textualcriticism : Messages : 7605-7634 of 7933

--- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, Tommy Wasserman <tommy.wasserman@...> wrote:
>
> Joseph,
>
> This will be my last message on this topic for now and I realize that I will hardly be able to persuade you; Mark 1:1 will probably remain one of the "1001 errors in the Christian bible" �" the website I just realized that someone with the name "jwallack" maintains (I assume it is you), where readers are told, "Origen, Irenaeus, Epiphanius, and Victorinus all quote Mark 1:1 without 'son of God” (http://1001errors.com/files/Err140-146.html). In my opinion, this reference to Irenaeus is misleading, for the reasons I have already pointed out.

JW:
As Jim Carrey said in the classic "Liar, Liar" when getting out of the elevator, "It was meeee!". That was the earlier, funnier JoeWallack. The emphasis there is on Polemics and quantity. My newer site:

ErrancyWiki

is my in progress scholarly site that emphasizes quality. I think the articles there on the Birth Dating Contradiction and The Ending of Mark are the best articles ever written on those subjects. Thanks for the plug. As the Rabbis say:

>
> You speak of my criteria as "informal, undeveloped, etc." For my part I use criteria as established by the leading scholars in the field, and I will refer to them again one last time.
>
> Gordon D. Fee, “The Use of Greek Patristic Citations in New Testament Textual Criticism,” ANRW 26.1 (1992) 256-8 observes that a high degree of certainty of a patristic citation exists in the following four instances:
>
> a. When in his discussion the Father makes a point of the very words used by a biblical author;

But it's not at all "the very words" and that's the point. That's the problem with translations, you are forced to use different words. I'll repeat, the main risk here is Transmission, not Reconstruction. Do my words have less weight here than your fellow Evangelical Professor Head?

>
> b. When in a commentary or homily the discussion confirms the wording of a citation;

If you are referring to context than yes this helps a lot.

>
> c. When the Father actually cites a known variation to his own text;

"cites a known variation to his own text" leads to "high degree of certainty". I don't think so.

>
> d. When in a commentary, homily, or polemical treatise, the Father repeats the text in the same way again and again.

That helps too.

>
> I have argued that a/b and d are applicable in Mark 1:1, and in this case, the Latin text of Irenaeus should be given great weight because we are not talking about an isolated phrase which could have been adapted after some Latin Gospel text, but we have two distinct passages where Irenaeus is making a specific point where the citations must make sense and are surrounded by other citations of significance. And the Latin version of Irenaeus work is happily, "literal to a fault" to use Johannes Quasten's words.

Even if you had all four you would still be a long way from what would be good evidence for "high degree of certainty". There are still many other criteria to consider like, oh I don't know, Age, Credibility, External Force.

>
> You asked:
>
> "Do you still doubt that Latin Irenaeus evidence weighs less than Greek Irenaeus evidence?"
>
> Again it sounds as if you think there is Greek evidence for the shorter reading, which there is not (Peter Head depended on Harvey's Cambridge edition of Irenaeus from 1867 when he wrote is article �" I asked him about that last year. I must also remind the readers of this list that there is no extant Greek manuscript of Adversus Haeresis in the passage we discuss. The Greek evidence is indirect, and, as I have pointed out, even that text has "The Beginning of the Gospel" with neither "Jesus Christ" nor "Son of God". And, in addition, in that context Irenaeus compares
> the evangelists (discussing how Gospels begin) to the four creatures in Rev. 4:7. He refers to Mark as the flying eagle and the focus is on the prophetic reference in Mark 1:2, demonstrating how the evangelist, as the eagle, spoke inspired by the prophetic Spirit from on high. There was a reason to omit (which is paralleled by other fathers who abbreviates Gospel incipits including Mark 1:1).
>
> In relation to a criterion applicable to the particular passage in Irenaeus where he simply has "The Beginning of the Gospel" , Carroll Osburn discusses "Accurate Citation With Partial Omission" stating: "If an otherwise accurate citation has a partial omission that is not known to occur elsewhere in the manuscript tradition, the omission should be considered as a patristic solecism and the accurate portion accepted as the Father’s text" (Carroll D. Osburn, "Method in Identifying Patristic Citations in NT Textual Criticism,"Novum Testamentum 47.4 [2005]: 325).
>
> Incidentally, one of Osburn's example (p. 326) is an omission by Irenaeus in 1 Cor 10:5, which Bart Ehrman,� The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), 89, has identified as an orthodox omission:
>
> "Similarly, an argument has been made for an “orthodox omission” of ὁ θεός� at 1 Cor. 10:5 by Irenaeus. However, the supposed “omission”
> occurs at the end of the quotation and cannot be used as textual evidence. Following a lengthy and verbatim citation of 1 Cor. 10:1-12 with ὁ θεός in the text of v. 5, Irenaeus, Adv. haer. 4.27.4, refers to v. 5, saying, ὥσπερ ἐκεῖ ἐν τοῖς πλείοσιν αὐτῶν τοῖς ἁμαρτήσασιν οὐκ εὐδοκήσεν ὁ θεός. Later at 4.36.6, Irenaeus refers to v. 5 saying, οὐκ ἐν τοῖς πλείοσιν αὐτῶν εὐδοκήσεν, without ὁ θεός. However, this cannot be an orthodox 'omission' of ὁ θεός created to make Christ the subject of εὐδοκήσεν, because in the context of 4.36.5, Irenaeus is making the specific point of denoting God Himself as the judge. He says, 'There is one King and Lord, the Father of all,' who, when those invited did not obey Him, 'sent forth His armies and destroyed them.' Continuing his emphasis, he says in 4.36.6, 'the very same King who
> gathered from all quarters the faithful to the marriage of
> His Son . . . [also] orders that man to be cast into outer darkness who has not on a wedding garment.' Irenaeus then says, 'For as in the
> former covenant, with many of them He was not well pleased, so also is it the case here.' He continues, 'It is not, then, one god who judges and another Father who calls us . . . but it is one and the same God, the Father of our Lord.' The subject of εὐδοκήσεν in
> v. 5 is clearly not Χριστός, but ὁ θεός of the context. Obviously, Irenaeus, Adv. haer. 4.36.6, cannot be cited in support of an 'omission'
> of ὁ θεός."
>
> Tell me if you accept any of these criteria which I have described, and what criteria you yourself use in your evaluation of patristic evidence.
>
>
> Tommy Wasserman

JW:
Be glad to start. The most important criterion I use is Credibility. Here the comparison is Irenaeus, if you accept him as Long, and Origen. Credibility consists of knowledge and objectivity. Now most early Patristics have relatively low credibility by modern standards (the only standard I use) so what we are doing is comparing their credibility to each other. Origen was a Textual Critic and I would rate him the outstanding scholar of the Early Church. Not much evidence that Irenaeus was a Textual Critic and his credibility was low by Patristic standards. Did you know that he thought the son of God was at the beginning of the Jewish Bible? So in the Credibility criterion I give the edge to Short.

Our basic difference though is going to be those pesky early Greek references so I want to cover them completely. Again, the problem I have with the abbreviation theory is the cumulative lack of mention here of Greek "the son of God" with the importance of the phrase to the orthodox. So...

Irenaeus 3.11.8

"Mark, on the other hand, commences with [a reference to] the prophetical spirit coming down from on high to men, saying, The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as it is written in Esaias the prophet,"

Compare to the Text:

"The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Mark 1:2 Even as it is written in Isaiah the prophet,"

The only difference being either "the son of God" or "Jesus Christ, the Son of God". Irenaeus explicitly says "son of God" twice in his related discussion and a major theme is the generation of Jesus. It seems reMarkable to me that he would invoke the offending phrase in his discussion but not in his quote.

Basil Against Eunomius (Book II) 15 (Page 150)

"And Mark made the preaching of John the beginning of the gospel, say-ing: The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, as is written in Isaiah the prophet: a voice of one crying out"

Compare to the Text:

"The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Even as it is written in Isaiah the prophet, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, Who shall prepare thy way. The voice of one crying in the wilderness

Here Basil has omitted "Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, Who shall prepare thy way". But he has also omitted "son of God". The entire context here is the timing of the son of God so the omission from quotation is remarkable. Still no confirmation to Latin Irenaeus.

Joseph

#7606

From: "Vox Verax" <james.snapp@...>
Date: Mon Nov 12, 2012 7:24 pm
Subject: Agnostic/Atheist Approaches to NTTC

voxverax

Joe Wallack stated:  "I think the articles there on the Birth Dating
Contradiction and The Ending of Mark are the best articles ever written on those
subjects."

Setting aside the material about the date of Christ's birth, for the time being,
I welcome all readers to visit the essay by Richard Carrier about Mark 16:9-20
which Joe has praised, and scroll down to the part about Irenaeus.  Dr. Carrier
proposed that Irenaeus' reference to Mk. 16:19 is an interpolation!

