Robert,

Hmm; now you know how the monks at St. Catherine's felt.

I don't know how the images of Lake's 1911 book were posted, or why there is a
"Public Domain Mark 1.0" notice attached to it.

I'm not familiar with the intricate details of copyright-law.  Perhaps the
pirate supposed that photographs of the pages of a printed book are essentially
like scans of the pages of a book; one can reproduce and distribute scans of a
copyright-expired printed book without stealing anything from the author of the
book, the owner of the book, or from the person who made the scans (particularly
if that person is himself distributing the scans for free).  But in any event,
um, the book is over 100 years old, and thus no longer in copyright.  Why hasn't
CSNTM already made its contents freely available as a PDF?

Those who don't want to have to be on the internet to access images of Codex
Sinaiticus, and who do not want to criminally cooperate with the avaricious
black-hearted villainous no-good pirate who somehow made a PDF from CSNTM's
images and made it available at Archive.org, can resort to the CD of the NT
portion of Lake's images (in black and white) that is available for $10 at
http://solascripturapublishing.com (see item #23).

Back to the subject of the pseudo-translation at the Codex Sinaiticus website: 
at those places at the CSNTM site where the Codex Sinaiticus website is
mentioned, could you arrange, the next time the site is updated, the addition of
a cautionary note that the English translation at the Codex Sinaiticus site does
not accurately reflect the contents of Codex Sinaiticus?

Yours in Christ,

James Snapp, Jr.

On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 1:11 PM, robertdmarcello <rmarcello@...>
wrote in part:

> [The presence of the page images at Archive.org] misleads site visitors since
these images were not given permission to be published on a different website
and are not credited.

I'm puzzled by the latter part of the statement, because the linked
page (http://archive.org/details/GA_01) explicitly says "Scans from
csntm.org/manuscript."

> If you happen to know how they were posted or why the site incorrectly
indicates that they are copyright free, it may be helpful to let CSNTM know.

Many scans are uploaded by users wanting to share works they think are
not covered by copyright, and the site admins probably didn't think
the scans were other than copyright-free because they are of a work
published in 1911, which in the US puts it in the public domain. I am
not a lawyer, but my understanding is that copyright cannot be claimed
on reproductions of public domain works that have had nothing added
(see http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.pdf for information on what
constitutes a derivative work, and also section 5 of
http://www.publicdomainsherpa.com/10-misconceptions-about-the-public-domain.html\
).
Note also that Google Books requests that its scans of public domain
books not be used commercially, but considers it a matter of good
netiquette, not law; see
http://www.publicdomaintreasurehunter.com/2010/10/02/is-it-ok-to-use-googles-pub\
lic-domain-books-for-commercial-purposes/
for more on this.

But if you want to request that the Internet Archive remove the scans
to prevent more people from viewing or downloading the work from their
site, see the "Copyright Policy" section at the end of
http://archive.org/about/terms.php.

John


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

This thread is now closed.
I personally am a supporter of free, open access and I welcome everyone who is
making manuscript images accessible.


Best wishes
     Wieland
     <><

> is there a sound critical edition of the latin vulgate for the
> New Testament?

Define/specify "there" and "sound".
There's the Vulgate from the German Bible Society.

Best wishes
     Wieland
     <><
--------------------------
Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie
Textcritical commentary:
http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/

Please check out the TC forum:
http://tcg.iphpbb3.com

Peter,

Probably not exactly what you're looking for, but Eberhard Nestle's Latin NT is
at

http://books.google.com/books?id=NIUNAAAAYAAJ

Yours in Christ,

James Snapp, Jr.

Latin Vulgate

Bibliorum Sacrorum latinae versiones antiguae : seu, Vetus italica, et caeterae
quaecunque in codicibus mss. & antiquorum libris reperiri potuerunt : quae cum
Vulgata latina, & cum textu graeco comparantur ... Oper� & studio ... Petri
Sabatier .. (1743) Tomus primus

http://archive.org/stream/bibliorumsacroru01saba#page/n7/mode/2up



Bibliorum Sacrorum latinae versiones antiguae : seu, Vetus italica, et caeterae
quaecunque in codicibus mss. & antiquorum libris reperiri potuerunt : quae cum
Vulgata latina, & cum textu graeco comparantur ... Oper� & studio ... Petri
Sabatier .. (1743) Tomus secundus

http://archive.org/stream/bibliorumsacroru02saba#page/n7/mode/2up

Bibliorum Sacrorum latinae versiones antiquae, seu Vetus Italica, et caeterae
quaecunque in codicibus mss. & antiquorum libris reperiri potuerunt : quae cum
Vulgata latina, & cum textu graeco comparantur ... Operâ & studio ... D. Petri
Sabatier .. tomus tertius (1751)

http://archive.org/details/BibliorumSacrorumLatinaeVersionesAntiquaeSeuVetusItal\
icaEtCaeterae



----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Streitenberger" <ps2866@...>
To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sun, 03 Jan 2013 15:33:00 +0100
Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Latin vulgate

> �
> Dear Wieland,
> �
> I already got what I wanted:
> Here is the big Wordsworth-White for the Gospels:
>
> http://archive.org/stream/nouumtestamentum01whit#page/170/mode/2up
>
> and then for Acts:
>
> http://archive.org/stream/nouumtestamentu00wordgoog#page/n8/mode/2up
>
> And again for Acts, the General Epistles, and Revelation:
>
> http://archive.org/stream/nouumtestamentum03whit#page/n5/mode/2up
>
> All that is missing is Paul...
> �
> There is antother big edition of the Vetus Latina at the Beuron Institute but
far too expensive � at least for me.
> �
> Yours
> Peter
> �
> �
> From: Wieland Willker
> Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 12:37 PM
> To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [textualcriticism] Latin vulgate
> �
> �
>
> > is there a sound critical edition of the latin vulgate for the
> > New Testament?
>
> Define/specify "there" and "sound".
> There's the Vulgate from the German Bible Society.
>
> Best wishes
> Wieland
> <><
> --------------------------
> Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
> http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie
> Textcritical commentary:
> http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/
>
> Please check out the TC forum:
> http://tcg.iphpbb3.com
>
>
>

Hi,

avi weizmann
>There is also the Neo-Vulgate,i.e. the new edition published under
>the auspices of the Vatican some years ago.   I do not know if it is on line.

