25:01 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA01506; Thu, 1 May 1997 09:25:01 -0400 Message-ID: From: "DC PARKER" Organization: Fac of Arts:The Univ. of Birmingham To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Thu, 1 May 1997 14:25:09 GMT Subject: Re: Studies in the text of Acts Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.01) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 265 Most of the interest in 1739 is in its text of Paul, where it is derived from ancient materials. Acts is a different matter altogether. DC PARKER DEPT OF THEOLOGY UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM TEL. 0121-414 3613 FAX 0121-414 6866 E-MAIL PARKERDC@M4-ARTS.BHAM.AC.UK From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu May 1 10:04:47 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA01619; Thu, 1 May 1997 10:04:47 -0400 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 1 May 1997 09:08:57 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Studies in the text of Acts Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1547 On Thu, 1 May 1997, "DC PARKER" wrote: >Most of the interest in 1739 is in its text of Paul, where it is >derived from ancient materials. Acts is a >different matter altogether. I know that this is a common conclusion based on the colophons. But it's not that simple. There is unquestionably a family of manuscripts of which 1739 is the best. It is *not*, however, the ancestor of the family (although it may well be the ancestor of 0121). It is true that 1739's allies vary a bit from section to section -- e.g. 945 is an ally in Acts and the Catholics, but not in Paul; 630 is an ally in Acts and parts of Paul but not the Catholics. However, no clear dividing line can be drawn between these sections. 1881, 1739's strongest ally, is an ally in both Paul and the Catholics (it does not contain Acts). I concede that 1739 may be somewhat weaker in Acts than in Paul. But in the Catholics, it heads a family (323, 945, 1241, 2298, etc.) of high antiquity and great value. It is worth noting that no less a witness than C is affiliated with 1739 in the Catholics. (See Amphoux, or compare the collations in NA27.) I don't say they are identical, but C is closer to 1739 than to Aleph A B. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 May 1 11:25:05 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA01865; Thu, 1 May 1997 11:25:04 -0400 Message-Id: <199705011522.KAA14323@endeavor.flash.net> From: "Perry L. Stepp" To: "TC List" , Subject: Request: help with Colwell's quantitative analysis Date: Thu, 1 May 1997 03:00:23 -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: 1454 Help! I'm looking at Colwell and Tune's article on quantitative analysis ("Method in Establishing Quantitative Relationships between Text-Types of New Testament Manuscripts," 56ff in Colwell, *Studies in Methodology in Textual Criticism of the New Testament*). It occured to me, as I read the article, that I'm not totally clear on part of the method. I thought I understood it, but now I'm wondering. Colwell says: "the quantitative definition of a text-type is a group of manuscripts that agree more than 70 per cent of the time and is separated by a gap of about 10 per cent from its neighbors" (59). I'm fine with the 70 percent agreement, but I'm not sure how to discern the 10 percent gap. Looking at the percentages, how does one use the 10 percent gap to delineate one group from another? What am I missing? If anyone out there has a copy of Colwell's *Studies* and is willing to explain the 10 percent gap (preferably via reference to Colwell's charts), I'd *really* appreciate it. Grace and peace, 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 Thu May 1 11:26:29 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA01884; Thu, 1 May 1997 11:26:29 -0400 From: Joe_Adler@tvo.org >From: Joe_Adler@tvo.org (Joe Adler) To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Cc: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Papyri in the second century (was Comfort's book) Date: 01 May 1997 16:17:13 GMT Message-Id: <1896017886.10603058@tvo.org> Organization: TVOntario's Online System Content-Type: text Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 23 Please "unscribe" me. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu May 1 11:34:41 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA01914; Thu, 1 May 1997 11:34:40 -0400 Message-Id: <199705011532.KAA15649@endeavor.flash.net> From: "Perry L. Stepp" To: Subject: Ms 1739 in Acts--bibliography Date: Thu, 1 May 1997 03:11:07 -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: 946 Tom Geer has published on 1739 in Acts. See his article in Ehrman and Holmes, *The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research*; see also Geer, "Codex 1739 in Acts and Its Relationship to Manuscripts 945 and 1891," *Biblica* (1988), 27-46. Geer used to teach at Abilene Christian University, but I understand he's no longer there. I'm not sure how to get in touch with him. ACU seems to be the place to get information on the text of Acts, though, because of an IGNT-like project (on Acts) being done there. 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 Thu May 1 11:39:43 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA01939; Thu, 1 May 1997 11:39:43 -0400 Date: Thu, 01 May 1997 11:41:05 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: Papyri in the second century (was Comfort's book) X-Sender: jwest@mail.highland.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970501113853.25876d7a@mail.highland.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: 189 At 04:17 PM 5/1/97 +0000, you wrote: >Please "unscribe" me. > > OK- Yours "unscribed"! Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Pastor, Petros Baptist Church jwest@highland.net From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu May 1 11:52:05 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA02011; Thu, 1 May 1997 11:52:04 -0400 From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" Organization: Divinity Faculty To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Thu, 1 May 1997 16:49:50 +000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Request: help with Colwell's quantitative analysis Priority: normal In-reply-to: <199705011522.KAA14323@endeavor.flash.net> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.52) Message-ID: <627B0B17B0@div.ed.ac.uk> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2323 > From: "Perry L. Stepp" > > Colwell says: "the quantitative definition of a text-type is a group of > manuscripts that agree more than 70 per cent of the time and is separated > by a gap of about 10 per cent from its neighbors" (59). I'm fine with the > 70 percent agreement, but I'm not sure how to discern the 10 percent gap. > Looking at the percentages, how does one use the 10 percent gap to > delineate one group from another? What am I missing? > > If anyone out there has a copy of Colwell's *Studies* and is willing to > explain the 10 percent gap (preferably via reference to Colwell's charts), > I'd *really* appreciate it. Colwell's numbers are inductively arrived. Here's how it works. Question: What does "text-type" agreement mean (i.e., when are mss to be thought of as primary members of the same "text-type"/group)? Steps toward the answer: 1) Text-type agreement must be (a) based on *all* types of variation, not merely on variants against the TR etc., and (b) must evidence a sufficiently close whole text of a NT writing or chunk of it to constitute a likely real relationship. 2) We start by assuming that widely recognized witnesses of major text-types are rightly so regarded, and thus choosing such leading reps. we collate them all together listing all variants where any two or more of the whole selection of reps. agree, and counting the agreements at those 'variation units' of each possible pair of mss, then converting the count into percentages of the total number of variation-units. 3) when we do this (e.g., in Mark) Aleph & B come out agreeing at least 70% or much more, and considerly (at least by 10 % points) more than either of them agrees with any major witness of any other major textual group/type. 4) Thus, if we're going to take Aleph and B as an example of a "text-type" relationship, then their quantitative agreement becomes the measure for such things. There's nothing transcendent about this. It's purely a pragmatic way of trying to move the definition a bit along the lines of precision while trying to stay as close as we can to the empirical data. 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 May 1 12:39:18 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA02101; Thu, 1 May 1997 12:39:18 -0400 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199705011522.KAA14323@endeavor.flash.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 1 May 1997 11:42:13 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Request: help with Colwell's quantitative analysis Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 9632 On Thu, 1 May 1997, "Perry L. Stepp" wrote: >Help! > >I'm looking at Colwell and Tune's article on quantitative analysis ("Method >in Establishing Quantitative Relationships between Text-Types of New >Testament Manuscripts," 56ff in Colwell, *Studies in Methodology in Textual >Criticism of the New Testament*). It occured to me, as I read the article, >that I'm not totally clear on part of the method. I thought I understood >it, but now I'm wondering. > >Colwell says: "the quantitative definition of a text-type is a group of >manuscripts that agree more than 70 per cent of the time and is separated >by a gap of about 10 per cent from its neighbors" (59). I'm fine with the >70 percent agreement, but I'm not sure how to discern the 10 percent gap. >Looking at the percentages, how does one use the 10 percent gap to >delineate one group from another? What am I missing? > >If anyone out there has a copy of Colwell's *Studies* and is willing to >explain the 10 percent gap (preferably via reference to Colwell's charts), >I'd *really* appreciate it. Let's start with the rates of agreement. I'm going to refer to Table I (page 60 in Colwell's book) and give the data for B as Colwell gives it: 75 TR 61 p45 69 p66 73 p66** 92 p75 79 Aleph 83 Aleph** 73 A 73 A** 53 D 77 W 78 W** 65 Theta 81 Psi 74 Omega 67 Cr 71 565 Now let's sort that in ascending order of agreement: 53 D 61 p45 65 Theta 67 Cr 69 p66 71 565 73 A 73 A** 73 p66** 74 Omega 75 TR 77 W 78 W** 79 Aleph 81 Psi 83 Aleph** 92 p75 Now I'm going to add in the separations -- that is, the distance between the percentage agreement between the current manuscript and the next one in the list 53 D 8 61 p45 4 65 Theta 2 67 Cr 2 69 p66 2 71 565 2 73 A 0 73 A** 0 73 p66** 1 74 Omega 1 75 TR 2 77 W 1 78 W** 1 79 Aleph 2 81 Psi 2 83 Aleph** 9 92 p75 - Looking at these separations, there largest of these is 9 (between Aleph** and p75). If that were 10%, instead of 9%, it would be a 10% gap and meet Colwell's definition. If we ignore Aleph**, though, as a text that may never have existed, we get a separation of 11 points (*not* percentage points) between p75 and Psi, so that at least would would constitute a gap. (Does this mean that p75 and B form a text-type all on their own? Well, not exactly.) That's what Colwell and Tune mean by the "gap." Now for the flies in the ointment. (This is where I reveal the truth about the defects in Colwell and Tune, so all you people who think I can't get anything right can go back to sleep now. We're going to do some mathematical thinking here.) I'm quoting my web page, from the Text-Types article, section "Definition of a Text-type": It was not until the mid-Twentieth century that E.C. Colwell offered the first balanced definition of a text-type.[*1] In one essay he gave a qualitative definition ("A Text-type is the largest group of sources which can be generally identified").[2] He adds the important qualification, "This definition is a definition of a text-type as a *group of manuscripts* [emphasis mine], not... a list of readings." Five years later, in an influential essay, Colwell went further. He attempted a quantitative definition. (Indeed, his method is frequently called the "quantitative method" -- a name that makes me cringe, since any statistical method is a "quantitative method.") His statement on the subject is perhaps the most- quoted statement on genealogy since Hort's time: "This suggest that the quantitative definition of a text-type is a group of manuscripts that agree more than 70 per cent of the time and is separated by a gap of about ten percent from its neighbors."[3] Colwell deserves immense credit for offering this definition (as well as for his other methodological studies; he is perhaps the greatest worker in this field in the twentieth century). This definition has the advantages of being clear, precise, and usable. Unfortunately, in the author's experience, it does not work. (It strikes me as almost tragic that Colwell's most-frequently-cited comment on text-types is also one of the few that is not entirely correct. It's worth noting that he rarely if ever refers back to this criterion.) There are two reasons for this. First, the percentage of agreements between manuscripts is entirely dependent on the sample. Second, the "gap" which Colwell refers to disappears when working with mixed manuscripts. Let us offer examples.[*4] To take the first point first, consider the relationship between B/03 and Aleph/01 in chapter 2 of Colossians. The two manuscripts agree in only two of the seven variations cited in GNT4, or 29%. If we take the 29 variants cited in NA27 (excluding conjectures), we find that they agree in 18 of 29, or 62%. If we turn to the Munster Institute's New Testament "Auf Papyrus," and examine the variants supported by two or more uncials (excluding orthographic variants), we find that the two agree in 32 of 47, or 68%. But if we turn to the editia minor of Tischendorf8, we find agreement in 19 of 32 non- orthographic variants, or 59%. Even if we throw out the small GNT sample, we still have almost a ten percent variation between the three remaining sample sets, all of which form large and reasonable bases for comparison. Which one should we use in deciding whether B and Aleph belong to the same text-type? The 68% number, which places them on the fringe of qualifying? The 59% number, which isn't even close? Or something else? All told, Aleph and B have 25 disagreements in this chapter (though some are scribal errors, usually in Aleph). How do we decide how many variants to spread these 25 differences out over to determine if there is 70% agreement? A thought-experiment about mixed minuscules should be sufficient to demonstrate the non-existence of the "gap." Suppose X is an unmixed manuscript, Y is copied from X with five percent Byzantine admixture, Z is copied from Y with another 5% admixture, and so on. It follows that X can never have a ten percent gap; that space is occupied by Y, Z, and so on down the line. If that is not proof enough, one can present a concrete example based on B in the Gospels. Using a large (990 reading) sample and 39 Greek manuscripts, I found two documents (2427 and p75) which, in their particular areas, agreed with B over 80% of the time. Below this was a gap -- but most manuscripts that are considered to belong with B (including Aleph, L, 33, and 892) are on the far side of the gap![*5] The next-closest manuscript was Xi/040 in Luke, at 68%. From there down to the final manuscript in the list (D/05, with 30% overall agreement), there was no gap larger than eight percentage points (and even this gap would have been filled had I included the Coptic versions). The median gap among non-Byzantine manuscripts was one, and even the arithmetic mean ("average") was under two. Colwell's "gaps" will simply not exist in large manuscript samples. There is also a problem with the conceptual model of the Colwell system. Take a manuscript like L/019 of the gospels. It has a significant Byzantine component -- large enough that it will likely fail Colwell's 70% criterion. But -- where it is non-Byzantine -- it stands very close to B/03, and is one of the closest allies of that manuscript. Should we not be able to recognize L as a degenerate relative of B, and use it on that basis? Some would propose to address the problem by adjusting the numbers. This may work in some cases, but cannot be guaranteed; any statistic will be dependent on its sample. It is possible that we could assign percentages if we could produce a "representative" list of variants -- but what is a "representative" variant reading? **** Footnotes: **** 1. Indeed, Colwell was one of the first to plead exclusively for the use of the word "text-type" in this context. See Colwell, Studies in Methodology, p. 9. 2. Ibid. 3. Ernest C. Colwell and Ernest W. Tune, "Method in Establishing Quantitative Relationships between Text-Types of New Testament Manuscripts," reprinted in Studies in Methodology, p. 59. 4. Ironically, it was Colwell himself who first pointed out the defect in his method -- four years before he proposed his definition! In "Method in Locating a Newly-Discovered Manuscript" (Studies in Methodology, page 33), he wrote "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." 5. If someone objects that comparisons across the gospel corpus are not valid, let me simply add that I examined individual books, and even sections of books, and the results were the same within the margin for error. At times the leading manuscripts (especially W) shifted slightly, but the general picture never did. So I present overal statistics because they are simpler. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 May 1 17:27:47 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA03137; Thu, 1 May 1997 17:27:47 -0400 Message-ID: <3369932D.54CF@sn.no> Date: Fri, 02 May 1997 00:09:33 -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: Acts 2:41 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: 1555 In Acts 2:40 Peter says: "Save yourselves from this untoward generation" (KJV) (especially if Pete= r used the=20 KJV!) This was a kind of invitation brought forth by Peter after he had preache= d for a while. The response of the people was enormous! Verse 41a states: "Then they that gladly received his word were baptized"= (KJV). The=20 adv. *gladly* (ASMENWS) is omitted in p74 Aleph A B C 81. 1175. 1739, and= therefore also=20 in N/A26-27. It is retained by E Psi Byz and the two Syriac (p & h). (Thi= s is according=20 to N/A26). My Norwegian Bible runs something like this: "They who now received his w= ord with joy,=20 were baptized". It seems to me that the expression "gladly" or "with joy" (or "readily") = could be=20 regarded as "the more difficult reading" in this context. The Byz reading= clearly *may*=20 be interpreted (by some scribe) to be "harder" because it suggests (to hi= m) that one has=20 to receive the word *gladly* or *with joy* in order to be baptized, while= he knows from=20 other NT passages that receiving _alone_ is sufficient for being allowed = baptism. If he=20 chose to follow a text that omits ASMENWS the supposed theological proble= m is eliminated=20 (in his mind). Of course, I know that the scribe=B4s understanding of the= word ASMENWS=20 comes into play here. (That part I have not investigated). I=B4m not saying, of course, that this is a necessary conclusion. But it = seems at least=20 *possible*. Can this possibility be ruled out?? Any comments about this one? --=20 - Mr. Helge Evensen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu May 1 18:06:05 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA03421; Thu, 1 May 1997 18:06:05 -0400 Date: Thu, 01 May 1997 18:07:26 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: Acts 2:41 X-Sender: jwest@mail.highland.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970501180550.37b7891c@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: 2682 At 12:09 AM 5/2/97 -0700, you wrote: >In Acts 2:40 Peter says: >"Save yourselves from this untoward generation" (KJV) (especially if Peter used the=20 >KJV!) :) > >This was a kind of invitation brought forth by Peter after he had preached for a while. >The response of the people was enormous! > Though, you must realize, this is an unhistorical recounting; theological historiography at its best intended to idealize the early period of the= Church. >Verse 41a states: "Then they that gladly received his word were baptized" (KJV). The=20 >adv. *gladly* (ASMENWS) is omitted in p74 Aleph A B C 81. 1175. 1739, and therefore also=20 >in N/A26-27. It is retained by E Psi Byz and the two Syriac (p & h). (This is according=20 >to N/A26). > The addition of an adjective is much more likely than the deletion of an adjective. (Proof? Simply the fact that scribes like to add for the sake of clarity. I.e., in the story of Jesus' arrest we do not know the name of the victim whose ear is hacked off by Peter until the Gospel of John. We don't know which ear it was in Mark- but we do in Matthew! Simply because scribes add stuff!!!!!) >My Norwegian Bible runs something like this: "They who now received his word with joy,=20 >were baptized". > Your Bible must be based on later mss. (I would be curious to know the textual base of your translation. Was it Luther? Or TR? >It seems to me that the expression "gladly" or "with joy" (or "readily") could be=20 >regarded as "the more difficult reading" in this context. The Byz reading clearly *may*=20 >be interpreted (by some scribe) to be "harder" because it suggests (to him) that one has=20 >to receive the word *gladly* or *with joy* in order to be baptized, while he knows from=20 >other NT passages that receiving _alone_ is sufficient for being allowed baptism. If he=20 >chose to follow a text that omits ASMENWS the supposed theological problem is eliminated=20 >(in his mind). Of course, I know that the scribe=B4s understanding of the word ASMENWS=20 >comes into play here. (That part I have not investigated). No- it is not quite so complex as all that. The scribe simply added gladly because thats how one should receive the message! > >I=B4m not saying, of course, that this is a necessary conclusion. But it seems at least=20 >*possible*. Can this possibility be ruled out?? > Yes. The external evidence alone is telling and conclusive. The internal evidence is in harmony with the external- so that "lectio brevier" wins the= day. >Any comments about this one? > See above. >--=20 >- Mr. Helge Evensen > Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Pastor, Petros Baptist Church jwest@highland.net From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu May 1 18:27:36 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA03498; Thu, 1 May 1997 18:27:35 -0400 Date: Thu, 01 May 1997 18:28:57 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Lapsus X-Sender: jwest@mail.highland.net (Unverified) To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970501182720.277f4cba@mail.highland.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: 186 Forgive, I of course meant adverb and not adjective in the last post in response to Helge. Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Pastor, Petros Baptist Church jwest@highland.net From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri May 2 03:00:01 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id DAA04553; Fri, 2 May 1997 03:00:00 -0400 Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 03:00:00 -0400 Message-Id: <199705020700.DAA04545@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> From: Jimmy Adair (tc-list-owner) Subject: tc-list Quarterly Reminder Content-Type: text Apparently-To: 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: 6679 ****************************************************************************** General Information about the List ****************************************************************************** tc-list: a discussion list of biblical textual criticism This list is loosely associated with the new electronic journal _TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism_, and it is intended for a discussion of any matters relating to biblical textual criticism, broadly defined. The rationale for the creation of the TC journal is given below. It is hoped that subscribers to the tc-list will reflect on and respond to material from articles in TC, will deal with issues that arise in the context of text-critical study in the community of biblical scholars at large, and will use the list to suggest new ideas and methodologies. Notes on any aspect of the textual criticism of the Jewish and Christian scriptures (including extracanonical and related literature) are welcome, and threads that transcend the traditional boundary between textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament and New Testament textual criticism are especially encouraged. We would also like to see threads that discuss the relationship between textual criticism and other disciplines. This list is an unmoderated list, and anyone who is a subscriber to the list may contribute. Conventional netiquette should be followed by all contributors to the list. The following points in particular should be kept in mind. (1) Discussion of topics other than textual criticism (or other topics likely to be of interest to members of the list) should be avoided. (2) Scholarly discussion can at times be somewhat heated, but civility should always prevail. (3) Contributors to the list should always sign their messages with their names (not just e-mail addresses). Additional information, such as institutional affiliation, might also be of interest to others on the list. (4) When responding to a message on the list, quote only that portion of the message that you are responding to, or enugh of the message to remind readers of the context of the discussion. In many cases it is not necessary to quote the entire message. Archives of tc-list are automatically maintained, and they may be accessed by sending a message like the following to majordomo@scholar.cc.emory.edu: get tc-list tc-list.yymm where yy is a 2-digit year and mm is a 2-digit month (e.g., tc-list.9604 for April 1996). The first month archived is November 1995 (tc-list.9511). ****************************************************************************** Subscribing, Unsubscribing, and Sending Messages to the List ****************************************************************************** To subscribe or unsubscribe, send the appropriate message to majordomo@scholar.cc.emory.edu (_not_ to the list itself): subscribe tc-list [your e-mail address] unsubscribe tc-list [your e-mail address] The e-mail address is optional, since subscription will default to the address you are sending from. You may also subscribe to this list in digest form (i.e., messages bundled and sent out a few times per week) by sending this message to majordomo@scholar.cc.emory.edu: subscribe tc-list-digest [your e-mail address] If you subscribe to the digest, be sure to unsubscribe from the list so you won't receive everything twice. To send a message to the list for all to read, send your message to tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu. Don't send to tc-list-digest, even if you're subscribed to the digest. Just send to tc-list. If you do not want to receive messages for a while (e.g., you're going on vacation or will be away from your computer for an extended time), please unsubscribe from the list. There is no "vacation" command on this list. When you want to start receiving messages again, simply subscribe to the list again. ***************************************************************************** TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism ***************************************************************************** One of the benefits of increasingly widespread Internet access is the ease with which scholars in a particular field can communicate with one another. Although the sciences have dominated the electronic journal field up until this point, several journals in the humanities are now available online. TC follows in the (brief) tradition of the Journal of Buddhist Ethics, the International Journal of Tantric Studies, and the Electronic Journal of Vedic Studies. As far as we are aware, TC is the first Web journal in the area of biblical studies. Why "biblical" textual criticism (rather than t-c of the NT or the Hebrew Bible/OT)? It is time for textual critics in the two camps to communicate more with one another. Textual critics in one field can only benefit by hearing what those in the other field have to say. The journal will accept papers dealing with any aspect of textual criticism of the OT/Hebrew Bible or NT, and it especially encourages "crossover" papers that deal with both areas. Papers dealing either with specific cruxes or with larger issues (methodology, use of versional evidence, etc.) are welcome. Brief notes or full-length articles are equally acceptable. Why an electronic journal? The fact of the matter is that printing a journal costs a lot of money (especially with recent increases in paper prices). In addition, it is debatable whether the field of textual criticism could generate a large enough base to support a paper journal. There are technical difficulties with displaying non-Latin characters that will have to be addressed, but these difficulties can be overcome. With an electronic journal, scholars and students around the world can have free access to one or another form of the journal, either via the World Wide Web, FTP, or e-mail. TC is now in the early stages of implementation (our first articles are now ready!), and we are looking for articles. Please submit your articles in electronic form to: Jimmy Adair Scholars Press P.O. Box 15399 Atlanta, GA 30333-0399 USA You are also welcome to send articles via e-mail to jadair@scholar.cc.emory.edu, or you may upload your articles directly to our FTP site at ftp://scholar.cc.emory.edu/uploads/TC. TC has a home page on TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web site (http://scholar.cc.emory.edu/scripts/TC/TC.html), and interested parties can look at this page for announcements. We look forward to your participation in TC and tc-list! The list-owner of tc-list is Jimmy Adair (jadair@scholar.cc.emory.edu). From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri May 2 04:25:30 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id EAA04661; Fri, 2 May 1997 04:25:29 -0400 From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" Organization: Divinity Faculty To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 09:25:45 +000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Request: help with Colwell's quantitative analysis Priority: normal In-reply-to: References: <199705011522.KAA14323@endeavor.flash.net> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.52) Message-ID: <7314E70AA2@div.ed.ac.uk> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1823 A few rjoinder notes to Waltz's piece on Colwell and quantitative approaches. 1) Waltz cites figures from *Table 1* on p. 60 of Colwell, _Methodology_, which includes *singular* readings, which are (as Colwell explains in the essay) not useful for identifying *relationships*. Thus, Table 2 on the same page refines the numbers by including only those variation units where the tested mss exhibit agreement of at least two of them. There the separation becomes clearer. This exclusion of singular readings is an important feature. By definition, singular readings don't attest relationships 2) One ofthe ways Colwell's method has been refined subsequently (by e.g., Fee and yours truly) is to insist that identification of mss relationships cannot safely be done in samples (and in the essay from which the tables come and in which Colwell sketches the basics of his method, he cites figures for John 11, a sample only), and that we have to take measurements (a) across a whole NT writing, and (b) chapter by chapter. If we do this, we can detect "block-mixture" (as, e.g., Fee did in Aleph in John, and as I confirmed in W in Mark). Where the "mixture" is not block-mixture but simply the apparent influence of one textual tradition upon another or the drift of a textual tradition towards another, the percentages of agreement will suggest what is going on *if you include relevant witnesses from sufficient major groups to measure comparative agreements (as, e.g., I attempted with ref. to W in Mark, showing that as the W-P45-Fam 13 tradition progresses it becomes more closely allied with the "Byzantine" type mss witnesses. 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 May 2 10:08:17 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA05320; Fri, 2 May 1997 10:08:16 -0400 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <7314E70AA2@div.ed.ac.uk> References: <199705011522.KAA14323@endeavor.flash.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 08:58:25 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Request: help with Colwell's quantitative analysis Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 5034 On Fri, 2 May 1997, "Professor L.W. Hurtado" wrote: >A few rjoinder notes to Waltz's piece on Colwell and quantitative >approaches. >1) Waltz cites figures from *Table 1* on p. 60 of Colwell, >_Methodology_, which includes *singular* readings, which are (as >Colwell explains in the essay) not useful for identifying >*relationships*. Thus, Table 2 on the same page refines the numbers >by including only those variation units where the tested mss exhibit >agreement of at least two of them. There the separation becomes >clearer. This exclusion of singular readings is an important >feature. By definition, singular readings don't attest >relationships OK, I'll concede that one. I just took the first table I saw. That affects the list of manuscripts, but does not affect the meaning. I thought of doing my example with fudged numbers. I suppose I should have done so. The list supplied *did* demonstrate one point, though: how few gaps actually exist. Mixture (not block mixture, *mixture*) fills most of them in. > 2) One ofthe ways Colwell's method has been refined subsequently (by >e.g., Fee and yours truly) is to insist that identification of mss >relationships cannot safely be done in samples (and in the essay from >which the tables come and in which Colwell sketches the basics of his >method, he cites figures for John 11, a sample only), and that we >have to take measurements (a) across a whole NT writing, and (b) >chapter by chapter. If we do this, we can detect "block-mixture" >(as, e.g., Fee did in Aleph in John, and as I confirmed in W in >Mark). True, but not relevant to the definition of the gap. :-) >Where the "mixture" is not block-mixture but simply the apparent >influence of one textual tradition upon another or the drift of a >textual tradition towards another, the percentages of agreement will >suggest what is going on *if you include relevant witnesses from >sufficient major groups to measure comparative agreements (as, e.g., >I attempted with ref. to W in Mark, showing that as the W-P45-Fam 13 >tradition progresses it becomes more closely allied with the >"Byzantine" type mss witnesses. Agreed. However, I interpret this differently (not your results, but the meaning of the situation). To examine text-types in their entirety means that we must examine *all* the witnesses, not just the "good" ones. This includes the mixed witnesses. This means, almost certainly, that there *will be* no gaps, even if a text-type exists. Allow me to give an example. I admit that this is based on a sample, not on the entire Gospel corpus, but it is based on a 990 reading corpus, so it should be representative assuming it is possible to take a representative sample in the Gospels. (By no means an assured point, and that could invalidate all studies -- including Hurtado's -- done so far.) Below is a sorted list of agreements with Aleph in those 990 readings. I've omitted the papyri as incomplete and W as block-mixed. % MS "Gap" 35 D 0 35 E 0 35 G 0 35 N 0 35 Omega 0 35 U 1 36 A 0 36 Gamma 0 36 K 0 36 M 0 36 Pi 1 37 1424 0 37 565 0 37 700 0 37 fam 13 1 38 1010 0 38 1506 1 39 1071 0 39 Theta 1 40 X 3 43 1342 0 43 fam 1 2 45 1241 4 49 579 1 50 33 2 52 892 0 52 C 7 59 B 1 60 L Notice that the largest gap in this list is 7, and the median gap is -- ahem! -- *zero*. And that's based on fewer than thirty manuscripts and no versions. Throw in the Coptic versions and our largest gap shrinks to four. Throw in every Greek manuscript I studied (I admit this is bad technique) and the gap shrinks to *three*. In other words, there *is no gap.* I would also note that the highest rate of agreement observed is 60%. This obviously is much lower than Colwell's 70% threshold. This demonstrates another point: *Statistics depend upon their sample.* Even if we use some fixed rule such as "all variants supported by at least two manuscripts," you will still have variations in your sample depending on what manuscript base you use. You can't assign some number here and expect it to work in every case. Please, people, study statistics before you use Colwell! Let me also stress that I am not attacking Colwell. I think he was the greatest textual thinker of his generation. My article on text-types quotes him more than any other. It is simply his misfortune that his one major mistake is the thing that so many scholars have latched onto as if it were gospel. It is, in fact, a statement with inadequate statistical foundations. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 May 2 11:16:02 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA05662; Fri, 2 May 1997 11:16:02 -0400 From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" Organization: Divinity Faculty To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 16:15:49 +000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Request: help with Colwell's quantitative analysis Priority: normal In-reply-to: References: <7314E70AA2@div.ed.ac.uk> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.52) Message-ID: <79EAD3000A@div.ed.ac.uk> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1690 Well, a few more response are called for by Waltz's latest. 1) Sure, the number counts will depend upon the mss selected for the exercise. That's why it's essential to the method to choose an adequate list of all relevant witnesses, relevant to determining which group mss belong to. This doesn't affect the validity of the method. 2) I fail to see how my work is invalidated if samples are invalid. I didn't use samples, but collated across the whole of Mark. 3) I quite agree with Waltz (and said previously the same) that there is nothing "magical" (his term; mine was "transcendent") about Colwell's numbers. Their beauty is that they were arrived at *inductively* by beginning with counting agreements of mss and seeing what happened. So, with all due respect to Waltz on statistics, one really doesn't have to be a stats techie to use the method, and I've seen no stats argument showing otherwise. 4) I do want to know from Waltz the basis for his own numbers in his last posting. Agreements of this or that ms with Aleph at 990 variation units . . .? What is the basis for determining the variation units? Mere counts of agreements of this ms with that one mean nothing *unless the counts are set within some meaningful context*. That is why in the Colwell method all counts are so carefully defined: e.g., the agreement of any two mss is seen in the context of the agreement of all other possible pairs (hence the grids of percentages, not merely a single row of numbers without a context). 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 May 2 12:29:55 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA06007; Fri, 2 May 1997 12:29:55 -0400 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <79EAD3000A@div.ed.ac.uk> References: <7314E70AA2@div.ed.ac.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 11:33:15 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Request: help with Colwell's quantitative analysis Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 6461 Here we go again. Please, people, read what I say, not what you think I'm arguing against. Specifically to Hurtado: I am *not* attacking your study. In fact, I have quoted it -- and even derived an interesting idea from it (could the so-called "Caesarean" text actually be a true branch of the "Western" text, and D an abberation?). I am attacking the method that Colwell described in one essay and, as best I can tell, *never used again*.... On Fri, 2 May 1997, "Professor L.W. Hurtado" wrote: >Well, a few more response are called for by Waltz's latest. >1) Sure, the number counts will depend upon the mss selected for the >exercise. That's why it's essential to the method to choose an >adequate list of all relevant witnesses, relevant to determining >which group mss belong to. This doesn't affect the validity of the >method. Of *course* it affects the validity of the method. How do you know, before you've done the work, which manuscripts are significant? You cannot assume the solution. >2) I fail to see how my work is invalidated if samples are invalid. >I didn't use samples, but collated across the whole of Mark. Simply false. You collated across the whole of Mark for readings supported by at least two of the group p45 Aleph A B D W Theta f13 565 TR. That *is* a sample. You may say that it includes at least two witnesses from the Alexandrian, Byzantine, and "Caesarean" text-types. Probably true, but you don't know that. (Robinson will tell you that neither the TR nor A is a perfectly Byzantine witness.) And where is the second "Western" witness? You are once again assuming the solution. And you also ignore the possibility of mixture (not block mixture, mixture). Both the Alexandrian and Byzantine texts are represented by only two witnesses. Suppose one is mixed for a particular reading. Out it goes from your sample. You have used a sampling technique, merely one that uses a very large sample. A large enough sample, I confess, that it probably makes up for its methodoligical bias -- but only if sampling works. (It probably does -- but can you prove it to me?) Then consider the possibility of an undiscovered text-type. With this sample, you cannot find it. >3) I quite agree with Waltz (and said previously the same) that there >is nothing "magical" (his term; mine was "transcendent") about >Colwell's numbers. Their beauty is that they were arrived at >*inductively* by beginning with counting agreements of mss and seeing >what happened. So, with all due respect to Waltz on statistics, one >really doesn't have to be a stats techie to use the method, and I've >seen no stats argument showing otherwise. I agree, anyone can use the method. So what? That doesn't make it valid. I am not criticising your use of the method. I am criticising the method itself. I'll give an analogy. I know how to drive an automobile, and I assume Hurtado does also. Does that make me competent to design an automobile? Or repair one? Hardly. Nor would I want to critique its design. I am critiquing the design of Colwell's automobile -- which, as someone with mathematical training, I have at least some skill to do (not much, but more, at least, than Colwell had). Hurtado is saying that I can't critique the design because he (Hurtado) knows how to drive the car! >4) I do want to know from Waltz the basis for his own numbers in his >last posting. Agreements of this or that ms with Aleph at 990 >variation units . . .? What is the basis for determining the >variation units? Mere counts of agreements of this ms with that one >mean nothing *unless the counts are set within some meaningful >context*. That is why in the Colwell method all counts are so >carefully defined: e.g., the agreement of any two mss is seen in the >context of the agreement of all other possible pairs (hence the grids >of percentages, not merely a single row of numbers without a >context). I gave a sample to demonstrate a point. The point was demonstrated: There was no 10% gap. You are the one who says that I can use any set of manuscripts, and therefore any sampling method, I want. Therefore my results are valid. Q.E.D. And before anyone attacks that, I agree, the result I just stated is not valid. But it demonstrates the importance of knowing what one is sampling. If one wishes to know the list of readings involved, it starts with the variants found in the apparatus of GNT. I supplemented this with a filter to find variants roughly every ten verses. (I say "roughly" because I too required two witnesses to support each reading, and I also had to take variants for which I could learn the readings of all the witnesses.) If someone wants a list of readings, I will offer them. I concede that this is not a perfect method. It is biased toward readings where B and Aleph divide, because those are the readings that puzzled the editors of GNT. (This is one of the reasons why I added my 400+ arbitrary readings.) This probably lowers the overall list of agreements. I simply state that there *is no* perfect method. And -- since there is no method that adequately captures lists of variants -- we cannot treat the 70% number as magic. Nor can we count on the gap in all cases, since there are always mixed manuscripts floating around. The inclusion or exclusion of such a manuscript (in Mark, L would be a good example) will determine whether or not the gap exists. I will repeat -- again -- my example from Colossians 2. In this chapter, Aleph and B disagree 25 times. Spread over how many readings? (Particularly since eight of those readings have no other uncial support.) If we take readings which are supported by two or more uncials, then the two agree in 32 of 47, or 68%. But if we take readings found in the Nestle apparatus, we get 62%. If we take Tischendorf's minor eighth edition, we get 59%. Can someone tell me which of those numbers is "right," and why? And, BTW, does this mean B and Aleph don't belong to the same text-type in Colossians 2? (I say yes, but not many people seem to agree with me. And even I say it for other reasons....) -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri May 2 13:11:33 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA06193; Fri, 2 May 1997 13:11:33 -0400 From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" Organization: Divinity Faculty To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 18:11:57 +000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Request: help with Colwell's quantitative analysis Priority: normal In-reply-to: References: <79EAD3000A@div.ed.ac.uk> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.52) Message-ID: <7BD9ED3447@div.ed.ac.uk> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 6889 Waltz writes: > Here we go again. Please, people, read what I say, not what you > think I'm arguing against. Excellent advice! Let's watch the beams as well as the motes, Bob! Waltz asks: How do you > know, before you've done the work, which manuscripts are > significant? Bob. We have to start somewhere right? So, in Colwell's method, we start with what we *think* we know, and test it to see if our knowledge is correct. So, we start with the important mss witnesses we *think* are reps of what we *think* are major groups. Then we collate them & the counts will indicate whether they hang together in groups or not, how much they diverge etc., provided that (a) you have enough witnesses to detect what you're looking for (e.g., alignment with *major* groups, or whatever), and (b) provided you've used enough text and variation units to represent something. > > You cannot assume the solution. Uh, right. the method involves testing assumptions, Bob. I complained: > >2) I fail to see how my work is invalidated if samples are invalid. > >I didn't use samples, but collated across the whole of Mark. > > Simply false. You collated across the whole of Mark for readings > supported by at least two of the group p45 Aleph A B D W Theta f13 > 565 TR. That *is* a sample. You may say that it includes at least > two witnesses from the Alexandrian, Byzantine, and "Caesarean" > text-types. Probably true, but you don't know that. (Robinson > will tell you that neither the TR nor A is a perfectly Byzantine > witness.) And where is the second "Western" witness? Bob, in TC "samples" normally mean sample bits, chapters, etc. Second, I collated *all* of Mark, noting *all* variations among *all* witnesses chosen, and counted *all* variation-units that were *meaningful* -- i.e., where it was possible to measure *agreements* of the witnesses. I don't know (nor does Robinson) what a "perfect" Byz witness would be. I used what are considered sufficiently good representatives of both earlier and later stages of the Byz text-type. And D is the only Greek witness in Mark--not something I can do anything about. In any case, I know of nobody who suggests that D in Mark is *not* a major "Wstern" witness. > You are once again assuming the solution. And you also ignore > the possibility of mixture (not block mixture, mixture). Both > the Alexandrian and Byzantine texts are represented by only > two witnesses. Suppose one is mixed for a particular reading. > Out it goes from your sample. Once again, Bob, we all make assumptions, and the aim is to test them, which is *precisely what the method aims to offer*. Moreover, I don't "ignore mixture" (by which I presume you mean mss influenced by more than one tradition/tendency, etc.). E.g., I point out that Fam 13 shows a drift toward the Byz text-type--precisely the "mixture" (your term) you claim I ignore. I've pointed this out earlier today, but you seem stronger on making charges than paying attention! As to your last sentence in the quote above, I'm not sure what you mean. All readings/variants that are supported by any two of the reps chosen are used whatever their complexion ("mixed" or not). > > You have used a sampling technique, merely one that uses a > very large sample. A large enough sample, I confess, that it > probably makes up for its methodoligical bias -- but only if > sampling works. (It probably does -- but can you prove it to > me?) You're simply not using "sample" in any meaningful way, but I can't stop you if you want to do so. And could you justify such pejorative language as "methodological bias"? > > Then consider the possibility of an undiscovered text-type. > With this sample, you cannot find it. Uh, Bob. I *did* make some discoveries. (1) W & P45 are *not* part of the "Caesarean" text-type, and (2) do seem to form agreement sufficient to make them look like a somewhat distinctive group. So, the method does in principle allow for what you deny. > I agree, anyone can use the method. So what? That doesn't make it > valid. I am not criticising your use of the method. I am criticising > the method itself. Again, Bob, take your own advice about careful reading of others. You've plainly distorted my point, which was that the method doesn't involve fancy, techie stats stuff, just empirical measurements and testings of hypotheses. You say: > Hurtado > is saying that I can't critique the design because he (Hurtado) > knows how to drive the car! You've lost me again, Bob. I didn't say you *couldn't* criticize anything. I said your criticisms aren't impressive because they miss the marks. I asked: > >4) I do want to know from Waltz the basis for his own numbers in his > >last posting. Agreements of this or that ms with Aleph at 990 > >variation units . . .? What is the basis for determining the > >variation units? Mere counts of agreements of this ms with that one > >mean nothing *unless the counts are set within some meaningful > >context*. Waltz replies: > I gave a sample to demonstrate a point. The point was demonstrated: > There was no 10% gap. You are the one who says that I can use any > set of manuscripts, and therefore any sampling method, I want. > Therefore my results are valid. Q.E.D. This is getting tiresome, Bob. I did *not* say "any set of mss", for heaven's sake! I said chosen mss thought to represent major groups. I asked for the things that might make your figures meaningful and you again distort my words and dodge the question. Not good, Bob. Waltz goes on: > I simply state that there *is no* perfect method. And -- since > there is no method that adequately captures lists of variants -- > we cannot treat the 70% number as magic. Who said "perfect" and what would that be, Bob? The aim is a method that is appropriate to the question and that stands up to competent analysis & criticism. Thus far, the refined Colwell method meets these criteria, but publish your results and lets see. And no one said "magic", either. Just pragmatic and verifiable. > Nor can we count > on the gap in all cases, since there are always mixed manuscripts > floating around. The inclusion or exclusion of such a manuscript > (in Mark, L would be a good example) will determine whether or > not the gap exists. Yup. There are mss that seem to lie between major groups . . . as the Colwell method will demonstrate, and as it will even allow one to portray quantitatively in a meaningful way by comparison with the quantitative agreements of mss of the group that are solid reps of it. If the "gap" is not very large, then the method shows . . . just what you refer to. What's the problem? 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 May 2 13:21:27 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA06223; Fri, 2 May 1997 13:21:27 -0400 Date: Fri, 02 May 1997 13:22:50 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: personal request X-Sender: jwest@mail.highland.net To: hurtadol@div.ed.ac.uk Cc: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970502132035.2abfcd2c@mail.highland.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: 405 Professor Hurtado, As the days go by, and I read your excellent and thoughtful posts, I am becoming more convinced that you are on the right track (in spite of my earlier misgivings). Thus I wonder if you have written a book on the subject so that I can read the entirety of your perspective. Thanks, Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Pastor, Petros Baptist Church jwest@highland.net From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri May 2 13:45:04 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA06311; Fri, 2 May 1997 13:45:04 -0400 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <7BD9ED3447@div.ed.ac.uk> References: <79EAD3000A@div.ed.ac.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 12:49:18 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Should we keep this up? (Was: Re: Request: help with Colwell's quantitative analysis) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1026 TCers -- Hurtado and I have gotten into what is obviously a very nasty debate. He is either not understanding or refusing to read what I say, and evidently he feels that I am doing the same. What is more, it appears to me that we are re-hashing arguments that have been said many times before. I could rebut Hurtado's post, but I'm not going to convince him. And he won't convince me. (After all, I'm right and he's wrong. :-) The question is, is anyone else listening? Is there any point in attempting a rebuttal? I doubt it -- but if anyone wants us to keep flailing away at our respective viewpoints, let me know. Otherwise, I will spare my blood pressure (and perhaps yours) and let this thread die. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 May 2 13:54:37 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA06353; Fri, 2 May 1997 13:54:36 -0400 Message-ID: <336AB2B9.4FC6@sn.no> Date: Fri, 02 May 1997 20:36:25 -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: Acts 2:41 References: <1.5.4.16.19970501180550.37b7891c@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: 4772 Jim West wrote: >=20 > At 12:09 AM 5/2/97 -0700, you wrote: > >In Acts 2:40 Peter says: > >"Save yourselves from this untoward generation" (KJV) (especially if P= eter > used the > >KJV!) >=20 > :) >=20 > > > >This was a kind of invitation brought forth by Peter after he had prea= ched > for a while. > >The response of the people was enormous! > > >=20 > Though, you must realize, this is an unhistorical recounting; theologic= al > historiography at its best intended to idealize the early period of the= Church. >=20 > >Verse 41a states: "Then they that gladly received his word were baptiz= ed" > (KJV). The > >adv. *gladly* (ASMENWS) is omitted in p74 Aleph A B C 81. 1175. 1739, = and > therefore also > >in N/A26-27. It is retained by E Psi Byz and the two Syriac (p & h). (= This > is according > >to N/A26). > > >=20 > The addition of an adjective is much more likely than the deletion of a= n > adjective. > (Proof? Simply the fact that scribes like to add for the sake of clari= ty. > I.e., in the story of Jesus' arrest we do not know the name of the vict= im > whose ear is hacked off by Peter until the Gospel of John. We don't kn= ow > which ear it was in Mark- but we do in Matthew! Simply because scribes= add > stuff!!!!!) [Then maybe Mark is the "more original" gospel, since it has the "shorter= " and "harder"=20 reading (and since it is most likely the earliest Gospel); Matthew has th= e "easier reading"=20 compared to Mark (and Matthew is most likely "later" than Mark); and fina= lly: John is the=20 "less original" gospel, since it adds "for sake of clarity", and it "smoo= thes out" the text,=20 just like the Byzantine MSS (and it is the "latest" Gospel).......; is th= at your=20 conclusion?] Is it really proper to compare the writing-process of the four Gospels wi= th later *copying*=20 activity?? There is clearly a great deal of difference between these two = activities. For=20 instance, we do not usually find among the MS copies changes/deviations t= hat can compare=20 with the "deviations" between the parallel accounts of the four Gospels (= I mean in the=20 places where there are no variants between extant copies)! Textual deviat= ions between extant=20 copies are clearly of a different nature, even though we may find a few s= ingle instances=20 that may seem comparable! >=20 > >My Norwegian Bible runs something like this: "They who now received hi= s > word with joy, > >were baptized". > > >=20 > Your Bible must be based on later mss. (I would be curious to know the > textual base of your translation. Was it Luther? Or TR? The particular translation I am using is based on the TR. It is a new tra= nslation published=20 in 1995. This is the first complete current Norwegian translation based o= n the TR since the=20 Norwegian Bible Society departed from it in a revised edition of 1904. No= rwegian=20 translations *before* that time were all based on the TR. The above menti= oned translation is=20 not from the Norwegian Bible Society, though. >=20 > >It seems to me that the expression "gladly" or "with joy" (or "readily= ") > could be > >regarded as "the more difficult reading" in this context. The Byz read= ing > clearly *may* > >be interpreted (by some scribe) to be "harder" because it suggests (to= him) > that one has > >to receive the word *gladly* or *with joy* in order to be baptized, wh= ile > he knows from > >other NT passages that receiving _alone_ is sufficient for being allow= ed > baptism. If he > >chose to follow a text that omits ASMENWS the supposed theological pro= blem > is eliminated > >(in his mind). Of course, I know that the scribe=B4s understanding of = the > word ASMENWS > >comes into play here. (That part I have not investigated). >=20 > No- it is not quite so complex as all that. The scribe simply added gl= adly > because thats how one should receive the message! Of course that would be a *possible* solution. But it certainly isn=B4t c= onclusive. A scribe=20 could as well have _omitted_ it because he thought it to be an explanator= y interpolation,=20 interpolated for the sake of clarity. =20 > > > >I=B4m not saying, of course, that this is a necessary conclusion. But = it > seems at least > >*possible*. Can this possibility be ruled out?? > > >=20 > Yes. > The external evidence alone is telling and conclusive. The internal > evidence is in harmony with the external- so that "lectio brevier" wins= the day. >=20 Is this really enough to completely rule out the *possibility*??? > >Any comments about this one? > > >=20 > See above. Yea, I have already done so! >=20 > >-- > >- Mr. Helge Evensen > > >=20 > Jim >=20 > +++++++++++++++++++++++ > Jim West, ThD > Pastor, Petros Baptist Church > jwest@highland.net --=20 - Mr. Helge Evensen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri May 2 14:08:12 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA06445; Fri, 2 May 1997 14:08:12 -0400 From: dwashbur@wave.park.wy.us Message-Id: <199705021213.GAA04596@wavecom.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 11:06:34 -7000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Should we keep this up? (Was: Re: Request: help with Colwel 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: 802 Bob (private reply), > The question is, is anyone else listening? Is there any point > in attempting a rebuttal? I doubt it -- but if anyone wants > us to keep flailing away at our respective viewpoints, let me know. > Otherwise, I will spare my blood pressure (and perhaps yours) > and let this thread die. Speaking only for myself, I'd rather see it die. I have to say that so far the material I've seen from Hurtado doesn't impress me, either in its scholarship or in its tone. He still hasn't addressed your main point, but since he used Colwell's method it must be right. At least that seems to be his view. I vote for letting it go. 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 Fri May 2 14:20:45 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA06546; Fri, 2 May 1997 14:20:44 -0400 Date: Fri, 02 May 1997 14:22:08 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: Acts 2:41 X-Sender: jwest@mail.highland.net (Unverified) To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970502142028.21874daa@mail.highland.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: 1631 Helge, At 08:36 PM 5/2/97 -0700, you wrote: > >Is it really proper to compare the writing-process of the four Gospels with later *copying* activity?? There is clearly a great deal of difference between these two activities. For instance, we do not usually find among the MS copies changes/deviations that can compare with the "deviations" between the parallel accounts of the four Gospels (I mean in the places where there are no variants between extant copies)! Textual deviations between extant >copies are clearly of a different nature, even though we may find a few single instances that may seem comparable! I think it is proper to compare the two. Both are, after all, the activity of scribes- either composing, redacting, or copying. That the scribes redacted the evangelists seems beyond question. >> >> >My Norwegian Bible runs something like this: "They who now received his >> word with joy, >> >were baptized". >> > >> >> Your Bible must be based on later mss. (I would be curious to know the >> textual base of your translation. Was it Luther? Or TR? > >The particular translation I am using is based on the TR. It is a new translation published >in 1995. This is the first complete current Norwegian translation based on the TR since the Norwegian Bible Society departed from it in a revised edition of 1904. Norwegian translations *before* that time were all based on the TR. The above mentioned translation is not from the Norwegian Bible Society, though. > >> Thanks for the info. >- Mr. Helge Evensen > Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Pastor, Petros Baptist Church jwest@highland.net From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri May 2 14:21:33 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA06566; Fri, 2 May 1997 14:21:32 -0400 Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 14:21:32 -0400 (EDT) From: "James R. Adair" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Should we keep this up? (Was: Re: Request: help with Colwell's quantitative analysis) 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: 3532 I personally have found the debate between Hurtado and Waltz to be interesting, especially when matters of substance and theory are emphasized and personal comments are not. Let me ask the two antagonists (and anyone else who wants to respond) about a few specific points that I see coming out of this debate. (1) Is the existence of a gap of about 10% between groups of witnesses really a useful measurement? I can see measuring levels of agreement (whether 70% or some other number), but surely manuscripts can always be chosen in such a way as to eliminate any substantial gap in levels of agreement. Maybe the gap could be redefined in a manner similar to this: if one group of mss agrees with one another in 70% of readings, and another group of mss likewise agrees among its members in 70% of _its_ readings, _and_ there is a gap of 10% between any two members of one groups vs. the other, _then_ we can identify two different text-types. Such a definition would seem to eliminate mixed mss from consideration _when determining text-types_ (i.e., not entirely from consideration). (2) The 70% agreement has often been questioned. Other than the Byzantine and Alexandrian witnesses, does any other group show a 70% level of agreement anywhere in the NT? What level of agreement is there among the OL witnesses (eliminating D from the Western group)? Bob, what level of agreement is there in the groups you identify in Paul? (3) What exactly do levels of agreement tell us? They say that mss are very similar, but is that really the same thing as saying that they are genetically related (as a group)? Does discovery of text-types tell us more about where patterns of reading originated or more about where they ended up? One way to increase the level of agreement, of course, is to correct a ms from another ms, so levels of agreement may not say much about historical origin. As an analogy, consider the English language. Because of the Norman invasion of England, Modern English contains many, many words of French origin. Nevertheless, at its root, it is a Germanic language. Using statistical sampling, would we call Modern English a member of the Germanic or the Romance text-type (or would we say it's mixed?)