From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Jul 5 19:41:02 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA17987; Sun, 5 Jul 1998 19:41:02 -0400 Date: Sun, 5 Jul 1998 18:39:12 -0500 (Central Daylight Time) From: Ronald Minton To: Textual Criticism list Subject: tc-list translators sources Message-ID: X-X-Sender: rminton@orions0.orion.org 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: 1961 I want to comment on the scholarship of DA Waite, who is a [many would say "the"] leading KJV defender today. His misguided book is _Defending the KJB_. This is in no way an attack on the man or the KJV. I just want to show how those of his thinking are misled and misleading others. Dr. JD Price was a help to me in some of this information. On page 24, Waite correctly says of the Masoretic Hebrew, the King James Version "translators used this text as the basis for their Bible rather than the Latin Vulgate...or the Septuagint...or an ancient tribal tradition, or any other source which is not the Masoretic Hebrew text." Concerning those other sources, Waite then immediately says, "None of these other things should ever have a say in how the text should read...." The truth is, Dr. Waite effectively condemns the KJV because the KJV occasionally used all of those other things instead of the Masoretic text. They all "have a say in how the text" [KJV] reads. Note the following examples which I offer only to show that it is best to always know what you are talking about and be honest when you do know. Scripture Masoretic Text KJV. (& no mss.) Ex. 34:23 the Lord, the Lord God the Lord God/the God Isa. 44:8 Rock God Hos. 13:9 he destroyed you thou hast destroyed thyself Scripture Mas. Txt. Tribal Tradition KJV Gen. 36:24 water mules mules Scripture Mas. Txt. Latin Vulgate KJV Gen. 6:5 LORD God God (1769 GOD) Isa. 19:10 soul fish fish Scripture Mas. Txt. Targum KJV 1 Sam. 2:25 God Judge Judge(1969 judge) Job 22:25 gold defense defense Scripture Mas Txt. LXX KJV 2 Ch. 17:4 God LORD God LORD God It is clear that Dr. Waite is not qualified to discuss the Old Testament text. Every area of his book is flawed in a similar manner. Unfortunately, some good men and women have been misled by teachers who should know better. Blessings, Professor Ron Minton From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Jul 5 21:37:31 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA18156; Sun, 5 Jul 1998 21:37:30 -0400 Message-ID: <35A0229E.B7D@total.net> Date: Sun, 05 Jul 1998 21:04:30 -0400 From: Mike & Jeanne Arcieri X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02E-KIT (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list translators sources 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: 1288 Ronald Minton wrote: > > I want to comment on the scholarship of DA Waite, who is a [many would say > "the"] leading KJV defender today. His misguided book is _Defending the > KJB_. This is in no way an attack on the man or the KJV. I just want to > show how those of his thinking are misled and misleading others. Dr. JD > Price was a help to me in some of this information. Ronald, Refuting Waite's book would be a Master's thesis in itself. ;-) Waite (and practically all other KJV writers) is not searching for textual truth since he made up his mind long ago regarding the KJV. The book contains not only textual flaws, but logical fallacies as well as hermeneutical errors. The KJV-only agenda is clearly spelled out and the textual evidence must be made to conform to it. James Price has excellent material on this (even better than James White, in my opinion) and I find that he provides the most solid counter-arguments against this view. He especially has done a good job refuting Riplinger's delusions. When reading KJV material, I am reminded of a saying of Erasmus who, in responding to a published critique of his NT, said it was: 'so illiterate that I could hardly endure to read it, so comical that I could not fail to'. Good ol' Erasmus... ;-) Mike A. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Jul 7 10:06:03 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA25618; Tue, 7 Jul 1998 10:06:03 -0400 Date: Tue, 7 Jul 1998 10:05:21 -0400 From: "Harold P. Scanlin" Subject: tc-list Re: KJV To: TC-LIST Message-ID: <199807071005_MC2-525F-7CB1@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: 1725 Anyone doing serious study of the textual base and translation technique = of the KJV now has a new edition of _The Translators to the Reader: The original preface of the King James Version of 1611 revisited_, edited by Erroll Rhodes and Liana Lupas (American Bible Society, 1997). I hesitate= to promote our own publications, but I believe this is an especially valuable resource at a good price, $5.95 (order number 106022). The litt= le volume includes a facsimile reprint of the 1611 preface, a transcription into modern type with the source of virtually all of the quotations and allusions identified, with English translations, and a "modern form" of t= he preface. On the ancient versions and textual notes: ". . . variety of translation= s is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is not= so clear, must needs do good; yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded." On concordant translation: "Reasons inducing us not to stand curiously upon an identity of phrasing. . . . For is the kingdom of God become wor= ds and syllables? Why should we be in bondage to them, if we may be free? u= se one [word] precisely, when we may use another no less fit as commodiously= ?" To be sure, the KJV translators defended the importance of basing their translation on the Hebrew and Greek. Their primary purpose for this strenuous defense was to argue for the use of the original texts, but th= is did not prevent them from using the versions, several good examples of which have already been given in this discussion thread. Harold P. Scanlin United Bible Societies 1865 Broadway New York, NY 10023 scanlin@compuserve.com From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Jul 7 20:22:14 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA28515; Tue, 7 Jul 1998 20:22:13 -0400 From: "Francisco Orozco" To: "TC-List" Subject: tc-list (off-topic) French-English Bible Date: Tue, 7 Jul 1998 18:12:28 -0600 Message-ID: <01bdaa05$18c405a0$4a03e194@fran> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 239 TCers, Please excuse the off-topic request. I am searching for a French-English Bible (side by side translations). If someone can direct me to a source I will be most grateful. Thank you, Francisco Orozco fran4@rtn.uson.mx TC lurker From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Jul 8 23:35:09 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id XAA03567; Wed, 8 Jul 1998 23:35:09 -0400 Message-ID: <35A2F4AF.7EE0@total.net> Date: Wed, 08 Jul 1998 00:25:19 -0400 From: Mike & Jeanne Arcieri X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02E-KIT (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list (off-topic) French-English Bible References: <01bdaa05$18c405a0$4a03e194@fran> 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: 1222 Francisco Orozco wrote: > > TCers, > Please excuse the off-topic request. I am searching for a French-English > Bible (side by side translations). If someone can direct me to a source I > will be most grateful. > Thank you, Francisco, I'm deducing that this parallel Bible is to be used in "matching" the English and French. I'm not quite sure of what purpose such a parallel Bible would be, since it will most likely be the KJV text and Louis Segond text. Besides the fact that both were translated from different Greek texts, any attempt at "matching" the English and French would be futile. If your query is on what the French Bible says, then a recently published French Interlinear (1993) would be of much better use. It contains the NA text, a literal interlinear french translation, and the TOB (Traduction Oecumenique de la Bible) and FC (Bible en Francais Courant) in the margins. I suspect that this wonderful undertaking is the ONLY French interlinear done, and it is certainly praiseworthy. The work was the undertaking of Maurice Carrez, a very well known and respected French biblical scholar. The BFBS has it, and so does the Alliance Biblique Universelle. Hope this helps... ;-) Mike From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Jul 10 17:39:46 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA15174; Fri, 10 Jul 1998 17:39:46 -0400 Date: Fri, 10 Jul 1998 17:39:45 -0400 (EDT) From: "James R. Adair" To: TC List Subject: tc-list review of Lust et al., LXX Lexicon 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: 759 A new book review is available in TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism: J. Lust, E. Eynikel, and K. Hauspie, with the collaboration of G. Chamberlain, A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint, pts. 1-2 (Bernard A. Taylor, reviewer). Many thanks to Bernard Taylor for his efforts, and let me remind those of you who are currently reviewing books for TC that we hope to see your reviews soon! I hope, too, that some of you are working on articles for submission to TC. I don't want our editorial board to have nothing to do over the summer (or winter, in the case of our South African and Australian editors)! Jimmy Adair General Editor of TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism -------------------> http://purl.org/TC <-------------------- From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Jul 11 05:16:00 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id FAA16686; Sat, 11 Jul 1998 05:15:59 -0400 Date: Sat, 11 Jul 1998 05:15:33 -0400 From: Carlton Meredith <113164.2404@compuserve.com> Subject: tc-list French-English Bible (Off-Topic) To: TC-List Message-ID: <199807110515_MC2-52CE-5FE6@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: 513 Date: Saturday, July 11, 1998 11:15 AM From: Carlton Meredith <113164.2404@compuserve.com> Subject: French-English Bible (Off-Topic) To: TC-List cc: Francisco Orozco Francisco, I do not know of any French-English Bible (side by side translations), either currently in print or previously published. If you hear of the existence of such a work, past or present, I would be interested to know about it. Carlton Meredith, lll Biblical Seminary of Brussels From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Jul 13 17:24:12 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA23286; Mon, 13 Jul 1998 17:24:11 -0400 Message-Id: <199807132104.XAA16831@mail1.arcadis.be> Subject: tc-list Petersen on Ben Shaphrut Date: Lun, 13 Jul 98 23:26:52 +0200 x-sender: vale5655@mail.arcadis.be x-mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1 From: Jean VALENTIN To: "Liste TC-List" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 6982 It took me a week to send this message, but I wanted to take the time = to read attentively Dr Petersen's article on Howard's book. I think = that the demonstration is done: Ben Shaphrut's version _is_ a = version, not an original text, and as I suspected it (and as Dr = Petersen