When KJV-Onlyists do this sort of thing, exasperated researchers tend to
recommend a book or two and then back away slowly, convinced that the
KJV-Onlyists' appeals to evidence are facades, and that the KJV-Onlyists are
agenda-driven, rather than evidence-driven.  Is that also the option that should
be taken when something similar is concluded about atheists/agnostics?  While
this might result in a measure of polarization, it might also reduce a lot of
wasted effort to persuade the unpersuadeable.

Yours in Christ,

James Snapp, Jr.

#7607

From: "yennifmit" <tfinney@...>
Date: Tue Nov 13, 2012 3:00 am
Subject: Re: Mark 1:1 "the son of God" - Jerome Witness

yennifmit

Hi Joe,

Concerning Mk 1.1, it might be that "Son of God" was omitted in certain
localities as an apologetic strategy. ("If only we could get people to read past
the first sentence...") The omission of YIOY QEOY is found among certain texts
which seem associated with the Eastern branch of Christianity (i.e. places where
Syriac and cognates were spoken), e.g. 038, Syr. Pal., Arm., Geo., Origen.

On thinking that the Son of God is at the beginning of the Hebrew Bible, the
Apostle John says that the Word of God was with God in the beginning (alluding
to the beginning of Genesis) and, later, the Word became a human being. Maybe
Irenaeus was thinking of John's Gospel?

Best,

Tim Finney

--- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "joewallack" <joewallack@...> wrote:
> JW:
> Be glad to start. The most important criterion I use is Credibility.
> Here the comparison is Irenaeus, if you accept him as Long, and Origen.
> Credibility consists of knowledge and objectivity. Now most early
> Patristics have relatively low credibility by modern standards (the only
> standard I use) so what we are doing is comparing their credibility to
> each other. Origen was a Textual Critic and I would rate him the
> outstanding scholar of the Early Church. Not much evidence that Irenaeus
> was a Textual Critic and his credibility was low by Patristic standards.
> Did you know that he thought the son of God was at the beginning of the
> Jewish Bible? So in the Credibility criterion I give the edge to Short.

#7608

From: "joewallack" <joewallack@...>
Date: Tue Nov 13, 2012 4:59 pm
Subject: Re: Mark 1:1 "the son of God" - Patristic Witness

joewallack

JW:
Now let's call back to the witness stand that Eldritch Church Elder, Epiphanius, and his Necronomicon of Nosticism, the Panarion:

Panarion Section 51 (Page 26)

The context of this section are the non-orthodox (northodox) who reject "John" because it contradicts the Synoptics. Epiphanius says the specific issue here (so to speak) is that the northodox believe Jesus had a human father in the traditonal way. He says "John" supplements the Synoptics by explaining that Jesus was God's son long before. He invokes "John" as stating that Jesus was "son of the Father" before the Gospel. He quotes "Luke" as saying "son of God" in the birth narrative. He can't likewise quote "Matthew" because he doesn't say it. I repeat, because he doesn't say it.

Epiphanius says:

"The beginning of the Gospel, as it is written in Isaiah the prophet, A voice of one crying in the wilderness."

Compare to text:

"The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

Even as it is written in Isaiah the prophet, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, Who shall prepare thy way.

The voice of one crying in the wilderness,"

So Epiphanius has exorcised "Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, Who shall prepare thy way" and "Jesus Christ, the Son of God." Epiphanius says the northodox are using "Mark" to support their position (page 31):

""Look" they said here is a second Gospel too with an account of Christ, and nowhere does it say that his generation is heavenly. Instead they said, "the spirit descended upon him in the Jordan and a voice, "this is my beloved son with whom I am well pleased.""

If the text had said "son of God" at 1:1 than Epiphanius likely would have used it since he would consider it evidence from "Mark" that Jesus was the son of God before the baptism. He discusses the related text of the Gospels in detail looking for any support so the context indicates it was not there. Professor Ehrman briefly mentions the issue in TOCoS but doesn't going into the timing. Consider that at the time Epiphanius writes about the issue there is no extant Greek support (coordination).

Epiphanius has provided us with the motive to add "son of God" and subsequent to him is when the extant Greek evidence for it starts.

Actually, when we get to the Internal evidence we will see that "Mark" never gives "son of God" as an editorial comment. It is always via narrative (revelation, same as Paul). Theme is important because it contains the qualitative criterion of scope.

So the maratheon has now run through Epiphanius with no confirmation of Latin Ireaneus' "son of God".

Joseph

#7609

From: "Peter Streitenberger" <ps2866@...>
Date: Tue Nov 13, 2012 8:32 pm
Subject: NA27 - NA28

streitenberg...

Dear Friends,

has anyone a list of differences between NA27 and NA28 ?

Thank you

Peter, Germany

Reply | Messages in this Topic (4)

#7610

From: Tommy Wasserman <tommy.wasserman@...>
Date: Wed Nov 14, 2012 8:38 am
Subject: Re: Re: Mark 1:1 "the son of God" - Patristic Witness

tommy.wasserman

I thought I would not have to do this, but now we are switching from Irenaeus to Epiphanius (d. 403), so I will have to continue this marathon, after having established that Irenaeus clearly attests to the long reading, but not the short.

Again, it is a matter of criteria: It is plain that in the case of Epiphanius you appeal to an argument from silence. You agree that Epiphanius (just like Irenaeus) abbreviates his text and doesn't even include Jesus Christ (which is also Christologically important; why did he leave "Jesus Christ" out � he doesn't seem worried about this at all). That is good. But this abbreviated citation, then, according to established methodology can of course not be used in support of either the long or short reading! (it was erroneously indicated in UBS3 but removed in UBS4.) The only "correlation" I see here is a tendency on the part of patristic authors, which is rather widespread, to abbreviate their text.

Moreover, the divine sonship of Jesus was clearly taken for granted by both Ireneaus and Epiphanius. They apparently saw no danger in abbreviating their text omitting neither "Jesus Christ" (both) nor "Son of God" (at least Irenaeus in one passage). Some decades later, Cyril of Alexandria (d. 444) cites the long reading and makes a point of it. As for "coordination" and "extant Greek support" I trust you know that Vaticanus is dated to the fourth century (and I have argued that the correction in Codex Sinaiticus belongs to the earliest layer, produced in the scriptorium).

Well, the evidence suggests that there is early evidence for both readings. It is a hard decision, but let's use established criteria when analysing the data, in particular the patristic testimony.

Finally, why don't you pull down your old website, in light of what you said in your previous message: "As Jim Carrey said in the classic 'Liar, Liar' when getting out of the elevator, 'It was meeee!'. That was the earlier, funnier JoeWallack. The emphasis there is on Polemics and quantity." Indeed, that statement is revealing.

Tommy Wasserman

13 nov 2012 kl. 17.59 skrev joewallack:

JW:
Now let's call back to the witness stand that Eldritch Church Elder, Epiphanius, and his Necronomicon of Nosticism, the Panarion:

Panarion Section 51 (Page 26)

The context of this section are the non-orthodox (northodox) who reject "John" because it contradicts the Synoptics. Epiphanius says the specific issue here (so to speak) is that the northodox believe Jesus had a human father in the traditonal way. He says "John" supplements the Synoptics by explaining that Jesus was God's son long before. He invokes "John" as stating that Jesus was "son of the Father" before the Gospel. He quotes "Luke" as saying "son of God" in the birth narrative. He can't likewise quote "Matthew" because he doesn't say it. I repeat, because he doesn't say it.

Epiphanius says:

"The beginning of the Gospel, as it is written in Isaiah the prophet, A voice of one crying in the wilderness."

Compare to text:

"The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
Even as it is written in Isaiah the prophet, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, Who shall prepare thy way.
The voice of one crying in the wilderness,"

So Epiphanius has exorcised "Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, Who shall prepare thy way" and "Jesus Christ, the Son of God." Epiphanius says the northodox are using "Mark" to support their position (page 31):

""Look" they said here is a second Gospel too with an account of Christ, and nowhere does it say that his generation is heavenly. Instead they said, "the spirit descended upon him in the Jordan and a voice, "this is my beloved son with whom I am well pleased.""

If the text had said "son of God" at 1:1 than Epiphanius likely would have used it since he would consider it evidence from "Mark" that Jesus was the son of God before the baptism. He discusses the related text of the Gospels in detail looking for any support so the context indicates it was not there. Professor Ehrman briefly mentions the issue in TOCoS but doesn't going into the timing. Consider that at the time Epiphanius writes about the issue there is no extant Greek support (coordination).

Epiphanius has provided us with the motive to add "son of God" and subsequent to him is when the extant Greek evidence for it starts.

Actually, when we get to the Internal evidence we will see that "Mark" never gives "son of God" as an editorial comment. It is always via narrative (revelation, same as Paul). Theme is important because it contains the qualitative criterion of scope.

So the maratheon has now run through Epiphanius with no confirmation of Latin Ireaneus' "son of God".

Joseph

#7611

From: Abram Kielsmeier-Jones <abramkielsmeierjones@...>
Date: Wed Nov 14, 2012 2:04 pm
Subject: Re: NA27 - NA28

abramkielsme...