? (4) The word "sample" is being used differently by Hurtado and Waltz, it seems to me. Hurtado says, "Bob, in TC 'samples' normally mean sample bits, chapters, etc. Second, I collated *all* of Mark, noting *all* variations among *all* witnesses chosen, and counted *all* variation-units that were *meaningful* -- i.e., where it was possible to measure *agreements* of the witnesses." It appears to me that Larry is using the word "sample" in a way commonly used in TC circles, whereas Bob is using a more formal mathematical (statistical) definition. I think that TCers will have to bow to math in this case. Even if "samples" normally mean "sample bits, chapters, etc." in TC circles, it is clear that this terminology is weak and should be changed to agree with the more rigorous math definition, especially when TCers are dealing with statistics. Despite the "alls" of Hurtado's study, there is a sample: in the choice of manuscripts. It may be a good sample, but it's still a sample. I'd be interested to see what Larry and Bob (and others) have to say about these points. 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 May 2 14:23:49 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA06602; Fri, 2 May 1997 14:23:48 -0400 Date: Fri, 02 May 1997 14:25:12 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Let it go? X-Sender: jwest@mail.highland.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970502142333.2187224a@mail.highland.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 I hate to disagree with anyone (!!!), but I find the discussion of Colwell's ideas to be most interesting. Here we have an excellent example of how two well intentioned, well informed scholars can read the same material and come to different conclusions. Lets, for once, hash something out until a consensus is reached. Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Pastor, Petros Baptist Church jwest@highland.net From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri May 2 16:27:16 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA07431; Fri, 2 May 1997 16:27:15 -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, 2 May 1997 15:30:33 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Should we keep this up? (Was: Re: Request: help with Colwell's quantitative analysis) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 13079 On Fri, 2 May 1997, "James R. Adair" wrote: >I personally have found the debate between Hurtado and Waltz to be >interesting, especially when matters of substance and theory are >emphasized and personal comments are not. I must apologise for my part in that. I will admit that the recent unpleasantness about Academic Imperialism made me rather thin-skinned, since I am one who does not have university credentials in TC. >Let me ask the two antagonists >(and anyone else who wants to respond) about a few specific points that I >see coming out of this debate. Nice to see something I can answer easily. >(1) Is the existence of a gap of about 10% between groups of witnesses >really a useful measurement? I can see measuring levels of agreement >(whether 70% or some other number), but surely manuscripts can always be >chosen in such a way as to eliminate any substantial gap in levels of >agreement. That is my contention. Surprisingly, I do think there is value in the concept of the "gap" -- but I don't believe it can be applied rigidly. In a large enough sample set, a gap of only a few percentage points can be significant. Also, I think it more useful to apply the gap to classified agreements than to overall percentages of agreement. I offer as an example 630 in the Paulines. In my overall table of agreements, its closest relative is L (77%). That's because 630 has suffered heavy Byzantine correction. However, if we look at 630's handful of near-singular readings, we find that it shares no fewer than 6 with 1739. Other than 1739 and its obvious relative 1881, the next highest rate of near-singulars is 3 with B and 2 with p46. So *there* we see a gap of significance. By combining these facts, we come to the conclusion (borne out by other data) that 630 is a heavily mixed manuscript, more Byzantine than anything else, but with a strong infusion of family 1739 readings (in fact, family 1739 readings outnumber Byzantine readings in Romans-Galatians; after that, 630 is effectively purely Byzantine). >Maybe the gap could be redefined in a manner similar to this: >if one group of mss agrees with one another in 70% of readings, and >another group of mss likewise agrees among its members in 70% of _its_ >readings, _and_ there is a gap of 10% between any two members of one >groups vs. the other, _then_ we can identify two different text-types. >Such a definition would seem to eliminate mixed mss from consideration >_when determining text-types_ (i.e., not entirely from consideration). Personally I see a lot of merit in this idea. It makes analysis a lot harder, but the concept is good. It does leave one problem: It leaves us stuck if we have to investigate a text-type which no longer exists in pure form in any manuscript. Which, sadly, puts us back where we started in my last argument with Hurtado: the advocates of the "Caesarean" text explicitly defined it in terms of readings mined from mixed manuscripts. Still, if you'll allow me to fudge those numbers a little, depending on the sample, I could live with this idea. >(2) The 70% agreement has often been questioned. Other than the Byzantine >and Alexandrian witnesses, does any other group show a 70% level of >agreement anywhere in the NT? What level of agreement is there among the >OL witnesses (eliminating D from the Western group)? Bob, what level of >agreement is there in the groups you identify in Paul? I'll give as much data here as I can type in half an hour. (BTW -- if some of the numbers don't agree, blame the fact that I'm retyping all this. If there's an inconsistency, tell me and I'll check it.) ************************************* Gospels: If we omit D, and people are willing to live with my samples, the "European" Latins (a, b, ff2) seem to agree about 70-80% of the time. (By comparison, they agree with D about 60-65% of the time, and with D about 35% of the time. They agree with k about 55% of the time.) ************************************* I have no good data for Acts. ************************************* I'm going to annotate the data for Paul. :-) ************************************* p46/B type: p46: Closest relative is B, 62% of the time. Next closest is 1739, 56% of the time. p46 and B also have 34 near-singular agreements, as opposed to 14 between p46 and Aleph, 21 between p46 and D, 16 between p46 and 1739. B: Closest relative is actually the Sahidic, 68% of the time. After that, it's about a wash between 1739 (64%) and p46 (62%). Aleph is at 57%, D at 42%. But p46 remains the clear winner in near-singulars (34, to 26 for the Sahidic and 18 for 1739). Alexandrian text: Aleph: Closest relative is A, 76%. Outside Romans (where 33 is Byzantine), 33 takes the prize at about 77%. C agrees 76% , 1506 72%, the Bohairic 73%. The fragmentary I gets the prize where it exists, 80%. For comparison, B agrees with Aleph 57%, D agrees 47%, 1739 agrees 63%. A: Closest is C at 77%, followed by Aleph at 76. With B, 53%; with D, 47%; with 1739, 62% C: Closest is A, 77%, followed by Aleph, 76%. With B, 51%; with D, 48%; with 1739, 63%. 33: Closest is Aleph, 69%. A C follow at 65% (exclude Romans and all these numbers go up by about 7-8 points). With B, 54%; with D, 48%; with 1739, 61%. "Western" text: D: Closest relative , not surprisingly, is d, 84%. Next are F G, 72%, then the other Old Latins in the 60-70% range. With B, 42%; with Aleph, 47%; with 1739, 47%. G: Other than, of course, F f, the closest relatives are D d, 72%. With B, 41%; with Aleph, 46%; with 1739, 47%. As a typical example of the Byzantine text, we note that K L agree 91% of the time. Family 1739: 0243 and 1739 agree 96% of the time. (I hope soon to study this relationship in detail.) 6 agrees with 1739 64% of the time (compared to 69% with L), but has 19 near-singular agreements. (Next on the near-singular list, other than 424** with 18 and 1881 with 12, is B with 10) The corrections in 424 go with 1739 91% of the time, and of 424**'s 26 near-singulars, 20, or 77%, are shared by 1739. (This is extraordinary, since in the typical manuscript at least a third of the near-singulars are errors.) 1881 agrees with 1739 77% of the time. 1739 itself agrees with p46 56% of the time, with B 64% of the time, with Aleph 63% of the time, with D 47% of the time. ************************************* Now to the Catholics. Here I'll just make a table. p72 Aleph A B C K 33 323 614 1241 1739 2495 p72 - 38 43 66 45 21 41 47 39 48 51 39 Aleph 38 - 60 48 54 37 57 50 45 51 60 46 A 43 60 - 44 57 35 79 55 52 60 66 50 B 66 48 44 - 49 20 46 44 32 48 56 36 C 45 54 57 49 - 42 56 60 51 57 70 51 K 21 37 35 20 42 - 38 47 52 38 34 48 33 41 57 79 46 56 38 - 59 58 59 67 54 323 47 50 55 44 60 47 59 - 50 71 78 50 614 39 45 52 32 51 52 58 50 - 47 52 82 1241 48 51 60 48 57 38 59 71 47 - 80 49 1739 51 60 66 56 70 34 67 78 52 80 - 50 2495 39 46 50 36 51 48 54 50 82 49 50 - ************************************* To summarize (and I'm using some additional data not offered here): In the Gospels, we find that the "Western" group falls on the ragged edge of the 70% rule -- so close to the edge that the sample might tip things one way or the other. There is a huge "gap" between "Western" and non-Western, though. In Paul, the Alexandrian, "Western," and Family 1739 texts all meet the 70% rule for their stronger members, though some of the weaker ones fail. p46 and B *don't* make it, though they are clearly akin. In Paul, for my sample, 60% might be a better threshold. BTW -- if you observe, 1739 seems to agree with all three of the other text-types more than they agree with each other. This is the basis for my belief that it forms its own text-type. In the Catholics, we find 80% agreement between the members of family 2138 (614 630 1505 1611 1799 2138 2412 2495, etc.), with subgroups breaking the 90% mark. The members of family 1739 (C 323 945 1241 1881 2298) gnerally exceed this mark with respect to 1739 though not to each other. There is a group within the Alexandrian text (A Psi 33 81 436 bo etc.) which exceeds the 70% threshold, but neither Aleph nor p72/B are part of it. There probably needs to be work done on the Alexandrian text in the Catholics. (It may well be that p72/B are a separate text-type.) N.B. One thing that I think is worth noting is that, in the Catholics, 1241 agrees with 1739 80% of the time, and C agrees with 1739 70% of the time. But 1241 and C agree only 57% of the time. Interesting, huh? This ought to tell us something (I'm not sure what yet, but it's one of those reasons why I'm concerned with the statistical nature of variants). >(3) What exactly do levels of agreement tell us? They say that mss are >very similar, but is that really the same thing as saying that they are >genetically related (as a group)? To give a great answer, I say, "Yes and no." That is, a high rate of agreement means that they have something in common -- but it may be just a bunch of Byzantine mixture. In my view, a manuscript (call it X) that is 80% Byzantine and 20% something else has value only in the 20% that's something else. If we want to examine the Byzantine text, we have plenty of purely Byzantine manuscripts to look at. For simplicity, let's say that X had a Byzantine ancestor B and a less-Byzantine ancestor O. Now it may be that a lot of X's Byzantine readings came from O; we can't tell. But it doesn't matter. I will freely concede to Hurtado, Colwell and Tune, et al that X is more closely related to B and the Byzantine text than to O and something else. However, I don't see that it matters. Since we don't care about the Byzantine text (given how many good examples we have), our interest is in the small relationship with O. >Does discovery of text-types tell us >more about where patterns of reading originated or more about where they >ended up? One way to increase the level of agreement, of course, is to >correct a ms from another ms, so levels of agreement may not say much >about historical origin. Entirely agreed, from where I sit. See above. >As an analogy, consider the English language. >Because of the Norman invasion of England, Modern English contains many, >many words of French origin. Nevertheless, at its root, it is a Germanic >language. Using statistical sampling, would we call Modern English a >member of the Germanic or the Romance text-type (or would we say it's >mixed?)? Depends on the sampling method. :-) If we sampled grammatically, or based on words in common use, we'd say it's a Germanic language. If we look at a dictionary, where obscure Latin-derived words predominate, we'd say it's a Romance language. In my view, the Grammar is simplified Germanic, the vocabulary is mixed. I don't know what one would call the result. >(4) The word "sample" is being used differently by Hurtado and Waltz, it >seems to me. Hurtado says, "Bob, in TC 'samples' normally mean sample >bits, chapters, etc. Second, I collated *all* of Mark, noting *all* >variations among *all* witnesses chosen, and counted *all* variation-units >that were *meaningful* -- i.e., where it was possible to measure >*agreements* of the witnesses." It appears to me that Larry is using >the word "sample" in a way commonly used in TC circles, whereas Bob is >using a more formal mathematical (statistical) definition. I think that >TCers will have to bow to math in this case. Even if "samples" normally >mean "sample bits, chapters, etc." in TC circles, it is clear that this >terminology is weak and should be changed to agree with the more rigorous >math definition, especially when TCers are dealing with statistics. >Despite the "alls" of Hurtado's study, there is a sample: in the choice of >manuscripts. It may be a good sample, but it's still a sample. Thanks for pointing out the difference in language. You're right, I was using the mathematical sense -- and not even thinking of other meanings. Naturally, I vote for the mathematical use. :-) >I'd be interested to see what Larry and Bob (and others) have to say about >these points. I hope this clarifies things. If not, well, I'll try again next week some time. :-) Thanks for both the conciliatory words and the curiosity. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 May 2 16:33:23 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA07470; Fri, 2 May 1997 16:33:23 -0400 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970502142333.2187224a@mail.highland.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 15:37:40 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Attitudes and proof (Was: Re: Let it go?) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1262 On Fri, 02 May 199, Jim West wrote: >I hate to disagree with anyone (!!!), but I find the discussion of Colwell's >ideas to be most interesting. Here we have an excellent example of how two >well intentioned, well informed scholars can read the same material and come >to different conclusions. Lets, for once, hash something out until a >consensus is reached. Let's hope. But we should probably warn people: I'm not exactly the orthodox type. I question everything. So chances are that I will usually offer unorthodox opionions, and Hurtado orthodox. The question is, how can we *settle* the matter? I'm having trouble myself right now. I just did two different statistical analyses on similar (not identical) data, and got significantly different results. (I'm still seeking the reason.) So we probably need to decide what constitutes proof.... I, for one, groan with horror at the arguments that one will induce. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 May 2 17:29:53 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA07779; Fri, 2 May 1997 17:29:53 -0400 Date: 2 May 97 23:31:16 +0200 Subject: MT 28 in Sinai Arabic 28 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: 9983 Dear TC-ers, Here I am again with my dear Arabic manuscript from the Xth century. Today, another sample: the whole chapter 28 from Matthew. I give you an English translation together with a few annotations. I add a word about another manuscript that apparently has the same version, though in a revised form: the lectionary Sinai arabic 133 (dated 1102), which might be precious as Sin arb 71 is fragmentary (has only Mt23-Lk8). As you will see, this version has most of its affinities with the "cesarean" group of Greek mss and versions, though it reserves us also some surprises. I'd be delighted to have your comments! TEXT 1 And in the evening of the sabbath, morning ot the first of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to look at the sepulchre. 2 And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and approached from the sepulchre and rolled the stone from the mouth of the sepulchre, and sat upon it. 3 And his appearance was like the lightning, and his raiment white as the snow. 4 And of his fear the keepers trembled, and became like the dead. 5 And the angel answered and said to the women: You, and fear not. I have known that for Jesus who was crucified you are searching. 6 He is not here. He is risen, like he said. Come in and look at the place where he was. 7 Go, and say to his disciples that he is risen from among the dead. And he, he preceds you to Galilee. There you will see him. Here I am, I have said to you. 8 And they departed from the sepulchre with fear and great joy, to announce to his disciples. 9 And behold, Jesus met them, and said: Peace to you. And they approached him and took his feet, and worshipped him. 10 After that, Jesus said to them: Fear not, but go and announce my brothers that they depart to Galilee. There they shall see me. 11 And when they went, behold, some of the guards came to the city, and announced to the elders all that had been. 12 And they, they took counsel, and took much money and gave to those soldiers, 13 and said to them: Say that his disciples came by the night, and stole him, and we (were) asleep. 14 And if the governor hears that, we, we will dissimulate, and you without trouble we will put. 15 And when they took the money, they did as they were [taught]: and this saying spread itself in the Jews to this day. 16 And as to the eleven disciples, they departed to Galilee, to the mountain that Jesus had commanded them. 17 And when they saw him, they worshipped him. And of them someone stumbled. 18 And the Lord Jesus came and spoke to them, and said: I was given all the power of the heaven and the earth. 19 Go now, and disciple all the nations, and baptize them in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Spirit of holiness. 20 And teach them (that) they keep all that I have commanded you: and here I am with you all the days, and to the end of the world. Amen. NOTES - v.2: Sin. arb. 71 adds a complement ("from the sepulchre") to the verb "approached". I found the same in another Arabic version found in lectionaries (the oldest one being Sin. Arb. 138, dated AD 1117). - v.2: "from the mouth of the sepulchre". A free ("mouth" for "door" translation of the longuest text extant in Greek, with Theta, fam1 fam13 and several versions (sypal, bo, mae, geo-Tbeth-Opiza). As a comparison, Byz has "from the sepulchre", Aleph-B have nothing. - v.5: "You, don't fear": the order is the same as in sy.s, sy.p as against all greek and syropalestinian witnesses. - v.5: The Greek mss have "OIDA GAR". Sin. Arb omit GAR, with the georgian versions, armenian-vulgate (that's how we call Zohrab), the persian harmony and many Arabic versions (including the oldest ones, that of Sin. arb. 72 and 74, IXth century). - v.6: The Greek mss have "HGERQH GAR". Here again, the omission of the GAR is attested by Sin. arb. 71 with sy.s, the old latin ff2 and many Arabic versions. - v.6: omission of "O KYRIOS" with Aleph-B, Theta, sy.s, old-latin e, geo-Tbeth-Opiza, armenian-vulgate. - v.7: omission of the KAI at the beginning of the verse, with sy.s and several Arabic versions. - v.7: "from among the dead" is an aramaism. We find it also in sy.s, sypal and several other Arabic versions. It's not obligatory to conclude that it reveals an aramaic/syriac vorlage though, as this version is in a dialectal Arabic quite influenced by aramaic. note: after this verse, we have no more old syriac witness. - v.9: Sin. Arb. 71 doesn't have the byzantine addition at the beginning of the verse (ws de eporeuonto apaggeilai tois maqhtais autou). In this respect, it goes with Aleph-B, D, Theta, fam 13 in greek, and several versions (sy.p latin sypal geo-Adysh-Tbeth-Opiza and armenian-vulgate). - v. 11: strangely, the "elders" have replaced the high priests. Probably one of the many blunders of the translator. - v.13: "and said TO THEM" : addition of "to them" with sy.p only. I wouldn't make too much of it, since I have noticed that in such formulae of speech introduction the translator is very often free. - v.14: omission of AUTON with Aleph-B, Theta, sypal and geo-Tbeth-Opiza. - v.17: prosekunhsan: adds AUTW with Theta Byz fam1 fam13 geo-Adysh-Tbeth-Opiza armenian-vulgate. - v.18: THE LORD Jesus. This is a recurrent trait of the syropalestinian version. It need not be taken directly from it though, as this version is melkite and probably palestinian. Liturgical influnece of the syropalestinian lectionary is enough to explain this addition (and many other passages show that when the translator doesn't understand his Greek text, he doesn't even look at syriac or syropalestinian texts that would have helped him). - v.18 "all the power of the heaven and the earth". Free rendition? We should note that it corresponds to many syriac and arabic quotations that were inventoried by A. Voobus (Studies in the History of the Gospel Text in Syriac, vol. 1, CSCO 128, Louvain 1951, p.198) and L. Leloir (L'Evangile d'Ephrem d'apres les oeuvres editees, CSCO 180, Louv= ain 1958, p.59 n=B0 378). If the parallel is correct, we would be going back to the time of Ephrem. - v.18 Sin. arb. 71 doesn't have the harmonization from Jn 21.20 found in Theta, syp, geo-Adysh and armenian-vulgate. - v.20: "AND to the end of the world": the addition of "and" isn't found in Greek, but we have it also in sypal geo-Tbeth-Opiza and in many other Arabic versions. A LITTLE SUPPLEMENT There is another ms that seems quite close to Sin Arb 71. It is a lectionary, Sin arb. 133, dated from 1102. It has many common readings, even it keeps many of the liberties in translation or blunders that are so typical of Sin arb 71. But it shows also traces of revision according to a text close to Byz or sy.p (I favor the second one for the moment, but I haven't studied its text enough to be too categorical). This lectionary has been signalled by J. Nasrallah (Histoire du mouvement litteraire dans l'Eglise melkite..., vol. III, tome 1, Louvain 1983) p. 377 as the ONLY Arabic sinaitic lectionary that has the pericope sequence of the old hyerosolymitan liturgy - all the others have a later, Byzantinized, system. It might be a clue to the early date of this version. For Mt 28, we only have verses 16-20. Here they follow: 16 In that time, the eleven disciples went to Galilee, that Jesus had commanded them to go there. 17 And when they saw him, they worshipped him. And of them someone stumbled in him. 18 And the Lord Jesus came and spoke to them, and said this: I was given all the power of the heaven and the earth. 19 Go now, and disciple the nations, and baptize them in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Spirit of holiness. 20 And teach them that they keep all that I have commanded you: and here I am with you all the days, to the end of the century. Amen. There are divergences, but there are also coincidences. A few notes: - v.16: omission of "to the mountain" is probably a graphical incident in Arabic: ila al-Jalil [ila al-Jabal] - don't forget that the vowels are not written in arabic, and the long i of Jalil and the b of Jabal look quite the same (the first has two points under it, the second has one). - v.16: "to go there" precizes the meaning of the preceding verb. In fact, this verb is ambiguous, it can mean "to command" or "to ordain (in a function)". - v.18: the lectionary has kept the syropalestinian influence shown in adding the "the LORD". By the way, there _are_ annotations in the syropalestinian alphabet (but in arabic language) in this lectionary, which is why I think the version was used and probably produced by palestinian melkites. - v.19: "teach the nations" with omission of ALL. I see no graphical reason in Arabic for the omission. is there a theological bias in the mind of the scribe? The "ALL" seems to put more emphasis on the globality, its omission has, as a result, a little anti-judaistic tone: the Apostles are sent to the nations instead of being sent to Israel. Who knows, may be here it's the lectionary that has the original reading of the version, as it is attested nowhere else. I just don't know... - v.20: the lectionary has omitted the "AND" before "to the end..." and is aligned on the greek and syriac texts. And, it renders differently (perhaps more literal, but also more difficult) the AIWNOS of the greek / (olmo of the syriac. It's interesting that the revisor has changed such a little thing, but didn't change larger variants like the "all the power of heaven and earth" in verse 18. Salaam (alaykum! --------------------------------------------------------- Jean Valentin - Brussels - Belgium --------------------------------------------------------- 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" --------------------------------------------------------- From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri May 2 17:50:53 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA07861; Fri, 2 May 1997 17:50:53 -0400 Date: Fri, 02 May 1997 17:52:18 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: MT 28 in Sinai Arabic 28 X-Sender: jwest@mail.highland.net (Unverified) To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970502175041.36575292@mail.highland.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: 2085 Jean, At 11:31 PM 5/2/97 +0200, you wrote: (translation snipped)- >- v.6: omission of "O KYRIOS" with Aleph-B, Theta, sy.s, old-latin e, >geo-Tbeth-Opiza, armenian-vulgate. I am fascinated by this one. That translators of the 10th c. would leave out such a phrase if they had it in their mss seems extremely unlikely. That it appears in Byz. mss seems to me to be another indication that the Byz. tradents were busy redactors. >- v.7: "from among the dead" is an aramaism. We find it also in sy.s, >sypal and several other Arabic versions. It's not obligatory to >conclude that it reveals an aramaic/syriac vorlage though, as this >version is in a dialectal Arabic quite influenced by aramaic. > would not the fact that Arabic and Aramaic are semitic languages also have a bearing on this apparent semitism quite apart from any putative Vorlage? >note: after this verse, we have no more old syriac witness. > Is this because there are no Syriac texts which contain the rest? Or just no more old ones? >- v.9: Sin. Arb. 71 doesn't have the byzantine addition at the >beginning of the verse (ws de eporeuonto apaggeilai tois maqhtais >autou). In this respect, it goes with Aleph-B, D, Theta, fam 13 in >greek, and several versions (sy.p latin sypal geo-Adysh-Tbeth-Opiza >and armenian-vulgate). Again, the Byz redactors at work? >- v. 11: strangely, the "elders" have replaced the high priests. >Probably one of the many blunders of the translator. Unless the terms are synonymous? >- v.18 Sin. arb. 71 doesn't have the harmonization from Jn 21.20 found >in Theta, syp, geo-Adysh and armenian-vulgate. Jean, does this Arabic ms have a great number of harmonizations? >- v.20: "AND to the end of the world": the addition of "and" isn't >found in Greek, but we have it also in sypal geo-Tbeth-Opiza and in >many other Arabic versions. > Could this simply be because of a desire for a "smooth" translation? >Jean Valentin - Brussels - Belgium Jean, excellent work! thanks. Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Pastor, Petros Baptist Church jwest@highland.net From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri May 2 18:21:15 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA07951; Fri, 2 May 1997 18:21:15 -0400 Date: 3 May 97 00:22:53 +0200 Subject: Re: MT 28 in Sinai Arabic 28 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: 4490 Woops, my subject line doesn't show the correct number for the manuscript!! So sorry! Of course, it was in Sin arb 71 and not 28 (probably an internal harmonization - we learn about Tc from our own mistakes... :-) On Sam 3 Mai 1997 0:52, Jim West wrote: > > >- v.7: "from among the dead" is an aramaism. We find it also in sy.s, > >sypal and several other Arabic versions. It's not obligatory to > >conclude that it reveals an aramaic/syriac vorlage though, as this > >version is in a dialectal Arabic quite influenced by aramaic. > > > > would not the fact that Arabic and Aramaic are semitic languages also have a > bearing on this apparent semitism quite apart from any putative Vorlage? > In fact, many Arabic versions tranlsate simply "from the dead". I don not think this might come from tranlsating too litterally from Greek. The general level of correction of a version is indicative. For example, the so-called "alexandrian vulgate" which is in a very correct literary Arabic has "from the dead" (min al-amwaat). Arabic is a semitic language indeed. Nevertheless, it is a south-western semitic language.By that I mean this: Hebrew and Aramaic are north-west semitic languages, and learning one when knowing already the other is quite easy as they are close to each other in their means of expression. But then if you want to learn Arabic, it takes much more effort. It has a much more elaborated and subtle grammar than its northern sisters. For example, greek LEGWN cannot be translated by a participle in nhebrew or syriac. We should use wayyomer in hebrew, or wa-amar in syriac. In Arabic, it is perfectly correct to use a participle in the accusative-adverbial qaa'ilan (though wa-qaala, equivalent to the hebrew and syriac forms, would be correct too). You see, Arabic has quite a much richer vocabulary and syntax. A very souple and complex language, compared to which hebrew and aramaic are quite rigid. > >note: after this verse, we have no more old syriac witness. > > > > Is this because there are no Syriac texts which contain the rest? Or just > no more old ones? I mean by this that sy.s, the only vetus syra ms for this chapter, stops here. > > >- v.9: Sin. Arb. 71 doesn't have the byzantine addition at the > >beginning of the verse (ws de eporeuonto apaggeilai tois maqhtais > >autou). In this respect, it goes with Aleph-B, D, Theta, fam 13 in > >greek, and several versions (sy.p latin sypal geo-Adysh-Tbeth-Opiza > >and armenian-vulgate). > > Again, the Byz redactors at work? This is a question that people who work on the greek mss should answer... > > >- v. 11: strangely, the "elders" have replaced the high priests. > >Probably one of the many blunders of the translator. > > Unless the terms are synonymous? Normally, the presbuteroi of the greek are rendered by this word (mashaa'ikh), while the high priest have another one (rusa al-kahunna). This is really a deviation from the usual vocabulary of the translator. > > >- v.18 Sin. arb. 71 doesn't have the harmonization from Jn 21.20 found > >in Theta, syp, geo-Adysh and armenian-vulgate. > > Jean, does this Arabic ms have a great number of harmonizations? There are quite a lot, specially those we find in Theta and, surprisingly, the middle-egyptian version (mae). I work very few in the coptic area, so I don't know what this is suposed to mean. > > >- v.20: "AND to the end of the world": the addition of "and" isn't > >found in Greek, but we have it also in sypal geo-Tbeth-Opiza and in > >many other Arabic versions. > > > > Could this simply be because of a desire for a "smooth" translation? Possibly indeed. I don't want to rush on the possibility of variants when I know that my translator is rather free in his renderings. But the alliance of georgian and arabic versions is usual, that's why I don't want to exclude totally that there might have been a 'kai' in some lost greek ms. > > Jean, > > excellent work! thanks. > > Jim Thank you for this encouragement! --------------------------------------------------------- Jean Valentin - Brussels - Belgium --------------------------------------------------------- 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" --------------------------------------------------------- From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri May 2 18:51:23 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA08069; Fri, 2 May 1997 18:51:22 -0400 Date: 3 May 97 00:53:05 +0200 Subject: Tatian's Diatessaron on the Web 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: 845 Dear TC-ers, I thought this might be intersting to you. One or two weeks ago someone asked where to find english translations of the NT versions. If you go to the following URL: http://www.knight.org/advent/fathers/1002.htm you will find an english translation of the Arabic Diatessaron. I have just found it and I don't know which translation and what it's worth though. --------------------------------------------------------- Jean Valentin - Brussels - Belgium --------------------------------------------------------- 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" --------------------------------------------------------- From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri May 2 20:04:37 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA08268; Fri, 2 May 1997 20:04:36 -0400 From: dwashbur@wave.park.wy.us Message-Id: <199705021810.MAA22915@wavecom.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 17:02:58 -7000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Oops! Major apology 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: 488 What was supposed to be a private message to Bob Waltz ended up on the list, apparently through my own pneumocephaly. I wish to apologize to everyone on the list, and especially to those I may have offended with my comments. I'll get the hang of this computer stuff just as soon as I figure out what all these buttons are for... 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 Sat May 3 04:00:47 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id EAA08819; Sat, 3 May 1997 04:00:47 -0400 Message-ID: <336B7914.5A31@sn.no> Date: Sat, 03 May 1997 10:42:44 -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: Matt 28 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: 190 Thank you, Jean, for your most excellent post with translation from the Sinai Arabic version of Matthew 28, with notes and supplement. This is really appreciated! -- - Mr. Helge Evensen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat May 3 04:54:03 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id EAA08875; Sat, 3 May 1997 04:54:02 -0400 Message-ID: <336B858E.1E57@sn.no> Date: Sat, 03 May 1997 11:35:58 -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: ASV97-WEB 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: 849 Some time ago I asked if anyone had heard about the new translation project called "American Standard Version of the Holy Bible 1997 Revision" (or ASV 1997). I mentioned that the NT-translation seemed to be based on the Majority Text, quoting Matthew 10:8. Nobody on this list seemed to have heard about the project. So I offer a short information. I have checked the URL once again and have found that the project has changed name to "World English Bible" (WEB). This is a non-copyrighted translation (Public Domain). The project also has a mailing list: majordomo@csn.net ("subscribe bible" - "unsubscribe bible"). This Bible translation is based on Biblia Hebraica for the OT, and the "Byzantine Majority Text" for the NT, according to the FAQ. The project is located at: http://www.sni.net/~mpj/asv97faq.htm -- - Mr. Helge Evensen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat May 3 15:26:14 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA09507; Sat, 3 May 1997 15:26:13 -0400 Message-Id: <199705031923.OAA19816@endeavor.flash.net> From: "Perry L. Stepp" To: Subject: Re: Should we keep this up? (Was: Re: Request: help with Colwell'squantitative analysis) Date: Sat, 3 May 1997 06:55:13 -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: 759 Robert, I really wasn't aiming to start something like this with such a simple request. But I've learned as much about the QA method from lurking on your discussion as I did from the posts you sent in response to my original query, so--Keep it up, if the Spirit so moves, and if you feel there's significant ground left to cover. 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 May 3 15:48:32 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA09542; Sat, 3 May 1997 15:48:31 -0400 Message-Id: <199705031951.PAA18073@fs.IConNet.NET> From: "RONALD DAVID LARGE" To: Subject: Re: Eusebius's quotation of Matt 28:19 (follow up) Date: Sat, 3 May 1997 15:25:52 -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: 372 ---------- > From: William L. Petersen > To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu > Subject: Eusebius's quotation of Matt 28:19 (follow up) > Date: Wednesday, April 30, 1997 11:11 AM > > A follow-up on Large's question, with the exact reference (at end of post): > Thanks for the helpful information..... your time is greatly appreciated :-D David Large From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat May 3 15:48:34 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA09549; Sat, 3 May 1997 15:48:33 -0400 Message-Id: <199705031951.PAA18078@fs.IConNet.NET> From: "RONALD DAVID LARGE" To: Subject: Re: Theological tendencies and the Text Date: Sat, 3 May 1997 15:28:19 -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: 476 ---------- > From: george howard > To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu > Subject: Re: Theological tendencies and the Text > Date: Wednesday, April 30, 1997 10:04 AM > 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 Thanks for the helpful information..... your time is greatly appreciated :-D David Large From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat May 3 15:48:36 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA09570; Sat, 3 May 1997 15:48:35 -0400 Message-Id: <199705031951.PAA18081@fs.IConNet.NET> From: "RONALD DAVID LARGE" To: Subject: Re: Theological tendencies and the Text Date: Sat, 3 May 1997 15:32:16 -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: 540 ---------- > From: Bart Ehrman > To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu > Subject: Re: Theological tendencies and the Text > Date: Tuesday, April 29, 1997 6:37 AM > > 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; > Hope this helps. > > -- Bart D. Ehrman, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Thank you for the information.... I'm placing a call today to get a copy! David Large From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat May 3 18:00:28 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA09733; Sat, 3 May 1997 18:00:28 -0400 Date: 4 May 97 00:00:36 +0200 Subject: oldest Arabic version: Sin arb 74 and 72 and their allies 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: 14438 Dear TC-ers, This time I'll present to you what is probably the OLDEST Arabic version. In Mt Sinai, it is present in 4 manuscripts : Sinai Arabic 74, IXth century. Sinai Arabic 54, Xth century. Two other mss have a colophon that allow us to have their precise date: Sinai Arabic 72, dated 897 AD, is the oldest _dated_ Arabic Gospel ms known to us. Sinai Arabic 97, dated 1125 AD. Several other mss have been found around the world: Vatican Borgia Arabic 95, IXth century. Berlin or. oct. 1108, dated 1046 AD. As a comparison, our earliest complete mss of the georgian version are also from the IXth century. Some bibliography about this version: B. Levin, Die griechisch-arabische Evangelien-Ubersetzung, Vat. Borg. ar. 95 und Ber. orient. ar. 1108 - thesis, Uppsala, 1938 J. Blau, Uber einige Christlich-Arabische manuskripte aus dem 9. und 10. jahrhundert, Le Museon 75 (1962) p. 101-108 A. Gally Garland, An Arabic Translation of the Gospel according to Mark - thesis, Catholic University of America (Washington 1979) S. Griffith, The Gospel in Arabic: an Inquiry into its Appearance in the First Abbassid Century, OC 69 (1985), p. 126-167 There are also mentions of it in Metzger, EVNT (mentions Guidi's fundamental article on the Arabic versions, in which the first excerpts were published) and Voobus EVNT ad. loc. It has been proposed that the place of origin of this version was southern Palestine, and more precisely the Monastery of St-Sabas in the Judean desert, which was an important centre of translations from the greek language. An interesting point is the relation between Sin Arb 72 and the other mss. It is generally believed that Sin arb 72 presents a revised form of the version contained in the other mss, trying to bring it closer to a greek text and to ameliorate its Arabic (which can sometimes be contradictory). Here under, I give the translation of the oldest ms of the group, Sin arb. 74, together with the variants of Sin Arb 72 when they are significative. TEXT 1 And in the evening of the sabbath, morning ot the first of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to look at the sepulchre. 2 And, behold, a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and approached and rolled the stone from the door of the sepulchre, and sat upon it. [2 in ms72:] And, behold, an earthquake was, great: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and approached and rolled the stone from the sepulchre, and sat upon it. 3 And his appearance was like the lightning, and his raiment white as the snow. 4 And of his fear the watch trembled, and became like the dead. [ms 72: "the keepers" instead of "the watch"] 5 The angel answered and said to the women: Fear not, you. I have known that you are searching for Jesus who was crucified. 6 He is not here. He is risen, like he said. Come in, look at the place where he was laid down. 7 And go in haste, and say to his disciples that he is risen from the dead. And he, he preceeds you to Galilee. There you will see him. Behold, I have said to you. [ms 72 omits the "and" at the beginning of the verse, and omits also "in haste"] 8 And they went out, hasting themselves, from the sepulchre with fear and big joy, and announced the news to the disciples. [ms 72 substitutes a synonymous for "big". And instead of "and announced the news to the disciples", it reads "and run to announce to the disciples"] 9 And behold, Jesus met them, saying: Rejoice! And they approached and took his feet, and worshipped him. [ms 72: And as they were going to announce to his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying: Peace to you! And they approached and took his feet, and worshipped him.] 10 Then, Jesus said to them: Fear not, go and announce my brothers that they go to Galilee, and there they shall see me. 11 And as they were going, behold, some of the watch entered in the city, and announced to the chiefs of the priests all that had been. [ms 72: "the keepers" instead of "the watch", a more correct preposition (ila instead of fi) after "entered", and "was" instead of "had been"] 12 And the elders assembled, and took counsel, and gave the soldiers much money, [ms 72: And they assembled with the elders, and took deliberation, and gave the soldiers much money] 13 and said : Say that his disciples came in the night, and stole him, and we (were) asleep. [ms 72 substitutes an adverb for "in the night" - I find no english word, in French we have "nuitamment", something like "night-ly"?] 14 And if this is heard at the Commander's, we will persuade him and make you without trouble. [ms 72: And if it has been heard of this at the Commander's, etc...] 15 And they, when they took the money, they did as they were taught: and this saying was published among the Jews to this day. [ms 72: several synonym substitutions] 16 And the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had ordered them. [both mss have this ambiguous verb meaning both "to order" and "to constitute"] 17 And when they saw him, they worshipped. And [some] of them stumbled. [ms 72 adds "him" after "worshipped] 18 And Jesus approached and spoke to them, saying: I was given all the power in the heaven and upon the earth. [ms 72 ends instead with : "in the heaven and the earth", only one preposition] 19 Go now, and teach all the nations, and baptize them in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Spirit of holiness. 20 Teach them (that) they keep all that I have ordered you: and behold, I am with you all the days, to the end of the century. [ms 72 adds the famous "and" before "to the end of the century. None of the two mss has "Amen" at the end.] NOTES 1. MS 72: A REVISION There are many things to analyze in these mss! First, a few words about the relations between 74 and 72. Generally speaking, 72 has a more correct Arabic grammar. Of course, you can't generally see it it my translations, but here are a few examples of what 72 does: (1) Mt 28 is interesting because there are many feminine forms of verbs and pronouns. Classical Arabic makes the distinction - just like biblical hebrew, that most of you probably know - between masculine and feminine in the pronouns, as well as in the endings of verbs. I have noted six occurrences where 74 has a masculine pronoun, and where 72 puts a feminine instead. In the same way, there are five occurrences of verbs where 72 substitutes the feminine form instead of the masculine of 74. In what direction goes the passage? I believe it is most likely that a revisor would attempt to "classicize" the grammar, than the contrary. The reason is that we know that Islam considers as a proof of divine inspiration the fact that the Qoran is in such an elegant language. Christian books were often denigrated by muslim polemics because their Arabic was awkward. It is possible that, under the influence of such accusations on the part of the muslims, a christian wishing for his sacred books to be taken more seriously would have tried to make them more acceptable grammatically. (2) Some translations are less literal in 72 than in 74, and more conform to the means of expression in Arabic. The most striking example is in v.9, where "rejoice" (which is a good form of greeting in NT Greek, but means nothing like that in Arabic) is replaced by the much more Arabic "Peace to you". The same can probably be said of the suppression of the second preposition in v.18. (3) On the other hand, 72 adds "was" in v.2, at a place which is awkward in Arabic (between the noun and its adjective, an impossible place in Arabic), but which is exaclty the place it has in greek (seismos egeneto megas). This by the way, is evidence that it uses greek mss (or syropalestinian, which have also this construction, inacceptable also in Aramaic). The syriac versions have a more semitic word order and 72 could not have restituted the greek word order using syriac mss. (4) Another modification is the addition of "with" in v.12, where the text comes also closer to the Greek. What kind of Greek text was used by the revisor of 72? Here's a few evidence: (1) You have noticed the big addition in the beginning of v.9. We spoke about it when we noticed that it was absent from the version of Sin arb 71. This addition is typical of A fam1 and the Byzantine text. (2) In verse 17, 72 adds "him" to "worshipped". This is also a Greek variant: 74 omits "him" with Aleph-B, D, 33, while 72 adds it with A W Theta fam1 fam13 Byz. (3) The suppression of "the door" in v.2 is more problematic, as you will see: - "apo ths quras tou mnhmeiou" is found in Theta fam1 fam13 sypal mae bo geo-Tbeth-Opiza. We can call this the cesarean reading, it is also in 74. - "apo ths quras" is found in the Byz text and the peshitto. - "from the sepulchre", the reading of 72, is found only in Armenian patristic writings (see Leloir, Citations du Nouveau testament... p. 351 n=B01093) - (nothing) in Aleph-B, D, sy.s. So here, we can say either that 72 follows a text that was also known to Armenian writers or, maybe more likely, that it is an accidental omission (though I see no graphical reason for it). We cannot say at this stage that 72 revises 74 using the Byzantine text, as the two other instances (v.9 and v.17) show that other witnesses are associated with Byz for the reading (in both cases, we find fam1 !). And there's also the "and" in v.20 that corresponds to no known Greek witness, but we noticed already (in ms 71) that it was present in many Arabic versions, as well as in georgian mss. If 72 uses the Byzantine text, then he does it in a superficial way, emending only the places where the variants are the most visible. 2. MODEL (VORLAGE) OF MS 74 Now, let's come to the model used by the translator of ms 74. In v.2, we said already that 72 was probably using a greek model, because of the awkward place of the verb "was". In ms 74, verse 5 helps us already in that it helps us to exclude a Syriac model: "Fear not, you" is the order of the greek and syropalestinian mss. Sy.c and sy.p have "You, fear not". It is unlikely that the translator would have restituted the Greek order if he was using exclusively Syriac mss. Also, "Rejoice" at v.9 is found only in Greek, the syriac and syropalestinian having substituted for it the semitic greeting "Peace to you" that we find also in ms 72. Syriac and syropalestinian may be eliminated on such grounds, and also, of course, on the ground of many variants which I won't list here (though if somebody wishes to have more evidence, I can do it...). A good example where the translation of ms 74 is not possible from syropalestinian is at verse 15: "was published" is the correct translation of greek "(di)efemisqh". In syropalestinian, the word used has a much more vague meaning in comparison to the specialized one we find in greek and arabic: sypal uses the verb "nfq", "to go out". It is unlikely that, working from a syropalestinian exemplar, the tranlsator would have been able to restitute the very exact and narrower meaning of the greek text. We already noticed the variants at verses 9 (no big addition in the beginning of the verse) and 17 (worshipped, without "him"). Both lead us to a non-byzantine text. In v.14, 74 has the addition of "him" after "persuade". This addition is found in Byz and fam1 fam13, with syp geo-Adysh. The omission, on the contrary, is in Aleph-B, Theta, sypal, geo-Tbeth-Opiza. If we combine all three variants (v. 9, 14 and 17) we find that fam1 has the good profile (of course, we need to study much more text before we can affirm that a text of the kind of fam1 was used!). Other interesting readings are: - v.6 omission of GAR with sy.s and several other Arabic versions. - v.6 omission of O KYRIOS. The omission was also in the version of Sin arb 71, with Aleph-B, Theta, 33, sy.s, old latin e, geo-Tbeth-Opiza, armenian-vulgate. - v.7 omission of KAI before IDOU PROAGEI... with two other Arabic versions. What's interesting is that KAI IDOU is found in all greek witnesses, IDOU in those Arabic versions, and KAI only is found in codex bezae and old latin witnesses. Is KAI IDOU a conflation of the two shorter readings? I don't dare saying "yes" in front of the absence of any greek evidence for "idou" alone. - v.8 TOIS MAQHTAIS (om. AUTOU): this omission is found in two old latin witnesses (f and q) and in several Arabic versions (among which the malkite version of the XIth century, about which I will post something later if God grants me life to do it). - v.20 POREUQENTES OUN: ms 74 omits translates OUN by "now" (al-aan). This might get us into thinking that it follows D and the old latin witnesses (a aur b d h n): D reads "NUN" in this place. But there is not really a good correspondant for "OUN" in Arabic, and this might just be a way to translate it. By the way, there are other Arabic versions that use the same word, among which the one in Sin arb 71. - Finally, omission of AMHN at the end of v.20. Again, with Aleph-B D W 33, we find fam1 in favor of this omission. CONCLUSIONS What kind of text does the earliest stage of this version reflect? It is quite difficult to ascertain, though we have found some evidence pointing to fam1 as being the most influential greek text-type. If the version of Sinai arb 71 was quite close to that of Theta, this arabic version presents a different picture. And, it has a complex history: in my introduction, I said that there are more mss than only 74 and 72. In fact, those are both extremities of the revising process. If we consider the text of mss 54 and 97, the picture becomes even more interesting, as in those two mss we find most of the "grammatical" corrections already present (though not in such a consistent way as in ms 72), but not the "textual" corrections of ms 72. The history of the earliest Arabic version of the Gospels seems to be that of a gradual process of arabization and, maybe, as to its text, of byzantinization. --------------------------------------------------------- Jean Valentin - Brussels - Belgium --------------------------------------------------------- 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" --------------------------------------------------------- From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun May 4 12:22:13 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA10880; Sun, 4 May 1997 12:22:13 -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: Sun, 4 May 1997 10:57:58 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Mathematical Methods & References Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 7707 TCers -- In the last week or so, I've gotten several requests for information on the use of statistics in TC. In one sense, that's good; it means I've been getting you thinking. But I haven't been much help in my replies. Given that the questions keep coming in, I think I have to try to give something of an overview of *why*. The basic question that has been asked is, "What is a good mathematical reference for TCers?" As far as I know, there is none. If there were, I would be quoting it, rather than stumbling along looking for methods of my own. Now I'll admit that there could be a great reference out there somewhere. But I doubt it. And the reason that I doubt it is that we haven't even laid all the groundwork. To give an example: In the last few decades, we've done a great deal to define what constitutes a "variant." Epp and Fee are among the big names here. They've given us a nomenclature both for the variants themsleves and for their nature. What they haven't given us is a rigid system for determining the scope of variants. And the latter is vital. Consider this: In Larry Richards's statistical analysis of the Catholic Epistles, he goes to great lengths to make all his variants binary (that is, to have *two and only two* readings). As I recall (and I'm not checking this), he had only four ternary variants (those with three readings) in his whole set of a hundred and some. By contrast, about 25% of the variants in the apparatus of UBS/GNT are ternary (or of even higher order). Does this matter? You bet it does! If all variants are binary, then in general we can say that, for any variant, one reading is Byzantine and one reading is non-Byzantine. This means that, if two manuscripts both have the non-Byzantine reading here, then they automatically agree. In other words, agreement in non-Byzantine readings is meaningless; every manuscript -- even one that is purely Byzantine -- will have 100% agreement with every other in non-Byzantine readings. But it's worth remembering that Lake, Streeter, et al *defined* the "Caesarean" text in terms of the non-Byzantine readings. If all variants are binary, then *all* manuscripts become "Caesarean" under this definition. Whereas, if many of our variants are ternary, there are two non-Byzantine readings, and agreement in non-Byzantines becomes a meaningful statistic. Is anyone prepared to state that the existence or non-existence of a text-type depends entirely on how many readings we allow at a variant? Seems pretty silly to me.... If we are to make mathematical analysis of TC a truly respectable discipline, we must create a greater degree of rigour. Now I know that not everyone wants to do this (witness my exchange with Ehrman about the Comprehensive Profile Method. I say that profiles should be created by mechanical means. He says that human beings should create them. There is no "right" answer here; it's just that one way is rigourous and the other is not). All I am saying is that such rigour is required from proper mathematical analysis. Results must be repeatable! Another problem with recommending a math text or reference to TCers is the level of math required. I don't know about your colleges, but my school offered two statistics courses -- one, called "Statistics," was taught by the economics department, and had no prerequisites. The math department offering was called "Probability and Statistics," and had as prerequisites multi-variable calculus and linear algebra. Now I'll tell you the truth: the Economics version of the course was more "useful." They taught you a lot more things. In Probs & Stats, we didn't even learn such basic tools as chi-square testing. Instead, we studied possible outcomes, probability distributions -- and where and when one can apply various methods. The Economics class never taught that. And it's a real lack. Those economic students frequently applied tests and formulas to results where they simply didn't apply. But I frankly don't know how to *tell* people how to apply the tests until they've reached the level of mathematical maturity implied by four semesters of calculus, linear algebra, etc. (There may be a way; I just don't know it. :-) To show how much work there is to be done, I will point out that, in the six or so years since I first started applying statistics to textual criticism, I have refined my methods five times. And I *still* don't have a method that lets me plug in a collation and have the computer read off the text-type of the resulting manuscript. I have a lot more data than I used to, and it's all very pretty, but it isn't rigorous. (And, I fear, I'm about used up. I'm 35, and mathematicians stop having ideas at 30. So somebody else will likely have to take up the torch.) This brings up another point. I may, at some point, have said that Colwell and Tune and/or Hurtado are wrong in their definition of a text-type. I should not say that. Their methods are faithful to their definition. But note that word: "Definition." They have *postulated* the definition of a text-type (70% agreement, 10% gap). That is, they have said that "this is what we mean by a text-type." That is a legitimate mathematical method. They could, for all it matters mathematically, define text-types in terms of the color of ink used in the manuscript. This is logically consistent. It's just that the results wouldn't match what we instinctively think of as a text-type. The informal definition of a text-type is "the loosest grouping of manuscripts between which some degree of relationship can be discerned." Now I say that, due to mixture, this definition contradicts the Colwell/Tune definition. Allow me enough manuscripts, and I will show you a set in which there are no 10% gaps. That is the reason why I did, and do, reject the Colwell definition. I've spent the last several years trying to find a definition which more or less conforms with what we already knew, without shutting us off from new discoveries. And I am the first to admit that I have failed. I believe I have constructed an accurate picture of the text-types in Paul and the Catholics -- but I also admit that this is based on my informal analysis of the statistics I produce, not on the statistics themselves. The Colwell/Tune definition carries with it two seemingly unnoticed corollaries: 1. A text-type can only exist if it has a pure representative 2. A sufficiently mixed text cannot belong to a text-type. I personally reject this. By this definition, the Alexandrian text did not exist in the Gospels until B and Aleph became known! I would postulate something different: 1. Text-types exist. 