makes it abundantly clear), it belongs to the complex of = medieval texts that are apparented to the Diatessaron. The variants = listed by Dr Petersen are good evidence for this. Still, there are some questions I would like us to explore: --------------------------- (1) LANGUAGE OF THE VORLAGE >From which language was it translated? Was it directly from Latin, or = was it from some vernacular (like, for example, the pepysian harmony = which is supposed to come from a lost French original)? The variants = give us evidence as to the textual family it belongs to, we need more = in order to decide from which language exactly this Hebrew version = was translated. Dr Petersen gives us an interesting example of = mistranslation or wrong choice in the translation of a word (at =A7 = 89). I would like to add another example: at Mt 7.11 there's the use of = the preposition 'im in the phrase 'im heyothkhem ra'im. This should = be translated, of course, "while you are wicked". But in Hebrew, 'im = is a preposition meaning "with", and nothing else. So in Hebrew, this = verse simply doesn't make sense. What happens? In latin, "Cum" can be understood in two ways: (1) = preposition meaning "with" - this is how it is translated, wrongly, = in our Hebrew text. (2) "Cum" can also be a subordinative = conjunction, meaning "while", "as" and introducing temporal clauses. = This is how it should have been translated. So our tranlator, having = to choose between the preposition and conjunction, took the wrong = choice. This is, I think, another evidence for the fact that our = Hebrew text was translated from latin. At this point, the sentence is = nonsensical: this is a sure trace of mistranslation, and we can = demonstrate that the mistake comes from not understanding a latin = word. Our text was not written originally in Hebrew, but is = translated from Latin. ------------------------------ (2) NATURE OF THE VORLAGE It is nearly certain that the language of the Vorlage was Latin. But = what kind of text was it exactly? It could have been a Diatessaron = from which the translator chose the pericopes that come from Matthew = (of course, keeping the harmonizations as he didn't take the time to = eliminate them). It could have been, as Dr Petersen seems to suggest, = separate Gospels heavily influenced by the harmonized tradition. Or, = third solution, it could have been a lectionary - some show traces of = a heavy influence of the harmonized tradition. I don't have a very precise opinion as to how we should study the = matter in order to decide, but let me try a suggestion. The Hebrew = text of Ben Shaphrut is divided into peraqim - paragraphs. Do these = correspond to divisions in Latin manuscripts - it could be the = sections of the latin diatessaron (the Dutch harmonies are also = divided in paragraphs roughly corresponding to pericopes or narrative = units) or the pericopes of a lectionary. If a specialist in the = Western liturgy could tell us if the peraqim of our Hebrew text = correspond to one of the Western rites of the Middle Ages (roman, = mozarabic rites...), this could help us to determine the origin of = this text and the process by which it was translated. --------------------------------- OTHER REMARKS and informations: - At =A7 38, variant 5, Dr Petersen points to "being built" instead = of "set on". I have met this variant in an Arabic version from the = Middle East based mainly on the Byzantine text (but with many other = influences) - the one I'm studying for my thesis: ms Sinai Arabic 69, = from the XIth century. - At =A780, variant 2. As Dr Petersen cites this variant following = the apparatus of Legg, I just checked directly in the Georgian = editions, and can confirm that the citation is exact (I always prefer = to have a look directly at the versions when I can, you never = know...). - At =A7 95, the variant of Mt 25.6. My Arabic version from the XIth = century has this too: fa-Hiina kaana niSf al-layl idha biSawt = yunaadii... "and when it was half of the night, behold, a voice = announced..." The variant is no more a unique agreement between Liege = and Ben-Shaphrut. The variant is also present in another Arabic version about which I = posted to this list some time ago: that of ms Sinai Arabic 71, from = the Xth century: wa-fii niSf al-layl abadan Sawt yaquul "and at half = of the night, suddenly (litt: always =3D ?) a voice was saying..." These Arabic versions, though translated from Greek, have many common = variants with diatessaronic witnesses and eastern versions. They = being eastern witnesses, could we count the variant as diatessaronic = as it is supported now both in East and West? - At Mt 16.13, the name Philippus is written FYLYBWS in Hebrew. This = is interesting, as this reflects the Arabic orthography of that name = (after all, we're in Spain!). In Arabic, there is no double = pronunciation of the letter phe (as is the case in Hebrew). It is = always pronounced "F", and the sound "P" of the Western languages is = transcribed by the letter "B". In older Hebrew, there would have been = a "P" in both positions (look at Jastrow's dictionary, where several = transcriptions of that name is given at the article PLYPA page 1182 = left column). This is at least one trace of the influence of Arabic = civilization (and grammatical tradition!) on our text. - About the quality of Howard edition and of its revision. In the = first edition I had found not a few typos. Some have been corrected = in the second edition, others not. Here are those that weren't. * Mt 6.22 third word: read 'eyNeykha, with a nun instead of the = second 'ayn. * Mt 15.7 first word: read hwy instead of hyw (correct in the = apparatus, but not in the text). * Mt 17.1 first word should read "aHar" (with heth, meaning after) = instead of the obscure "atar" * Mt 20.14 last word, erase the taw and read "kamokha" (like you) = instead of ke-mothkha (like your dead?). * Mt 20.15 first word after the question mark: replace the daleth by = a resh and read "ha-yera'" (is it bad) instead of "ha-yeda'" (does he = know). And I didn't note them systematically! So I'm lee enthusiastic than = Dr Petersen when he praises the quality of the edition of the Hebrew = text. _________________________________________________ Jean Valentin - Bruxelles - Belgique e-mail: jgvalentin@arcadis.be _________________________________________________ "Ce qui est trop simple est faux, ce qui est trop complexe est = inutilisable" "What's too simple is wrong, what's too complex is unusable" "Wat te eenvoudig is, is verkeerd; wat te ingewikkeld is, is = onbruikbaar" _________________________________________________ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Jul 15 08:00:36 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA29220; Wed, 15 Jul 1998 08:00:35 -0400 Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 08:00:34 -0400 Message-Id: <199807151200.IAA29215@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> >Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 21:54:33 -0700 From: Mark Gipe To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: tc-list P1 - Use of Nomina Sacra? Content-Type: text Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 574 Can anyone help me in this question? Greek NT Manuscript P1 contains Matthew 1:1-9,12&14-20. I did not have a photo of it! In Reuben Swanson's book "New Testament Greek Manuscripts" - vol #1 Matthew he does not site it as using the Nomina Sacra for "Iesou Xristou". Does any one know if this is correct? ( I am waiting for P. Comfort's new book with photos ) Also does anyone know of other old Greek NT manuscripts which do not used Nomina Sacra for either "God, Lord, Jesus, or Christ" ? or ones that are hit and miss? Please let me know Thanks much Mark Gipe From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Jul 15 20:24:35 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA03569; Wed, 15 Jul 1998 20:24:34 -0400 From: "Vinton A. Dearing" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 17:24:40 PST MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: tc-list KJ or not KJ X-Confirm-Reading-To: "Vinton A. Dearing" X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) Message-ID: <505C7B0294@113hum4.humnet.ucla.edu> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 4077 What helps did the King James translators turn to when they translated the Hebrew Bible? They said themselves in their preface that they used every available help. That should settle the question. Attempts to prove that they did what they said they did are more difficult, and I do not find Ronald Minton's of July 5 convincing. We do not know, for instance, what edition of the MT the translators used, or even that all members of the committee used the same one. And what edition of 1611 do we mean? The one that has "he went" in Ruth 3:15 or the one that has "she went"? And, for that matter, how do we know that when these two editions agree they always give what the translators intended their readers to see? In sixteenth and seventeenth century printing we cannot be sure that any edition of any book has every copy identical. Minute correspondences and differences, then, are not of themselves convincing. Specialists in editing the literature of the period compare as many copies of each edition in their purview as they can; all the surviving copies of Shakespeare's First Folio have been compared letter by letter, punctuation mark by punctuation mark, using an optical machine, the Hinman collator, named after its inventor, that makes even differences in spacing immediately obvious. No such work has been done on early editions of the MT or the KJV to my knowledge. I spent an hour this morning looking at a microfilm of the copy of KJV 1611 with "he went" in the Cambridge University Library. I shall call it CUL. My desk copy of KJV, American Bible Society, n.d., I shall call ABS. Since I am anything but a Hebrew scholar I confined myself to the three instances of the divine name referred to by Minton. For the readings of the MT I used my desk copy of Snaith's edition, 1958, in the full knowledge that the King James translators had something else in front of them, if not several something elses. What did I find? Minton says that in Ex. 34:23 the MT reads "the Lord, the Lord God," whereas KJV reads "the Lord God, the God." Snaith reads "the Lord, the God of Israel," where Lord is YHWH with the vowels of adonai. CUL reads "the Lord God, the God of Israel," where the first "God" is in large and small caps, indicating that it translates YHWH with the vowels of elohim. Divergences in the pointing of YHWH, says IDB IV, 588, are fairly common in the manuscripts. May they not be equally common, then, in editions based on different manuscripts. Isn't it possible that CUL translates accurately? Minton says that in Gen. 6:5 the MT reads "LORD" whereas the KJV of 1611 reads "God." Snaith has YHWH with the vowels of adonai. CUL has "God," ABS has "God" in large and small capitals. Isn't it possible that CUL has a printer's error here, that "God" should have been in large and small capitals and is not a translation from some other source than the MT? Minton says that in 2 Ch. 17:4 the MT has "God" whereas the KJV has "LORD God." Snaith has elohim. CUL has "Lord God" with "Lord" in large and small capitals. ABS has the same, except that "Lord" is also in italics, indicating that it is an addition by the translators. May not the absence of italics in CUL be another printer's error? I made a cursory search in CUL for instances when "God" or "Lord" was in romans and could find none (CUL is in gothic type with the added words in romans instead of in roman type with the added words in italics). But it may be that there are instances in CUL of "Lord" in roman type, increasing the possibility that 2 Ch. 17:4 in CUL contains a printer's error. And in any case, are these divergences from the MT significant? Do they refute the argument that we do not need to correct or interpret the KJV from anything but the MT? I cannot agree. I am myself willing to look elsewhere for better readings than those in the KJV, especially since the translators said they did. But proving their assertion is not as easy as Minton makes it seem. useLooking specifically, From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Jul 15 23:36:56 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id XAA03826; Wed, 15 Jul 1998 23:36:56 -0400 Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19980716033220.006da4ac@utc.campus.mci.net> X-Sender: cierpke@utc.campus.mci.