Hi, Peter:

This is a helpful link for that:

http://bibleworks.oldinthenew.org/?p=1133

Peace,
Abram K-J

From: Peter Streitenberger <ps2866@...>
To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 3:32 PM
Subject: [textualcriticism] NA27 - NA28

Dear Friends,

has anyone a list of differences between NA27 and NA28 ?

Thank you

Peter, Germany

Reply | Messages in this Topic (4)

#7612

From: "Vox Verax" <james.snapp@...>
Date: Wed Nov 14, 2012 10:03 pm
Subject: Cyrillona - a New Resource

voxverax

You know Ephrem Cyrus, and you've heard of Rabbula, but who is Cyrillona?  He
was a Syriac writer in the late 300's.  Five of his writings, along with a
composition called "On the Grain of Wheat," are preserved in a MS that was
produced in the 500's (B. L. Add. MS 14591).

Cyrillona was the subject of a 2011 dissertation by Carl W. Griffin.  His work
is described at http://aladinrc.wrlc.org/handle/1961/9724 and there is a link
there where you can download his dissertation (done at the Catholic University
of America), which includes, in Appendices, the Syriac texts and English
translations of all the compositions in that Syriac MS!  (The dissertation, btw,
is searchable, although it took my computer a little while to realize it.)

At http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=148&chapid=1600
there is more information about Cyrillona, as well as an English translation,
with commentary, of his poetic composition "On Zacchaeus."  This is, it seems, a
Mormon website, so I have some misgivings about promoting it, but since no one
else seems to be researching Cyrillona, I mention it with caution and with
confidence that you can eat the corn and leave the cob.

William Wright wrote a profile of Cyrillona in "A Short History of Syriac
Literature," (1894, available online as a free download) on pages 39-42 (digital
pages 52-55); this includes a short extract from Cyrillona's poem about the
Huns' invasion.  Wright mentions that Cyrillona's writings were collected and
edited by Bickell "in the Z. D. M. G., xxvii. p. 566 sq., and translated by him
in Thalhofer's Bibliothek, 41, pp. 9-63."

Burkitt briefly covered Cyrillona's use of the Gospels in Vol. 2 (Intro & Notes)
of "Evangelion Da-Mephareshe," on pages 150-152, but it would probably not be
harmful if someone were to review Cyrillona's use of the New Testament, looking
for whatever looks interesting but especially looking out for Diatessaronic
readings.  A look at page 50 of Griffin's dissertation indicates that there are
several Gospels-utilizations in Cyrillona's works that Burkitt did not mention.

In Griffin's dissertation, on page 135, Griffin describes Cyrillona's poetic
recasting of the Great Commission, and states, "Cyrillona seems to look more to
Mark" (and then he quotes Mk. 16:15-16).  A phrase in one of Cyrillona's poems
is footnoted as if it is based on Mark 16:17, but it looks to me as though it
could more easily be based on Mt. 10:8.  On page 90, Griffin seems to take it
for granted that Cyrillona based some of his statements on Mk. 16:18.  And at
one point, Cyrillona pictures Jesus predicting the apostles speaking in tongues,
and specifically describes them as "new" � "A new speech will rest upon you,"
and, a bit further, "The disciples received the tongue of fire, a new speech
with which they were not born."  On page 460, Jesus is depicted telling His
disciples, "Drink of it ["it" = the sacramental cup), and cause all creation to
drink most diligently.  Through its power tread upon serpents [cf. Lk. 10:19],
and by means of its taste you shall conquer death."  And on page 482, in a
cluster of stanzas, Cyrillona pictures Jesus telling the disciples, "Go forth as
merchants, that we may gain the world; convert humanity to me; fill creation
with my teaching."  Another point to consider:  Griffin insists that Cyrillona
cites no distinct Peshitta readings.

Yours in Christ,

James Snapp, Jr.

#7613

From: Roberto Labanti <rlabanti@...>
Date: Thu Nov 15, 2012 7:39 am
Subject: Re: Cyrillona - a New Resource

labantir

Hi,

On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 11:03 PM, Vox Verax <james.snapp@...> wrote:

> At http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=148&chapid=1600
there is more information about Cyrillona,
> as well as an English translation, with commentary, of his poetic composition
"On Zacchaeus."

Full biographical details:

Griffin, Carl (2011). Cyrillona's On Zacchaeus. In: Skinner, Andrew
C., Davis, Morgan, & Griffin, Carl (eds.). Bountiful Harvest. Essays
in honor of S. Kent Brown [pp. 177-203] . Provo, Utah: Brigham Young
University
[distribuited by Chicago University Press:
http://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/distributed/B/bo13468577.html]

PDF of the chapter:
http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/display/pdf.php?table=bookchapters&id=1592

Best,
Roberto

#7614

From: ron minton <ronminton@...>
Date: Thu Nov 15, 2012 12:34 pm
Subject: Nazareth Inscription

ronminton@...

http://creation.com/nazareth-inscription-1#txtRef3

Here is an interesting article - Part One concerning the�Nazareth�Inscription.

A sample of the article dealing with grammar and vocabulary follows:

The Nazareth Inscription contains words and grammatical structures, which are very similar to those found in several other Greek rescripts of the Emperor Claudius, especially those which in some way deal with the Jews. For example, of the 90 words used in the Nazareth Inscription, the only Greek words or phrases not found in other known rescripts of Claudius are: taphous (graves), tumbous (tombs), ametakinetous (undisturbed), katalelukota (destroyed), kekedeumenous (those entombed), ekserriphota 9extracted), dolo ponero, (wicked fraud), katoxus lithous (tomb stealing stones), kriterion (tribunal), metakinesai (move), kephales katakriton (capital punishment), and tumburuxias (tomb-breaker). Nearly all of these words deal with the specifics of the reason for which this rescript was written, i.e. breaking into tombs, stealing dead bodies, and moving them to other places.

--
Grace be with you,
Ron Minton - Ukraine

#7615

From: Robert Relyea <bob@...>
Date: Thu Nov 15, 2012 6:38 pm
Subject: Re: Vaticanus OT online? Other online resources for OT TC?

relyea94043

On 11/09/2012 07:15 AM, Jim Darlack wrote:

[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" /> </xml><![endif][if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:shapelayout v:ext="edit"> <o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" /> </o:shapelayout></xml><![endif] |**|begin egp html banner|**|

Does anyone know of a free (legal) source of images of Vaticanus online?

I photographed the Volumes I, II, & III of the 1904-1907 black and white facsimile of the codex Vaticanus ( don't have volume IV, which is the New Testament). Codex Vaticanus (1904–07) (Vaticanus graecus 1209) facs.: Bibliorum SS. Graecorum Codex Vaticanus 1209 (Cod. B) denuo phototypice expressus iussu et cura praesidium bibliothecae Vaticanae. Testamentum vetus et novum, 4 vols (Milan).

I don't have it online anywhere, but I'm willing to release my images to someone willing to host them.

bob

Reply | Messages in this Topic (5)

#7616

From: Daniel Buck <bucksburg@...>
Date: Thu Nov 15, 2012 11:08 pm
Subject: Re: Cyrillona - a New Resource

bucksburg

From: Vox Verax <james.snapp@...>

Cyrillona? He was a Syriac writer in the late 300's. Five of his writings, along with a composition called "On the Grain of Wheat," are preserved in a MS that was produced in the 500's (B. L. Add. MS 14591).
William Wright wrote a profile of Cyrillona in "A Short History of Syriac Literature;" this includes a short extract from Cyrillona's poem about the Huns' invasion.

It would have to be the VERY late 300's. The Huns invaded Armenia and Syria in 395.

Daniel Buck

#7617

From: "joewallack" <joewallack@...>
Date: Fri Nov 16, 2012 5:29 pm
Subject: Re: Mark 1:1 "the son of God" - Patristic Witness

joewallack

--- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, Tommy Wasserman <tommy.wasserman@...> wrote:
> Again, it is a matter of criteria: It is plain that in the case of Epiphanius you appeal to an argument from silence. You agree that Epiphanius (just like Irenaeus) abbreviates his text and doesn't even include Jesus Christ (which is also Christologically important; why did he leave "Jesus Christ" out � he doesn't seem worried about this at all). That is good. But this abbreviated citation, then, according to established methodology can of course not be used in support of either the long or short reading! (it was erroneously indicated in UBS3 but removed in UBS4.) The only "correlation" I see here is a tendency on the part of patristic authors, which is rather widespread, to abbreviate their text.
>
> Moreover, the divine sonship of Jesus was clearly taken for granted by both Ireneaus and Epiphanius. They apparently saw no danger in abbreviating their text omitting neither "Jesus Christ" (both) nor "Son of God" (at least Irenaeus in one passage). Some decades later, Cyril of Alexandria (d. 444) cites the long reading and makes a point of it.

