Dr. Finney:

Thank you for your reply. The more data I can acquire
the better.

I think I found the origin of the 200,000 to 400,000.
It may come from John Mills in 1707 edition of the
GNT. In his critical apparatus, he has some 30,000
variants listed, but this includes versions and church
fathers.

I also read, but have yet to verify, that the total
number of "words" in ALL Greek MSS, ALL
versions/translations, and ALL church father
quotations approaches 1 billion. Now, are the (worst
case) 400,000 variants to be compared to 1 billion?

Also, your numbers seem different than Dr. Daniel
Wallace's numbers with regard to meaningful variants.
If I understood you correct, you offer 10,000 such
variants, whereas Dr. Wallace has 1,400 meaningful and
viable variants. Of the 1,400, he contends that no
cardinal doctrine is affected by these.

Dr. Kruger notes that Dr. Ehrman mentions 400,000
variants, but is only able to find a handful of
"significant" variants that change our view of early
Christianity. Several have responded to his claims of
these passages, such as Christ being angry, or dying
"apart from" God.

Dr. Wallace also gives a pie chart in Reinventing
Jesus, but it appears his pie chart is not intended to
be to scale.

Oh well, off to find more sources. It amazes me how
many scholars quote the number 200,000 to 400,000
without knowing its source or validity.

Eddie Mishoe
Pastor


      
________________________________________________________________________________\
____
You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total
Access, No Cost.
http://tc.deals.yahoo.com/tc/blockbuster/text5.com

Dear Eddie,

--- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, Eddie Mishoe <edmishoe@...>
wrote:

> I also read, but have yet to verify, that the total
> number of "words" in ALL Greek MSS, ALL
> versions/translations, and ALL church father
> quotations approaches 1 billion. Now, are the (worst
> case) 400,000 variants to be compared to 1 billion?

I don't know how many words there are in all of the witnesses of the
New Testament. My figures show that in the ~ 30 papyrus and uncial MSS
of Hebrews, there are ~ 300 substantive variations among ~ 5000 words.
I don't know how this figure scales up as more categories of witnesses
are added but my guess is not that much, maybe a factor of two. To get
an answer we would need to collate more and more witnesses. We could
get an estimate by looking at how the number of substantive variations
increases with the number of witnesses. I imagine that the curve rises
quickly at first then levels out.

>
> Also, your numbers seem different than Dr. Daniel
> Wallace's numbers with regard to meaningful variants.
> If I understood you correct, you offer 10,000 such
> variants, whereas Dr. Wallace has 1,400 meaningful and
> viable variants. Of the 1,400, he contends that no
> cardinal doctrine is affected by these.

Not all of those 300 have an equal effect on meaning. You could go
through them and decide which ones you consider significant. I would
be interested to know what number you arrive at. (This exercise might
be considered too subjective, but I would still like to know how many
of the 300 substantive variants others consider significant. You don't
need Greek to do it as translations of the variants are included in
the list.)

Here is something to illustrate the potential difficulty of deciding
whether a substantive variant (i.e one that actually results in a
different word once scribal quirks have been smoothed out) is
significant. Say I have these texts:

The cat sat on teh mat.
The kat sat on the mat.
The manx sat upon the rug.

Cat/manx, on/upon and mat/rug are all what I call substantive
variants--the words are actually different. By contrast, cat/kat might
be called a spelling variation and teh/the an error. Turning to the
substantive variations, is the cat/manx difference significant? How
about on/upon? How about mat/rug? I imagine the answer to all three is
"it depends". The message conveyed by each text is pretty much the
same: the cat sat on the mat. Whether you think the specific "manx"
rather than general "cat" is important depends on all kinds of
factors. Getting others to agree with your view is another matter. For
a generally acceptable result you could select a random sample of
people and ask each whether the difference is significant.

>
> Dr. Kruger notes that Dr. Ehrman mentions 400,000
> variants, but is only able to find a handful of
> "significant" variants that change our view of early
> Christianity. Several have responded to his claims of
> these passages, such as Christ being angry, or dying
> "apart from" God.

Based on the list, the proportion of substantive variations per word
is about 300/5000. This is only based on the papyrus and uncial MSS
(and one minuscule) of Hebrews, so is an underestimate. My guess is
that the figure might double if all the minuscules were included. If
it turns out to be 500/5000 variants/word for Hebrews, the figure for
the whole New Testament would be more like 10,000 substantive variants
among the Greek manuscript witnesses. How many of those are generally
regarded as significant would be a lesser number but hard to define.

BTW, the "apart from God" variant (Heb 2.9) is one of the few in
Hebrews that strike me as significant. I don't think this variant is
anything to do with Christ's cry of dereliction--"Why have you
forsaken me." Instead, it seems to me that XWRIS (apart from) instead
of XARITI (by the grace of) is a qualification of Christ's "tasting
death on behalf of all". That is, Christ died on behalf of all, being
careful to exclude God from "all" because God doesn't need anyone to
make a sacrifice for Him because He hasn't sinned. Neither variant
(Christ tasted death for all by the grace of God; Christ tasted death
for all except God) is telling us anything we don't already know from
the rest of the New Testament. It seems to me that redundancy in the
New Testament (i.e. saying the same thing in more than one place and
in more than one way) makes its message robust against corruption by
scribes, even orthodox ones.

Best,

Tim Finney

--- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com,
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Eddie Mishoe <edmishoe@...> wrote:

> Thank you for your reply. The more data I can acquire
> the better.


> Oh well, off to find more sources. It amazes me how
> many scholars quote the number 200,000 to 400,000
> without knowing its source or validity.
>
> Eddie Mishoe
> Pastor

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Mr. Dykes responds,

Be careful that one clarifies how the variants are counted!! One
variation might be the word "Lord" for "God". This should count as one
variant.....but some folks count all the manuscripts which show this
variant (perhaps all 65 or whatever number) thus they would show a
number of 65 instead of one.

As to your request...this may assist.

In my work on Corinthians, I collate about 100 Greek MSS. (Fresh
collations, not copied from previous editions!! Papyri and  parchment,
and all eras before 1450 A.D.).

In my essay titled: "The Doctrine of Inerrancy and the Manuscript
Variants", at its end, I give some actual data.