2. Text-types need not have a pure representative. On that basis I have stumbled around (and stumbled is the right word!) looking for a mathematical rule that will let me prove the existence of text-types. I hope that is a decent summary of the situation. We can't just go out and call on mathematicians to help us out. If we ever want TC to be a rigorous subject (and I say *if*, because some do *not* want it to become one), we need to get our house in order. Get our definitions straight, study the nature of variants so that we know what tests we can apply. If we do that, then maybe finally we can write the textbook that everybody wants. All right, the voice yapping in the wilderness will now stop yapping for a bit. :-) -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun May 4 13:24:21 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA10945; Sun, 4 May 1997 13:24:20 -0400 Date: Sun, 4 May 1997 13:25:08 -0400 (EDT) From: Bart Ehrman X-Sender: behrman@login0.isis.unc.edu To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Mathematical Methods & References 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: 2584 On Sun, 4 May 1997, Robert B. Waltz wrote: > > If we are to make mathematical analysis of TC a truly respectable > discipline, we must create a greater degree of rigour. Now I know that > not everyone wants to do this (witness my exchange with Ehrman about > the Comprehensive Profile Method. I say that profiles should be created > by mechanical means. He says that human beings should create them. > There is no "right" answer here; it's just that one way is rigourous > and the other is not). All I am saying is that such rigour is required > from proper mathematical analysis. Results must be repeatable! Mr. Waltz: is it still the case that you haven't actually read any of my stuff? I completely agree that our models have to be mathematically based, repeatable, and rigourous. I thought that was why I developed the comprehensive profile method in the first place. If you have suggestions about the method itself, I really would like to hear them, since there are several doctoral dissertations being written right now that are using it, and refinements could prove quite useful (Vincent Broman's comments have been extremely helpful; I have to say that I prefer his approach of offering suggestions of a method that he has read and understand to your approach of criticizing a method you haven't even examined; but maybe it's a matter of taste). With respect to our disagreement, it is not over either rigor or repeatability. It's over how one *decides* what constitutes a variant or not and how one goes about using these variants to classify manuscripts. The points you're raising over that issue are precisely what is at stake, in part because they show that the decision cannot be made mechanically until you, a subjective being, actually *make* these decisions. I.e., it's wrong to say that I think human beings "should" make decisions; I think humans *have* to make them. There is no choice about the matter. The question about whether they are rigourous or not in doing so is altogether different. (BTW, your point that binary agreements always create a Byzantine vs. a non-Byzantine reading of course is obviously false, so I wonder what you're thinking of. Could you tell me, by the way, if you've evaluated yet the standard criticism of the earlier methods of establishin a Caesarean text by considering only those variants that differ from the Byzantine text? To most of us, this criticism is absolutely valid, and based precisely on a rigorous set of considerations.) -- Bart D. Ehrman, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun May 4 15:57:18 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA11121; Sun, 4 May 1997 15:57:17 -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: Sun, 4 May 1997 15:00:26 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Mathematical Methods & References Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 6709 On Sun, 4 May 1997, Bart Ehrman wrote: >On Sun, 4 May 1997, Robert B. Waltz wrote: >> >> If we are to make mathematical analysis of TC a truly respectable >> discipline, we must create a greater degree of rigour. Now I know that >> not everyone wants to do this (witness my exchange with Ehrman about >> the Comprehensive Profile Method. I say that profiles should be created >> by mechanical means. He says that human beings should create them. >> There is no "right" answer here; it's just that one way is rigourous >> and the other is not). All I am saying is that such rigour is required >> from proper mathematical analysis. Results must be repeatable! > > Mr. Waltz: is it still the case that you haven't actually read any of >my stuff? To answer the question: Yes, I have read various things you have written. But to answer the *implied* question: No, I haven't gotten to the article on the Comprehensive Profile method. I admit that this is something I need to do -- but it hardly affects my discussion of the Colwell/Tune definition. [ ... ] > With respect to our disagreement, it is not over either rigor or >repeatability. It's over how one *decides* what constitutes a variant or >not and how one goes about using these variants to classify manuscripts. >The points you're raising over that issue are precisely what is at stake, >in part because they show that the decision cannot be made mechanically >until you, a subjective being, actually *make* these decisions. I.e., >it's wrong to say that I think human beings "should" make decisions; I >think humans *have* to make them. There is no choice about the matter. In part I agree. But human beings are always subjective, and should be kept *out* of the process as long as possible. (Sez I.) So I prefer to use the computer to do every bit of the work it possibly can. There may be methodological bias in my programming -- but at least that bias will affect all manuscripts equally. >The question about whether they are rigourous or not in doing so is >altogether different. I will try to be charitable and assume that we are using "rigour" in different ways. So what in the world do you mean if you do not mean something that can be done absolutely mechanically? (This excludes, of course, the meaning in mathematical logic -- but even I don't see any way to apply mathematical logic to TC.) >(BTW, your point that binary agreements always >create a Byzantine vs. a non-Byzantine reading of course is obviously >false, so I wonder what you're thinking of. What? Assume that, at some point of variation, there are two readings, A and B. That is what I mean by a binary variant. If this is true, then there are only two possibilities: Either the Byzantine text is split (which can happen, of course, but is not especially common), or one of the readings is Byzantine and the other is not. For simplicity, let's say that reading B is Byzantine and A is not. Together so far? Now take two manuscripts, X and Y. Since, *by definition of a binary variant*, they can only have reading A or reading B here, there are four possible results: 1. X reads A, Y reads A -- Comment: This is the only case where both are Non-Byzantine. And X and Y agree. 2. X reads A, Y reads B -- Comment: Y is Byzantine, so this is not a case where both are non-Byzantine. 3. X reads B, Y reads A -- Comment: X is Byzantine, so this is not a case where both are non-Byzantine. 4. X reads B, Y reads B -- Comment: Both Byzantine, so this is not a case where both are non-Byzantine. In other words, *if all readinngs are binary*, then wherever two manuscripts are non-Byzantine, they agree. Q.E.D. This does not admit of argument. If you wish to prove this statement untrue, you must attack the premise that all readings are binary. I do not say that all readings are binary, only that, if they are, then agreement in non-Byzantines is meaningless. Or were we disagreeing about what "agreement in non-Byzantines" means? >Could you tell me, by the >way, if you've evaluated yet the standard criticism of the earlier methods >of establishin a Caesarean text by considering only those variants that >differ from the Byzantine text? To most of us, this criticism is >absolutely valid, and based precisely on a rigorous set of >considerations.) I'm not sure I understand the question. Are you asking, "have I examined the Lake/Blake/New/Streeter system of defining the 'Caesarean' text in terms of its divergences from the Byzantine text?"? If so, the answer is that I have not repeated the experiment that they undertook, so I do not know if the "Caesarean" text exists. I have suspicions, but no final answer. However, I have no objection, in theory, to their method. They applied it incorrectly (the TR is *not* the Byzantine text), and of course they applied it circularly. That means that they needed better application of their method, not a better method. Let me try asking the question from the other direction: Do you insist that a text-type can only exist if there is a pure representative of the type? Because I will readily concede that there are no surviving pure representatives of the "Caesarean" text. All of them, from Theta on down, are mixed (if they form a text at all). But if you cannot examine manuscripts at the points where they are free of Byzantine mixture, how can you examine that lost text? *** Let me make another observation on this exchange. Those who are neutrals (lucky you :-) will observe that I keep being attacked at *the same points.* Usually it's where I have questioned a common assumption, but not always. The one thing that is universal is that we are debating over postulates. Colwell, or Ehrman, or Hurtado, are offering postulates. (You don't think Colwell postulated his definition? Consider how he "derived" it. He looked at one small set of data, offered some numbers -- and by some amazing process those numbers have become gospel, accepted without proof by very many TCers.) So I would ask a question: What is wrong with trying alternate postulates? I can't give a TC analogy -- but I can state one thing with certainty: Mathematics has always gotten richer when it has tried using different postulates. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 May 5 08:52:53 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA12131; Mon, 5 May 1997 08:52:53 -0400 Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Henry T. Carmichael" To: "Robert B. Waltz" , tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Mon, 5 May 1997 08:56:21 +0000 Subject: Re: Should we keep this up? ... Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.42a) Message-Id: <19970505124748Z46109-196+10@ctc-fw.ctronsoft.com> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1701 On Fri, 2 May 1997 15:30:33 -0700, you wrote (James Adair) >>(2) The 70% agreement has often been questioned. Other than >>the Byzantine and Alexandrian witnesses, does any other group >>show a 70% level of agreement anywhere in the NT? What level >>of agreement is there among the OL witnesses (eliminating D >>from the Western group)? Bob, what level of agreement is there >>in the groups you identify in Paul? (Bob Waltz) >I'll give as much data here as I can type in half an hour. (BTW >-- if some of the numbers don't agree, blame the fact that I'm >retyping all this. If there's an inconsistency, tell me and I'll >check it.) > >************************************* > >Gospels: If we omit D, and people are willing to live with my >samples, the "European" Latins (a, b, ff2) seem to agree about >70-80% of the time. (By comparison, they agree with D about ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >60-65% of the time, and with D about 35% of the time. They agree ^^^^^^^^^^ >with k about 55% of the time.) There must be a typographical error here. Could you please let us know what you wished to write? Thanks. ... On the question, "Should we keep this up?" - I'm not a TC scholar by any stretch of the imagination, but my Undergraduate training was in Chemistry. So my background enables me to appreciate and applaud your efforts to apply the principles of statistical rigor to the analysis of textual variants. I vote (for whatever it's worth) for continuation. I wish I knew enough about TC to try to apply some of the principles of statistical design of experiments I learned years back. Henry Carmichael htc@ctronsoft.com From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon May 5 09:10:34 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA12196; Mon, 5 May 1997 09:10:33 -0400 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 5 May 1997 08:14:53 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Oops! (Was: Re: Should we keep this up? ...) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1780 On Mon, 5 May 1997, "Henry T. Carmichael" wrote: >>Gospels: If we omit D, and people are willing to live with my >>samples, the "European" Latins (a, b, ff2) seem to agree about >>70-80% of the time. (By comparison, they agree with D about > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>60-65% of the time, and with D about 35% of the time. They agree > ^^^^^^^^^^ >>with k about 55% of the time.) > >There must be a typographical error here. Could you please let >us know what you wished to write? Thanks. Sorry. This is what I get for typing too fast. The corrected paragraph should read Gospels: If we omit D, and people are willing to live with my samples, the "European" Latins (a, b, ff2) seem to agree about 70-80% of the time. (By comparison, they agree with D about 60-65% of the time, and with B about 35% of the time. They agree with k about 55% of the ^^^ time.) > >On the question, "Should we keep this up?" - > >I'm not a TC scholar by any stretch of the imagination, but my >Undergraduate training was in Chemistry. So my background >enables me to appreciate and applaud your efforts to apply the >principles of statistical rigor to the analysis of textual >variants. I vote (for whatever it's worth) for continuation. Obviously the thread continues... but I think it's taken a more productive direction. My shouting match with Hurtado wasn't going anywhere.... -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 May 5 12:15:46 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA12879; Mon, 5 May 1997 12:15:45 -0400 From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" Organization: Divinity Faculty To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Mon, 5 May 1997 17:16:02 +000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Mathematical Methods & References 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: 7908 As Jimmy Adair and a couple of others think they found some value in the exchanges Bob Waltz and I had late last week, and as substantive matters continue to be on the table, I hope I shall be permitted patience for another contribution. (And Bob, I never saw our exchanges as shouting matches, at least on my end.) Adair highlights some interesting matters. Also, in his response to Adair and in his subsequent posting Waltz makes a number of statements that require some clarification in my view, merely to be able to understand what he means before I can evaluate them. Let me try to be concise and itemize matters. 1.) It bears remembering what Colwell (and Tune) were up to in the two or three relevant essays in Colwell's _Methodology_ collection in which the % matters come up. Colwell posits that the only helpful definition of "text-Type" is "a group of manuscripts, not . . . a list of readings" (Colwell, _Methodology_, p. 9). That is essential to understand the quantitative method he tried to develop. We're trying to group mss so that we can then proceed toward a history of the NT text. In order to do this, we can apply the Colwell-Tune quantitative approach, and in this approach they offered as a *quantitative* definition of a text-type (i.e., group of mss), 70% or more agreement in point of variation where any two of the leading witnesses of all known major groups share a variant across a significant body of text (in my view the collation has to be book by book across whole books). As I've stated the reason for the 70% figure is simply that when they did this exercise in their sample, and when Fee carried out his exercise in John and when I did mine in Mark, we found that the major reps. of Hort's "Neutral" type and of the "Byzantine" type agreed at this level and their agreement was separated from agreement with major reps of other text types by 10% or more. These figures might well be modified, if one changes the nature of the experiment to ask other questions, but that would say nothing about the usefulness of the figures *for the purpose at hand*--viz. to group mss into text-types and to then see where and whether new mss fit with any of these groups. Thus, when Waltz says that we can introduce enough mss to make the "gap" of agreement much smaller, this is misleading. One might well introduce mss that are "weak" members of a text-type/group and the agreement of these mss with the text-type of which they are weak members would *not* be separated as distinctly from their level of agreement with members of other text-types. But the validity of the 10% "gap" and the 70% agreement observation is that these figures are functional quantitative definitions of the behavior of *major/good reps. of text-types when collated with major/good reps. of all other known text-types*. Thus, that weaker members of the text-type might not exhibit this behavior is very interesting, almost predictable, but not relevant for the validity of the definition of strong members of a text-type, at least a text-type like the Neutral and Byzantine ones. 2.) There has been some confusion over the word "sample". Given that we cannot collate all known Greek mss, we have to chose well certain representative mss for any such exercise. I suppose one could call such reps "samples", but "samples" in at least some social science exercises can involve *random* sampling, and when you're choosing particular mss because they are already thought to be leading reps. of groups this is hardly "sampling". Moreover, when the purpose is to measure the agreements of mss (a) where the mss collated vary, and (b) where their variations enable us to say anything about agreements with one another, then if we count all such places how is this a "sample"? I suppose one could think of such variation units as "samples" in the sense that they are not every word/phrase in the NT, but only places where the text varies. But, again, "sample" implies a portion of the relevant data. But if all the relevant data is counted, how is it only a sample? Waltz cites critically L. Richardson's study of the Johannines, and I too have strong reservations about R's approach, which, N.B. is *not* the sort of application of quantitative analysis that Fee and I have practiced and advocated. 3) With respect (sincere, though my patience wears thin at times), Waltz makes several statements that either seem to me incorrect or else not comprehensible to me.--He allgeses as what he calls corollaries of the Colwell-Tune method (a) that a text-type can exist only if it has a pure representative, and (b) that a sufficiently mixed ms can't belong to a text-type. Both are incorrect allegations. To repeat: per Colwell, a text-type is a group of mss that can be shown to belong together in some objective way (i.e., open for others to examine and test). No pure rep is required, only that a group of mss exhibit sufficiently strong agreement to indicate that they are a group. Mixed mss may show up as weaker members of such a group, or a group of "mixed" mss. might exhibit sufficient agreement to form a group. I really don't see where Waltz gets these corollaries, for the studies done using and adapting the Colwell-Tune approach demonstrate my statements.--Waltz alleges that Fee & Epp haven't given us "a rigid system for determining the scope of variants", and Waltz regards this as "vital". I'd really like Waltz to specify what in the impressively cogent discussions in chaps. 3-4 of the recent Epp/Fee _Studies in The Theory & MEthod_ volume he takes issue with, and where in these discussions he finds mis-steps or omissions. E.g., the "recommended definitions & limitations" on Epp/Fee pp. 57-61 are fairly explicit and precise. Can you improve on these paragraphs, Mr. Waltz? If so, please specify.--Waltz criticizes the Colwell-Tune quantitative definition (70%, etc.) as contrary to "what we instinctively think of as a text-type". "Instinctively"??? Given that some have used text-type to = a "pattern of readings" and others (my preference) an identifiable major group of mss distinguisable from other major groups, where does instinct come in?--Mr. Waltz quite commendably wants "mathematical analysis" in NT TC to be "a truly respectable discipline" and calls for "a greater degree of rigour". I therefore fail to understand how it is an advance to list mere numbers of agreements of two mss in "non-Byzantine" readings. And I simply don't know what his tables of numbers and percentages mean. Mere numbers and percentages mean nothing without a context. Percentages of what? Numbers of what? Mr. Waltz earlier mentioned counting variantion units from N/A27, but I didn't catch the details. Could you please give us a simple statement of what it is you do, as scientifically clear as possible? Merely stating alleged results without the scientific notation of process is near useless. --What do you mean by seeking to "apply the gap to classified agreements"? --What do you mean by "near-singular readings"? --How is it rigorous or meaningful to make a judgment about mss relationships based on a handfull of readings (as in Waltz's list of 6 agreements of 630 with this or that ms)? Finally, as I've stated earlier (and demonstrated in my study of the Codex W) quantitative analysis is only the *first step* in grouping mss and in analysing their relationships. It has to be complemented with analysis of the specific readings shared by mss. No one has suggested that I know of that quantitative agreement alone is more than a rough measurement and one with heuristic value. 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 May 5 14:46:41 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA13312; Mon, 5 May 1997 14:46:40 -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: Mon, 5 May 1997 13:43:50 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Mathematical Methods & References Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 16980 On Mon, 5 May 1997, "Professor L.W. Hurtado" wrote, in part: >Adair highlights some interesting matters. Also, in his response to >Adair and in his subsequent posting Waltz makes a number of >statements that require some clarification in my view, merely to be >able to understand what he means before I can evaluate them. Let me >try to be concise and itemize matters. >1.) It bears remembering what Colwell (and Tune) were up to in the >two or three relevant essays in Colwell's _Methodology_ collection in >which the % matters come up. Colwell posits that the only >helpful definition of "text-Type" is "a group of manuscripts, not . >. . a list of readings" (Colwell, _Methodology_, p. 9). If you read my web page, you'll note that I quote that statement too. Although this, too, is something that might be worthy of discussion. Is a text-type a group of readings or a group of manuscripts? If it is a group of manuscripts, how do we determine which manuscripts belong except by looking at some list of readings? And if it is a list of readings, how do we choose the readings except by looking at the manuscripts containing them? I wonder, therefore, if we can separate manuscripts and readings. (I'm not being dogmatic here; I just don't know. Thoughts, anyone?) >That is >essential to understand the quantitative method he tried to develop. >We're trying to group mss so that we can then proceed toward a >history of the NT text. With which goal I hearily agree -- probably more heartily than most on this list, since I don't trust internal evidence if I don't have to. >In order to do this, we can apply the >Colwell-Tune quantitative approach, and in this approach they offered >as a *quantitative* definition of a text-type (i.e., group of mss), >70% or more agreement in point of variation where any two of the >leading witnesses of all known major groups share a variant across a >significant body of text Notice that I said in my last post that this is a consistent method. I just don't think it produces quite the results we want. Also, it really *does* assume the solution. It's all very well to say that we need to start somewhere. Believe me, I know the need! My database defaults to comparing limited lists of manuscripts. But we need to make our assumptions as few as possible. If we just keep *assuming* that this witness or that is "the best," we can never tell if something else is better. >(in my view the collation has to be book by >book across whole books). I agree in part with that last. That is, one has to be alert for block mixture. However, complete collation of all manuscripts is simply not possible at this time. So if we are to study all manuscripts, we must use a sampling technique. (Note that I am not saying this is *good*; I'm saying this is *necessary.*) This means that we may not have enough data points, especially for short books, to produce detailed results book-by-book. To get more statistical accuracy, we need to check book-by-book for block mixture, and then -- if possible -- study results for an entire corpus. Only that way can we involve enough readings to be certain our results are reliable. >As I've stated the reason for the 70% figure is simply that when they >did this exercise in their sample, and when Fee carried out his >exercise in John and when I did mine in Mark, we found that the major >reps. of Hort's "Neutral" type and of the "Byzantine" type agreed at >this level and their agreement was separated from agreement with >major reps of other text types by 10% or more. These figures might >well be modified, if one changes the nature of the experiment to ask >other questions, but that would say nothing about the usefulness of >the figures *for the purpose at hand*--viz. to group mss into >text-types and to then see where and whether new mss fit with any of >these groups. I'm not saying that you didn't achieve these results. I'm saying the value you find depends on the sample. In your system, based on variants found in two or more witnesses in a group of less than a dozen, the addition of even one more manuscript, depending on its nature, could significantly alter your results. >Thus, when Waltz says that we can introduce enough mss to make the >"gap" of agreement much smaller, this is misleading. One might well >introduce mss that are "weak" members of a text-type/group and >the agreement of these mss with the text-type of which they are >weak members would *not* be separated as distinctly from their level >of agreement with members of other text-types. But the validity >of the 10% "gap" and the 70% agreement observation is that these >figures are functional quantitative definitions of the behavior of >*major/good reps. of text-types when collated with major/good reps. >of all other known text-types*. Assume that to be true. It very well may be. It still leaves you unable to assess mixed manuscripts. And I would claim that there are several known text-types that exist *only* in mixed manuscripts. The "Caesarean" text type, if it exists, is an example. The p46/B type of Paul, if *it* exists, is an example. And there is at least one undisputable example: Family 2138 in the Catholics. This is a very large family (I've personally gathered statistics for 614 630 1505 1611 1799 2138 2412 2495, and there is evidence that there are many more.) On average, these manuscripts agree with each other in about 70%-80% of the cases. But if we look at the reading found in the majority of these manuscripts, they all agree with that 80%-90% of the time. What's more, in my spot checks, *every time they deviated,* it was in the direction of the Byzantine reading. In other words, here is a group where the members meet the Colwell definition, but even so can be shown to be slightly mixed. It doesn't take much to see that only a little more Byzantine mixture would have knocked the group below the Colwell threshold. Does it cease to become a text-type just because the members are a little more mixed? I don't see it that way. >Thus, that weaker members of the >text-type might not exhibit this behavior is very interesting, almost >predictable, More than predictable. A logical necessity. >but not relevant for the validity of the definition of >strong members of a text-type, at least a text-type like the Neutral >and Byzantine ones. But this is my key objection: I don't care about using *only* the strong members of a text-type. Sure, it's nice where they are available. But I refuse to write off the weak ones. >2.) There has been some confusion over the word "sample". Given that >we cannot collate all known Greek mss, we have to chose well certain >representative mss for any such exercise. I'm afraid I don't accept that, either. If you haven't studied all manuscripts, how do you know which are representative? (This strikes me as too obvious for words.) Better to sample a large number of manuscripts than to know only a handful in detail. I'll give an example. There is a family in Paul consisting of 330, 451, and 2492. (Incidentally, Maurice Robinson confirmed the relationship between 330 and 451 in Acts.) This group seems to have an interesting and independent text (though it's mostly Byzantine, and I don't know if there was ever a pure non-Byzantine type behind it). If we insisted on looking only at well-known, pure witnesses, we would never know that this group exists. >I suppose one could call >such reps "samples", but "samples" in at least some social science >exercises can involve *random* sampling, and when you're choosing >particular mss because they are already thought to be leading reps. >of groups this is hardly "sampling". "Sample" as I have been using it applies not to manuscripts but to readings. And sampling need not be random; a "sample" is just a bunch of stuff. In certain instances one prefers a random sample. However, I would point out that often one does *not* want a random sample. Without going into details (all the more so since I don't remember them), consider all the political polls that call up lists of people carefully selected to meet certain characteristics. Now this may sound like I'm agreeing with Hurtado and saying that one should use selected manuscripts. I'm not. Remember, I use "sample" to apply to readings. We may choose to select readings carefully (although frankly I tried in my work on the gospels to select them randomly). But I would strongly argue that we cannot selectively choose manuscripts. When a pollster calls John Smith, it's because the pollster known that John Smith is 35-50 years old, has two years of college, has two children, etc. When we leave, say, manuscript 223 out of our calculations, is it because we know its text? Much more likely it's because we *don't* know its text. In other words, we are creating a biased sample without even knowing the biases. I have elsewhere said some rather unkind things about the Alands' "manuscript categories" and "thousand readings." I still don't think it's an adequate classification tool. But at least it lets us separate the bulk of Byzantine manuscripts from the ones which are something (it hardly matters *what*) else. I would maintain that this is where we have to start. [ ... ] >Waltz cites critically L. Richardson's study of the Johannines, and I >too have strong reservations about R's approach, which, N.B. is *not* >the sort of application of quantitative analysis that Fee and I have >practiced and advocated. Agreed. It's a modified Claremont approach. And, actually, I agree with many of Richards' results. I find the same three families non-Byzantine families he does (though I use different and, I think, more informative names: "Alexandrian," "family 1739," "family 2138"). My complaints with him are that his collations are inaccurate, that "Mixed" is not a text-type, and that his three so-called Alexandrian groups are actually separate text-types (surely this is obvious in the case of Family 2138!) > 3) With respect (sincere, though my patience >wears thin at times), Waltz makes several statements that either seem >to me incorrect or else not comprehensible to me.--He allgeses as >what he calls corollaries of the Colwell-Tune method (a) that a >text-type can exist only if it has a pure representative, and (b) >that a sufficiently mixed ms can't belong to a text-type. Both are >incorrect allegations. Let's be clear: Not the Colwell-Tune *method*, the Colwell-Tune *definition.* I'm going to demonstrate my point very simply. I've done this before; I hope (sorry, but I'm going to be acid here) you'll read it this time. Let's start with a pure manuscript of a text-type. Call it M. Assume, without loss of generality (to put that in layman's terms, the way I construct this example will work for any number of readings), that there are six points of variation we might study. Number them 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 (how's that for original). At each of these points let "A" represent the reading of M. Our alternate reading, which we may consider to be the reading of the Byzantine text, is "B." Make two copies of M; call them N and P. Initially, both N and P have the same profile: N P --- --- 1. A A 2. A A 3. A A 4. A A 5. A A 6. A A Now let's randomly mix three Byzantine readings into N and P. Let's say that N receives Byzantine readings at 1, 3, and 4; P gets them at 2, 3, and 5. So now our profile is: N** P** --- --- 1. B A 2. A B 3. B B 4. B A 5. A B 6. A A Now copy N** (call the result Q) and P** (call that R). Then destroy M, N, and P. If we compare Q and R, they agree only twice: at 3 (where both are Byzantine) and at 6 (where both have the original reading). Now I say that Q and R still represent -- albeit badly -- the original text-type of M. But they *do not* meet the Colwell definition, and no manuscripts mixed in this manner can. Try it yourself, with as many readings and as many Byzantine corruptions as you like. If you don't want to do the math yourself, the article on mathematics on my web page (see the section labelled "Probability") will show you the expected degree of agreement between manuscripts which have suffered various degrees of mixture. [ ... ] >Waltz >alleges that Fee & Epp haven't given us "a rigid system for >determining the scope of variants", and Waltz regards this as >"vital". I'd really like Waltz to specify what in the impressively >cogent discussions in chaps. 3-4 of the recent Epp/Fee _Studies in >The Theory & MEthod_ volume he takes issue with, and where in these >discussions he finds mis-steps or omissions. You completely missed the point of what I was saying. What I was out is that the way we set variants determines what statistical analysis we can use. I showed why, too. I pointed out that Epp & Fee made great progress in this area. But their work was not related to statistical analysis, merely to classification. We need to add the statistical element -- e.g. do we insist on binary readings, etc. Those who think I am denigrating Epp would be advised to read all the various postings in which I have quoted Epp's opinions *against* the orthodox views of textual critics. [ ... ] >Waltz criticizes the Colwell-Tune quantitative >definition (70%, etc.) as contrary to "what we instinctively think of >as a text-type". "Instinctively"??? Given that some have used >text-type to = a "pattern of readings" and others (my preference) an >identifiable major group of mss distinguisable from other major >groups, where does instinct come in? Plenty of people around here have said "I know a text-type when I see one." Perhaps I mis-spoke; maybe some people on this list don't have a feeling for text-types. The "instinctive" definition is "the highest [loosest] degree of relationships between manuscripts that we can perceive." A lot of people have perceived the "Caesarean" text. Zuntz perceived the p46/B text. Neither meets the Colwell definition. That must say something. [ ... ] >And I simply >don't know what his tables of numbers and percentages mean. Mere >numbers and percentages mean nothing without a context. Percentages >of what? Numbers of what? Mr. Waltz earlier mentioned counting >variantion units from N/A27, but I didn't catch the details. Could >you please give us a simple statement of what it is you do, as >scientifically clear as possible? Merely stating alleged results >without the scientific notation of process is near useless. I *never once* mentioned "variantion units from N/A27" with respect to my most recent table (for the Catholics). I did say the numbers were precentages of agreement. I may not have said in the last post that these were based on the variation units in GNT3 and T&T. But I have stated that in the past. I've also put most of the details on my web page. >--What do you mean by seeking to "apply the gap to classified >agreements"? That depends on what system of classifications one uses. Ehrman has one, I have another -- and we disapprove of each others' methods. So I can't answer that categorically. But the idea is that, for any given manuscript and any given statistic, *other than overall agreements*, there will probably be a gap how close it stands between its immediate relatives and how it stands with respect to non-relatives. The size and nature of that gap, however, are dependent on the statistic, the manuscript, and the control manuscripts. >--What do you mean by "near-singular readings"? The technical definition is "a reading is near-singular if it is supported by no more than x manuscripts of those being examined." The number x will, of course, depend on the number of manuscripts examined. I've been working with 30-50 manuscripts, and typically use x=5 or x=6. >--How is it rigorous or meaningful to make a judgment about mss >relationships based on a handfull of readings (as in Waltz's list of >6 agreements of 630 with this or that ms)? Oh muses, I call on you to make people read what I say! I used a sample of 550+ readings. In this set, 630 was found to have a certain number of near-singular readings (19, I believe). Of these 19, 6 agreed with 1739. No other manuscript had even close to that many near-singular agreements. *** My apologies to all of you caught in the crossfire. I hope this will be my last reply to Hurtado on this subject. If others of you have questions, feel free to ask. I hope I will be able to answer -- but I can't spend time like this repeating myself. Sadly, I have a real job too.... -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 May 5 16:04:41 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA13615; Mon, 5 May 1997 16:04:41 -0400 Date: Mon, 5 May 1997 16:06:07 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: TC-List Subject: Mathematical Methods & References 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: 4193 As Professor L.W. Hurtado" wrote on Mon, 5 May 1997 17:16:02 >the validity of the 10% "gap" and the 70% agreement observation is that >these figures are functional quantitative definitions of the behavior of >*major/good reps. of text-types when collated with major/good reps. of >all other known text-types*. >From my own quantitative studies of the MSS of the Gospels and Acts, done in the 1970s, I have certain reservations about the 70% figure myself. Certainly 70% is sufficient (barely so in some cases) to quantifiably define MSS of the Alexandrian type, but a cutoff at around 90% would be needed to define Byzantine MSS, since MSS with only 70% agreement with the other MSS comprising Byzantine Textform would be weak indeed. Similarly, "Western" witnesses will almost universally fall below the 70% threshold, but I would not consider that this failing causes Western groups suddenly to become non-extant. I also find that the 10% gap simply tends not to hold well among any texttype grouping once more than a minimum representative sampling of MSS is added to the pool. >Waltz makes several statements that either seem to me incorrect or else >not comprehensible to me.--He allgeses as what he calls corollaries of >the Colwell-Tune method (a) that a text-type can exist only if it has a >pure representative, and (b) that a sufficiently mixed ms can't belong >to a text-type. Both are incorrect allegations. If Waltz indeed says this, I would demur, since certainly the strongest members of a texttype almost by definition will _not_ be 100% "pure" in the sense that they will have all of the supposedly "characteristic" texttype readings, nor necessarily the entire pattern of textual readings normally found to pertain to such a texttype. Similarly with (b) above, certainly there is a point of mixture at which a MS might not be able to be assigned to any discernable texttype, but except in the most extreme cases, a mixed MS can probably have a leaning toward one primary type or another. The real question in regard to mixture is where the mixture comes from and what type of text was the original underlying element preceding the mixture (which in many cases cannot be solved satisfactorily). >To repeat: per Colwell, a text-type is a group of mss that can be shown >to belong together in some objective way (i.e., open for others to >examine and test). No pure rep is required, only that a group of mss >exhibit sufficiently strong agreement to indicate that they are a group. >Mixed mss may show up as weaker members of such a group, or a group of >"mixed" mss. might exhibit sufficient agreement to form a group. With this I would concur. >Given that some have used text-type to = a "pattern of readings" and >others (my preference) an identifiable major group of mss distinguisable >from other major groups, I think both a quantitative definition is needed to establish groupings of MSS into "near-neighbor clusters" (Griffith's term), from which texttype or subtype relationships can be posited, and then from such groupings a pattern-oriented list of texttype- or subtype-specific readings can be drawn in order to determine what might be the characteristic elements of the texttype or subtype which transcend the imperfect testimony of the individual MSS in their quantitatively-determined groupings. >Finally, as I've stated earlier (and demonstrated in my study of the >Codex W) quantitative analysis is only the *first step* in grouping >mss and in analysing their relationships. It has to be complemented >with analysis of the specific readings shared by mss. No one has >suggested that I know of that quantitative agreement alone is more >than a rough measurement and one with heuristic value. Also agreed. But I simply am not convinced that Waltz and Hurtado are really talking about totally different concepts in all of 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 Mon May 5 16:52:07 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA13965; Mon, 5 May 1997 16:52:07 -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, 5 May 1997 15:55:22 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Mathematical Methods & References Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 5394 On Mon, 5 May 1997, Maurice Robinson wrote: >As Professor L.W. Hurtado" wrote on Mon, 5 May 1997 17:16:02 > >>the validity of the 10% "gap" and the 70% agreement observation is that >>these figures are functional quantitative definitions of the behavior of >>*major/good reps. of text-types when collated with major/good reps. of >>all other known text-types*. > >From my own quantitative studies of the MSS of the Gospels and Acts, done >in the 1970s, I have certain reservations about the 70% figure myself. >Certainly 70% is sufficient (barely so in some cases) to quantifiably >define MSS of the Alexandrian type, but a cutoff at around 90% would be >needed to define Byzantine MSS, since MSS with only 70% agreement with the >other MSS comprising Byzantine Textform would be weak indeed. I have to agree with Robinson. 70% agreement with other Byzantine mss. is a necessary but by no means a sufficient condition. If a manuscript only agrees with the other Byzantines 70% of the time, it is either full of errors or mixed. I think the 90% number is about right, too. That seems to be what keeps coming up in my results. Within Byzantine groups such as Family Pi, the agreement rate rises to about 95%. >Similarly, >"Western" witnesses will almost universally fall below the 70% threshold, >but I would not consider that this failing causes Western groups suddenly >to become non-extant. Given that, in the Catholics, the manuscripts of Family 2138 seem to agree about 80% of the time, I think this just proves that, at minimum, we need to let each type define its own percentages. >I also find that the 10% gap simply tends not to >hold well among any texttype grouping once more than a minimum >representative sampling of MSS is added to the pool. My point exactly. And if Robinson and I agree on something, that should go a long way toward proving it. It's about like an agreement between B and D: Highly unusual. >>Waltz makes several statements that either seem to me incorrect or else >>not comprehensible to me.--He allgeses as what he calls corollaries of >>the Colwell-Tune method (a) that a text-type can exist only if it has a >>pure representative, and (b) that a sufficiently mixed ms can't belong >>to a text-type. Both are incorrect allegations. > >If Waltz indeed says this, I would demur, since certainly the strongest >members of a texttype almost by definition will _not_ be 100% "pure" in >the sense that they will have all of the supposedly "characteristic" >texttype readings, nor necessarily the entire pattern of textual readings >normally found to pertain to such a texttype. The representative does not have to be absolutely pure; I don't believe there ever were such things. But there has to be something substantially pure. If you check the math, it turns out that two manuscripts need only suffer 20% random mixture to fall below the 70% threshold. (They will typically have 68% agreement -- 64% in the base text and 4% in the inserted readings.) Of course, mixture is not always random. But then, 20% mixture isn't much, either. >Similarly with (b) above, certainly there is a point of mixture at which a >MS might not be able to be assigned to any discernable texttype, but >except in the most extreme cases, a mixed MS can probably have a leaning >toward one primary type or another. The real question in regard to >mixture is where the mixture comes from and what type of text was the >original underlying element preceding the mixture (which in many cases >cannot be solved satisfactorily). Hear, hear! I will concede that a manuscript that agrees, say, 55% of the time with B is not purely Alexandrian. But it might have a very strong Alexandrian *element.* And if we care about the Alexandrian text, then we want to study that element. Actually, that last is true even if the Alexandrian element is very small. For example, 104 is held up as an Alexandrian manuscript in the Paulines. My results show that it agrees with the Byzantine text nearly 80% of the time, and with the leading Alexandrian witnesses only 50-60% of the time. In other words, on its face 104 is Byzantine. Does that mean that we should write it off as useless? I also agree that we often cannot tell all we want to about mixture. And even if we can guess, the guesses are often based on some sort of observation rather than statistics. >>To repeat: per Colwell, a text-type is a group of mss that can be shown >>to belong together in some objective way (i.e., open for others to >>examine and test). No pure rep is required, only that a group of mss >>exhibit sufficiently strong agreement to indicate that they are a group. >>Mixed mss may show up as weaker members of such a group, or a group of >>"mixed" mss. might exhibit sufficient agreement to form a group. > >With this I would concur. But see the numbers above. My point is that it doesn't take all that much mixture to destroy that "sufficiently strong agreement." [ I'll omit the rest as I have little to add. Surprise, surprise, eh? ] -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue May 6 07:38:31 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id HAA16469; Tue, 6 May 1997 07:38:31 -0400 From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" Organization: Divinity Faculty To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Tue, 6 May 1997 12:38:46 +000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Mathematical Methods & References 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: 9548 Thanks to Robt. Waltz for his response to my previous posting. I too hope that my previous postings have been sufficiently clear to make it possible to move on to other things now, with only the following brief clarifications: Waltz writes: > If it [a text-type] is a group of manuscripts, how do we determine > which manuscripts > belong except by looking at some list of readings? And if it is a > list of readings, how do we choose the readings except by looking > at the manuscripts containing them? If the question we seek to answer is whether a given selection of mss constitutes an identifiable group such as a "text-type", then we collate them across a large body of text counting their behavior at all points of variation, and then asssessing the count in comparison to the behavior of other manuscripts that can afford us what we think might be a valid analogy and/or contrast. Thus, we compare counts with counts, agreement of mss with agreement of other mss. It's *overall significantly high levels of agreements in variants* that is the crucial indicator of a text-group. Analysis of readings comes later, and enables us to say something about the *nature/quality* of the kind of readings "preferred" by a given group, and about the "mixture" or other factors that have influenced the text of the group. (And, by the way, "mixture", by which Waltz seems to assume always influence of one kind of ms upon another, is only *one* way that a ms might acquire kinds of readings. Scribes can quite independently have produced the same variants, e.g., harmonizations, stylistic improvements, etc., because they had same/similar tastes and concerns. This is why we have to go by *overall high numbers of agreements* and not merely small numbers of shared readings.) > Notice that I said in my last post that this is a consistent method. > I just don't think it produces quite the results we want. Also, it > really *does* assume the solution. > But we need to make our assumptions as few as possible. If we just > keep *assuming* that this witness or that is "the best," we can > never tell if something else is better. But, as Waltz will surely know, the essence of scientific work is to assume/hypothesize something *which we then devise a means of testing*. The Colwell-Tune type approach offers a means of testing whether mss are what we might have assumed. There's nothing wrong in assuming something so long as (a) you're aware of the assumption you're making, and (b) can devise a means of testing the assumption. Thus, if we assume that Codex W has sufficiently strong agreement with Theta and 565 to make it a "pre-Caesarean" witness, and then we conduct the exercise in Mark I conducted in my published study, the Colwell-Tune approach indicates that W does not in fact show anything approaching strong enough agreement to indicate any particular relationship twixt W and Theta in Mark. And when you then follow this up (as I did) with detailed analysis of the *particular readings* W and Theta do share, you find that even the *kinds* of shared readings are less likely to be the result of any direct relationship of the two mss. Of the Colwell-Tune approach Waltz writes: > I'm not saying that you didn't achieve these results. I'm saying the > value you find depends on the sample. In your system, based on variants > found in two or more witnesses in a group of less than a dozen, the > addition of even one more manuscript, depending on its nature, could > significantly alter your results. For what it's worth, for the published version of the study I did add another ms (565) to the original list (in the PhD thesis version), and the results were strengthened! I have always wanted since then to have the chance to run, say, L and 33 in Mark through this collation, to see if we can say anything more precise about how and whether they are in fact (as often thought) "weaker" Alexandrian/Neutrals in Mark, and if so what other affiliations they might have and/or what kind(s) of readings they may prefer. I do doubt that this would alter the evident & strong relationships show among primary Neutrals/Alexandrians and primary Byzantines. So, I rather doubt that it would "significantly alter results" in fact. But it might contribute to our grasp of the mss added. Waltz states (again and again!) that my approach: > . . . still leaves you > unable to assess mixed manuscripts. And I would claim that there > are several known text-types that exist *only* in mixed manuscripts. > The "Caesarean" text type, if it exists, is an example. But I *did* assess "mixed manuscipts" in Mark in my study, for example. I characterized in some precision and detail the "mixed" nature of the text of W and P45, and even Family 13, etc. Not by mere counting, but by then following up the counting with analysis of readings. The full method Fee and I have advocated involves *both* quantitative study *and* readings-analysis, the combination of which permits *identification* of "mixture (by quantitative study) *and characterization* of "mixture" (by analysis of readings identified in the countings). I've staed this more than once but Waltz seems not to have noticed. I hope this will be the last time necessary. Waltz writes: > But this is my key objection: I don't care about using *only* the > strong members of a text-type. Sure, it's nice where they are > available. But I refuse to write off the weak ones. Nor does anyone else "care about using *only* the strong members of a text-type" and urge us "to write off the weak ones". One tries to select good/strong reps of a text type *for the initial purposes of seeing if a new ms belongs to this or that group*. One might also use/select deliberately "mixed" or "weaker" members of a text-type to see if a new ms accords more closely with them or with the stronger members. No one's writing off anything. Where does this notion come from? To my pragmatic statement: > >2.) There has been some confusion over the word "sample". Given that > >we cannot collate all known Greek mss, we have to chose well certain > >representative mss for any such exercise. Waltz reponds: > I'm afraid I don't accept that, either. If you haven't studied all > manuscripts, how do you know which are representative? (This strikes > me as too obvious for words.) And I find it "too obvious for words" that Waltz is mistaken again. Once more: We *have* been studying mss for quite a while, and these studies may have been accurate or less than accurate in conclusions. So, we take what's been done and *TEST* the previous conclusions by some approach/method that will help tell us something. Which is what the Colwell-Tune approach was designed to assist. Which is what Fee did in John (correcting previous identification of Aleph, for example), which is what I did in Mark (correcting previous identification of W, P45, Fam. 13, etc.). > >Waltz > >alleges that Fee & Epp haven't given us "a rigid system for > >determining the scope of variants", and Waltz regards this as > >"vital". I'd really like Waltz to specify what in the impressively > >cogent discussions in chaps. 3-4 of the recent Epp/Fee _Studies in > >The Theory & MEthod_ volume he takes issue with, and where in these > >discussions he finds mis-steps or omissions. > > You completely missed the point of what I was saying. What I was > out is that the way we set variants determines what statistical > analysis we can use. I showed why, too. No, Waltz hasn't shown what he claims in his last sentence. And he hasn't specifically shown what's wrong/missing in the fairly clear definition of variants, variation-units, etc. that Epp offers. > > I pointed out that Epp & Fee made great progress in this area. > But their work was not related to statistical analysis, merely > to classification. We need to add the statistical element -- e.g. > do we insist on binary readings, etc. I've not seen from Waltz anything specifically as to what "statistical analysis" offers us. > A lot of people have perceived the "Caesarean" text. Zuntz perceived > the p46/B text. Neither meets the Colwell definition. That must say > something. Yup. It probably means that "Caesarean" text-type has to be re-thought or else has to be demonstrated as being anything like what we otherwise expect of agreement of mss alleged to belong to the same text-type. I'm satisfied that Theta & 565 show this kind of agreement (or approach it). So there's something in Mark of the period of these mss, and the Colwell-Tune approach helps us to see it in some objective terms. Waltz writes: > The technical definition is "a reading is near-singular if it is > supported by no more than x manuscripts of those being examined." > The number x will, of course, depend on the number of manuscripts > examined. I've been working with 30-50 manuscripts, and typically > use x=5 or x=6. I take it that "technical definition" here must be Waltz's, as I've never even come across the term before in nearly 30 yrs. of NT text-critical work. I've seen "sub-singular", but not this one. But then maybe I've missed it somewhere. So, for my part as well, I hope this final posting is final on the subject for me and has been helpful in clarifying some matters for others. L. W. Hurtado University of Edinburgh, New College Mound Place Edinburgh, Scotland EH1 2LX Phone: 0131-650-8920 Fax: 0131-650-6579 E-mail: L.Hurtado@ed.ac.uk From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue May 6 10:38:36 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA17301; Tue, 6 May 1997 10:38:36 -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, 6 May 1997 09:41:46 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Near-Singular Readings (Was: Re: Mathematical Methods & References) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 3428 I promised not to continue the debate with Hurtado, and I won't. If I haven't made my opinions clear by now, I probably am unable to do so. (E.g. I can't stop using mathematical language, which I gather confuses certain people.) But there is one point that I thought I should clarify, since it may be that I *haven't* discussed this before. So here is the quote: >Waltz writes: >> The technical definition is "a reading is near-singular if it is >> supported by no more than x manuscripts of those being examined." >> The number x will, of course, depend on the number of manuscripts >> examined. I've been working with 30-50 manuscripts, and typically >> use x=5 or x=6. >I take it that "technical definition" here must be Waltz's, as I've >never even come across the term before in nearly 30 yrs. of NT >text-critical work. I've seen "sub-singular", but not this one. But >then maybe I've missed it somewhere. The definition is indeed mine. As far as I know, I am the first person to give a precise definition to the term "near-singular" (although it seems to me that I saw it used somewhere). It will be observed that a near-singular reading is not the same as subsingular reading (although all sub-singulars are near-singular, the reverse is not true). Subsingulars are usually defined as readings having support from only one significant document; a near-singular can have several strong supporters. The point is simply that it represents only a small fraction of the tradition. It will be observed that the concept only has meaning when one is studying a fairly large number of manuscripts (I wouldn't use it on a set of less than 25 mss). The goal of the concept is to find the characteristic readings of a text-type, without the inherent biases of having a human being look for them. It also has the mechanical advantage that such a near-singular profile can be computed on the fly. (To compute such a profile, on my slow database on my slow machine, takes about three minutes per 100 readings -- and that's while computing four other statistics as well. Even if the results are arguably not as good as Ehrman's profiles, I can probably find them for a hundred manuscripts in the time it takes a human being to do *one*.) The concept is largely equivalent to any previous system of classified agreements, going all the way back to Hutton's triple readings. However, it avoids Hutton's problem of assuming the solution. (And Hutton *clearly* assumed the solution; his system acknowledged only Alexandrian, Byzantine, and "Western" types.) It should be noted that near-singular agreements in and of themselves are not sufficient to classify manuscripts; we also need overall rates of agreement, and (sez I) at least one other statistic as well. (I prefer more). The reason for this should be obvious: While a distinctive manuscript like B will have many near-singular readings (over 100 in my set of 990 readings in the Gospels), many of the Byzantine manuscripts have none at all -- or if they do have one or two, they are often the result of error. Rates of agreement in near-singular readings are often low -- closely related manuscripts may agree no more than 30-40% of the time. But unrelated manuscripts will often have no near-singular agreements at all. So the statistic can be meaningful, and it is a good place to apply the concept of the "gap." Or so say I.... Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue May 6 14:47:55 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA18068; Tue, 6 May 1997 14:47:54 -0400 Message-ID: <33700551.2BC1@sn.no> Date: Tue, 06 May 1997 21:30:09 -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: The new TR 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: 5542 Dear TCers My impression is that the majority of the contributors to this list are i= n favor of the=20 Alexandrian text. (And that=B4s ok, it=B4s a free world, at least for TCe= rs!). I suspect that=20 the Alexandrian text has become a new kind of TR, in despite of all state= ments in textual=20 circles to the contrary! In reality, modern textual criticism has "canoni= zed" the=20 Alexandrian text, not to follow it _slavishly_, but to regard it as the "= best" text in=20 spite of all other evidence.=20 Sometimes Byzantine text proponents are accused of starting out with the = *presupposition*=20 that the Byzantine text is closest to the autograph text. But the Alexand= rian text=20 proponents do the very same thing: they *presuppose* that the Alexandrian= is the "best",=20 primarily because of the *age* of its MSS!! Also, often times *TR propone= nts* are accused=20 of holding to readings that do not have good enough attestation from Gree= k MSS, and the=20 accusers are usually those who themselves are ready to question the readi= ngs of over 90%=20 of the MS tradition. This is ironical! Further, many who criticize TR pro= ponents for not=20 following Greek attestation do not hesitate to suggest that some of the o= riginal readings=20 may be lost and that we must engage in _conjecture_ to find the true read= ing. This is even=20 worse! I believe that in the final analysis the whole thing is a matter of *pref= erence*. Since=20 equally competent scholars differ as to what is the nearest-to-the-autogr= aphs textform, it=20 can hardly be a matter of *proven fact* that one textform is "more autogr= aphic" than the=20 other! Since it has been demonstrated that old MSS do not necessary conta= in the "oldest"=20 or "best" texts/readings, we know that the argument from age is not *conc= lusive*. Also, if=20 TC is to be regarded as _science_, textual scholars must be open for *tes= ting* the=20 possibility that texttypes _other_ than the Alexandrian can be a faithful= representative=20 of the autograph text. But this has not been done by most textual scholar= s, I suspect. (Of=20 course, I know most of you follow "forever settled" textual canons, but t= hese canons are=20 not "infallible". Besides, the established textcritical canons can _very = easily_ be used=20 to dismiss the Byz text, if it isn=B4t enough that many of the canons the= mselves seems to be=20 constructed with a primary goal, namely to discard the Byz text). Even though most textual scholars differ in respect to certain details, t= hey do not differ=20 much in regard to the Byzantine text. And I dare say the *reason* is the = argument from=20 *age*! That one is the "grand daddy" of all textual canons! It is the "pr= ime mover" of the=20 Alexandrian text. If you do not believe it, please just for a moment imag= ine that there=20 exist two uncial MSS as old as Vaticanus with a *Byzantine* text and that= these two do not=20 differ more among themselves than Vaticanus differs from Sinaiticus. (Of = course, you say:=20 such a discovery will not take place! And you may be completely right, fo= r it is unlikely=20 that one should find such MSS in Egypt, the only place with the proper cl= imate for such=20 discoveries). But just imagine how the science of TC would have changed i= n its views=20 toward the Byz text! Why?? Just because of *age*! Age of a MS seems to be= the *only*=20 evidence that is regarded as "hard facts" or "hard evidence". And if "har= d evidence"=20 always wins the day, then the Byzantine text never will have a chance of = being regarded as=20 a possible candidate for the original, if future discoveries will not gra= nt us a few old=20 "Byzantine" MSS! Let=B4s also imagine (contrary to all likelihood) that there was discover= ed two or three=20 papyri _in Egypt_ with a "Byzantine" type of text. WOW! What would have h= appened!? I=20 suspect that many (maybe *most*) textual scholars would have radically ch= anged their views=20 regarding the Byz text. That would have proved to me that modern textual = criticism is=20 *primarily* ruled by the canon "oldest is best"! I do not, of course, say that all textual scholars would have held to the= Byz text if it=20 could be proven by "hard evidence" (i.e. old MSS). It still would have to= compete with the=20 equally as old Alexandrian text MSS. Neither do I assert that textual sch= olars do not use=20 other evidence than age. But the trend within modern textual criticism is= that the=20 Alexandrian text is the "best" _at the outset_! (Again, the primary and r= uling canon is=20 *age*!). And I know that not all scholars are equally "bound" to the Alex= andrian text. The Swedish scholar Harald Riesenfeld wrote in 1968: "The Alexandrian tex= t, which is the=20 basis of the scientific editions of the New Testament now used, is the TR= of our time".=20 After discussing the possibility of reaching an even more "original" text= form as a result=20 of further studies and collations, he adds: "Already, one may say that su= ch a futurity=20 text for the most part will agree with the Alexandrian textform now used". I believe this shows a bad tendency in modern textual criticism, namely t= he unwillingness=20 to depart from the Alexandrian text *at the outset*. It is a _presupposit= ion_ that the=20 Alexandrian text will always (or at least most probably always) prove its= elf as the "best"=20 and nearer-to-the-autograph text! Please bear over with my "unscientific views" and "error of logic"! --=20 - Mr. Helge Evensen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue May 6 15:20:05 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA18158; Tue, 6 May 1997 15:20:05 -0400 Date: Tue, 06 May 1997 15:21:30 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: The new TR X-Sender: jwest@mail.highland.net (Unverified) To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970506151933.2d8f5f5c@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: 7139 Helge, At 09:30 PM 5/6/97 -0700, you wrote: >Dear TCers > >My impression is that the majority of the contributors to this list are in favor of the=20 >Alexandrian text. (And that=B4s ok, it=B4s a free world, at least for= TCers!). I suspect >that the Alexandrian text has become a new kind of TR, in despite of all >statements in textual circles to the contrary! In reality, modern textual criticism >has "canonized" the Alexandrian text, not to follow it _slavishly_, but to regard it >as the "best" text in spite of all other evidence.