JW:
The better question than why they left out "Jesus Christ" is why you keep leaving out the context of their arguments. The context of these Patristics here is often the timing of the son of God. When did Jesus become son of God and specifically, why does "Mark" not show Jesus as becoming son of God until the baptism (Ehrman). The northodox they are arguing with all accept that the person/spirit/personspirit that is referred to here is "Jesus Christ". Patristics are quoting the text, the same text they claim the northodox have, to try and prove orthodox. Hence, quoting agreed text does not help their argument = reason to abbreviate. A "son of God" in the text, before the Baptism, not only is a difference between orthodox/northodox, it is exactly what these orthodox are arguing about (the next Patristic here makes this explicit). For these cumulative Patristics not to invoke "son of God" from the text we all agree they are referring to is better explained by it not being there to invoke.

>As for "coordination" and "extant Greek support" I trust you know that Vaticanus is dated to the fourth century

Yes, right around the time that the Patristics have identified that "the son of God" right there in "Mark" would come in handy. Vaticanus has it, Sinaiticus does not. Coordination.

>and I have argued that the correction in Codex Sinaiticus belongs to the earliest layer, produced in the scriptorium).

I did want to comment on this. You take the correction in Sinaiticus as an asset because it is another witness for Long (ala Snapp). Actually is goes beyond just being a key witness for Short. An important qualitative criterion is direction of change, and here we have clear extant that the direction was to Long.

> Finally, why don't you pull down your old website, in light of what you said in your previous message: "

Because I was just abbreviating. Onto the next Patristic witness:

ST. CYRIL OF JERUSALEM: CATECHETICAL LECTURES LECTURE III. ON BAPTISM.

"The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, &c.: John came baptising in the wilderness"

Your commentary:

"Similarly, Cyril of Jerusalem (d. 386) wants to demonstrate how John the Baptist begins the new gospel era and cites only a part of Mark 1:1�4 in Catecheses adilluminandos 3.6.1, including the short reading.⁴¹ Since the abbreviation is explicit, the omitted part of the citation being represented by the words καὶ τὰ �`ξῆς, this citation carries less weight as evidence for the short reading"

JW:
Let me add to it. Cyril gives part of the missing text early on (1):

"For the voice is heard of one cryingin the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord"

He adds (2):

"Make straight the way of the Lord"

So the only part of the start of "Mark" he is missing besides "son of God" is the prophetic prediction.

Part of his argument (11):

"If the Son of God was baptized"

Why not quote that if it's in the text. He's making a treatise out of a few verses.

And, as the Brits says, the cruncher (14):

"Jesus Christ was the Son of God, yet He preached not the Gospel beforeHis Baptism. If the Master Himself followed the right time in due order, oughtwe, His servants, to venture out of order? From that time Jesus began topreach[5], when the Holy Spirit had descended upon Him in a bodily shape, like adove[6]; not that Jesus might see Him first, for He knew Him even before He camein a bodily shape, but that John, who was baptizing Him, might behold Him. ForI, saith he, knew Him not: but He that sent me to baptize with water, He saidunto me, Upon whomsoever thou shalt see the Spirit descending and abiding on Him,that is He[7]. If thou too hast unfeigned piety, the Holy Ghost cometh down onthee also, and a Father's voice sounds over thee from on high--not, "This isMy Son," but, "This has now been made My son;" for the "is" belongs to Himalone, because In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and theWord was God[8]. To Him belongs the "is," since He is always the Son of God: butto thee "has now been made:" since thou hast not the sonship by nature, butreceivest it by adoption. He eternally "is;" but thou receivest the grace byadvancement."

Cyril's point/apology here is that the Synoptics appear to show Jesus as becoming son of God at baptism. Cyril's spin is that it is only from the standpoint of the witness that Jesus became son of God at the baptism. Jesus was "son of God" before the baptism (ala "John") and he (Jesus) knew/knows/will know it. Being able to quote "Mark" as saying "son of God" before the baptism is exactly what he would have wanted and done had it been there, same as his fellow Patristics.

Joseph

#7618

From: Jeff Cate <jjcate@...>
Date: Sat Nov 17, 2012 4:14 am
Subject: G-A 2 in Swiss Treasures at U of Chicago library

jjcate

I'm in Chicago for SBL and saw the "Swiss Treasures" this morning at the Regenstein Library at U of Chicago. Besides P.Bodmer IX (Psalms LXX) and other mss, they have on display minuscule 2... which Erasmus used for his print edition. They have the page opened so you can see Erasmus' handwritten addition of Asa in the genealogy of Matt 1:7 on the left margin on the left page.

But on the facing page on the right on line 10 (beginning with the capital red tau), I observed a fascinating variant in Matt 1:18. Instead of having either GENESIS or GENNHSIS, G-A 2 has GENHSIS... the eta but only 1 nu... so which is it? :-) And lightly above the word, a corrector has added a second nu, but also an epsilon above the eta... so still, which is it? :-)

It's a great example of how poor spelling can affect readings.

Enjoy!
--Jeff Cate,
Riverside, CA

#7619

From: "Jonathan C. Borland" <nihao@...>
Date: Sat Nov 17, 2012 1:46 pm
Subject: Re: Mark 1:1 "the son of God" - Patristic Witness

jonathancbor...

Dear List,

I appreciate the sensible analysis that Dr. Wasserman has called attention to. On the other hand, Joe Wallack writes . . .

Cyril's point/apology here is that the Synoptics appear to show Jesus as becoming son of God at baptism.

All who have actually read Cyril would know that the above statement is absurd. Wallack also claims . . .

Being able to quote "Mark" as saying "son of God" before the baptism is exactly what he would have wanted and done had it been there, same as his fellow Patristics.

Actually Cyril is clearly speaking from Matthew ("from that time Jesus began to preach" [Matt 4:17]; "this is my son" [Matt 3:17]), and furthermore your argument from silence is, as such an argument always is, a non-argument.

For Cyril actually uses an appropriate reference to demonstrate Jesus' eternality (John 1:1), since a statement like "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ the Son of God" is nothing more than the author's declaration of Jesus' divine nature at the time of the author's writing and not a declaration of Jesus' status at the time in the narrative before his baptism. And so in this sense the declaration in Mark 1:1 is no different than Jesus being called the "Christ" by the narrator in Matt 1:17 (before his baptism).

Therefore, anyone throughout history who should have used the longer version of Mark 1:1 to "prove" that Jesus was the Son of God before his baptism would have been ridiculed as stupid and called bad names by his opponents, since obviously it doesn't prove any such thing. Oh, that's right. No one has ever done this, except the ones you claim would have done so if Mark 1:1 had the "Son of God" in it. Glad they weren't so stupid.

Sincerely,

Jonathan C. Borland

#7620

From: "Vox Verax" <james.snapp@...>
Date: Sun Nov 18, 2012 5:34 pm
Subject: Old Nubian Resources - and Mk 1:1 in an Armenian MS

voxverax

At http://hmmlorientalia.wordpress.com/category/old-nubian/
there is a description of "Literary Texts in Old Nubian" (1989) and "The Old
Nubian Miracle of Saint Menas" (1994).  An Old Nubian dictionary and
grammar-book are also mentioned.

The "HMML" part of the name = the Hill Museum & Manuscript Library.  This blog
is just brimming with tantalizing trivia (or is it?).  For instance at
http://hmmlorientalia.wordpress.com/2012/09/22/the-beginning-of-marks-gospel-in-\
an-armenian-manuscript-from-istanbul/
it features a picture of the beginning of Mark in an Armenian MS from
Constantinople; its text includes the Armenian equivalent of "Son of God."  This
is, it seems, a sample of a large collection of digital images of Armenian MSS
that may one day be published.

Yours in Christ,

James Snapp, Jr.

#7621

From: "Vox Verax" <james.snapp@...>
Date: Thu Nov 22, 2012 4:08 am
Subject: Seven Resources from the Electronic British Library Journal

voxverax

Yes, there is such a thing as the Electronic British Library Journal.  Most of
its articles are . . . let's focus on the positive.  A few of its articles
pertain to New Testament textual criticism in one way or another and they are
pretty interesting.  Here are seven of them.  Each one can be downloaded as a
PDF.

(1)  http://www.bl.uk/eblj/2011articles/articles.html
Article #13, "Some Greek Gospel Manuscripts in the British Library: Examples of
the Byzantine Book as Holy Receptacle and Bearer of Hidden Meaning," by Mika
Takigushi, was exceptional.  This was part of a 2003 dissertation.  The article
is at http://www.bl.uk/eblj/2011articles/pdf/ebljarticle132011.pdf .

(I was impressed by her analysis of some enigmatic gematria that was featured in
a MS.  I'm not sure if anyone in North Carolina or Texas would have gone through
the trouble of sorting all that out.  It is a brilliant bit of work.  Multiply
times a thousand!  Of course!)