Steven Avery
It is hard to call this a critical edition of the Latin Vulgate line,
since it is largely the Critical Text, with its very heavy Codex
Vaticanus component, applied over the Latin text.

Incidentally, the Clementine Vulgate of 1592 was done with a fair
amount of scholastic savvy and evidence and resources.  A case could
be made that it is a superior representation of the original Vulgate
than the Wordsworth-White edition.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
Bayside, NY

This is not the "classical" Vulgate.
Compare message 6786 of this list.
Teunis van Lopik

--- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "Francisco J. Veismann"  wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> There is also the Neo-Vulgate,i.e. the new edition published under the
> auspices of the Vatican some years ago.
> I do not know if it is on line.
>
> Kind regards.
>
> avi weizmann
>

The 2013 edition of the TC commentary is up.

http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/index.html

Best wishes
     Wieland
     <><
--------------------------
Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie
Textcritical commentary:
http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/

Please check out the TC forum:
http://tcg.iphpbb3.com

Dear TC-friends,

right now I'm watching interesting video lessons provided by Dr. Ron
Minton. You can learn a lot of TC matters. Please visit:
http://deanbible.org/andromedaCS.php?q=f&f=%2FTextual+Criticism

You shouldn't have prejudices against the Byz text, that the speaker favours.

Yours
Peter, Germany
www.streitenberger.com

Barbara Thiering?  Really?  This is who you bring forward as your main support?  Who's next?   Erich von Daniken?

Acts 18:12-17
And when Gallio was the deputy of Achaia, the Jews made insurrection with one accord against Paul, and brought him to the judgment seat, Saying, This fellow persuadeth men to worship God contrary to the law. And when Paul was now about to open his mouth, Gallio said unto the Jews, If it were a matter of wrong or wicked lewdness, O ye Jews, reason would that I should bear with you: But if it be a question of words and names, and of your law, look ye to it; for I will be no judge of such matters. And he drave them from the judgment seat. Then all the Greeks took Sosthenes, the chief ruler of the synagogue, and beat him before the judgment seat. And Gallio cared for none of those things.

Gaillio is the brother of Seneca.

Senca the Younger - (4 BC- 65 AD)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seneca_the_Younger

The question of Paul's correspondence to Seneca (purported) comes up in the recent Forgeries book of Bart Ehrman.  It is also the subject of a book by Paul Berry, that defends the authenticity. (Berry was also involved in the question of Christian Latin inscriptions in Pompeii from before the volcano, The Christian Inscription at Pompeii, 1995.)

J. B. Lightfoot and Farrar were part of the modern dismissal (although there was an earlier period involving Decembrio, Valla and Erasmus) of authenticity. One review is here.

Galatians and First-century Ethical Theory (2008)
Peggy A. Vining
http://books.google.com/books?id=i1SUPBHhN58C&pg=PA17
"modern scholars believe that the correspondence is indisputably a fake, largely because of its errors in chronology and history"

The phrase above comes from Lightfoot., directly. 
Let us start with Lightfoot and Farrar.
 
St. Paul's epistle to the Philippians (1869)
edited by Joseph Barber Lightfoot
http://books.google.com/books?id=ufJ5jhs3d-wC&pg=PA269
The poverty of thought and style, the errors in chronology and history, and the whole conception of the relative positions of the Stoic philosopher and the Christian Apostle, betray clearly the hand of a forger..

Farrar gives one chronological element, one however that looks very weak.

Seekers After God (1894)
Frederic William Farrar
http://books.google.com/books?id=qpRAAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA17
The tradition that Gallio sent some of St. Paul's writings to his brother Seneca is utterly absurd ; and indeed at this lime (A. D. 54), St. Paul had written nothing
except the two Epistles to the Thessalonians. (See Conybeare and Howsen, St. Paul, vol. i. ch. xii. ; Aubertin, Sénèque et St Paul.)                                                                         

Seneque et Saint Paul:  etude sur les rapports supposes entre le philosophe et l'apotre (1872)
Charles Aubertin
http://archive.org/details/snqueetsaint00aubeuoft
http://books.google.com/books?id=fxQMAQAAIAAJ

The Life and Epistles of St. Paul: (1870 - expanded from 1856)
William John Conybeare, John Saul Howson
http://books.google.com/books?id=Na1UAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA357 
chapter xii - p. 357-371 - Seneca on p. 363-366  (a good read, but nothing that seems to match the dismissal, in fact au contraire.)
 
Assuming that 54 AD is correct for when Paul's literature would get to Seneca, In addition to 1 Thessalonians, Galatians and 2 Thessalonians would have been written, Romans and Corinthians were possible, as they were written between 50-58.  Plus, Paul could make any correspondence or writings available.

The one 'hard' Farrar dismissal attempt fails miserably. 
If anything the dates to get literature to Seneca work superbly.  Interestingly, Seneca refers specifically "Seneca speaks favourably of Paul's epistles "to the Galatians, to the Corinthians and to the Achaians". (Thiering, below)

Strange New Gospels (1931)
Edgar Johnson Goodspeed
http://www.tertullian.org/articles/goodspeed_strange_new_gospels.htm

Edgar Goodspeed refers to "the well-known but spurious correspondence between them."  Apparently he does not give any reasons, perhaps feeling that following Lightfoot and Farrar and any others was sufficient.

Interestingly, Goodspeed mentions another spurious writing that independently utilizes or corroborates the Seneca-Paul correspondence, the Letter of Benan.  And Goodspeed discusses and dismisses the Letters of Pontius Pilate, purported to be from Pilate to Senaca.

The whole issue of Goodspeed forgery refutations and dismissals may need another revisit (Benan is new to me today). In the past Roger Pearse, the host of that site, has been helpful in correspondence and discussion.  Be careful with Goodspeed :) .