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 23:32:20 -0400 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Kevin W. Woodruff" Subject: Re: tc-list KJ or not KJ Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 5248 As far as the MT text goes, we know that they used the Hebrew text as reflected in the Complutesian Polyglot (1517), the Antwerp Polyglot (1572), the Platin Polyglot (1572) and Jacob Ben Chayyim's Second Rabbinic Bible(1524/5), which remained the Hebrew Textus Receptus until is was replaced by the Codex Leningrad in the 3rd edition of Kittel's Biblia Hebraica in 1937. Readings from the LXX, the Vulgate and Hebrew scribal tradition were also used by the KJV translators in addition to the readings of earlier English Bibles and other Eurpeoan viersions such as the Cypriano Valers version of 1602. After all the KJV was merely a revision of the Bishops Bible \At 05:24 PM 7/15/98 PST, you wrote: >What helps did the King James translators turn to when they >translated the Hebrew Bible? They said themselves in their preface >that they used every available help. That should settle the question. >Attempts to prove that they did what they said they did are more >difficult, and I do not find Ronald Minton's of July 5 convincing. > We do not know, for instance, what edition of the MT the >translators used, or even that all members of the committee used the >same one. And what edition of 1611 do we mean? The one that has "he >went" in Ruth 3:15 or the one that has "she went"? And, for that >matter, how do we know that when these two editions agree they always >give what the translators intended their readers to see? In sixteenth >and seventeenth century printing we cannot be sure that any edition >of any book has every copy identical. Minute correspondences and >differences, then, are not of themselves convincing. Specialists in >editing the literature of the period compare as many copies of each >edition in their purview as they can; all the surviving copies of >Shakespeare's First Folio have been compared letter by letter, >punctuation mark by punctuation mark, using an optical machine, the >Hinman collator, named after its inventor, that makes even differences >in spacing immediately obvious. No such work has been done on early >editions of the MT or the KJV to my knowledge. > I spent an hour this morning looking at a microfilm of the copy >of KJV 1611 with "he went" in the Cambridge University Library. I >shall call it CUL. My desk copy of KJV, American Bible Society, n.d., >I shall call ABS. Since I am anything but a Hebrew scholar I >confined myself to the three instances of the divine name referred to >by Minton. For the readings of the MT I used my desk copy of Snaith's >edition, 1958, in the full knowledge that the King James translators had >something else in front of them, if not several something elses. >What did I find? > Minton says that in Ex. 34:23 the MT reads "the Lord, the Lord >God," whereas KJV reads "the Lord God, the God." Snaith reads "the >Lord, the God of Israel," where Lord is YHWH with the vowels of >adonai. CUL reads "the Lord God, the God of Israel," where the first >"God" is in large and small caps, indicating that it translates YHWH >with the vowels of elohim. Divergences in the pointing of YHWH, says >IDB IV, 588, are fairly common in the manuscripts. May they not be >equally common, then, in editions based on different manuscripts. >Isn't it possible that CUL translates accurately? > Minton says that in Gen. 6:5 the MT reads "LORD" whereas the KJV >of 1611 reads "God." Snaith has YHWH with the vowels of adonai. CUL >has "God," ABS has "God" in large and small capitals. Isn't it >possible that CUL has a printer's error here, that "God" should have >been in large and small capitals and is not a translation from some >other source than the MT? > Minton says that in 2 Ch. 17:4 the MT has "God" whereas the KJV >has "LORD God." Snaith has elohim. CUL has "Lord God" with "Lord" in >large and small capitals. ABS has the same, except that "Lord" is >also in italics, indicating that it is an addition by the >translators. May not the absence of italics in CUL be another >printer's error? I made a cursory search in CUL for instances when >"God" or "Lord" was in romans and could find none (CUL is in >gothic type with the added words in romans instead of in roman type >with the added words in italics). But it may be that there are instances >in CUL of "Lord" in roman type, increasing the possibility that 2 Ch. >17:4 in CUL contains a printer's error. > And in any case, are these divergences from the MT significant? >Do they refute the argument that we do not need to correct or >interpret the KJV from anything but the MT? I cannot agree. I am >myself willing to look elsewhere for better readings than those in >the KJV, especially since the translators said they did. But proving >their assertion is not as easy as Minton makes it seem. > >useLooking specifically, > > > > Kevin W. Woodruff, M.Div. Library Director/Reference Librarian Cierpke Memorial Library Tennessee Temple University/Temple Baptist Seminary 1815 Union Ave. Chattanooga, Tennessee 37404 United States of America 423/493-4252 (office) 423/698-9447 (home) 423/493-4497 (FAX) Cierpke@utc.campus.mci.net (preferred) kwoodruf@utkux.utcc.utk.edu (alternate) http://web.utk.edu/~kwoodruf/woodruff.htm From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Jul 16 11:24:42 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA06629; Thu, 16 Jul 1998 11:24:40 -0400 Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 11:24:37 -0400 Message-Id: <199807161524.LAA06623@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> >Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 18:46:30 -0700 From: Mark Gipe To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: tc-list Latin Bibles Content-Type: text Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 544 I am by no means a Latin Scholar. I only have 2 copies of the Bible in Latin. One is "Biblia Sacra Vulgata" by Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft 4th printing 1994. The other is a copy of Matthew which has different readings from what the "Biblia Sacra Vulgata" does. The "Biblia Sacra Vulgata" does not even have these readings in it's footnotes at all. My question is this "Does anyone know where I may find other texts of the Bible in Latin still in print? Which state which manuscripts it quotes. Thanks much Mark Gipe gipe@sd.znet.com From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Jul 16 16:40:31 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA08490; Thu, 16 Jul 1998 16:40:30 -0400 Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 16:40:27 -0400 (EDT) From: "James R. Adair" To: TC List Subject: tc-list review of Leningrad Codex facsimile 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 Another book review is now available in TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism: David Noel Freedman, general editor; Astrid B. Beck, managing editor; Bruce E. Zuckerman and Marilyn J. Lundberg, associate editors; James A. Sanders, publication editor; Bruce E. Zuckerman, Kenneth A. Zuckerman, Marilyn J. Lundberg, and Garth I. Moller, photographers, The Leningrad Codex: A Facsimile Edition (James R. Adair, Jr., reviewer) Jimmy Adair General Editor of TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism -------------------> http://purl.org/TC <-------------------- From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Jul 17 04:55:31 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id EAA09929; Fri, 17 Jul 1998 04:55:30 -0400 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980717105521.0069f678@mail.cc.kuleuven.ac.be> X-Sender: p4246500@mail.cc.kuleuven.ac.be X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1998 10:55:21 +0200 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: Johan Lust Subject: Re: tc-list Latin Bibles In-Reply-To: <199807161524.LAA06623@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 779 Dear, A critical edition of the Vulgar latin text has been published in Rome: Typis polyglottis vaticanis (18 vols. Gen 1976 - 1&2Macc 1995). Greetings Johan Lust ------------ At 11:24 16/07/98 -0400, you wrote: >I am by no means a Latin Scholar. I only have 2 copies of the Bible in >Latin. One is "Biblia Sacra Vulgata" by Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft 4th >printing 1994. The other is a copy of Matthew which has different readings >from what the "Biblia Sacra Vulgata" does. The "Biblia Sacra Vulgata" does >not even have these readings in it's footnotes at all. > >My question is this "Does anyone know where I may find other texts of the >Bible in Latin still in print? >Which state which manuscripts it quotes. > > >Thanks much > > >Mark Gipe >gipe@sd.znet.com > > > > > From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sat Jul 18 08:13:54 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA17897; Sat, 18 Jul 1998 08:13:53 -0400 Message-ID: <35B09225.75E1@flash.net> Date: Sat, 18 Jul 1998 07:16:37 -0500 From: Andrew Payne X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01C-FlashNet (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list P1 - Use of Nomina Sacra? References: <199807151200.IAA29215@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 959 Are you interested in the presence or absence of Nomina Sacra in the Gospel of Matthew only? Recently I did some collation in Gregory 1192 in the second half of the Gospel of John and it occasionally spelled out Iesou Xristou and Theou as well, although the overwhelming majority of the time it used Nomina Sacra. Andrew Payne Mark Gipe