(2)  At http://www.bl.uk/eblj/1998articles/articles.html
Article #12, by J. H. Bowman, is "Codex Alexandrinus and the Alexandrian Greek
Types."  It is mainly about printing-type, not text-types!  (16 pages)

(3)  For you OT-researchers:  at
http://www.bl.uk/eblj/1997articles/articles.html
Article #8 is at http://www.bl.uk/eblj/1997articles/pdf/article8.pdf and it is
an article by Eva Frojmovic about an /illustrated/ Esther scroll.

(4)  At http://www.bl.uk/eblj/1990articles/article14.html is an article by T. S.
Pattie about the transmission of Ephraem Syrus' composition "On Repentance."  It
includes some arcane information about extant copies of Ephrem's lesser-known
works (such as sixteen Hymns to Nicomedia).  (14 pages)

(5)  At http://www.bl.uk/eblj/1987articles/articles.html
Article #1 is also by T. S. Pattie, and focuses on the Latin transmission of
Ephrem Syrus' composition "On Repentance."  (25 pages)

(6)  At http://www.bl.uk/eblj/1977articles/articles.html
Article #1, by T. S. Pattie, is about Codex Sinaiticus.  An interesting
quotation from page 4:  "The text of our Bible is supremely well attested, but
there are a few puzzles.  One of these is the ending of the Gospel of Mark,
which has two main forms, the long ending and the short ending.  The Sinaiticus
agrees with other early manuscripts like the Vaticanus in having the short
ending.  Another puzzle is the story of the adulterous woman (John 7:53-8: 11)
which some manuscripts place after John 7:36, or 7:52, or 21:24, or even after
Luke 21: 38.  The Sinaiticus, like the Vaticanus, omits the adulterous woman
altogether.  Are we to assume that there was at an early date an editorial
decision to leave out both of these sections, this decision being reflected in
the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, but not in the text which became standard in the
Orthodox Church and thence in the Authorized Version?  It seems quite likely."

Also, this article features a picture of the ending of the Gospel of John, with
the initially-written end shown as it appeared under ultraviolet light.  (I
don't think this picture is even available at the Codex Sinaiticus website!) (6
pages, or 7 counting the legalese page)  It speaks for itself about at least one
copyists' attitude toward ending-material that was considered secondary.

(7)  At http://www.bl.uk/eblj/1977articles/article15.html
There is an article by C. J. F. Dowsett about the Armenian Awag Vank Gospels,
produced in 1200 (the date is established exactly by a colophon); the copyists
states that he copied from "a true and select original."  Unfortunately the
author was more interested in the history implied by the colophons than in the
text of the manuscript.  There are pictures, including pictures of what appear
to be the opening pages of Matthew and Mark and Luke and John (identifiable by
their animal-symbols).  (29 pages)

Yours in Christ,

James Snapp, Jr.

#7622

From: "joewallack" <joewallack@...>
Date: Thu Nov 22, 2012 4:42 pm
Subject: Re: Mark 1:1 "the son of God" - Patristic Witness - Context

joewallack

JW:
Professor Wasserman, I am in the process of building the argument for Short at my site, Mark 1:1 , and am currently considering the relationship between what was the context of the Patristic argument and the time period. There does seem to be a relationship in that as time goes by the argument moves from broader to more specific issues. Note (in the Greek):

Irenaeus c. 190 Context = How many Gospels there should be. The offending phrase makes no difference to his argument.

Origen c. 240 Context (1.14) = The Christian Bible is a continuation of the Jewish Bible. The offending phrase would not make much difference to his argument.

Context (6.14, your related footnote says "6.24" so I no longer consider your article perfect) = Trying to harmonize the Gospels. Potentially more specific, but his specific context is John the Baptist here and not Jesus. So, the offending phrase is not important.

Context (2.4) = The Christian Bible is a continuation of the Jewish Bible. The offending phrase would not make much difference to his argument.

Serapion c. 350 Context (per you, still trying to track it down for myself) = Same as Origen, The Christian Bible is a continuation of the Jewish Bible.

In summary, to the middle of the fourth century, no known Patristic arguments where the offending phrase would make a difference.

Forward to Cyril of Jerusalem c. 370, where I've indicated his context is specifically whether Jesus was the son of God before the Baptism. Add in Epiphanius c. 378 who has the same context and identifies "Mark" as the specific problem. Now in the 4th century, Long would be specifically useful to the orthodox. By an act of Providence this is also about when Long first appears in the record (Vaticanus). I don't know about Sweden but Motive and Opportunity is often enough to convict (so to speak) in the United States.

I also have good news and bad news for you. The bad news is regarding Cyril of Alexandria, you wrote:

"Cyril of Alexandria (d. 444) cite sthe long reading of Mark 1:1 in Against Julian 10.330.⁵⁰In spite of the lack of a modern critical edition of this work, the evidence is solid, since Cyril explicitly appeals to the words υἱοῦ θεοῦ in his discussion of the nature of the Son, divine but made visible (in the flesh) to all.^51"

"
↵⁵⁰ Cyril of Alexandria, Iul. 3.330: �"ράφει γοῦν [Μάρκος]� �Ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ Υἱοῦ Θεοῦ�. Ὁ δὲ Θεοῦ κατὰ φύσιν καὶ ἀληθῶς Υἱὸς, ὅτι πάντως που καὶ Θεός ἐστι, πῶς οὐχ ἅπασιν ἐναργές; (PG 76, cols. 1007�8).

↵⁵¹ A reference to Cyril of Alexandria was present in UBS³. It is unclear to me why it has been removed in UBS⁴."

Your explanation does not make sense to me anyway since you appear to be relying on Cyril's commentary and not quote but in Cyril of Alexandria by Russell there is no reference to Mark 1:1 in the index and I do not see it in the text. What I do see is a reference to the son of God in the Jewish Bible. Is that what you are referring to? (Irenaeus, look out!).

The Good News (so to speak) is that while I have Ehrman on my side you now have Borland (must resist temptation, not..resisting..well) on yours. He can help you add to your arsenal of English vocabulary with words like "absurd", "ridiculed", "stupid" (used multiple times for effect) and "bad names" and use them sincerely.

Joseph

#7623

From: "tommy.wasserman" <tommy.wasserman@...>
Date: Fri Nov 23, 2012 11:46 am
Subject: Re: Mark 1:1 "the son of God" - Patristic Witness - Context

tommy.wasserman

Joe Wallack,

Your explanation does not make sense to me anyway since you appear to be relying
on Cyril's commentary and not quote but in Cyril of Alexandria by Russell there
is no reference to Mark 1:1 in the index and I do not see it in the text. What I
do see is a reference to the son of God in the Jewish Bible. Is that what you
are referring to? (Irenaeus, look out!).

I will not debate with you further, but for the benefit of other readers who
might learn something from this conversation, I will give you a final advice: If
you must use an English translation, do make sure to read the introduction to
the work so that you understand what you have in your hand.

"The translation is from P.Burgui�re and P.Evieux, Cyrilled'Alexandrie, Contre
Julien, tome 1, livres I et II, SC 322, Paris1985, with the exception of the
final passage, from Book 5, which is from Migne, Patrologia Graeca, vol. 76"
(Russell, p. 191). And in the left margin of that small excerpt you have
references to Migne's PG (starting with 509A). As you see in my footnote  you
can find the citation I was referring to in Migne, PG 76:1007-8.

End of conversation.