=20 I agree with you with one qualification- it is NA26 (or 27) that is the new TR. And since the editors adopt (for the most part but clearly not always) Alexandrian readings, then it is fair to say that the Alexandrian text type underlies the modern TR. > >Sometimes Byzantine text proponents are accused of starting out with the *presupposition*=20 >that the Byzantine text is closest to the autograph text. But the Alexandrian text=20 >proponents do the very same thing: they *presuppose* that the Alexandrian is the "best",=20 >primarily because of the *age* of its MSS!!=20 Quite true- everyone, without exception, operates with some presuppositions. The challenge is to know what they are and examine them. >Also, often times *TR proponents* are accused=20 >of holding to readings that do not have good enough attestation from Greek MSS, and the=20 >accusers are usually those who themselves are ready to question the readings of over 90%=20 >of the MS tradition. mss are weighed, not counted! I think that adding up numbers and attempting to quantify by mathematical means is wrongheaded. The quantitative method is simply another version of the Byzantine method which presupposes that if a reading has a lot of ms support it must be right. Thus, if A agrees with 50 miniscules while it disagrees with 46 then the quantifiers would have us believe that the 50 miniscules represent the oldest reading. That is simply not the case. mss are weighed, not counted. > This is ironical! Further, many who criticize TR proponents for not=20 >following Greek attestation do not hesitate to suggest that some of the original readings=20 >may be lost and that we must engage in _conjecture_ to find the true reading. This is even=20 >worse! > Conjectural emendation is used sparingly these days, even by the most radical critics. Thus, this is an unfair characterization. >I believe that in the final analysis the whole thing is a matter of *preference*. Since=20 >equally competent scholars differ as to what is the nearest-to-the-autographs textform, it=20 >can hardly be a matter of *proven fact* that one textform is "more autographic" than the=20 >other! Since it has been demonstrated that old MSS do not necessary contain the "oldest"=20 >or "best" texts/readings, we know that the argument from age is not *conclusive*.=20 No it is not; but taken together with the other tools of evaluation it is the best method we have. >Also, if=20 >TC is to be regarded as _science_, textual scholars must be open for *testing* the=20 >possibility that texttypes _other_ than the Alexandrian can be a faithful representative=20 >of the autograph text.=20 But TC is half art and half science! (A fact the quantifiers and bean counters forget; as do the "experts" who oftentimes forget that when one looks at a painting one must appreciate the artist and not just the canvas). >But this has not been done by most textual scholars, I suspect. (Of=20 >course, I know most of you follow "forever settled" textual canons, but these canons are=20 >not "infallible". No, only His Holiness the Pope is infallible (in matters spoken ex= cathedra). > Besides, the established textcritical canons can _very easily_ be used=20 >to dismiss the Byz text, if it isn=B4t enough that many of the canons themselves seems to be=20 >constructed with a primary goal, namely to discard the Byz text). > Just as your text critical a prioris aim to discredit the Alexandrian witnesses and the papyri. >Even though most textual scholars differ in respect to certain details, they do not differ=20 >much in regard to the Byzantine text. And I dare say the *reason* is the argument from=20 >*age*! That one is the "grand daddy" of all textual canons! It is the "prime mover" of the=20 >Alexandrian text. If you do not believe it, please just for a moment imagine that there=20 >exist two uncial MSS as old as Vaticanus with a *Byzantine* text and that these two do not But there aren't!!!! We can't deal in fantasy in TC- only with facts. If the Byz textform were as ancient as the Alexandrian it would deserve more respect. =20 >Let=B4s also imagine (contrary to all likelihood) that there was discovered two or three=20 >papyri _in Egypt_ with a "Byzantine" type of text. WOW! What would have happened!? I=20 >suspect that many (maybe *most*) textual scholars would have radically changed their views=20 >regarding the Byz text. That would have proved to me that modern textual criticism is=20 >*primarily* ruled by the canon "oldest is best"! Then too, for sake of argument, lets imagine that we actually have an autograph. Who can say that it is; and who would believe it? > >I do not, of course, say that all textual scholars would have held to the Byz text if it=20 >could be proven by "hard evidence" (i.e. old MSS). It still would have to compete with the=20 >equally as old Alexandrian text MSS. Neither do I assert that textual scholars do not use=20 >other evidence than age. But the trend within modern textual criticism is that the=20 >Alexandrian text is the "best" _at the outset_! (Again, the primary and ruling canon is=20 >*age*!). And I know that not all scholars are equally "bound" to the Alexandrian text. > >The Swedish scholar Harald Riesenfeld wrote in 1968: "The Alexandrian text, which is the=20 >basis of the scientific editions of the New Testament now used, is the TR of our time".=20 And rightly so!! >After discussing the possibility of reaching an even more "original" textform as a result=20 >of further studies and collations, he adds: "Already, one may say that such a futurity=20 >text for the most part will agree with the Alexandrian textform now used". And rightly so. >I believe this shows a bad tendency in modern textual criticism, namely the unwillingness=20 >to depart from the Alexandrian text *at the outset*. It is a _presupposition_ that the=20 >Alexandrian text will always (or at least most probably always) prove itself as the "best"=20 >and nearer-to-the-autograph text! > No, it shows commitment to a prsupposition. Just as your excellent questions show your commitment to your presuppositions and mine to mine. > >Please bear over with my "unscientific views" and "error of logic"! Plato is dead- and he was the last who lived by logic alone (except for Mr. Spock of the Starship Enterprise). Any contrary claims notwithstanding. >--=20 >- Mr. Helge Evensen > Jim (who hates to disagree with anyone) +++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Pastor, Petros Baptist Church jwest@highland.net "Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes!" From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue May 6 16:40:22 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA18519; Tue, 6 May 1997 16:40:22 -0400 Date: 6 May 97 22:39:23 +0200 Subject: Re: MT 28 in Sinai Arabic 71 (not 28! :-) 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: 3507 On Sat 3 Mai 1997 0:52, Jim West wrote: > >- v.18 Sin. arb. 71 doesn't have the harmonization from Jn 21.20 found > >in Theta, syp, geo-Adysh and armenian-vulgate. > > Jean, does this Arabic ms have a great number of harmonizations? > Jim, here are a few other examples: (1) In Mt 27.35 we find the big insertion from Jn 19.24 that is found in Theta and several other Greek witnesses and versions (cf. apparatus in NA27) (2) In Mt 27.49 there is another big insertion from Jn 19.34 (cf. also NA27). This time, the Greek and versional mss are different ones than in 27.35. Generally, those that have the one don't have the other. The only (according to NA) other witness that has both harmonizations is the Middle Egyptian version (mae). (3) Lk 3.22 "And the Spirit of holiness descended, incarnated in the resemblance of a dove, and stayed upon him. And a voice from the sky was saying: you are my beloved son, in whom I took pleasure" "and stayed upon him" (wa-Hallat `alayhi) : this is inserted from Jn 1.32 (kai emeinen ep' auton). We find this also in the Liege and Toscan harmonies. A few other rare variants, showing the diverse and occasional connections of Sin Arb 71, are: (1) Mt 23.9 reads "umin" instead of "umwn", with D Theta lat sys-c-p sypal sa bo geo-Adysh (2) Mt 23.16 reads, not "odhgoi tufloi", but "odhgoi tuflwn". This variant is not in the apparatus of NA, but we find it in Theta, 1093, sypal-Climacus, e, the Venetian and Toscan harmonies and two other arabic versions, each attested by oonly one ms in the library of Mt Sinai (Sin arb 70 of the IX century, and Sin arb 112 of the XIIIth century). (3) Mk 2.23 where it has "tillein" with D W it. (4) Mk 4.2 omit "en th didach autou" with W b c e. (5) Mk 4.36 Sinai arb 71 supports the variant "ama polloi hsan met'autou" found in W e. (5) Mk 6.24 where it has "aithsai" with P45 W sa. (6) Mk 11.22 adds the "ei" that we find in Aleph D Q fam13 28 33c 565 700 it sy.s geo-Adysh and arm-vulg. (7) Mk 14.64 the Arabic text corresponds to "thn blasfhmian tou stomatos autou" with W Theta fam13 et al. (8) Lk 1.67 "And Zakarya his father was filled with the Spirit of holiness and said". The omission of "eprofhteusen" brings us close to D (cf NA27). (9) Lk 2.29 Instead of "nun apolueis", we have an imperative. This is found also in Geo-Tbeth-Opiza, the arabic "alexandrian vulgate" and in several old latin and vulgate witnesses (cf. the apparatus of Merk, for the old latin e b r). By the way, it is also found in the rhymed version that is sung from the XVIth century on in the french-speaking reformed churches (*Laisse-moi* desormais, Seigneur, aller en paix...). Rhythmical necessity or survivance of a medieval text? (10) Lk 3.38 Omission of "tou qeou". This is a strange one, I've seen it nowhere else. Has anybody seen this before? This brings some nuance when I say that this version is "cesarean". There are other connections ans rare variants. I'd really like to know how to interpret all of this! --------------------------------------------------------- Jean Valentin - Brussels - Belgium --------------------------------------------------------- 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" --------------------------------------------------------- From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue May 6 17:23:18 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA18784; Tue, 6 May 1997 17:23:17 -0400 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <33700551.2BC1@sn.no> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Tue, 6 May 1997 16:19:58 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: The new TR Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 8629 On Tue, 06 May 1997, "Mr. Helge Evensen" wrote: >Dear TCers > >My impression is that the majority of the contributors to this list are in= favor of the=20 >Alexandrian text. I think there is truth in this statement, but it is a little too general. I, for example, do *not* favour the Alexandrian text in isolation. In my tex= t of Paul (the only place where I have reconstructed a text), I clearly moved *away* from the Alexandrian text (as exemplified by Aleph A C I 33 bo). Generally I moved toward p46 B 1739, which some will call Alexandrian witnes= ses, but in my view they are not. So I (speaking only for myself) am unbiased when choosing between what I con= sider early text-types. If someone could demonstrate to my satisfaction that the Byzantine text is early, then I would figure that text-type in also. >(And that=B4s ok, it=B4s a free world, at least for TCers!). I suspect that= =20 >the Alexandrian text has become a new kind of TR, in despite of all= statements in textual=20 >circles to the contrary! In reality, modern textual criticism has= "canonized" the=20 >Alexandrian text, not to follow it _slavishly_, but to regard it as the= "best" text in=20 >spite of all other evidence.=20 What you are saying is largely true, but it does not make the Alexandrian= text a "new TR." Almost, but not quite. The TR is a particular edition of a particu= lar text-type (the Byzantine). In fact, the TR is a *bad* edition of that text-t= ype. So we cannot compare "the Alexandrian Text" with "the TR." Jim West raises a good point: the NA26/27/UBS3 text is the true "New TR." The irony is, if UBS3 is viewed as an edition of The Alexandrian Text, it is just as defective as the TR is as an edition of The Byzantine Text. UBS3 is a rather eclectic text that is largely Alexandrian but occasionally follows other texts. If one wished to uphold one printed edition as *the* Alexandria= n text, I think Westcott & Hort would be better. >Sometimes Byzantine text proponents are accused of starting out with the= *presupposition*=20 >that the Byzantine text is closest to the autograph text. But the= Alexandrian text=20 >proponents do the very same thing: they *presuppose* that the Alexandrian= is the "best",=20 >primarily because of the *age* of its MSS!! True in part, but overstated. (Certainly in my case, since I give a tenth century minuscule -- 1739 -- as great a place as B or p46, and a ninth century minuscule -- 33 -- a place as great as Aleph or A or C). =46or my part, I put it this way: Any early text-type has a possibility of h= aving the original reading. The question then becomes, how old are the *text-types= *? Here we have to turn to hard evidence of one sort or another. And in Paul an= d the Catholics, which are what I know best, the evidence for the Byzantine te= xt is very late. Consider: *** Paul Text-type Earliest Date Witness Alexandrian III Alexandrian fathers; also the prevalence of the= type in 4th century uncials p46/B II/III p46 "Western" II Irenaeus fam 1739 III Origen (very similar although not identical) Byzantine VIII Psi (The Harklean Syriac shows signs of= Byzantine influence, but is not purely Byzantine) *** Catholics Text-type Earliest Date Witness Alexandrian III p72 fam 1739 III Origen; also C (V) fam 2138 VI Harklean Byzantine IX K L 049 I concede that I consider age a factor. But I work from the age of the= *type*, not the age of the mss. >Also, often times *TR proponents* are accused=20 >of holding to readings that do not have good enough attestation from Greek= MSS, and the=20 >accusers are usually those who themselves are ready to question the= readings of over 90%=20 >of the MS tradition. I have to repeat what Jim West said: "Manuscripts are to be weighed and not = counted." This is the basic -- the *only* -- rule of external criticism. Now different people will weigh the manuscripts differently. But everyone --= even a believer in the Byzantine text -- must weigh them, even if only to say "Th= e Byzantine is best." >This is ironical! Further, many who criticize TR proponents for not=20 >following Greek attestation do not hesitate to suggest that some of the= original readings=20 >may be lost and that we must engage in _conjecture_ to find the true readin= g. Don't blame all for the errors of some. =46or that matter, don't confuse the theoretical with the actual. For= example, I think it quite possible that there are places where the original reading of the NT= has been lost. To recover the original text, we have no recourse but emendation. But= I will never print a conjecture. While I concede the theoretical necessity, I am= not competent to engage in such emendation. > >I believe that in the final analysis the whole thing is a matter of= *preference*. Since=20 >equally competent scholars differ as to what is the nearest-to-the-autograp= hs textform, it=20 >can hardly be a matter of *proven fact* that one textform is "more= autographic" than the=20 >other! This is obvious. But so what? Do you want us to choose what we consider an i= nferior text just so we can be fair? (Political correctness comes to TC.... :-) >Since it has been demonstrated that old MSS do not necessary contain the= "oldest"=20 >or "best" texts/readings, we know that the argument from age is not= *conclusive*. Also, if=20 >TC is to be regarded as _science_, textual scholars must be open for= *testing* the=20 >possibility that texttypes _other_ than the Alexandrian can be a faithful= representative=20 >of the autograph text. This is also obvious. And I believe you are correct that many people have= not tested the matter. But what test do you propose? Most still consider Westcott & Hor= t's attack on the Byzantine Text conclusive. In fact a couple of its pillars (in particular, the use of conflation) have been demolished. But, to date, the o= verall conclusion still stands. Still, I agree it would be better if people examined the matter for themselv= es. [ ... ] >Even though most textual scholars differ in respect to certain details,= they do not differ=20 >much in regard to the Byzantine text. And I dare say the *reason* is the= argument from=20 >*age*! In my case, I freely admit it. And I will change my textual theory if the By= zantine text can be shown to be early enough. But this is *not* the basis of the Westcott & Hort case. W&H could not find = any evidence that the Byzantine text was early -- but they couldn't find much ev= idence that the Alexandrian text was early, either. What they argued was that the B= yzantine text was a simplified, harmonized, smoothed text. Now this argument may be false; Wisselink -- as I understand it, without hav= ing seen his work -- has shown that harmonizations in the Byzantine text are not as overwhelmingly common as we have been led to think. But the argument cann= ot be simply waved away as age prejudice. [ ... ] >Let=B4s also imagine (contrary to all likelihood) that there was discovered= two or three=20 >papyri _in Egypt_ with a "Byzantine" type of text. WOW! What would have= happened!? I=20 >suspect that many (maybe *most*) textual scholars would have radically= changed their views=20 >regarding the Byz text. That would have proved to me that modern textual= criticism is=20 >*primarily* ruled by the canon "oldest is best"! Speaking only for myself, I would say, yes: If you can show me a substantial= second or third century papyrus that shows a *fully developed* Byzantine text (not = Byzantine readings, as in p66, but the *whole text*), then I will revise my theory. I= will not elevate the Byzantine text *above* the other texts, and I will still go to g= reat lengths to eliminate its influence on other manuscripts -- but I will treat= it as an early text-type and give it its equal vote in making textual decisions. My opinions only, of course, and there are many who disagree with them. But = I state again, it is not the age of a manuscript but the age of its text that matters. And here, the Byzantine text still looks secondary (from where I si= t). -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed May 7 04:59:10 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id EAA20185; Wed, 7 May 1997 04:59:09 -0400 Message-ID: From: "DC PARKER" Organization: Fac of Arts:The Univ. of Birmingham To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Wed, 7 May 1997 09:58:43 GMT Subject: Re: The new TR Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.01) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1030 Dear Mr Evensen I can answer your query about a 'new TR' rather more succinctly than your other correspondents. Readers of the Greek NT at large tend to be rather lacking in curiosity, and often seem to assume that their printed text is, if not infallible, at least as close to the 'original' as one can get. Perhaps they by lack of knowledge or lack of interest accord some sort of status to the UBS/NA27 text, simply because it is the one most widely used. But I have never met a _text critic_ who was satisfied with a printed edition. That includes the editors of the UBS/NA27 texts. If you read the Introduction to NA27, you will see it described as 'not to be considered as definitive, but as a stimulus to further efforts...' There is a similar statement in the UBS 4th revised edition. I know of no contemporary textual critic who treats this text as 'a new TR'. David Parker DC PARKER DEPT OF THEOLOGY UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM TEL. 0121-414 3613 FAX 0121-414 6866 E-MAIL PARKERDC@M4-ARTS.BHAM.AC.UK From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed May 7 08:43:18 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA20309; Wed, 7 May 1997 08:43:17 -0400 Date: Wed, 07 May 1997 08:44:45 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: New TR X-Sender: jwest@mail.highland.net (Unverified) To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970507084249.245f659a@mail.highland.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: 939 DC Parker suggests that: 1- some correspondents responses to Helge were rather longwinded. I would reply that "danger lies in generalities". Further, we have just had an excoriating exchange about "lack of evidence". And now, when a question is answered in some detail, we are told (or at the least it is implied to us) that the responses were not succinct enough. What gives? 2- the Nestle text is not the new TR. If this is so, then why is Nestle the textual basis for every modern translation into English of the New Testament (NASV, REB, NIV etc.),? Or are we to suppose that Aleph is, or D, or Theta, or Psi? A TR is, it seems to me, a translation base. If it is not currently Nestle, what is it? Who are the TCers who do not work with Nestle as the base? Are they a majority? Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Pastor, Petros Baptist Church jwest@highland.net "Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes!" From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed May 7 09:12:54 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA20362; Wed, 7 May 1997 09:12:54 -0400 Date: Wed, 7 May 1997 09:14:18 -0400 (EDT) From: ANDREW SMITH To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: New TR In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970507084249.245f659a@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: 1605 On Wed, 7 May 1997, Jim West wrote: > 2- the Nestle text is not the new TR. If this is so, then why is Nestle the > textual basis for every modern translation into English of the New Testament > (NASV, REB, NIV etc.),? Or are we to suppose that Aleph is, or D, or Theta, > or Psi? A TR is, it seems to me, a translation base. If it is not > currently Nestle, what is it? Who are the TCers who do not work with Nestle > as the base? Are they a majority? I think that there is a little miscommunication about the term "TR". If we think of a "received text," then we must ask, by whom is it received? The Nestle text may be widely received among scholars who produce translations for the reading public, and yet not widely received among scholars in the TC field. A "translation base" is different from a "TC base". A translation base is accepted and then translated. A TC base is not accepted, but rather it is something which one alters. Among hard-core TCers, I would imagine that there really isn't a TR, except insofar as each scholar creates his own text and that becomes his TR. Among the thelogically-motivated (in which I include myself), there is a much more urgent reason to find a widely-accepted TR as a common ground for research for the faithful. Thus both the TCer and the theologically-motivated are very careful about their texts. Those who translate, however, fall into neither category - they are not TCers and they are not working to create a common text for the faithful. Thus they arbitrarily chose a text for a "translation base" with no motive, or with an external motive. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed May 7 09:34:46 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA20464; Wed, 7 May 1997 09:34:45 -0400 Message-ID: From: "DC PARKER" Organization: Fac of Arts:The Univ. of Birmingham To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Wed, 7 May 1997 14:11:43 GMT Subject: Re: New TR Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.01) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1042 In reply to Jim West: 1. Length and detail are too entirely different matters. 2. You've changed the subject. Translators may use the UBS/NA27 text - though they may adopt readings in the apparatus. But they are not necessarily, and in that tole are not primarily, textual critics. I did not write that there were textual critics 'who do not work with NA27 as the base' (whatever 'base means' here), but that 'I know of no textual critic who is satisfied with a printed edition'. Of course I use NA27 to look up readings and for teaching. But I am in continuous critical debate with its text, and so is every textual critic. I use many other printed texts and apparatus critici as well. They all have their strengths and weaknesses, and part of our discipline is to know and understand them. That is what I meant by 'I know of no textual critic who is satisfied with a printed edition'. DC PARKER DEPT OF THEOLOGY UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM TEL. 0121-414 3613 FAX 0121-414 6866 E-MAIL PARKERDC@M4-ARTS.BHAM.AC.UK From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed May 7 09:35:33 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA20484; Wed, 7 May 1997 09:35:32 -0400 Message-ID: <33710D96.43D1@sn.no> Date: Wed, 07 May 1997 16:17:42 -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: The new TR 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: 1269 DC PARKER wrote: > > Dear Mr Evensen > > I can answer your query about a 'new TR' rather more succinctly than > your other correspondents. > > Readers of the Greek NT at large tend to > be rather lacking in curiosity, and often seem to assume that their > printed text is, if not infallible, at least as close to the > 'original' as one can get. Perhaps they by lack of knowledge or lack > of interest accord some sort of status to the UBS/NA27 text, simply > because it is the one most widely used. > > But I have never met a _text critic_ who was > satisfied with a printed edition. That includes the editors of the > UBS/NA27 texts. If you read the Introduction to NA27, you will see > it described as 'not to be considered as definitive, but as a > stimulus to further efforts...' There is a similar statement in the > UBS 4th revised edition. > > I know of no contemporary textual critic who treats this text as 'a > new TR'. > > David Parker Thanks your your comments, Mr. Parker. Just one clarification: My point was not that scholars treated some *printed* edition as a "new TR", but that modern textual criticism largely has "canonized" the Alexandrian text and the textcritical canon "oldest is more likely original". -- - Mr. Helge Evensen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed May 7 10:06:54 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA20626; Wed, 7 May 1997 10:06:53 -0400 Date: Wed, 07 May 1997 10:08:23 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: New TR X-Sender: jwest@mail.highland.net (Unverified) To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970507100626.24676674@mail.highland.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: 1072 Andrew raises an important question. He suggests that TC is not the same as Bible translation. This is of course true. But if the purpose of TC is not to provide a textual base that is as near to the original as possible, for translators of the Bible and for the community of faith, then what is the purpose of TC? If TC is simply a task "incurvate in se" for the dwellers of ivory towers, and has no practical application in the community of believers, then why is it practiced at all? In short, I have always believed that TC is one of the most important aspects of Biblical Studies. When one has a text that is relaible then, and only then, can one procede to exegesis. But if TCers, as Andrew seems to suggest, are simply engaged in self congratulatory work (my phrase, not his), then what validity does their work have? They are merely examining the "entrails of the gnat" (to steal a line from an old Greek play). Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Pastor, Petros Baptist Church jwest@highland.net "Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes!" From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed May 7 10:12:46 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA20708; Wed, 7 May 1997 10:12:46 -0400 Date: Wed, 07 May 1997 10:14:16 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: New TR X-Sender: jwest@mail.highland.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970507101219.24677eee@mail.highland.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: 1851 Dr. Parker, At 02:11 PM 5/7/97 +0000, you wrote: >In reply to Jim West: > >2. You've changed the subject. Translators may use the UBS/NA27 >text - though they may adopt readings in the apparatus. But they are >not necessarily, and in that tole are not primarily, textual critics. True. But if TC is not aimed at the work of translators, what is its purpose? > >I did not write that there were textual critics 'who do not work with >NA27 as the base' (whatever 'base means' here), but that 'I know of no textual critic who is >satisfied with a printed edition'. Nor do I. But by base text I mean that the NA26 or 27 is the base text for TC work. You admit that you use it for the basis of your work. It is the Received Text for TCers and translators. It is the text we have at hand which we use in our everyday work. What else would a TR be? > Of course I use NA27 to look up >readings and for teaching. But I am in continuous critical debate >with its text, and so is every textual critic. I would suggest that translators and preachers are in dialogue with its readings as well. This does not change the fact that it is the established text for such work. > I use many other >printed texts and apparatus critici as well. They all have their >strengths and weaknesses, and part of our discipline is to know and >understand them. That is what I meant by 'I know of no textual >critic who is satisfied with a printed edition'. > I know of no TCer who is satisfied with any text or any set of ideas. I thank you for your clarifications. > > > > >DC PARKER >DEPT OF THEOLOGY >UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM >TEL. 0121-414 3613 >FAX 0121-414 6866 >E-MAIL PARKERDC@M4-ARTS.BHAM.AC.UK Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Pastor, Petros Baptist Church jwest@highland.net "Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes!" From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed May 7 10:32:07 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA20852; Wed, 7 May 1997 10:32:07 -0400 Date: Wed, 7 May 1997 10:33:36 -0400 (EDT) From: ANDREW SMITH To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: New TR 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: 309 On Wed, 7 May 1997, DC PARKER wrote: > Translators may use the UBS/NA27 > text - though they may adopt readings in the apparatus. But they are > not necessarily, and in that tole are not primarily, textual critics. Yes! We must distinguish between TCers and translators (and their respective motives). From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed May 7 10:38:52 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA20871; Wed, 7 May 1997 10:38:52 -0400 Date: Wed, 7 May 1997 10:40:21 -0400 (EDT) From: ANDREW SMITH To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: New TR In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970507100626.24676674@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: 1740 To a certain extent, I agree. TC is primarily an academic project; it does have some application to the real world community of believers, but it is primarily the study of historical text transmission. Consider how an English professor may compare the variant spellings in the first three printed editions of a Shakespeare play, for example. As an academic myself, I do not deride such work, and such work is not any more "self congratulatory" than any other work. Being "self congratulatory" is primarily a personal characteristic, and a good TCer, like any other human being, should be humble. Although I love academia, I do admit that there is a distinction between it and the real world. Trouble often arises when that boundary is ignored. On Wed, 7 May 1997, Jim West wrote: > Andrew raises an important question. He suggests that TC is not the same as > Bible translation. This is of course true. But if the purpose of TC is not > to provide a textual base that is as near to the original as possible, for > translators of the Bible and for the community of faith, then what is the > purpose of TC? If TC is simply a task "incurvate in se" for the dwellers of > ivory towers, and has no practical application in the community of > believers, then why is it practiced at all? > > In short, I have always believed that TC is one of the most important > aspects of Biblical Studies. When one has a text that is relaible then, and > only then, can one procede to exegesis. But if TCers, as Andrew seems to > suggest, are simply engaged in self congratulatory work (my phrase, not > his), then what validity does their work have? They are merely examining > the "entrails of the gnat" (to steal a line from an old Greek play). From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed May 7 10:50:22 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA20918; Wed, 7 May 1997 10:50:21 -0400 Date: Wed, 7 May 1997 10:51:45 -0400 (EDT) From: ANDREW SMITH To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: New TR In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970507101219.24677eee@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: 987 On Wed, 7 May 1997, Jim West wrote: > True. But if TC is not aimed at the work of translators, what is its purpose? TC is a purely academic activity. Consider the question of which sub-family of LXX text Wulfila used when making his Gothic translation of the Tanakh. Given that Gothic now a completely dead language, and that Wulfila's translation has been lost except for about five verses from the book of Nehemiah, this question is hopelessly useless. Yet I work on it passionately. I personally practice a type of split-personality disorder: one considers the text as the object of TC activity in one way, and in an entirely different way when one is, e.g., teaching Bible class on Sunday morning. By way of analogy, consider the activity of comparing the 1611 KJV to the 1769 KJV; this is an exercise in English spelling, not an exercise of faith. On the other hand, asking why the resurrected Jesus appeared at first like a gardener to Mary is an exercise of faith, not TC. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed May 7 11:14:14 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA20992; Wed, 7 May 1997 11:14:14 -0400 Message-ID: From: "DC PARKER" Organization: Fac of Arts:The Univ. of Birmingham To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Wed, 7 May 1997 16:13:41 GMT Subject: Re: The new TR Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.01) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 992 Mr Evensen wrote: > Just one clarification: My point was not that scholars treated some *printed* edition as a > "new TR", but that modern textual criticism largely has "canonized" the Alexandrian text > and the textcritical canon "oldest is more likely original". The high regard accorded the Alexandrian text is, in Hortian terms, the result of comparison and analysis. It has nothing to do with age, as the quite remarkable problems of the 2nd century text demonstrate. Again, I don't know anybody who believes in such a canon. Mr West wrote that textual criticism's purpose is to serve translators. This is to change the subject. Against my better judgement, I offer a comment: That might be a purpose. But are not the ancient world and Byzantium worth study in their own right? I do hope that this will be treated as a rhetorical question. DC PARKER DEPT OF THEOLOGY UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM TEL. 0121-414 3613 FAX 0121-414 6866 E-MAIL PARKERDC@M4-ARTS.BHAM.AC.UK From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed May 7 15:55:02 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA21837; Wed, 7 May 1997 15:55:01 -0400 Date: Wed, 07 May 1997 15:56:30 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: New TR X-Sender: jwest@mail.highland.net (Unverified) To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970507155437.21e738ae@mail.highland.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: 577 Andrew suggested that TC is indeed a self contained scholarly enterprise. I would simply offer the folloiwng dictum from R. Bultmann (whom I believe to be right in most instances): Unsere Kirche hat den Laien viel von Kritik und Wissenschaft vorenthalten und muss das Versaeumte schnell nachholen, wenn sie nicht bitter buessen will... Aber Hand in Hand mit den Laienkreisen wird auch die Theologie viel weiter kommen als allein. Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Pastor, Petros Baptist Church jwest@highland.net "Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes!" From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed May 7 16:39:04 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA21983; Wed, 7 May 1997 16:39:04 -0400 Date: Wed, 7 May 1997 16:40:33 -0400 (EDT) From: ANDREW SMITH To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: New TR In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970507155437.21e738ae@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: 1511 I agree with Bultmann's view - which is why I think that the Church shouldn't expend its resources on lots of TC type activities. Professional scholarship is like bowling or fishing - nice passtimes. While I'm happy to collect a paycheck for analyzing Goethe's use of the subjunctive, I'd never confuse it with productive activity. And I'd never expect my church to subsidize any such thing. The has practical business to attend to: feeding the poor, preaching the Gospel. Hence I devote my evenings and weekends to such. The academic needs of the church center around the interpretation of text for practical decisions; this is contrasted with the academic study of text for the sake of studying text. Many academics would be happy to study any text. We had a discussion on this list a month or two ago about NT TC and other kinds of TC. NT TC is more marketable, because there is a reading public interested in the NT for reasons of faith. But the TC enterprise itself is happy to study text for the sake of study. On Wed, 7 May 1997, Jim West wrote: > Andrew suggested that TC is indeed a self contained scholarly enterprise. I > would simply offer the folloiwng dictum from R. Bultmann (whom I believe to > be right in most instances): > > Unsere Kirche hat den Laien viel von Kritik und Wissenschaft vorenthalten > und muss das Versaeumte schnell nachholen, wenn sie nicht bitter buessen > will... Aber Hand in Hand mit den Laienkreisen wird auch die Theologie viel > weiter kommen als allein. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed May 7 19:57:34 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA22706; Wed, 7 May 1997 19:57:33 -0400 Message-ID: <33719F79.756E@sn.no> Date: Thu, 08 May 1997 02:40:09 -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: the new TR 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: 2580 Thanks to all of you that have responded to my initial post on "the new T= R"!=20 Let me just remind ye all that my main purpose was to direct attention to= a serious=20 weakness within modern textual criticism (MTC), namely that MTC rely _too= heavily_ on=20 the canon of *age*, to the point that this canon is *practically* "canoni= zed", and that=20 age (of MSS) is the *main* reason for accepting the Alexandian text rathe= r than other=20 texts, especially the Byz text (after all, it=B4s late for its _MSS_ are = late). I am *not*=20 talking about "peanuts" here, though. I know that textual scholars are no= t completely=20 unified as to the *degree* in which they accept the Alexandrian text. Als= o, it is clear=20 that MTC does not have a common "TR" when it comes to minor details of th= e text. What I=20 assert is that most of MTC is working *from* the presupposition that the = Alexandrian=20 text is the best because of the age of its MSS. The canon "oldest MSS are= more likely to=20 contain the original readings" is the ruling factor, in spite of the fact= that age of=20 MSS is not conclusive at all, as most textual scholars will admit. But it= clearly seems=20 that MTC is working within the framework of the canon "oldest MSS is best= ". It may sound=20 simplified, but I believe that this is what it amounts to in the final an= alysis. When=20 scholars are working with TC, their personal *acceptance* of the oldest M= SS naturally=20 will lead them into accepting Alexandrian readings and rejecting Byzantin= e readings,=20 even though the facts they face do not necessitate this. Again, forget "p= eanuts"! I=B4m=20 talking about the overall picture and the general situation. Scholars dif= fer as to the=20 *number* of Byz readings they accept, but they always will accept *some*!= They also=20 differ as to in what degree they accept the Alexandrian text, but they *l= argely* accept=20 it as the "best", and *mainly* because of the *age* of its MSS. (Personally, I care for "peanuts", but that=B4s not what I did care for i= n my initial post=20 on "the new TR"). It should be noted that it is *impossible* to engage in TC without *some*= kind of=20 presupposition! One may evaluate the data as objective (or neutral) as on= e is able to,=20 but one cannot help one=B4s own personal subjectivity and bias, which in = varying degree=20 will add an *interpretation* on the basis of the data. Some other scholar= (equally as=20 competent) may come up with an entirely *different* interpretation of tha= *same* data! --=20 - Mr. Helge Evensen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed May 7 21:11:46 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA22835; Wed, 7 May 1997 21:11:45 -0400 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <33719F79.756E@sn.no> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 7 May 1997 20:15:00 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: RE: the new TR Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 877 On Thu, 08 May 1997, "Mr. Helge Evensen" wrote: >Thanks to all of you that have responded to my initial post on "the new TR"! > >Let me just remind ye all that my main purpose was to direct attention to a serious >weakness within modern textual criticism (MTC), namely that MTC rely _too heavily_ on >the canon of *age* I can't help but point out one minor fact: The oldest possible text of the NT is the autograph. So age must be good for something. Unless, perhaps, you are arguing that the autograph is not the original text? :-) -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu May 8 07:23:53 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id HAA23497; Thu, 8 May 1997 07:23:52 -0400 Message-ID: <33724049.6059@sn.no> Date: Thu, 08 May 1997 14:06:17 -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: the new TR 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: 1425 Robert B. Waltz wrote: > > On Thu, 08 May 1997, "Mr. Helge Evensen" wrote: > > >Thanks to all of you that have responded to my initial post on "the new TR"! > > > >Let me just remind ye all that my main purpose was to direct attention to a serious > >weakness within modern textual criticism (MTC), namely that MTC rely _too heavily_ on > >the canon of *age* > > I can't help but point out one minor fact: The oldest possible text > of the NT is the autograph. So age must be good for something. > > Unless, perhaps, you are arguing that the autograph is not the > original text? :-) When I say "canon of age" I refer to the age of the *manuscripts*. You may have established "old texttypes", but you cannot prove the oldness of a certain *texttype* in the way you can prove the oldness of a *manuscript*! In a way, a MS is in itself a "texttype" (sorry for the unscientific use of the term), of course, because the text found in it is a certain form of text, so it is clear that the text in a MS is as old as the MS. But that does not demonstrate that it is closer to the *autograph* text! Later MSS can very well contain the oldest texttype, that is, the original text. That was my point, but of course, no one can prove the "autographness" of the Byz text, neither of the Alexandrian! In TC we are talking about _probabilities_ when it comes to the *original* text! -- - Mr. Helge Evensen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu May 8 07:48:13 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id HAA23537; Thu, 8 May 1997 07:48:13 -0400 Message-ID: <337245FA.4894@sn.no> Date: Thu, 08 May 1997 14:30:34 -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: Re: The new TR 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: 1016 DC PARKER wrote: > > Mr Evensen wrote: > > > Just one clarification: My point was not that scholars treated some *printed* edition as a > > "new TR", but that modern textual criticism largely has "canonized" the Alexandrian text > > and the textcritical canon "oldest is more likely original". > > The high regard accorded the Alexandrian text is, in Hortian terms, > the result of comparison and analysis. It has nothing to do with > age, as the quite remarkable problems of the 2nd century text > demonstrate. Again, I don't know anybody who believes in such a > canon. It is clearly an overstatement that *it has _nothing_ to do with age*. Is there anybody other than me on this list that has heard about anyone holding to a canon that say that it is more likely that the oldest MSS contain the oldest text, or the text nearest to the autographa?? Or is it just me that have gotten the wrong impression that *age of MSS* is of _major_ importance in modern textual criticism?? -- - Mr. Helge Evensen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu May 8 08:01:25 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA23570; Thu, 8 May 1997 08:01:25 -0400 Message-ID: <33724931.66FF@sn.no> Date: Thu, 08 May 1997 14:44:17 -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: correction 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 Sorry for the bad grammar (it must have been an electronic-scribal error). I wrote: ".....holding to a canon that say that.....". It should read: ".....holding to a canon that says that.....". -- - Mr. Helge Evensen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu May 8 08:10:37 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA23587; Thu, 8 May 1997 08:10:37 -0400 Message-ID: From: "DC PARKER" Organization: Fac of Arts:The Univ. of Birmingham To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Thu, 8 May 1997 13:04:19 GMT Subject: Re: The new TR Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.01) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 560 Mr Evensen wrote: > It is clearly an overstatement that *it has _nothing_ to do with age*. > It cannot be an overstatement. It is either true or false. Mr Evensen, may I request that if you want to discuss this point, you first read the Introduction (Vol. 2) of Westcott & Hort's _The NT in the Original Greek_ ? This is not a subject for speculation. Read the books, and you will find out about what you want to study. DC PARKER DEPT OF THEOLOGY UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM TEL. 0121-414 3613 FAX 0121-414 6866 E-MAIL PARKERDC@M4-ARTS.BHAM.AC.UK From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu May 8 08:51:13 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA23665; Thu, 8 May 1997 08:51:13 -0400 Message-ID: <337254BD.5701@sn.no> Date: Thu, 08 May 1997 15:33:33 -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: The new TR References: <1.5.4.16.19970506151933.2d8f5f5c@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: 4799 Jim, You wrote: =20 > Conjectural emendation is used sparingly these days, even by the most > radical critics. Thus, this is an unfair characterization. It is used sparingly, all right, but it *is* used, not normally in text e= ditions (as far=20 as I know), but in TC. =20 > >I believe that in the final analysis the whole thing is a matter of > *preference*. Since > >equally competent scholars differ as to what is the > nearest-to-the-autographs textform, it > >can hardly be a matter of *proven fact* that one textform is "more > autographic" than the > >other! Since it has been demonstrated that old MSS do not necessary co= ntain > the "oldest" > >or "best" texts/readings, we know that the argument from age is not > *conclusive*.=20 > No it is not; but taken together with the other tools of evaluation it = is > the best method we have. You confirm my point that the "oldest is best" canon is the most importan= t one for=20 modern textual criticism! (If you represent MTC on this particular canon). =20 > > Besides, the established textcritical canons can _very easily_ be use= d > >to dismiss the Byz text, if it isn=B4t enough that many of the canons > themselves seems to be > >constructed with a primary goal, namely to discard the Byz text). > > >=20 > Just as your text critical a prioris aim to discredit the Alexandrian > witnesses and the papyri. But I don=B4t regard my "a prioris" as *established science*! Some of the papyri *do* have some good readings! =20 > >Even though most textual scholars differ in respect to certain details= , > they do not differ > >much in regard to the Byzantine text. And I dare say the *reason* is t= he > argument from > >*age*! That one is the "grand daddy" of all textual canons! It is the > "prime mover" of the > >Alexandrian text. If you do not believe it, please just for a moment > imagine that there > >exist two uncial MSS as old as Vaticanus with a *Byzantine* text and t= hat > these two do not >=20 > But there aren't!!!! We can't deal in fantasy in TC- only with facts. = If > the Byz textform were as ancient as the Alexandrian it would deserve mo= re > respect. If we can deal *only* with facts in TC, then we all must quit engaging in= TC today! By=20 the way, I seem to recall that you once stated that a certain Alexandrian= reading=20 undoubtedly (or "clearly") was the *original* reading. *I* do not have th= e originals, do=20 *you*?? But again, you confirm my points!=20 =20 > >Let=B4s also imagine (contrary to all likelihood) that there was disco= vered > two or three > >papyri _in Egypt_ with a "Byzantine" type of text. WOW! What would hav= e > happened!? I > >suspect that many (maybe *most*) textual scholars would have radically > changed their views > >regarding the Byz text. That would have proved to me that modern textu= al > criticism is > >*primarily* ruled by the canon "oldest is best"! >=20 > Then too, for sake of argument, lets imagine that we actually have an > autograph. Who can say that it is; and who would believe it? I agree! That=B4s the reason we cannot *only* deal with _facts_ in TC! =20 > >I do not, of course, say that all textual scholars would have held to = the > Byz text if it > >could be proven by "hard evidence" (i.e. old MSS). It still would have= to > compete with the > >equally as old Alexandrian text MSS. Neither do I assert that textual > scholars do not use > >other evidence than age. But the trend within modern textual criticism= is > that the > >Alexandrian text is the "best" _at the outset_! (Again, the primary an= d > ruling canon is > >*age*!). And I know that not all scholars are equally "bound" to the > Alexandrian text. > > > >The Swedish scholar Harald Riesenfeld wrote in 1968: "The Alexandrian = text, > which is the > >basis of the scientific editions of the New Testament now used, is the= TR > of our time". >=20 > And rightly so!! Again, thanks for confirming my points! =20 > >After discussing the possibility of reaching an even more "original" > textform as a result > >of further studies and collations, he adds: "Already, one may say that= such > a futurity > >text for the most part will agree with the Alexandrian textform now us= ed". >=20 > And rightly so. See above. =20 > >I believe this shows a bad tendency in modern textual criticism, namel= y the > unwillingness > >to depart from the Alexandrian text *at the outset*. It is a > _presupposition_ that the > >Alexandrian text will always (or at least most probably always) prove > itself as the "best" > >and nearer-to-the-autograph text! > > >=20 > No, it shows commitment to a prsupposition. Just as your excellent > questions show your commitment to your presuppositions and mine to mine. Seriously, I must thank you for your honesty. --=20 - Mr. Helge Evensen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu May 8 09:11:28 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA23748; Thu, 8 May 1997 09:11:28 -0400 Date: Thu, 8 May 1997 09:11:27 -0400 (EDT) From: "James R. Adair" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: RE: the new TR In-Reply-To: <33719F79.756E@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: 1260 On Thu, 8 May 1997, Mr. Helge Evensen wrote: > Let me just remind ye all that my main purpose was to direct attention > to a serious weakness within modern textual criticism (MTC), namely that > MTC rely _too heavily_ on the canon of *age*, to the point that this > canon is *practically* "canonized", and that age (of MSS) is the *main* > reason for accepting the Alexandian text rather than other texts, > especially the Byz text (after all, it=B4s late for its _MSS_ are late). = I > am *not* Undoubtedly the age of mss is an important factor to most text critics, but it is hardly the _main_ reason for accepting the Alexandrian texts. Based on age alone, we should scrap the Alexandrian text and look instead to the earliest Western witnesses, which predate the Alexandrians by almost a century (see the recent posts by Waltz and several posts by Petersen). And speaking of age, can Helge provide us with a good explanation for the whereabouts of the Byzantine text, especially outside of the gospels, in the first few Christian centuries? 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 May 8 09:17:54 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA23776; Thu, 8 May 1997 09:17:54 -0400 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <33724049.6059@sn.no> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 8 May 1997 08:21:13 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: the new TR Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1792 On Thu, 08 May 1997, "Mr. Helge Evensen" wrote: >When I say "canon of age" I refer to the age of the *manuscripts*. You may have >established "old texttypes", but you cannot prove the oldness of a certain *texttype* in >the way you can prove the oldness of a *manuscript*! In a way, a MS is in itself a >"texttype" (sorry for the unscientific use of the term), of course, because the text >found in it is a certain form of text, so it is clear that the text in a MS is as old as >the MS. But that does not demonstrate that it is closer to the *autograph* text! Later >MSS can very well contain the oldest texttype, that is, the original text. That was my >point, but of course, no one can prove the "autographness" of the Byz text, neither of >the Alexandrian! Of course you are right. But -- unless you are prepared to argue that the autograph is *not* the original text (which one actually could do -- one could argue, say, that the "original" is the text contained in the first *collection* of Paul's letters) -- it is unquestionably true that the earliest manuscripts are closer to the autograph than the late, and that their text-types are closer still. Barring strong evidence to the contrary, one can only assume that the early text-types are the best tools we have to ascertain the original text. Now the Byzantine *may* be an early text-type. It *may* be the original text-type. But that is not germane to the discussion. Age is age. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 May 8 09:30:14 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA23819; Thu, 8 May 1997 09:30:13 -0400 Message-ID: <33725DDF.23@sn.no> Date: Thu, 08 May 1997 16:12:31 -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: The new TR 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: 1557 DC PARKER wrote: =20 > Mr Evensen wrote: >=20 > > It is clearly an overstatement that *it has _nothing_ to do with > age*. > > >=20 > It cannot be an overstatement. It is either true or false. A few years ago I read something about Erasmus in a book written by a tex= t critic.=20 The statement was that Erasmus died among his protestant friends in Basel= , "without=20 relations of any sort, so far as known, with the Roman Catholic Church". = I wrote=20 another Professor about it, and he told me that the author was *overstati= ng* the=20 case! Either is it true or it is false! Or what?? Apparently, there is some disagreement among scholars as to what may or m= ay not be=20 called *overstatements*! =20 > Mr Evensen, may I request that if you want to discuss this point, you f= irst read > the Introduction (Vol. 2) of Westcott & Hort's > _The NT in the Original Greek_ ? This is not a subject for > speculation. Read the books, and you will find out about what you > want to study. Oops! I have not read through that one yet. So thanks for your advice! I may return to the point after I have read it= ! Maybe I=20 will come up with something better then! As to "speculation", I seem to recall that I have read much of that sort = in TC books=20 and articles, *especially* in Hort=B4s theories (the hortian theory that = comes to my=20 mind first is the theory of the "Lucian recension"!!). (Even though I mus= t admit that=20 I have not read Hort=B4s volume through, yet! I have a copy of it, so I w= ill do it!) --=20 - Mr. Helge Evensen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu May 8 09:52:38 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA23853; Thu, 8 May 1997 09:52:37 -0400 Message-ID: From: "DC PARKER" Organization: Fac of Arts:The Univ. of Birmingham To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Thu, 8 May 1997 14:48:14 GMT Subject: Re: The new TR Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.01) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 650 Mr Evensen wrote: > As to "speculation", I seem to recall that I have read much of that sort in TC books > and articles, *especially* in Hort's theories (the hortian theory that comes to my > mind first is the theory of the "Lucian recension"!!). (Even though I must admit that > I have not read Hort's volume through, yet! I have a copy of it, so I will do it!) Please do not waste our time with such statements. You will be entitled to belittle Hort (1) when you have read him and (2) when you know more than he. DC PARKER DEPT OF THEOLOGY UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM TEL. 0121-414 3613 FAX 0121-414 6866 E-MAIL PARKERDC@M4-ARTS.BHAM.AC.UK From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu May 8 10:15:19 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA23901; Thu, 8 May 1997 10:15:19 -0400 From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" Organization: Divinity Faculty To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Thu, 8 May 1997 15:14:28 +000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: Quoted-printable Subject: RE: the new TR Priority: normal In-reply-to: <33719F79.756E@sn.no> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.52) Message-ID: <1547D506C4@div.ed.ac.uk> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1755 Mr. Evensen writes: > Thanks to all of you that have responded to my initial post on "the new = TR"! > > Let me just remind ye all that my main purpose was to direct attention t= o a serious > weakness within modern textual criticism (MTC), namely that MTC rely _to= o heavily_ on > the canon of *age*, to the point that this canon is *practically* "canon= ized", and that > age (of MSS) is the *main* reason for accepting the Alexandian text rath= er than other > texts, especially the Byz text (after all, it=B4s late for its _MSS_ are= late). The way scholarly discussion works is that any such characterization or charge is fair game, but you have to substantiate it. So, e.g., provide examples of Text-critical scholars, textbooks, etc., doing what you allege--preferring the Alexandrian text *purely* because of the age of mss. You have not done this, so your charge is not substantiated, which means that it can't be entertained seriously, because you either can't substantiate it or won't go to the trouble to do so. You have already been told by practicing text-critics, such as David Parker (and I would add my own experience here too) that your charge is incorrect. Text critics who attempt to assess the comparative worth of text-types (and not all do, e.g., "radical eclectics" such as my friend Keith Elliott don't spend much time on this) base their judgments on several matters, most importantly the perceived frequency with which this or that ms or group of mss prefer readings whose quality is judged superior, more likely to be original, 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 May 8 19:03:03 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA25433; Thu, 8 May 1997 19:03:02 -0400 Message-ID: <3372E426.76E5@sn.no> Date: Fri, 09 May 1997 01:45:26 -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: The new TR 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: 1677 DC PARKER wrote: >=20 > Mr Evensen wrote: >=20 > > As to "speculation", I seem to recall that I have read much of that s= ort in TC books > > and articles, *especially* in Hort's theories (the hortian theory tha= t comes to my > > mind first is the theory of the "Lucian recension"!!). (Even though I= must admit that > > I have not read Hort's volume through, yet! I have a copy of it, so I= will do it!) >=20 > Please do not waste our time with such statements. You will be > entitled to belittle Hort (1) when you have read him and (2) when you > know more than he. I may have disturbed some "sacred cow" here. But my intention is not to=20 "belittle" Hort or any other text critic. I will not belittle Hort=20 *after* I have read his work, not even if at some time in the future I=20 shall know more than he (which is most unlikely!). But please remember=20 that it is not very difficult to know things that Hort didn=B4t knew, for= =20 he lived a hundred years ago, before the discovery of most of the papyri!= =20 (It=B4s not his fault, of course). Many textual studies have proved him=20 wrong on several points! So do not be offended because it=B4s possible to= =20 find fault with Hort=B4s theories. If you have listened to what I *actually* have said about Hort, you will=20 note that I did not belittle Hort=B4s volume in general, but some of his=20 *theories*! And honestly, I do not think that my careful study of Hort=B4= s=20 volume would have changed my viewpoints much! But, undoubtedly, I would=20 have learned a great deal about the art of TC!=20 Please listen to what I say, in order that we may avoid wasting more=20 time. --=20 - Mr. Helge Evensen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu May 8 19:48:11 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA25545; Thu, 8 May 1997 19:48:10 -0400 Message-ID: <3372EEBD.13B5@sn.no> Date: Fri, 09 May 1997 02:30:37 -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: the new TR References: <1547D506C4@div.ed.ac.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1357 Professor L.W. Hurtado wrote (in part): >=20 > Mr. Evensen writes: >=20 > > Thanks to all of you that have responded to my initial post on "the n= ew TR"! > > > > Let me just remind ye all that my main purpose was to direct attentio= n to a serious > > weakness within modern textual criticism (MTC), namely that MTC rely = _too heavily_ on > > the canon of *age*, to the point that this canon is *practically* "ca= nonized", and that > > age (of MSS) is the *main* reason for accepting the Alexandian text r= ather than other > > texts, especially the Byz text (after all, it=B4s late for its _MSS_ = are late). =20 > So, e.g., provide examples of Text-critical scholars, textbooks, etc., = doing > what you allege--preferring the Alexandrian text *purely* because of > the age of mss. =20 I did ***not*** say that text-critical scholars, textbooks, etc. are pref= erring the=20 Alexandrian text *purely* because of the age of MSS!!!!! Even a quick loo= k at the above=20 quoted part of my message will reveal that! We would do better if we read= each other posts=20 _correctly_! My point is that *the most influential factor* is the age of MSS! And tha= t leads to an=20 Alexandrian text priority theory (not the acceptance of *all* Alexandrian= readings or a=20 complete embracement of *all* the oldest MSS=B4 readings!). --=20 - Mr. Helge Evensen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu May 8 21:58:55 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA25782; Thu, 8 May 1997 21:58:54 -0400 Date: Thu, 08 May 1997 22:00:26 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Hort X-Sender: jwest@mail.highland.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970508215826.21b7e75c@mail.highland.