wrote: > > Can anyone help me in this question? > > Greek NT Manuscript P1 contains Matthew 1:1-9,12&14-20. > > I did not have a photo of it! > > In Reuben Swanson's book "New Testament Greek Manuscripts" - vol #1 Matthew > he does not site it as using the Nomina Sacra for "Iesou Xristou". Does any > one know if this is correct? ( I am waiting for P. Comfort's new book with > photos ) > > Also does anyone know of other old Greek NT manuscripts which do not used > Nomina Sacra for either "God, Lord, Jesus, or Christ" ? or ones that are hit > and miss? > > Please let me know > > Thanks much > > Mark Gipe From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Sun Jul 19 16:17:55 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA21103; Sun, 19 Jul 1998 16:17:53 -0400 Date: Sun, 19 Jul 1998 16:17:11 -0400 From: "Mr A.J.A. LABOUCHERE" Subject: tc-list Some comments on the Shem-Tob discussion To: "INTERNET:tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu" Message-ID: <199807191617_MC2-5390-7CB8@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: 14360 After a couple weeks in the Near East, I am back in Euorpe, and have caug= ht up on the discussion of the article on Shem-Tob. Below are some comments... First, re Jean Valentin's post: >(1) LANGUAGE OF THE VORLAGE >From which language was it translated? Was it directly from Latin, or wa= s it from some vernacular (like, >for example, the pepysian harmony which i= s supposed to come from a lost French original)? The >variants give us evidence as to the textual family it belongs to, we need more in order to= decide from >which language exactly this Hebrew version was translated. D= r Petersen gives us an interesting >example of mistranslation or wrong choi= ce in the translation of a word (at =A7 89). = >I would like to add another example: at Mt 7.11 there's the use of the preposition 'im in the phrase 'im >heyothkhem ra'im. This should be translated, of course, "while you are wicked". But in Hebrew, 'im is a >preposition meaning "with", and nothing else. So in Hebrew, this verse simply doesn't make sense. = >What happens? In latin, "Cum" can be understood in two ways: (1) preposition meaning "with" - this is >how it is translated, wrongly, in o= ur Hebrew text. (2) "Cum" can also be a subordinative conjunction, >meaning "while", "as" and introducing temporal clauses. This is how it should hav= e been translated. >So our tranlator, having to choose between the preposition and conjunction, took the wrong choice. >This is, I think, another evidence for the fact that our Hebrew text was translated from latin. At this point, >the sentence is nonsensical: this is a sure trace = of mistranslation, and we can demonstrate that the >mistake comes from not understanding a latin word. Our text was not written originally in Hebrew= , but is >translated from Latin. It would seem that Jean has answered his own question. Latin seems the obvious choice becuase of the reasons stated in the article: (1) we know the *Vorlage* of the Middle Dutch tradition: it was= Latin. (2) We know the *Vorlage* of Isaac Velasquez: it was, apparently= , also Latin. Beyond this, (3) the agreements of Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew= = with the Vulgate and the Vetus Latina, as well as (4) the standard practi= ce of the time and place (the medieval West) point to Latin. This is all supported by (5) readings in the text (cf. para. 89 in the article), of which Valentin has apparently found another example (I do not have my cop= y of Shem-Tob at hand, so I cannot check his example, but off the top of my= head, his analysis sounds reasonable). ------------------------------ >(2) NATURE OF THE VORLAGE >It is nearly certain that the language of the Vorlage was Latin. But wha= t kind of text was it exactly? It >could have been a Diatessaron from which= the translator chose the pericopes that come from >Matthew (of course, keeping the harmonizations as he didn't take the time to eliminate them).= It could >have been, as Dr Petersen seems to suggest, separate Gospels heavily influenced by the >harmonized tradition. Or, third solution, it could have been a lectionary - some show traces of a heavy >influence of the harmonized tradition. There are good reasons to exclude the first and third of Jean's suggestions. As to the possibility that it was a Diatessaron from which the translator excised the Matthean fragments: to "unbundle" a gospel harmony, in an age and place where the separate gospels were circulating,= seems not only unlikely but a very obtuse manner in which to go about things. It simply seems unlikely. Furthermore, if such a procedure were= followed, one would expect even more "confusion" than there is with the other gopels, for the task of deciding where the text of Matthew would begin and end, begin again, and then end again, in a pericope would be a very difficult and imprecise task. As opposed to this, Shem-Tob's Hebrew= Matthew seems--by and large--a copy of Matthew, but one heavily influence= d by the harmonized gospel tradition. On the third possibility, that this is a lectionary text: yes, some lectionaries display harmonization, but no lectionary rubrics are evident= in this Hebrew text (at least to the best of my knowledge); also recall that lectionaries don't contain the entire text of a gospel, while--albei= t with some omissions here and there--Shem-Tob's Matthew seems to be giving= a more or less complete text of Matthew. Because of these and other reasons, the second possibility--a text of Matthew, heavily influenced by the harmonized gospel tradition--seems mos= t likely to me. Remember that we are not speculating about the existence o= f such a text in Latin, for Isaac Velasquez *knew and used* such a text *in= Spain* precisely *in the time-frame* we are targeting. >I don't have a very precise opinion as to how we should study the matter= in order to decide, but let me >try a suggestion. The Hebrew text of Ben Shaphrut is divided into peraqim - paragraphs. Do these >correspond to divisions in Latin manuscripts - it could be the sections of the latin diatessaron (the >Dutch harmonies are also divided in paragraphs roughly corresponding to pericopes or narrative >units) or the pericopes of a lectionary. If a specialist in the Western liturgy could tell us if the peraqim of >our Hebrew text correspond to one of the Western rites of the= Middle Ages (roman, mozarabic rites...), >this could help us to determine= the origin of this text and the process by which it was translated. I'd be happy to have someone check this out. But recall that the liturgi= es will not give all the text of a gospel, and Shem-Tob seems to give more-or-less most of Matthew. The paragraphs in the Western harmonies do= not--again, to the best of my knowledge--mirror any liturgical pattern. = Codex Fuldensis--in Latin, and our oldest extant harmony in the West--has= 182 capitula, if I recall correctly (Ulrich Schmid worked on this at NIAS= last year: Ulrich, any comment?). The Liege Harmony has well over 200 "chapters," if I recall correctly. The only western harmony with obvious= litrugical links is the Middle English Pepysian Harmony, which, at least = in my researches, has very little in common with the Hebrew Matthew in Shem-Tob's *The Touchstone.* (The Pepysian Harmony has some rubrics here= and there: "The reading for the third Thursday," etc.) --------------------------------- OTHER REMARKS and informations: >- At =A7 38, variant 5, Dr Petersen points to "being built" instead of "= set on". I have met this variant in an >Arabic version from the Middle East based mainly on the Byzantine text (but with many other >influences) - th= e one I'm studying for my thesis: ms Sinai Arabic 69, from the XIth century= =2E Again, I am without my books at the moment, but my memory tells me this reading is found in several other sourcesas well: check the specifics i= n Appendix III in Quispel's *Tatian and the Gospel of Thomas* (1975). = >- At =A780, variant 2. As Dr Petersen cites this variant following the apparatus of Legg, I just checked >directly in the Georgian editions, and= can confirm that the citation is exact (I always prefer to have a >look directly at the versions when I can, you never know...). Good for you, Jean: always go to the original sources, if possible. >- At =A7 95, the variant of Mt 25.6. My Arabic version from the XIth cen= tury has this too: fa-Hiina kaana niSf >al-layl idha biSawt yunaadii... "and when it was half of the night, behold, a voice announced..." The >variant= is no more a unique agreement between Liege and Ben-Shaphrut. = >The variant is also present in another Arabic version about which I post= ed to this list some time ago: >that of ms Sinai Arabic 71, from the Xth century: wa-fii niSf al-layl abadan Sawt yaquul "and at half of the >nigh= t, suddenly (litt: always =3D ?) a voice was saying..." >These Arabic versions, though translated from Greek, have many common variants with >diatessaronic witnesses and eastern versions. They being eastern witnesses, could we count the >variant as diatessaronic as it is supported now both in East and West? This is interesting. One reading, however, can't tell us much. One woul= d have to do a much more thorough analysis. When I stumbled across the reading, interpolating "voice," I immediately thought of my Hebrew lesson= s years ago, where "voice(s)" of god/the prophet/whomever was/were "crying out" all the time. The reading seemed very "Semitic" to my nose. So I a= m not surprised to learn that a parallel has turned up in the East. The question, however, is the origin of the variant. On that point, I don't know enough about this Arabic MS (Sinai Arab. 71) to give an opinion. As= I mentioned at the beginning of this paragraph, a much more thorough study = of this MS would be necessary before one could offer any intelligent comment= =2E = A few general observations may be useful, however. First, recall that there is a close link between the Arabic translations = of the gospels and the Syriac (cp. Anton Baumstark, Curt Peeters and B. Levin). You mention that this MS (or its Vorlage) is translated from the= Greek; is that certain? And how profound is the Syriac influence on thi= s MS? This might be the genesis of the "Diatessaronic" readings in Sinai Arab. 71. Finally, before claiming bilateral support (East and West, and= hence possibly a Diatessaronic reading), one must be certain that Sinai Arab. 71 has been influenced by the Diatessaron; that is not yet clear--= at least to me. The influence, if it does exist, would be very "faint" and "distant" if, as you suggest, the MS itself (or its Vorlage) were translated from Greek. I would be cautious about claiming Diatessaronic origins for this reading, for it is entirely absent from all the major witnesses, both East and West, *except* for the Liege Harmony (late) and now, MS Sinai Arab. 71 (also late, and with a Greek Vorlage, according to= you)... This is *not* horribly impressive to me. Now, if the reading we= re also in *Ephrem* (4th cent.), then the cards would be stacked differently.... ;-) Nevertheless, an interesting