So let's go to Bart Ehrman, all but one page is online.

Forgery and Counter-forgery: The Use of Literary Deceit in Early Christian Polemics (2012)
Bart D. Ehrman
http://books.google.com/books?id=-pTy801iZyYC&pg=PA520

Lots of stylistic-type arguments, one page not visible on google, which has to be checked to see if Ehrman claims any hard errors ? Bart Ehrman has one point about a flip in perspective towards Nero, however you get the sense that the concern is strained, it would need more specific study.

There is an amazing level of detail in these letters (see examples below on the Thiering page).
My initial sense:

If there are no hard errors, then it is virtually impossible to conjecture a fourth-century forgery.

The defenders of the authenticity point out the highly unusual situation with Nero's spies all about (later Nero forced Seneca to commit suicide, so this was not simply paranoia) and the nature of light, even hasty, personal letters.  See below. 

==================================================

Two books by Paul Berry (b. 1931)

Correspondence between Paul and Seneca, A.D. 61-65 (1999)
Paul Berry
http://www.traditio.com/feature/seneca.htm
Review
... After a introduction that summarizes forcefully the evidence for the primacy of Latin in the Apostolic Age, Berry presents each of the letters, eight from Seneca to St. Paul and six from St. Paul to Seneca. First he gives an architectural facsimile from the original 9th-century copies in the State Library of Vienna, written in a quite legible Carolingian hand. Then he gives a facing transcription in modern type, together with a suggested translation, followed by copious commentary on the content.

The Encounter Between Seneca and Christianity (2002)
Paul Berry
http://www.powells.com/biblio?show=9780773469969

It would be interesting to read the defenders of authenticity, e.g. Ramelli and Berry.  Also some "unusuals" like Barbara Thiering (whose page is quite strong, surprisingly) and Klaus Schilling.

And it would also be interesting to know whether all the brouhaha about chronology and history has any real substance, or is vaporware like Farrar above. And if any purported anomalies short of hard errors are easily explained by a good analyst.

The Correspondence between Paul and Seneca (2005)
Barbara Thiering
http://www.peshertechnique.infinitesoulutions.com/The_Other_Gospels/Paul_and_Seneca.html
.... The letters, some of them with exact dates expressed in terms of the consuls actually in office, sound natural, without any defensiveness such as would be expected if they were forgeries. They are written in just the way an open-minded intellectual of the period would write if he had taken an interest in a new religion from a foreign source being presented as another philosophy. If, as the pesher of Acts indicates, Paul was a member of the court of Agrippa II , then he was of sufficient social standing to meet and converse with the eminent philosopher. The later letters show that Seneca was protecting Paul and the Christians from the venom of Nero in the period leading up to the great fire of 64 AD. This accords with the fact that Seneca, who had been tutor of the young Nero, had lost the favour of the capricious emperor, who ordered him to commit suicide, an order he had to obey with the courage of a Stoic in 65 AD.

The letters begin at the outset of Nero's reign at the end of 54 AD. In the first, Seneca from Rome writes to Paul, who at the end of that year was in Ephesus. The two had previously met, possibly in Athens in 51 AD, where Paul had debated with Stoic and Epicurean philosophers (Acts 17:18):

Notice that the letters have a level of substance and especially detail that Ehrman carefully glosses over and hides (whether authentic or not).

Discussion also available on the qumran_origin ·list.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/

Example:

More about Stoicism - the Seneca letters
Barbara Thiering - Fri May 25, 2001 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/127
Arguments have been brought against the genuineness of the Seneca letters, but none of them stick, as for example the claim made that a pair of consuls, in whose name dating is given, never existed. But in fact they did - they belong in a list of suffect consuls. The argument that a non-literary style is used is not convincing - these were hastily written personal notes.

Your thoughts welcome.

The textual question in Matthew 11:19 is, at its outset, very straightforward: 
did Matthew write that wisdom is justified by her TEKNWN (children) or by her
ERGWN (works)?  The path toward the resolution of this question, though, takes
some interesting turns.

TEKNWN is supported by over 99% of the Greek manuscripts, but the ones that
support ERGWN include Vaticanus and Sinaiticus and Codex W.  In addition,
according to Wieland's TCGG, a few Byzantine manuscripts read ERGWN, too:  202,
1319, and 2145.  And minuscules 124 and 288, which are members of family-13,
read PANTWN TWN ERGWN.  Family-13, collectively, has its own distinct reading:
PANTWN TWN TEKNWN (all her children), which is drawn from the parallel-passage
in Luke 7:35.

Metzger accounted for TEKNWN as a harmonization to Luke 7:35.  The same idea is
conveyed in the NET.  That theory, however, faces two obstacles.

First, harmonization in the Synoptic Gospels typically follows a trail from
Matthew to one or both of the others.  Copyists simply knew Matthew's text
better; it was considered to have a sort of seniority: copyists consistently
placed the Gospel of Matthew first in Gospels-collections; Matthew's account was
believed to have been written first; Matthew was an apostle (unlike Mark and
Luke); the proportion of quotations from Matthew, in the writings of the leaders
of the early church, is much greater than Mark's and Luke's. So when
harmonization from Luke to Matthew is proposed, and it is proposed that this
harmonization infiltrated multiple transmission-lines, particularly strong
evidence should be required, because the natural flow of the harmonization-river
went in the opposite direction.

Second, if harmonization occurred from Luke 7:35 to Matthew 11:19, we would
expect to see it take the form in which we see it in the harmonized Caesarean
Text, represented by family-13:  PANTWN TWN TEKNWN ("all her children"), not
simply TEKNWN ("children"). (Regarding this, it should be noted, as Wieland
said, that the textual apparatus in NA-27 misplaced the testimony of Old Latin
Codex Bobbiensis (k): its reading, AB OMNIBUS FILIIS SUIS, agrees with "all her
children," drawn from Luke 7:35, not with "all her works."  The placement in the
apparatus in UBS-4 is correct.)

However, inasmuch as everyone agrees that Luke wrote TEKNWN, then if Matthew
wrote TEKNWN, how did the reading ERGWN originate, if it is not original?  ERGWN
is the less harmonious reading.

