I would take issue with your statement that "First Testament" shows respect
for the Jewish faith:  it is merely another moniker for something
superseded.  And
the last thing we need is a new perpetuation of the supersessionist theory
under a different guise.

How about taking a hint from the opening lines of the creation story?  In
the Rashi to the verse describing the creation fo the first day, Rashi
writes:

"va'yahi erev, va'yahi boker, yom echad" ("and there was evening, and there
was morning, one day") Gen.1:5)

"One day"-According to the order expressed in this portion it should ahve
been written "the first day" ("yom rishon") as it is written of the other
days...Why did he write "one?"  Because the Holy One, Blessed Be He, was
the only Being in the world [and the day was created for Him].."

Call the "O.T." (in its many guises) "One Testament;" refer to the
Christian Scriptures as just that.  Then one can continue to use "Old" and
"New" or substitute "First" and "Second" for the major portions of the
Christian Scriptures.

This creates another dilema, though, with the "Apocrypha" or
"Dueterocanonicals;" what should they be called to be politically correct?
Perhaps "Connecting Testament" to indicate how their existence connects the
other two testaments (in the eyes of those who adhere to the belief that
they do).  For those who do not hold them inspired and a part of the canon
or prefer to be insensitive to those who do, they can simply be referred to
as the "Apocrypha."


>Dear James,
>Even though my primer in textual criticism is called WITNESSES TO THE OLD
>TESTAMENT I have come to use the  term "First Testament" throughout
>nowadays:
>1. It shows respect for the Jewish faith;
>
>Best wishes from the other side of the globe,
>Ferdinand Deist
>University of Stellenbosch


Kelly McGrew
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"The world is preserved for mercy's sake."  Rashi, on Pirkei Avot 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
kmcgrew@...                   http://www.halcyon.com/kmcgrew/
Olympia, Washington, USA

>
> In a message dated 95-11-30 12:20:55 EST, PFlesher@... (Paul V. M.
> Flesher) writes:
>
> >I disagree with Prof. Deist that the term "First Testament" shows respect
> >for the Jewish character of the Hebrew Bible.  To say "First" is to imply
> >that there is a "second," which those who use the term (primarily
> >Christians) obviously think is the New Testament.  So the term "First
> >Testament" is simply another Christian term that ends being parochial with
> >regard to Judaism.
>
>    I agree. It can be understood as supercessionist, the second being an
> improvement on the first.

On the other hand, there is (in North America at least) an inherent,
connotative bias toward understanding "first" in terms of primacy of
place or quality as opposed to "second," "e.g., "first class,"
"second-hand," "first things" - when was the last time you heard a
second-place-finisher referred to as a "winner"? Think Buffalo Bills!
:-) which may offset, at least in part, a supercessionist
understanding of "First Testament."

Felix Sung                                            Wycliffe College
fsung@...                      Toronto School of Theology

After Dan Wallace published his article advocating the use of the MT as
the best collating base, I'm curious to know how many of you have
switched to using the MT in this way, and how many of you have
stuck to the TR.  I'm more interested in knowing why you have stuck to
the TR as a collating base, especially in the light of Wallace's comments
on the advantages of using the "most inferior text" (as he terms it)
as your collating base, especially for the purposes of quantitative
analysis.

Regards,

Mark O'Brien
Grad. student, NT
Dallas Theological Seminary
----
"We were put on earth to accomplish a certain number of things.  Right now, I'm
so far behind, I will never die!"

On Fri, 1 Dec 1995, Felix Sung wrote:

> >
> > In a message dated 95-11-30 12:20:55 EST, PFlesher@... (Paul V. M.
> > Flesher) writes:
> >
> > >I disagree with Prof. Deist that the term "First Testament" shows respect
> > >for the Jewish character of the Hebrew Bible.  To say "First" is to imply
> > >that there is a "second," which those who use the term (primarily
> > >Christians) obviously think is the New Testament.  So the term "First
> > >Testament" is simply another Christian term that ends being parochial with
> > >regard to Judaism.
> >
> >    I agree. It can be understood as supercessionist, the second being an
> > improvement on the first.
>
> On the other hand, there is (in North America at least) an inherent,
> connotative bias toward understanding "first" in terms of primacy of
> place or quality as opposed to "second," "e.g., "first class,"
> "second-hand," "first things" - when was the last time you heard a
> second-place-finisher referred to as a "winner"? Think Buffalo Bills!
> :-) which may offset, at least in part, a supercessionist
> understanding of "First Testament."

	 I hope no one minds if some of us continue to use the terms "Old
Testament" and "New Testament."  It's good to do what one can so as not to
offend those with whom one dialogues, but why should anyone be expected to
express him- or herself in a way that amounts to a tacit denial of what he
or she believes.  I can write "G-d" with the best of them, but when it
comes to eschewing terms like "Old Testament," "New Testament" or "BC"
because someone might take offense....  Well, I'm not as concerned about
offending anyone as I am about offending, in spirit, the one who redeemed
me and whose claims on my life I accept.

	 Please feel free to refer to the different parts of Scripture as
you see fit.  I'm sure I, and others, will understand.  But also, I hope
each one will extend that same understanding to me and to others who
accept that Jesus is Messiah.

David L. Moore                             Southeastern Spanish District
Miami, Florida                               of the  Assemblies of God
dvdmoore@...           Department of Education

Re the term "First Testament", Felix Sung commented:
> On the other hand, there is (in North America at least) an inherent,
> connotative bias toward understanding "first" in terms of primacy of
> place or quality as opposed to "second," "e.g., "first class,"
> "second-hand," "first things" - when was the last time you heard a
> second-place-finisher referred to as a "winner"? Think Buffalo Bills!
> :-) which may offset, at least in part, a supercessionist
> understanding of "First Testament."