The essay is on my website (www.Biblical-data.org), in the Textual
Criticism page.

Chapter one of I Cor. has 31 verses, I count 156 variants from the 100
witnesses I use. (this does not include simple phonetic errors, nor
simple itacism errors, or moveable nu et al). BASED upon this actual
data, I then figure (estimate) a total of 2200 variants for all of the
437 verses in I Cor. I further estimate a complete total of about
3,000 variants if all known (circa 600 MSS) Greek manuscripts were
collated which contain I Cor. chapter one..

Rough, but it has some actual basis. Using 3,000 variants for I Cor.
we can further estimate at total of about 54,000 variants for all of
the 7,959 verses in the KJV. This averages about 6.8 variants per
verse for the entire NT.

Finally, in I Cor. I find that about 60-70 of the 2200 variants affect
any sort of a doctrine (some major doctrines, some minor). If this is
a valid estimate, then we ought to expect that 2.9 % of all Greek
variants (not phonetic or simple mispleelings, [:-)]or moveable nu et

al) of the 54,000 total to reflect a possible major variation. Using
my estimates we would see 1,566 variants in the NT which affect
various religious doctrines (Trinity, resurrection, baptism, laws, et
cetera).

At least I base this rough estimate on accurate collations of chapter
one of I Cor.. When I finish Corinthians, I will have a slightly
clearer picture.

Consequently, God-fearing textual critics have a responsibility to
assist when any of these major variants occur in our Bible studies.
Kind of an awesome responsibility!! But what an opportuinty to
illuminate truth and to spread Biblical teachings!!

Sincerely,
Mr. Gary S. Dykes

Eddie Mishoe,

According to the sixth edition of Warfield's An Introduction to the
Textual Criticism of the New Testament, 1899 (Preface, 1886),
Warfield mentions over 200,000 variants among at that time over 2,000
known Greek MSS.

http://books.google.com/books?output=html&id=lSOSAZ3uN44C&jtp=21

Our present knowledge is based upon over 5,000 known Greek MSS.  The
question of significant/insignificant variants is still negligible
whether one cites W-H, Metzger, Robinson, or Wallace.

Malcolm
________________


--- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, Eddie Mishoe <edmishoe@...>
wrote:
>
> Dr. Finney:
>
> Thank you for your reply. The more data I can acquire
> the better.
>
> I think I found the origin of the 200,000 to 400,000.
> It may come from John Mills in 1707 edition of the
> GNT. In his critical apparatus, he has some 30,000
> variants listed, but this includes versions and church
> fathers.
>
> I also read, but have yet to verify, that the total
> number of "words" in ALL Greek MSS, ALL
> versions/translations, and ALL church father
> quotations approaches 1 billion. Now, are the (worst
> case) 400,000 variants to be compared to 1 billion?
>
> Also, your numbers seem different than Dr. Daniel
> Wallace's numbers with regard to meaningful variants.
> If I understood you correct, you offer 10,000 such
> variants, whereas Dr. Wallace has 1,400 meaningful and
> viable variants. Of the 1,400, he contends that no
> cardinal doctrine is affected by these.
>
> Dr. Kruger notes that Dr. Ehrman mentions 400,000
> variants, but is only able to find a handful of
> "significant" variants that change our view of early
> Christianity. Several have responded to his claims of
> these passages, such as Christ being angry, or dying
> "apart from" God.
>
> Dr. Wallace also gives a pie chart in Reinventing
> Jesus, but it appears his pie chart is not intended to
> be to scale.
>
> Oh well, off to find more sources. It amazes me how
> many scholars quote the number 200,000 to 400,000
> without knowing its source or validity.
>
> Eddie Mishoe
> Pastor
>
>
>
______________________________________________________________________
______________
> You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of
Blockbuster Total Access, No Cost.
> http://tc.deals.yahoo.com/tc/blockbuster/text5.com
>

We should also note that there is some argument for assuming that the
spear thrust in Matthew is original and that John would have had
theological reasons for altering its position in his narrative flow.

This argument is made by Stephen Pennells who notes that John redacts
his account of the crucifixion to portray Jesus as in full control of
his situation, in keeping with the theology that it is Jesus who lays
down his life, and no one can take it from him.  Pennells cites various
redactional elements in John vis-a-vis the other gospels to portray
Jesus as in control of events; for example, the mocking of Jesus is
muted in John.

This being the case, then the spear thrust--which seems to end Jesus'
life in the longer reading of Matt 27:49--would need to be moved to a
post-mortem position.  Accordingly, the displacement in John would 1)
remove Jesus' seemingly reactionary and out of control scream; 2) allow
Jesus to control the timing of his death; and 3) affirm the Johannine
theology of the necessity of death by being lifted up on a cross (and
not by spearing).

Thanks, Malcolm for your thoughtful reply.

For the sake of sticking to tc issues, I'll avoid replying to your
points about the historical realities of crucifion, all of which were
instructive, but still leave room for questions and doubt in mind.

In terms of the secondary witness of translations, yes I agree with
you to the extent that there are limitations on their value due to
their being a mere reflection of the original.  However, in the case
of tc issues dealing with a long or shortened texts, a translation is
as good as a Greek manuscript.  In such a case, when there is no
question at all whether a manuscript of a version attests a shorter
or longer reading, then the versional manuscript proves that a Greek
manuscript did indeed exist which had either the shorter or longer
reading.

In regard to the specific case of the Middle Egytian Codex Schoyen,
its date has hitherto only been conjectured without any concrete
evidence offered in conjunction with the conjecture.  Its editor, H-M
Schenke pronounced it as being vermutlich ("probably, presumably")
from the first half of the fourth century.  I see that the Schoyen
Collection has recently revised its webpage so that they are no
longer claiming a 325 date for it, but are affirming Schenke's prior
assessment of 300-350.

At any rate, the question is whether the reading in the recently
emerged Codex Schoyen makes a difference:

If, as has been argued, the group of longer readings which are
juxtaposed to the shorter readings otherwise known as the Western Non-
Interpolations (WN-I) arose out of the same provenance, then the long
reading of Matt 27:49 (if not original) will have been in existence
for perhaps as early as 120 AD and no later than 200.  These dates
correspond to the breaking away of the Western Text from its source,
and to the date of P75 which gives attestation to the shorter
readings.