Although the extant witnesses for ERGWN are very few, two patristic quotations
indicate that it was once widely known:  Ambrose of Milan, in his commentary on
Luke (chapter 66), mentioned that "many Greek copies" state that wisdom has been
justified "by all her works" � "omnibus operibus suis."  He does not treat this
variant as if it is dangerously heretical; he somewhat casually mentions it, as
if it shines light upon the meaning of the reading that he uses ("all her
children"), and moves on.  And Jerome, in the course of interpreting Matthew
11:19, after presenting the usual text, stated, "In some Gospels it reads,
'wisdom is justified by her works.'" Instead of brutally condemning this
variant, he states that its sentiment is correct, because wisdom does not seek
the testimony of words but of deeds.

Now let's explore some internal evidence.  One of the reasons why ERGWN has been
adopted involves a theory about the production of the Gospel of Matthew.  Papias
mentioned that Matthew composed the "Logia" of the Lord in Hebrew, and this has
been widely understood to refer to a Hebrew or Aramaic collection of Jesus'
sayings, which was utilized in the production of Matthew's Gospel.  So some
researchers, as they have approached this variant, have done so with the premise
that a written Aramaic document existed which contained Jesus' saying.  And in
Aramaic, there is a word for "children" that, without vowel-pointing, can also
be read as "works."  (See Metzger's footnote in TCGNT and compare it to Nestle's
critical note on the passage in his 1901 Intro to NTTC.)

This has elicited the theory that (a) the original Greek text of Matthew 11:19
read ERGWN and that (b) this is the author's rendering of a word in an Aramaic
source-document, and that (c) Luke's TEKNWN descends from a different
understanding of the word in the Aramaic source-document; this was either the
understanding of Luke himself, or of someone who translated the Aramaic
source-document into a Greek document which was then used by Luke.

Against that theory a couple of objections may be expressed: (a) While the
theory that Matthew used an Aramaic source-document, and that Luke used a Greek
translation of its contents, is capable of accounting for this difference (and
some others) between their records of Christ's words, it is a relatively complex
way to account for a one-word difference. (A translator's confusion between two
similar words might be, however, a plausible explanation for the Peshitta's
support for "works" in Matthew 11:19.) And, (b) while the theory explains why
Matthew could have written "works," it does not explain how or why the passage
was harmonized to Luke in a way that affected the text in multiple
transmission-streams.  It does not really make a scenario in which Matthew wrote
TEKNWN any less plausible.

Some further details about the external evidence are in order:  Edward Miller,
in his 1899 Textual Commentary on Matthew 1-14, listed B2 (that is, the person
who reinforced the lettering in Codex Vaticanus; B's main copyist wrote ERGWN
but the lettering-reinforcer did not reinforce ERGWN, and wrote TEKNWN in the
side-margin to the left of the column), C, Phi, N, Sigma, D, E, F, G, K, L, M,
S, U, V, X, Gamma, Delta, Pi, and "All but all cursives" in support of TEKNWN. 
He also listed the following as versional support for TEKNWN:  most Old Latin
copies, the Vulgate, Curetonian Syriac,
Sinaitic Syriac, the margin of the Harklean Syriac, some Armenian MSS, and the
Coptic version.  Miller also listed the following patristic witnesses also
support TEKNWN:  "Irenaeus (98). Origen (iii. 211; iv. 48). Didymus (Galland.
vi. 310). Basil (i. 98). Gregory Naz. (i. 871). Epiphanius (i. 681).  Chrysostom
(loc. vii. 179, 419). Theophylact (loc. i. 54). Nicetas (Cat. in Matt. i. 159),"
and more.

To that testimony, we must add the support of Sahidic manuscripts, and the
Middle Egyptian manuscript known as Codex Schiede (from the 400's), if the NA-27
apparatus is correct.  The other Middle Egyptian manuscript (Codex Schoyen) is
not extant for Mt. 11:19.

Details about the testimony of Irenaeus are appropriate, because his testimony
is not listed in the apparatus of UBS-4.  Irenaeus does not tell us directly if
he is quoting from Matthew or from Luke, but the quotation itself tells us, in
Against Heresies, Book One, chapter 8, paragraph 4.  In the course of describing
the imaginative teachings of the Valentinians, and how they turn the narrative
about Simeon and Anna into a symbol description of celestial beings -- Anna
being a representation of the entity called Sophia -- Irenaeus states (referring
to the Valentinian teachings), "Her name, too, was indicated by the Savior, when
he said, `Yet wisdom is justified by her children.'"  Irenaeus does not say, as
Luke does, "all her children," and thus it is clear that he is quoting from
Matthew.

Some details about the testimony of Origen may be helpful:  he does not, as far
as I know, specifically quote Matthew 11:19.  But in Homily 14 on Jeremiah, he
states: TA DE TEKNA THS SOFIAS KAI EN TW EUANGELIW ANAGEGRAPTAI, KAI APOSTELLEI
H SOFIA TA TEKNA AUTHS.  Which means something like, "Regarding the children of
wisdom, it is also written in the gospel, `Wisdom also sends out her children.'"
This is not an exact quotation of Matthew 11:19 or Luke 7:35; it might be based
on Luke 7:35 rather than Matthew 11:19, and it might be a blurry misattributed
paraphrase of Proverbs 9:3.  (Is there any other alleged use of Mt. 11:19 in
Origen's writings?)

Now then:  remember that tendency of copyists to harmonize the text of Luke so
as to make it conform to the text of Matthew?  We see that tendency at work in
Luke 7:35.  In Codex Sinaiticus, the copyist wrote PANTWN TWN ERGWN in Luke
7:35, although the genuine text is undoubtedly PANTWN TWN TEKNWN (regardless of
whether AUTHS is placed before, or after, these words).  A corrector of Codex
Sinaiticus overdotted the word PANTWN, thus signifying that it should be
considered a scribal error, but it is not a scribal error:  the "corrector"
might have thought that he was making a correction, but he was, instead, partly
harmonizing the passage to Matthew 11:19 (where the word PANTWN does not
appear).