I think this is quite correct, and exactly the point of the proposed
change in terminology.  However, I have a more basic question:

I understand that "supercessionism" is today's anathema, and (in
particular) that Jews may object to the supercessionist claims of
Christianity - but supercessionism seems to be an inherent part of
traditional Christianity.  Would it not be more straightforward (and hence
more intellectually productive) to openly condemn the claims of
traditional Christianity, or to openly debate its differences from
rabbinical or Zealot traditions?

Robert Groover   groover@...   (PGP key on request)
Member ECS, AVS, ACM, OSA, Sen.Mem.IEEE, Reg'd Patent Atty
         "All men by nature desire knowledge."

In reply to Mark O'Brien's important question, I can say that I for one
am convinced that Wallace is right (that there are real advantages to
collating against the MT rather than the TR), BUT, that we should
nonetheless not begin doing so.  If we were to begin our discipline again,
from scratch, this would clearly be the way to go.  The difficulty is that
we have *so many* collations already made and available against the TR,
that if we were now to shift to the MT, these older collations would be of
little use to us.  We would have to look at *two* sets of data (the
original collation and a collation of the TR against the MT) to make any
use of them.  As the pay-off is not all that significant in the long run
anyway, I'm firmly of the opinion that we should continue using TR, simply
for the sake of convenience and to avoid unneeded and unnecessary delays
in doing what needs to be done -- collecting all the textual data at our
disposal.  (Once these materials are all entered on computer data bases,
of course, the original collation base is completely immaterial).

-- Bart D. Ehrman, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

On Fri, 1 Dec 1995, Mark O'Brien wrote:

>
> After Dan Wallace published his article advocating the use of the MT as
> the best collating base, I'm curious to know how many of you have
> switched to using the MT in this way, and how many of you have
> stuck to the TR.  I'm more interested in knowing why you have stuck to
> the TR as a collating base, especially in the light of Wallace's comments
> on the advantages of using the "most inferior text" (as he terms it)
> as your collating base, especially for the purposes of quantitative
> analysis.
>
> Regards,
>
> Mark O'Brien
> Grad. student, NT
> Dallas Theological Seminary
> ----
> "We were put on earth to accomplish a certain number of things.  Right now,
I'm
> so far behind, I will never die!"
>

The vary nature of inter-religious dialogue is the respect for the
faith and beliefs of others.  This involves a clear understanding of each
group's beliefs.  The very nature of political correct language appears to
be abstraction--abstraction from the concrete.  Pluralism is indeed a
virtue in our contemporary society, but must we lock ourselves into a
pluralism that seeks to blur distinctions.  Healthy pluralism celebrates
the unique nature of each group.
         Today many Christians decline from using the term "Old Testament."
AS has been mentioned in this discussion, "Hebrew Scriptures" appears to
exclude the Greek writings, "First Testament" appears to denote a second.
Nevertheless, with all due respect, is it not Christian belief that Christ
has ushered in the New Covenant which fulfills the first (or "Old"
covenant)--he kaine diatheke?
   Is there not something so radically new in Christ? Do Christians not
believe that there is (Heb 1:1-2)?  Why be misleading about this belief?
Robert Groover admitted as much, although I contest his conclusions:

         "supercessionism seems to be an inherent part of
         traditional Christianity.  Would it not be more
         straightforward (and hence more intellectually productive)
         to openly condemn the claims of traditional Christianity,
         or to openly debate its differences from rabbinical or
         Zealot traditions?"


Is there a healthy pluralism here, when the content of one's faith is to be
condemned in the name of intellectual productivity?  As a "traditional
Christian," does my faith exclude my from this debate? Why be offended?  Is
the Jewish claim that there is nothing radically new in Christ offensive to
me?  No, I may disagree, but why should I be offended by Jewish belief?

           With regard to dialogue with Jewish scholars, why can't we just
speak of the "Scriptures."  Need there be farther qualification.  This
title for the "Old Testament" is rooted in the New Testament itself!

I look forward to your comments


If the part of the dough offered as first fruits is holy, then the whole
batch is holy; and if the root is holy, then the branches also are holy.
But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, a wild olive shoot,
were grafted in their place to share the rich root of the olive tree, do
not boast over the branches. If you do boast, remember that it is not you
that support the root, but the root that supports you.

Rom. 11:16-18

James Mallon
Toronto School of Theology

On Fri, 1 Dec 1995, Bart Ehrman wrote:

> I for one
> am convinced that Wallace is right (that there are real advantages to
> collating against the MT rather than the TR), BUT, that we should
> nonetheless not begin doing so.  If we were to begin our discipline again,
> from scratch, this would clearly be the way to go.  The difficulty is that
> we have *so many* collations already made and available against the TR,
> that if we were now to shift to the MT, these older collations would be of
> little use to us.

> I'm firmly of the opinion that we should continue using TR, simply
> for the sake of convenience and to avoid unneeded and unnecessary delays
> in doing what needs to be done -- collecting all the textual data at our
> disposal.

Even as a pro-Byzantine supporter, I also concur with Bart Ehrman on
this.  In an ideal world, in which the early TR editions had in fact been
100% identical with the Byzantine/Majority Textform, and all collations
made since the earliest days had been against that base, there would be
no problem in utilizing a Byzantine Text collation base.  However, since
the ideal was never realized, and the TR against which almost all
collations have been made over the past two centuries differs from the
Byzantine Textform approximately 1800 times, it is now far too late to
attempt to move to a theoretically superior collation base.

The other problem with Wallace's proposal is in the intention to utilize
the Hodges/Farstad Majority text edition as that superior base.  Although
the H/F text is basically a reasonable "majority" edition from Matthew
through Jude, the text of the Pericope Adultera and the entire book of
Revelation in the H/F edition do NOT reflect a majority text.