Tommy Wasserman

--- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "joewallack" <joewallack@...> wrote:
>
>
> JW:
> Professor Wasserman, I am in the process of building the argument for
> Short at my site, Mark 1:1
> <http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Mark_1:1>  , and am
> currently considering the relationship between what was the context of
> the Patristic argument and the time period. There does seem to be a
> relationship in that as time goes by the argument moves from broader to
> more specific issues. Note (in the Greek):
>
> Irenaeus c. 190 Context = How many Gospels there should be. The
> offending phrase makes no difference to his argument.
>
> Origen c. 240 Context (1.14) = The Christian Bible is a continuation of
> the Jewish Bible. The offending phrase would not make much difference to
> his argument.
>
>                         Context (6.14, your related footnote says "6.24"
> so I no longer consider your article perfect) = Trying to harmonize the
> Gospels. Potentially more specific, but his specific context is John the
> Baptist here and not Jesus. So, the offending phrase is not important.
>
>                         Context (2.4) = The Christian Bible is a
> continuation of the Jewish Bible. The offending phrase would not make
> much difference to his argument.
>
> Serapion c. 350 Context (per you, still trying to track it down for
> myself) = Same as Origen, The Christian Bible is a continuation of the
> Jewish Bible.
>
> In summary, to the middle of the fourth century, no known Patristic
> arguments where the offending phrase would make a difference.
>
> Forward to Cyril of Jerusalem c. 370, where I've indicated his context
> is specifically whether Jesus was the son of God before the Baptism. Add
> in Epiphanius c. 378 who has the same context and identifies "Mark" as
> the specific problem. Now in the 4th century, Long would be specifically
> useful to the orthodox. By an act of Providence this is also about when
> Long first appears in the record (Vaticanus). I don't know about Sweden
> but Motive and Opportunity is often enough to convict (so to speak) in
> the United States.
>
> I also have good news and bad news for you. The bad news is regarding
> Cyril of Alexandria, you wrote:
>
> "Cyril of Alexandria (d. 444) cite sthe long reading of Mark 1:1 in
> Against Julian 10.330.50
> <http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/content/62/1/20.full.pdf%20html#fn-50> In
> spite of the lack of a modern critical edition of this work, the
> evidence is solid, since Cyril explicitly appeals to the words
> υἱοῦ θεοῦ in his discussion of the nature of the Son,
> divine but made visible (in the flesh) to all.51"
> <http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/content/62/1/20.full.pdf%20html#fn-51>
>
> "
> ↵
> <http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/content/62/1/20.full.pdf%20html#xref-fn-5\
> 0-1> 50     Cyril of Alexandria, Iul. 3.330: �"ράφει
> γοῦν [Μάρκος]� �Ἀρχὴ τοῦ
> εὐαγγελίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ
> Υἱοῦ Θεοῦ�. Ὁ δὲ Θεοῦ
> κατὰ φύσιν     καὶ ἀληθῶς
> Υἱὸς, ὅτι πάντως που καὶ
> Θεός ἐστι, πῶς οὐχ
> ἅπασιν     ἐναργές; (PG 76, cols.
> 1007�8).
>     * ↵
> <http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/content/62/1/20.full.pdf%20html#xref-fn-5\
> 1-1> 51     A reference to Cyril of Alexandria was present in UBS3. It
> is     unclear to me why it has been removed in UBS4."
>
> Your explanation does not make sense to me anyway since you appear to be
> relying on Cyril's commentary and not quote but in Cyril of Alexandria
> by Russell there is no reference to Mark 1:1 in the index and I do not
> see it in the text. What I do see is a reference to the son of God in
> the Jewish Bible. Is that what you are referring to? (Irenaeus, look
> out!).
>
>
> The Good News (so to speak) is that while I have Ehrman on my side you
> now have Borland (must resist temptation, not..resisting..well) on
> yours. He can help you add to your arsenal of English vocabulary with
> words like "absurd", "ridiculed", "stupid" (used multiple times for
> effect) and "bad names" and use them sincerely.
>
>
>
>
> Joseph
>

#7624

From: "Arie Dirkzwager" <dirkzwager@...>
Date: Fri Nov 23, 2012 6:34 pm
Subject: Re: Malachi 2: 15

drkzwgr

I put a short article in English about my suggested text in Malachi 2: 15 on my
website. You can find more explication there than in my original note for this
forum. There will be no problem to read Hebrew and Greek characters there.
I still like to receive comments or fanmail.

http://www.dirkzwagerarie.be/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id\
=189%3Amalachi-215&catid=3%3Aoudetestament&Itemid=10&lang=nl

Arie

A. Dirkzwager
Hoeselt, Belgium

Reply | Messages in this Topic (5)

#7625

From: "Vox Verax" <james.snapp@...>
Date: Sat Nov 24, 2012 5:35 pm
Subject: New Readings in NA28: James, I Peter, II Peter

voxverax

Stan Helton, who is studying at the New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary and
is also working as a research assistant at the Center for New Testament Textual
Studies, is posting about the textual changes in NA28, at his blog at
http://stansscholia.wordpress.com/ .  Here's a summary of what he noticed in
James, First Peter, and Second Peter, with some comments from me.

James (5 changes)

1:20 � from OUK ERGAZETAI to OU KATERGAZETAI.  (A minor change, from "does not
produce" to "does not produce forth."

2:3 � from EKEI H KAQOU to H KAQOU EKEI.  (yielding "you stand, or sit there")

2:4 � from OU DIEKRIQHTE to KAI OU DIEKRIQHTE.  (*And* do you not judge)

2:15 � from LEIPOMENOI to LEIPOMENOI WSIN.  (yielding "and *is* destitute of
daily food", returning to the reading of Byz and Stephanus 1550.)

4:10 � from KURIOU to TOU KURIOU.  (A return to the reading of Byz and Stephanus
1550.)

First Peter (8 changes)

1:6 � from LUPHQENTES to LUPHQENTAS.  This one-letter shift can yield a subtle
change of meaning, from "it was necessary for you to be given cause to grieve,"
to "it was necessary for you to grieve."

1:16 � the words OTI and EIMI, previously bracketed, are now gone.

2:5 � the word TW, previously bracketed, is now gone.

2: - from ALLA to ALL'

4:16 � from ONOMATI to MEREI.  (yielding "behalf" or "cause" instead of "name.")
The Byz reading is adopted.  This is a fairly popular verse, so this change is
sure to be noticed.

5:1 � from OUN to TOUS.  (yielding "the" instead of "therefore.")  Again the Byz
reading is adopted.

5:9 � the word TW, previously bracketed, is now gone.

5:10 � the word IHSOU, previously bracketed, is now gone.  (yielding "in Christ"
instead of "in Christ Jesus.")  The text of NA28 here now relies on Codex
Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus (which has EN TW CRISTW), a smattering of
minuscules and one Sahidic MS.  There can be no doubt that this will be noticed
by those who want to adopt the reading of Codex Sinaiticus in Second Peter 1:2. 
Clearly Royse wasted his time as far as the NA28 editors are concerned (and
Holmes, whose SBLGNT also omits IHSOU here).  Looks like "Prefe th shorte
readin" is still kickin', when the shorter reading is supported by Aleph and B.

Second Peter (10 changes)

2:6 � from ASEBE[S]IN to ASEBEIN.  (See Metzger for a description of the effect
on translation.)  P72 gets rejected again, this time in favor of the Byz
reading.

2:11 � From PARA KURIOU to PARA KURIW (yielding "in the Lord's presence" instead
of "from the Lord.")  Again P72's reading is rejected in favor of the Byz
reading.  Considering the inconsistency of Greek texts regarding this
variant-unit, the text should be classified as unstable here.

2:15 from KATALEIPONTES to KATALIPONTES.

2:18 from OLIGWS to ONTWS.  (yielding "those who indeed escaped" instead of
"those who barely escaped.")  Remarkable!  In UBS4, OLIGWS was ranked as an
A-level reading, indicating that the editors considered the text certain.  And
now the editors of NA28 present us with a reversal of that.  Again the Byz
reading has been adopted, which means that the testimony of P72 and B and the
Vulgate, combined, has been overruled.

Sloppy handwriting accounts for ONTWS:  write OLIGWS in uncials, with the final
leg of the L sliding into the following I. Then write the G so as to begin the
horizontal bar slightly to the left of the vertical stroke.  Voila; you thus
produce ONTWS.  But it is much less likely that anyone writing ONTWS would
separate the strokes of N so as to form L and I.

2:20 � The word HMWN, previously bracketed, is now gone.

3:6 � from DI WN to DI ON.  Considering the scarceness of Greek support for DI
ON, this is /almost/ a conjectural emendation.  That would be really shocking,
to have a conjectural emendation despite having the most external evidence
available that any textual critics have ever had.  Of course with the current
embarrassment of riches at our disposal, conjectural emendation is never . . .
waitaminute here . . . .

3:10 � from EUREQHSETAI to OUC EUREQHSETAI.  The well-supported reading that was
in NA27, and which may reflect a Hebrew idiom (congruent to the way one might
say "exposed" today; cf. Ezekiel 16:37, 23:29b), has been replaced with a
reading that is not found in any Greek manuscript.  Readers here in the USA
should prepare to hear/read advocates of the Comma Johanneum pounce on this,
saying, "Sure, in terms of Greek support, the CJ has only a smattering of MSS in
its favor, but so what?  That's more than what your compiled-by-experts NA28 has
in Second Peter 3:10.  The whopper-jogged grammar, which was noticed by Gregory
Nazianzus, demands that the CJ be included."

3:16 � from EPISTOLAIS to TAIS EPISTOLAIS.  Byz is adopted; P72 is rejected.

3:16 � from STREBLOUSIN to STREBLWSOUSIN.  P72 finally wins one.  The
introduction of a syllable makes the twisting/misinterpreting a foreseen
possibility, rather than an observed certainty.

3:18 � The word AMHN, previously in brackets, is now gone.  Considering how
ancient and widespread the evidence is for inclusion, this decision, like the
one in 3:10, should be regarded as an outstanding example of the results of
thoroughgoing (or "radical") eclecticism.  Helton likes the NA28 decision here,
stating that although "Amen" is a natural conclusion in liturgy, it would have
been odd in the epistle.  But this seems to overlook that the epistle was
addressed to churches, and was initially read in church-gatherings, so the
author, being aware that letters from church-leaders were read in the
church-gatherings, would be very likely to perceive that a concluding "Amen"
would be practically necessary, so as not to leave the listeners hanging.  And
one should ask, if the tendency to add a final "Amen" was as widespread as its
presence at the end of Second Peter implies, on the premise that this "Amen" is
not original, why wasn't "Amen" naturally added likewise in Byz at the end of
James?