The harmonization of Lk. 7:35 to Mt. 11:19 occurs in other witnesses.  In
Codices D, L, M, X, Theta, and Psi, and in family-1, family-13, 2, 22, 28, 700,
1241, 1342, and some versional witnesses, including the Armenian version, the
Georgian version, and the Latin text of Codex Bezae, PANTWN is absent from Luke
7:35.  This constitutes harmonization to the text of Matthew 11:19, which
implies that in the lines of transmission that produced these documents, there
was a copyist who was aware of a form of Matthew 11:19 that read TEKNWN; he was
so used to reading TWN TEKNWN in Matthew that when he read PANTWN TWN TEKNWN, in
Luke 7:35, he wrote the Matthean form of the sentence.

Thus it should be spectacularly clear that the attestation for the text of
Matthew 11:19 with TEKNWN is remarkably old, remarkably abundant, and remarkably
diverse, not only in terms of geographic diversity but also in terms of
text-type diversity; its supporters come from Byzantine, Western, and Caesarean
witnesses (and from the text represented by the Sinaitic Syriac and Curetoniac
Syriac).

Now then:  if ERGWN is not original in Matthew 11:19, how did it originate?  As
a simple substitution, undertaken by a copyist who felt that the text with
TEKNWN gave too large a platform to heretics who, he thought, would treat it,
not as a non-literal personification, or as a reference to the Holy Spirit, or
as a shorthand-reference to wisdom given by God (cf. James 3:17-18), but as a
reference to a celestial goddess.  This overprotective tamperer, concerned lest
readers imagine that a child-bearing wisdom must be a celestial person, and not
a simple personification, replaced "children" with "works."

Someone might ask, "But why, if this person thus altered Matthew 11:19, did he
not also alter Luke 7:35?"  I would answer, first, that either the alteration
was made when the Gospel of Matthew was still circulated as an individual book,
and the tamperer simply did not have a copy of Luke handy, or else he simply was
not energetic.  And, second, that in one of the three ancient Greek manuscripts
that support ERGWN in Matthew 11:19, the text of Luke 7:35 /is/ altered so as to
read ERGWN instead of TEKNWN.  And, third, when Ambrose mentions that "many
Greek copies" say that wisdom has been justified "by all her works," he is
commenting on Luke, not on Matthew.  So it appears that some copyists *did* make
the adjustment in Luke as well as in Matthew.

The attractiveness of the reading ERGWN, as a means of preventing
misinterpretation, is suggested by the mild manner in which Ambrose and Jerome
react to this variant; they both clearly use TEKNWN, but they are rather gentle
with the reading ERGWN and attempt to salvage it as something which casts
additional light upon the meaning of the passage, rather than as something which
casts a shadow.

In closing:  the original text of Matthew 11:19 reads TWN TEKNWN AUTHS.  ERGWN
is an adjustment created by an overprotective copyist. The same protective
tendency to adjust the text so as to prevent readers from using it as the basis
to picture wisdom as an actual celestial being appears to be evident in the
modern versions which have represented AUTHS as "its" instead of "her."  Of
course the translators would tell you, if asked about this, that they were
simply making the text more understandable to readers, so they don't get the
wrong idea.  That is probably exactly what the early copyist who changed TEKNWN
to ERGWN would say.

Yours in Christ,

James Snapp, Jr.

Post-Script:
Simon Gathercole wrote an article about the meaning of the last sentence of Mt.
11:19 and Lk. 7:35 in
2003:  "The Justification of Wisdom (Mt. 11.19b/Lk 7.35)" in New Testament
Studies, Vol. 49, on pages 476-488.  I have not yet read this article, but the
abstract indicates that he accepts the revised text, and proposes that APO in
the sentence should be construed so as to mean "apart from," and that the phrase
in Matthew, and in Luke, means something to the effect that the critics of Jesus
and John were justifying wisdom but not what wisdom produced (i.e., Jesus and
John).  No major English translation, it seems, agrees with him.

Didier Lafleur's La Famille 13 dans l'�vangile de Marc is published.
A very nice and rich book!
It contains an extensive introduction to f13, an edition of the Mark text of ms
788 + a full textcritical apparatus with f13 variants and an extraordinary
accurate bibliography.
http://books.google.nl/books?id=a5-_jFIvLesC&printsec=frontcover&hl=nl&source=gb\
s_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://www.brill.com/la-famille-13-dans-levangile-de-marc

Teunis van Lopik

--- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "TeunisV"  wrote:
>> Didier Lafleur's La Famille 13 dans l'�vangile de Marc is published.
  A very nice and rich book!
  It contains an extensive introduction to f13, an edition of the Mark text of ms
788 + a full textcritical apparatus with f13 variants and an extraordinary
accurate bibliography.
 
http://books.google.nl/books?id=a5-_jFIvLesC&printsec=frontcover&hl=nl&source=gb\
s_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
  http://www.brill.com/la-famille-13-dans-levangile-de-marc

  Teunis van Lopik<<

In my compiled list of f13 mss I have, in last place, 1709. Without taking the
time to figure out how it got there, can anyone shed light on why it isn't on
Lafleur's list?

Daniel Buck

See: Lafleur, Which criteria for family 13 (f13) manuscripts? in: Novum
Testamentum, 54(2012), p. 105-148. For the excluding of 1709 from f13: p.
136-139.
The PA and Luke 22.43-44 are not transposed; the text is over all Byzantine.
Teunis van Lopik

--- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "bucksburg"  wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "TeunisV"  wrote:
> >> Didier Lafleur's La Famille 13 dans l'�vangile de Marc is published.
>  A very nice and rich book!
>  It contains an extensive introduction to f13, an edition of the Mark text of
ms 788 + a full textcritical apparatus with f13 variants and an extraordinary
accurate bibliography.
> 
http://books.google.nl/books?id=a5-_jFIvLesC&printsec=frontcover&hl=nl&source=gb\
s_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
>  http://www.brill.com/la-famille-13-dans-levangile-de-marc
>
>  Teunis van Lopik<<
>
> In my compiled list of f13 mss I have, in last place, 1709. Without taking the
time to figure out how it got there, can anyone shed light on why it isn't on
Lafleur's list?
>
> Daniel Buck
>

Neither is it F13 in John.