All this is difficult to articulate due to the loaded language of
Western Non-Interpolations.  But what I'm saying is that the spear
thrust in Matthew (the longer reading), if its origin arises part and
parcel with all the other  longer readings opposing the short
readings known as the WN-I's, then its appearance in Schoyen doesn't
really matter since the shorter WN-I readings--as a group--are
attested in P75.

On the other hand, there are some things which distinguish the Spear
Thrust in Matthew from the dynamics of the WN-I's:  1) the short text
(WN-I's) are all otherwise found only in the last two chapters of
Luke; 2) the attestation of the short form in Matthew is so much
stronger, involving not just Western texs, but also Alexandrinus and
nearly 1600 Byzantine witnesses (of varying degrees), not to mention
Family One and Family 13, 33 et al.

Consequently, perhaps there is some basis for rejecting the notion
that the short form of Matt 27:49 really belongs to the class of
variants known as the Western Non-Interpolations.  If so, then the
early attestation of the long reading of Schoyen (and Scheide--mae)
does matter--at least a little, proving that it it had spread through
some segments of the Coptic speaking world, and had done so
presumably as early as 250-300, even though it is not extant in
Sahidic and Bohairic.

By the way, I'm not sure that any variant gets a D rating from UBS.
The lowest seems to be C.




--- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "mjriii2003"
<mjriii2003@...> wrote:
>
> Mr. Leonard,
>
> 1. According to M. Hengel in his book about Crucifixion, the
> suffocation of the condemned was part and parcel to the means of
> death imposed.  The ability to detect whether an individual
> was "breathing" would be dependant upon the stage of his
execution.
> The latter stages of his excruciating agony would be barely (if at
> all detectable).  In fact, one's state of consciousness in the
latter
> stages would be highly unlikely.  This is why Jesus' cry with a
loud
> voice before He gave up the spirit (died/expired) is noteworthy and
> unusual.  Finally, in light of what we do know of the abuse and
> torture that Jesus endured and at this late stage in His
condemnation
> and execution, it is even more unlikely that benumbed senses would
> even register a jab as you understand it.
>
> 2.  The value of any translation is secondary.  It is not a primary
> document and it's importance is limited.  The Coptic manuscript is
> mid fourth century.  My Coptic knowledge is now limited and unused
as
> well as my knowledge of Syriac.  Perhaps Peter Head could aid you
in
> this respect further.
>
> 3.  Within the context of Matthew, the ALLOS can not be construed
as
> a Roman soldier and the idea that the soldiers guarding the
condemned
> would permit the audience to interfer is highly unlikely and wholly
> contrary to their purpose in the first place.  Remember, permission
> had to be sought to remove the bodies before the start of the
Sabbath
> observance.
>
> 4.  I don't share you view that a spear would be so unwieldy in the
> hands of a Roman soldier.
>
> 5.  I still think UBS rating should be a D and the double brackets
i
> W-H indicate spuriousness.
>
> Malcolm
> ___________
>
> --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "feeite_christian"
> <jmleonardfamily@> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks Malcolm.  Just a few points of clarification.
> >
> > The spear thrust may have been more of an exploratory jab either
to
> > see if a victim were still alive or to prompt him to say further
> > bemusing comments.  In fact, Codex Schoyen uses a second verb
which
> > may indeed suggest as much.  If so, then the jab--from the point
of
> a
> > long unwieldy spear which could hardly be used with pinpoint
> accuracy
> > or sensitivity--may have pentrated further than the intention.
> This
> > would allow the notion that the spear thrust was not designed to
> > hasten death.  In terms of historical reality, I would think that
a
> > crucified person's breathing or lack thereof could hardly be
> > mistaken; in the tortured manner of his hanging, it should have
> been
> > obvious whether he was still breathing.  This being the case, a
jab
> > could have served to prompt him to consciousness or to say other
> > bemusing comments.  All this said, I'm not sure if this
information
> > actually advances the text critical issue.
> >
> > In regard to the comment about inept harmonization:
> >
> > > I view the pre-mortem piercing in St. Matthew as an
ahistorical,
> > > inept attempt at harmonization.  An ALLOS (presumeably a Jew -
> not
> > a
> > > Roman soldier) takes upon himself the prerogative to pierce a
> > > condemned criminal in spite of the presence of Roman soldiers.
A
> > pre
> > > mortem piercing contradicts the immediate context of waiting to
> see
> > > if Elijah would come and save Him (or perhaps they were afraid
> that
> > > he just might come to do just that and better hurry up and kill
> > > Him!)
> >
> > Surely, if the long reading were harmonised, it would have been
> done
> > with better results.  The fact that it produces the most obvious
> and
> > grievous historical incongruity with John would seem to argue
> against
> > harmonisation.
> >
> > Let me also clarify the external support.  Not only is the long
> > reading supported by Aleph and Vaticanus, but also Codex Regius
(L)
> > which also has an excellent text in Matthew (at least from
chapter
> 18
> > onward), and by C along with a good number of leading fully
> Byzantine
> > texts.  Moreover, the two Coptic manuscripts are not "later"
> > manuscripts, but represent some of the very earliest extant
> witnesses
> > to Matthew's Gospel.
> >
> > Note also that the UBS4 rating is a B, and that Westcott and Hort
> > actually included the reading in their text, albeit in double
> > brackets.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
>

On Thu, Apr 03, 2008 at 10:06:56AM -0000, feeite_christian wrote:
> In terms of the secondary witness of translations, yes I agree with
> you to the extent that there are limitations on their value due to
> their being a mere reflection of the original.  However, in the case
> of tc issues dealing with a long or shortened texts, a translation is
> as good as a Greek manuscript.  In such a case, when there is no
> question at all whether a manuscript of a version attests a shorter
> or longer reading, then the versional manuscript proves that a Greek
> manuscript did indeed exist which had either the shorter or longer
> reading.

I am afraid I have to disagree with this point: a longer or a shorter
reading in a version may or may not be evidence of the state of the
Greek text; it may be a longer or a shorter reading either as a
result of the translation, or a result of textual corruption in
that version.