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: 813 On Thu, 8 May 1997, DC PARKER wrote to Helge: > Please do not waste our time with such statements. You will be > entitled to belittle Hort (1) when you have read him and (2) when you > know more than he. > > DC PARKER Is it not the case that Hort NEVER collated a ms himself but only depended on the editions available to him? If so- then anyone who has collated as few as two mss has more actual experience in TC than Hort! Hort was brilliant in the theory of TC- but in practice he was not a practioner. This means that if Helge has taken the time to assemble two ms and compared them that he has already far outstripped Hort in actual text critical work. Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Pastor, Petros Baptist Church jwest@highland.net "Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes!" From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu May 8 22:13:01 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA25811; Thu, 8 May 1997 22:13:01 -0400 From: dwashbur@wave.park.wy.us Message-Id: <199705082018.OAA08000@wavecom.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Thu, 8 May 1997 19:11:25 -7000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: The new TR 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: 1204 DC PARKER wrote: > > As to "speculation", I seem to recall that I have read much of that sort in TC books > > and articles, *especially* in Hort's theories (the hortian theory that comes to my > > mind first is the theory of the "Lucian recension"!!). (Even though I must admit that > > I have not read Hort's volume through, yet! I have a copy of it, so I will do it!) > > Please do not waste our time with such statements. You will be > entitled to belittle Hort (1) when you have read him and (2) when you > know more than he. Thank you for that kind, careful scholarly tone (pa-tooie). Have you done as much collating as Helge has? Have you seriously considered what he said about Hort's theories? If not, then by your own standards you're out of line belittling him. The fact is, it's not hard to rip holes in Hort's theories. Even Kirsopp Lake called his approach "a failure, though a splendid one." Do you intend to start sniping at him too? Let's stick to topics and move away from this kind of personal attack, shall we? 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 Thu May 8 22:14:43 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA25828; Thu, 8 May 1997 22:14:43 -0400 Date: Thu, 8 May 1997 22:16:14 -0400 (EDT) From: Nichael Cramer To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Enough [was: Hort] In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970508215826.21b7e75c@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: 603 Jim West wrote: > This means that if Helge has taken the time to assemble two ms and compared > them that he has already far outstripped Hort in actual text critical work. Sigh... Jim Please forgive me, but after reading the flurry of notes that have been filling my mailbox for the past couple of weeks, there is one question that simply has to be asked: Do you or Mr Evensen understand _any_thing about the: - the history of modern NT textual criticism - the claims that are actually made by modern textual scholars - the rules of evidence or - the mechanisms of the scholarly process? N From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu May 8 23:03:29 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id XAA25918; Thu, 8 May 1997 23:03:28 -0400 Date: Thu, 08 May 1997 23:05:00 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: Enough [was: Hort] X-Sender: jwest@mail.highland.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970508230301.21b7e5a4@mail.highland.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: 1244 At 10:16 PM 5/8/97 -0400, you wrote: >Sigh... > > >Jim > >Please forgive me, This is not necessary. > but after reading the flurry of notes that have been >filling my mailbox for the past couple of weeks, there is one question >that simply has to be asked: > >Do you or Mr Evensen understand _any_thing about the: > I can't speak for Helge, as I only know him via phone lines. But as for myself: > - the history of modern NT textual criticism Studied it intensively, first in an honors seminar in college (lo these many years ago); then constantly worked on it during grad school while compiling my ThM thesis and my ThD dissertation. > - the claims that are actually made by modern textual scholars Have read Aland, Comfort, am reading Hurtado's dissertation, Metzger, Hort, and Robinson, and Ehrman (among lesser unmentioned lights) > - the rules of evidence If you mean legally- no; if you mean philosophically- yes. >or > - the mechanisms of the scholarly process? As I have been engaged in scholarship now for 15 years I suppose the answer is yes. But thanks for asking. > >N > Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Pastor, Petros Baptist Church jwest@highland.net "Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes!" From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu May 8 23:59:04 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id XAA26026; Thu, 8 May 1997 23:59:04 -0400 Date: Thu, 8 May 1997 23:00:29 -0500 (CDT) From: "Ronald L. Minton" X-Sender: rminton@orionc0 To: "Mr. Helge Evensen" cc: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: The new TR In-Reply-To: <33725DDF.23@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: 953 On Thu, 8 May 1997, Mr. Helge Evensen wrote: > > A few years ago I read something about Erasmus in a book written by a > text critic. The statement was that Erasmus died among his protestant > friends in Basel, "without relations of any sort, so far as known, with > the Roman Catholic Church". I wrote another Professor about it, and he > told me that the author was *overstating* the case! I too have read some similar statements, but I think they were inaccurate. Erasmus mocked the RC Church mercilessly, but he was faithful to Rome till his dying day in the main tenants of its religion. Many protestants were glad to use his product, but I am not aware that he had that many protestant friends. I think the source I have (Seargent) that uses the above quote is only TR propaganda. -- 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 May 9 00:13:47 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id AAA26063; Fri, 9 May 1997 00:13:46 -0400 Message-Id: <199705090416.AAA00418@fs.IConNet.NET> From: "David Large" To: Subject: Re: the new TR Date: Fri, 9 May 1997 00:40:58 -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: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by fs.IConNet.NET id AAA00418 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 3464 >My point is that *the most influential factor* is the age of MSS! And th= at leads to an=20 >Alexandrian text priority theory (not the acceptance of *all* Alexandria= n readings or a=20 >complete embracement of *all* the oldest MSS=B4 readings!). Just a few comments regarding the above...... 1) The age of mss. is an important factor, yes- but I would qualify that statement. Most modern eclectic tcers have come to value, in general, old= er mss. as over against newer mss. *not* simply because of their age, but primarily because they contain readings, and patterns of readings, that coincide with the older patristic manuscripts, and the older versional evidence. Though comparing ante-nicene versional, patristic and manuscrip= t evidence does not automatically point to the text in any one particular manuscript as necessarily original, such comparison does, at least to mos= t modern eclectics, tend to rule out the existence of the Byzantine text (especially in its mature form as found in most 9th century, and later, manuscripts) *as a texttype*. Most modern eclectic tcers hold our earlies= t extant mss. in such high esteem because it is assumed that,=20 a) In general, older mss. are to be valued higher than newer because the= y contain a text that has had less exposure to the corrupting influence of time; b) They, as a generality, present types of text that, when compared to ancient patristic and versional evidence, are significant and consistent enough to be grouped and traced back to decades preceding those of our oldest mss. In other words, our oldest mss. *also* preserve our earliest texttypes; c) Generally speaking, they preserve distinct readings, and patterns of readings, that are considered original (as compared to those same variation-units as found in newer mss.), in the autograph sense, when internal criteria are applied. In fact, special attention should be paid regarding the critical fact that Hort came to value the Neutral texttype primarily as a result of internal analysis, *not* the age of mss. It just happens that his contention, for example, that B preserved an ancient typ= e of text has been confirmed by the discovery of p75. Some would call this coincidence, others a remarkable judgement (Fee), but it should be remembered that, since it is impossible at this time to reconstruct the history of the text on the sole basis of the extant mss., internal criter= ia must be applied, and- more often than not- when such criteria are applied= , the readings which are preferred by such analysis are found in the oldest mss. in our possession; such is not true regarding the Byzantine text (again, *as a texttype*). To apply the above observations to your original statement- I would sugge= st that the age of mss., by itself, would mean much less were it not for the value placed upon the peculiar readings that are to be found exclusively = in them. 2) A high regard for our most ancient mss. does not *lead* to an Alexandrian-priority hypothesis, per se. Such an hypothesis is merely possible, and it is one among several. The modern (post-Hort) value assigned to the Alexandrian text came as a result of its alleged superior internal excellence. Ms. age, as a criterium, would naturally be strengthened as a principal as more ancient mss. are found to contain a similar text. Well, that's my two cents anyway..... any corrections or clarifications a= re welcome.=20 David Large dlarge@bellatlantic.net From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri May 9 03:48:15 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id DAA26255; Fri, 9 May 1997 03:48:14 -0400 From: schmiul@uni-muenster.de Message-Id: <199705090749.JAA146776@mail.uni-muenster.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Fri, 09 May 97 10:05:18 +0100 Subject: Re: The new TR To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu In-Reply-To: <199705082018.OAA08000@wavecom.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: 1842 On Thu, 8 May 1997, Dave Washburn wrote: >DC PARKER wrote: >> > As to "speculation", I seem to recall that I have read much of that sort in >>>TC books > >> and articles, *especially* in Hort's theories (the hortian theory that >>>comes to my > >> mind first is the theory of the "Lucian recension"!!). (Even though I must >>>admit that > >> I have not read Hort's volume through, yet! I have a copy of it, so I will >>>do it!) > >> Please do not waste our time with such statements. You will be >> entitled to belittle Hort (1) when you have read him and (2) when you >> know more than he. >Thank you for that kind, careful scholarly tone (pa-tooie). Have you >done as much collating as Helge has? Have you seriously considered >what he said about Hort's theories? If not, then by your own >standards you're out of line belittling him. >The fact is, it's not hard to rip holes in Hort's theories. Even >Kirsopp Lake called his approach "a failure, though a splendid one." >Do you intend to start sniping at him too? Let's stick to topics and >move away from this kind of personal attack, shall we? 1.) Dave, have you ever heard about Dr. Parkers work including his magistral monograph on Codex Bezae? Do you really want to compare his work with that of Mr. Evensen (Mr. Evensen, I do not intend to offend you, but, as far as I recall, you reportedly claimed your non-expertise in TC)? 2.) Dave, where did Kirsopp Lake call _Hort's_ approach "a failure, though a splendid one"? As far as I recall Lake's famous statement referred to Hans von Soden's approach. Dave, are you kidding? Within two short paragraphs you display NT TC ignorance of the worst kind and you want others to "stick to topics and move away from...personal attack"? (BTW -- What topics are you familiar with?) Ulrich Schmid, Muenster From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri May 9 05:51:40 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id FAA26354; Fri, 9 May 1997 05:51:40 -0400 From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" Organization: Divinity Faculty To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Fri, 9 May 1997 10:38:49 +000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Heb TC Priority: normal In-reply-to: <337254BD.5701@sn.no> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.52) Message-ID: <28B07113B3@div.ed.ac.uk> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1443 The discussion on this list has been almost entirely NT stuff, although I thought that the list was to reflect the breadth of the TC journal, encompassing both NT and Heb Bible/OT text-critical matters & people. Hoping that there may still be a few Heb bible TC people lurking out there (or that they can be coaxed to tune in), I want to mention a very interesting essay I stumbled across recently: Gerard J. Norton, "Changing Paradigms in the Study of the History of the Biblical Text," _Hermathena_ 154(1993): 19-37. Norton (a member of the Hebrew OT Text Project) reports on the effects of 20th cent. OT mss discoveries and changing nature of the printed editions. He also offers criticisms of present (even latest) printed editions of the Hebrew OT, and I found his descriptions of the nature of these printed editions both very informative and somewhat startling. I had simply assumed that the practice of Hebrew Bible TC was not so different from the way NT TC is practiced, and that printed editions were based on somewhat more similar approaches. But such is not the case. I would find it valuable to have OT TC specialists and NT TC specialists discuss the differing approaches, etc. And this list would be an excellent forum for doing so. Any takers? 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 May 9 07:13:05 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id HAA26424; Fri, 9 May 1997 07:13:05 -0400 From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" Organization: Divinity Faculty To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Fri, 9 May 1997 12:13:39 +000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: Quoted-printable Subject: Re: the new TR Priority: normal In-reply-to: <3372EEBD.13B5@sn.no> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.52) Message-ID: <2A44E93957@div.ed.ac.uk> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 949 > I did ***not*** say that text-critical scholars, textbooks, etc. are pre= ferring the > Alexandrian text *purely* because of the age of MSS!!!!! Even a quick lo= ok at the above > quoted part of my message will reveal that! We would do better if we rea= d each other posts > _correctly_! > > My point is that *the most influential factor* is the age of MSS! And th= at leads to an > Alexandrian text priority theory (not the acceptance of *all* Alexandria= n readings or a > complete embracement of *all* the oldest MSS=B4 readings!). Then I respectfully request that you *substantiate* your claim as you've emphasized it: Please give citations of text-critical works in which the age of Alex mss is cited as "the most influential factor" in giving Alex mss a high value. 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 May 9 09:34:17 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA26702; Fri, 9 May 1997 09:34:16 -0400 Date: Fri, 9 May 1997 09:34:15 -0400 (EDT) From: "James R. Adair" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Heb TC In-Reply-To: <28B07113B3@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: 2403 On Fri, 9 May 1997, Professor L.W. Hurtado wrote: > The discussion on this list has been almost entirely NT stuff, > although I thought that the list was to reflect the breadth of the TC > journal, encompassing both NT and Heb Bible/OT text-critical matters > & people. > Hoping that there may still be a few Heb bible TC people lurking out > there (or that they can be coaxed to tune in), I want to mention a > very interesting essay I stumbled across recently: > Gerard J. Norton, "Changing Paradigms in the Study of the History of > the Biblical Text," _Hermathena_ 154(1993): 19-37. I'm glad that the list will finally have the chance to discuss some really interesting aspects of TC (viz., HB/OT TC)! ;-) > I had simply assumed that the practice of Hebrew > Bible TC was not so different from the way NT TC is practiced, and > that printed editions were based on somewhat more similar approaches. > But such is not the case. > I would find it valuable to have OT TC specialists and NT TC > specialists discuss the differing approaches, etc. And this list > would be an excellent forum for doing so. Any takers? I haven't read Norton's article yet, but I'll try to get a copy today so that I can comment intelligently on it. In the meantime, for those who are interested in comparing the approaches of OT & NT TC, the article I wrote for TC deals with exactly this. It is entitled "Old and New in Textual Criticism: Similarities, Differences, and Prospects for Cooperation," and it may be found in TC vol. 1 (http://scholar.cc.emory.edu/scripts/TC/TC.html). To outline the article, I argue that OT & NT TC work with different data, have different goals, use different terminology, and use different methodology. Nevertheless, there is much that each discipline can learn from the other. Sorry for the blatant self-promotion, but, as was pointed out in a recent post, one of the main purposes of this list is to discuss the issues raised in articles in the online journal, something we haven't done a lot of. In this context, I might also mention that another article is in the final stages of preparation and should appear soon, the first article in TC volume 2. 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 May 9 09:35:35 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA26719; Fri, 9 May 1997 09:35:35 -0400 Date: Fri, 9 May 1997 08:36:59 -0500 (CDT) From: "Ronald L. Minton" X-Sender: rminton@orionc0 To: schmiul@uni-muenster.de cc: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: The new TR In-Reply-To: <199705090749.JAA146776@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: 569 On Fri, 9 May 1997 schmiul@uni-muenster.de wrote: ... > 2.) Dave, where did Kirsopp Lake call _Hort's_ approach "a failure, though a > splendid one"?... I do not have any sources with me, but I remember reading that Colwell "Scribal Habits in Early Papyri...", p. 370 mentioned the Lake ref. If some one knows has this reference or the Lake ref, I will appreciate the clarification for myself and for Prof. Ulrich. -- 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 May 9 10:00:22 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA26772; Fri, 9 May 1997 10:00:21 -0400 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199705090749.JAA146776@mail.uni-muenster.de> References: <199705082018.OAA08000@wavecom.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 9 May 1997 08:34:24 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: The new TR Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2177 On Fri, 09 May 97, schmiul@uni-muenster.de wrote: [ I'm actually going to respond to several posts here; this is just the last in the series, so it seemed like a logical place to work from. ] [ ... ] >>> Please do not waste our time with such statements. You will be >>> entitled to belittle Hort (1) when you have read him and (2) when you >>> know more than he. I don't think one has to know "more than" Hort to criticise him. I wouldn't dream of saying I know as much as Hort did about the materials to which he had access. Nonetheless I disagree with him at several points -- mostly because of discoveries made since his time. (And note that I say this as someone whose approach is perhaps more similar in concept to Hort's than anyone else on this list.) On the other hand, I have to agree that Hort is *necessary* reading for textual critics. Until one has read it, one simply cannot comment on the present state of the discipline. One need not agree with what Hort says -- but one must know it. I am given to understand, BTW, that Hort *did* do some work of collation (mostly on the versions), although he did not publish. It is true enough that the text of the W&H edition is based largely on Tischendorf. I don't think it entirely fair to belittle Hort for that, though. If he had spent all his life chasing manuscripts, would he have had time to develop his theories? I wonder. We each have our own gifts.... [ ... ] >2.) Dave, where did Kirsopp Lake call _Hort's_ approach "a failure, though a >splendid one"? As far as I recall Lake's famous statement referred to Hans von >Soden's approach. Just a comment here: I have not seen Lake's original statement, so I cannot say what the truth is. But I, too, have seen the remark applied to Hort. I think the statement is in one of the more common TC manuals, but I don't recall which. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 May 9 10:28:01 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA26847; Fri, 9 May 1997 10:28:01 -0400 Date: Fri, 9 May 1997 10:28:00 -0400 (EDT) From: "James R. Adair" To: TC List Subject: the tone of recent discussions 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: 2774 It is part of the growth cycle of open mailing lists like this one that they proceed through various stages. (1) only a few, often uninteresting messages (is there anyone out there?); (2) lively discussion largely on topic (isn't this a great list!); (3) frequent shouting matches and digressions from the main topic (who let you on the list?!); (4) disintegration of the list (I don't have time to waste reading this junk!). After a year and a half of life, the tc-list seems to be sliding from stage 2 to stage 3, and if the tone of some recent discussion doesn't change, we'll be in danger of moving to stage 4. As listowner, it's my responsibility (and that of others on the list as well) to ensure that that doesn't happen. One option is to go to a moderated list, where unproductive or inappropriate posts never make it to the list. This is an option, but one that would involve more time than I really want to spend on this sort of thing, and besides, it goes against my ideal of open communication. Nevertheless, I will consider making the list moderated if serious problems continue. Another option is to ban the most egregious offenders from the list, something I'm prepared to do if I have to but would prefer not to do. A better alternative, though, is to urge people to use a modicum of self-restraint and discernment before posting a message. Maybe we need to be reminded of a couple of good OT verses, Prov. 26:4-5: Don't answer a fool according to his folly, Lest you also be like him. Answer a fool according to his folly, Lest he be wise in his own conceit. As any OT wisdom practitioner will tell you, part of wisdom is knowing when to apply a given pearl of instruction. In terms of this list, it means knowing when to answer what you consider to be an incorrect or annoying post and when just to ignore it. UNLESS YOU THINK RESPONDING TO A POST HAS THE POSSIBILITY OF FURTHERING FRUITFUL SCHOLARLY DEBATE, DON'T RESPOND TO IT ON THE LIST. There's nothing wrong with letting a thread wither on the vine for lack of attention once it has become unproductive. If you feel you must "answer a fool according to his folly," then do it off-list. As a corollary to this rule, avoid including snide, ad hominem remarks of no scholarly value in your posts. If _you_ show a willingness to deal only with those topics of interest to the list, others will be more likely to as well. Remember, this list is intended for non-experts in the field of TC as well as experts (and everyone in between), so please correct them (if necessary) in a gentle way. And non-experts: don't presume to know more than those who have spent years in the field; you'll just highlight your ignorance. Now, let's get back to productive discussions! From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri May 9 10:28:04 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA26862; Fri, 9 May 1997 10:28:04 -0400 Message-Id: <2.2.16.19970509141312.38973052@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, 09 May 1997 09:13:12 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: Curt Niccum Subject: Re: The new TR Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2888 Lake indeed called Westcott and Hort's edition a failure. Unfortunately I do not have the original source so that it can be quoted within context. I do offer some quotes which may be useful. Lake's criticism of W-H was borrowed by K. Aland and applied to von Soden: "But this attempt must be adjudged a 'failure, though a splendid one,' to borrow the words of the outstanding American textual critic Kirsopp Lake with regard to Westcott-Hort's edition in 1904." (Text of the New Testament, 2nd ed., 22) The following is offered by Lake concerning W-H: "No one would claim that this theory is final; but certainly, whenever the history of the century is written, it will be found that in the field of textual criticism the work of Drs. Westcott and Hort is a landmark which, whether for agreement or disagreement, forms the necessary point of departure for the next generation, and in parts at least will be the foundation of all successful work." (K. Lake, Text of the New Testament, 4th ed., 1908, 68) Finally Colwell's statements: "The dead hand of Fenton John Anthony Hort lies heavy upon us. In the early years of this century Kirsopp Lake described Hort's work as a failure, though a glorious one. But Hort did _not_ fail to reach his major goal. He dethroned the Textus receptus. After Hort, the late medieval Greek Vulgate was not used by serious students, and the text supported by earlier witnesses became the standard text. This was a sensational achievement, an impressive success. Hort's success in this task and the cogency of his tightly reasoned theory shaped - and still shapes - the thinking of those who approach the textual criticism of the New Testament through the English language. I do not mean to suggest that this influence is undeserved. Hort's second volume is still the best statement of theory and method in this field of study. His knowledge was comprehensive, and his judgments were marked by a wisdom so unusual as to merit the word 'unique.' Any one who would think constructively here must first rethink Hort's thoughts. But I would be the last to suggest that his system was the perfect one...." ("Scribal Habits in Early Papyri: A Study in the Corruption of the Text," in Bible in Modern Scholarship, 1965, 370). At 08:36 AM 5/9/97 -0500, you wrote: >On Fri, 9 May 1997 schmiul@uni-muenster.de wrote: >... >> 2.) Dave, where did Kirsopp Lake call _Hort's_ approach "a failure, though a >> splendid one"?... > >I do not have any sources with me, but I remember reading that Colwell >"Scribal Habits in Early Papyri...", p. 370 mentioned the Lake ref. If >some one knows has this reference or the Lake ref, I will appreciate the >clarification for myself and for Prof. Ulrich. >-- >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 May 9 10:29:15 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA26888; Fri, 9 May 1997 10:29:15 -0400 Date: Fri, 9 May 1997 09:29:54 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <199705091429.JAA02375@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: Hort Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1273 At 10:00 PM 5/8/97 -0500, Jim West wrote: >Is it not the case that Hort NEVER collated a ms himself but only depended >on the editions available to him? If so- then anyone who has collated as >few as two mss has more actual experience in TC than Hort! > >Hort was brilliant in the theory of TC- but in practice he was not a practioner. > >This means that if Helge has taken the time to assemble two ms and compared >them that he has already far outstripped Hort in actual text critical work. 1) If I have read them correctly, the above comments equate "actual experience in TC" and "actual text critical work" with the collation of MSS--and nothing else, apparently. The definition of TC implied by these comments strikes me as extraordinarily narrow in scope. 2) Hort (together with Westcott, of course) edited a critical edition of the entire NT. They worked their way through every verse of the NT, making judgments variant by variant. To their text they added 142 pages of "Notes on Select Readings," in which they discussed the evidence and reasons for their judgments. The claim that anyone who "has taken the time to assemble two ms and compared them ... has already far outstripped Hort in actual text critical work" is absurd. Mike Holmes Bethel College From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri May 9 13:17:22 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA27355; Fri, 9 May 1997 13:17:21 -0400 From: schmiul@uni-muenster.de Message-Id: <199705091718.TAA60940@mail.uni-muenster.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Date: Fri, 09 May 97 19:34:34 +0100 Subject: Kirsopp Lake To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu In-Reply-To: <2.2.16.19970509141312.38973052@nd.edu> X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17 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: 1270 Gentlemen, indeed, with respect to the famous "failure, though a splendid one" state= ment of=20 K. Lake I have to confess a fatal error on my side. I thought I read it i= n one=20 of the reviews of von Soden's edition. Infact, it was Hans Lietzmann, who= said=20 of von Soden, "da=DF sein Werk in der Hauptsache ein Fehlschlag war" (Kle= ine=20 Schriften II, p. 192 [TU 68]). Kirsopp Lake said in the opening of his Inaugural Lecture, delivered befo= re The=20 University of Leiden on January 27, 1904 (_The Influence of Textual Criti= cism on=20 the Exegesis of the New Testament_, Oxford 1904, p. 3):=20 "In the 19th century the efforts of textual critics were directed constan= tly to=20 the construction of the 'true text' of the Gospels, by an examination of = the=20 evidence contained principally in Greek MSS. and an attempt to to classif= y it=20 historically and genealogically. The culminating point in this process was probably the great work of=20 Westcott and Hort. This has two sides, a destructive and a constructive -= the=20 former successful, the latter a failure, though a splendid one."=20 My apologize for the confusion. I should not have entered this thread zea= lously.=20 It seems as if this never pays off. Ulrich Schmid, Muenster =20 From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri May 9 13:24:49 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA27401; Fri, 9 May 1997 13:24:49 -0400 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 9 May 1997 12:28:27 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Readings, Profiles, Samples Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1729 Since Jimmy Adair has politely asked us to cool it, I though I would try throwing out a new topic to get people thinking. One thing that seems to be pretty widely agreed upon is that any general-purpose sampling method should focus only on readings found in two or more manuscripts. In practice, this becomes "two or more *known* manuscripts," and often "two or more of the manuscripts I'm studying." Just to play Devil's Advocate, I'm going to ask the question, "Why?" Let me explain my reasoning. It starts with one of my favorite oddball manuscripts, 1506. This manuscript (1320 C.E., on Mount Athos) contains the gospels (in a very defective, strongly Byzantine text) plus Romans and the first few chapters of 1 Corinthians. 1506 has one extremely fascinating reading. It *omits* chapter 16 of Romans. Other than that, based on the studies I've done (based here on every reading noted in NA26) it looks like a fairly typical Alexandrian manuscript, though I know of at least one other apparently unsupported reading (1 Cor. 2:14 omit TOU QEOU). Unfortunately, as noted, 1506 is very fragmentary. And I, for one, would very much like to see other texts of this type. Given the small amount of text remaining to us, it may be hard to identify a "1506-text" based solely on widely attested variants. Searching using its singulars might help. I concede that this is sort of like turning profiling on its side -- but so what? Now I know that including such seemingly-singular readings will cause the overall rates of agreements between manuscripts to rise. But this does not matter as long as we compare rates of agreements based on the same sample. So why not do this? Thoughts, anyone? Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri May 9 13:41:13 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA27454; Fri, 9 May 1997 13:41:12 -0400 Date: Fri, 09 May 1997 13:42:43 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: OT/HB TC and NT TC X-Sender: jwest@mail.highland.net (Unverified) To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970509134041.22cf37bc@mail.highland.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: 720 Professor Hurtado has made an excellent suggestion. I heartily agree and would suggest one further possibility. The editors of the forthcoming BHQ (Adrian Schenker et al) have adopted a standardized methodology for variants and textual notes (TC decisions). Could not such a manual be adopted by NT TC (mutatis mutandis), thus allowing both OT and NT TCritics to operate with the same standards? This would, it seems to me, make interdisciplinary communication easier and allow for clarity of thought as all would be using the same "vocabulary" (something sorely lacking). Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Pastor, Petros Baptist Church jwest@highland.net "Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes!" From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri May 9 14:35:55 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA27605; Fri, 9 May 1997 14:35:54 -0400 Date: Fri, 9 May 1997 13:36:39 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <199705091836.NAA22529@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: Readings, Profiles, Samples Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 3290 At 12:28 PM 5/9/97 -0700, Bob Waltz wrote: >Since Jimmy Adair has politely asked us to cool it, I though I would >try throwing out a new topic to get people thinking. > >One thing that seems to be pretty widely agreed upon is that any >general-purpose sampling method should focus only on readings >found in two or more manuscripts. In practice, this becomes >"two or more *known* manuscripts," and often "two or more >of the manuscripts I'm studying." > >Just to play Devil's Advocate, I'm going to ask the question, >"Why?" In thinking about this question, it would be helpful to have a fuller definition or description of what is meant by a "general-purpose sampling method," esp. with respect to its purpose or the goal of its use. To use an analogy from the gold-mining region of California where I grew up, is the "general-purpose sampling method" to be used for "prospecting" (looking for gold) or "assaying" (determining the quality of the gold found)? If the purpose of the sampling method is to enable one to ascertain in a general way the possible relationships or textual character of an uninvestigated witness ("prospecting"), one might well wish to include singular readings of a MS like 1506. Here the agreement of a previously uninvestigated MS with a distinctive singular reading such as the omission of Rom 16 in 1506 would be of major interest and would call immediately for further investigation. If, on the other hand, the purpose of the sampling method is to investigate textual relationships between some finite group of MSS ("assaying"), then one would likely wish to eliminate singular readings, for reasons spelled out, e.g., by Colwell in his essay on method in establishing quantative relationships (pp. 57-58 in his collected essays). So, what is the hoped-for or intended goal or purpose of the envisioned "general-purpose sampling tool"? An anwer to this question would make it easier to discuss the question raised above. Mike Holmes Bethel College > >Let me explain my reasoning. It starts with one of my favorite >oddball manuscripts, 1506. > >This manuscript (1320 C.E., on Mount Athos) contains the gospels >(in a very defective, strongly Byzantine text) plus Romans and >the first few chapters of 1 Corinthians. > >1506 has one extremely fascinating reading. It *omits* chapter >16 of Romans. Other than that, based on the studies I've done >(based here on every reading noted in NA26) it looks like a fairly >typical Alexandrian manuscript, though I know of at least one >other apparently unsupported reading (1 Cor. 2:14 omit TOU QEOU). > >Unfortunately, as noted, 1506 is very fragmentary. And I, for >one, would very much like to see other texts of this type. Given >the small amount of text remaining to us, it may be hard to >identify a "1506-text" based solely on widely attested variants. >Searching using its singulars might help. I concede that this >is sort of like turning profiling on its side -- but so what? > >Now I know that including such seemingly-singular readings will >cause the overall rates of agreements between manuscripts to >rise. But this does not matter as long as we compare rates of >agreements based on the same sample. So why not do this? > >Thoughts, anyone? > >Bob Waltz >waltzmn@skypoint.com > > > > From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat May 10 12:19:27 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA00411; Sat, 10 May 1997 12:19:26 -0400 From: DJCUser@aol.com Date: Fri, 9 May 1997 19:51:16 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <970509112310_-632298491@emout03.mail.aol.com> To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: The new TR Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 368 In a message dated 97-05-09 03:57:31 EDT, you write: << 2.) Dave, where did Kirsopp Lake call _Hort's_ approach "a failure, though a splendid one"? As far as I recall Lake's famous statement referred to Hans von Soden's approach. >> Metzger says that Soden's work has been described as 'a magnificient failure' on page 139 in his The Text of the New Testament. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat May 10 12:28:00 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA00457; Sat, 10 May 1997 12:27:59 -0400 From: "Vinton A. Dearing" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Fri, 9 May 1997 15:48:20 PST MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: collation programs X-Confirm-Reading-To: "Vinton A. Dearing" X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) Message-ID: <258F06A5D2B@113hum4.humnet.ucla.edu> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 172 I gave the wrong address for my collation programs. Read "Individuals" instead of "Individual" http://englishwww.humnet.ucla.edu/Individuals/dearing Vinton A. Dearing From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat May 10 12:28:33 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA00474; Sat, 10 May 1997 12:28:32 -0400 Date: Sat, 10 May 1997 12:28:31 -0400 (EDT) From: "James R. Adair" To: TC List Subject: lightning strike 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: 540 The tc-list (and TELA, our Web site) has been down for the past 20 hours or so because a lightning strike blew up a transformer outside our building. Power has now been restored, so the list should function normally. If you attempted to send messages to the list and got error messages, please resend them. 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 Sat May 10 12:32:38 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA00557; Sat, 10 May 1997 12:32:38 -0400 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199705091836.NAA22529@homer.bethel.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 9 May 1997 16:30:56 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: Readings, Profiles, Samples Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 3499 On Fri, 9 May 1997, Michael Holmes wrote: >At 12:28 PM 5/9/97 -0700, Bob Waltz wrote: >>Since Jimmy Adair has politely asked us to cool it, I though I would >>try throwing out a new topic to get people thinking. >> >>One thing that seems to be pretty widely agreed upon is that any >>general-purpose sampling method should focus only on readings >>found in two or more manuscripts. In practice, this becomes >>"two or more *known* manuscripts," and often "two or more >>of the manuscripts I'm studying." >> >>Just to play Devil's Advocate, I'm going to ask the question, >>"Why?" > >In thinking about this question, it would be helpful to have a fuller >definition or description of what is meant by a "general-purpose sampling >method," esp. with respect to its purpose or the goal of its use. To use an >analogy from the gold-mining region of California where I grew up, is the >"general-purpose sampling method" to be used for "prospecting" (looking for >gold) or "assaying" (determining the quality of the gold found)? When I was thinking of this, I was thinking in terms of "prospecting." When we discover an unusual manuscript such as 1506 (or 330, or 1611, or any of my other favorite oddballs), it is nice to be able to find relatives quickly. But my question -- which I didn't really express -- is, "Does this truly hurt us for 'assaying'?" We can define a profile of this sort for any manuscript, and then search for manuscripts which match it -- but that profile is useless for any purpose except "prospecting." Ideally we'd like to have something which can *both* "prospect" and "assay." Obviously a set of readings containing what we believe to be singulars will not be as good for "assaying." But it seems to me that it wouldn't be that badly degraded if we only included a few select readings of high significance. >If the purpose of the sampling method is to enable one to ascertain in a >general way the possible relationships or textual character of an >uninvestigated witness ("prospecting"), one might well wish to include >singular readings of a MS like 1506. Here the agreement of a previously >uninvestigated MS with a distinctive singular reading such as the omission >of Rom 16 in 1506 would be of major interest and would call immediately for >further investigation. So it would seem to me. And yet I have never heard of anyone studying 1506, despite that amazing reading. Has anyone heard otherwise? >If, on the other hand, the purpose of the sampling method is to investigate >textual relationships between some finite group of MSS ("assaying"), then >one would likely wish to eliminate singular readings, for reasons spelled >out, e.g., by Colwell in his essay on method in establishing quantative >relationships (pp. 57-58 in his collected essays). > >So, what is the hoped-for or intended goal or purpose of the envisioned >"general-purpose sampling tool"? An anwer to this question would make it >easier to discuss the question raised above. I hope I've answered that. And, remember, I'm just speculating here. In the past we *have not* used singular readings. But is there an overwhelming reason, or just tradition? -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat May 10 12:50:12 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA00667; Sat, 10 May 1997 12:50:12 -0400 From: dwashbur@wave.park.wy.us Message-Id: <199705092117.PAA21304@wavecom.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Fri, 9 May 1997 20:09:59 -7000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: OT/HB TC and NT TC 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: 709 > Professor Hurtado has made an excellent suggestion. I heartily agree and > would suggest one further possibility. > > The editors of the forthcoming BHQ (Adrian Schenker et al) have adopted a > standardized methodology for variants and textual notes (TC decisions). > Could not such a manual be adopted by NT TC (mutatis mutandis), thus > allowing both OT and NT TCritics to operate with the same standards? Hmm...can you elaborate on this standardized methodology? Or point me to a place where I might be able to look it up? This sounds exciting. 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 Sat May 10 12:57:31 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA00694; Sat, 10 May 1997 12:57:31 -0400 Message-ID: <33741B29.43BF@sn.no> Date: Fri, 09 May 1997 23:52:25 -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: the new TR 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: 2046 James R. Adair wrote: >=20 > On Thu, 8 May 1997, Mr. Helge Evensen wrote: >=20 > > Let me just remind ye all that my main purpose was to direct attentio= n > > to a serious weakness within modern textual criticism (MTC), namely t= hat > > MTC rely _too heavily_ on the canon of *age*, to the point that this > > canon is *practically* "canonized", and that age (of MSS) is the *mai= n* > > reason for accepting the Alexandian text rather than other texts, > > especially the Byz text (after all, it=B4s late for its _MSS_ are lat= e). I > > am *not* >=20 > Undoubtedly the age of mss is an important factor to most text > critics, but it is hardly the _main_ reason for accepting the Alexandri= an > texts. Based on age alone, we should scrap the Alexandrian text and lo= ok > instead to the earliest Western witnesses, which predate the Alexandria= ns > by almost a century (see the recent posts by Waltz and several posts by > Petersen). I didn=B4t say that textual scholars based their preference for the Alexa= ndrian text on=20 age *alone*. But I still believe that, in the final analysis, the ruling = factor is=20 age. The Western witnesses are rejected, I suspect, because of their all = too obvious=20 recensional nature; they depart too radically from the other texts. Anoth= er factor is=20 that the Western text doesn=B4t have very many witnesses. > And speaking of age, can Helge provide us with a good > explanation for the whereabouts of the Byzantine text, especially outsi= de > of the gospels, in the first few Christian centuries? No! I can=B4t. And the reason is obvious: I do not expect any archeologic= al discoveries=20 *outside of* Egypt that will reveal *another* textual tendency than what = has already=20 been found in the MSS of that locality. My theory is that the Alexandrian= texts are=20 *local texts*. And I think that Robinson and Pierpont, in their _Introduc= tion_, offer=20 a very good case for the Byzantine text. Like Hort, they have given us a = *history* of=20 the text. --=20 - Mr. Helge Evensen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat May 10 13:56:52 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA00825; Sat, 10 May 1997 13:56:51 -0400 Date: Sat, 10 May 1997 13:58:24 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: OT/HB TC and NT TC X-Sender: jwest@mail.highland.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970510135618.2f4f8710@mail.highland.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: 740 >> The editors of the forthcoming BHQ (Adrian Schenker et al) have adopted a >> standardized methodology for variants and textual notes (TC decisions). >> Could not such a manual be adopted by NT TC (mutatis mutandis), thus >> allowing both OT and NT TCritics to operate with the same standards? > >Hmm...can you elaborate on this standardized methodology? Or point >me to a place where I might be able to look it up? This sounds >exciting. Several of the editors for BHQ are participants on this list. Perhaps they would be interested in saying a few words about it... >Dave Washburn Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Pastor, Petros Baptist Church jwest@highland.net "Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes!" From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat May 10 14:04:52 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA00885; Sat, 10 May 1997 14:04:52 -0400 Message-Id: <199705101806.OAA08317@erebus.rutgers.edu> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Richard D. Weis" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Sat, 10 May 1997 14:06:50 +0000 Subject: Re: OT/HB TC and NT TC Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.22) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1728 Dear TC-List Members, Responding to a comment by Jim West, David Washburn wrote as follows: > Hmm...can you elaborate on this standardized methodology? Or point > me to a place where I might be able to look it up? This sounds > exciting. Unless I miss my guess, Dr. West is referring to the document recording the internal guidelines for the editing of the forthcoming _Biblia Hebraica_. This document is exactly that, guidelines for the members of the BHQ project to guide their work in producing the edition. It is entirely an internal project document that was produced in order to aid in the production of a coherent edition by a diverse group of editors. It is not a TC manual, and it is not designed for external distribution. Aspects of the planned edition are discussed in the essay by Gerard Norton which Prof. Hurtado mentioned, and in essays by Adrian Schenker in an early issue of _Zeitschrift fuer Althebraistik_, and Arie van der Kooij (sorry I don't have publication information handy for this one). Much of the text of Prof. Schenker's article is available on the web-site of the Biblisches Institut/Institut Biblique of the University of Fribourg in Switzerland. These are probably the best publicly accessible places to get a picture of the edition. Regards, Richard Weis ******************************************************************************* Richard D. Weis rweis@rci.rutgers.edu New Brunswick Theological Seminary phone: 1-908-246-5613 17 Seminary Place FAX: 1-908-249-5412 New Brunswick, NJ 08901-1196 USA ******************************************************************************* From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat May 10 14:57:57 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA00949; Sat, 10 May 1997 14:57:57 -0400 Date: Sat, 10 May 1997 14:59:29 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: OT/HB TC and NT TC X-Sender: jwest@mail.highland.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970510145725.2fb7cd02@mail.highland.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: 955 At 02:06 PM 5/10/97 +0000, you wrote: >Dear TC-List Members, > >Responding to a comment by Jim West, David Washburn wrote as follows: > >Aspects of the planned edition are discussed in the essay by Gerard >Norton which Prof. Hurtado mentioned, and in essays by Adrian >Schenker in an early issue of _Zeitschrift fuer Althebraistik_, and >Arie van der Kooij (sorry I don't have publication information handy >for this one). Much of the text of Prof. Schenker's article is >available on the web-site of the Biblisches Institut/Institut >Biblique of the University of Fribourg in Switzerland. These are >probably the best publicly accessible places to get a picture of >the edition. The URL is http://www.unifr.ch/bif/Chapters/bh5.html > >Regards, >Richard Weis And thanks to Richard for his response. Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Pastor, Petros Baptist Church jwest@highland.net "Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes!" From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat May 10 16:42:33 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA01157; Sat, 10 May 1997 16:42:33 -0400 Date: Sat, 10 May 1997 16:44:05 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: New Journal X-Sender: jwest@mail.highland.net (Unverified) To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970510164202.2d5f25de@mail.highland.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: 1311 Friends, In an effort to widen the scope of Biblical Studies and open the door to non-established scholars and those who have something to contribute, but who are as yet unable to find a place in the print journals, a New electronic Journal has been created: The Journal of Biblical Studies. The widespread use of computers by established and non-established scholars has made it possible for ideas to be exchanged quite swiftly. This new "non-paper" journal (modelled after TC and the Journal of Hebrew Scriptures- but endeavoring to be more general in scope) will make it possible to share new information and insights rapidly. Articles will be reviewed by an editor in the field in which the article is submitted and then placed on the Journal's web page. Articles relating to Textual criticism, "higher" criticism, Qumran, Archaeology, and all related Biblical Studies fields will be considered. Visit the web page at http://Web.InfoAve.Net/~jwest/index.htm As articles are edited they will be posted- so check back regularly. Also, if you have an article to submit, send it along to me and I will see that it is reviewed and posted with all due haste. Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Pastor, Petros Baptist Church jwest@highland.net "Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes!" From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat May 10 17:46:35 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA01209; Sat, 10 May 1997 17:46:35 -0400 Message-ID: <33757542.3834@sn.no> Date: Sun, 11 May 1997 00:29:06 -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: Re: The new TR 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: 3703 Robert B. Waltz wrote: >=20 > On Tue, 06 May 1997, "Mr. Helge Evensen" wrote: >=20 > >Dear TCers > > > >My impression is that the majority of the contributors to this list ar= e in favor of the > >Alexandrian text. >=20 > I think there is truth in this statement, but it is a little too genera= l. > I, for example, do *not* favour the Alexandrian text in isolation. In m= y text > of Paul (the only place where I have reconstructed a text), I clearly m= oved > *away* from the Alexandrian text (as exemplified by Aleph A C I 33 bo). > Generally I moved toward p46 B 1739, which some will call Alexandrian w= itnesses, > but in my view they are not. > So I (speaking only for myself) am unbiased when choosing between what = I consider > early text-types. If someone could demonstrate to my satisfaction that = the > Byzantine text is early, then I would figure that text-type in also. Thanks for the clarification regarding your own position. It is clearly a= great advantage in=20 TC to approach the MSS in such an unbiased way. Bob, your method seems to= be far more unbiased=20 and objective than what is normally the case within MTC. This is my impre= ssion. And your=20 position and your views should get a fair hearing and be taken into accou= nt in MTC. At least,=20 that=B4s *my* opinion! >=20 > >(And that=B4s ok, it=B4s a free world, at least for TCers!). I suspect= that > >the Alexandrian text has become a new kind of TR, in despite of all st= atements in textual > >circles to the contrary! In reality, modern textual criticism has "can= onized" the > >Alexandrian text, not to follow it _slavishly_, but to regard it as th= e "best" text in > >spite of all other evidence. >=20 > What you are saying is largely true, but it does not make the Alexandri= an text a > "new TR." Almost, but not quite. The TR is a particular edition of a pa= rticular > text-type (the Byzantine). In fact, the TR is a *bad* edition of that t= ext-type. > So we cannot compare "the Alexandrian Text" with "the TR." I agree. But my comparison has to do with the *acceptance of the text: as= the TR was accepted,=20 similarly now the Alexandrian text is the "received" text. > >Further, many who criticize TR proponents for not > >following Greek attestation do not hesitate to suggest that some of th= e original readings > >may be lost and that we must engage in _conjecture_ to find the true r= eading. >=20 > Don't blame all for the errors of some. But I didn=B4t blame all! > >Let=B4s also imagine (contrary to all likelihood) that there was disco= vered two or three > >papyri _in Egypt_ with a "Byzantine" type of text. WOW! What would hav= e happened!? I > >suspect that many (maybe *most*) textual scholars would have radically= changed their views > >regarding the Byz text. That would have proved to me that modern textu= al criticism is > >*primarily* ruled by the canon "oldest is best"! >=20 > Speaking only for myself, I would say, yes: If you can show me a substa= ntial second > or third century papyrus that shows a *fully developed* Byzantine text = (not Byzantine > readings, as in p66, but the *whole text*), then I will revise my theor= y. I will not > elevate the Byzantine text *above* the other texts, and I will still go= to great > lengths to eliminate its influence on other manuscripts -- but I will t= reat it as > an early text-type and give it its equal vote in making textual decisio= ns. Your comments show me that there are at least *two* on this list that agr= ee with me that age=20 is the *most influential factor*! > My opinions only, of course, and there are many who disagree with them. There certainly are! --=20 - Mr. Helge Evensen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat May 10 18:21:59 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA01252; Sat, 10 May 1997 18:21:59 -0400 Message-ID: <33757D9A.1FB8@sn.no> Date: Sun, 11 May 1997 01:04:42 -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: the new TR References: <199705090416.AAA00418@fs.IConNet.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: 1130 David Large wrote (in part): > >My point is that *the most influential factor* is the age of MSS!=20 > To apply the above observations to your original statement- I would sug= gest > that the age of mss., by itself, would mean much less were it not for t= he > value placed upon the peculiar readings that are to be found exclusivel= y in > them. *By itself* the age of MSS would clearly have been a somewhat weaker fact= or. But=20 often MSS are valued after their age, and the readings they contain are *= more=20 easily* favored by TCers compared with readings in later MSS. I=B4m talki= ng about the=20 *tendency* in TC, not that the age factor is a hard and fast rule. For it= isn=B4t. > Ms. age, as a criterium, would naturally be > strengthened as a principal as more ancient mss. are found to contain a > similar text. Your statement here seems to strenghten my point concerning the age facto= r. > Well, that's my two cents anyway..... any corrections or clarifications= are > welcome. >=20 > David Large David, thanks for your comments (also for those not quoted in this post).= =20 --=20 - Mr. Helge Evensen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat May 10 18:34:10 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA01274; Sat, 10 May 1997 18:34:09 -0400 Message-ID: <33758071.1DAA@sn.no> Date: Sun, 11 May 1997 01:16:49 -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: the new TR References: <2A44E93957@div.ed.ac.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 953 Professor L.W. Hurtado wrote: >=20 > > I did ***not*** say that text-critical scholars, textbooks, etc. are = preferring the > > Alexandrian text *purely* because of the age of MSS!!!!! Even a quick= look at the above > > quoted part of my message will reveal that! We would do better if we = read each other posts > > _correctly_! > > > > My point is that *the most influential factor* is the age of MSS! And= that leads to an > > Alexandrian text priority theory (not the acceptance of *all* Alexand= rian readings or a > > complete embracement of *all* the oldest MSS=B4 readings!). >=20 > Then I respectfully request that you *substantiate* your claim as > you've emphasized it: Please give citations of text-critical works > in which the age of Alex mss is cited as "the most influential > factor" in giving Alex mss a high value. I shall do so in a separate post. And that will be my final word in this=20 "debate". --=20 - Mr. Helge Evensen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat May 10 18:40:53 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA01296; Sat, 10 May 1997 18:40:52 -0400 Message-ID: <33758208.4119@sn.no> Date: Sun, 11 May 1997 01:23:36 -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: Re: The new TR References: <199705082018.OAA08000@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: 918 dwashbur@wave.park.wy.us wrote: > > DC PARKER wrote: > > > As to "speculation", I seem to recall that I have read much of that sort in TC books > > > and articles, *especially* in Hort's theories (the hortian theory that comes to my > > > mind first is the theory of the "Lucian recension"!!). (Even though I must admit that > > > I have not read Hort's volume through, yet! I have a copy of it, so I will do it!) > > > > Please do not waste our time with such statements. You will be > > entitled to belittle Hort (1) when you have read him and (2) when you > > know more than he. > > Thank you for that kind, careful scholarly tone (pa-tooie). Have you > done as much collating as Helge has? Have you seriously considered > what he said about Hort's theories? If not, then by your own > standards you're out of line belittling him. Sorry, but I have not collated as much as *one* MS! -- - Mr. Helge Evensen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat May 10 19:19:39 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA01356; Sat, 10 May 1997 19:19:38 -0400 Date: Sat, 10 May 1997 18:21:11 -0500 (CDT) From: Steve Gunter X-Sender: sgunter@comp To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu cc: tc-list-digest@shemesh Subject: TC for Theo Illiterate In-Reply-To: <199705101632.MAA00576@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: 823 Friends, Just a brief word to say i came to the list for learning and not to watch folks flame each other. I hope the list will continue to provide light for illiterates like me who want to listen, to learn, and to go out to the libraries and read more about these matters. So from one who has not the vaguest clue about Hort or anybody else keep sending enlightenment to the curious and hungry minds who come to you. Thanks and Peace to you. ::::P:e:a:c:e::in:::e:v:e:r:y::S:t:e:p::thich:nhat:hanh:: :: ============================================================ Steve |sgunter@comp.uark.edu|Room 257 Where kids are kings! Gunter|members.tripod.com/~surrealist|comp.uark.edu/~sgunter ============================================================ ::::K:e:e:p::On::Thinking:::F:r:e:e:!:::: :::: :::: :::: ::: From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat May 10 19:58:18 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA01417; Sat, 10 May 1997 19:58:18 -0400 Message-ID: <3375942A.2F5E@sn.no> Date: Sun, 11 May 1997 02:40:58 -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: "non-experts" 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: 1863 Jimmy Adair wrote: "And non-experts: don=B4t presume to know more than those who have spent = years in=20 the field; you=B4ll just highlight your ignorance". While it certainly is true that experts *generally* know more than non-ex= perts=20 (at least they have a great advantage), the latter can very well know eno= ugh to=20 even rightly _question_ the validity of the claims of the experts. After = all,=20 from where do non-experts receive their knowledge of TC if not from the e= xperts=20 themselves. Besides, the *possibility* of obtaining a working knowledge o= f TC=20 and MSS is open to *anybody* who will investigate and study! If a non-exp= ert=20 will base his arguments on *the truth* (or the *facts*) of a matter, then= even=20 the *expert* must answer that argument in a _worthy_ manner, though the=20 argument comes from a non-expert. Also, I believe that some times TC expe= rts=20 may have some "blinders" which well-read non-experts can help remove. It = would=20 be a strange idea indeed to suggest that experts *cannot* be corrected by= =20 non-experts. That would be next to popery! But please understand that I a= m not=20 *in any way* degrading academic training. Far from it! Jimmy, since this list is also intended for *non-experts* in the field of= TC, I=20 suppose that my above comments will not be very far off the track. I, for my part, greatly appreciate being on this list and to read the man= y=20 interesting messages on the different aspects of TC. But I must confess t= hat it=20 is not only the *experts* that make this list interesting! For instance, = Bob=20 Waltz is not a textual scholar in an academic sense, but he certainly mas= ters=20 TC very well! Here one question arises: Shall he be regarded as an "exper= t" or=20 a "non-expert"? It depends on the meaning and use of the term. --=20 - Mr. Helge Evensen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat May 10 20:51:43 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA01458; Sat, 10 May 1997 20:51:43 -0400 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3375942A.2F5E@sn.no> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 10 May 1997 19:55:37 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: "non-experts" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1758 On Sun, 11 May 1997, "Mr. Helge Evensen" wrote, in part: >For instance, Bob >Waltz is not a textual scholar in an academic sense, but he certainly masters >TC very well! Here one question arises: Shall he be regarded as an "expert" or >a "non-expert"? In my case, I am clearly a non-expert in the field in general. I have (to invert Johnson) little Greek and less Latin, and know nothing at all of the other Biblical languages. I've read almost nothing of the Fathers, and what I have read I've read in translation. I am not affiliated with a seminary, so my access to the latest works in the field is limited. Nor do I have access to Tischendorf. What I am is a *generalist.