The Pericope Adultera in fact has NO "majority text" which could be used
as the sole collation base, since the three main groups (Von Soden's m5,
m6, and m7 each have between 29% and 31% numerical support).  H/F simply
chose to follow the m6 group there, based upon their own stemmatic
assumptions (which are questionable), and there is no reason to suppose
that minority group in any way significantly superior as a collation base
for the Pericope Adultera than the minority TR text.

In Revelation, the situation is even worse, since H/F utilized a
stemmatic rather than a "majority" approach to construct their text of
that book (using Hoskier's collation data), but their favored textual
group (Ma) ends up being a group possessing only 19% support among the
MSS of the Apocalypse, and this certainly would not aid matters if used
as a collation base.  My own edition of the hypothetical "Byzantine" text
of Revelation (following Colwell's 70% texttype-specific cutoff limit)
still does not resolve the problems where the Andreas and Q texts of
Revelation (the two separate components of the Byzantine text of that
book) are nearly equally divided.  At that point my own decisions were
made on the basis of internal evidence; but this then leaves a text
which, though more "majority" throughout than H/F, nevertheless still is
"minority" in possibly as many as 100-200 places within that book, and
still unsuitable as a collation base.


=========================================================================
                        Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D.
             Associate Professor of Greek and New Testament
               Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary
                       Wake Forest, North Carolina
=========================================================================

In a message dated 95-12-01 19:18:25 EST, j.mallon@... (James Mallon)
writes:

>Nevertheless, with all due respect, is it not Christian belief that Christ
>has ushered in the New Covenant which fulfills the first (or "Old"
>covenant)--he kaine diatheke?
>  Is there not something so radically new in Christ? Do Christians not
>believe that there is (Heb 1:1-2)?  Why be misleading about this belief?

   I for one would like to encourage Jewish/Tanakh scholars to use this list,
since I really would like to learn more about TC of the Hebrew Scriptures.
   It seems to be radically different from NT text studies, and I feel I could
learn a lot.
    In seminary, when I was exposed to Jewish-Christian relations, I
discovered  that using terms that are acceptable to both faiths helps to open
the door to such an opportunity of learning.

   It's not such a matter of "giving up" our beliefs, but having a more common
point of reference.

   Besides, we who are text critics know that there is some question as to if
Jesus did say KAINHS when referring to the DIAQHKHS he was making (Mk14:24;
Mt 26:28).  the text of Paul clearly states KAINHS (1 Cor 11:25), and Luke
probably did (if you accept 22:19b-20, which I do).

    The idea of a "new" convenant comes from Jeremiah, which is really a
renewal of the Mosaic covenant.  I think the early Jewish Christians who
wrote the Scriptures could clearly have understood Jesus' covenant with them
in this sense, and that this covenant was expanded "for the many" (ie, we
Gentiles).
    Indeed, the ancient Abrahamic covenant (which the Mosaic covenant is based
upon), intends the nations to be blessed.
    It's the same story of God's grace toward us.  As Gentile Christians,
we've seen it fully made known to us in the Jew called Jesus of Nazereth.

    There's no doubt there is anitsemitism and supercessionism in the NT.  But
the  message of God's love for all is central.

    After the Holocaust, and after years of Christians using  NT passages as a
pretense for persecuting Jewish folk, meeting them half-way in using common
terms can help some in easing the fear and tension between us.

     So on this TC-list, I would like to us to consider using inter-faith
terminology, NOT to be more PC, but so we can make this list a friendly place
for scholars of different faiths who have a lot to contribute to Biblical
text criticism.

     Please consider this.  Thanks.

     Tim Staker
     Timster132@...

In a message dated 95-12-01 10:36:23 EST, Mark_O'Brien@... (Mark O'Brien)
writes:

>After Dan Wallace published his article advocating the use of the MT as
>the best collating base,

   At first I thought MT meant Masoretic Text, since we've been discussing
various names for Scriptures.  Boy was I confused!  Evidently you were
talking about the NT Majority Text (?)

   Tim Staker
   Timster132@...

Tim Staker (Timster132@...) wrote:

>I for one would like to encourage Jewish/Tanakh scholars to use this list,
>since I really would like to learn more about TC of the Hebrew Scriptures.
> It seems to be radically different from NT text studies, and I feel I could
>learn a lot.
>   In seminary, when I was exposed to Jewish-Christian relations, I
>discovered  that using terms that are acceptable to both faiths helps to open
>the door to such an opportunity of learning.

>  It's not such a matter of "giving up" our beliefs, but having a more common
>point of reference.

>  Besides, we who are text critics know that there is some question as to if
>Jesus did say KAINHS when referring to the DIAQHKHS he was making (Mk14:24;
>Mt 26:28).  the text of Paul clearly states KAINHS (1 Cor 11:25), and Luke
>probably did (if you accept 22:19b-20, which I do).

>   The idea of a "new" convenant comes from Jeremiah, which is really a
>renewal of the Mosaic covenant.  I think the early Jewish Christians who
>wrote the Scriptures could clearly have understood Jesus' covenant with them
>in this sense, and that this covenant was expanded "for the many" (ie, we
>Gentiles).
>   Indeed, the ancient Abrahamic covenant (which the Mosaic covenant is based
>upon), intends the nations to be blessed.
>   It's the same story of God's grace toward us.  As Gentile Christians,
>we've seen it fully made known to us in the Jew called Jesus of Nazereth.

>   There's no doubt there is anitsemitism and supercessionism in the NT.  But
>the  message of God's love for all is central.

>   After the Holocaust, and after years of Christians using  NT passages as a
>pretense for persecuting Jewish folk, meeting them half-way in using common
>terms can help some in easing the fear and tension between us.

>    So on this TC-list, I would like to us to consider using inter-faith
>terminology, NOT to be more PC, but so we can make this list a friendly place
>for scholars of different faiths who have a lot to contribute to Biblical
>text criticism.