(I concede that if the same lengthening or shortening shows up in
multiple versions, the case for that variant coming from the Greek
is considerably strengthened.)


Tony Zbaraschuk

--
The power of any data-capture tool is its ability to exclude
extraneous information, not its power to capture relevant information.
--Steven den Beste

Thanks, Malcolm for your thoughtful reply.

For the sake of sticking to tc issues, I'll avoid replying to your
points about the historical realities of crucifion, all of which were
instructive, but still leave room for questions and doubt in mind.

In terms of the secondary witness of translations, yes I agree with
you to the extent that there are limitations on their value due to
their being a mere reflection of the original.  However, in the case
of tc issues dealing with a long or shortened texts, a translation is
as good as a Greek manuscript.  In such a case, when there is no
question at all whether a manuscript of a version attests a shorter
or longer reading, then the versional manuscript proves that a Greek
manuscript did indeed exist which had either the shorter or longer
reading.

In regard to the specific case of the Middle Egytian Codex Schoyen,
its date has hitherto only been conjectured without any concrete
evidence offered in conjunction with the conjecture.  Its editor, H-M
Schenke pronounced it as being vermutlich ("probably, presumably")
from the first half of the fourth century.  I see that the Schoyen
Collection has recently revised its webpage so that they are no
longer claiming a 325 date for it, but are affirming Schenke's prior
assessment of 300-350.

At any rate, the question is whether the reading in the recently
emerged Codex Schoyen makes a difference:

If, as has been argued, the group of longer readings which are
juxtaposed to the shorter readings otherwise known as the Western Non-
Interpolations (WN-I) arose out of the same provenance, then the long
reading of Matt 27:49 (if not original) will have been in existence
for perhaps as early as 120 AD and no later than 200.  These dates
correspond to the breaking away of the Western Text from its source,
and to the date of P75 which gives attestation to the shorter
readings.

All this is difficult to articulate due to the loaded language of
Western Non-Interpolations.  But what I'm saying is that the spear
thrust in Matthew (the longer reading), if its origin arises part and
parcel with all the other  longer readings opposing the short
readings known as the WN-I's, then its appearance in Schoyen doesn't
really matter since the shorter WN-I readings--as a group--are
attested in P75.

On the other hand, there are some things which distinguish the Spear
Thrust in Matthew from the dynamics of the WN-I's:  1) the short text
(WN-I's) are all otherwise found only in the last two chapters of
Luke; 2) the attestation of the short form in Matthew is so much
stronger, involving not just Western texs, but also Alexandrinus and
nearly 1600 Byzantine witnesses (of varying degrees), not to mention
Family One and Family 13, 33 et al.

Consequently, perhaps there is some basis for rejecting the notion
that the short form of Matt 27:49 really belongs to the class of
variants known as the Western Non-Interpolations.  If so, then the
early attestation of the long reading of Schoyen (and Scheide--mae)
does matter--at least a little, proving that it it had spread through
some segments of the Coptic speaking world, and had done so
presumably as early as 250-300, even though it is not extant in
Sahidic and Bohairic.

By the way, I'm not sure that any variant gets a D rating from UBS.
The lowest seems to be C.

Eddie,

Recently at the TC-Alternate list I noted the following:

How many variants exist among the Greek manuscripts of the books of
the New Testament? Estimates have ranged from 30,000 to 50,000 to
200,000 to 300,000 to 400,000.

Dr. Tommy Wasserman's book "The Epistle of Jude: Its Text and
Transmission" meticulously presents the extant Greek attestation of
Jude's text. Wasserman's reconstructed text of Jude consists of 461
words. Wasserman lists 1,271 textual variants (I think. Some of
these are "defective," which means that they cannot be reconstructed
with certainty.) If we work with the unproven premise that variants
were created at the same rate in other books that they were created
in Jude, then if we apply the ratio of 461-to-1,271 to the total
number of words in the NT (put at 137,490 by Morgenthaler, as cited
by Metzger on p. 1 of "Lexical Aids for Students of NT Greek"), then
the total number of variants = 379,067. Or to loosen up the math a
bit, we could estimate that the number of variants in a given book
will be 2.75 times the number of words in the book.

So, it initially looks like the total number of textual variants in
the Greek NT is in the neighborhood of 380,000. One thing that I'm
not sure about, though, is whether or not it's sensible to count the
*authentic* readings as variants. When most folks talk about
variants, they mean variations from the original text, even though
technically a contested genuine reading is also a variant. If we
subtract from 380,000 the *authentic* 137,490 words, with their
authentic spelling, in their authentic word-order, then the number of
inauthentic readings seems to drop to 242,510.

Now, that unproven premise that I mentioned is probably incorrect.
We should probably expect the rate of variants in the Gospels to be
much higher than in Jude, since the Gospels have many more witnesses.
So let's figure in, oh, another 75,000 variants.  Depending on
whether or not the authentic variants are counted, the total number
of variants in the Greek witnesses to the NT text might be about
455,000 or (subtracting the authentic readings) 317,510.

(Btw, I don't mean to imply that I agree with Morgenthaler's word-
count; I just used it because it was handy for the calculation.)

Yours in Christ,

James Snapp, Jr.
Minister, Curtisville Christian Church
Tipton, Indiana
www.curtisvillechristian.org/BasicTC.html

Mr. Leonard,

1.  The Gospel narrative is an historical/theological one.  We don't
meet one without the other.  The dichotomy between history and
theological interpretation/significance made by Stephen Pennells who
has St John allegedly redacting the piercing/spear thrust into an
ahistorical post-mortem theological explanation is based upon his own
presuppositional predelections which are wholly contrary to the
nature and scope of the NT corpus as a whole and St John in
particular.

2.  The "lifting up" significance in St John is contradicted by any
interpretive attempt to make Christ's crucifixion a death as a result
of any other means than just that - crucifixion.  The spear thrust
was not the death blow.

3.  Doubtless Jesus was in control of events in that throughout the
Gospel narratives indications are given that He himself is fully
conscious of His mission's purpose.  In short and to borrow a phrase
from St Mark, KAQWS GEGRAPTAI 1:1.