Jac Perrin
jperrin@...
Eden Prairie Assembly
16591 Duck Lake Trail
Eden Prairie, MN 55346
952-934-2327

On Jan 15, 2013, at 10:34 AM, "TeunisV" <tvanlopik@...> wrote:

> See: Lafleur, Which criteria for family 13 (f13) manuscripts? in: Novum
Testamentum, 54(2012), p. 105-148. For the excluding of 1709 from f13: p.
136-139.
> The PA and Luke 22.43-44 are not transposed; the text is over all Byzantine.
> Teunis van Lopik
>
> --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "bucksburg"  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "TeunisV"  wrote:
>>>> Didier Lafleur's La Famille 13 dans l'�vangile de Marc is published.
>> A very nice and rich book!
>> It contains an extensive introduction to f13, an edition of the Mark text of
ms 788 + a full textcritical apparatus with f13 variants and an extraordinary
accurate bibliography.
>>
http://books.google.nl/books?id=a5-_jFIvLesC&printsec=frontcover&hl=nl&source=gb\
s_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
>> http://www.brill.com/la-famille-13-dans-levangile-de-marc
>>
>> Teunis van Lopik<<
>>
>> In my compiled list of f13 mss I have, in last place, 1709. Without taking
the time to figure out how it got there, can anyone shed light on why it isn't
on Lafleur's list?
>>
>> Daniel Buck
>>
>
>

Actually, in Lafleur's book, although he considers GA 174 and GA 230, they are
eventually excluded by him.

This is what I found also for F13 in John.  I have these mss constituting F13 in
John: 13, 69, 124, 346, 543, 788, 826, 828, 983, 1689.  These mss were
considered but excluded: 174, 211, 230, 348, 713, 1141, 1709, and 2900.

The Family fits nicely into three subgroups groups in John: 69, 124, and 788 go
together.  983 and 1689 are extremely close (even though 1689 has the PA in the
usual location).  The final group is 13, 346, 543, 826, 828.  This last group
can also be broken once again in certain chapters.

This analysis was done by means of phylogenetic software.

Lafleur's book is fantastic.  His results are consistent with those above,
although he uses classical TC methodologies to arrive at the same destination,
not computer analysis.

In Mark, Lafleur posits 788 as the best representative of the early Family text.


Jac Perrin
jperrin@...
Eden Prairie Assembly
16591 Duck Lake Trail
Eden Prairie, MN 55346
952-934-2327

On Jan 15, 2013, at 10:34 AM, "TeunisV" <tvanlopik@...> wrote:

> See: Lafleur, Which criteria for family 13 (f13) manuscripts? in: Novum
Testamentum, 54(2012), p. 105-148. For the excluding of 1709 from f13: p.
136-139.
> The PA and Luke 22.43-44 are not transposed; the text is over all Byzantine.
> Teunis van Lopik
>
> --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "bucksburg"  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "TeunisV"  wrote:
>>>> Didier Lafleur's La Famille 13 dans l'�vangile de Marc is published.
>> A very nice and rich book!
>> It contains an extensive introduction to f13, an edition of the Mark text of
ms 788 + a full textcritical apparatus with f13 variants and an extraordinary
accurate bibliography.
>>
http://books.google.nl/books?id=a5-_jFIvLesC&printsec=frontcover&hl=nl&source=gb\
s_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
>> http://www.brill.com/la-famille-13-dans-levangile-de-marc
>>
>> Teunis van Lopik<<
>>
>> In my compiled list of f13 mss I have, in last place, 1709. Without taking
the time to figure out how it got there, can anyone shed light on why it isn't
on Lafleur's list?
>>
>> Daniel Buck
>>
>
>

That is exact the question, Lafeur discussed.
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/brill/not/2012/00000054/00000002/art00001
Teunis van Lopik.

--- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, Jac Perrin  wrote:
>
> Neither is it F13 in John.
>
> Jac Perrin
> jperrin@...
> Eden Prairie Assembly
> 16591 Duck Lake Trail
> Eden Prairie, MN 55346
> 952-934-2327
>
> On Jan 15, 2013, at 10:34 AM, "TeunisV"  wrote:
>
> > See: Lafleur, Which criteria for family 13 (f13) manuscripts? in: Novum
Testamentum, 54(2012), p. 105-148. For the excluding of 1709 from f13: p.
136-139.
> > The PA and Luke 22.43-44 are not transposed; the text is over all Byzantine.
> > Teunis van Lopik
> >
> > --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "bucksburg"  wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "TeunisV"  wrote:
> >>>> Didier Lafleur's La Famille 13 dans l'�vangile de Marc is published.
> >> A very nice and rich book!
> >> It contains an extensive introduction to f13, an edition of the Mark text
of ms 788 + a full textcritical apparatus with f13 variants and an extraordinary
accurate bibliography.
> >>
http://books.google.nl/books?id=a5-_jFIvLesC&printsec=frontcover&hl=nl&source=gb\
s_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
> >> http://www.brill.com/la-famille-13-dans-levangile-de-marc
> >>
> >> Teunis van Lopik<<
> >>
> >> In my compiled list of f13 mss I have, in last place, 1709. Without taking
the time to figure out how it got there, can anyone shed light on why it isn't
on Lafleur's list?
> >>
> >> Daniel Buck
> >>
> >
> >
>

At
http://suciualin.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/epistula-apostolorum.pdf
an English translation, by Anthony Alcock, of the Coptic text of Epistula
Apostolorum can be downloaded.

This text contains numerous allusions to Scripture-passages.

Look through it all carefully -- not just the part near the beginning that
presents some narrative about Jesus' post-resurrection appearances, but also the
later part, where Jesus repeatedly commands the disciples to preach.  Does
anyone think that its author had not read Mark 16:9-20?