		 I think Tim underestimates most Jewish scholars in thinking that
they might shrink at their Christian colleagues' use of terms like "Old
Testament" and "New Testament."  To pursue the myth that we can always use
language that is acceptable to everyone cuts at the very heart of real
dialogue.  Isn't mutual respect a better basis than politically correct
speech for achieving sincere, productive scholarly discussion?


David L. Moore                             Southeastern Spanish District
Miami, Florida                               of the  Assemblies of God
dvdmoore@...           Department of Education

In a message dated 95-12-02 13:46:36 EST, David Moore writes:

>  I think Tim underestimates most Jewish scholars in thinking that
>they might shrink at their Christian colleagues' use of terms like "Old
>Testament" and "New Testament."  To pursue the myth that we can always use
>language that is acceptable to everyone cuts at the very heart of real
>dialogue.  Isn't mutual respect a better basis than politically correct
>speech for achieving sincere, productive scholarly discussion?

David,

   That's kind of like the American traveler that goes abroad and expects
everyone in the world to speak English and is put off because they do not.
   Actually, foreign folks usually feel very complimented when you use their
language, even if you speak it badly.

    I am not advocating persuing the myth you are talking about.  I am not
talking about trying to please everyone and never offend anyone, which is
pollyanna.

   I think what my suggestion is that we can do this to show *mutual repect".

Tim Staker
Timster132@...

>    In seminary, when I was exposed to Jewish-Christian relations, I
> discovered  that using terms that are acceptable to both faiths helps to open
> the door to such an opportunity of learning.
If that's your objective, then you can use "Pentateuch", "Prophets,"
"Tanakh," or such terms (or, when appropriate, "LXX").

>   It's not such a matter of "giving up" our beliefs, but having a more common
> point of reference.
No, repudiating "supercessionism" is precisely a matter of giving up the
traditional Christian claims.  The whole topic seems to me to be a matter
of apologetics rather than scholarship (and hence not necessarily one for
this list), but I object to the implicit assumption that we all share
your view of traditional Christian claims.
Advantages of the conventional terminology are that everyone understands
it clearly, and that theological implications may be assumed to be
historical baggage rather than active assertions; the same cannot be said
of the neologisms you propose.

>   Besides, we who are text critics know that there is some question as to if
> Jesus did say KAINHS when referring to the DIAQHKHS he was making (Mk14:24;
> Mt 26:28).
Sorry to be so slow replying, but I still haven't looked into the
apparatus here - which witnesses attest the omission of KAINH?
And do any omit it in both these passages?

>    There's no doubt there is anitsemitism and supercessionism in the NT.  But
> the  message of God's love for all is central.
Of course, the decision as to what is "central" implies doctrinal choices
- and a focus on any one "central" aspect risks oversimplification of a
fairly complex body of teachings.

>     So on this TC-list, I would like to us to consider using inter-faith
> terminology, NOT to be more PC, but so we can make this list a friendly place
> for scholars of different faiths who have a lot to contribute to Biblical
> text criticism.
Great - but I would say that introducing new theologically loaded
terminology is not conducive to that end.

Robert Groover   groover@...   (PGP key on request)
Member ECS, AVS, ACM, OSA, Sen.Mem.IEEE, Reg'd Patent Atty
         "All men by nature desire knowledge."

I think the discussion that has ensued as a result of my original post
has demonstrated that there is not any single term to describe the
textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament/First
Testament/Tanakh that is one hundred percent satisfactory.  My question
was directed solely at the use of these terms in the field of textual
criticism, not religious studies as a whole.  Though there is obviously
some overlap, I think the fact that the discipline deals explicitly with
language, and implicitly with canon, contributes to the difficulty.
Textual critics of all backgrounds should continue to use the terms that
seem to them, for whatever reasons, to be the most satisfactory,
remembering the imperfections of whatever term they choose.

Jimmy Adair
Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press
     and
Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site
---------------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu <-----------------

On Mon, 4 Dec 1995 Timster132@... wrote:

>
>   That's kind of like the American traveler that goes abroad and expects
> everyone in the world to speak English and is put off because they do not.
>   Actually, foreign folks usually feel very complimented when you use their
> language, even if you speak it badly.
>
>    I am not advocating persuing the myth you are talking about.  I am not
> talking about trying to please everyone and never offend anyone, which is
> pollyanna.
>
>   I think what my suggestion is that we can do this to show *mutual repect".

	 Mutual respect is fine; I'm all for it.  But may I suggest that
mutual respect is more readily recognizable when it is expressed freely
than when it is adhered to because it is prescribed.

	 We're not talking about speaking languages not understood by one
another.  Take for example a couple of titles that have to do with the
list topic:  Wu:rthwein calls his book _The Text of the Old Testament_
whereas P. Kyle McCarter, Jr. has written _Textual Criticism: Recovering
the Text of the Hebrew Bible_.  Either of these titles is equally
understandable; so why the fuss?

	 I think it is probable that the majority of those on the list
would like, as I would, to save the bandwidth we're using on this debate
for matters that are more on topic.

David L. Moore                             Southeastern Spanish District
Miami, Florida                               of the  Assemblies of God
dvdmoore@...           Department of Education

Original message sent on Sat, Dec 2  1:04 AM by Timster132@... :

>In a message dated 95-12-01 10:36:23 EST, Mark_O'Brien@...
>(Mark O'Brien) writes:

>>After Dan Wallace published his article advocating the use of the MT as
>>the best collating base,

>  At first I thought MT meant Masoretic Text, since we've been discussing
>various names for Scriptures.  Boy was I confused!  Evidently you were
>talking about the NT Majority Text (?)

Errr...  sorry about that, Tim!  You are absolutely correct, of course.
One does tend to get a little buried in some of these acronyms after a
while, but I'll be a little more careful in future.  Thanks for pointing
this out.