4.  I don't view the motifs as you have presented them of Mr.
Pennells as very strong in any respect.

Malcolm
__________________


--- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "feeite_christian"
<jmleonardfamily@...> wrote:
>
> We should also note that there is some argument for assuming that
the
> spear thrust in Matthew is original and that John would have had
> theological reasons for altering its position in his narrative flow.
>
> This argument is made by Stephen Pennells who notes that John
redacts
> his account of the crucifixion to portray Jesus as in full control
of
> his situation, in keeping with the theology that it is Jesus who
lays
> down his life, and no one can take it from him.  Pennells cites
various
> redactional elements in John vis-a-vis the other gospels to portray
> Jesus as in control of events; for example, the mocking of Jesus is
> muted in John.
>
> This being the case, then the spear thrust--which seems to end
Jesus'
> life in the longer reading of Matt 27:49--would need to be moved to
a
> post-mortem position.  Accordingly, the displacement in John would
1)
> remove Jesus' seemingly reactionary and out of control scream; 2)
allow
> Jesus to control the timing of his death; and 3) affirm the
Johannine
> theology of the necessity of death by being lifted up on a cross
(and
> not by spearing).
>

Mr. Leonard,

1.  Since in St Matthew the varia lectio at 27:49 cannot reasonably
interpret ALLOS as another/different (soldier) and the fact that no
layman would have been permitted to bring his own spear to this
crucifixion coupled with the high improbability that a layman took
one from a Roman soldier, the historical discontinuity that this
harmonization evidences within St Matthew's narrative is a glaring
mark of its spuriousness.

2.  The value of this particular Coptic manuscript remains a
secondary source since we possess Greek witnesses to this variam
lectionem.

3.  The rating of D is in fact found in the UBS.  It refers and is
reflected in those readings that don't even gain a hearing in the
apparatus.  I used to use the UBS 3rd when I used to use the NA26,
but now I use the NA27 and various other GNT editions.  The D rating
for this reading is my own.

4.  I speak fluent German and English and have no problem
understanding you.  Neither are my mother tongue.

5.  I have had a one time competence in but Coptic and Syriac, but
nowadays seldom use either, hense my referring you to Mr. Head.

6.  Finally, I would caution you and Mr. Pennells to consider more
seriously the place of historical research in text-critical matters.

Malcolm
______________

--- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "feeite_christian"
<jmleonardfamily@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks, Malcolm for your thoughtful reply.
>
> For the sake of sticking to tc issues, I'll avoid replying to your
> points about the historical realities of crucifion, all of which
were
> instructive, but still leave room for questions and doubt in mind.
>
> In terms of the secondary witness of translations, yes I agree with
> you to the extent that there are limitations on their value due to
> their being a mere reflection of the original.  However, in the
case
> of tc issues dealing with a long or shortened texts, a translation
is
> as good as a Greek manuscript.  In such a case, when there is no
> question at all whether a manuscript of a version attests a shorter
> or longer reading, then the versional manuscript proves that a
Greek
> manuscript did indeed exist which had either the shorter or longer
> reading.
>
> In regard to the specific case of the Middle Egytian Codex Schoyen,
> its date has hitherto only been conjectured without any concrete
> evidence offered in conjunction with the conjecture.  Its editor, H-
M
> Schenke pronounced it as being vermutlich ("probably, presumably")
> from the first half of the fourth century.  I see that the Schoyen
> Collection has recently revised its webpage so that they are no
> longer claiming a 325 date for it, but are affirming Schenke's
prior
> assessment of 300-350.
>
> At any rate, the question is whether the reading in the recently
> emerged Codex Schoyen makes a difference:
>
> If, as has been argued, the group of longer readings which are
> juxtaposed to the shorter readings otherwise known as the Western
Non-
> Interpolations (WN-I) arose out of the same provenance, then the
long
> reading of Matt 27:49 (if not original) will have been in existence
> for perhaps as early as 120 AD and no later than 200.  These dates
> correspond to the breaking away of the Western Text from its
source,
> and to the date of P75 which gives attestation to the shorter
> readings.
>
> All this is difficult to articulate due to the loaded language of
> Western Non-Interpolations.  But what I'm saying is that the spear
> thrust in Matthew (the longer reading), if its origin arises part
and
> parcel with all the other  longer readings opposing the short
> readings known as the WN-I's, then its appearance in Schoyen
doesn't
> really matter since the shorter WN-I readings--as a group--are
> attested in P75.
>
> On the other hand, there are some things which distinguish the
Spear
> Thrust in Matthew from the dynamics of the WN-I's:  1) the short
text
> (WN-I's) are all otherwise found only in the last two chapters of
> Luke; 2) the attestation of the short form in Matthew is so much
> stronger, involving not just Western texs, but also Alexandrinus
and
> nearly 1600 Byzantine witnesses (of varying degrees), not to
mention
> Family One and Family 13, 33 et al.
>
> Consequently, perhaps there is some basis for rejecting the notion
> that the short form of Matt 27:49 really belongs to the class of
> variants known as the Western Non-Interpolations.  If so, then the
> early attestation of the long reading of Schoyen (and Scheide--mae)
> does matter--at least a little, proving that it it had spread
through
> some segments of the Coptic speaking world, and had done so
> presumably as early as 250-300, even though it is not extant in
> Sahidic and Bohairic.
>
> By the way, I'm not sure that any variant gets a D rating from
UBS.
> The lowest seems to be C.
>
>
>
>
> --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "mjriii2003"
> <mjriii2003@> wrote:
> >
> > Mr. Leonard,
> >
> > 1. According to M. Hengel in his book about Crucifixion, the
> > suffocation of the condemned was part and parcel to the means of
> > death imposed.  The ability to detect whether an individual
> > was "breathing" would be dependant upon the stage of his
> execution.
> > The latter stages of his excruciating agony would be barely (if
at
> > all detectable).  In fact, one's state of consciousness in the
> latter
> > stages would be highly unlikely.  This is why Jesus' cry with a
> loud
> > voice before He gave up the spirit (died/expired) is noteworthy
and
> > unusual.  Finally, in light of what we do know of the abuse and
> > torture that Jesus endured and at this late stage in His
> condemnation
> > and execution, it is even more unlikely that benumbed senses
would
> > even register a jab as you understand it.
> >
> > 2.  The value of any translation is secondary.  It is not a
primary
> > document and it's importance is limited.  The Coptic manuscript
is
> > mid fourth century.  My Coptic knowledge is now limited and
unused
> as
> > well as my knowledge of Syriac.  Perhaps Peter Head could aid you
> in
> > this respect further.
> >
> > 3.  Within the context of Matthew, the ALLOS can not be construed
> as
> > a Roman soldier and the idea that the soldiers guarding the
> condemned
> > would permit the audience to interfer is highly unlikely and
wholly
> > contrary to their purpose in the first place.  Remember,
permission
> > had to be sought to remove the bodies before the start of the
> Sabbath
> > observance.
> >
> > 4.  I don't share you view that a spear would be so unwieldy in
the
> > hands of a Roman soldier.
> >
> > 5.  I still think UBS rating should be a D and the double
brackets
> i
> > W-H indicate spuriousness.
> >
> > Malcolm
> > ___________
> >
> > --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "feeite_christian"
> > <jmleonardfamily@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Thanks Malcolm.  Just a few points of clarification.
> > >
> > > The spear thrust may have been more of an exploratory jab
either
> to
> > > see if a victim were still alive or to prompt him to say
further
> > > bemusing comments.  In fact, Codex Schoyen uses a second verb
> which
> > > may indeed suggest as much.  If so, then the jab--from the
point
> of
> > a
> > > long unwieldy spear which could hardly be used with pinpoint
> > accuracy
> > > or sensitivity--may have pentrated further than the intention.
> > This
> > > would allow the notion that the spear thrust was not designed
to
> > > hasten death.  In terms of historical reality, I would think
that
> a
> > > crucified person's breathing or lack thereof could hardly be
> > > mistaken; in the tortured manner of his hanging, it should have
> > been
> > > obvious whether he was still breathing.  This being the case, a
> jab
> > > could have served to prompt him to consciousness or to say
other
> > > bemusing comments.  All this said, I'm not sure if this
> information
> > > actually advances the text critical issue.
> > >
> > > In regard to the comment about inept harmonization:
> > >
> > > > I view the pre-mortem piercing in St. Matthew as an
> ahistorical,
> > > > inept attempt at harmonization.  An ALLOS (presumeably a Jew -