+++++++

That's only 23 variant-units examined, from James and I & II Peter.  It's not
really enough to redefine the character of a Greek New Testament.  But so far,
most of the translation-affecting changes in NA28 look artistic more than they
look scientific.

Yours in Christ,

James Snapp, Jr.

Reply | Messages in this Topic (2)

#7626

From: "Jonathan C. Borland" <nihao@...>
Date: Mon Nov 26, 2012 5:16 am
Subject: Re: New Readings in NA28: James, I Peter, II Peter

jonathancbor...

Dear James,

I appreciate your post and comments on the changes in NA28.

2:18 from OLIGWS to ONTWS. (yielding "those who indeed escaped" instead of "those who barely escaped.") Remarkable! In UBS4, OLIGWS was ranked as an A-level reading, indicating that the editors considered the text certain. And now the editors of NA28 present us with a reversal of that. Again the Byz reading has been adopted, which means that the testimony of P72 and B and the Vulgate, combined, has been overruled.

Sloppy handwriting accounts for ONTWS: write OLIGWS in uncials, with the final leg of the L sliding into the following I. Then write the G so as to begin the horizontal bar slightly to the left of the vertical stroke. Voila; you thus produce ONTWS. But it is much less likely that anyone writing ONTWS would separate the strokes of N so as to form L and I.

Regarding the OLIGWS vs. ONTWS variation in 2 Pet 2:18, I still don't see why scribal alteration due to similarity of lettering could not have gone in both directions. If the majuscule lettering of ONTWS is similar to OLIGWS, then the lettering of OLIGWS is similar to ONTWS. Thus if either one was written sloppily or the ink beginning to fade, it could have been confused for the other.

Sincerely,

Jonathan C. Borland

Reply | Messages in this Topic (2)

#7627

From: "Vox Verax" <james.snapp@...>
Date: Mon Nov 26, 2012 2:16 pm
Subject: Mika Yakiguchi's Gematria-Analysis in MS. Vat. Gr. 1156

voxverax

In case you did not download Mika Yakiguchi's article from the Electronic
British Library Journal (at
http://www.bl.uk/eblj/2011articles/pdf/ebljarticle132011.pdf ), here is a
summary of what she wrote about a gematria-related feature of MS. Vat. Gr. 1156.
This lectionary has a page of cruciform text and in the space around the text,
which might be expected to be occupied by the usual _IS_ XS_ NIKA, the following
things are written:
NW:  Epsilon, Epsilon, Rho, Rho.
NE:  Tau, Tau, Rho, Rho.
SW:  Sigma, Sigma, Rho, Rho.
SE:  Gamma, Gamma, Gamma, Sigma, Sigma.

Whatever could these letters mean?  Naturally she looked for a gematria-based
meaning and found that the value of these letters is as follows:
NW:  210
NE:  800
SW:  600
SE:  409

And if one were to calculate the gematria-values of the contracted two-letter
nomina sacra, _IC_ _XC_ YS_ _QY_ (= Jesus Christ, Son of God), the result is:
IS = 210
XS = 800
US = 600
QY = 409.

A neat little discovery.

Then she took it a step further:  the value of the letters in the SW and SE
quadrants (600+409), combined, = 1,009.  And this is the value of the letters in
the name "Keroularios," the patriarch of Constantinople: K+H+R+O+U+L+A+R+I+O+C. 
And, experimenting a bit more, she discovered that the value of the letters in
the NE quadrant (TTRR = 800), plus the value of the letters in the SW quadrant
(SSRR = 600), yields a total of 1,400 and this is equal to the numerical value
of the letters in the word "Patriarch," that is, P+A+T+R+I+A+R+C+H+S.  A
possible implication of this is that this lectionary was made for, or in honor
of, Patriarch Michael Cerularius.

+++++++

Sometimes when paging through manuscripts, one sees little enigmatic
inscriptions that look like indecipherable nonsense.  "Surely this is idle
doodling or pen-testing," one might naturally conclude, and move on.  Well not
so fast.  It occurs to me that it might just be possible that while pen-tests
and idle doodles are certainly real and probably almost always just what they
appear to be, there is a (slight) chance that embedded among them one might
encounter cryptograms, such as the one that Mika Yakiguchi found, which might
indicate the initial provenance or ownership of the MS.

Yours in Christ,

James Snapp, Jr.

#7628

From: "Vox Verax" <james.snapp@...>
Date: Fri Nov 30, 2012 5:49 pm
Subject: Distigmai (Umlauts): A Question About Their Purpose

voxverax

Currently the ".." that appear in Codex Vaticanus are considered text-critical
marks that indicate that alternative-readings were known to the person who added
the ..

One problem with that is that significant alternative-readings are unknown at
many places where a ".." appears.  Another problem is that the ".." symbol is
absent at many places where one might expect a textual variant to be noticed.

Suppose someone proposed that ".." were not added to indicate the existence of
variants, but were instead added to convey, to future copyists using the MS as
an exemplar, "Use Extra Caution Here," i.e., they had the same function as the
indicators in the margins of Hebrew MSS that signify the presence of a once-used
word or some other anomalous feature.

And suppose that this person claimed that anomalous features, such as once-used
words, correspond to the presence of ".." with dedidedly more frequency than
textual variants do -- and that this is evidence of the real purpose of the ".."
symbols as they appear in Codex Vaticanus.

How would one go abour refuting such a proposal, and such a claim?

Yours in Christ,

James Snapp, Jr.

#7629

From: Steven Avery <stevenavery@...>
Date: Fri Nov 30, 2012 11:58 pm
Subject: Distigmai (Umlauts): A Question About Their Purpose

praxean

Hi Folks,

> James Snapp
> ".." with dedidedly more frequency than textual variants do -- and that this is evidence of the real purpose of the ".." symbols as they appear in Codex Vaticanus.
How would one go about refuting such a proposal, and such a claim?

Wouldn't you want to evaluate the proposal before looking for a refutation ? :)

Shalom,
Steven Avery
Queens, NY

#7630

From: Stephen Goranson <goranson@...>
Date: Sat Dec 1, 2012 4:43 pm
Subject: Review: J. E. Taylor, Essenes, the Scrolls, and the Dead Sea (Oxford UP, 2012)