* I know, at least at an elementary level, TC, mathematics, folklorics, and history. All of them, I maintain, useful tools. If you ask me to discuss the theological significance of an aorist optative versus a future passive in some passage, I'd be completely stuck. If I have any merit at all, it is my ability to bring outside knowledge to the discussion. Sometimes it means I am woefully ignorant. Other times, perhaps, it gives me the prespective to see that the traditional way is not the best way (witness, e.g., the ongoing and rather nasty discussion of sampling methods). The key is knowing what is relevant and what isn't. Obviously there are those on this list who disagree with me on that subject -- and almost all others. :-) -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat May 10 20:51:47 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA01473; Sat, 10 May 1997 20:51:46 -0400 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <199705101632.MAA00576@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 10 May 1997 19:47:11 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: TC for Theo Illiterate Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1343 On Sat, 10 May 1997, Steve Gunter wrote: >Friends, > > Just a brief word to say i came to the list for learning and not to >watch folks flame each other. Believe it or not, it's not much fun for us, either. At least, I don't like it much.... >I hope the list will continue to provide >light for illiterates like me who want to listen, to learn, and to go out >to the libraries and read more about these matters. Do you perhaps have any questions for us? Maybe we can find something non-controversial to talk about. :-) TC content: Remember Friday when I asked about 1506 and its omission of Romans chapter 16? I was reading in Zuntz about Clement of Alexandria, and observed some similarities between Clement and the text of 1506. Now my list is short enough that it proves *nothing*. But it's interesting. And I have no way to go further; I don't have copies of any part of Clement. So: Does anyone know anything about Romans 16 and the text of Clement? Thanks for anything you can tell me. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun May 11 00:10:46 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id AAA00245; Sun, 11 May 1997 00:10:46 -0400 From: dwashbur@wave.park.wy.us Message-Id: <199705102216.QAA29966@wavecom.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Sat, 10 May 1997 21:08:14 -7000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: The new TR 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: 1444 Helge wrote: > dwashbur@wave.park.wy.us wrote: > > > > DC PARKER wrote: > > > > As to "speculation", I seem to recall that I have read much of that sort in TC books > > > > and articles, *especially* in Hort's theories (the hortian theory that comes to my > > > > mind first is the theory of the "Lucian recension"!!). (Even though I must admit that > > > > I have not read Hort's volume through, yet! I have a copy of it, so I will do it!) > > > > > > Please do not waste our time with such statements. You will be > > > entitled to belittle Hort (1) when you have read him and (2) when you > > > know more than he. > > > > Thank you for that kind, careful scholarly tone (pa-tooie). Have you > > done as much collating as Helge has? Have you seriously considered > > what he said about Hort's theories? If not, then by your own > > standards you're out of line belittling him. > > Sorry, but I have not collated as much as *one* MS! My error. Somewhere I got the impression you had. I've done 2, but it was a long time ago. However, I get the feeling that we both try to keep up as much as possible with trends and information in the field and evaluate theories etc. based on their merits. IMO that can only lead to further enlightenment, and I enjoy your posts immensely. 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 May 11 12:25:43 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA00643; Sun, 11 May 1997 12:25:43 -0400 Message-ID: <33767B86.10CF@sn.no> Date: Sun, 11 May 1997 19:08:06 -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: The new TR: my conclusion 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: 16216 This is my final post in this =ABdebate=BB! I agree with Jimmy that we all should keep a respectful tone on the list.= =20 If I have offended any person on this list with any of my statements, I=20 apollogize for it! Let me emphasize the fact that =ABnone=BB of my messages on this list are= in=20 any way an expression of my lack of respect for textual scholars and=20 modern textual criticism (MTC). I think textual scholars are doing a very= =20 fine job in many areas. Let me also make it clear once again that I am *not* a scholar, not a=20 *textual critic*, nor am I an experienced practioner of TC in any sense.=20 I have studied the subject through handbooks, articles, etc. and am doing= =20 my own thinking on the subject. I realize that I should have used slightly different expressions in some=20 cases. For instance, my use of the terminology =ABthe canon of age=BB may= not=20 be completely acceptable in MTC, since many do not regard age as an=20 established *canon*. But please also note that such a priority placed on=20 the age factor does not necessarily *have to* express itself in the form=20 of an established canon! My point in saying that MTC *primarily* is ruled= =20 by the age factor, has to do with a strong *tendency* in that direction=20 within MTC. Maybe I use wrong language here, but what I mean is that the=20 Alexandrian text (whether =ABproto-=BB or =ABlater=BB) on the whole is re= garded=20 as far more =ABoriginal=BB than the Byz text, and that the *main* reason = is=20 *age* (whether of the MSS or the =ABtexttype=BB). It may be an =ABunwritt= en=20 canon=BB, but I believe that age is an underlying fundamental =ABrule=BB = in=20 MTC.=20 I am not saying, however, that age is unimportant. As to my mention of the Alexandrian MSS/text, maybe I will do better if I= =20 use the expression =ABAlexandrian-like MSS=BB or =ABMSS containing an=20 Alexandrian-like text=BB. I know that when it comes to minor details, the= re=20 are several groups of =ABtexttypes=BB represented in the oldest MSS. My=20 original point, however, had to do with the *fundamental* situation,=20 namely that in general one can divide MTC into two groups: those who hold= =20 to an =ABAlexandrian-like text=BB priority, and those who hold to a Byzan= tine=20 text priority. Eclectics may say that they do not favor a certain texttype or group of=20 MSS above another. But their *resultant text* is not very far from what=20 we may call an =ABAlexandrian-like=BB text. Eclectics may arrive at their= =20 choices based on *internal* criteria, but it is doubtful that they will=20 accept very *many* =ABlate=BB readings, *even* if the internal evidence=20 should have necessitated it! And since internal criteria may be used very= =20 *subjectively*, the results may vary from scholar to scholar. For=20 instance, the internal principle that=B4s looking for what reading fits t= he=20 *context*, may often be a matter of pure subjective *interpretation*. Further, maybe the reason that eclectic scholars do not arrive at textual= =20 results that more closely approximate a Byzantine text, is that they=20 never take the time to investigate the Byzantine or =ABlater=BB readings,= to=20 see whether or not they meet the requirements of internal criteria. There= =20 may be an =ABuniversal=BB prejudice against the =ABlate=BB Byzantine text= /MSS=20 which may serve as a =ABcontrolling factor=BB, that hinders scholars from= =20 accepting Byz readings! I do not know of any eclectic scholar that have come up with a=20 =ABByzantine-like=BB text or a =ABlate=BB text. Remember, I=B4m talking a= bout age=20 as =ABthe most influential factor=BB. It does not matter whether or not i= t is=20 recorded in a handbook, it seems nevertheless to be the strongest factor=20 in MTC! In his book =ABThe Ancient Text of the NT=BB, professor Jakob van Bruggen= =20 writes: =ABIn the textual criticism of the 20th century, the rejection of= =20 the well-known traditional or Byzantine text predominates. That text is=20 even ruled out completely and in advance by the selection-process at=20 M=FCnster. The arguments against this text originate from the 19th centur= y.=20 People are still using them, but without sufficient reason........The=20 arguments against this Byzantine text are still less decisive than in the= =20 19th century.......This text deserves to remain recognized as reliable,=20 unless real contra-proof can be given from a recovered better text.=20 However, there are no better texts. There are theories about a better=20 text and there are reconstructions of such a text,.....=BB (p.36). Professor Hurtado has asked me to substantiate my statements regarding=20 the age factor. More precisely, he asked me to cite text-critical works=20 that prove that age is =ABthe most influential factor=BB in MTC. In the=20 following, I shall do just that. But note that some of the works cited may not be regarded as strictly TC=20 works by some. (Before reading the citations, please also note that even though not all=20 factors are clearly stated as established rules in TC works, it can still= =20 be that a particular *trend* or *tendency* in TC is a dominating factor=20 among textual scholars! It does not necessarily have to be written in the= =20 textbooks in order to be a fundamental factor). I will not add my own =ABitalics=BB or emphasis in the quotations. I trus= t ye=20 all will read them carefully! I will begin by citing Comfort (who is not very popular on this list, but= =20 who nevertheless should be allowed a hearing). However, he is somewhat=20 =ABradical=BB on the question of the age of *MSS*, so he clearly does not= =20 represent MTC fully on that point.=20 >From his _Quest for the Original Text_, I cite the following: =AB.....whi= le=20 the Alands present strong arguments for the early manuscripts as=20 providing the best witness to the original text, N/A26/UBS3 does not=20 always follow the evidence of the early manuscripts.......Of course, an=20 =ABearly=BB manuscript is not always the most trustworthy manuscript;=20 nonetheless, several of the earliest manuscripts are the most reliable -=20 a position constantly affirmed by the Alands=BB (p.30). =AB.....there are those who say it is too simplistic to think that the=20 earliest manuscripts are the best manuscripts. These scholars argue that=20 the original reading can be found in any manuscript of any age. This is=20 hypothetical true, but hardly bears up when put into practice. A reading=20 with testimony from one early papyrus manuscript of reputed reliability=20 (with the support of at least one other early reliable Greek manuscript)=20 is far more likely to represent the original text than a reading found in= =20 later manuscripts=BB. [you may call it a =ABcanon=BB] Textual critics working with ancient literature universally=20 acknowledge the supremacy of earlier manuscripts over later ones=BB (....= .) =ABNineteenth-century New Testament textual scholars - such as=20 Lachmann, Tregelles, Tischendorf, and Westcott and Hort - worked on the=20 basis that the earliest witnesses are the best witnesses. We would do=20 well to continue this approach to recovering the original text=BB (p.38). What is the implications of Comfort=B4s statements here? To my mind, thes= e=20 statements show that for Comfort, age is of utter importance, and I=20 suspect that it is =ABthe most influential factor=BB in his judgements! (= Of=20 course, that factor is almost always used together with other factors). In his _Text_, Metzger gives a more general statement about =ABmost=20 scholars=B4=BB view on the Alexandrian text: =ABThough most scholars have= =20 abandoned Hort=B4s optimistic view that codex Vaticanus (B) contains the=20 original text almost unchanged except for slips of the pen, they are=20 still inclined to regard the Alexandrian text as on the whole the best=20 ancient recension and the one most nearly approximating the original=BB=20 (p.216). If this diagnosis is still true, the Alexandrian text may be regarded as=20 a kind of =ABTR=BB for modern scholars. (A =ABTR=BB in the sense of a gen= eral=20 *acceptance* of the text. Note that I=B4m not referring to any *printed*=20 edition as a =ABTR=BB). Not that they are bound to it, but they operate=20 within the frame of an Alexandrian-like form of the text (as contrasted=20 to the Byz and Western texts). Scholars=B4 personal preference for the=20 Alexandrian text clearly often influence their textcritical judgments. The Swedish scholar H. Riesenfeld, in his work _Den nytestamentliga=20 textens historia_, writes: =ABOriginal readings have most often been=20 preserved in the Alexandrian textform alone, more seldom in the Western=20 textform alone.......=BB (p.393). In a work written a few years later, he writes: =ABA fundamental rule is=20 that original readings in many instances have been preserved alone in the= =20 Alexandrian text, more seldom in the Western text or other=20 tradition-branches which have existed together with the Alexandrian and=20 the Western text. Only in single instances can original readings be=20 expected to have been kept exclusively in the relatively late Byzantine=20 text.....=BB. =ABReadings that are supported by both the Alexandrian and Western text=20 should have preference before the others=BB (1968). Note the terminology =ABbe expected=BB! It speaks for itself. In =ABManuscripts and the Text of the New Testament=BB by Elliott and Moi= r we=20 read: =AB....it is the discoveries of texts earlier than the great uncial= s,=20 on which Westcott and Hort built their elaborate theories of texttypes,=20 that has caused the breakdown of previously accepted theories. There has=20 thus been a weakening in the =ABcult of the best manuscripts=BB in favour= of=20 an appraisal of a wider selection of witnesses=BB (p.87). I wonder *why* the discoveries of *later* MSS under the same period did=20 not cause a breakdown of previous accepted theories!! In the same book, p.93, we read: =ABThere is always excitement at each ne= w=20 discovery, especially if the manuscript is an old one or one that=20 contains a good proportion of its original text=BB. In David A. Black=B4s =ABNew Testament Textual Criticism: A Concise Guide= =BB,=20 there are listed some =ABPrinciples for Establishing the Original Reading= =BB.=20 He lists three main principles under =ABPrinciples of External Evidence=BB= ,=20 of which the first is: =ABPrefer the reading attested by the oldest=20 manuscripts=BB. He writes: =ABGenerally speaking, earlier manuscripts are= =20 more important than later ones for establishing the text=BB. He then adds= a=20 warning that this principle must be used with caution. (p.34). =ABIf we wish to recover a text of the New Testament =ABas close as possi= ble=20 to the original,=BB then we should accept the most ancient text we can=20 recover, as Burkitt stipulated nearly a century ago=BB. These are the wor= ds=20 of William L. Petersen, in B. Aland & J. Delobel: =ABNew Testament Textua= l=20 Criticism, Exegesis and Church History: A Discussion of Methods=BB, p. 15= 0. I know, of course, that this statement does not primarily speak of the=20 age of *MSS*, but of the *text*. Nevertheless, it is an argument from=20 age. And since we do not have the originals, an =ABearly text=BB must be=20 recovered from the earliest *witnesses*, whether it be church fathers,=20 versions or MSS. And in instances where versions and church fathers do=20 *not* concur with the *oldest MSS*, I suspect that the versions and=20 fathers will not carry the same weight! In the same book we also find an article by Jacobus H. Petzer, in which=20 he writes: =ABThe M=FCnster theory has a different approach. By seeing th= e=20 Alexandrian text as _de facto_ equal to the original text, it cannot=20 adopt an eclectic approach,.....=BB (p.34). Later he writes: =ABBy far th= e=20 majority of scholars still see the Alexandrian text as the best possible=20 representative of the original text, largely because of the quality and=20 antiquity of its main witnesses and its largely unedited nature=BB (p. 35= ). I know that this is not saying that age is the *only* reason most=20 scholars see the Alexandrian text as the best. But, again, if the age=20 factor was removed, I wonder what weight =ABquality=BB and =ABunedited na= ture=BB=20 would carry! As long as age is the =ABpillar=BB or the =ABfundamental rul= e=BB,=20 the other factors are added to strenghten the reliability of the text.=20 Has anyone tested the Alexandrian text *after* removing the age factor?=20 (I know it wouldn=B4t be fair to do so, but if such a test was carried ou= t,=20 it would be shown whether or not age is =ABthe most influential factor=BB= ). I=20 do not mean to *completely* remove the age factor, for all MSS and texts=20 have an age of some kind. I=B4m talking about removing the Alexandrian te= xt=20 from among the *oldest* witnesses. What would it show? The Vaganay/Amphoux volume certainly isn=B4t advocating the principle of=20 age as the most important factor. The age factor is described as one=20 among three =ABdefective=BB principles. But I must ask: What would be the= =20 authors=B4 conclusions regarding the Alexandrian text be if the age facto= r=20 was removed from that text?? I know it=B4s just speculation, but a certai= n=20 degree of speculation ought to be allowed in TC. On p.62 we find this statement: =ABIn order to choose the correct reading= =20 from amongst the different variants, it used to be customary, and indeed=20 it too often still is customary, to appeal to the number, the age and the= =20 general character of the witnesses; these are three criteria which,=20 whether taken singly or together, are insufficient to justify a choice of= =20 reading=BB. Even though they dismiss the argument from the age of *MSS*, they do see=20 the age of the *text* as important (p.63). Gordon Fee writes (commenting upon External Evidence) in his article =ABT= he=20 Textual Criticism of the New Testament=BB: =ABThe first thing one must do= at=20 any point of variation is to weigh the MS evidence supporting each=20 variant. Thus one usually asks the following questions: How old are the=20 witnesses supporting each variant or how old is their text? How good is=20 the general quality of the MSS? How wide is the geographical distribution= =20 of the witnesses?=BB (The Expositor=B4s Bible Commentary, Volume 1:=20 Introductory articles, p.430). A rather straightforward statement is found in the Danish scholar S=F8ren= =20 Giversen=B4s textbook: =ABDet ny Testamentes Teksthistorie=BB (1978): =AB= If one=20 is to choose between two readings, then the best attested [reading] must=20 be regarded as the most original one, and the decisive part here is not=20 the quantity of manuscripts, but their quality, which usually is attached= =20 to their oldness=BB (p.122). In other words, if =ABoldness=BB is removed, the =ABquality=BB would be=20 weakened!! H. H. Oliver wrote back in 1962: =ABSome recent critics have returned to=20 the earlier pattern of Tischendorf and Westcott and Hort: to seek for the= =20 original text in the oldest MSS. Critics earlier in the 20th century were= =20 highly critical of this 19th century practice. The return has been=20 motivated largely by the discovery of papyri which are separated from the= =20 autographs by less than two centuries=BB (=ABPresent trends in the Textua= l=20 Criticism of the NT=BB, JBR, XXX, pp.312-313). It seems to me that the quotes above demonstrate my point that, *in the=20 final analysis*, age is =ABthe most influential factor=BB in MTC! But, I = may=20 be wrong. And I am aware that this isn=B4t much evidence, and the evidenc= e=20 may be weak, for substantiating my statements regarding the importance=20 and primacy of the =ABage factor=BB. And some quotes do not directly supp= ort=20 my claims, but I have included them only to remind of the *importance*=20 placed on the age principle. But I suspect that the age factor is more an= =20 =ABunwritten=BB principle (which underlie MTC) than a clearly established= =20 written principle. --=20 - Mr. Helge Evensen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun May 11 12:36:55 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA00694; Sun, 11 May 1997 12:36:54 -0400 Message-ID: <33767E38.6F3F@sn.no> Date: Sun, 11 May 1997 19:19:36 -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: Re: "non-experts" 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: 958 Robert B. Waltz wrote: >=20 > On Sun, 11 May 1997, "Mr. Helge Evensen" wrote, in par= t: >=20 > >For instance, Bob > >Waltz is not a textual scholar in an academic sense, but he certainly = masters > >TC very well! Here one question arises: Shall he be regarded as an "ex= pert" or > >a "non-expert"? >=20 > In my case, I am clearly a non-expert in the field in general. I have > (to invert Johnson) little Greek and less Latin, and know nothing at > all of the other Biblical languages. I've read almost nothing of the > Fathers, and what I have read I've read in translation. I am not affili= ated > with a seminary, so my access to the latest works in the field is limit= ed. > Nor do I have access to Tischendorf. Ok, let me instead ask a related question: Is Mr. Waltz *competent*,=20 then, to engage in TC-discussion. (Certainly he is, according to *my*=20 standards! But, again, I=B4m not an expert.....) --=20 - Mr. Helge Evensen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun May 11 13:24:16 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA00800; Sun, 11 May 1997 13:24:15 -0400 Message-ID: <33768950.3352@sn.no> Date: Sun, 11 May 1997 20:06:56 -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: the new TR: addition 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: 872 Sorry, I forgot to include a couple of statements in my final post on=20 "the new TR". They are added below, in their context, in capital letters: Further, maybe the reason that eclectic scholars do not arrive at textual results that more closely approximate a Byzantine text, is that they never take the time to investigate the Byzantine or =ABlater=BB readings,= to see whether or not they meet the requirements of internal criteria. OR=20 MAYBE SOME OF THE INTERNAL CANONS ARE IN NEED OF *REVISION*. REVISED=20 CANONS OR ANOTHER SET OF INTERNAL CANONS MAY BE INTRODUCED, WHICH WOULD=20 FAVOR THE *BYZANTINE* TEXT, INSTEAD OF THE *ALEXANDRIAN*! =20 There may be an =ABuniversal=BB prejudice against the =ABlate=BB Byzantin= e=20 text/MSS which may serve as a =ABcontrolling factor=BB, that hinders scho= lars=20 from accepting Byz readings! --=20 - Mr. Helge Evensen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon May 12 06:16:21 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id GAA02518; Mon, 12 May 1997 06:16:21 -0400 From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" Organization: Divinity Faculty To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Mon, 12 May 1997 11:16:54 +000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Heb TC Priority: normal References: <28B07113B3@div.ed.ac.uk> In-reply-to: X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.52) Message-ID: <40DC195B47@div.ed.ac.uk> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 377 Having read through Adair's essay from vol. 1 of TC this weekend, I recommend it very much to NT & OT scholars in mapping out the commonalities and distinguishing features of TC as practiced in these two circles. 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 May 12 08:47:10 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA02961; Mon, 12 May 1997 08:47:09 -0400 Date: Mon, 12 May 1997 07:48:34 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Oops, take two. Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 672 Well, I guess I have thoroughly proved I am not expert in everything. Or, at least, that my typing is not always controlled by my brain.... Although no one seems to have spotted it yet, the person who said that Shakespeare had "small Latin and less Greek" was Ben Jonson, not Johnson. ^ Guess I've been living in Minnesota a little too long.... -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- 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 May 12 09:13:25 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA03077; Mon, 12 May 1997 09:13:25 -0400 Date: Mon, 12 May 1997 09:14:44 -0400 (EDT) From: Nichael Cramer To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Ben and Willy's [was: Oops, take two.] 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: 862 > ... the person who said > that Shakespeare had "small Latin and less Greek" was Ben Jonson, A bit off the topic... Unfortunately virtually all of my books are sitting around my office, packed in boxes waiting for the mover, so I'm doing all of this by memory. But in one of those books, someone (I think it was Gary Taylor in the Oxford Shakespear) writes about this quote. He makes two points: 1] Jonson was a man of enourmous learning. He was also an overbearing snob. "Small latin and less Greek" meant "compared to Jonson", which still leaves plenty of room for the rest of us mortals. 2] In any case, Shaxspeer's education in these matters was probably handled by the local "public" school, which probably meant that his paltry Greek and Latin would likely have been roughly the equivalent of "merely" a modern masters degree in Classics. N From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon May 12 13:43:58 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA03995; Mon, 12 May 1997 13:43:58 -0400 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970512104213.00772e10@mail.teleport.com> X-Sender: dalemw@mail.teleport.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 12 May 1997 10:42:13 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Dale M. Wheeler" Subject: Vaticanus Cc: b-greek@virginia.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 655 Is anyone aware of anyone out there working on an electronic version of "B" ? There is now an electronic Aleph and when Comfort's new book comes out, there will be an electronic version of about 50 papyrii as well, but I'm not aware of any "B" project... 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 Mon May 12 14:06:42 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA04844; Mon, 12 May 1997 14:06:42 -0400 Date: Mon, 12 May 1997 14:08:14 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: Vaticanus X-Sender: jwest@mail.highland.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970512140811.27875b7a@mail.highland.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: 528 At 10:42 AM 5/12/97 -0700, you wrote: >Is anyone aware of anyone out there working on an electronic version of "B" >? There is now an electronic Aleph and when Comfort's new book comes out, >there will be an electronic version of about 50 papyrii as well, but I'm >not aware of any "B" project... > Check with the Electronic New Testament Manuscript Project at www.entmp.org Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Pastor, Petros Baptist Church jwest@highland.net "Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes!" From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon May 12 17:49:23 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA05998; Mon, 12 May 1997 17:49:22 -0400 From: dwashbur@wave.park.wy.us Message-Id: <199705121555.JAA04825@wavecom.net> Comments: Authenticated sender is To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Mon, 12 May 1997 15:51:45 -7000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Vaticanus CC: b-greek@virginia.edu 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: 599 > Is anyone aware of anyone out there working on an electronic version of "B" > ? There is now an electronic Aleph and when Comfort's new book comes out, > there will be an electronic version of about 50 papyrii as well, but I'm > not aware of any "B" project... Where's the electronic Aleph? I have photocopies of much of Lake's photographic edition, but it's far from complete (I only have the Paulines plus a few pages from the gospels). 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 May 12 18:10:16 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA06139; Mon, 12 May 1997 18:10:16 -0400 Date: 12 May 1997 22:11:00 -0000 Message-ID: <19970512221100.28992.qmail@np.nosc.mil> From: Vincent Broman To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu In-reply-to: <3.0.1.32.19970512104213.00772e10@mail.teleport.com> (dalemw@teleport.com) Subject: Re: Vaticanus Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1022 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > There is now an electronic Aleph and when Comfort's new book comes out, > there will be an electronic version of about 50 papyrii as well,... Where is this Aleph? And why do you think the papyri will be available in machine-readable form? I thought that Comfort's book was going to be just another dead-tree edition -- or is an electronic transcription coming out, too? 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 iQCVAwUBM3eVWGCU4mTNq7IdAQHX6AP/VNzwvyzryXGFY2FamQ555waDFj5QuEI4 u11nU1Kr+nnXeYdNpRN0eVPReB1UOcHT3nqHm8U8Lb/o2fLfeDmP7ASbePXWiL3y XpB2P/2eKJtxjgRmQhmL9cHldyzMoCkw/zZvWlW2o0J5iHqkjJcPeXB7nhe3opT0 tXyf5VSpatY= =qMxF -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon May 12 23:53:13 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id XAA06751; Mon, 12 May 1997 23:53:13 -0400 Date: Mon, 12 May 1997 23:53:12 -0400 (EDT) From: "James R. Adair" To: TC List Subject: Re: Heb TC Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 7280 Larry Hurtado suggested reading Gerard Norton's article, "Changing Paradigms in the Study of the History of the Biblical Text," _Hermathena_ 154 (1993). (I may be showing my ignorance here, but I had never heard of the journal _Hermathena_ before--thanks, Larry, for bringing it to my attention.) Having read the article, I have a number of comments. (1) Identity of the Original Text. First, on p. 19, in the second paragraph, Norton raises the spectre of the "original text," which we have frequently discussed on this list, but never dealing exclusively with the text of the OT. He asks about the goal of textual criticism of the OT, whether text critics are supposed to furnish the Hebrew text as it was when canonized (although canonization was a process), or perhaps as it existed at the beginnings of Christianity (although the early church was more interested in the Greek translation, plus, as he mentions later, Qumran demonstrates the diversity of Hebrew texts in existence in the first century). After noting that the question of authorship of OT books is more complex than identifying a single author, on p. 28 he asks, "Which text is the critic to identify/reconstruct/conjecture? The text of the first author? The text of the last major revisor? The text of the community that accepted it? The community that decided to adopt one of several simultaneously existing forms and passed it on?" On the complexity of the question of authorship, interested people might want to look at Michael Fishbane, _Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel_. Fishbane says that the scribes who transmitted the Hebrew text were not mere copyists, but were also editors with few compunctions (at least early on) about modifying the text before them in the interest of clarifying the meaning. In a situation like that, what is the "original text"? (2) The Consonantal Text and the Vowel Points. Norton discusses the history of the textual criticism of the OT, noting that many Christian scholars after the invention of the printing press questioned the value of the vowel points since they were of relatively recent origin, preferring instead to vocalize the texts in a manner most favorable to Christian interpretation. Norton says, "The editor who disregards the traditional vocalization may interpret the consonantal text at will, but there are few criteria by which the resultant interpretations may be evaluated as ancient" (p. 21). It could have been noted that some of the evidence from Qumran supports many of the traditional Masoretic vocalizations, not by means of vowel points but rather by vowel letters (matres lectiones). However, by no means are all of the traditional vocalizations supported. And even if they were, the Qumran material is still two or more centuries removed from the date of composition of most of the biblical books, so, though relatively ancient, how far back do the the traditions of interpretation represented by the vowel points really date? The vowel points are clearly important for a study of the history of interpretation of the biblical text, but do they have text-critical value as well? (3) Original Text or History of the Text? Only recently, Norton says, have scholars begun the systematic collation of ancient versions and begun to study the work of individual translators (i.e., the translation technique) (p. 26). In regard to the varying texts of Jeremiah, he says, "It is _inappropriate_ [emphasis mine] to try to reduce them to a single text. Only now are we beginning to study each form in its own right, to appreciate the theologies found there. It is surely anachronistic to _value_ [emphasis mine] one more than the other because of a later decision that included one form in the Hebrew canon rather than the other!... We now wish to write a history of the transmission of the text rather than to reconstruct originals" (p. 29). But why can't we do both? Norton is clearly right that the history of transmission is a valid arena of study, but is it really _inappropriate_ to try to construct earlier forms of the text? It may not always be _possible_, but _inappropriate_ is a word that reflects a value judgment. Textual criticism does not deal with the value of texts but with the texts themselves. In other words, TC deals with facts (or data), not truth. Norton is right that one form of the text should not be _valued_ over another as a result of later decisions (at least, textual criticism has nothing to say about the value of one text over another, although theology or dogma might). I think that the quest for earlier forms of the text, though difficult, is a worthy goal, as is reconstructing the history of the transmission of the text, as is studying one particular textual tradition (or even one particular text) as a whole. Norton points to the problematic nature of Emanuel Tov's statement in _The Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible_ that "in our view it is the task of textual (and literary) analysis to aim at that literary composition which has been accepted as binding (authoritative) by Jewish tradition, since these disciplines are concerned with the literary compositions contained in the traditional Hebrew Bible" (Tov:317, Norton:33-34). I have noted elsewhere that Tov's statement here is predicated upon a particular theological stance, not textual criticism per se (those who are interested in a critique of Tov's book can see it online at http://scholar.cc.emory.edu/scripts/TC/extras/Adair-SBL1992.html). (4) A New Edition of the Hebrew Bible (BHQ). Finally, Norton describes the forthcoming edition of the Hebrew Bible on whose editorial board he serves, _Biblia Hebraica Quinta_ (scheduled for publication late 2002!). Like its predecessor BHS, BHQ will be a diplomatic edition (!) based on the Leningrad Codex. Among the improvements over BHS are the inclusion of all the Masoretic notes in L, a complete collation of Qumran material in the apparatus (as well as collations of a few "high quality" Tiberian mss), and fresh collations of the versions (along with helpful introductions to the versions). Rather than attempting to reconstruct a hypothetical original text, the critical apparatus aims rather at the earliest attested text (a la the Hebrew OT Text Project). "The approach will be more text-historical than text-critical," Norton says (p. 35). He laments the lack of a true larger critical edition of the Hebrew Bible, and he suggests the utility of something akin to the old polyglot Bibles, where versions were presented in their entirety in parallel columns. This is certainly an intriguing idea, and a new polyglot Bible would be welcome, but is there really no place for a true, critical (in NT terms, eclectic) text of the Hebrew Bible? If we have a critical text of the LXX (the Goettingen edition), why not for the Hebrew Bible as well? I hope these observations about Gerard Norton's interesting and informative article will spur some comments from some on the list, especially the dormant OT text critics among us. 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 May 13 00:16:15 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id AAA06810; Tue, 13 May 1997 00:16:15 -0400 Date: Tue, 13 May 1997 00:16:14 -0400 (EDT) From: "James R. Adair" To: TC List Subject: new articles on TC Links page 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: 836 I've recently added several new links to the TC Links page (http://scholar.cc.emory.edu/scripts/TC/TC-links.html), including the following: Bart Ehrman's two Kenneth W. Clark Lectures (Duke Divinity School, 1997), "Text and Tradition: The Role of New Testament Manuscripts in Early Christian Studies" Biblia Hebraica Quinta: Eine Neuausgabe der Biblia Hebraica (describes the BHQ project) Constatin von Tischendorf, Codex Sinaiticus: The Ancient Biblical Manuscript Now in the British Museum (the famous account of the discovery of the manuscript) my book review of Tov's _Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible_ and an expanded critique of his book presented at the SBL annual meeting in 1992 Jimmy Adair General Editor of TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism ------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu/scripts/TC/TC.html <----- From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue May 13 02:24:14 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id CAA06908; Tue, 13 May 1997 02:24:14 -0400 From: "Dr Johann Cook" Organization: University of Stellenbosch To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Tue, 13 May 1997 08:27:09 GMT+0200 Subject: Re: OTTC X-Confirm-Reading-To: "Dr Johann Cook" X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.40) Message-ID: <66C44393882@SEMT.sun.ac.za> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 9725 > DT) > Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) > id XAA06751; Mon, 12 May 1997 23:53:13 -0400 > Date: Mon, 12 May 1997 23:53:12 -0400 (EDT) > From: "James R. Adair" > Resent-to: cook@semt.sun.ac.za > To: TC List > Subject: Re: Heb TC > Message-ID: > MIME-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII > Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu > Precedence: bulk > Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu > > Larry Hurtado suggested reading Gerard Norton's article, "Changing > Paradigms in the Study of the History of the Biblical Text," _Hermathena_ > 154 (1993). (I may be showing my ignorance here, but I had never heard of > the journal _Hermathena_ before--thanks, Larry, for bringing it to my > attention.) Having read the article, I have a number of comments. > > (1) Identity of the Original Text. First, on p. 19, in the second > paragraph, Norton raises the spectre of the "original text," which we have > frequently discussed on this list, but never dealing exclusively with the > text of the OT. He asks about the goal of textual criticism of the OT, > whether text critics are supposed to furnish the Hebrew text as it was > when canonized (although canonization was a process), or perhaps as it > existed at the beginnings of Christianity (although the early church was > more interested in the Greek translation, plus, as he mentions later, > Qumran demonstrates the diversity of Hebrew texts in existence in the > first century). After noting that the question of authorship of OT books > is more complex than identifying a single author, on p. 28 he asks, "Which > text is the critic to identify/reconstruct/conjecture? The text of the > first author? The text of the last major revisor? The text of the > community that accepted it? The community that decided to adopt one of > several simultaneously existing forms and passed it on?" On the > complexity of the question of authorship, interested people might want to > look at Michael Fishbane, _Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel_. > Fishbane says that the scribes who transmitted the Hebrew text were not > mere copyists, but were also editors with few compunctions (at least early > on) about modifying the text before them in the interest of clarifying the > meaning. In a situation like that, what is the "original text"? > > (2) The Consonantal Text and the Vowel Points. Norton discusses the > history of the textual criticism of the OT, noting that many Christian > scholars after the invention of the printing press questioned the value of > the vowel points since they were of relatively recent origin, preferring > instead to vocalize the texts in a manner most favorable to Christian > interpretation. Norton says, "The editor who disregards the traditional > vocalization may interpret the consonantal text at will, but there are few > criteria by which the resultant interpretations may be evaluated as > ancient" (p. 21). It could have been noted that some of the evidence from > Qumran supports many of the traditional Masoretic vocalizations, not by > means of vowel points but rather by vowel letters (matres lectiones). > However, by no means are all of the traditional vocalizations supported. > And even if they were, the Qumran material is still two or more centuries > removed from the date of composition of most of the biblical books, so, > though relatively ancient, how far back do the the traditions of > interpretation represented by the vowel points really date? The vowel > points are clearly important for a study of the history of interpretation > of the biblical text, but do they have text-critical value as well? > > (3) Original Text or History of the Text? Only recently, Norton says, > have scholars begun the systematic collation of ancient versions and begun > to study the work of individual translators (i.e., the translation > technique) (p. 26). In regard to the varying texts of Jeremiah, he says, > "It is _inappropriate_ [emphasis mine] to try to reduce them to a single > text. Only now are we beginning to study each form in its own right, to > appreciate the theologies found there. It is surely anachronistic to > _value_ [emphasis mine] one more than the other because of a later > decision that included one form in the Hebrew canon rather than the > other!... We now wish to write a history of the transmission of the text > rather than to reconstruct originals" (p. 29). But why can't we do both? > Norton is clearly right that the history of transmission is a valid arena > of study, but is it really _inappropriate_ to try to construct earlier > forms of the text? It may not always be _possible_, but _inappropriate_ > is a word that reflects a value judgment. Textual criticism does not deal > with the value of texts but with the texts themselves. In other words, TC > deals with facts (or data), not truth. Norton is right that one form of > the text should not be _valued_ over another as a result of later > decisions (at least, textual criticism has nothing to say about the value > of one text over another, although theology or dogma might). I think that > the quest for earlier forms of the text, though difficult, is a worthy > goal, as is reconstructing the history of the transmission of the text, as > is studying one particular textual tradition (or even one particular text) > as a whole. Norton points to the problematic nature of Emanuel Tov's > statement in _The Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible_ that "in our view > it is the task of textual (and literary) analysis to aim at that literary > composition which has been accepted as binding (authoritative) by Jewish > tradition, since these disciplines are concerned with the literary > compositions contained in the traditional Hebrew Bible" (Tov:317, > Norton:33-34). I have noted elsewhere that Tov's statement here is > predicated upon a particular theological stance, not textual criticism > per se (those who are interested in a critique of Tov's book can see it > online at > http://scholar.cc.emory.edu/scripts/TC/extras/Adair-SBL1992.html). > > (4) A New Edition of the Hebrew Bible (BHQ). Finally, Norton describes > the forthcoming edition of the Hebrew Bible on whose editorial board he > serves, _Biblia Hebraica Quinta_ (scheduled for publication late 2002!). > Like its predecessor BHS, BHQ will be a diplomatic edition (!) based on > the Leningrad Codex. Among the improvements over BHS are the inclusion of > all the Masoretic notes in L, a complete collation of Qumran material in > the apparatus (as well as collations of a few "high quality" Tiberian > mss), and fresh collations of the versions (along with helpful > introductions to the versions). Rather than attempting to reconstruct a > hypothetical original text, the critical apparatus aims rather at the > earliest attested text (a la the Hebrew OT Text Project). "The approach > will be more text-historical than text-critical," Norton says (p. 35). He > laments the lack of a true larger critical edition of the Hebrew Bible, > and he suggests the utility of something akin to the old polyglot Bibles, > where versions were presented in their entirety in parallel columns. This > is certainly an intriguing idea, and a new polyglot Bible would be > welcome, but is there really no place for a true, critical (in NT terms, > eclectic) text of the Hebrew Bible? If we have a critical text of the LXX > (the Goettingen edition), why not for the Hebrew Bible as well? > > I hope these observations about Gerard Norton's interesting and > informative article will spur some comments from some on the list, > especially the dormant OT text critics among us. > > 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 <----------------- > > > I for one am happy about this reaction. I tried some time ago to get OTTC's involved in a discussion about "local texts" as OTT's understand it. As to Adair's first remark I am of the opinion that not only copyists of Hebrew texts were more than just "passive" copiers but also redactor/interpretors; this applies also to some Septuagint translators/copiers. I have just completed a monograph on LXX Proverbs that will be no 69 in VTS to be published by Brill, in which I argue that even the major order differences between MT (and all other texts) and LXX in the final chapters of Proverbs are the result of a translator who was thematically and "theologically" minded. I do'nt want to embroider here. I have written an article in JNSL 21/2 (1995), 45-58 where I address this issue "Were the persons responsible for the Septuagint translators and/or scribes and/or editors". I think we should acknowledge the fact that the translators/transmitters were intelligent, creative people. The Greek translator of Proverbs certainly understood his parent text. In many instances he actually wrote his own story! This clearly has implications for the textual criticism. As a generalising statement I think LXX Proverbs is less useful for textcritical purposes. Finally, reconstructing in my view remains an intergral part of TC, for in the process of reconstructing one obtains insight into the history of a text, as well as its "exegesis". > 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 Tue May 13 09:32:26 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA07338; Tue, 13 May 1997 09:32:26 -0400 Date: Tue, 13 May 1997 09:32:25 -0400 (EDT) From: "James R. Adair" To: TC List Subject: LXX Paper Prize (fwd) 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: 1537 This post is courtesy of Robert Kraft, University of Pennsylvania. 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 <----------------- ****************************************************************************** Please cross-post as appropriate. Date: Mon, 12 May 1997 09:40:56 -0400 From: "Benjamin G. Wright" ANNOUNCEMENT OF PRIZE FOR OUTSTANDING PAPER IN SEPTUAGINT STUDIES The International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies is offering an annual prize of $250 to be awarded for an outstanding paper in the field of Septuagint Studies. This field is construed broadly, and a paper may focus on any aspect of the study of the Greek translations of the Jewish Scriptures. The IOSCS wants to encourage the study of these translations by younger scholars, and eligibility is thus limited to advanced graduate students or recent Ph.D. recipients (3 years or less after receiving the degree). The papers will be judged by a committee constituted of IOSCS members, and papers receiving prizes will be published in an appropriate form in the following Bulletin of the IOSCS. The committee reserves the right not to award the prize in any given year. The deadline for submission is July 1, 1996, and should be sent to Benjamin G. Wright, Department of Religion Studies, Maginnes Hall, 9 W. Packer Ave., Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA 18015. //end// From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue May 13 10:17:57 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA07635; Tue, 13 May 1997 10:17:56 -0400 Date: Tue, 13 May 1997 09:19:30 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <66C44393882@SEMT.sun.ac.za> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: OTTC Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 6663 On Tue, 13 May 1997, "Dr Johann Cook" wrote, in part: [ quoting Jimmy Adair: ] >> (1) Identity of the Original Text. First, on p. 19, in the second >> paragraph, Norton raises the spectre of the "original text," which we have >> frequently discussed on this list, but never dealing exclusively with the >> text of the OT. He asks about the goal of textual criticism of the OT, >> whether text critics are supposed to furnish the Hebrew text as it was >> when canonized (although canonization was a process), or perhaps as it >> existed at the beginnings of Christianity (although the early church was >> more interested in the Greek translation, plus, as he mentions later, >> Qumran demonstrates the diversity of Hebrew texts in existence in the >> first century). After noting that the question of authorship of OT books >> is more complex than identifying a single author, on p. 28 he asks, "Which >> text is the critic to identify/reconstruct/conjecture? The text of the >> first author? The text of the last major revisor? The text of the >> community that accepted it? The community that decided to adopt one of >> several simultaneously existing forms and passed it on?" On the >> complexity of the question of authorship, interested people might want to >> look at Michael Fishbane, _Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel_. >> Fishbane says that the scribes who transmitted the Hebrew text were not >> mere copyists, but were also editors with few compunctions (at least early >> on) about modifying the text before them in the interest of clarifying the >> meaning. In a situation like that, what is the "original text"? I can understand adopting some particular "canonical" text (e.g. the MT or the text of first century Palestine). Or I can understand a quest for the "original text" or the "final redacted text." It seems to me, though, that we rarely see any of these things. At least in the translations. (I am not a Hebraist, so I cannot judge directly.) Most versions, it appears to me, have sporadically eclectic texts. That is, they follow the MT where it "makes sense," but will resort to the versions or even to emendation where it does not. This strikes me as silly. Either the MT is *the* text, and should be accepted without question, or we should apply the tools of TC at all points, whether the MT makes sense or not. To put it another way, the MT is either sacred or it isn't. It can't be sacred where it makes sense and non-sacred elsewhere. Or so it seems to me. [ ... ] >> (3) Original Text or History of the Text? Only recently, Norton says, >> have scholars begun the systematic collation of ancient versions and begun >> to study the work of individual translators (i.e., the translation >> technique) (p. 26). In regard to the varying texts of Jeremiah, he says, >> "It is _inappropriate_ [emphasis mine] to try to reduce them to a single >> text. Only now are we beginning to study each form in its own right, to >> appreciate the theologies found there. It is surely anachronistic to >> _value_ [emphasis mine] one more than the other because of a later >> decision that included one form in the Hebrew canon rather than the >> other!... We now wish to write a history of the transmission of the text >> rather than to reconstruct originals" (p. 29). But why can't we do both? >> Norton is clearly right that the history of transmission is a valid arena >> of study, but is it really _inappropriate_ to try to construct earlier >> forms of the text? It may not always be _possible_, but _inappropriate_ >> is a word that reflects a value judgment. Hear Hear! I can't make a categorical statement on MT Jeremiah vs. LXX B Jeremiah vs. LXX (majority) Jeremiah -- but there are a lot of cases where LXX B *clearly* preserves a more primitive text. If nothing else, by examining the evolution of this text we can see how Jewish thought evolved (e.g. they clearly preferred to apply more and more titles to God). [ ... ] >I for one am happy about this reaction. I tried some time ago to get >OTTC's involved in a discussion about "local texts" as OTT's >understand it. This may be my ignorance... but I don't recall ever reading about any theories of "Local Texts" except that of Cross. (Which struck me as slightly fishy, though, again, I don't know enough to tell.) Are there others proposed? The existence of local texts (in Palestine, Alexandrian, and Babylon, at least, and maybe for a while at Elephantine also) would seem obvious -- but I've not heard much about it. >As to Adair's first remark I am of the opinion that not only copyists >of Hebrew texts were more than just "passive" copiers but also >redactor/interpretors; this applies also to some Septuagint >translators/copiers. I have just completed a monograph on LXX >Proverbs that will be no 69 in VTS to be published by Brill, in which >I argue that even the major order differences between MT (and all >other texts) and LXX in the final chapters of Proverbs are the result >of a translator who was thematically and "theologically" minded. I >do'nt want to embroider here. I have written an article in JNSL >21/2 (1995), 45-58 where I address this issue "Were the persons >responsible for the Septuagint translators and/or scribes and/or >editors". I'm willing to concede that some LXX translators were tendentious -- but so what? Does that mean that we cannot study their underlying text? Seems to me that a tendentious translation can still be useful (e.g. the Gothic version has been accused of being Arian, but it still offers us evidence about the history of the text). Or am I missing the point? >I think we should acknowledge the fact that the translators/transmitters >were intelligent, creative people. The Greek translator of Proverbs >certainly understood his parent text. In many instances he actually >wrote his own story! This clearly has implications for the textual >criticism. As a generalising statement I think LXX Proverbs is less >useful for textcritical purposes. This, it seems to me, is very similar to the debate about D in Acts. If, as is at least possible, D is edited, what role should it play in TC? If Proverbs is edited, what role should it play? I personally agree that its role should be less -- but others do *not* feel that way. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue May 13 15:39:09 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA01867; Tue, 13 May 1997 15:39:08 -0400 Date: Tue, 13 May 1997 12:27:51 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew Johnson Subject: Re: Enough [was: Hort] To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970508230301.21b7e5a4@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: 521 On Thu, 8 May 1997, Jim West wrote: > > "Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes!" > > Now I would have said that is you recognize the quote I use to _reply_, then you "nimium erutitionis habes". For I reply: Proh pudor! Ut ut quid haec sustinemus? On the other hand, then you would know Latin well enough to do textual criticism of the Old Latin, which is certainly useful 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 May 13 19:58:08 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA00752; Tue, 13 May 1997 19:58:07 -0400 Date: 13 May 1997 23:58:52 -0000 Message-ID: <19970513235852.29297.qmail@np.nosc.mil> From: Vincent Broman To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Analyzed collation available Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1844 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- I will soon make available at http://www.znet.com/~broman/nabydiff.zip a collation of the NA26/27 text against the Robinson-Pierpont Majority text in machine-readable form. The texts are simplified in that diacritics and punctuation are omitted and bracketed words or letters are fully accepted as part of the text (except the shorter ending of Mark). The differences are labeled with book-chapter-verse and supplied with enough context to identify the point of variation. The differences in verse division are identified separately from the verbal differences. Variants are factored so that widely spaced but correlated variants are combined, while nearby but independent variants are separated, insofar as this can be done without making the variants overlap. The variants are also classified as: addition, deletion, transposition, movable nu, etc. The collation is accurate, because after fat-fingering in the information requiring human judgement, I corrected all errors found by machine checking, so that: NA26 + VerbalCollation + VerseDivCollation => R-P. Python scripts for rechecking or polishing the results are supplied. I will probably do more polishing when time permits. 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 iQCVAwUBM3kAAWCU4mTNq7IdAQHRGgQAk8gKLTpKqMSsqFWO+CVD3pTOxyxFpomx LYIQKMc3CDWa892x1KIRFUfMC/WBKOcbSBn3IF/jiKwYcbX6n5irS9yX0TSzseel 3AxUvYTC+1sMQmpF1UTLvDvMGIxez/IoK0ajBz6BHKi0TjomNF6spCCfQNSvU2Gn OV7brgXhcwY= =X7TI -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue May 13 20:25:34 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA00796; Tue, 13 May 1997 20:25:34 -0400 Message-ID: From: Scobie Smith To: "'tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu'" Subject: Stephanus 1550 print edition? Date: Tue, 13 May 1997 17:28:02 -0700 X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.837.3 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: 269 Hello, I'm looking for a print edition of the Stephanus 1550 NT. Does anyone know if there is a reprint available, in or out of print? I realize there is an electronic edition; I'm looking for a print edition on which this was based. Thanks in advance, Scobie Smith From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue May 13 23:51:44 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id XAA01198; Tue, 13 May 1997 23:51:44 -0400 Date: Tue, 13 May 1997 20:25:32 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew Johnson Subject: Re: Heb TC 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: 887 On Mon, 12 May 1997, James R. Adair wrote: > Larry Hurtado suggested reading Gerard Norton's article, [snipped] You asked: > "...We now wish to write a history of the transmission of the text > rather than to reconstruct originals" (p. 29). But why can't we do both? But you answered this yourself a little before with your question: > In a situation like that, what is the "original text"? So I would say the reason we cannot do both, at least at this point in time, is that until we can write a fairly detailed history of the transmission of the text, any reconstruction of the originals will be speculative and tentative. For some reason, this upsets people in Biblical Textual Criticism far more than in the TC of (for example) Virgil. 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 May 14 01:27:42 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id BAA01325; Wed, 14 May 1997 01:27:41 -0400 Date: Wed, 14 May 1997 01:29:18 -0400 (EDT) From: Maurice Robinson To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Stephanus 1550 print edition? 