> > not
> > > a
> > > > Roman soldier) takes upon himself the prerogative to pierce a
> > > > condemned criminal in spite of the presence of Roman
soldiers.
> A
> > > pre
> > > > mortem piercing contradicts the immediate context of waiting
to
> > see
> > > > if Elijah would come and save Him (or perhaps they were
afraid
> > that
> > > > he just might come to do just that and better hurry up and
kill
> > > > Him!)
> > >
> > > Surely, if the long reading were harmonised, it would have been
> > done
> > > with better results.  The fact that it produces the most
obvious
> > and
> > > grievous historical incongruity with John would seem to argue
> > against
> > > harmonisation.
> > >
> > > Let me also clarify the external support.  Not only is the long
> > > reading supported by Aleph and Vaticanus, but also Codex Regius
> (L)
> > > which also has an excellent text in Matthew (at least from
> chapter
> > 18
> > > onward), and by C along with a good number of leading fully
> > Byzantine
> > > texts.  Moreover, the two Coptic manuscripts are not "later"
> > > manuscripts, but represent some of the very earliest extant
> > witnesses
> > > to Matthew's Gospel.
> > >
> > > Note also that the UBS4 rating is a B, and that Westcott and
Hort
> > > actually included the reading in their text, albeit in double
> > > brackets.
> > >
> > > Thanks.
> > >
> >
>

"Gene Brooks" <gbrooks@...> wrote:

>>92 to 93% of the text is agreed as autograph for everyone.
  Not one doctrine is established or disestablished from the 6-7% in
  dispute.<<

A couple of considerations here.

1. Every time an ancient koine mss of any appreciable size is
unearthed, it adds to the number of listed variants; the older the
ms, it seems, the more unique it is. Eliminate all pre-5th century
mss, and that number of agreement climbs up to the high 90's,
approaching 99% by the eighth century.

2. How about the doctrine (teaching) of Jesus that certain kinds of
demons can only be expelled by prayer and fasting?  From being
reiterated in the majority of mss, it is eliminated in the eclectic
text. This despite the fact that the corpus is divided, with mss of
all three textual families and four versions taking opposite sides on
the question. Even arm and geo exhibit a rare disagreement here.

Daniel

Of the approximately 138,000 words in the GNT, it is
interesting to note that one can reach the 400,000
variants by using the same 138,000 words. Here is how
that would happen visually.

Use any base text you like; it is irrelevant, other
than it must be a complete GNT. Just to cover all
bases, let's do two experiments: one using the
Majority Text, the other using the Critical Text.

Let's use John 1.1a as an example:

EN ARCH HN hO LOGOS (base text)
1. ARCH HN hO LOGOS (EN omitted)
2. EN ARCH hO LOGOS (HN omitted)
3. hO LOGOS HN EN ARCH (word order)
4. hO LOGOS EN ARCH HN (word order)
5. LOGOS HN EN ARCH (hO omitted)
6. HN EN ARCH LOGOS (2 variants, hO omitted, word
order)
7. ARCH HN hO LOGOS (EN omitted)
8. HN hO LOGOS ARCH (2 variants, EN omitted, word
order)
9. EN ARCH hO LOGOS (HN omitted)
10. EN ARC HN hO LOGOS (omitted letter in ARCH)
11. EN ACH HN LOGOS (omitted letter in ARCH and
omitted hO)
etc.

As you can see, I can exceed the 400,000 variants
without the need to ever use another word other than
those in the GNT. By the above permutations, I could
exceed millions of variants... all without using any
word outside the GNT. Of course, how hard would it be
to reconstruct the 'original' text in this instance.

Since most variants fall into the categories of
"insignificant," I'm wondering if there is a better
way to present the data so as to give people an
accurate estimate of the reliability of the mss
evidence.