Regards,

Mark O'Brien
Dallas Seminary

Original message sent on Fri, Dec 1  5:56 PM by mrobinsn@...
(Maurice Robinson) :

> Even as a pro-Byzantine supporter, I also concur with Bart Ehrman
> on this.  In an ideal world, in which the early TR editions had in fact
> been 100% identical with the Byzantine/Majority Textform, and all
> collations made since the earliest days had been against that base,
> there would be no problem in utilizing a Byzantine Text collation
> base.  However, since the ideal was never realized, and the TR
> against which almost all collations have been made over the past
> two centuries differs from the Byzantine Textform approximately
> 1800 times, it is now far too late to attempt to move to a
> theoretically superior collation base.

Although I understand the amount of work required to make this
switch (which may not be quite so horrific if a computerized method
of transforming the collation data were developed), this argument
seems problematic.  It seems almost akin to saying that it's not worth
buying a much newer, faster computer because of the pain involved
in transferring all the data, even though the benefits to such a move
are obvious.  I know we need to be somewhat pragmatic, but can we
afford to ignore such theoretical refinements in the discipline?

> The other problem with Wallace's proposal is in the intention to utilize
> the Hodges/Farstad Majority text edition as that superior base.
> Although the H/F text is basically a reasonable "majority" edition
> from Matthew through Jude, the text of the Pericope Adultera and
> the entire book of Revelation in the H/F edition do NOT reflect a
> majority text.

I agree wholeheartedly with you here.  When H/F move away from
just presenting the majority evidence (or when they have no choice
because of the "split" nature of the data), they not only undermine, at
points, their Majority Text theory, but they make the MT possibly
difficult to use for collation purposes.  I guess that one advantage is
that there is now a "generally" majority text edition we can work
against, but I appreciate your concerns here about it perhaps not being
"genuinely" majority text.

Thanks for the input,

Mark O'Brien
Dallas Theological Seminary

Mark O'Brien wrote:

>I agree wholeheartedly with you here.  When H/F move away from
>just presenting the majority evidence (or when they have no choice
>because of the "split" nature of the data), they not only undermine, at
>points, their Majority Text theory, but they make the MT possibly
>difficult to use for collation purposes.  I guess that one advantage is
>that there is now a "generally" majority text edition we can work
>against, but I appreciate your concerns here about it perhaps not being
>"genuinely" majority text.
>

This is a general misconception of what Hodges and Farstad were trying to
accomplish with their text.  The point was not to produce a Majority text
for its own sake, rather it was to show the nature of rigorous stemmatics
applied to the history of the transmission of the mss.  It is their
contention that if stemmatics were applied to the entirety of the NT mss,
the Majority type of text would in fact be shown to be the progenitor of all
the various "text-types," and thus represent the original.  Thus, since they
themselves had only preformed a stemmatic reconstruction on a small (and
accessible) portion of the text, they were forced by necessity to present
what they believed would be the resultant text of such a rigorous stemmatic
reconstruction applied to the rest of the NT; namely the Majority.

It probably is unfortunate that the only book for which sufficient textual
information existed was Revelation, since its textual history is so
iconoclastic.  I don't think one should understand Hodges' conclusion that
the statistical majority does not represent the original to be an indication
of his forsaking the majority opinion, but rather as a clear indicator of
the fact that he believes that rigorous stemmatics is the only way to "find"
the original (it also shows that his approach was NEVER counting
manuscripts; his "Majority" text was based on the above-mentioned working
theory that the Byz/Maj would stand at the top of a rigorous NT stemma).

Maurice is certainly correct that his text represents the "majority" at each
point, as far as that is able to be discerned (and that Hodges had a
preference for certain Byz sub-families when the numbers seemed to be
split).  I hasten to add that Maurice's view of the history of the
manuscripts is also not as simple-minded as simply counting mss (ie., he has
a reason for choosing it, whether one agrees with his working theory or
not).  Indeed, Maurice's text would probably be preferable for a collating
base..which is what we were talking about in the first place.

The above in no way should be seen as an endorsement for any view (I'm not
telling my view...I don't have the time to answer all the mail :-)  ). I'm
simply trying to explain Hodges' view; Wallace's articles have gone a long
way in helping people understand the stemmatic and Majority views, but in my
opinion, have not gone far enough or been clear enough on certain points
(not to say that that was his purpose anyway).
***********************************************************************
Dale M. Wheeler, Th.D.
Chair, Biblical Languages Dept                  Multnomah Bible College
8435 NE Glisan Street                               Portland, OR  97220
Voice: 503-251-6416    FAX:503-254-1268     E-Mail: dalemw@...
***********************************************************************

Original message sent on Fri, Dec 1  6:28 AM by behrman@... (Bart
Ehrman) :

> As the pay-off is not all that significant in the long run anyway, I'm
> firmly of the opinion that we should continue using TR, simply
> for the sake of convenience and to avoid unneeded and unnecessary
> delays in doing what needs to be done -- collecting all the textual
> data at our disposal.

Dr. Ehrman,

I appreciated your comments.  However, I still have some questions
about doing quantitative analysis against the TR.  Dan Wallace argues
(and to some extent has shown in the classroom) that comparing MSS
against the TR can be misleading when classifying them.  I believe that
Tim Ralston also demonstrated this to be true in his work.  I'd be
interested in your opinion here.

Mark O'Brien
Dallas Theological Seminary

I am a newcomer to textual criticism, having been led here by my
research on the sound of Greek in the Hellenistic period.  My
dissertation analyzes the aural features of a text, the sounds
an audience would have heard in a public recitation, to determine
a text's organizational structure and clues to its meaning.  My
work on the Sermon on the Mount observes that it is aurally organized
into eight sections of varying lengths, each of which contains
repeated aural patterns and syntactic structures.  I was surprised
to find that the paragraph marks in Vaticanus divide the text into
units that cohere with the text's aural organization.  Further,
I noticed that aural data can often adjudicate among the various
textual witnesses and shed light on otherwise intractable text
critical problems.