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: 1693 On Tue, 13 May 1997, Scobie Smith wrote: > I'm looking for a print edition of the Stephanus 1550 NT. Does anyone > know if there is a reprint available, in or out of print? I realize > there is an electronic edition; I'm looking for a print edition on which > this was based. So far as I know, the closest printed edition to the original Stephens 1550 TR text which is currently available is that found in the Bagster/George Ricker Berry Interlinear. It claims to be Stephens 1550 with very minor differences, usually following Mill. Very close but not identical to the Oxford 1873 TR used as the basis for many collations. The electronic text form of that Stephens 1550 TR is that found in the Online Bible computer program, and corresponds exactly to the Berry printed edition. Other electronic versions of the Stephens 1550 TR text may vary due to typographical (e.g. the CCAT version) or other errors. Some electronic versions also may be based on an early version of the Online Bible Stephens 1550 TR text containing some typos which have long since been corrected. So far as I know, no other edition of Stephens 1550 is available in printed form. Fascicles of the Oxford 1873 TR do exist in print, but in what quantity or availability I do not know. If anyone knows of any other TR edition currently in print purporting to be the Stephens 1550 text, please inform the list. _________________________________________________________________________ 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 May 14 02:41:28 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id CAA01460; Wed, 14 May 1997 02:41:27 -0400 From: "Dr Johann Cook" Organization: University of Stellenbosch To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Wed, 14 May 1997 08:44:54 GMT+0200 Subject: Re: OTTC X-Confirm-Reading-To: "Dr Johann Cook" X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.40) Message-ID: <68490E54D32@SEMT.sun.ac.za> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 9147 > Date: Tue, 13 May 1997 09:19:30 -0500 (CDT) > To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu > From: "Robert B. Waltz" > Subject: Re: OTTC > Reply-to: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu > On Tue, 13 May 1997, "Dr Johann Cook" wrote, in > part: > > [ quoting Jimmy Adair: ] > > >> (1) Identity of the Original Text. First, on p. 19, in the second > >> paragraph, Norton raises the spectre of the "original text," which we have > >> frequently discussed on this list, but never dealing exclusively with the > >> text of the OT. He asks about the goal of textual criticism of the OT, > >> whether text critics are supposed to furnish the Hebrew text as it was > >> when canonized (although canonization was a process), or perhaps as it > >> existed at the beginnings of Christianity (although the early church was > >> more interested in the Greek translation, plus, as he mentions later, > >> Qumran demonstrates the diversity of Hebrew texts in existence in the > >> first century). After noting that the question of authorship of OT books > >> is more complex than identifying a single author, on p. 28 he asks, "Which > >> text is the critic to identify/reconstruct/conjecture? The text of the > >> first author? The text of the last major revisor? The text of the > >> community that accepted it? The community that decided to adopt one of > >> several simultaneously existing forms and passed it on?" On the > >> complexity of the question of authorship, interested people might want to > >> look at Michael Fishbane, _Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel_. > >> Fishbane says that the scribes who transmitted the Hebrew text were not > >> mere copyists, but were also editors with few compunctions (at least early > >> on) about modifying the text before them in the interest of clarifying the > >> meaning. In a situation like that, what is the "original text"? > > I can understand adopting some particular "canonical" text (e.g. the > MT or the text of first century Palestine). Or I can understand a quest > for the "original text" or the "final redacted text." > > It seems to me, though, that we rarely see any of these things. At least > in the translations. (I am not a Hebraist, so I cannot judge directly.) > Most versions, it appears to me, have sporadically eclectic texts. That > is, they follow the MT where it "makes sense," but will resort to the > versions or even to emendation where it does not. > > This strikes me as silly. Either the MT is *the* text, and should be > accepted without question, or we should apply the tools of TC at all > points, whether the MT makes sense or not. To put it another way, > the MT is either sacred or it isn't. It can't be sacred where it > makes sense and non-sacred elsewhere. > > Or so it seems to me. > > [ ... ] > > >> (3) Original Text or History of the Text? Only recently, Norton says, > >> have scholars begun the systematic collation of ancient versions and begun > >> to study the work of individual translators (i.e., the translation > >> technique) (p. 26). In regard to the varying texts of Jeremiah, he says, > >> "It is _inappropriate_ [emphasis mine] to try to reduce them to a single > >> text. Only now are we beginning to study each form in its own right, to > >> appreciate the theologies found there. It is surely anachronistic to > >> _value_ [emphasis mine] one more than the other because of a later > >> decision that included one form in the Hebrew canon rather than the > >> other!... We now wish to write a history of the transmission of the text > >> rather than to reconstruct originals" (p. 29). But why can't we do both? > >> Norton is clearly right that the history of transmission is a valid arena > >> of study, but is it really _inappropriate_ to try to construct earlier > >> forms of the text? It may not always be _possible_, but _inappropriate_ > >> is a word that reflects a value judgment. > > Hear Hear! I can't make a categorical statement on MT Jeremiah vs. > LXX B Jeremiah vs. LXX (majority) Jeremiah -- but there are a lot of > cases where LXX B *clearly* preserves a more primitive text. If nothing > else, by examining the evolution of this text we can see how Jewish > thought evolved (e.g. they clearly preferred to apply more and more > titles to God). > > [ ... ] > > >I for one am happy about this reaction. I tried some time ago to get > >OTTC's involved in a discussion about "local texts" as OTT's > >understand it. > > This may be my ignorance... but I don't recall ever reading about > any theories of "Local Texts" except that of Cross. (Which struck > me as slightly fishy, though, again, I don't know enough to tell.) > Are there others proposed? The existence of local texts (in > Palestine, Alexandrian, and Babylon, at least, and maybe for > a while at Elephantine also) would seem obvious -- but I've not > heard much about it. > > >As to Adair's first remark I am of the opinion that not only copyists > >of Hebrew texts were more than just "passive" copiers but also > >redactor/interpretors; this applies also to some Septuagint > >translators/copiers. I have just completed a monograph on LXX > >Proverbs that will be no 69 in VTS to be published by Brill, in which > >I argue that even the major order differences between MT (and all > >other texts) and LXX in the final chapters of Proverbs are the result > >of a translator who was thematically and "theologically" minded. I > >do'nt want to embroider here. I have written an article in JNSL > >21/2 (1995), 45-58 where I address this issue "Were the persons > >responsible for the Septuagint translators and/or scribes and/or > >editors". > > I'm willing to concede that some LXX translators were tendentious -- > but so what? Does that mean that we cannot study their underlying > text? Seems to me that a tendentious translation can still be useful > (e.g. the Gothic version has been accused of being Arian, but it > still offers us evidence about the history of the text). Or am > I missing the point? > > >I think we should acknowledge the fact that the translators/transmitters > >were intelligent, creative people. The Greek translator of Proverbs > >certainly understood his parent text. In many instances he actually > >wrote his own story! This clearly has implications for the textual > >criticism. As a generalising statement I think LXX Proverbs is less > >useful for textcritical purposes. > > This, it seems to me, is very similar to the debate about D in Acts. > If, as is at least possible, D is edited, what role should it play > in TC? If Proverbs is edited, what role should it play? I personally > agree that its role should be less -- but others do *not* feel that > way. > > -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- > > 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) > > > I do'nt understand why you want to work with the concept "sacred" in TC as far as MT goes. It is one, certainly very important, textual tradition. But the Vorlagen of the ancient versions are also important. They were at the least seen as "sacred" by their translators/transmitters. However, "sacred" apparently meant different things to different translators/transmitters. The Targumim, for example, in some instances paraphrased in order to defend the "sacredness"of the Hebrew. In my view this happened also in some LXX versions, inter alia Proverbs. The problem, however, is that it is extremely difficult to reconstruct the Vorlagen of these tententious versions. Hence my remark about the "low" value of LXX Proverbs for textual criticism. So, yes we have to study the Septuagint underlying texts, but in the case of paraphrased versions it is problematic, if not highly problematic. I found in my research of Septuagint Proverbs it a more "rewarding" excercise to concentrate FIRSTLY if not exclusively on the Greek text itself. The concept of local texts can be useful in some instances, as long as it is not used as a procrustean bed to solve textual problems. The example of the conspicious differences between Gen 1 in the MT and LXX comes to mind. The MT differs from LXX in passages reffering to the role of water in Gen 1 (verses 9, 20). I think the redactor(s) of MT actually adapted their Hebrew underlying text in order to underplay the role of water in the creation. This was done on account of contexual considerations. In the miliue where these redactors found themselves (Babylon?) water was seen as an active "participant" in the creation process. To the Septuagint translator of Gen 1 this apparently was no issue. So the LXX represents a more ancient Hebrew Vorlage! > 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 May 14 04:46:13 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id EAA01606; Wed, 14 May 1997 04:46:12 -0400 From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" Organization: Divinity Faculty To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Wed, 14 May 1997 09:46:10 +000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: OTTC Priority: normal In-reply-to: <68490E54D32@SEMT.sun.ac.za> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.52) Message-ID: <6F5A4F51C9@div.ed.ac.uk> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1889 I want to second two points made by Dr. Cook. First, it is a misguided inference to think that a "free" copying or translation of a text implies anything "low" about the esteem of the document being copied/translated. It is still the case that those who have the most exalted view of the significance of the Bible participate in translations that are among the most colloquial, free, paraphrastic, etc. This seems to be because often high regard for the biblical *text* goes hand in hand with a high estimate of one's *interpretation* of the text (obviously, this is not a necessary correlation, but a frequent one). So, one can copy the text, not so much in a "free" fashion from the standpoint of the copyist/translator, but in a fashion intended to make clear the meaning of the text and reduce chances of the text being "misused"/"misunderstood" etc (from the standpoint of the copyist/translator). Thus, e.g., the evident diversity in copying practices/approaches, and in citation protocols in 2nd-3rd cent. evidence has been often taken as evidence that the NT documents in question were not esteemed as "sacred" texts. This is a fallacy. It *might* be that given NT documents were not so esteemed, but the mere diversity of copying/citation practice is not itself evidence thereof. Second, as Dr. Cook stated re: the LXX, so in NT TC we have discovered that it is often much more difficult to retro-translate versional evidence back to recover underlying Greek readings. Translation practices in the ancient (as in the modern) world seem to have varied widely, and one cannot assume that the peculiarities of a version directly reflect the underlying characteristics of the Greek Vorlage. 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 May 14 07:47:23 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id HAA01750; Wed, 14 May 1997 07:47:23 -0400 From: jwevers@chass.utoronto.ca (John Wevers) Message-Id: <199705141146.HAA11560@chass.utoronto.ca> Subject: Re: OTTC To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Wed, 14 May 1997 07:46:38 -0400 (EDT) Cc: jwevers@chass.utoronto.ca (John Wevers) In-Reply-To: <6F5A4F51C9@div.ed.ac.uk> from "Professor L.W. Hurtado" at May 14, 97 09:46:10 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: 1789 I thoroughly enjoyed the sane remarks of Johann Cook and L. Hurtado on the LXX. I should like simply add from my own experience in collating versions for the books of the LXX Pentateuch. As is well-known the Goettingen LXX places the separate evidence of the versions in a Latin translation, thereby making two points: 1) that the evidence is problematic; what I mean is that it is much easier to hide the fact that one is uncertain as to the Greek text which underlies the version. And 2) that before one can effectively use versional evidence, it is absolutely essential that on first examine thoroughly just how a given translator works as well as how he regards his parent text. Whenever I went over to another translation, I would spend at least a couple weeks simply reading the version carefully and compare it with the Greek text. By that time I would have a feeling for the trnaslator's work, how he approached his task, the things he disregarded, etc. Only then would I start over at the beginning at 1:1 and actually collate in the collation books. There is a world of difference in the Ethiopic translator's approach to a given book than the Syrohexapla. The former is freer, more idiomatic, often rendering a word by doublets, whereas Syh was painfully, word for word in its approach. The former was more contextually oriented, the latter more isolate. Even being careful in this way, one discovers later that one has made mistakes, and would have liked to redo one's work. This became especially evident when I began writing Notes on the Greek text, and could review from an exegetical perspective the textual critical work I had done in the editions. -- John Wm Wevers Near and Middle Eastern Civilizations University of Toronto INTERNET: jwevers@chass.utoronto.ca From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed May 14 10:03:03 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA02285; Wed, 14 May 1997 10:03:02 -0400 Date: Wed, 14 May 1997 09:04:09 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <68490E54D32@SEMT.sun.ac.za> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: OTTC Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1441 On Wed, 14 May 1997, "Dr Johann Cook" wrote, in part: >I do'nt understand why you want to work with the concept "sacred" in >TC as far as MT goes. This wasn't what I was saying in my post. I was not saying the MT was sacred, merely that treating it as sacred is a logically consistent position. It is, after all, the official and accepted text of the Jews. To follow it at all costs can be justified. The same cannot be said for following the MT everywhere except where it seems to contain an error. Either the MT is a sacred and perfect text, or it is a human text which needs to be checked against all other available sources (LXX, the Qumran documents, etc.). My personal belief is that we should critically edit it. >I found in my research of Septuagint Proverbs it a more >"rewarding" excercise to concentrate FIRSTLY if not exclusively > on the Greek text itself. I'm willing to believe that. I think that a good rule for all versions: *Someone* has to work on them for their own sake, not just as a means to an end. But ultimately, we need to work on the end as well as the means. -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed May 14 10:23:30 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA02456; Wed, 14 May 1997 10:23:30 -0400 Date: Wed, 14 May 1997 10:23:29 -0400 (EDT) From: "James R. Adair" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Heb TC 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: 1781 On Tue, 13 May 1997, Matthew Johnson wrote: > On Mon, 12 May 1997, James R. Adair wrote: > > > "...We now wish to write a history of the transmission of the text > > rather than to reconstruct originals" (p. 29). But why can't we do both? > > But you answered this yourself a little before with your question: > > In a situation like that, what is the "original text"? > > So I would say the reason we cannot do both, at least at this point in time, > is that until we can write a fairly detailed history of the transmission of > the text, any reconstruction of the originals will be speculative and > tentative. For some reason, this upsets people in Biblical Textual > Criticism far more than in the TC of (for example) Virgil. I was quoting Norton, who referred to the "original text," and I obviously didn't state my position as clearly as I could have. I agree wholeheartedly that a fairly detailed history of the transmission of the text, including an in-depth study of the transmission technique of the various versions--book by book!--is a necessary prelude to reconstructing earlier phases of the text. Quite a bit of work has already been done of the LXX (though more is needed), and a little has been done on the other versions. I would avoid the term "original text" as problematic, and say instead that TC can concentrate on reconstructing "earlier forms" of the text. My point was that there are some who seem to suggest that the search for these earlier forms of the text is unnecessary and/or impossible. I disagree with that viewpoint. 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 May 14 10:37:54 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA02599; Wed, 14 May 1997 10:37:54 -0400 Date: Wed, 14 May 1997 10:37:53 -0400 (EDT) From: "James R. Adair" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: OTTC 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: 1126 On Wed, 14 May 1997, Robert B. Waltz wrote: > On Wed, 14 May 1997, "Dr Johann Cook" wrote, > in part: > > >I do'nt understand why you want to work with the concept "sacred" in > >TC as far as MT goes. > > This wasn't what I was saying in my post. I was not saying the MT was > sacred, merely that treating it as sacred is a logically consistent > position. It is, after all, the official and accepted text of the > Jews. To follow it at all costs can be justified. I agree with the point Bob is making here, but I think it needs to be clarified (as Johann Cook has also pointed out) that treating the MT as sacred is only justifiable on theological/dogmatic grounds, _not_ on text-critical grounds. While textual critics often hold particular theological positions, textual criticism _as a discipline_ should not treat one text as superior to another on the basis of theological beliefs. 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 May 14 17:32:28 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA04110; Wed, 14 May 1997 17:32:27 -0400 Date: Wed, 14 May 1997 17:32:27 -0400 (EDT) From: "James R. Adair" To: TC List Subject: Hebrew Bibles (fwd) 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: 1186 Does anyone on the list know the answer to this query? 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 <----------------- ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 14 May 1997 14:26:39 PDT From: marc bauer To: jadair@emory.edu Cc: mbauer@ugf.edu, kolobodactylus@hotmail.com mr. adair, do you know anyone that is able to tell me the difference between the stone creek tanakh and the bhs3? more specifically how similar are the texts and the critical apparati. i would prefer some one on the net and the answer isn't urgent tonite but i would like to know the difference. the stone creek tanakh as you probably know is by mesorah press in nj. any help on this would be greatly appreciated. my member number with sbl is b00472. my address in the file is in the cc section here as is the originating address. thanks again. marc. --------------------------------------------------------- Get Your *Web-Based* Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com --------------------------------------------------------- From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed May 14 17:35:29 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA04140; Wed, 14 May 1997 17:35:29 -0400 Date: 14 May 97 23:37:33 +0200 Subject: Meaning of an abbreviation please! 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: 1093 Hello all! Back on the list after a few days of silence (we have moved and are now back in the syriac area of Brussels!) I had the chance to find, in a second-hand bookstore, the first volume of Tischendorf's Editio octava maior. As I'm studying a variant, i find the abbreviations are quite complex. Now, if someone is familiar with them, I would like to know the meaning of one, in order to consult it in context. It's in Luke 7.47 and the abbreviation is "Ir-int-213" ("int" and "213" are superscript). I suppose it's about Irenaeus, but further, what's this reference supposed to mean? Thanks for your help! Jean V. --------------------------------------------------------- Jean Valentin - Brussels - Belgium --------------------------------------------------------- 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" --------------------------------------------------------- From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed May 14 18:22:49 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA04284; Wed, 14 May 1997 18:22:49 -0400 Date: Wed, 14 May 1997 17:23:40 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <199705142223.RAA01830@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: Meaning of an abbreviation please! Cc: jgvalentin@arcadis.be Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1839 Jean, The comprehensive list of Tischendorf's abbreviations is in vol. III, the Prolegomena compiled by C.R. Gregory. In this case, see pp. 1199-1200. "Ir" is Irenaeus, as you suspected. For "int" Gregory writes: "int: versio vetus Latina Irenaei vel exeunte saeculo secundo vel, quam amant opinionem Westcottus Hortiusque, saeculo quarto facta." Numbers (e.g., "213") usually indicate a page number; according to Gregory, Tischendorf cited the page numbers of the edition of Irenaeus's works published by Massuet (Paris, 1712); Gregory also says that the page numbers of Massuet's edition are noted in the later editions of Stieren and Harvey. Mike Holmes Bethel College At 11:37 PM 5/14/97 +0200, you wrote: >Hello all! > >Back on the list after a few days of silence (we have moved and are now >back in the syriac area of Brussels!) >I had the chance to find, in a second-hand bookstore, the first volume of >Tischendorf's Editio octava maior. As I'm studying a variant, i find the >abbreviations are quite complex. Now, if someone is familiar with them, I >would like to know the meaning of one, in order to consult it in context. >It's in Luke 7.47 and the abbreviation is "Ir-int-213" ("int" and "213" are >superscript). I suppose it's about Irenaeus, but further, what's this >reference supposed to mean? >Thanks for your help! > >Jean V. > >--------------------------------------------------------- >Jean Valentin - Brussels - Belgium >--------------------------------------------------------- >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" >--------------------------------------------------------- > > > > From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed May 14 21:52:29 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA04585; Wed, 14 May 1997 21:52:28 -0400 Date: Wed, 14 May 1997 21:54:07 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: New Journal Up X-Sender: jwest@mail.highland.net (Unverified) To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970514215147.2df72330@mail.highland.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: 463 Colleagues, the recently announced "Journal of Biblical Studies" is online. The URL is http://web.infoave.net/~jwest/index.htm There are currently 2 articles with more to be added soon. Submissions are heartily encouraged. This is YOUR Journal. Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Pastor, Petros Baptist Church Managing Editor, "The Journal of Biblical Studies" at http://web.infoave.net/~jwest/index.htm (submissions welcome!) jwest@highland.net From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu May 15 02:11:21 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id CAA04954; Thu, 15 May 1997 02:11:20 -0400 From: "Dr Johann Cook" Organization: University of Stellenbosch To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Thu, 15 May 1997 08:15:25 GMT+0200 Subject: Re: OTTC X-Confirm-Reading-To: "Dr Johann Cook" X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.40) Message-ID: <69C13C53268@SEMT.sun.ac.za> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2236 > Date: Wed, 14 May 1997 09:04:09 -0500 (CDT) > To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu > From: "Robert B. Waltz" > Subject: Re: OTTC > Reply-to: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu > On Wed, 14 May 1997, "Dr Johann Cook" wrote, > in part: > > >I do'nt understand why you want to work with the concept "sacred" in > >TC as far as MT goes. > > This wasn't what I was saying in my post. I was not saying the MT was > sacred, merely that treating it as sacred is a logically consistent > position. It is, after all, the official and accepted text of the > Jews. To follow it at all costs can be justified. > > The same cannot be said for following the MT everywhere except where > it seems to contain an error. Either the MT is a sacred and perfect > text, or it is a human text which needs to be checked against all > other available sources (LXX, the Qumran documents, etc.). > > My personal belief is that we should critically edit it. > I am also of the opinion that we should now endeavour to create eclectic Hebrew texts as is done in the Goettingen edition (Johann Cook). > >I found in my research of Septuagint Proverbs it a more > >"rewarding" excercise to concentrate FIRSTLY if not exclusively > > on the Greek text itself. > > I'm willing to believe that. I think that a good rule for all > versions: *Someone* has to work on them for their own sake, not > just as a means to an end. > > But ultimately, we need to work on the end as well as the means. > Studying the versions an sich, for their own sake renders insights on the individual version that can be utilised to fill in the broader picture (Johann Cook). > > -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- > > 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) > > > > 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 Thu May 15 22:36:19 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA09060; Thu, 15 May 1997 22:36:18 -0400 Date: Thu, 15 May 1997 21:37:48 -0500 (CDT) From: "Ronald L. Minton" X-Sender: rminton@orionc0 To: Vincent Broman cc: Textual Criticism list Subject: Re: student project In-Reply-To: <19970515203956.29727.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: 869 On 15 May 1997, Vincent Broman wrote: > > Ronald L. Minton > > You wrote in January: > > My students have helped me make a table (one 500 page chart) of all the > > variants listed in HF1&2, UBS3&4, NA26&27. > > You projected a march completion date for this. > How close are you to finishing? We did run into unexpected problems. Two people both managed to loose the only copies of Matthew - Luke. I have now made sure we have extra backup copies. We are having the rest tested in a database this week and next. I will post next week as to the success or failure of what we are doing, and I hope to be able to share some results. Troy Roberts, I hope you are listening. Your grade depends on the results :) -- 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 May 16 06:38:38 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id GAA09469; Fri, 16 May 1997 06:38:38 -0400 Message-ID: From: "DC PARKER" Organization: Fac of Arts:The Univ. of Birmingham To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Fri, 16 May 1997 10:08:15 GMT Subject: Re: postgraduate courses Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.01) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 955 Anybody who is considering pursuing studies in textual and manuscript studies may be interested to know of the courses that we offer at the University of Birmingham. The M.A. in Biblical Studies is a 1 year course, with particular emphasis on language and text studies. We offer the opportunity for this taught course, and for research degrees to Masters or doctoral level, specialising in text and MSS studies of the Hebrew Bible, including Qumran, the LXX, etc. New Testament textual criticism, MS studies and palaeography, including the early versions Syriac versional and patristic studies Opportunities to learn relevant languages - in addition to the Greek, Hebrew and Latin, we are running courses this year in Syriac and Armenian. Synoptic Gospels studies Further details or queries may be addressed to me. DC PARKER DEPT OF THEOLOGY UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM TEL. 0121-414 3613 FAX 0121-414 6866 E-MAIL PARKERDC@M4-ARTS.BHAM.AC.UK From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri May 16 10:32:43 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA09883; Fri, 16 May 1997 10:32:42 -0400 Date: Fri, 16 May 1997 10:32:41 -0400 (EDT) From: "James R. Adair" To: TC List Subject: t-c study opportunities 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: 1102 David Parker's recent post to the list has given me the idea of creating a TC page with pointers to other Web pages that contain information about courses of study offered by colleges, universities, and seminaries in the area of biblical textual criticism. If those of you on the list whose institutions offer courses and/or degree programs in the field could supply the information, I think it would be a great service to others on the list and to the scholarly community as a whole. Of course I would prefer links to pre-existing Web pages on your university server that discuss the opportunities to study textual criticism, or perhaps you can have some aspiring student (or one who needs a little extra credit!) create the page and send me the link information. However, I am willing to tag the information myself if need be (and maybe I can get some volunteers from the list to help). 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 May 16 11:44:24 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA10472; Fri, 16 May 1997 11:44:23 -0400 Message-ID: <337D09A1.7A84@sn.no> Date: Fri, 16 May 1997 18:28:01 -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: computer-problems 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: 484 Hi, I wonder if a few persons could inform me whether or not they regularly=20 find some errors in my messages to the list (I=B4m not talking about=20 tc-errors or errors of logic, but technical ones!)!?? Some have informed me that my messages to the list are disturbed by the=20 repeated occurrence of the =3D sign and the number "20". I was sent a=20 sample of one of my messages and it was hard to read the message because=20 of it! Thanks in advance --=20 - Mr. Helge Evensen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri May 16 14:22:13 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA12052; Fri, 16 May 1997 14:22:13 -0400 From: MICHAEL.KENNEDY@avnet.com Message-Id: Date: Friday, 16 May 1997 11:14am PT To: 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: 1745 I am new to the list. I've been enjoying the lively converstation of the list: the good, the bad and the ugly! I am currently taking a Hebrew exegesis class on the Psalms. This week while translating Psalm two, I came across a textual difficulty at verse 12. I am writing from memory, but this is how I remember the issue: The readings are usually "Kiss the son" (BHS, RSV, NIV) / "Kiss the feet (NRSV) / "Kiss purely" (LXX and most early versions). I have read Craigie's & H-J Kraus' commentaries on this psalm. So far I have found Craigie's to be the most convincing argument. He pointed out that the use of Aramaic loan word _bar_ is problematic. However he favors this rendering because of the dissonance in using the Heb "ben," thus the text would read "_ben_pen_." More importantly Craigie chose the MT pointing because the Aramaic _bar_ in 2:12 is written to the foreign nations, not to Israel. However, much support outside of the MT exists for the reading of "Kiss purely"(a repointing of the consonants _br_ to _bor_). What I found highly conjectural, and which I present to the group, is the NRSVs "Kiss the feet." Support for this rendering is found in H-J Kraus' psalms commentary. He takes several consonants at the start of the verse, transposes them to the end of _bar_, thus making "feet." While this emendation of the text is possible, I am not persuaded since the plain reading of bor/bar is workable. I was surprised that the NRSV translators favored "feet." Any recommended articles dealing with this text would be welcomed. I am a newbie to Heb TC and would also appreciate recommendations as how to choose between variants in OTTC. Mike Kennedy M.A. student at Fuller Theological Seminary (Phoenix, AZ extension) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri May 16 14:29:54 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA12183; Fri, 16 May 1997 14:29:53 -0400 Date: Fri, 16 May 1997 14:30:57 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: Ps 2 X-Sender: jwest@mail.highland.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970516142830.2d478776@mail.highland.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: 1664 At 11:14 AM 5/16/97 PT, you wrote: >What I found highly conjectural, and which I present to the group, is the >NRSVs "Kiss the feet." Support for this rendering is found in H-J Kraus' >psalms commentary. He takes several consonants at the start of the verse, >transposes them to the end of _bar_, thus making "feet." While this emendation >of the text is possible, I am not persuaded since the plain reading of bor/bar >is workable. I was surprised that the NRSV translators favored "feet." Any >recommended articles dealing with this text would be welcomed. > I suspect that Kraus is correct. What he does is recognize the confusion that scribes demonstrate and he corrects that confusion by a most appropriate emendation. Though the printed Hebrew text is easy enough to read, the written text is not quite so easy. "he" and "cheth" are virtually indistinguishable (in the DSS for instance). So though Kraus' emendation may seem hasty- a glance at the handwritten texts may go a long way in deciding on emendation of a printed text. >I am a newbie to Heb TC and would also appreciate recommendations as how to >choose between variants in OTTC. > See Tov's most excellent book on the subject. His work is "top of the line"; his methods are sound, and he is quite skilful in presenting his material. > >Mike Kennedy > >M.A. student at Fuller Theological Seminary (Phoenix, AZ extension) > (I grew up in Phoenix- hot there now, isn't it!!!) Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Pastor, Petros Baptist Church Managing Editor, "The Journal of Biblical Studies" at http://web.infoave.net/~jwest/index.htm (submissions welcome!) jwest@highland.net From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri May 16 17:16:44 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA13822; Fri, 16 May 1997 17:16:43 -0400 From: MICHAEL.KENNEDY@avnet.com Message-Id: Date: Friday, 16 May 1997 1:03pm PT To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Ps 2 In-Reply-To: The letter of Friday, 16 May 1997 11:33am PT Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1139 > > (I grew up in Phoenix- hot there now, isn't it!!!) > > Thanks Jim for you response. (Yes, it's beginning to get warm. Just moved here from Pasadena, CA and bracing myself for a blistering Summer.) > > I suspect that Kraus is correct. What he does is recognize the confusion that scribes demonstrate and he corrects that confusion by a most appropriate emendation. Though the printed Hebrew text is easy enough to read, the written text is not quite so easy. "he" and "cheth" are virtually indistinguishable (in the DSS for instance). So though Kraus' emendation may seem hasty- a glance at the handwritten texts may go a long way in deciding on emendation of a printed text. > > In fairness to Kraus, I need to re-read his whole argument - which I will do. I had not thought about the the fact that handwritten texts may add complexity to the process of translation. Thanks for bringing up that point. When I do some additional reading on 2.12, I'll keep that point in mind. > > See Tov's most excellent book on the subject. > > Thanks for the recommendation. I've been meaning to purchase his book for quite some time. Mike From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri May 16 17:41:04 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA14032; Fri, 16 May 1997 17:41:03 -0400 From: MICHAEL.KENNEDY@avnet.com Message-Id: Date: Friday, 16 May 1997 2:40pm PT To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu.INET Subject: Re: Ps 2 In-Reply-To: The letter of Friday, 16 May 1997 2:21pm PT Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 502 IN my haste to answer I said: >>>> >> In fairness to Kraus, I need to re-read his whole argument - which I will do. I had not thought about the the fact that handwritten texts may add complexity to the process of translation. Thanks for bringing up that point. When I do some additional reading on 2.12, I'll keep that point in mind. >> > > Actually, I should have said that handwritten texts add complexity first to the process of restoration of the text; secondarily, is the concern for translaton. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat May 17 08:10:58 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA14878; Sat, 17 May 1997 08:10:58 -0400 X-Sender: martin.gutekunst@paonline.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: Martin Gutekunst Subject: Re: t-c study opportunities Date: Sat, 17 May 1997 07:59:30 -0400 Message-Id: <199705171159.0578600@paonline.com> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 458 At 10:32 AM 5/16/97 -0400, you wrote: >David Parker's recent post to the list has given me the idea of creating a >TC page with pointers to other Web pages that contain information about >courses of study offered by colleges, universities, and seminaries in the >area of biblical textual criticism. Sounds great to me! I've been trying to find such sights as well. Martin P. Gutekunst martin.gutekunst@paonline.com martin_gutekunst.parti@ecunet.org From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat May 17 10:47:51 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA15054; Sat, 17 May 1997 10:47:51 -0400 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199705171159.0578600@paonline.com> References: Conversation <199705171159.0578600@paonline.com> with last message <199705171159.0578600@paonline.com> Priority: Normal X-Msmail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 From: "Dave Washburn" Subject: Re: t-c study opportunities Date: Sat, 17 May 97 08:50:15 MDT 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: 533 ---------- > At 10:32 AM 5/16/97 -0400, you wrote: > >David Parker's recent post to the list has given me the idea of creating a > >TC page with pointers to other Web pages that contain information about > >courses of study offered by colleges, universities, and seminaries in the > >area of biblical textual criticism. If there are any places that offer online or otherwise off-site courses of this type, those would be nice to know about, as well. Dave Washburn http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur/ dwashbur@nyx.net Feel the music. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat May 17 16:03:05 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA16735; Sat, 17 May 1997 16:03:04 -0400 Date: Sat, 17 May 1997 16:04:13 -0400 From: "Harold P. Scanlin" Subject: Hebrew Bibles (fwd) To: TC-List Message-ID: <199705171604_MC2-16D1-1F25@compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 549 If the "stone creek" edition Bauer is asking about is actually the "Stone= " edition the Bible text is essentially that of the Rabbinic Bible(s). The= re is no apparatus except for the usual notations of Rabbinic Bibles, kethiv-qere, open and closed sections, etc. BHS3 (presumably Stittgartensia, 3rd edition; not the earler BH3, edited by Kahle) is, of course, essentially codex Leningradensis with textual variants given in t= he apparatus. . Harold P. Scanlin United Bible Societies 1865 Broadway New York, NY 10023 New York, NY 10023 = From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat May 17 18:37:27 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA16987; Sat, 17 May 1997 18:37:27 -0400 Date: Sat, 17 May 1997 18:39:09 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Call for essays X-Sender: jwest@mail.highland.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970517183638.21e7756e@mail.highland.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: 954 Colleagues, Many of you have been very kind to offer suggestions as to the content of the new "Journal of Biblical Studies". For that I am grateful. As a result of your suggestions I have made some editorial changes. These changes are intended to insure that the quality of material made available in JBS is of the highest quality. Thus, in an effort to secure articles of excellence I am once more communicating to you an open call for essays. Articles submitted to JBS will be evaluated by an editor and if suitable will be posted on the Web page which serves as home to the Journal. Thanks for your help in making JBS a success. (to the webmasters among you- please consider creating a link to JBS on your home page). Sincerely, Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Pastor, Petros Baptist Church Managing Editor, "The Journal of Biblical Studies" at http://web.infoave.net/~jwest/index.htm (submissions welcome!) jwest@highland.net From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat May 17 18:51:46 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA17014; Sat, 17 May 1997 18:51:46 -0400 Date: Sat, 17 May 1997 18:52:44 -0400 (EDT) From: Bart Ehrman X-Sender: behrman@login5.isis.unc.edu To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Call for essays In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970517183638.21e7756e@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: 1185 Jim, Who are the editors who will be doing the evaluations? -- Bart Ehrman University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill On Sat, 17 May 1997, Jim West wrote: > Colleagues, > > Many of you have been very kind to offer suggestions as to the content of > the new "Journal of Biblical Studies". For that I am grateful. As a result > of your suggestions I have made some editorial changes. These changes are > intended to insure that the quality of material made available in JBS is of > the highest quality. > > Thus, in an effort to secure articles of excellence I am once more > communicating to you an open call for essays. Articles submitted to JBS > will be evaluated by an editor and if suitable will be posted on the Web > page which serves as home to the Journal. > > Thanks for your help in making JBS a success. > > (to the webmasters among you- please consider creating a link to JBS on your > home page). > > Sincerely, > > Jim > > +++++++++++++++++++++++ > Jim West, ThD > Pastor, Petros Baptist Church > Managing Editor, "The Journal of Biblical Studies" at > http://web.infoave.net/~jwest/index.htm > (submissions welcome!) > > jwest@highland.net > > From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat May 17 18:55:31 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA17034; Sat, 17 May 1997 18:55:30 -0400 Date: Sat, 17 May 1997 18:57:13 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: Call for essays X-Sender: jwest@mail.highland.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970517185442.0c87794c@mail.highland.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: 560 At 06:52 PM 5/17/97 -0400, you wrote: >Jim, > > Who are the editors who will be doing the evaluations? > Please see the homepage- at the bottom are the editors and their email addresses. Thanks, Jim (here's the URL) >> Managing Editor, "The Journal of Biblical Studies" at >> http://web.infoave.net/~jwest/index.htm >> (submissions welcome!) > +++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Pastor, Petros Baptist Church Managing Editor, "The Journal of Biblical Studies" at http://web.infoave.net/~jwest/index.htm (submissions welcome!) jwest@highland.net From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun May 18 15:26:27 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA18044; Sun, 18 May 1997 15:26:26 -0400 Message-ID: <337F747D.1891@online.no> Date: Sun, 18 May 1997 21:28:29 +0000 From: Rolf Furuli X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Macintosh; I; PPC) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: RE: The tetragrammaton and the Septuagint 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: 2632 Dear list-members To the best of my knowledge there is no example of KURIOS as a substitute for the tetragrammaton in any LXX-fragments or LXX-like fragments before the middle of the first century CE. But we find the tetragrammaton in Old Hebrew or Aramaic script, as IAW or in a few cases we find just a blank space. In 1984 A Pietersma wrote the well reasoned article "Kyrios or Tetragram: A Renewed Quest for the Original Septuagint" (De Septuaginta Studies in Honor of John William Wevers on his sixty-fifth birthday). He argued that the many cases of Twi KURIWi as a translation of LEYHWH in the Pentateuch must be original, because, if the tetragrammaton was originally in the Greek text, there was no way for the later scribe to know when the Hebrew text had YHWH and LEYHWH. He argued further that the original translators used KURIOS both for ´ADONAI and for YHWH. Both points have been contradicted by the publication of the Greek manuscripts among the DSS. (Emanuel Tov, 1990,The Greek Minor Prophets Scroll from Nahal Hever) Mica 1:2 in 8HevXIIgr has KURIOS + the tetragrammaton in old Hebrew for `ADONAI + the tetragrammaton (see pp 33,85), suggesting that KURIOS was seen as a substitute for `ADONAI and not for the tetragrammaton. In Sef 1:17 we find a part of the tetragrammaton, probably with TWi before it (p 61), and in Sak 9:1 we find TWi + the tetragrammaton (p 77). Because of these finds, it seems to me that Pietersma´s arguments strongly speak for the opposite of what was his intention, and also speak against Stegemann and Skehan who suggested that IAW was the original substitution, then came the tetragrammatons in Aramaic script and lastly those in Old Hebrew scripts. IAW is a phonetic transcription indicating pronunciation. Nobody would write TWi IAW for LEYHWH, so how could the later scribes know when to write TWi + the tetragrammaton or TWi + KURIWi? The most likely explanation, which also has support in the datings of the manuscripts, is that the original LXX contained one of the tetragrammatons and that IAW came later, or that all three forms were used simultaneously. The consequence of this view is that the tetragrammaton was pronounced in certain circles longer than is usually believed. My questions to the list are: (1) Are there any Greek fragments before the middle of the first century CE which most likely or probably have KURIOS as a substitute for the tetragrammaton? (2) Are there any scientific articles written after 1984 arguing in this direction? Regards Rolf Rolf Furuli Ph.D candidate in Semitic languages University of Oslo From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun May 18 15:30:46 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA18061; Sun, 18 May 1997 15:30:46 -0400 Message-ID: <337F7582.B11@online.no> Date: Sun, 18 May 1997 21:32:50 +0000 From: Rolf Furuli X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Macintosh; I; PPC) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Search for Syriac Bible 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: 238 Does anyone know where I can buy a copy of the Peshitta in Eastern Syraic (Nestorian) script? One edition of interest was published in 4 volumes (Beyruth 1951) Biblia Sacra Juxta Versionem Simplicem quæ dicitur PSCHITTA. Regards Rolf From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun May 18 18:31:49 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA18277; Sun, 18 May 1997 18:31:49 -0400 Date: 18 May 97 23:51:36 +0200 Subject: Re: Search for Syriac Bible 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=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: 906 > Does anyone know where I can buy a copy of the Peshitta in Eastern > Syraic (Nestorian) script? One edition of interest was published in 4 > volumes (Beyruth 1951) Biblia Sacra Juxta Versionem Simplicem qu=E6 > dicitur PSCHITTA. > The TBS has a reprint of the Urmiah Old Testament in Eastern Syriac script. As to the Beyrouth edition, I've also been searching it for years now. It seems to be out of print. --------------------------------------------------------- Jean Valentin - Brussels - Belgium --------------------------------------------------------- email : jgvalentin@arcadis.be /// netmail : 2:291/780.103 ---------------------------------------------------------On Dim 18 Mai 1997 "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" --------------------------------------------------------- From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon May 19 06:05:19 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id GAA18815; Mon, 19 May 1997 06:05:19 -0400 From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" Organization: Divinity Faculty To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 11:03:24 +000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: RE: The tetragrammaton and the Septuagint Priority: normal In-reply-to: <337F747D.1891@online.no> 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: 2797 Rolf Furuli writes: (in part) >Nobody would write TWi IAW for > LEYHWH, so how could the later scribes know when to write TWi + the > tetragrammaton or TWi + KURIWi? The most likely explanation, which > also has support in the datings of the manuscripts, is that the > original LXX contained one of the tetragrammatons and that IAW came > later, or that all three forms were used simultaneously. The > consequence of this view is that the tetragrammaton was pronounced in I> certain circles longer than is usually believed. For a few years now I too have been very interested in the textual handling of YHWH and other divine names in Jewish and Christian texts, particularly looking at the Christian "nomina sacra" and their antecedents, analogies, etc. I agree that the DSS materials now "help" us to see an earlier stage of copying. But it is not so clear to me that all the inferences you draw are necessary or even correct. Particularly, you inference that the presence of the tetragram in biblical texts = pronunciation of it in Hebrew when the text was read (aloud). In fact, the writing of YHWH in palaeo-Heb characters, and in Greek biblical texts n.b., suggests to me a purely *scribal* phenomenon, intended to flag the word & set it apart, most likely to remind the readers *not* to pronounce the word in Hebrew but to use a substitute. See now J. R. Royse, "Philo, Kyrios, and the Tetragrammaton," _The Studia Philonica Annual, Vol. 3_, ed. D. T. Runia (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991), 167-83, who argues (a) that Philo must have read biblical texts with YHWH in palaeo-Heb or square Heb characters, and (b) that Philo probably pronounced the word as "kyrios" in his reading of these mss. Note that in some DSS texts, the Hebrew "El" (used with ref. to God) is also sometimes written in palaeo-Heb characters (e.g., 1QH 1:26; 2:34; 7:5; 15:25). Josephus (Ant 12:89) refers to Heb biblical mss with gold characters, probably reserved for YHWH, and Aristea 176 may refer to the same thing. Origen (Psalmos 2:2) refers to the Jewish practice of pronouncing Adonay (in Heb.) or Kyrios (Greek) when reading the scriptures, and also refes to Jews writing YHWH in archaic Heb characters in biblical scrolls. > My questions to the list are: (1) Are there any Greek fragments before > the middle of the first century CE which most likely or probably have > KURIOS as a substitute for the tetragrammaton? (2) Are there any > scientific articles written after 1984 arguing in this direction? > > Regards > Rolf > > > Rolf Furuli > Ph.D candidate in Semitic languages > University of Oslo > 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 May 19 07:10:07 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id HAA18923; Mon, 19 May 1997 07:10:06 -0400 Message-ID: <338051AB.570B@online.no> Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 13:12:11 +0000 From: Rolf Furuli X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Macintosh; I; PPC) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: RE: The tetragrammaton and the Septuagint 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: 273 A correction of my post yesterday. I wrote that nobody would write TWi IAW for LYHWH. This is wrong. In pap4QLXXLevb (P.W. Skehan et al, 1992, Discoveries in the Judean Desert IX, Qumran cave 4 IV) we find the following verses which have LYHWH in the Masoretic text: From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon May 19 09:29:15 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA19306; Mon, 19 May 1997 09:29:15 -0400 Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 09:29:14 -0400 (EDT) From: "James R. Adair" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: RE: The tetragrammaton and the Septuagint In-Reply-To: <337F747D.1891@online.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: 1324 On Sun, 18 May 1997, Rolf Furuli wrote: > My questions to the list are: (1) Are there any Greek fragments before > the middle of the first century CE which most likely or probably have > KURIOS as a substitute for the tetragrammaton? (2) Are there any > scientific articles written after 1984 arguing in this direction? This is a very interesting question. Traditional wisdom has it that the NT writers used KURIOS in their translations of the OT (as well as in their own compositions when referring to God) because that's the rendering they found in their LXX Vorlagen. However, if the use of KURIOS for translating YHWH was not common in LXX mss before the middle of the first century, how do we explain the NT writers' universal practice? Is it possible that the use of KURIOS for YHWH was either a Christian innovation or, more probably, heavily promoted by Christian scribes (like the codex)? If so, it would explain why most LXX mss now extant, which presumably were transmitted by Christians (?), use KURIOS. I, too, would be interested to know of any earlier documented uses of KURIOS for YHWH. 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 May 19 09:49:15 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA19457; Mon, 19 May 1997 09:49:14 -0400 From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" Organization: Divinity Faculty To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 14:49:31 +000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: RE: The tetragrammaton and the Septuagint Priority: normal References: <337F747D.1891@online.no> 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: 1398 Both in Hebrew and in Greek in the late 2nd temple period, there is strong evidence of an avoidance of the pronunciation of YHWH and the use of oral substitutes. N.B., the Greek of Lev. 24:16 translates "blaspheming the name" as "pronouncing the name". In the phenomenology of ancient Jewish reading (and reading was always aloud, whether private or public), we have to distinguish between the text and the spoken, the "kerey" and the "ketey". The association of Jesus with the divine/divine name must be amazingly early. N.B., e.g., John 12:41, where Isaiah's vision of Isa 6 is said to have been a vision of the glorious Christ. Isa 6 makes it clear that Isaish saw "YHWH" (Heb) "ho Kyrios" (LXX). So the "reading" of this passage as referring to Jesus must have preceded the Gospel of John. I have a paper read at the 96 SBL on the nomina sacra (now being prepared for publication) which adverts to some relevant data. The sacred abbreviations of "Iesous", "theos", "kyrios" and "Christos" must go back to the lst cent., and as I argue (with new arguments in support of a suggestion from Colin Roberts) the whole process of these sacred abbreviations probably began with special treatment of the name "Iesous". 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 May 19 12:34:17 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA20259; Mon, 19 May 1997 12:34:17 -0400 Message-ID: <33809D09.2D3E@online.no> Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 18:33:45 +0000 From: Rolf Furuli X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Macintosh; I; PPC) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: RE: The tetragrammaton and the Septuagint 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: 4587 L W Hurtado wrote, Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA21114; Mon, 19 May 1997 15:39:28 -0400 Message-ID: <33810EE9.1403@sn.no> Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 19:39:37 -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: computer problems 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: 311 Thanks to all of you that have come up with suggestions for the solution of my computer problems. If anyone will bother, I would appreciate if those who have received disturbed messages could have informed me whenever the problem stops showing on your computers. Thanks in advance -- - Mr. Helge Evensen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon May 19 17:14:20 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA21938; Mon, 19 May 1997 17:14:20 -0400 Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 16:15:59 -0500 X-Sender: ljgrn@bluejay.creighton.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: ljgrn@creighton.edu (Leonard Greenspoon) Subject: New book for tc reviewing Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 457 I just just received the following book, for TC review. If you are interested--and willing to prepare a review in a TIMELY manner--let me know as soon as possible. A number of TC regulars were involved in this volume; naturally, these individuals would not make appropriate reviewers (or, at least, that's natural to me): D. C. Parker and C.-B. Amphoux, eds. CODEX BEZAE: STUDIES FROM T HE LUNEL COLLOQUIUM, JUNE 1994 (BRILL, 1996) Thanks, Leonard From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue May 20 05:29:14 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id FAA22888; Tue, 20 May 1997 05:29:13 -0400 From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" Organization: Divinity Faculty To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Tue, 20 May 1997 10:25:58 +000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: Quoted-printable Subject: RE: The tetragrammaton and the Septuagint Priority: normal In-reply-to: <33809D09.2D3E@online.no> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.52) Message-ID: <10009430F2A@div.ed.ac.uk> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 5875 In response to my posting on the use of the Tetragrammaton & substitutes, Rolf Furuli wrote: > I am very interested in the evidence you mention. Let me ask some > questions: > > (1) Lev 24:16. What is the oldest manuscript evidence for the > rendering of ONOMAZW ? We know that T was used in magical spells. Can > we exclude this meaning from the verb (cf Acts 19:13)? Certainly not. I suspect myself that the whole idea of proscribing the pronunciation of YHWH was mainly directed against "magical" use of the name, and that "onomazo" in the LXX of Lev 24:16 may reflect this. Then, perhaps fairly quickly, from this concern developed the piety-practice of refraining from pronunciation altogether, in order to "build a hedge about the Torah"(to use an expression of rabbinic times, though the general sentiment may well be earlier) >It is less > than clear what was the meaning of the verse in different circles. And > most important: Why did not the rabbis use Lev 24:16 as a prooftext > for the non-pronunciation of T? Their text was Ex 3:15, the text which > most strongly says that one should never cease pronouncing the name. Can't say, myself. Yes, practice & pety probably varied across different Jewish groups and certainly across time in these early centuries. > I agree with you that the mere presence of the tetragrammaton in a > manuscript does not prove it was pronounced, but: > > (2) Can we infer from the way pap4QLXXLevb and 8HevXIIgr render L in > connection with T and other factors that these Manuscripts used a Heb. > Vorlage and that T or IAW originally were written in the LXX? Quite possible, I guess. Don't really know. But Pietersma's argument is that the practice of "archaization" of biblical mss (by re-introducing the Tet. in Heb. characters and/or giving a Greek transliteration) began in the 2nd cent BC or so (as part of the nativist Jewish reaction against forced hellenization efforts under the Seleucids). So, it's possible that the DSS biblical texts reflect this re-Hebraizing and that earlier Greek mss might have had Greek translations of YHWH (e.g., as kyrios or despotes, etc.). I agree that P.'s argument remains unverifiable and unfalsifiable unless we come across 3rd cent. BC bib. texts. > (2) Do we have evidence from the third century BC that any group > refrained from pronouncing T? (I only know about the case of Simon the > Just from 200 where the evidence is ambiguous) I haven't made this a particular topic of investigation, so I can't really say how strong the evidence is for pronunciation/non-pronunciation as Jewish piety of that time. > (3) If evidence of non-pronunciation is lacking and T and/or IAW > occurred in the translated manuscripts of LXX, is not the most logical > conclusion that the name was pronounced? Is not pronunciation the very > reason why we make phonetic transcriptions? No. The writing of YHWH in *archaic* Hebrew characters, and the fact that in at least some Greek mss the Hebrew YHWH seems to have been written by a scribe different from the one who copied the Greek, suggest that the written "sign" YHWH was a "scribal/visual" artefact, not to be read out, but in fact intended to alert readers to do the opposite. (In fact, I want to record the possibility that the use of palaeo--Heb characters may be a Jewish adaptation of the use of foreign/exotic characters or signs "characteres" attested in magical amulets [See C. Bonner, _Magical Amulets- 12, 194-95]) The presence of IAO is perhaps another matter, though not necessarily. [By the way, on Greek vocalizations of YHWH, see Deissmann, "Greek Transcriptions of the Tetragrammaton," in _Bible Studies_ (ET; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1901), 321-36.] > (4) Moving to the second and first centuries BC, do we find any > evidence that `ADONAY or KURIOS was pronounced instead of T? The evidence of Philo is I think important, both in being a diaspora source, and in dating from the late lst cent BC or early lst cent. AD. >Does not > the fact the Job Targum from the first century BC has =B4 ALAHA instead= > of T. and that `EL occurs ten times as often as `ADONAY in > manuscripts from Qumran point in the opposite direction? The sources you cite suggest *substitutions* for YHWH, not the pronunciation of it. Now in Semitic texts the *written* renderings where YHWH occurs in the MT (a) should not be confused with what may have been *read aloud* (again, written signs and what is read aloud must always be kept distinct and often differ), and (b) should not be taken as evidence of what Greek-speaking Jews did. > (5) We have evidence that the Qumran sect and Aramaic-speaking groups > in pre-Christian times did not pronounce T, but do we have evidence > that the Jews in Egypt and Babylon, or even in Palestine did not > pronounce it? I think that there is evidence (e.g., from magical amulets) that some Jews *did* invoke the Tet., but likely in "off-the-record" type occasions, and not in open "liturgy". As to Diaspora settings, again, I point to Philo's evidence (see article by Royse cited inprevious posting). > It is evident that some time in the first century CE T was no longer > pronounced, as we see from Josephus and Philo, but what is crucial is > the view of the Jews at large in pre-Christian times. I am looking > forward to more concrete evidence from period. > Thank you very much for your references. I hope that what I've referred to will be of some help. I've been more interested in the scribal phenomena, and have picked up bits of evidence about pronunciation-practice only in passing. I'll be pleased to see what you come up with too. L. W. Hurtado University of Edinburgh, New College Mound Place Edinburgh, Scotland EH1 2LX Phone: 0131-650-8920 Fax: 0131-650-6579 E-mail: L.Hurtado@ed.ac.uk From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue May 20 06:28:25 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id GAA22928; Tue, 20 May 1997 06:28:24 -0400 Date: Tue, 20 May 1997 12:28:05 +0200 (MET DST) From: Ricardo Aler Mur X-Sender: aler@tristan.uc3m.es To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Apocalyptic vs. Sapiential In-Reply-To: <10009430F2A@div.ed.ac.uk> Message-Id: Distribution: world 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: 865 Dear TCers, I've been following this list for some time now and find the discussion very interesting. I am a non-expert in the field so the following question might sound naive ... I'd be very interested on your opinion about whether the idea of an early Christian tradition that followed a non-apocalyptic view of the Kingdom of God (like the one put forward by Crossan) can be supported from the point of view of TC. I remember reading somewhere that apocalypticism lies on the last strata of Q (Kloppenborg I think) and that the community responsible for Q might not have had apocalyptic expectations at first, but developed them later (Burton Mack?). Is this well supported or is mere speculation?. On the other hand, there are obvious (or so they seem to me) apocalyptic verses in all the four gospels. What is the TC status of them?. Best, R. Aler. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue May 20 10:28:37 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA23522; Tue, 20 May 1997 10:28:36 -0400 Date: Tue, 20 May 1997 09:30:12 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: For Your Amusement Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 4053 TCers -- A friend of mine (an agnostic!) received this in his e-mail a few days back. I don't know what most people on this list will think, but I think it's hilarious. (A million and a half people dead in Sodom and Gomorrah? How big do they think these cities were?) So I thought I'd let you folks get a laugh out of it to. As you can probably tell, I in no way endorse what is said here (even in the places where I agree with it :-) ====================================================================== }-> From bible@globalpac.com Mon May 19 13:46:48 1997 }-> Return-Path: }-> Delivered-To: dnichols@d-and-d.com }-> Received: (qmail 23125 invoked from network); 19 May 1997 09:46:47 -0400 }-> Received: from unknown (HELO gptmail.globalpac.com) (206.170.230.3) }-> by d-and-d.com with SMTP; 19 May 1997 09:46:47 -0400 }-> Received: from mail.integrityplus.com ([207.215.173.6]) }-> by gptmail.globalpac.com (post.office MTA v2.0 0813 ID# 0-13502) }-> with SMTP id AAC65; Mon, 19 May 1997 06:20:37 -0700 }-> To: mail@scholarship.org }-> Date: Mon, 19 May 97 06:13:35 EST }-> From: bible@integrityplus.com }-> Subject: Mysteries of the Bible - Live on Tuesdays on the Web }-> Reply-To: bible@integrityplus.com }-> Message-ID: <19970519131327080.AAC65@mail.integrityplus.com> }-> Status: O }-> }-> }-> ****** NOTE: There is no cost to enroll in this program. }-> To participate and for further information please }-> reply with the word "yes" in the subject line. ****** }-> }-> }-> A N N O U N C E M E N T }-> }-> Live on the Internet every Tuesday Night }-> }-> "Mysteries of the Bible Revealed and Resolved" }-> }-> Contrary to the popular opinion created by Time and }-> Newsweek, every historical event in the Tanakh can be found }-> in the archaeological and historical records of the Near }-> East when our revised chronology is taken into account. }-> }-> All events from Sodom and Gomorrah, through the captivity }-> in Egypt, the subsequent conquest of the land of Canaan to }-> the story of Esther will be presented in its archaeological }-> and historical context and the Biblical account shown to be }-> completely accurate. }-> }-> Every Tuesday night, one topic will be presented live on }-> the Internet starting in the next few days with visuals, }-> expert interaction and debate by all who wish to be }-> involved. Each topic will be presented to enable the widest }-> possible audience to understand and participate. Moderated }-> by experts in each field. }-> }-> Please inform all your friends and ask them to send their }-> e-mail address to: }-> }-> bible@integrityplus.com }-> }-> for ongoing information. }-> }-> Some topics to be covered include: }-> }-> Creation vs. Evolution }-> Codes in the Torah. }-> Sodom & Gomorrah: 1.5 million bodies found! }-> The Famines of the Patriarchs - In Egyptian Records! }-> The Pyramids and The Sphinx, tombs or .......? }-> Kabbalah. }-> Who was the Pharaoh of the Exodus? }-> Dan, Dan, The Travelling Man }-> The Hyksos/The Israelites. }-> The Jericho Story: The Bible and the Archaeology match }-> at last. }-> The City of David found. }-> Solomon's Family - a son in Egypt! }-> Raiders of the Lost Ark: Found. }-> Hear Oh Israel, Where Oh Israel?...The Lost tribes...found. }-> Ezra and The Great Assembly? }-> The Aleph-Bais, alphabet or Holy Language? }-> Esther the truth at last. }-> The Dead Sea Scrolls, a mystery solved. }-> The Messiah in Prophesy and Reality. }-> The Times of the End. }-> etc.etc.etc. }-> }-> Please note that the focus of this program is scholarly }-> rather than religious. ====================================================================== -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue May 20 11:30:00 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA23682; Tue, 20 May 1997 11:30:00 -0400 Date: Tue, 20 May 1997 11:31:46 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: tc-list JBS X-Sender: jwest@mail.highland.net (Unverified) To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970520113119.236f52c0@mail.highland.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: 994 I am pleased to announce that the Journal of Biblical Studies has completed its search for qualified editors. The following are the members of the editorial board: Fred Cryer, The University of Copenhagen- Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature. R.P. Nettlehorst, Academic Vice President, Quartz Hill School of Theology- Old Testament. Jesaja Michael Wiegard, Muenster Germany- New Testament. David Washburn, Wyoming USA- Old Testament. Jim West, Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology, and Pastor of Petros Baptist Church- Managing Editor (and New Testament). We look forward to hearing from you as you help us make JBS an outstanding electronic Zeitschrift. We invite you to examine the articles already online; and more are planned in the very near future. Thanks, Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Pastor, Petros Baptist Church Managing Editor, The Journal of Biblical Studies http://web.infoave.net/~jwest/index.htm jwest@highland.net From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed May 21 04:13:15 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id EAA26610; Wed, 21 May 1997 04:13:15 -0400 Date: Wed, 21 May 97 10:14:22 CET Message-Id: X-Priority: 3 (Normal) To: From: "johan lust" Subject: TC 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: 326 Dear The board of the Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses (EThL) reacted favorably to your request concerning TC. The articles published in TC will be taken up in the yearly bibliographical bulletin of the EThL. The 1997 volume is already in print, so we will probably have to wait until 1998. Best greetings Johan Lust From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed May 21 16:54:50 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA28390; Wed, 21 May 1997 16:54:50 -0400 Message-ID: <3383E9C6.401E@sn.no> Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 23:37:58 -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: a 20th century Russian scribe 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: 2983 The following message is included in this post for two reasons: a) First, it is quoted as a test message (to see if my computer problems are solved, if anyone will report it back to me). b) Second, it is included in the belief that at least some on the list will benefit from it. This is something I received from the Majority Text Society. It is a report from a Russian Pastor, by the name of Dimitry Deriagine. I quote it in full: (I am not sure that I am doing the typing right in this post, if my computer problem has not been fixed. But I am now aware that the apostrophe has been converted into a code in my messages on some computers, and that where my program (Netscape 2.02) shifts lines of itself, the "=20" sign has showed up on some computers. In this post, therefore, I break the lines myself (or at least I try to be consistent in it) and avoid the apostrophe. I would appreciate if someone could tell me if the appearance of this post is any better than that of my previous messages). "A Testimony of the 20th Century Russian Scribe Before the political reforms in Russia started the Greek text of the New Testament was unavailable even for a student of the Philological Faculty of the University. It was impossible to borrow the text from the University Library or to make a photocopy of the same as it was prohibited. The only possibility to get the text was to rewrite it from a copy in the reading-room of the Library. And it was a very painstaking task. When later examining my own scribal habits I noticed that my tendency as a scribe was to shorten the text especially at the parallel passages of the Synoptic Gospels. The text of the Russian bible was also unavailable. So the people made handwritten and typewritten copies of the same. Very often they copied the text not from a printed edition, but from another typewritten or handwritten copy. People also corrected these copies in accordance with what they memorized (and often wrongly) to be read from the Scripture in the Church. Very often they created a more difficult reading instead of a more easier one. The type of errors incorporated into the text of the Scripture often was of the same kind which can be found in the early papyri. Works of dissident (underground) poets were never published in Russia during the period of communist dictatorship. So, these circulated in handwritten or typewritten form. But the fans of the poets (by whom these poets were nearly deified) corrupted their works. It was very difficult to prove the fact of the corruption at that time as printed editions containing the works under question was unavailable. Using the data of copying of Sacred and secular writings in the XX century in Russia and the data of transmission of the Old Church Slavonic text of the New Testament (in XI-XVI AD) it is very easy to demonstrate, for example, that a "harder reading" is usually not the original one". (Signed) Dimitry Deriagine -- - Mr. Helge Evensen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu May 22 12:31:39 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA00155; Thu, 22 May 1997 12:31:38 -0400 Date: Thu, 22 May 1997 12:31:37 -0400 (EDT) From: "James R. Adair" To: TC List Subject: new TC article: Steinmann 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: 1389 I am pleased to announce the publication of a new article on the pages of TC: "Jacob's Family Goes to Egypt: Varying Portraits of Unity and Disunity in the Textual Traditions of Exodus 1:1-5," by Andrew E. Steinmann. Some of you may have heard Andy present an earlier version of this article at the SBL annual meeting in New Orleans last year. Here is an abstract of the article. Abstract: Several textual variants are present in the various witnesses to the text of Exod 1:1-5 (MT, SP, 4QExodb, LXX). Although at first glance most of these variants seem unrelated and unimportant, a close reading of the text suggests that they are neither. One stream of tradition (MT, SP) contains variants that, taken together, stress the fractured nature of Jacob's family. Another stream of tradition (4QExodb, LXX) seeks to downplay the family differences. My thanks to Andy for submitting a fine paper to TC and to the TC editorial board for their support. Let me take this opportunity once again to invite members of this list to submit papers (either full-length articles or shorter textual notes) to TC for publication. We have a number of books that have been assigned for review, and we hope that they will appear on the pages of TC before long. Jimmy Adair General Editor of TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism ------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu/scripts/TC/TC.html <----- From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu May 22 12:43:49 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA00256; Thu, 22 May 1997 12:43:48 -0400 From: DJCUser@aol.com Date: Thu, 22 May 1997 12:45:34 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <970522124532_88691636@emout12.mail.aol.com> To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: documentary hypothesis Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 290 In the past I read some critiques of the above (and I don't remember where!) and I was wondering if anyone here knew where I could find a good scholarly analysis of it? The critiques I read were based on the lack of consensus as to what portion of the text belonged to J, E, D, or P, etc. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu May 22 13:23:23 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA00555; Thu, 22 May 1997 13:23:22 -0400 Date: Thu, 22 May 1997 13:25:11 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: documentary hypothesis X-Sender: jwest@mail.highland.net (Unverified) To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970522132223.22a74c56@mail.highland.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: 624 At 12:45 PM 5/22/97 -0400, you wrote: >In the past I read some critiques of the above (and I don't remember where!) >and I was wondering if anyone here knew where I could find a good scholarly >analysis of it? The critiques I read were based on the lack of consensus as >to what portion of the text belonged to J, E, D, or P, etc. > See the excellent discussion by John Van Seters in his book on the Yahwist. Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Pastor, Petros Baptist Church Managing Editor, "The Journal of Biblical Studies" at http://web.infoave.net/~jwest/index.htm (submissions welcome!) jwest@highland.net From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu May 22 13:27:53 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA00619; Thu, 22 May 1997 13:27:52 -0400 Date: Thu, 22 May 1997 13:27:51 -0400 (EDT) From: "James R. Adair" To: TC List Subject: new article announcement 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: 873 I would like to ask a few participants on this list to help me spread the word about our most recent article by Andrew Steinmann. In the past I've joined other mailing lists, made an announcement about a new article or review, then signed off the lists. This is a somewhat tedious and time-consuming procedure, so I have what I think is a better idea. I would appreciate it if some of you would announce the new article (and you might even invite additional submissions to TC) on lists that you already belong to that you think would be interested (particularly B-Hebrew and B-Greek, but possibly others as well). If you want to, you are welcome to forward my original message to this list to another list. Thanks for your help. Jimmy Adair General Editor of TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism ------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu/scripts/TC/TC.html <----- From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu May 22 14:22:31 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA00873; Thu, 22 May 1997 14:22:31 -0400 Message-ID: <3385177C.2580@sn.no> Date: Thu, 22 May 1997 21:05:16 -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: test message 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: 626 The situation on my Netscape 2.02 is now as follows: The encoding is "Latin 1", the Composition is "Mime Compliant", = Appearance is "Variable Width Font". And in this post I let the program shift lines and I=B4m using an = apostrophe. "The earliest version of the Old Testament Scriptures which is extant, or = of which we possess any certain knowledge, is the translation executed in = Alexandria in the third century before the Christian era: this version = has been so habitually known by the name of the Septuagint...." (the 1970 = Zondervan edition of the LXX, Introduction, p.i). = -- = - Mr. Helge Evensen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu May 22 17:04:20 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA01983; Thu, 22 May 1997 17:04:20 -0400 Date: Thu, 22 May 1997 17:01:33 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199705222101.RAA19411@aus-c.mp.campus.mci.net> X-Sender: cierpke@utc.campus.mci.net 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: "Kevin W. Woodruff" Subject: Re: documentary hypothesis Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1156 Some you might want to check: Green, William Henry._The Higher Criticism of the Pentateuch._Grand Rapids: Baker, 1978. (Originally published by Charles Scribner's Sons in 1895) Allis, Oswald T. _The Five Books of Moses._ Philadelphia: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publising Co., 1949. Cassuto, Umberto. _The Documentary Hypothesis and the Composition of the Pentateuch._Jerusalm: Magnes Press, 1961. Kikawada, Isaac M., and Arthur Quinn._Before Abraham Was._ Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1985. At 12:45 PM 5/22/97 -0400, you wrote: >In the past I read some critiques of the above (and I don't remember where!) >and I was wondering if anyone here knew where I could find a good scholarly >analysis of it? The critiques I read were based on the lack of consensus as >to what portion of the text belonged to J, E, D, or P, etc. > > Kevin W. Woodruff Library Director/Reference Librarian Cierpke Memorial Library Tennessee Temple University/Temple Baptist Seminary 1815 Union Ave. Chattanooga, Tennessee 37404 423/493-4252 (office) 423/698-9447 (home) 423/493-4497 (FAX) Cierpke@utc.campus.mci.net (preferred) kwoodruf@utkux.utcc.utk.edu (alternate) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu May 22 19:59:16 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA02475; Thu, 22 May 1997 19:59:15 -0400 From: "Vinton A. Dearing" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Thu, 22 May 1997 16:59:20 PST MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: computer programs update and a textual problem X-Confirm-Reading-To: "Vinton A. Dearing" X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) Message-ID: <39228407492@113hum4.humnet.ucla.edu> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1540 I have updated most of the computer programs I use for making stemmas and have made available on my web page http://englishwww.humnet.ucla.edu The updates are QPREP, QRING, QSYN, QTREE and QARCH. QANOM is unchanged. I am not completely satisfied with QANOM and QARCH, and would welcome comments from users -- and about the other programs also. In retesting the programs I ran across the following set of variant readings in II John 6 1 AUTOU AUTH ESTIN H ENTOLH KAQWS HKOUSATE AP ARCHS INA EN 2 AUTOU INA* KAQWS* AUTH ESTIN H ENTO# AUTOU INA KAQWS HKOUSATE AP ARCHS INA EN *deleted by first hand ## sic 3 AUTOU AUTH H ENTOLH ESTIN KAQWS HKOUSATE AP ARCHS INA EN 4 AUTOU AUTH H ENTOLH ESTIN INA KAQWS HKOUSATE AP ARCHS INA EN 5 AUTOU AUTH H ENTOLH ESTIN INA KAQWS HKOUSATE AP ARCHS EN It looks to me as if 2 were copied from a manuscript that had AUTOU INA KAQWS in the text and AUTH ESTIN H ENTOLH in the margin with a lemma AUTOU to show where it was to be inserted -- and that the copyist of 2 put the marginal note into his text lemma and all, though I should have expected the lemma to have preceded instead of followed the omitted material. I think AUTH ESTIN H ENTOLH resulted when a copyist working from AUTH H ENTOLH ESTIN skipped the H ENTOLH by homoeteleuton and made up for his mistake at once. I don't know what to make of the omission or duplication of INA. I would welcome any remarks, including agreement that the last problem is insoluble, if that is your conclusion. Vinton A. Dearing From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri May 23 02:14:23 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id CAA03045; Fri, 23 May 1997 02:14:22 -0400 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Conversation with last message Priority: Normal X-Msmail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 From: "Dave Washburn" Subject: Re: new TC article: Steinmann Date: Fri, 23 May 97 00:16:50 MDT 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: 489 James Adair asked if some of us could pass the announcement on to some other lists. Unless somebody already has - I haven't seen it - I'll pass it along to b-hebrew. ---------- > I am pleased to announce the publication of a new article on the pages of > TC: "Jacob's Family Goes to Egypt: Varying Portraits of Unity and Disunity > in the Textual Traditions of Exodus 1:1-5," by Andrew E. Steinmann. [snip] Dave Washburn http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur/ dwashbur@nyx.net Feel the music. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri May 23 12:18:39 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA04497; Fri, 23 May 1997 12:18:39 -0400 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 11:24:19 +0400 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net (Carlton Winbery) Subject: Re: documentary hypothesis Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 361 I would think that before you read critiques of the documentary hypothesis, you should also read books by people with names like Gunkel, Wellhausen, etc. 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 Fri May 23 12:52:32 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA04592; Fri, 23 May 1997 12:52:31 -0400 From: DJCUser@aol.com Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 12:54:21 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <970523125420_-1966957270@emout08.mail.aol.com> To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: documentary hypothesis Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 261 In a message dated 97-05-23 12:24:04 EDT, you write: << I would think that before you read critiques of the documentary hypothesis, you should also read books by people with names like Gunkel, Wellhausen, etc. >> The critiques were "in passing" as I recall. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat May 24 03:06:56 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id DAA06237; Sat, 24 May 1997 03:06:56 -0400 Message-ID: <33871C5A.2CB0@sn.no> Date: Sat, 24 May 1997 09:50:34 -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: last test message 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: 338 I=B4m sorry to have bothered the list with my computer problems and test=20 messages. I promise this will be the last test message. In this post I=20 believe that my program is adjusted right, but I=B4m using the apostrophe= =20 and let the program shift lines. Again, thanks to all of you that have=20 helped! --=20 - Mr. Helge Evensen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat May 24 12:20:40 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA06610; Sat, 24 May 1997 12:20:40 -0400 Date: Sat, 24 May 1997 11:22:26 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: A New Scrivener? Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1404 TCers -- I recently had the good fortune to acquire a copy of Scrivener's _Plain_Introduction_ to TC. I must admit I have been very impressed. I can't help but wonder why no one has produced a TC introduction along these lines. I know that Scrivener's theories don't impress anyone today (including me); he's too traditional for the modernists and too eclectic for the true Majority Text advocates. But as a manual, his volumes are excellent as far as they go. They describe the manuscripts in more detail than even the Kurzgefasste Liste (e.g. I learned from Scrivener that 630 is *not* complete; it is missing several verses in Acts. But the KL -- at least the first edition -- shows 630 as entirely intact). They give details on the Latin manuscripts I have seen nowhere else. The discussion of critical canons is good -- if perhaps biased in some ways not favoured by moderns. I have used this information with good effect in several recent updates to my Encyclopedia pages. So why doesn't someone produce a manual along the lines of his? (Using Gregory numbers, of course....) -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat May 24 17:40:12 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA06997; Sat, 24 May 1997 17:40:12 -0400 Message-ID: <338789C2.562@total.net> Date: Sat, 24 May 1997 17:37:22 -0700 From: Mike and Jeanne Arcieri X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02E-KIT (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: A New Scrivener? 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: 718 Robert B. Waltz wrote: > > TCers -- > > I recently had the good fortune to acquire a copy of Scrivener's > _Plain_Introduction_ to TC. I must admit I have been very impressed. > I can't help but wonder why no one has produced a TC introduction > along these lines. > Scrivener's 2 vol set was posthumous (ed. by Edward Miller) and his INTRO was _the_ english standard in the late 1800's. There's a good amount of details in those 2 vols which is still helpful; at the very least, his discussion provide a good basis to start from, as long as we take into consideration all advances in NTTC since his time. Now if only the KJV only people could read Scrivener, they might actually get a little smarter... ;-) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon May 26 18:53:43 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA09606; Mon, 26 May 1997 18:53:43 -0400 Message-ID: <338A9D30.4742@sn.no> Date: Tue, 27 May 1997 01:37:04 -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: A New Scrivener? References: <338789C2.562@total.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: 9293 Mike and Jeanne Arcieri wrote: >=20 > Robert B. Waltz wrote: > > > > TCers -- > > > > I recently had the good fortune to acquire a copy of Scrivener's > > _Plain_Introduction_ to TC. I must admit I have been very impressed. > > I can't help but wonder why no one has produced a TC introduction > > along these lines. > > >=20 > Scrivener's 2 vol set was posthumous (ed. by Edward Miller) and his INT= RO was _the_ english standard in the > late 1800's. There's a good amount of details in those 2 vols which is = still helpful; at the very least, his > discussion provide a good basis to start from, as long as we take into = consideration all advances in NTTC > since his time. >=20 > Now if only the KJV only people could read Scrivener, they might actual= ly get a little smarter... ;-) Yes, undoubtedly *they* and all others interested in TC would profit from this most valuable work. It seems clear that modern textual critics would become a little smarter too, if they would study the works of Scrivener more closely. I believe it is far more important today for modern textual scholars and TC students to read the works of Scrivener than to read=20 Hort=B4s Introduction. (Of course, it is good to read *both*!) It seems that Scrivener was ahead of his time in many ways. Remember that he lived in a time when most textual critics and other scholars almost uncritically accepted the theories of Hort. (Although the theories of Hort had not been officially published at the time of the first two editions of the "Plain Introduction" by Scrivener, he clearly knew of them at the time of the second edition (1874). In his second edition, he is referring to W & H "The NT in the Original Greek, with a Preface". He informs that the book is marked "Confidential", while mentioning "the Prefatory matter". ("A Plain Introduction...", 2nd edition, 1874, p.432). [The first edition was published 1861, and the fourth 1894 by Edward Miller]). But most important is the fact that he served on the Revised Version committee (1870-1881). The edition I have in my own little "library" is the 2nd. On p.95 Dr. Scrivener writes, discussing the textual quality of Cod. A: "This manuscript is of the very greatest importance to the critic, inasmuch as it exhibits (especially in the Gospels) a text more nearly approaching that found in later copies than is read in others of its high antiquity". If I am reading Scrivener correct here, he is ascribing the importance of this MS to the fact that it testifies to _later_ MSS. Scrivener did not try to completely dethrone the later minuscules as did Hort. The tendency within TC after the official publication of the Introduction by Hort has been to judge later MSS as important only if they testify to readings found in the oldest MSS. This seems to be the very opposite of the method proposed by Scrivener in the above quotation. I think that modern textual experts have something really important to learn from that Grand-Master of TC at this point! I am not saying, however, that MTC should have completely neglected the work of W & H. I suspect that the textual criticism of the 20th century would have come out differently if textual critics and other scholars had placed the same weight on the kind of TC Scrivener represented that they have been doing on the kind of TC Hort advocated! At the same time, the Scrivener=20 kind of TC is not very far from much of MTC. His willingness to take into consideration readings and witnesses which deviate from the Aleph-B-team, is similar to MTC, a thing almost inconceivable for W & H. The reason for this in MTC is, of course, TC developments and MSS finds in the 20th=20 century. On p.480 Scrivener seems to deviate considerably from the consensus of his day, when he writes: ".....more than enough has been alleged to=20 prove to demonstration that the true and pure text of the sacred writers is not to be looked for in Aleph or B, in Aleph-B, or BD, or BL, or any like combination of a select few authorities - for that were indeed Comparative Criticism made easy - but demands, in every fresh case as it arises, the free and impartial use of every available source of information". Here too, it seems that modern TC has something to learn. But this statement by Scrivener is not very far from the consensus *today*, though the *reasons* for arriving at a similar conclusion today,= =20 are not necessary identical with that of Scrivener. MTC has, it seems to me, not yet arrived at "the free and impartial use of every available source of information". MTC is clearly making *use* of "every available source", but *impartial*? No, not yet! Another interesting statement is found on p.439: "Attention must be paid to the genius and usage of each several authority, in assigning the weight due to it in a particular instance. Thus the testimony of Cod. B is of the less influence in omissions, that of Cod. D (Bez=E6) in additions, inasmuch as the tendency of the former is to abridge, that of the latter to amplify the sacred text". The impartial nature of the Scrivener TC is also seen in the following statement: ".......that this rule be henceforth applied impartially in all cases, as well when it will tell in favour of the Received text, as when it shall help to set it aside. To assign a high value to cursive manuscripts of the best description (such as 1. 33. 69. 157. Yscr, or 61 of the Acts), and to such uncials as L-R-Delta, or even as Aleph or C, whensoever they happen to agree with Cod. B, and to treat their refined silver as though it had been suddenly transmuted into dross when they come to contradict it, is a practice too plainly unreasonable to admit of serious defence, and can only lead to results which those who uphold it would be the first to deplore" [Footnote: "So of certain of the chief versions we sometimes hear it said that they are less important in the rest of the N.T. than in the Gospels; which means that in the former they side less with Aleph-B"]. (p.483-84). Many TCers may have *said* they were impartial, but Scrivener clearly *is* impartial in his method of TC. At that time it was not always easy to stay impartial. Most scholars were *greatly* impressed by the discovery of Cod. Aleph and its general agreement with Cod. B and (to a lesser extent) the other uncials. The developments within TC since W & H shows us how stupid it is to make "hard and fast rules" in TC. Many times the science (and art) of TC has been stretched beyond its proper limits. To me it seems that to trespass the proper limits of TC is to talk as though certain textcritical canons and modes of thinking are invariable rules. Many times TC principles that actually should only have served as suggestions and proposals, have been handled as *the truth*. This tendency has clearly influenced non-tc scholars, which again have influenced the reading public. The result is that many are accepting TC principles as invariable - and many times proved or provable - facts rather than taking them for what they are: theories and assumptions. (I am now referring to assumptions regarding the *original* text and what TC principles should attempt, namely bring us closer to the original= =20 text, if that still is the primary goal of TC). It seems that textual critics should be very careful regarding the way in which they presents TC results and principles. The "unlearned" reading public has a tendency to accept things as *the truth* as long as it comes from the more learned academy. Therefore, in TC material it should be clearly stated that the science and art of TC= =20 has not in any sense *proved* what the original form of the NT was,=20 not even what it *most likely* was. TC is limited to *theory* and supposition when it comes to the *original* NT text. And no one, I suppose, would challenge the fact that the main goal of TC is to establish the *original* readings of the text. But it is nothing more=20 than a *possible* original form of the text that can be established by way of TC, at best. All that an old MS or an old reading in reality *proves* is that that particular old reading *existed* at the time in which it is demonstrated to have existed, *not* that it is original or "more likely" original. Of course, many times we can know what is *more likely* the original reading, but far from always. But we *never* can *prove* the original readings. However, many times we can certainly prove the inauthenticity of readings if the readings in question are scribal errors or other demonstrable errors.=20 But let us not present theories to the world as though they were *truths*! --------------------- On the whole, Dr. Scrivener represented a far more sound and balanced view on TC than did Hort. Later TC developments and MS finds have demonstrated that the "middle of the road" position taken by Scrivener was a *wise* position to take in his time. The rigorous aleph-B position taken by Hort has shown itself to have been *unwise*. I apollogize for this lenghty post. My purpose is not to start another "overheated" debate. It should be regarded as what it is: just a few=20 thoughts, together with a few words of praise in favor of one TCer I consider to be one of the Grand-Masters of TC of all time. That is all. --=20 - Mr. Helge Evensen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon May 26 20:19:02 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA09665; Mon, 26 May 1997 20:19:02 -0400 Date: Mon, 26 May 1997 20:20:56 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: A New Scrivener? X-Sender: jwest@mail.highland.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970526201757.25b774c2@mail.highland.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: 5012 At 01:37 AM 5/27/97 -0700, you wrote: > >The edition I have in my own little "library" is the 2nd. On p.95 >Dr. Scrivener writes, discussing the textual quality of Cod. A: "This >manuscript is of the very greatest importance to the critic, inasmuch as >it exhibits (especially in the Gospels) a text more nearly approaching >that found in later copies than is read in others of its high antiquity". >If I am reading Scrivener correct here, he is ascribing the importance of >this MS to the fact that it testifies to _later_ MSS. Doesn't that position seem a little absurd? "Its a better ms because it reflects newer readings. But these newer readings are based on older ones which means their better...." ? Isnt this the polar opposite of my claim concerning the importance of earlier mss? And if so, and as I know that you believe me to be in error, are not you making the same error here? > Scrivener did not >try to completely dethrone the later minuscules as did Hort. First something has to be enthroned before it can be dethroned. ANd the only folks who have enthroned a text are those with a particular theological axe to grind. (my own personal axe is that older is better)(freely admitted!!!) > The tendency >within TC after the official publication of the Introduction by Hort has >been to judge later MSS as important only if they testify to readings >found in the oldest MSS. This seems to be the very opposite of the method >proposed by Scrivener in the above quotation. Which is what makes Scrivener wrong here (and in many other instances as well). >I think that modern textual experts have something really important to >learn from that Grand-Master of TC at this point! Who gave him this title? > I am not saying, >however, that MTC should have completely neglected the work of W & H. > >I suspect that the textual criticism of the 20th century would have come >out differently if textual critics and other scholars had placed the same >weight on the kind of TC Scrivener represented that they have been >doing on the kind of TC Hort advocated! Sure it would have- it would have gone in a completely wrong direction! Thank God Scrivener wasn't followed! >The impartial nature of the Scrivener TC What hooey! > is also seen in the following >statement: [blah, blah....] > >Many TCers may have *said* they were impartial, but Scrivener clearly >*is* impartial in his method of TC. Not at all. NO ONE is impartial in anything. The best thing that could happen to scientific study of the the Bible is for folks to admit this one common denominator. >The developments within TC since W & H shows us how stupid it is to make >"hard and fast rules" in TC. Many times the science (and art) of TC has >been stretched beyond its proper limits. To me it seems that to trespass >the proper limits of TC is to talk as though certain textcritical canons >and modes of thinking are invariable rules. Many times TC principles that >actually should only have served as suggestions and proposals, have been >handled as *the truth*. This tendency has clearly influenced non-tc >scholars, which again have influenced the reading public. The result is >that many are accepting TC principles as invariable - and many times >proved or provable - facts rather than taking them for what they are: >theories and assumptions. This whole paragraph is a contradictio in adiecto to what you have already said above (but mostly snipped). >(I am now referring to assumptions regarding the *original* text and >what TC principles should attempt, namely bring us closer to the original >text, if that still is the primary goal of TC). > No- now the goal of TC is to bring us closer to the redactors who worked the text over before it reached its fixed form. >It seems that textual critics should be very careful regarding the way >in which they presents TC results and principles. The "unlearned" >reading public has a tendency to accept things as *the truth* >as long as it comes from the more learned academy. Baloney. The public at large doesn't give a rat's rump about what academics do. > >I apollogize for this lenghty post. My purpose is not to start another >"overheated" debate. It should be regarded as what it is: just a few >thoughts, together with a few words of praise in favor of one TCer I >consider to be one of the Grand-Masters of TC of all time. That is all. > Grand master- ptooey. (yes, I have once more reverted to the old tried and true Straussian method of denouncing without supplying controverting evidence. So sue me!! :) >-- >- Mr. Helge Evensen > Jim (and I am sure that this was overlooked by many because my horrid little name was attached! Oh no- the Dennis Rodman of theological studies has reared his ugly head again!!!) Vale, pie lector! +++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Pastor, Petros Baptist Church Managing Editor, "The Journal of Biblical Studies" at http://web.infoave.net/~jwest/index.htm (submissions welcome!) jwest@highland.net From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon May 26 22:16:10 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA09863; Mon, 26 May 1997 22:16:09 -0400 Date: Mon, 26 May 1997 19:18:02 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew Johnson Subject: Re: A New Scrivener? To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970526201757.25b774c2@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: 3078 On Mon, 26 May 1997, Jim West wrote: > Sure it would have- it would have gone in a completely wrong direction! > Thank God Scrivener wasn't followed! But apparently he IS being followed, but not by a majority of TCers. And his collation of Codex Bezae is still important, even if his theory of TC is dated. So let's give the old man a break. > > > >The impartial nature of the Scrivener TC > > What hooey! Now I am no supporter of the priority of the TR (or the "Majority Text"), but I still find this language inappropriate for the editor of a Journal that aspires to respectability. But I will point out that as a passive observer to the flame-wars (yes, that is what they have degraded to) over the priority of the TR, I have seen no convincing evidence that "Scrivener TC" has a better claim to impartiality than Westcott and Hort. On the contrary, W&H have faithfully stuck to the principle they themselves enunciated so well: The uses of internal evidence are subordinate and accessory: if taken as the primary guide, it cannot but lead to _extensive_ error. (emphasis mine) and also: knowledge of documents should precede final judgement upon readings. from the 1949 abridged edition of "The New Testament in the Original Greek", bs2302 b53 1949 page 543 The only "non-impartiality" I can believe of them is the amusing name, "Western non-interpolations". But even here I believe the almost condescending attitude they had towards Western readings was primarily to discourage undue haste in accepting readings from 'Western' sources. > No- now the goal of TC is to bring us closer to the redactors who worked the > text over before it reached its fixed form. And this is certainly a more readily attainable goal. In fact, if it is ever possible to reach the original form, we must first pass through this intermediate goal. To that end I suggest that the Majority Text receive more attention not because it is earlier, but because its history promises to tell us so much about the transmission of texts in general. So, for example, I would like to see TC texts not refer to the Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus as if it were shocking or amusing that someone would erase a NT manuscript to copy St. Ephraem's marvellous sermons. Perhaps if TCers paid more attention to his sermons, you would understand how people WERE reading the text, which would help you understand its history better. > Baloney. The public at large doesn't give a rat's rump about what academics > do. And in the case of TCers, it is because whenever TCers criticize the commonly accepted text, whether it is the KJV or the NA, or the UBS, people suspect TCers of a sinister hidden agenda. After reading "Orthodox Corruption", I can see why, even though the accusation is _often_ unjustified. So the public finds it easier to ignore TCers than to deal with them. I can't blame them, though I _do_ consider the situation regrettable. 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 May 27 07:44:20 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id HAA10321; Tue, 27 May 1997 07:44:19 -0400 Message-ID: From: "DC PARKER" Organization: Fac of Arts:The Univ. of Birmingham To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Tue, 27 May 1997 12:44:10 GMT Subject: Re: A New Scrivener? Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.01) Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 875 Scrivener was an outstandingly accurate collator, and his work is always a valuable tool for checking other collations. The _Adversaria Critica Sacra_, the _Full & Exact Collation of about 20 Greek Mss_ and the _Codex Augiensis spring to mind at once. And yes, he has quite full information on MSS. But today, for the kind of information that Mr Waltz is looking for, one would expect to find it in library catalogues - it would take you a long time to compile it for 5,000+ MSS! Scrivener seems to me to be a good example of a very good collator, whose textual theories and ability to produce a critical edition were limited, and whose views have stood the test of time rather poorly. But let us be grateful for what he was good at. DC PARKER DEPT OF THEOLOGY UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM TEL. 0121-414 3613 FAX 0121-414 6866 E-MAIL PARKERDC@M4-ARTS.BHAM.AC.UK From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue May 27 08:17:30 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA10364; Tue, 27 May 1997 08:17:30 -0400 Date: Tue, 27 May 1997 07:19:21 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: A New Scrivener -- The Arguments Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 2447 It's amazing how quickly discussions on this list can turn ugly. (And yes, I know I've been part of that; don't say anything.) I wish I had some way of telling you all to "cool it." First, let's not exaggerate Scrivener's textual theories. We all know that Scrivener was not a liberal such as Hort. Nut neither was he a conservative such as Burgon. Even a casual glance at his introduction will show that. Scrivener was a moderate. And, like most moderates, his views were actually on the conservative end of the spectrum. But -- unlike Burgon -- he used and respected old and/or non-Byzantine manuscripts. The fact is, I don't know of anyone on this list who agrees with his positions. But they are not absurd or extremist; we should respect him -- and deeply respect his collation work. But none of this was the point of my original post. I was speaking of Scrivener's *manual*. Which is by no means the extremist document that, say, the Alands' is. (I call Aland & Aland extremist because they really pay almost no attention to other viewpoints or editions than their own.) The excellent thing about Scrivener is that it gives so much useful information about the entire spectrum of NT materials. Yes, it's now brutally dated (it doesn't use Gregory numbers; the Sinai Syriac was unknown; there are no papyri, etc...). But the *form* is good, and rather unbiased. To get that same level of information today, you qould need the Kurzgefasste Liste, Aland & Aland, Metzger's volume on the Versions, and at least one other introduction. And even so, you wouldn't have as much detail. Someone objected that it would be much harder to gather that level of detail about manuscripts today. True enough. But the T&T volumes demonstrate that the information is available (in Munster, at least). It just hasn't been published. If nothing else, it's a hint for what should be in the next edition of the KListe. And, in my opinion, the writers of upcoming TC manuals would be well-advised to examine Scrivener for ideas. Now can we stop arguing about a century-out-of-date book and start arguing about something more current? :-) -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue May 27 12:15:54 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA10882; Tue, 27 May 1997 12:15:54 -0400 Message-ID: <338B919C.6E82@sn.no> Date: Tue, 27 May 1997 18:59:56 -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: MTS 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: 470 All those on this list interested in the Majority Text or in testing its validity may profit from becoming a member of the Majority Text Society. The fee is appr. $30.00 a year. They send out articles and tapes defending the MT. They also sometimes include articles/reviews from those outside the MT school which they circulate among the members of the MTS. You may not agree with _anything_ they publish, but why not try them out for a year?? -- - Mr. Helge Evensen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue May 27 13:40:14 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA11101; Tue, 27 May 1997 13:40:13 -0400 Message-ID: <338B4758.4731@total.net> Date: Tue, 27 May 1997 13:43:04 -0700 From: Mike and Jeanne Arcieri X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02E-KIT (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: TC-LIST@SHEMESH.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Impartial? 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: 1561 Jim West wrote: > >The impartial nature of the Scrivener TC > > What hooey! > [snip] > > > > >Many TCers may have *said* they were impartial, but Scrivener clearly > >*is* impartial in his method of TC. > > Not at all. NO ONE is impartial in anything. The best thing that could > happen to scientific study of the the Bible is for folks to admit this one > common denominator. > > (and I am sure that this was overlooked by many because my horrid little > name was attached! Oh no- the Dennis Rodman of theological studies has > reared his ugly head again!!!) > > Vale, pie lector! > +++++++++++++++++++++++ > Jim West, ThD Jim {aka Dennis ;-)) I find your admission of non-impartiality quite interesting. For years (actually since Burgon more or less) those is the TR camp and more recently those in the Majtxt camp are criticised as having a theological axe to grind when it comes to NTTC. Hence, some prefer the TR/KJV and/or some prefer the Majtxt because they are [primarily] 'theologically conservative'. Even Maurice Robinson has been so criticised (quite some time ago) on this LIST because he has a "theological agenda" and _this_ agenda (with all its theological presuppositions), rather than MSS evidence, is what drives him to defend the Byz txt. Ditto for Hodges, Pickering, van Bruggen etc.. So, would you say then that those who adopt the Egyptian txt (generally) have a liberal agenda to defend? Does a liberal's theological presuppositions play a part in him favoring the NA26 rather than the Majtxt? Just askin'... :-) Mike Arcieri From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue May 27 14:13:24 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA11197; Tue, 27 May 1997 14:13:24 -0400 Date: Tue, 27 May 1997 14:15:03 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Re: Impartial? X-Sender: jwest@mail.highland.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970527141156.27af8c62@mail.highland.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: 2788 >Jim {aka Dennis ;-)) If only I made his money! (by the by, a good sense of humor is a conditio sine qua non of Biblical studies). >I find your admission of non-impartiality quite interesting. Why? Everyone is partial in one degree or another. The Majority folks are partial to it and tend to interpret the material in that light. So are the eclectics. So are those who find "corruption" in the transmitted text. (note, by the way, how the very term "corruption" is biased). Its interesting, isn't it, that an honest self admission can raise comment! Is it so unusual as to be worthy of note? > For years (actually since Burgon more or less) >those is the TR camp and more recently those in the Majtxt camp are criticised as having a theological axe to >grind when it comes to NTTC. Hence, some prefer the TR/KJV and/or some prefer the Majtxt because they are >[primarily] 'theologically conservative'. Even Maurice Robinson has been so criticised (quite some time ago) >on this LIST because he has a "theological agenda" and _this_ agenda (with all its theological >presuppositions), rather than MSS evidence, is what drives him to defend the Byz txt. Ditto for Hodges, >Pickering, van Bruggen etc.. > >So, would you say then that those who adopt the Egyptian txt (generally) have a liberal agenda to defend? Perhaps. But perhaps the agenda I am striving to put forward is a little less insidious. I simply, honestly believe that older mss are closer to the original redaction and therefore superior. I don't think this is "liberal". But if it is, so be it. For example, when the Dead Sea Scrolls were found (and since) people have been fascinated by their antiquity. After all, in them we have mss that predate the standard Hebrew text by a millenium! we SHOULD be enthralled by them- just as we should be enraptured by the Greek mss that predate the dark ages! (note- again, how the choice of words sends off red flags as to how one feels about something- "dark ages" indeed!) > Does >a liberal's theological presuppositions play a part in him favoring the NA26 rather than the Majtxt? In this there is probably some truth. I suspect many eclectics like the NA27 (!) more than the maj. text not because they have investigated every reading, but because it disagrees with the TR and thus the KJV! (the same reason why many folks in NC vote for Jesse Helms, they know it really irritates the intellectuals at Duke and Chapel Hill)!! > >Just askin'... :-) > Just answering, with sense of humor intact (since some have had a humorectomy!). >Mike Arcieri Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Pastor, Petros Baptist Church Managing Editor, "The Journal of Biblical Studies" at http://web.infoave.net/~jwest/index.htm (submissions welcome!) jwest@highland.net From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue May 27 15:57:43 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA11565; Tue, 27 May 1997 15:57:43 -0400 Date: Tue, 27 May 1997 15:59:38 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Book List X-Sender: jwest@mail.highland.net (Unverified) To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970527155634.376f24ee@mail.highland.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: 916 Thanks to the many who have inquired about the Journal of Biblical Studies. Things are coming together nicely. A new feature has been added: Book List. On this page you will be able to see what your colleagues are reading and recommending to others. This page will not contain book reviews, only recommendations. If you are reading womething, (especially a new publication) and think it is worth the time of others, send along a note with the relevant data and we will post it for others to consider. Thanks again for your interest, and your many helpful suggestions (and if you are a web master, your link!!). Yours (really!), Jim (the web address is listed below- just click on the book-list link). +++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Pastor, Petros Baptist Church Managing Editor, "The Journal of Biblical Studies" at http://web.infoave.net/~jwest/index.htm (submissions welcome!) jwest@highland.net From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue May 27 21:23:44 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA12158; Tue, 27 May 1997 21:23:44 -0400 From: MICHAEL.KENNEDY@avnet.com Message-Id: Date: Tuesday, 27 May 1997 3:30pm PT To: TC-LIST@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Impartial? Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 3577 >>> >> So, would you say then that those who adopt the Egyptian txt (generally) have aliberal agenda to defend? Does a liberal's theological presuppositions play a part in him favoring the NA26 rather than the Majtxt? >> >>> I for one come from a conservative tradition. But I favor NA26/NA27. What does that say? I don't know if it says anything. External evidence support should not be affected by a priori theological considerations. But if a text cannot be decided on the basis of external support alone, then internal concerns come into play, including theological issues. Take for instance Rom. 5:1. The text reads EXOMEN -- the apparatus reads the subjunctive EXWMEN. (At this point I'm operating from memory.) EXOMEN/EXWMEN clearly is a transcriptional error from the fact that O/W sound alike. Manuscript support is weighted pretty equally between the two; however, in my estimation the subjunctive has the stronger manuscript support. Metzger in his companion Textual Commentary to the GNT says that the committee held both readings as equally supported, and that they favored the indicative for theological considerations. I, however, believe that the committee is wrong here. Aleph and the original hand of A support the subjunctive, and the harder reading is the subjunctive -- we should follow the NEB/REB in returning EXWMEN to the text. I guess that makes me the liberal and the UBS4/NA27 committee the conservatives at this point! Rev. Michael Kennedy Phoenix, AZ 800/426-7999 ext. 6118 --------------------------( Forwarded letter 1 follows )--------------------- Date: Tuesday, 27 May 1997 2:14pm Date: Tue, 27 May 1997 13:43:04 -0700 From: Mike and Jeanne Arcieri X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02E-KIT (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: TC-LIST@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Impartial? 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.INET Jim West wrote: > >The impartial nature of the Scrivener TC > > What hooey! > [snip] > > > > >Many TCers may have *said* they were impartial, but Scrivener clearly > >*is* impartial in his method of TC. > > Not at all. NO ONE is impartial in anything. The best thing that could > happen to scientific study of the the Bible is for folks to admit this one > common denominator. > > (and I am sure that this was overlooked by many because my horrid little > name was attached! Oh no- the Dennis Rodman of theological studies has > reared his ugly head again!!!) > > Vale, pie lector! > +++++++++++++++++++++++ > Jim West, ThD Jim {aka Dennis ;-)) I find your admission of non-impartiality quite interesting. For years (actually since Burgon more or less) those is the TR camp and more recently those in the Majtxt camp are criticised as having a theological axe to grind when it comes to NTTC. Hence, some prefer the TR/KJV and/or some prefer the Majtxt because they are [primarily] 'theologically conservative'. Even Maurice Robinson has been so criticised (quite some time ago) on this LIST because he has a "theological agenda" and _this_ agenda (with all its theological presuppositions), rather than MSS evidence, is what drives him to defend the Byz txt. Ditto for Hodges, Pickering, van Bruggen etc.. So, would you say then that those who adopt the Egyptian txt (generally) have a liberal agenda to defend? Does a liberal's theological presuppositions play a part in him favoring the NA26 rather than the Majtxt? Just askin'... :-) Mike Arcieri From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed May 28 10:35:38 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA13336; Wed, 28 May 1997 10:35:37 -0400 From: MICHAEL.KENNEDY@avnet.com Message-Id: Date: Wednesday, 28 May 1997 7:35am PT To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Impartial? Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 254 It looks like my memory failed me in part. I said, "Aleph and the original hand of A support the subjunctive." What I should have said is that EXWMEN is supported by Aleph* A B* C D K L 33 81 etc. Michael Kennedy Phoenix, AZ 800/426-7999 ext. 6118 From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed May 28 12:50:01 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA13648; Wed, 28 May 1997 12:50:01 -0400 Message-ID: <338CEB1C.1EAF@sn.no> Date: Wed, 28 May 1997 19:34:04 -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: latin phrases 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: 587 I know this is a little bit outside of the area of TC, but I do not know of a better place than this list to get exact knowledge of the following: I have many weaknesses, and here is one of them: I cannot read Latin very well! I am looking for the exact Latin equivalents to the English expressions: "perpetual preservation" and "continual preservation". There may be several alternatives. I am looking especially for the exact *word order* in the Latin expressions. Is one possible alternative "preservatio continuae"?? I do not know. Do you? Thanks ahead. -- - Mr. Helge Evensen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed May 28 20:07:59 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA14461; Wed, 28 May 1997 20:07:59 -0400 Date: Wed, 28 May 1997 17:09:55 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew Johnson Subject: Re: latin phrases To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu In-Reply-To: <338CEB1C.1EAF@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: 1708 On Wed, 28 May 1997, Mr. Helge Evensen wrote: > I know this is a little bit outside of the area of TC, but I do not know > of a better place than this list to get exact knowledge of the following: > > I have many weaknesses, and here is one of them: I cannot read Latin very > well! I am looking for the exact Latin equivalents to the English > expressions: "perpetual preservation" and "continual preservation". > > There may be several alternatives. I am looking especially for the exact > *word order* in the Latin expressions. Is one possible alternative > "preservatio continuae"?? > > I do not know. Do you? > Yes, I do know. You are close. "Preservatio continua" is (I think) what you want. But it still sounds too much like a stilted translation from English. Probably better: "salvatio perpetua" or "salvatio ad perpetuum", although these have a definite Medieval flavor. As you proposed, there are several alternatives. NB: "salvatio" does not mean _only_ salvation, although this is usually the first sense to come into mind when reading the Old Latin, the Vulgate, or the Latin Fathers. I would need to consult a lexicon to come up with better classical expressions. By the time I do so I expect several other responses to your question! Finally, Latin is almost insensitive to word order. There is a certain word order that is considered good Ciceronian, classical style, but it is not a _grammar_ rule, and is frequently disregarded even by good authors. So for the above example "salvatio perpetua" or "perpetua salvatio" are exactly the same. 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 May 28 21:08:14 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA14547; Wed, 28 May 1997 21:08:13 -0400 Date: Wed, 28 May 1997 21:10:00 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: John X-Sender: jwest@mail.highland.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970528210943.253fa620@mail.highland.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: 351 Does anyone have the Gospel of John in the Scholars Press TT font? If so, could you send it along as an attachment? Thanks very much, Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Pastor, Petros Baptist Church Managing Editor, "The Journal of Biblical Studies" at http://web.infoave.net/~jwest/index.htm (submissions welcome!) jwest@highland.net From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu May 29 16:18:19 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA17062; Thu, 29 May 1997 16:18:18 -0400 Date: Thu, 29 May 1997 16:20:10 -0500 (EST) Date-warning: Date header was inserted by InfoAve.Net From: Jim West Subject: Hos 11:1 X-Sender: jwest@mail.highland.net (Unverified) To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.16.19970529161952.2bf73a7a@mail.highland.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: 696 The MT has "son" in the singular (out of Egypt have I called my son). The LXX (Rahlfs) has "ta tekna autou". The apparatus does not list any specific LXX ms which contain the reading. Can anyone offer more concrete evidence for the reading? Also, it seems that the suggested emedation of the MT (in the apparatus) is possible- but is there any ms support for it? The DSS Hosea material has not yet been published, has it? If it has, is there a reading preserved here? Thanks, Jim +++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD Pastor, Petros Baptist Church Managing Editor, "The Journal of Biblical Studies" at http://web.infoave.net/~jwest/index.htm (submissions welcome!) jwest@highland.net From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri May 30 08:46:21 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA18352; Fri, 30 May 1997 08:46:20 -0400 Date: Fri, 30 May 97 08:39:39 EDT From: george howard Subject: Re: Hos 11:1 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970529161952.2bf73a7a@mail.highland.net> X-Mailer: MailBook 96.01.000 Message-Id: <970530.084746.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: 665 On Thu, 29 May 1997 16:20:10 -0500 (EST) Jim West said: >The MT has "son" in the singular (out of Egypt have I called my son). The >LXX (Rahlfs) has "ta tekna autou". The apparatus does not list any specific >LXX ms which contain the reading. Can anyone offer more concrete evidence >for the reading? > Jim, You should consult the Goettingen Septuagint for the Minor Prophets, edite d by J. Ziegler. It has the latest apparatus for this part of the LXX. It sho ws some versional support for the MT "filium meum". Otherwise the reading "his children" is supported by almost all LXX mss. George Howard UGA From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri May 30 11:04:08 1997 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA18742; Fri, 30 May 1997 11:04:08 -0400 Date: Fri, 30 May 1997 11:04:07 -0400 (EDT) From: "James R. Adair" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: Hos 11:1 In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970529161952.2bf73a7a@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: 1691 Fitzmyer doesn't list Hos 11:1 in his index of the DSS, and the Murabbaat scroll of the minor prophets begins with Joel 2:20, so I don't know of any scroll that contains this verse (but maybe Gene Ulrich or Curt Niccum do?). The MT reading BNY could of course be read as a plural "my children," and one could argue that a confusion between Y and W, either in the transmission of the Hebrew text or at the point of translation, led to a reading (or pseudo-reading) BNW, which _could_ be read "his sons." Although one would normally expect BNYW in Masoretic orthography, the age of Hosea (ninth century), plus its origin in North Israel (although, if memory serves, the fuller orthography developed first in the north, under the influence of Aramaic), open up the possibility of defective orthography. On the other hand, TA TEKNA AUTOU might be better explained as typical of the translation technique of the translator. Does anyone know of a study of the t.t. of LXX Hosea? By the way, since I mentioned Gene Ulrich, many on the list might not be aware that he is currently working on a handbook-sized edition of the biblical material from the Judaean desert, laid out in the traditional order of the Hebrew books. The title, as I recall, is the Qumran Bible. I'm sure he doesn't want to be deluged by e-mail messages asking numerous specific questions, but he might have time to update the list on the status of his work, and perhaps give us a projected completion date. 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 <-----------------