I think Dr. Daniel Wallace's statement that there are
about 1,400 meaningful and viable variants, but not
one of these affects any cardinal doctrine, is on the
right track. And he also adds that this 1,400 means
99% of the original GNT has been reconstructed.




Eddie Mishoe
Pastor


      
________________________________________________________________________________\
____
You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total
Access, No Cost.
http://tc.deals.yahoo.com/tc/blockbuster/text5.com

No doubt the historical consideration is important, but I'm not sure
one can simply dismiss this variant reading in Matthew solely on the
basis that it contradicts the narrative sequence presented in John.

For example, in Luke, the veil rips in anticipation of Jesus' death,
while in Matthew and Luke, the veil rips consequent to Jesus' death.

If the contradictory narrative sequence can stand in regard to the
ripping of the veil, then why can't you also have a different sequence
in regard to the spear thrust?

I recently read a 1966 article that estimated New Testament textual
variants as perhaps 300,000.  More recently estimates of 300,000 to
400,000 appeared in Bart Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus".  Yet, books
I've read have largely based their estimates of variants on
multiplying estimates that were based on John Mill's listing of
variants in 1707.  Of the 300,000 - 400,000 variants in manuscripts
(or whatever the current total might be), I read that these represent
perhaps 10,000 places in the New Testament.  Does anyone have sources
of newer information that include some sort of verification of the
numbers (more than educated guesses)?

Greg Sahlstrom

Eddie Mishoe wrote:

> Let's use John 1.1a as an example:
>
> EN ARCH HN hO LOGOS (base text)
> 1. ARCH HN hO LOGOS (EN omitted)
> 2. EN ARCH hO LOGOS (HN omitted)
> 3. hO LOGOS HN EN ARCH (word order)
> 4. hO LOGOS EN ARCH HN (word order)
> 5. LOGOS HN EN ARCH (hO omitted)
> 6. HN EN ARCH LOGOS (2 variants, hO omitted, word
> order)
> 7. ARCH HN hO LOGOS (EN omitted)
> 8. HN hO LOGOS ARCH (2 variants, EN omitted, word
> order)
> 9. EN ARCH hO LOGOS (HN omitted)
> 10. EN ARC HN hO LOGOS (omitted letter in ARCH)
> 11. EN ACH HN LOGOS (omitted letter in ARCH and
> omitted hO)
> etc.
>
> As you can see, I can exceed the 400,000 variants
> without the need to ever use another word other than
> those in the GNT. By the above permutations, I could
> exceed millions of variants...


Eddie, thanks for this. I think it shows how useless this kind of
number-crunching can be--especially in a linguistic field of study like
TC--and how misleading statistics can be when they are presented without
exact and complete information about how they were generated.

Michael Marlowe

Mr. Leonard,

The problem is one of method.  You have posed a question and made an
assertion.  Neither are exegetically based/presented.  If you had
replied with something along the lines of: "Well, in the text of St.
Matthew the use of PALIN before KRAXAS...", would have been a
sufficient premise to interpret PALIN here within an historical
context.

So let's ask the question anyway.  How many times did Jesus PALIN
KRAXAS - throughout His condemnation?  The narrative does not say
(nor does it attempt to count all of them - whatever the number).
Now I will pose a question.  Do you think it was only twice?

Even PALIN in St Matthew does not support this varia lectio at 27:49.

Malcolm

____________________


--- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "feeite_christian"
<jmleonardfamily@...> wrote:
>
> No doubt the historical consideration is important, but I'm not
sure
> one can simply dismiss this variant reading in Matthew solely on
the
> basis that it contradicts the narrative sequence presented in John.
>
> For example, in Luke, the veil rips in anticipation of Jesus'
death,
> while in Matthew and Luke, the veil rips consequent to Jesus' death.
>
> If the contradictory narrative sequence can stand in regard to the
> ripping of the veil, then why can't you also have a different
sequence
> in regard to the spear thrust?
>

It is generally printed that the quotes by the Church
Fathers is around the 1 million mark. Does this mean
that together they quote 1 million 'verses,' or does
it mean there are 1 million quotes of various passages
(perhaps multiple passages per quote)? If a Church
Father quoted Matthew's Lord's Prayer, would that be 1
quote, or would that be counted as 5 (for the number
of verses)?

Are there any Internet resources on the breakdown of
Church Fathers' quotes, by date, numbers, etc.?


Eddie Mishoe
Pastor


      
________________________________________________________________________________\
____
You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total
Access, No Cost.
http://tc.deals.yahoo.com/tc/blockbuster/text5.com

Just wanted to give everybody one last opportunity to
weigh in on this. Any help would be appreciated.

--- Eddie Mishoe <edmishoe@...> wrote:

> It is generally printed that the quotes by the
> Church
> Fathers are around the 1 million mark. Does this
mean
> that together they quote 1 million 'verses,' or does
> it mean there are 1 million quotes of various
> passages
> (perhaps multiple passages per quote)? If a Church
> Father quoted Matthew's Lord's Prayer, would that be
> 1
> quote, or would that be counted as 5 (for the number
> of verses)?
>
> Are there any Internet resources on the breakdown of
> Church Fathers' quotes, by date, numbers, etc.?


And I'll add to this: Are there any resources on the
breakdown of Church Fathers' quotes, not just on the
Internet.




Eddie Mishoe
Pastor

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

I read about the CD with the images of W.
Is there anybody in Europe with this CD?
How are the images?
I would like to get a copy. Perhaps we can arrange something.
Please contact me off-list.

And:
What happened to the transcription by Prior and Brown? Is it out now? Where can
I order it?


PS: I took a year off from TC basically to concentrate on other matters, but now
I am back with more time and will try to contribute more regularly again.
Anything I have missed?

Best wishes
     Wieland
        <><
------------------------------------------------
Dr. Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
mailto:willker@...
http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie
Textcritical commentary:
http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/index.html

According to the reports form the latest SBL in 2007 in San Diego, there will be
a new NA28 in 2009.
Also works are in progress for a new UBS5 in 2014.

If I understand correctly the NA28 will be basically the same as NA27, but with
the insights from ECM (catholic epistles) added (text and apparatus).