I am wondering whether any subscribers to tc-list might have thoughts
or resources to suggest concerning the Vaticanus paragraph marks so I
might pursue the possibility of their consistency with the text's
aural organization.

Thank you for your attention.

Margaret E. Dean
Graduate Student
Melbourne College of Divinity

Mark,

    Certainly if one compares MSS *only* in places of variation from the
TR, the quantitative analysis will be skewed.  This was clearly shown by
Colwell and repeatedly by Fee and others.  THe problem with this approach
(typical of dissertations done in the 50s, e.g.) is that it fails to
assess the quantifiable agreements of MSS in places where they do *not*
differ from TR.  I hope, though, that Dan Wallace wasn't suggesting (in
fact, I'm sure he wasn't, since he knows all the literature on this) that
merely choosing the TR as the collation base could effect the quantitative
analysis.  In fact, the collation base is completely immaterial, so long
as one considers both agreements and disagreements of all mss with it in
readings that are judged to be genetically significant.

    I have a reasonably full history of research on this question that I
spun off my dissertation in the mid 80's, "Methodological Developments in
the Analysis and Classificatin of NT Documentary Evidence," _Novum
Testamentum_ 29 (1987) 22-45.

     Hope this is what you wanted to know.

-- Bart D. Ehrman


On Mon, 4 Dec 1995, Mark O'Brien wrote:

>
> Original message sent on Fri, Dec 1  6:28 AM by behrman@... (Bart
> Ehrman) :
>
> > As the pay-off is not all that significant in the long run anyway, I'm
> > firmly of the opinion that we should continue using TR, simply
> > for the sake of convenience and to avoid unneeded and unnecessary
> > delays in doing what needs to be done -- collecting all the textual
> > data at our disposal.
>
> Dr. Ehrman,
>
> I appreciated your comments.  However, I still have some questions
> about doing quantitative analysis against the TR.  Dan Wallace argues
> (and to some extent has shown in the classroom) that comparing MSS
> against the TR can be misleading when classifying them.  I believe that
> Tim Ralston also demonstrated this to be true in his work.  I'd be
> interested in your opinion here.
>
> Mark O'Brien
> Dallas Theological Seminary
>

On Mon, 4 Dec 1995, Dale M. Wheeler wrote:

> This is a general misconception of what Hodges and Farstad were trying to
> accomplish with their text.  The point was not to produce a Majority text
> for its own sake, rather it was to show the nature of rigorous stemmatics
> applied to the history of the transmission of the mss.

I would differ somewhat with that assessment, since they admittedly only
applied this principle to the Pericope Adultera and the book of
Revelation, due to the amount of data they had at hand.  Admittedly, they
would have liked to apply their stemmatic conceptions to the remainder of
the Greek NT, but were unable to do so, due to limitations of available
data.

> It is their
> contention that if stemmatics were applied to the entirety of the NT mss,
> the Majority type of text would in fact be shown to be the progenitor of all
> the various "text-types," and thus represent the original.

This in fact is NOT what their own stemmatic explorations led to.  The Ma
group in Revelation with only 19% support was declared by them (on what in
my opinion were wholly inadequate grounds) to be the progenitor of all
other groups, including the circa 40% Andreas group and the 40% Q group.
They simply did NOT declare a single "majority" group to be the origin of
all the others, but a minority sub-group -- and this alone totally
nullifies their basic theory, since they declare they would follow a
similar methodology throughout the NT were sufficient data available.
Wallace correctly labeled it something like the "Intra-Byzantine Stemmatic
(Minority) Text" position, which it truly is, rather than a real
"pro-Byzantine" or "majority text" position.

> I don't think one should understand Hodges' conclusion that
> the statistical majority does not represent the original to be an indication
> of his forsaking the majority opinion, but rather as a clear indicator of
> the fact that he believes that rigorous stemmatics is the only way to "find"
> the original (it also shows that his approach was NEVER counting
> manuscripts; his "Majority" text was based on the above-mentioned working
> theory that the Byz/Maj would stand at the top of a rigorous NT stemma).

When an approach claiming to be "majority" becomes subsumed under
minority stemmatics, something in the terminology needs to change.  If
you want a text of Revelation which is far more "majority" in nature, my
own reconstruction will give a clear example of such, based not at all on
stemmatics, but upon Colwell's 70% threshold plus internal evidence
analysis in places where support is more evenly divided.  As Wallace has
noted, I am far more of a "true Burgonite" than either Hodges and Farstad
on this point.

> I hasten to add that Maurice's view of the history of the
> manuscripts is also not as simple-minded as simply counting mss (ie., he has
> a reason for choosing it, whether one agrees with his working theory or
> not).

And I thank you for making this clear to all and sundry, so I won't have
to explain why "counting noses" is NOT the procedure followed in a
pro-Byzantine theory.  *8-)

> Indeed, Maurice's text would probably be preferable for a collating
> base..which is what we were talking about in the first place.

And again, I really prefer that everyone continue using the TR (Oxford
1873 edition, standard for the IGNTP).  The issue of a collating base is
not all that important.  The primary issue is utilizing a standard base
which all can readily consult and which all collations can readily be
compared with.


=========================================================================
                        Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D.
             Associate Professor of Greek and New Testament
               Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary
                       Wake Forest, North Carolina
                    <mrobinsn@...>
=========================================================================

On Mon, 4 Dec 1995, Mark O'Brien wrote:

> Dr. Ehrman,
>
> I appreciated your comments.  However, I still have some questions
> about doing quantitative analysis against the TR.  Dan Wallace argues
> (and to some extent has shown in the classroom) that comparing MSS
> against the TR can be misleading when classifying them.  I believe that
> Tim Ralston also demonstrated this to be true in his work.  I'd be
> interested in your opinion here.