Yours in Christ,

James Snapp, Jr.

Please bring this announcement to the attention of any suitable final-year
undergraduates or MA students, and accept my apologies for cross posting and
short notice.

There is an opportunity for a student to undertake doctoral research at the
Institute for Textual Scholarship and Electronic Editing in the University of
Birmingham.
As part of the COMPAUL project on "The Earliest Commentaries on Paul as Sources
for the Biblical Text", a bursary is available for a student to work on the
Greek catenae tradition of the Pauline epistles. Candidates should have
excellent language skills in biblical Greek: experience of working with
manuscripts would be beneficial, as would prior research experience and a
Master's degree in a related area.

Potential applicants should contact Dr Hugh Houghton, the project's principal
investigator, by 2nd February 2013. Please give details of linguistic ability
and research experience and attach a brief CV.
The following web pages provide additional information
- on the project: www.epistulae.org
- on ITSEE: http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/itsee
- on the PhD: http://www.findaphd.com/search/projectDetails.aspx?PJID=26169

With thanks,
Hugh Houghton
http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/HAGHoughton

Hi Jac,

I did PAM analysis on INTF data of the Gospels (which doesn't include 1689) and
got these lists of members for F13. For the purpose of this exercise, I
partitioned the data for each Gospel into two different numbers of groups: (1)
about 24; (2) about 93. These numbers are large enough to ensure that members of
any groups found are closely related. The bigger number (about 93) is so large
that remaining groups are highly coherent. A statistic called the mean
silhouette width is used to choose preferred numbers of groups. The medoid (what
PAM chooses as the most central member of the group) is marked by an asterisk.

Matt

24 groups: 13 69 124 346 543 788 826* 828 983
93 groups: 13 543 788 826* 828

Mark

24 groups: 13 69 124 346 543 788 826* 828 983
93 groups: 13 69 346 543 788 826* 828

Luke

22 groups: 13 69 124 346 543 788 826* 828 983
86 groups: 13 346 543 788 826* 828

John (346 not assessed)

24 groups: 13 69 543 788 826* 828 983
94 groups: 13 543 826* 828

In each case 826 is the medoid. This does not imply 826 is archetypical: PAM is
not a phylogenetic analysis technique. All it means is that 826 is the member
for which the sum of distances to other members is a minimum.

In Matt, Mark, Luke, the 24-ish-way partitions agree on F13 being 13, 69, 124,
346, 543, 788, 826, 828, 983. Dividing into a large number of groups (93-ish)
causes some to drop out (Matt: 69, 124, 346, 983; Mark: 124, 983; Luke: 69, 124,
983). The ones that remain are the respective group cores.

346 is missing from the analysis results for John as it is fragmentary there. A
24-way partition of INTF data for John does not include 124 in F13 although a
less stringent six-way partition does. In a 94-way partition of the data for
John's Gospel, 69, 788, and 983 drop out of F13 as well.

More analysis results are available here:

http://www.tfinney.net/Views/index.xhtml

Best,

Tim Finney

--- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, Jac Perrin  wrote:
>
> Actually, in Lafleur's book, although he considers GA 174 and GA 230, they are
eventually excluded by him.
>
> This is what I found also for F13 in John.  I have these mss constituting F13
in John: 13, 69, 124, 346, 543, 788, 826, 828, 983, 1689.  These mss were
considered but excluded: 174, 211, 230, 348, 713, 1141, 1709, and 2900.
>
> The Family fits nicely into three subgroups groups in John: 69, 124, and 788
go together.  983 and 1689 are extremely close (even though 1689 has the PA in
the usual location).  The final group is 13, 346, 543, 826, 828.  This last
group can also be broken once again in certain chapters.
>
> This analysis was done by means of phylogenetic software.
>
> Lafleur's book is fantastic.  His results are consistent with those above,
although he uses classical TC methodologies to arrive at the same destination,
not computer analysis.
>
> In Mark, Lafleur posits 788 as the best representative of the early Family
text.
>
>
> Jac Perrin
> jperrin@...
> Eden Prairie Assembly
> 16591 Duck Lake Trail
> Eden Prairie, MN 55346
> 952-934-2327
>
> On Jan 15, 2013, at 10:34 AM, "TeunisV"  wrote:
>
> > See: Lafleur, Which criteria for family 13 (f13) manuscripts? in: Novum
Testamentum, 54(2012), p. 105-148. For the excluding of 1709 from f13: p.
136-139.
> > The PA and Luke 22.43-44 are not transposed; the text is over all Byzantine.
> > Teunis van Lopik
> >
> > --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "bucksburg"  wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "TeunisV"  wrote:
> >>>> Didier Lafleur's La Famille 13 dans l'�vangile de Marc is published.
> >> A very nice and rich book!
> >> It contains an extensive introduction to f13, an edition of the Mark text
of ms 788 + a full textcritical apparatus with f13 variants and an extraordinary
accurate bibliography.
> >>
http://books.google.nl/books?id=a5-_jFIvLesC&printsec=frontcover&hl=nl&source=gb\
s_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
> >> http://www.brill.com/la-famille-13-dans-levangile-de-marc
> >>
> >> Teunis van Lopik<<
> >>
> >> In my compiled list of f13 mss I have, in last place, 1709. Without taking
the time to figure out how it got there, can anyone shed light on why it isn't
on Lafleur's list?
> >>
> >> Daniel Buck
> >>
> >
> >
>

Dear Colleagues,

I would appreciate any comments or critiques on how to interpret the waw-perfect
forms in Zechariah 8:3.

Specifically, I am attempting to glean as much information as possible from the
Masoretic accents.

(I know that several participants on the forum eschew the Masoretic tradition.
Your position is dutifully and respectfully noted in advance. Since I am
specifically assessing Masoretic accents and other features here, I'm not really
asking for feedback on whether the Masorah is worthy of study. That may be a
question in the future, but not now.)

Also, please note that I did post this question on b-hebrew@...,
but have not received a response that addresses my questions specifically.