What are your thoughts on this?

What can be improved on NA?
What can be improved on the UBS-GNT?

Do you think that we still need those two different editions?
Or other ones?


In my commentary I have some comments on this:
http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/Suggestions-NA-text.pdf

http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/Suggestions-NA-apparatus.pdf


Best wishes
     Wieland
        <><
------------------------------------------------
Dr. Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
mailto:willker@...
http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie
Textcritical commentary:
http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/index.html

--- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, Eddie Mishoe <edmishoe@...>
wrote:
>> Are there any resources on the breakdown of Church Fathers' quotes,
not just on the Internet.<<

The sine qua non resource on Patristic references is the 30-volume work
by John Burgon. Unlike the Fathers themselves, it still exists only in
manuscript, in the British Library.  Publishing it to the internet
should be a good project for an upper-level Early Church History class
somewhere.

Daniel Buck

Below is a reply I received from Timothy A. Brown:



-----Original Message-----
From: Timothy Arthur Brown [mailto:t.a.e.brown@...]
Sent: Friday, April 11, 2008 10:45 PM


Dear Wieland,

The new images of W produced by the Freer Gallery are
excellent.  I was
present for the first portion of the imaging in the spring
of 2006.
When the images were released a couple of months later, I
was pleased to
see that the results were so good.  Having just been granted
the
privilege of examining W for the sake of checking problem
portions our
transcription against the original, what I had seen was
still fresh in
my mind and the new images impressed me as being very much
like looking
at the original in person.  The images are available for
purchase
directly from the Freer Gallery.

The publication of the Prior and Brown transcription has
been delayed
due to two factors.  The first is that I was called onto the
Codex
Sinaiticus Project as a contracted transcriber before our
Freer Gospels
transcription was able to go to press.  The Codex Sinaiticus
Project has
taken me to England and is a full-time endeavor, and has
made it
difficult for me to give the Freer Gospels publication the
attention it
deserves.  The second factor is the set of new images I have
just
discussed.  These new images are such an improvement over
what Bruce and
I had to work with before, we agreed that it was a good
thing to
postpone our publication long enough to proofread it
thoroughly against
them.  The Codex Sinaiticus Project contract concludes at
the end of
July this year.  Bruce and I will again turn our attention
to the
publication of our transcription of the Freer Gospels upon
my return to
America at the end of July.

Yours,

T. A. E. Brown
Franconia, New Hampshire  USA
(posted from Giggleswick, North Yorkshire, England)

Codices Electronici Sangallenses (CESG) - Virtual Library

The purpose of the "Codices Electronici Sangallenses"
(Digital Abbey Library of St. Gallen) is to provide access
to the medieval codices in the Abbey Library of St. Gallen
by creating a virtual library.

http://www.cesg.unifr.ch/en/index.htm

Very high resolution images!
Unfortunately not Codex 037. At least I haven't seen it.

Best wishes
     Wieland
        <><
------------------------------------------------
Dr. Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
mailto:willker@...
http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie
Textcritical Commentary:
http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/index.html

High res images of P52 and P32 can be found here:

http://rylibweb.man.ac.uk/insight/papyrus.htm

Click on the "View Rylands Papyri using insight browser
viewer" bar.

(Popup-blocker must be turned off)

Then select search "by subject" on the left, then "Bible:
New Testament".

To safe the images, select the largest possible zoom and
then copy the images from your "Temporary Internet folder".

A little complicated ...


Best wishes
     Wieland
        <><
------------------------------------------------
Dr. Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
mailto:willker@...
http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie
Textcritical Commentary:
http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/index.html

Did you see this?

http://chrles.multiply.com/photos

Full set of photos from P46, P66, P72, P74, P75, etc. plus
many more.
Not all usable, but better than nothing.


Best wishes
     Wieland
        <><
------------------------------------------------
Dr. Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
mailto:willker@...
http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie
Textcritical Commentary:
http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/index.html

Dear Wieland,

Thank you for raising this topic.

I have a particular desire concerning the apparatus information
contained in the NA and UBS editions: I would like to see the
apparatus of each made available in an electronic form to facilitate
further analysis.

In my opinion, the most useful form is a data matrix that for every
variation unit lists the state of each witness that is included in the
apparatus.

E.g.

     V1    V2    ...   Vn
W1   1     2    ...    2
W2  NA     3    ...    1
... ...   ...   ...   ...
Wn   2     1    ...   NA

Here, V1, V2 etc. are variation units and W1, W2 etc. are witnesses.
Numerals represent states of the text within the variation units. (A
key can be provided to show what text each numeral represents.) 'NA'
means that a witness is lacunose or has an uncertain reading at the
variation unit in question.

More details on data matrices and how to encode an apparatus can be
found in chapter two of my evolving book:

http://purl.org/tfinney/NTText/book/index.html

An existing feature of the UBS apparatus is particularly helpful in
this respect: each apparatus entry lists all of the witnesses covered
by the apparatus unless the reading of a witness cannot be determined
for that variation unit. The existing NA apparatus is more difficult
to use for this purpose because some witnesses are not always
explicitly listed, meaning extra work has to be done to determine
whether a "constant" witness which is not listed in an apparatus entry
is subsumed under a group category (e.g. f1, f13, M) or is lacunose.

Best,

Tim Finney

--- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "Wieland Willker"
<willker@...> wrote:
>
> According to the reports form the latest SBL in 2007 in San Diego,
there will be a new NA28 in 2009.
> Also works are in progress for a new UBS5 in 2014.
>
> If I understand correctly the NA28 will be basically the same as
NA27, but with the insights from ECM (catholic epistles) added (text
and apparatus).
>
> What are your thoughts on this?
>
> What can be improved on NA?
> What can be improved on the UBS-GNT?
>
> Do you think that we still need those two different editions?
> Or other ones?
>
>
> In my commentary I have some comments on this:
> http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/Suggestions-NA-text.pdf
>
> http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/Suggestions-NA-apparatus.pdf
>
>
> Best wishes
>     Wieland
>        <><
> ------------------------------------------------
> Dr. Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
> mailto:willker@...
> http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie
> Textcritical commentary:
> http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/index.html
>