Although addressed to Bart (who can well speak for himself on this
matter), I would fully concur that, for quantitative analysis, data based
solely on a collation against the TR would be misleading.  But so too
would collation data against the N27 or any other text, if taken alone.

Wallace himself knows or should know that the only way in which data
concerning the interrelationship of MSS to each other can be assessed is
to pair every individual MS against every other MS surveyed and then to
calculate a percentage agreement.  This however, does NOT reflect a mere
following of a collation, regardless of textbase, but the utilization of
common collation data to facilitate the comparison of MS-to-MS.  Only the
percentage-pairs of agreement can help in classifying MS relationships --
not the collation base itself; but the raw data for pair-agreements can
readily be extracted from any collations, so long as the MSS were
collated against the same base text.

(I should also stress the need for analyzing MSS not only book by book,
but even chapter by chapter, since MSS often change textual character
within a single book).


=========================================================================
                        Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D.
             Associate Professor of Greek and New Testament
               Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary
                       Wake Forest, North Carolina
                    <mrobinsn@...>
=========================================================================

You're welcome...

I actually think that we are in agreement about the nature and purpose of
what Hodges & Farstad were trying to do.  As I said, it was an "unfortunate"
accident of history that precisely the book which has the most distinctively
different textual history was also the book which Hodges chose to show the
application of stemmatics to...because it had the most complete analysis
(Hoskier, Schmidt)...because it had the most distinctively different textual
history...Whew.........  Such a situation left them in, to say the least, an
awkward position.  I think its fair to say that they both believe that if
such a stemmatic reconstruction were to be applied to the rest of the NT,
the Byz text would stand at the top of the stemma (whether that would truly
be the case is another issue altogether), thus the title--for better or
worse-- "Majority Text."

Besides, who'd want to buy the "Stemmatically-reconstructed Text" or the
"Intra-Byzantine Stemmatic(Minority) Text"...somehow they just don't quite
have the right ring to them....  :-)

***********************************************************************
Dale M. Wheeler, Th.D.
Chair, Biblical Languages Dept                  Multnomah Bible College
8435 NE Glisan Street                               Portland, OR  97220
Voice: 503-251-6416    FAX:503-254-1268     E-Mail: dalemw@...
***********************************************************************

On Mon, 4 Dec 1995, Dale M. Wheeler wrote:

> I think its fair to say that they both believe that if
> such a stemmatic reconstruction were to be applied to the rest of the NT,
> the Byz text would stand at the top of the stemma (whether that would truly
> be the case is another issue altogether), thus the title--for better or
> worse-- "Majority Text."

I still retain some doubts on this score, particularly in light of a
(currently) privately-circulated paper by Wilbur Pickering in which he
devastates what remains valid in any sort of "majority text" theory by
advocating a particular variant reading in Ac.12:25 supported by a mere 5%
of the MS base -- even though the Byzantine reading is secure (though
slightly less than the optimal 70%) with 60% support.  Pickering's
rationale for this strange situation is not stemmatics like H/F, but
merely his conclusion that the Byzantine reading as it stands does not
square with his concepts of biblical inerrancy, and thus "must" be wrong,
even though most scribes went for it.....If "majority text" theory keeps
heading for minority text readings, whether stemmatically-based or on the
basis of the theological whims of the critic, I fail to see how any
meaningful "majority text theory" can remain.

> Besides, who'd want to buy the "Stemmatically-reconstructed Text" or the
> "Intra-Byzantine Stemmatic(Minority) Text"...somehow they just don't quite
> have the right ring to them....  :-)

Neither (in my opinion) does the term "majority text" have the right
ring.  One reason I consider my position one of "Byzantine-priority,"
which begs no questions regarding number.


=========================================================================
                        Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D.
             Associate Professor of Greek and New Testament
               Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary
                       Wake Forest, North Carolina
                    <mrobinsn@...>
=========================================================================

In a message dated 95-12-04 18:53:10 EST, SEM_MED@... writes:

>I am wondering whether any subscribers to tc-list might have thoughts
>or resources to suggest concerning the Vaticanus paragraph marks so I
>might pursue the possibility of their consistency with the text's
>aural organization.
>
>Thank you for your attention.
>
>Margaret E. Dean
>Graduate Student
>Melbourne College of Divinity

Margaret,

    I don't have a copy of Vaticanus here, but I did get to look at
photocopies of a couple leaves of that manuscript I had handy.
    Looking at the leaf of Luke 7:14-38, the kephala (paragraph markings) are
the letters with a line drawn over them to indicate that they are numbers.
  They look like a simple number system of the chapters: NA, NB, NG (=51, 52,
53).  They are probably later additions to the mss by another hand other than
the copiest.  (Aren't they in a different color ink?  I can't remember and my
copy is only B&W :(

    In other words, these divisions aren't necessarily the ones the author of
the text was thinking of.  Based upon the biblical writers use of chaistic
structure, alliterations, etc, its pretty clear as they were writing, they
were thinking of their aural audience listening to a reader of their writing,
as was the common practice (Rev. 1:3) (as you well know).
   The early papyri do not have paragraph markings or divisions.
   The editor who put them in Vaticanus may have had aural divisions in mind,
or not.  I have no trouble believing that the editor was astute enough to be
aware of this.  By the time they were added to the mss, there were surely
other reasons for marking paragraphs, such as for lectionary reading.