parallel. = >- At Mt 16.13, the name Philippus is written FYLYBWS in Hebrew. This is interesting, as this reflects the >Arabic orthography of that name (after= all, we're in Spain!). In Arabic, there is no double pronunciation >of th= e letter phe (as is the case in Hebrew). It is always pronounced "F", and t= he sound "P" of the >Western languages is transcribed by the letter "B". In older Hebrew, there would have been a "P" in >both positions (look at Jastrow's dictionary, where several transcriptions of that name is given = at the >article PLYPA page 1182 left column). This is at least one trace of the influence of Arabic civilization >(and grammatical tradition!) on our= text. Interesting; as you note, however, we are in Spain, in Moorish times. >- About the quality of Howard edition and of its revision. In the first edition I had found not a few typos. >Some have been corrected in the second edition, others not. Here are those that weren't. >* Mt 6.22 third word: read 'eyNeykha, with a nun instead of the second 'ayn. >* Mt 15.7 first word: read hwy instead of hyw (correct in the apparatus,= but not in the text). >* Mt 17.1 first word should read "aHar" (with heth, meaning after) inste= ad of the obscure "atar" >* Mt 20.14 last word, erase the taw and read "kamokha" (like you) instea= d of ke-mothkha (like your >dead?). >* Mt 20.15 first word after the question mark: replace the daleth by a resh and read "ha-yera'" (is it bad) >instead of "ha-yeda'" (does he know= ). >And I didn't note them systematically! So I'm lee enthusiastic than Dr Petersen when he praises the >quality of the edition of the Hebrew text. Your observations are absolutely correct. There are numerous typographic= al errors. While one cannot always be certain that they are errors in the text of the edition itself (although one can suspect, and be rather certa= in that they are...), they are clearly present when one compares Howard's lists of readings in his "Introduction" (e.g., his lists of parallels wit= h Thomas, the Vetus Syra, etc.) with his own Hebrew text in the edition. = They sometimes don't agree--meaning that one or the other must be a typo.= Thanks, Jean, for your very interesting and careful comments. As for other posts: Several early posts completely misunderstood the poi= nt of the article, thinking that I was arguing that the Hebrew Matthew was dependent upon a Middle Dutch Vorlage. My thanks to those of you who quickly intervened and pointed out that this was incorrect, and cited me = at length, showing that it was a common *Latin* Vorlage that was the source.= I must confess that I am puzzled how such a misunderstanding could have arisen, for in the first and last paragraphs of the body of the article, the following is written: (paras. 1-28 are a description of the edition, the translation, and a summary of Howard's analysis of the *waw-consecutivum*; only in para. 29= do I offer my first comment on the possible Vorlage) Para. 29: "...these similarities in structure [may] stem from dependence= upon a common archetype. And since we know the Middle Dutch manuscript's= Vorlage, it suggests that if there is dependence upon a common Vorlage, then that Vorlage is Latin." This is the very first comment on the matter from your author, at the ver= y start of the body of the article, which is devoted to the matter of the Vorlage. At the end of this analysis section (paras. 111-141 are the evidence of Isaac Velasquez, "What can be learned," and the Appendix on Thomas and th= e Italian Harmonies), in para. 104, the first paragraph in a section titled= "The Genesis of Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew," one finds: "the tradition behind the Liege Harmony--which we know to be a Latin gosp= el harmony--must also be the principal element responsible for the textual complexion of Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew." This sentence is even italicized. Clearer--at the beginning and at the end--I do not think I could be. Finally, someone asked if such Latin manuscripts actually existed. The answer is already in the article. See paras. 48, 51, 54. See also paras= =2E 32, 113. --Petersen, Penn State University. (not proofed) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Jul 20 05:44:34 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id FAA23071; Mon, 20 Jul 1998 05:44:32 -0400 Message-Id: <199807201043.LAA11617@carno.brus.online.be> Subject: tc-list Large edition/apparatus of John ? Date: Lun, 20 Jul 98 11:47:52 +0200 x-sender: vale5655@mail.arcadis.be x-mailer: Claris Emailer 1.1 From: Jean VALENTIN To: "Liste TC-List" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 902 A little question about edition with large apparatuses. Is there any instrument for the Gospel of John that compares to Legg's editions of Mt and Mk, and to the two Oxford volumes of Lk? By this, I mean: a recent edition and with an extended apparatus criticus? If not: some of you wrote to the list about the IGNTP project for John. Is this project going to produce such an edition, and when is it expected to be available? Thanks you for your informations. _________________________________________________ Jean Valentin - Bruxelles - Belgique e-mail: jgvalentin@arcadis.be _________________________________________________ "Ce qui est trop simple est faux, ce qui est trop complexe est inutilisable" "What's too simple is wrong, what's too complex is unusable" "Wat te eenvoudig is, is verkeerd; wat te ingewikkeld is, is onbruikbaar" _________________________________________________ From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Jul 20 12:59:06 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA25002; Mon, 20 Jul 1998 12:59:04 -0400 Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1998 12:58:54 -0400 From: "Harold P. Scanlin" Subject: tc-list Re: KJ or not KJ To: TC-List Message-ID: <199807201259_MC2-53A1-B430@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: 1339 Dearing properly reminds us that 16th and 17th century books contain variants within what we today would consider the same edition/printing. = Some TC readers may not be aware of the fact that a book, especially one the size of a Bible required much more movable type than any one print sh= op had at hand. As a result, typesetting shops would frequently run off a quantity of sheets for part of a book, then break down the type and use i= t for the next section of the book. If the publisher used several shops or= increased the press run in midstream sets of sheets from presumably the same edition could thus exhibit variants. I don't know, either, of anyone who has applied the Hinman collator to th= e early issues of the KJV. This would be a worthwhile project. Until then= , however, we do have a useful resource in FAH Scrivener's _The authorized edition of the English Bible (1611), its subsequent reprints and modern representatives_ (Cambridge, first ed. 1884; third edition 1910, though = I don't think there are any substantive changes). His Appendix A offers a "List of wrong readings of the Bible of 1611 amended in later editions," and Appendix B, "Variations between the two issues, both bearing the date= 1611." Harold P. Scanlin United Bible Societies 1865 Broadway New York, NY 10023 scanlin@compuserve.com From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Jul 20 18:59:53 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA26618; Mon, 20 Jul 1998 18:59:52 -0400 Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1998 17:59:27 -0500 (Central Daylight Time) From: Ronald Minton To: TC-List Subject: tc-list 1850 KJV In-Reply-To: <199807201259_MC2-53A1-B430@compuserve.com> Message-ID: X-X-Sender: rminton@orions0.orion.org 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: 527 Today I recived a post asking for the difference between the 1769 4th edition KJV and the 1850 correction attempt. I know about the 1769, but little about the 1850. I do not have any books with me, but I believe the 1850 was an American Bible Society effort. It was reviewed negatively in the Presbyterian, etc. as I recall, and the ABS did little with it. Does anyone have access to the basic background of this 1850 attempt to correct the KJV? -- Prof. Ron Minton: rminton@mail.orion.org W (417)268-6053 H 833-9581 From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Jul 20 19:57:23 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA26783; Mon, 20 Jul 1998 19:57:22 -0400 Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19980720235132.00c7eb88@utc.campus.mci.net> X-Sender: cierpke@utc.campus.mci.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1998 19:51:32 -0400 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Kevin W. Woodruff" Subject: Re: tc-list 1850 KJV Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1220 Ron: If I remember righ,, the details of this revision are covered in F. Scrivener's book _The Authorized Edition of the the English bile(1611): Its Subsequent Reprints and Modern Representatives._ Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1884. At 05:59 PM 7/20/98 -0500, you wrote: >Today I recived a post asking for the difference between the 1769 4th >edition KJV and the 1850 correction attempt. I know about the 1769, but >little about the 1850. I do not have any books with me, but I believe >the 1850 was an American Bible Society effort. It was reviewed >negatively in the Presbyterian, etc. as I recall, and the ABS did little >with it. Does anyone have access to the basic background of this 1850 >attempt to correct the KJV? > >-- >Prof. Ron Minton: rminton@mail.orion.org W (417)268-6053 H 833-9581 > > > Kevin W. Woodruff, M.Div. Library Director/Reference Librarian Cierpke Memorial Library Tennessee Temple University/Temple Baptist Seminary 1815 Union Ave. Chattanooga, Tennessee 37404 United States of America 423/493-4252 (office) 423/698-9447 (home) 423/493-4497 (FAX) Cierpke@utc.campus.mci.net (preferred) kwoodruf@utkux.utcc.utk.edu (alternate) http://web.utk.edu/~kwoodruf/woodruff.htm From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Jul 21 04:10:25 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id EAA27823; Tue, 21 Jul 1998 04:10:23 -0400 Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 04:10:05 -0400 From: "Mr A.J.A. LABOUCHERE" Subject: tc-list Large edition/apparatus of John ? To: "INTERNET:tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu" Message-ID: <199807210410_MC2-53B2-7B88@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: 712 RE the IGNTP of John: Work is underway on John, along the lines of the IGNTP Luke volumes. Whe= n it will appear is unknown; it is possible that it might be available in electronic form (a web site?) before it makes it into print. Bits and pieces are also appearing as time goes on--for example: David Parker's volume on the papyri of John (published last year or 2 yea= rs ago?) is part of the project; the NIAS Diatessaron project of this last year will also result in an independent publication (we hope) with the te= xt of John in the various Diatessaronic witnesses. Time lines for such a task--which relies heavily on volunteer