goranson11

Joan Taylor in this book strengthens the (already-strong) case that some Essenes lived at Qumran and elsewhere for parts of the first centuries BCE and CE. The book covers much ground, and has strengths and weaknesses.
Taylor provides detailed analysis of the earliest sources on Essenes. Of course these have been studied often before, but one of the best sections of the book, in my view, is her discussion of Dio Chrysostom on Essenes. Among her conclusions: �Dio Chrysostom, a contemporary of Joseph and Pliny, is an independent source on Essenes.� (p. 165) If this is true, and I think Joan is right about this, and Dio was not quoting Pliny (or his source, Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa in my opinion), then Dio adds additional early attestation of Essenes by the Dead Sea, and for several reasons, the northwest part of it, which includes Qumran, where scrolls were found. She gives many other good reasons that link Essenes, Qumran, and many of the scrolls.
She goes on at length about healing--a subject admittedly of interest to most religious (or even non-religious) groups--but has little to show that healing was a remarkably characteristic feature of Essenes, beyond a few passing words--not specific to the Dead Sea--in Josephus. Previously, the announced title of the book listed on her online CV was The Dead Sea Essenes and Ancient Healing. I think it was a wise choice to change the title to de-emphasize healing. But that leaves the discussion as rather an orphan. She cites a YouTube video by John Allegro (who did say Essenes were healers, but on other days said other unreliable things) averring that Essenes grew healing herbs at Ain Feshkha (p. 306). She writes of "4QTherapeia"--4Q431, 4QM130 (M for a text assigned to J.T.Milik, but traded to Allegro) that J. Naveh and J. Greenfield et al. consider a writing exercise--in a most curious manner, leaving unexplained whether she regards it as evidence for Essene healing (pages 306 & 329--inaccurate in the index). 306: "...Allegro noted texts from the Dead Sea Scrolls that seemed to have associations with healing, particularly a text once known as 4QTherapeia." 329: "Specific medical or pharmacological terms have been suggested in only one text, originally called 4QTherapeia (4Q341). Allegro was particularly interested in this, reading it as designating a variety of medications. However, because of the difficulty in comprehending this, the identification of it as a writing exercise is currently assumed." Given Taylor's claims about healing, leaning on so little, a reader might expect to hear if she considers Therapeia an appropriate name, and why. She cites J.H. Charlesworth (though not J. Greenfield), in a publication of small distribution, without informing readers that he retracted his support for the "Therapeia" reading. She speculates that some empty glass vessels from some (late?) period at Qumran may possibly have once contained medicine. Well, maybe, maybe not. Diagnosis: a weak case. Further, though her survey of the Dead Sea area and its botany may be of interest to some readers unconcerned with the scrolls, her own survey (with S. Gibson) showed that Qumran had no good roads or dock installations, and they concluded that Qumran was not a major trade or commerce center, but was, relatively, isolated. Of course Essenes lived elsewhere, too.
Similarly weak is any suggestion that the name Essenes came into Greek and Latin (in various spellings) from the Aramaic for healers. And that outsiders named them is mere asserted speculation. I call Joan Joan, but I did not name her Joan. The etymology of Essenes is probably from Hebrew 'osey hatorah (observers of torah), as is self-attested in Qumran Essene texts. Her dismissal of the evidence is meager. She cites J.B. Lightfoot (1875!), who chose another etymology (one she does not accept anyway). Lightfoot raised no philological objection to the now increasingly recognized etymology, but dismissed it on now-invalid historical grounds. If Lightfoot had lived to see the in effect pre-1948 predictions for 'osey hatorah appear in the Qumran texts, I suggest he might have changed his mind. She ventures into the realm of multiple meanings for Pharisees/Perushim but without citing A. Baumgarten JBL 1983 on specifiers and separatists. Consider rabbinic texts that list types of separatists including those who boast "what is my duty that I may do it?" (E.g., Sota 22b)
The book makes a doubtful assertion that Herodians in the New Testament (Mark and Matthew) were Essenes called by another name. The publisher apparently advertises this book as the solution to "the mystery" ("a solution to the mystery of the Dead Sea Scrolls")--as if there were one and only one mystery obtaining here. She credits Constantin Daniel (RQ 1967) with the proposal, not listing his other, sometimes bizarre, hidden-naming New Testament proposals. The proposal had already been made by Ernest von Bunsen in The Angel-Messiah of Buddhists, Essenes, and Christians (1880) p.264. She does not cite the directly-relevant text by Y. Yadin, The Temple Scroll: The Hidden Law... (1985) 80-83 (much less my Biblical Archaeologist 1985 p. 127 review of it, already raising doubts). Herodians are included in her section of sources on Essenes, distorting her composite reconstruction of them. It might have been fairer to analyze recognized sources on Essenes first, then turn to the Herodian conjecture. She claims Herod's descendants continued to honor Essenes; she asserts (p.120) "The Herodians simply cannot be Herod's officials in Mark."
The book sometimes reads as an academic "corrective," starting with an exaggerated wrong view that Essenes were small and disconnected, then delivering a vision of Essenes as the opposite: large and intensively connected. (I do agree that Essenes were more numerous than Sadducees.) If Pharisees turned to Herodians (healers?) for political help (there was no penalty for disagreeing with just Pharisees), those Pharisees (and those Pharisees were no friends of Essenes!), then oppose Jesus' healing--and this imagines Essenes (healers?) plotting against Jesus? Rather, among the minority of Jewish followers of Jesus were some Essenes, and Paul, said to be a former Pharisee (and no Sadducees). Faith and works arguments pre-dated Jesus. Her analysis of Philo (who used a source, maybe Posidonius or Strabo) suggests--against centuries of readers--that Philo did not present Essenes as peaceful. In her reading she says that peacefulness "evaporates." (p. 33) But, e.g., Josephus called Essenes "ministers of peace." (War 2.135) She rightly dismisses the misreading of Josephus of a rebel leader "John the Essene." She cites S. Mason that this was rather John of Essa (a place)--in effect according again with peacefulness. Actually an earlier scholar (A. Schalit) saw that, in a volume of the Josephus Concordance edited by K. Rengstorf who asked, in the late 1950s, where was the name Essenes in the scrolls, which is answered above. Yes, the War Scroll raises questions, of a war that never happened, a war like one in the worldview of Daniel and John's Apocalypse in which the evil empire will be destroyed, but largely predestined through God and angels.
She does not cite J. Zias (and others) on the great probability that the east-west oriented burials containing women and children were later bedouin (not Essene) burials. She speculates that the tombs excavated might not be a representative sample, and women (of what time period?) might be present in greater proportion. Maybe, maybe not. About pre-1948 scholarship, she briefly notes debates about faith versus works, but slights the great debates pro and con on monasticism (Philo has the earliest known Greek uses of "monasterion") in which much discussion of Essenes occurred (including guesses that Hebrew was little-used then so Aramaic might be the name-source).
She uses the word "importantly" a lot--which is fine, but, importantly, she does not feature the great importance to this history of the scrolls' Wicked Priest and Teacher of Righteousness--identified, in my view, online in my "Jannaeus, His Brother Absalom, and Judah the Essene."
Was Azariah de Rossi's Me'or Enayim published in 1567 (p. 5) or 1576? Does the Adam and Burchard collection of ancient texts include German translations of all of them (p.21)?--not my copy. Did S. Pfann suggest cave 3 and 11 deposits were made by second century zealots (p.288 n68) or first century ones? (Pfann, BAIAS 2007 p.167: "...caves 11Q and 3Q derive from priestly and lay Zealot parties at the end of the First Revolt.") Taylor somehow proposes a later (than most think), post-70 possible end-date for deposits. I do agree with her against the view once expressed online, not by her, that all eleven-cave scroll deposits was "ONE EVENT."
The book's weaknesses on etymology and Essenes-as-healers and Herodians should not keep readers away from the book's many strengths on Essenes, Scrolls and the Dead Sea, all three. It includes much of interest and should be obtained by all major university libraries.

Stephen Goranson
www.duke.edu/~goranson

#7631

From: "yennifmit" <tfinney@...>
Date: Mon Dec 3, 2012 6:41 am
Subject: Re: Distigmai (Umlauts): A Question About Their Purpose

yennifmit

Hi James,

You could test the hypothesis using a statistical method. See, e.g., pages 82-83
of the PDF of part 2 of my PhD dissertation:

http://www.tfinney.net/PhD/PDF/part2.pdf

(Search for "David Payne (1995)".)

A chi-squared test of expected vs observed frequencies might be a good place to
start. The trick will be estimating the expected frequency. I.e. how does one
estimate the expected frequency of what the scribe of Codex Vaticanus thought
was "a once-used word or some other anomalous feature"?

Best,

Tim Finney


--- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "Vox Verax" <james.snapp@...> wrote:
>
> Currently the ".." that appear in Codex Vaticanus are considered text-critical
marks that indicate that alternative-readings were known to the person who added
the ..
>
> One problem with that is that significant alternative-readings are unknown at
many places where a ".." appears.  Another problem is that the ".." symbol is
absent at many places where one might expect a textual variant to be noticed.
>
> Suppose someone proposed that ".." were not added to indicate the existence of
variants, but were instead added to convey, to future copyists using the MS as
an exemplar, "Use Extra Caution Here," i.e., they had the same function as the
indicators in the margins of Hebrew MSS that signify the presence of a once-used
word or some other anomalous feature.
>
> And suppose that this person claimed that anomalous features, such as
once-used words, correspond to the presence of ".." with dedidedly more
frequency than textual variants do -- and that this is evidence of the real
purpose of the ".." symbols as they appear in Codex Vaticanus.
>
> How would one go abour refuting such a proposal, and such a claim?
>
> Yours in Christ,
>
> James Snapp, Jr.
>

#7632

From: "mikek" <steelcurtain40@...>
Date: Tue Dec 11, 2012 5:47 pm
Subject: 1 Corinthians 12:13b - "kai pavtes EIS ev pnuema epotisqhmev"

steelcurtain40

Hello folks,

Been looking at the second half of 1 Corinthians 12:13b for about a week or so
now. So,  how sound is the argument for "kai pavtes(ALL) EIS ev(one) pnuema
epotisqhmev(were made to drink)"  as the correct original reading?  Note the
word  "EIS" which is the main point beind my question.

Some critical commentators seem to state that "EIS" can put this clause in a new
light and make mention that this clause is reference to the Lord's Supper,  an
idea that is foreign  to me.

Does the addition of  "EIS"  in 1 Corinthians 12:13b   ADD credibility that Paul
is making reference to the Lord's Supper?  How is this so?

Commentators who say such were Luther, Augustine,  Theophl, Calvin(I believe)
and few others.  Are they saying that we drink OF THE SPIRIT in the Lord's
Supper;  or that we are in the SPHERE OF THE SPIRIT during the Lord's Supper or
something else?

How does the presence or absence of  "EIS" play a role in this?

thank you.

Kindly,

Mike Karoules

#7633

From: John McChesney-Young <jmccyoung@...>
Date: Wed Dec 12, 2012 3:55 pm
Subject: Online Page Images of Codex Bezae

pogopossum00

The Cambridge University Library has announced some new additions to
their digitization project, including Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis:

http://cudl.lib.cam.ac.uk/view/MS-NN-00002-00041/1

It includes a new edition of the text prepared by the IGNTP.

See:

http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/uncategorized/ten-commandments-go-digital/

for more information about the project.

John

--
John McChesney-Young ** Berkeley, California, U.S.A.
JMcCYoung~at~gmail.com ** http://twitter.com/jmccyoung

Reply | Messages in this Topic (11)

#7634

From: "Wieland Willker" <wie@...>
Date: Wed Dec 12, 2012 5:26 pm
Subject: RE: Online Page Images of Codex Bezae

blende7