     You may also want to take a look at another method for chapter division
common in the NT manuscripts (eg, Sinaiticus), called the Eusebian Canon.
  Eusebius divided the gospel texts into "kephalalia" (chapters).  And it is
also an *indexing* system for the gospels and was intended to be used as a
method for providing a synopsis of the Gospels.
    The bottom number is the canon (or index) number. Each canon represents a
relationship of passages in the 4 gospels.   Canon I references material
common to all four.  Canons II - IV indexes materials common to 3 gospels.
  Canons V - IX indexes passages common to 2 gospels.  Canon X indexes (in
four lists) unique passages in each of the gospels.
    You can find Eusebius' letter to Carpian explaining this in the intro
material in the Nestle-Aland Greek NT, 26th ed. on pages [73*]-[74*]. The
Eusebian indexes follow.

    I noticed that the kephala markings in the Vaticanus leaf I examined
matched that of the Eusebian kephala, except that Eusebius had a few more
divisions.

    I hope this wasn't too basic for your needs, and was maybe along the lines
of what you were looking for.

Tim Staker
Timster132@...

In a message dated 95-12-05 mrobinsn@...
  (Elston Gunn) writes:

> Pickering's
>rationale for this strange situation is not stemmatics like H/F, but
>merely his conclusion that the Byzantine reading as it stands does not
>square with his concepts of biblical inerrancy, and thus "must" be wrong,
>even though most scribes went for it.....If "majority text" theory keeps
>heading for minority text readings, whether stemmatically-based or on the
>basis of the theological whims of the critic, I fail to see how any
>meaningful "majority text theory" can remain.

   Isn't that the point?  H&F believe in an omnipotent God who has
providentially
preserved the text and that conviction has led them to try proving the
"Majority
text" position with their stemma, etc.   Likewise, Pickering's belief of
inerrancy leads him to pick and chose a text that supports his beliefs.

   Maurice Robinson stands out from the crowd, in that his devotion to the
Byzantine text family is based squarely on his interpretation of textual
transmission.  He and I don't see eye to eye on textual transmission, but I
appreciate his approach much more than that of H/F.

    BTW, is anyone on the list proficient at reading Greek miniscule cursive?

Tim Staker
Timster132@...

>  Isn't that the point?  H&F believe in an omnipotent God who has
providentially
>preserved the text and that conviction has led them to try proving the
"Majority
>text" position with their stemma, etc.

I'm not trying to defend H&F or their theory here, but this again is another
misconception about their view.  There are those who start from providential
preservation of the text, but H&F do not.  The real issue in interacting
with their work is whether they are correctly using stemmatics and whether
their stemmatic reconstructions are valid, nothing more and nothing less.
At the heart of Hodges' criticism of the way "stemmatics" is done nowadays
in NT TC is that the maxim used is "community of agreement implies community
of origin."  But normally the maxim is "community of error implies community
of origin."  The latter is more difficult for most of us to track since the
"blemishes" of the papyrii and uncials are not readily visible in the NA
footnotes (even less so in UBS).  I note as an aside that this is a standard
argument presented by Eclectics, Equal Prioritists (Sturz), and Byz
prioritists against current textual theory and practice, based on the
observations of Zuntz, Colwell, etc.  Whether it is a valid concern is again
difficult to tell since (electronic ??) copies of the earliest texts are
still not easily available for side by side comparisons at each point of the
text to see the nature of their errors.

>Likewise, Pickering's belief of
>inerrancy leads him to pick and chose a text that supports his beliefs.

I'm not sure that Pickering should be lumped in with H&F anymore either.  He
has, as far as I can tell, rejected the stemmatic argument.  I was under the
impression that he had moved closer to Maurice's position...but maybe not.
At any rate, while I think that he would still agree (??) with H&F on much
philosophically, I don't think his conclusions can be used to define or
understand their position.  I must admit that I'm not totally current on all
the moving around, but I think this is fairly accurate.  Maurice, I'm sure,
would know.



***********************************************************************
Dale M. Wheeler, Th.D.
Chair, Biblical Languages Dept                  Multnomah Bible College
8435 NE Glisan Street                               Portland, OR  97220
Voice: 503-251-6416    FAX:503-254-1268     E-Mail: dalemw@...
***********************************************************************

On Wed, 6 Dec 1995 Timster132@... wrote:

> In a message dated 95-12-05 mrobinsn@...
> Maurice Robinson writes:
>
> >heading for minority text readings, whether stemmatically-based or on the
> >basis of the theological whims of the critic, I fail to see how any
> >meaningful "majority text theory" can remain.
>
>   Isn't that the point?  H&F believe in an omnipotent God who has
> providentially preserved the text and that conviction has led them to
> try proving the "Majority text" position with their stemma, etc.
> Likewise, Pickering's belief of inerrancy leads him to pick and chose a
> text that supports his beliefs.

But if the result does not reflect the "majority", H/F or Pickering are
being quite hypocritical.  Why not call their text the
"theologically-correct" text instead of the "majority text"?

>   Maurice Robinson stands out from the crowd, in that his devotion to the
> Byzantine text family is based squarely on his interpretation of textual
> transmission.  He and I don't see eye to eye on textual transmission, but I
> appreciate his approach much more than that of H/F.

I appreciate that comment....


>    BTW, is anyone on the list proficient at reading Greek miniscule cursive?

I am, for one....

On Wed, 6 Dec 1995 Timster132@... wrote:

>   The early papyri do not have paragraph markings or divisions.
>   The editor who put them in Vaticanus may have had aural divisions in mind,
> or not.  I have no trouble believing that the editor was astute enough to be
> aware of this.  By the time they were added to the mss, there were surely
> other reasons for marking paragraphs, such as for lectionary reading.
>

I am not certain whether the original reference was to the sectional
markings (which were added later) or to certain lines in which the
initial letter is set off to the left to indicate a paragraph or sorts
(which is due to the original scribe).  That there was some sort of early
paragraphing utilized in Vaticanus is certain; whether it agrees with
later divisions would have to be verified.