work--are difficult to project. --Petersen, Penn State University. = From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Jul 21 06:18:54 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id GAA28630; Tue, 21 Jul 1998 06:18:53 -0400 Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Mark Goodacre" Organization: University of Birmingham To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 11:15:40 GMT MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: tc-list Oxyrhynchus Exhibition On-Line Priority: normal In-reply-to: <1.5.4.32.19980720235132.00c7eb88@utc.campus.mci.net> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.52) Message-ID: <3EC6F49707B@hhs.bham.ac.uk> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 609 The on-line version of the exhibition on Oxyrhynchus currently at Oxford ("Oxyrhynchus: A City and Its Texts") is now available at: http://www.csad.ox.ac.uk/POxy/VExhibition/vexhframe_hi.htm It is a high quality site. There are excellent images of six Matthew papyri (nos. 4401-6) and Jude (2684) and lots of other things of interest. Mark ------------------------------------------- Dr Mark Goodacre M.S.Goodacre@bham.ac.uk Dept. of Theology, University of Birmingham Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre World Without Q: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/q (Please note new address) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Jul 21 15:11:09 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA02258; Tue, 21 Jul 1998 15:11:08 -0400 Message-Id: <199807211910.MAA09499@smtp.northlink.com> From: "Dave Washburn" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 12:04:54 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: tc-list Oxyrhynchus Exhibition On-Line Priority: normal References: <1.5.4.32.19980720235132.00c7eb88@utc.campus.mci.net> In-reply-to: <3EC6F49707B@hhs.bham.ac.uk> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 814 > The on-line version of the exhibition on Oxyrhynchus currently at Oxford > ("Oxyrhynchus: A City and Its Texts") is now available at: > > http://www.csad.ox.ac.uk/POxy/VExhibition/vexhframe_hi.htm > > It is a high quality site. There are excellent images of six Matthew papyri > (nos. 4401-6) and Jude (2684) and lots of other things of interest. It's an excellent site except for one thing: all the frame definitions include the parameter "scrolling=no" so one is not able to scroll through the pages or the navigation bar on the left. The page programmers would do very well to eliminate that, because if you don't have your screen resolution set extremely high, you can't see all of the page. Dave Washburn http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur When in doubt, go for chocolate. Life is too short not to. From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Jul 21 15:34:59 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA02657; Tue, 21 Jul 1998 15:34:57 -0400 Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 15:34:54 -0400 Message-Id: <199807211934.PAA02652@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu> >Date: 20 Jul 1998 16:50:35 -0000 From: Vincent Broman To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list Large edition/apparatus of John ? Content-Type: text Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1112 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Is there any > instrument for the Gospel of John that compares to Legg's editions... The IGNTP John Project has published the papyri only, the rest will take some years. Muenster may have started some sample collating in the Gospels, but I would expect them to leave John for last, if ever, due to the IGNTP. The largest apparatuses available for John are probably Von Soden, Tischendorf, Nestle-Aland, and Swanson. Vincent Broman San Diego, California, USA Email: broman at sd.znet.com (home) or spawar.navy.mil or nosc.mil (work) Phone: +1 619 284 3775 Starship: 32d42m22s N 117d14m13s W === PGPv2 protected mail preferred. For public key finger me at np.nosc.mil === -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBNbN1M2CU4mTNq7IdAQF8yQP/ZWVuuu1Y1hJUtAmib05zF3WiBlnesg8J stnRhYG5LujsQy2VVrrDZQW7V06yCMFLc9ZQ0nYhv1wscFUawQ3At1GVDHUZWmDN 3Gtp4KlIrV1JahmaMTCQ+ADhON/6IVUoSOdgsIffpGcJ72lMRFlopZUJwSuQY/cT rysuSr+FOfo= =w2+I -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Jul 21 18:52:16 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA05822; Tue, 21 Jul 1998 18:52:14 -0400 Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Mark Goodacre" Organization: University of Birmingham To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 23:51:32 GMT MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: tc-list Oxyrhynchus Exhibition On-Line Priority: normal In-reply-to: <199807211910.MAA09499@smtp.northlink.com> References: <3EC6F49707B@hhs.bham.ac.uk> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.52) Message-ID: <3F8FC12631D@hhs.bham.ac.uk> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 962 On 21 Jul 98 at 12:04, Dave Washburn wrote: > It's an excellent site except for one thing: all the frame > definitions include the parameter "scrolling=no" so one is not able > to scroll through the pages or the navigation bar on the left. The > page programmers would do very well to eliminate that, because if you > don't have your screen resolution set extremely high, you can't see > all of the page. I found this annoying too and have mentioned it to the chap who set up the page. Until it is corrected there is one way of partially dealing with the problem -- to go to "decrease font" in Netscape Navigator (under "View") or "Fonts" in Internet Explorer (also under "View"). Mark ------------------------------------------- Dr Mark Goodacre M.S.Goodacre@bham.ac.uk Dept. of Theology, University of Birmingham Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre World Without Q: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/q (Please note new address) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Tue Jul 21 21:08:46 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA07711; Tue, 21 Jul 1998 21:08:44 -0400 Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19980722011231.006bde68@sd.znet.com> X-Sender: gipe@sd.znet.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 18:12:31 -0700 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: Mark Gipe Subject: Re: tc-list P1 - Use of Nomina Sacra? Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1328 to Andrew Payne Thanks very much Andrew for your e-mail I am very interrested in seeing your work on Gregory 1192 and the Nomina Sacra. Could it be E-mailed? or is it in print? or copy you copy it or fax it. let me know please. Thanks Mark Gipe USA (760) 436-8165 voice (760) 436-8915 Fax At 07:16 AM 7/18/98 -0500, you wrote: >Are you interested in the presence or absence of Nomina Sacra in the >Gospel of Matthew only? Recently I did some collation in Gregory 1192 >in the second half of the Gospel of John and it occasionally spelled out >Iesou Xristou and Theou as well, although the overwhelming majority of >the time it used Nomina Sacra. > >Andrew Payne > > >Mark Gipe wrote: >> >> Can anyone help me in this question? >> >> Greek NT Manuscript P1 contains Matthew 1:1-9,12&14-20. >> >> I did not have a photo of it! >> >> In Reuben Swanson's book "New Testament Greek Manuscripts" - vol #1 Matthew >> he does not site it as using the Nomina Sacra for "Iesou Xristou". Does any >> one know if this is correct? ( I am waiting for P. Comfort's new book with >> photos ) >> >> Also does anyone know of other old Greek NT manuscripts which do not used >> Nomina Sacra for either "God, Lord, Jesus, or Christ" ? or ones that are hit >> and miss? >> >> Please let me know >> >> Thanks much >> >> Mark Gipe > > From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Jul 23 21:22:01 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA19510; Thu, 23 Jul 1998 21:21:59 -0400 Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1998 20:21:30 -0500 (Central Daylight Time) From: Ronald Minton To: Textual Criticism list Subject: Re: tc-list KJ or not KJ In-Reply-To: <74f36e3e.35b63458@aol.com> Message-ID: X-X-Sender: rminton@orions0.orion.org 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: 6391 I pass this on because Dr. Price gave a helpful reply. << Ron (to James D. Price): I saw nothing in Dr. Dearings comments to actually disquallify what I said in the chart. It seems a mistake to use Snaith because of his date and text, but I do not teach in this area; any comments for us? >> > << Dearing: > << .... I spent an hour this morning looking at a microfilm of the copy > of KJV 1611 with "he went" in the Cambridge University Library. I > shall call it CUL. My desk copy of KJV, American Bible Society, n.d., > I shall call ABS. Since I am anything but a Hebrew scholar I > confined myself to the three instances of the divine name referred to > by Minton. For the readings of the MT I used my desk copy of Snaith's > edition, 1958, in the full knowledge that the King James translators had > something else in front of them, if not several something elses. > What did I find? > > Price: > The Americal Bible Society's edition is a modern (c. 1850) independent > revision of the KJV. It differs from the standard Oxford and Cambridge > editions in hundreds of places. > Snaith's edition was published in 1958. It is based on Shephardic > manuscripts (B.M. Or. 2375, 2626, 2628, and also on the "Shem > Tov" Bible). [Emanuel Tov, _Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible_ > (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992), p. 79]. That text was not > based on Bomberg's 2nd edition, or on any other edition of the > Hebrew Bible available to the KJV translators. > Good representatives of Bomberg's 2nd edition would be: > M. H. Letteris (1852) > E. van der Hooght (1705) > R. Kittel, 1st or 2nd ed. (pre 1937) > Miqraoth Gedoloth [Hebrew]--the Rabbinic Bible of the Jews. > I have access to all of these except Kittel. > > < Minton says that in Ex. 34:23 the MT reads "the Lord, the Lord > God," whereas KJV reads "the Lord God, the God." Snaith reads "the > Lord, the God of Israel," where Lord is YHWH with the vowels of > adonai. CUL reads "the Lord God, the God of Israel," where the first > "God" is in large and small caps, indicating that it translates YHWH > with the vowels of elohim. Divergences in the pointing of YHWH, says > IDB IV, 588, are fairly common in the manuscripts. May they not be > equally common, then, in editions based on different manuscripts. > Isn't it possible that CUL translates accurately? >> > > Price: > The KJV translators did not use manuscripts, but printed editions. > All the current representatives of Bomberg's 2nd edition are in agreement > on the vowel pointing here. The KJV translators may have done what they > did in order to avoid the redundancy of "the Lord, the LORD, the God of > Israel." They are known to have done that sort of thing in other places. > > << Dearing: > Minton says that in Gen. 6:5 the MT reads "LORD" whereas the KJV > of 1611 reads "God." Snaith has YHWH with