Here are my questions:

Zechariah 8:3 (BHS)

כֹּ֚�" אָמַ֣ר יְ�"וָ�"�" שַׁ֚�`ְתִּי
אֶל־צִיֹּ�"ון וְשָׁכַנְתִּ֖י �`ְּתֹ֣וךְ
יְרֽוּשָׁלָ�`ִם וְנִקְרְאָ֤�"
יְרוּשָׁלִַ֨ם֙ עִ֣יר־�"ָֽאֱמֶ�"ת
וְ�"ַר־יְ�"וָ֥�" צְ�`ָאֹ֖ות �"ַ֥ר �"ַקֹּֽ�"ֶשׁ׃ 
ס

Description of the accents in Zechariah 8:3

1.      וְשָׁכַנְתִּ֖י has a ṭifḥā�' on the last syllable,
which according to Van der Merwe, et al. is a disjunctive accent that either 1.)
“[i]ndicates either the main pause in short verses or [2.) indicates] the
final pause before a sillûq or �'atnāḥ.”[1] In Zechariah 8:3, the second
option seems more likely, since �`ְּתֹ֣וךְ יְרֽוּשָׁלָ�`ִם
presents a natural break in the verse before the next clause (which begins with
וְנִקְרְאָ֤�").

1a.      Since the accent falls on the last syllable in
וְשָׁכַנְתִּ֖י, it seems that, according to Waltke and O’Connor
(citing David Kimchi), the verb should be interpreted as future:
“[W]aw-relative in first-person singular and second-person masculine singular
throws the accent forward to the final syllable as much as possible [as we see
with וְשָׁכַנְתִּ֖י in Zechariah 8:3] …, whereas waw-copulative
does not [throw the accent forward].”[2]

1b.      Thus, if the waw in וְשָׁכַנְתִּ֖י were copulative, we
would expect the accent to be marked on the second syllable (the first syllable
following וְ), as noted by the tifha beneath shin, as follows:
וְשָׁ֖כַנְתּיִ.
Is my reasoning correct here? I have not worked with the Masoretic accents
before. I am attempting to determine whether the accents allow any specificity
to be assigned to the waw:

Should the waw be taken as merely coordinating שׁכנתי with the
qatal/suffix/perfect form שַׁ�`תּיִ, yielding the idea of “I have
returned and I have tabernacle” or even an ingressive: “I have returned and
I have begun to tabernacle…”?

Alternatively, the waw could be taken as directive: “I have returned, so that
I [now] tabernacle…”

NOTE: I am aware that many grammarians take the weqatal verb form as coordinate
or synonymous with yiqtol, perhaps as part of a paradigm with the aspectual
pairs qatal/wayyiqtol and yiqtol/weqatal. My investigation here involves an
examination of the possibility that the verbs in Zechariah 8:3 are
“tense-prominent” rather than “aspect-prominent.” So, for the sake of
argument, I would like to know whether we can determine with certainty how
traditional or tense-oriented/tense-prominent grammars would interpret the
waw-perfect forms in Zechariah 8:3.

This leads to the next question, regarding the second waw-prefixed perfect in
Zechariah 8:3,  in which the  according to traditional grammar, it is possible
to view the waw

2.      וְנִקְרְאָ֤�" in Zechariah 8:3 exhibits a mehuppāk on the
last syllable, which Van der Merwe, et al. list (with mûnaḥ and mêrekā�')
among the “main conjunctive accents.”[3] I take this to mean that
וְנִקְרְאָ֤�" has the same nuance (i.e., tense, aspect, mood) of the
preceding verb וְשָׁכַנְתִּ֖י.

Is this correct (that וְנִקְרְאָ֤�" has the same nuance as the
preceding verb וְשָׁכַנְתִּ֖י)?

What then (referring back to part one of my question) is the correct tense in
which to understand וְשָׁכַנְתִּ֖י?

2a.      The only other instance in the Hebrew Bible of וְנִקְרְאָ�"
occurs in Esther 2:14b,[4] which (speaking of Esther) reads:
לֹא־תָ�`֥וֹא עוֹ�"֙ אֶל־�"ַמֶּ�"לֶךְ
כִּ֣י אִם־חָפֵ֥ץ �`ָּ֛�"ּ �"ַמֶּ֖לֶךְ
וְנִקְרְאָ֥�" �`ְשֵֽׁם׃

‏וְנִקְרְאָ�"‎ here should (or at least COULD) be taken as a past
tense, as in Zechariah 8:3. The verse should probably be translated: "She WOULD
NOT RETURN (impf, modal) unless the king was pleased/had been pleased (pf) with
her and she was called/summoned (pf) by name." There is no necessity to
translate the perfect verb forms here as if they expressed imperfect: "used to,"
etc. In fact, that does not seem to be appropriate here. It seems that she went,
came back, and did not go again until summoned. Syntactically, then,
וְנִקְרְאָ֥�" coordinates to the nuance of the perfect form
חָפֵ֥ץ.

In short, my question is this: how should the weqatal/waw perfect forms be
interpreted in Zechariah 8:3?

Is there a syntactic reason (within the Masoretic notation or elsewhere) that
would require them to be future, or do they coordinate with the nuance of
שַׁ�`תִּי at the beginning of Zechariah 8:3?

Thanks in advance for any help.

Sincerely,

Chris Lovelace


REFERENCES CITED IN THIS POST:

[1] Christo Van der Merwe, Jackie Naudé, Jan Kroeze et al., A Biblical Hebrew
Reference Grammar, electronic ed. (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999),
45.

[2] Michael O'Connor and Bruce K. Waltke, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew
Syntax (Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 520.

[3] Christo Van der Merwe, Jackie Naudé, Jan Kroeze et al., A Biblical Hebrew
Reference Grammar, electronic ed. (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999),
45.

[4] According to the Masorah Gedolah, the form וְנִקְרְאָ֥�" occurs
only in Zechariah 8:3 and Esther 2:14. See Gérard. E. Weil, Massorah Gedolah:
Manuscrit B. 19a De Léningrad, entry 3161 וְנִקְרְאָ�"  (Rome:
Pontificium Institutum Biblicum, 2001), 349.