the vowels of adonai. CUL > has "God," ABS has "God" in large and small capitals. Isn't it > possible that CUL has a printer's error here, that "God" should have > been in large and small capitals and is not a translation from some > other source than the MT? >> > > Price: > It always possible that a printer's error occurred. But one cannot judge > a translation on such possibilities, especially those are not self evident. > The later revisions of the KJV (i.e., 1769) have GOD here. It is just as > likely that the revisors retained GOD in order to avoid changing a word > in a well known passage. A more important question is: Why did they > translate YHWH as "God" when their Hebrew text read YHWH with the > vowels of "Adonai"? The Latin Vulgate reads DEOS "God" here. It is > likely that the KJV translators were influenced by the Vulgate in this > verse, as in a number of other places. > > << Dearing: > Minton says that in 2 Ch. 17:4 the MT has "God" whereas the KJV > has "LORD God." Snaith has elohim. CUL has "Lord God" with "Lord" in > large and small capitals. ABS has the same, except that "Lord" is > also in italics, indicating that it is an addition by the > translators. May not the absence of italics in CUL be another > printer's error? I made a cursory search in CUL for instances when > "God" or "Lord" was in romans and could find none (CUL is in > gothic type with the added words in romans instead of in roman type > with the added words in italics). But it may be that there are instances > in CUL of "Lord" in roman type, increasing the possibility that 2 Ch. > 17:4 in CUL contains a printer's error. >> > > Price: > The LXX reads "Lord God" here. It is likely that the KJV translators > were influenced by the LXX to depart from their Hebrew text. > The later revision of the KJV (1769) reads "_LORD_ God," to indicate > that "LORD" was not in the Hebrew text. It is very likely that the revisors > elected to retain the word in italics rather that take the chance of > removing the name of God from the text. > > < And in any case, are these divergences from the MT significant? > Do they refute the argument that we do not need to correct or > interpret the KJV from anything but the MT? I cannot agree. I am > myself willing to look elsewhere for better readings than those in > the KJV, especially since the translators said they did. But proving > their assertion is not as easy as Minton makes it seem. > >> > > Price: > I think Dr. Minton's intent was to show that the KJV needs to be > revised in places where it fails to follow well validated Hebrew > readings. I'm sure he would agree that the MT should not be > followed where strong textual evidence indicates otherwise. > His point is particularly applicable for those who regard the > KJV as the only reliable translation. > > Another example of what Dr. Minton was driving at: > Ezra 8:27 > MT--Keley nechosheth mitshab tobah > KJV vessels of fine copper > NKJV vessels of fine polished bronze > NASB utensils of fine shiny bronze > NRSV vessels of fine polished bronze > It is evident that the KJV omitted a word in their translation. That > word is supported by the ancient versions, and there seems to > be no textual evidence for its omission. Surely the KJV should > be corrected here. > > Sincerely, > Jim Price -- Prof. Ron Minton: rminton@mail.orion.org W (417)268-6053 H 833-9581 From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Jul 27 16:27:32 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA04281; Mon, 27 Jul 1998 16:27:30 -0400 From: lakr Message-Id: <199807272027.NAA06404@netcom9.netcom.com> Subject: tc-list Jude 5 IHSOUS versus KURIOS To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 13:27:40 -0700 (PDT) Cc: lakr@netcom9.netcom.com (lakr) In-Reply-To: from "Ronald Minton" at Jul 23, 98 08:21:30 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] 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: 268 Greetings TC'ers, I was aware that there were differences in Jude with regard to verse 5, but was very suprised to find that in my UBS3 it actually has IHSOUS, while my NA27 does not. Is this one a close call ? Thanks for considering this. Sincerely, Larry Kruper From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Jul 27 17:48:24 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA04524; Mon, 27 Jul 1998 17:48:23 -0400 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199807272027.NAA06404@netcom9.netcom.com> References: from "Ronald Minton" at Jul 23, 98 08:21:30 pm Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 16:59:24 +0400 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: Carlton Winbery Subject: Re: tc-list Jude 5 IHSOUS versus KURIOS Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1227 Larry Kuyper wrote; >I was aware that there were differences in Jude with regard to verse 5, >but was very suprised to find that in my UBS3 it actually has >IHSOUS, while my NA27 does not. Is this one a close call ? > This is indeed an involved place of variation. The variation unit in N-A27 is PANTA . . . hAPAX. The only reading which has IHSOUS instead of KURIOS is supported by Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, min 33, 81, 2344, and pc along with the vulgate. Now this is not bad evidence, esp. A in the Catholics. Most other witnesses has KURIOS (with or without the article). The reading with the M siglum (TR reading) has hAPAX at the beginning and TOUTO instead of PANTA. The reading of the N-A25 left out the article. The reading of N-A27 has rather weak external support and so I would suppose that the decision was made on internal grounds. Metzger explains the inclusion of IHSOUS as a scribal mistake (confusion of IC for KC). It is hard to imagine that another scribe would have left out IHSOUS even though its presence makes the sentence difficult to read. Carlton L. Winbery Fogleman Professor of Religion Louisiana College Pineville, LA 71359 winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net winbery@andria.lacollege.edu From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Jul 27 18:00:23 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA04591; Mon, 27 Jul 1998 18:00:22 -0400 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199807272027.NAA06404@netcom9.netcom.com> References: from "Ronald Minton" at Jul 23, 98 08:21:30 pm Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 16:56:52 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: tc-list Jude 5 IHSOUS versus KURIOS Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1174 On Mon, 27 Jul 1998, lakr@netcom9.netcom.com (lakr) wrote: >Greetings TC'ers, > >I was aware that there were differences in Jude with regard to verse 5, >but was very suprised to find that in my UBS3 it actually has >IHSOUS, while my NA27 does not. Is this one a close call ? > >Thanks for considering this. Which UBS edition are you using? I checked my (uncorrected) UBS3, my UBS4, and my NA27; all three omit IHSOUS. It is worth noting that UBS3 and UBS4 both rate the decision a {D}. And, in fact, I agree with them. This is one of those relatively rare readings where even *I* don't see one obviously correct reading. I'd have to think about how I would analyse it. And, since we had a computer go down around here today and I'm trying to get things back to where it was before it went bad, I will have to wait until others have had their say. :-) -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- Robert B. Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism? Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn (A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Jul 27 18:22:58 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA04710; Mon, 27 Jul 1998 18:22:57 -0400 From: lakr Message-Id: <199807272223.PAA19718@netcom9.netcom.com> Subject: Re: tc-list Jude 5 IHSOUS versus KURIOS To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 15:23:08 -0700 (PDT) Cc: lakr@netcom9.netcom.com (lakr) In-Reply-To: from "Robert B. Waltz" at Jul 27, 98 04:56:52 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] 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: 597 > > On Mon, 27 Jul 1998, lakr@netcom9.netcom.com (lakr) wrote: > > >Greetings TC'ers, > > > >I was aware that there were differences in Jude with regard to verse 5, > >but was very suprised to find that in my UBS3 it actually has > >IHSOUS, while my NA27 does not. Is this one a close call ? > > > >Thanks for considering this. > > Which UBS edition are you using? I have a GNT which has the UBS with an English version side by side (TEV?) that I picked up at a used book store. It's not with me at the moment, so I will try to remember to look and get back to you. Thanks, Larry Kruper From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Mon Jul 27 18:47:50 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA04792; Mon, 27 Jul 1998 18:47:48 -0400 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199807272223.PAA19718@netcom9.netcom.com> References: from "Robert B. Waltz" at Jul 27, 98 04:56:52 pm Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 17:51:37 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: tc-list Jude 5 IHSOUS versus KURIOS Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1006 On Mon, 27 Jul 1998, lakr@netcom9.netcom.com (lakr) wrote: >> On Mon, 27 Jul 1998, lakr@netcom9.netcom.com (lakr) wrote: >> >> >Greetings TC'ers, >> > >> >I was aware that there were differences in Jude with regard to verse 5, >> >but was very suprised to find that in my UBS3 it actually has >> >IHSOUS, while my NA27 does not. Is this one a close call ? >> > >> >Thanks for considering this. >> >> Which UBS edition are you using? > >I have a GNT which has the UBS with an English version side by >side (TEV?) that I picked up at a used book store. It's not with >me at the moment, so I will try to remember to look and get back >to you. It's only a guess, but I'd guess that that edition uses UBS1 or UBS2 rather than UBS3. There were some significant textual changes from the second to the third edition. Unfortunately, I don't have a copy of UBS1/2 to check this against. Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com "The one thing we learn from history -- is that no one ever learns from history." From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Jul 29 16:22:56 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA14242; Wed, 29 Jul 1998 16:22:55 -0400 Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 16:18:10 -0400 From: Jim West Subject: tc-list Western Text of Acts X-Sender: jwest@highland.net (Unverified) To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.32.19980729201810.0066c6cc@highland.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 268 Has anyone on list access to Marie-Emile Boismard, and Arnaud Lamouille's "Le Texte occidental des Actes des Apotres, reconstitution et rehabilitaion"? I have some specific questions.... Thanks, Jim ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD jwest@highland.net From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Jul 29 18:58:24 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA14691; Wed, 29 Jul 1998 18:58:22 -0400 Message-ID: <35BFA79A.3BF2@total.net> Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 18:52:10 -0400 From: Mike & Jeanne Arcieri X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02E-KIT (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: Re: tc-list Western Text of Acts References: <1.5.4.32.19980729201810.0066c6cc@highland.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 349 Jim West wrote: > > Has anyone on list access to Marie-Emile Boismard, and Arnaud Lamouille's > "Le Texte occidental des Actes des Apotres, reconstitution et rehabilitaion"? > > I have some specific questions.... > > Thanks, > > Jim Jim, I'm pretty sure I've seen this book at the Universite of Mtl library. What are the questions?? Mike From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Wed Jul 29 21:35:48 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA15030; Wed, 29 Jul 1998 21:35:46 -0400 Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 21:33:40 +0000 From: Jim West Subject: Re: tc-list Western Text of Acts X-Sender: jwest@highland.net To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Message-id: <1.5.4.32.19980729213340.006749f4@highland.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 425 At 06:52 PM 7/29/98 -0400, you wrote: > >Jim, > >I'm pretty sure I've seen this book at the Universite of Mtl library. >What are the questions?? > > >Mike 1- do the authors reconstruct the text of Acts as they believe it most nearly represents "Luke's" original? 2- Do they print that reconstructed text? 3- Do they print it in Greek, or French? Thanks, Jim ++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD jwest@highland.net From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Jul 30 00:17:19 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id AAA15401; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 00:17:18 -0400 From: lakr Message-Id: <199807300417.VAA15338@netcom11.netcom.com> Subject: Re: tc-list Jude 5 IHSOUS versus KURIOS To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 21:17:24 -0700 (PDT) Cc: lakr@netcom11.netcom.com (lakr) In-Reply-To: from "Robert B. Waltz" at Jul 27, 98 05:51:37 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] 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: 1238 > > On Mon, 27 Jul 1998, lakr@netcom9.netcom.com (lakr) wrote: > > >> On Mon, 27 Jul 1998, lakr@netcom9.netcom.com (lakr) wrote: > >> > >> >Greetings TC'ers, > >> > > >> >I was aware that there were differences in Jude with regard to verse 5, > >> >but was very suprised to find that in my UBS3 it actually has > >> >IHSOUS, while my NA27 does not. Is this one a close call ? > >> > > >> >Thanks for considering this. > >> > >> Which UBS edition are you using? > > > >I have a GNT which has the UBS with an English version side by > >side (TEV?) that I picked up at a used book store. It's not with > >me at the moment, so I will try to remember to look and get back > >to you. > > It's only a guess, but I'd guess that that edition uses UBS1 > or UBS2 rather than UBS3. There were some significant textual > changes from the second to the third edition. Unfortunately, I > don't have a copy of UBS1/2 to check this against. > > Bob Waltz > waltzmn@skypoint.com > > "The one thing we learn from history -- > is that no one ever learns from history." > > My copy is from the ABS in 1966. The UBS is from 1966 and the TEV is from 1967. It gives no numeral for the UBS version. Perhaps that means it is #1. Larry Kruper From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Jul 30 07:56:47 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id HAA16758; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 07:56:45 -0400 Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 07:57:49 -0400 Message-Id: <199807301157.HAA04086@server1.netpath.net> X-Sender: rlmullen@server1.netpath.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: "Roderic L. Mullen" Subject: Re: tc-list Western Text of Acts Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 423 The Divinity Library at Duke U. has a copy that you could get through Interlibrary Loan. --Rod Mullen At 04:18 PM 7/29/98 -0400, you wrote: >Has anyone on list access to Marie-Emile Boismard, and Arnaud Lamouille's >"Le Texte occidental des Actes des Apotres, reconstitution et rehabilitaion"? > >I have some specific questions.... > >Thanks, > >Jim > >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >Jim West, ThD >jwest@highland.net > From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Jul 30 08:57:55 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id IAA17016; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 08:57:54 -0400 Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Glen Thompson" To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 07:58:32 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: tc-list western text of Boismard/Lamouille X-Confirm-Reading-To: "Glen Thompson" X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.52) Message-Id: <19980730080006.303a14a6.in@mailhost.mlc-wels.edu> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 255 The authors print the Alexandrian text in the left column and the Western text in the right column, both in Greek. In addition, they at times print a secondary version of the western text in a middle column. Glen L. Thompson thompsgl@mlc-wels.edu From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Jul 30 09:46:28 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA17437; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 09:46:27 -0400 X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199807300417.VAA15338@netcom11.netcom.com> References: from "Robert B. Waltz" at Jul 27, 98 05:51:37 pm Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 08:49:01 -0500 To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu From: "Robert B. Waltz" Subject: Re: tc-list Jude 5 IHSOUS versus KURIOS Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 612 On Wed, 29 Jul 1998, lakr@netcom11.netcom.com (lakr) wrote: >My copy is from the ABS in 1966. The UBS is from 1966 and the TEV >is from 1967. It gives no numeral for the UBS version. Perhaps >that means it is #1. That's the explanation, all right. The copyright dates in my UBS3 are 1966, 1968, 1975. So an edition published before 1968 must be using UBS1. Clearly this is a reading that changed between the first and third editions. Obviously it was a close call for the committee. :-) Bob Waltz waltzmn@skypoint.com "The one thing we learn from history -- is that no one ever learns from history." From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Thu Jul 30 22:07:33 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id WAA20840; Thu, 30 Jul 1998 22:07:32 -0400 Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 22:08:45 -0400 Message-Id: <199807310208.WAA08900@server1.netpath.net> X-Sender: rlmullen@server1.netpath.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: "Roderic L. Mullen" Subject: tc-list clement of alexandria Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 676 Here's a query for the list, though somewhat vaguely related to tc. Does anyone know of recent bibliography (last 10 years, after the most recent English edn of Schneemelcher's NEW TESTAMENT APOCRYPHA) dealing with the authenticity of the "Letter of Clement to Theodore" published by Morton Smith in CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA AND A SECRET GOSPEL OF MARK. I'm primarily interested in the letter itself rather than the "Secret Gospel." Merckel, the editor in Schneemelcher, says that no one has seen the manuscript of the letter at Mar Saba monastery since Smith published it. Is that true? I've seen Mar Saba from the outside but have never been inside. Thanks, Rod Mullen From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Jul 31 05:51:02 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id FAA22391; Fri, 31 Jul 1998 05:51:01 -0400 From: "Mark Goodacre" Organization: The University of Birmingham To: "Roderic L. Mullen" , tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1998 10:51:07 GMT MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: tc-list clement of alexandria Priority: normal In-reply-to: <199807310208.WAA08900@server1.netpath.net> Message-ID: <62D4FA3D49@hhs.bham.ac.uk> Sender: owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu content-length: 1811 On 30 Jul 98 at 22:08, Roderic L. Mullen wrote: > Here's a query for the list, though somewhat vaguely related to tc. Does > anyone know of recent bibliography (last 10 years, after the most recent > English edn of Schneemelcher's NEW TESTAMENT APOCRYPHA) dealing with the > authenticity of the "Letter of Clement to Theodore" published by Morton Smith > in CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA AND A SECRET GOSPEL OF MARK. I'm primarily > interested in the letter itself rather than the "Secret Gospel." Merckel, the > editor in Schneemelcher, says that no one has seen the manuscript of the > letter at Mar Saba monastery since Smith published it. Is that true? I've > seen Mar Saba from the outside but have never been inside. One of the most recent pieces that I am aware of is Shawn Eyer, "The Strange Case of the Secret Gospel According to Mark", _Alexandria: The Journal for the Western Cosmological Traditions_, volume 3 (1995), pp. 103-129, reproduced on the web at: http://www.globaltown.com/shawn/secmark.html It includes a section on "Is the Ink Still Wet? The Question of a Forgery", mainly dealing with Quesnell's article. There was some discussion of the matter on the Crosstalk list (Historical Jesus and Christian Origins) earlier this year. One thing that emerged was that Charles Hedrick has been to Jerusalem and has seen the MS recently. The source was given as "the Jesus Seminar grapevine". Mark Goodacre -------------------------------------- Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@bham.ac.uk Dept of Theology Tel: +44 (0)121 414 7512 University of Birmingham Fax: +44 (0)121 414 6866 Birmingham B15 2TT United Kingdom Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre World Without Q: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/q (Please note new address) From owner-tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Fri Jul 31 16:41:30 1998 Return-Path: Received: by shemesh.scholar.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA25324; Fri, 31 Jul 1998 16:41:28 -0400 Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1998 16:40:56 -0400 From: "Mr A.J.A. LABOUCHERE" Subject: tc-list clement of alexandria To: "INTERNET:tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu" Message-ID: <199807311641_MC2-54C8-C22E@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: 357 As I recall, the statement that only Smith saw the letter is incorrect: = the librarian and the Abbot (or other appropriate designation) also saw i= t. I will check further on this, and post any other details I come across. = But the oft-heard statement that "only Smith saw it" seems wrong, even on= the face of it. --Petersen, Penn State University.