Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Synoptic-L] When is a parallel not a parallel? Also, when is a verse not a verse?

Expand Messages
  • Bob Schacht
    ... I don t think there is any standard answer to your question. The problem, ISTM, is that the word parallel has no precise definition in textual criticism,
    Message 1 of 18 , Oct 5, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      At 10:13 AM 10/5/2011, David Inglis wrote:
      >I originally asked the first of these questions on another forum,
      >but as it has relevance to my synoptic stylometric
      >analysis
      >here <https://sites.google.com/site/inglisonmarcion/Home/the-synoptic-problem>
      >https://sites.google.com/site/inglisonmarcion/Home/the-synoptic-problem
      >, I would like to bring it up on synoptic.

      I don't think there is any standard answer to your question. The
      problem, ISTM, is that the word "parallel" has no precise definition
      in textual criticism, so there is no definitive answer to your question.
      This is essentially a question of the practice of Textual Criticism.
      An easy to read introduction to the subject may be found at
      http://www.skypoint.com/members/waltzmn/intro.html#Practice

      The idea of "parallels" has been heavily influenced by parallel
      Bibles and harmonies, that list Biblical "parallels" in columns to
      facilitate comparison. In fact, of course, parallels are the very
      stuff out of which synoptic studies are made. As you can imagine, the
      texts arranged in parallel columns range from placing passages that
      are literally identical side by side with passages that have only a
      few key words in common. In other words, the idea of literary
      "parallels" has been the object of so much abuse that it is difficult
      to say what they are.

      The problem is easily illustrated by the "minor agreements," which
      are a special type of "parallel":
      >Specifically, there are 347 instances (by Neirynck's count) where
      >one or more words are added to the Markan text in both Matthew and
      >Luke; these are called the "minor agreements" against Mark. Some 198
      >instances involve one word, 82 involve two words, 35 three, 16 four,
      >and 16 instances involve five or more words in the extant texts of
      >Matthew and Luke as compared to Markan passages.
      (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_source)

      So, how many different words are required before it is no longer a
      parallel? Or should we be using percentages instead of raw counts? Or
      to come from the opposite direction, how many words (or what
      percentage of words) do two passages have to have in common before
      they are considered "parallel"? And surely we have to address the
      order of the words as well.
      Pretty soon, the whole idea of trying to precisely define what a
      parallel is, and what it is not, becomes hopeless.

      Again, I refer you to the article above on the Practice of Textual Criticism.

      Bob Schacht
      Northern Arizona University


      >
      >
      >
      >Mk 13:14a But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation,
      >[spoken of by Daniel the prophet,] standing where it
      >ought not, (let him that readeth understand,)
      >
      >Mt 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation,
      >spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy
      >place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)
      >
      >Lk 21:20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then
      >know that the desolation thereof is nigh.
      >
      >
      >Mk 13:14b then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains:
      >
      >Mk 3:15 And let him that is on the housetop not go down into the
      >house, neither enter therein, to take any thing out of
      >his house:
      >
      >Mk 13:16 And let him that is in the field not turn back again for to
      >take up his garment.
      >
      >Mt 24:16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:
      >
      >Mt 24:17 Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any
      >thing out of his house:
      >
      >Mt 24:18 Neither let him which is in the field return back to take
      >his clothes.
      >
      >Lk 21:21 Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains;
      >and let them which are in the midst of it depart out;
      >and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto.
      >
      >
      >
      >In the above example it is clear that Mk 13:14a and Mt 24:15 are
      >very close parallels. It is also clear that Mk 13:14b,
      >Mt 24:16, and Lk 21:21a are close parallels. However, can Lk 21:20
      >in any way be called a parallel of Mk 13:14a/Mt
      >24:15? It doesn't seem reasonable to me to call it a parallel;
      >instead I see it as a rejection and replacement of Mk
      >13:14a/Mt 24:15. So, as well as asking how other people view Lk
      >21:20 in particular, I would like to ask just how this
      >situation is viewed generally, i.e. how far apart can two pieces of
      >text in the synoptics be and still be regarded as
      >parallels? Is there even any common 'standard,' because if not,
      >doesn't this at least blur the edges of the synoptic
      >sonderguts, double/triple traditions, etc?
      >
      >
      >
      >On a related issue, the above passages provide an example of another
      >synoptic phenomenon that has puzzled me for a
      >while, which is: Why are the verse divisions in the synoptics so
      >inconsistent? For example, why does Mk 13:14 encompass
      >in one verse what is two verses in Mt? My understanding is that
      >Robert Estienne created our modern verse divisions
      >around 1551, but if they were the work or (or at least under the
      >control of) one person, then why are the synoptic
      >verses not always divided up the same way? Does anyone know whether
      >this is a 'hangover' from some characteristic of the
      >Greek mss Estienne was used to seeing at the time, or perhaps
      >something else? If so, is there anything that the verse
      >divisions can tell us with regard to the synoptic problem itself?
      >
      >
      >
      >David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA
      >
      >
      >
      >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      >
      >
      >------------------------------------
      >
      >Synoptic-L homepage: http://NTGateway.com/synoptic-lYahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • David Mealand
      The issue of when passages are identical in form and sequence can be seen in Poirier s article pp.85, 105, 113, 117 P discusses Morgenthaler who raised the
      Message 2 of 18 , Oct 6, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        The issue of when passages are identical in form and sequence
        can be seen in Poirier's article pp.85, 105, 113, 117
        P discusses Morgenthaler who raised the issue, gives an example,
        discusses Bergemann's further view of the matter, then the approach
        of Ronning, then the work of the "Tokyo team".

        The issue with the HHB is slightly different in that each word has
        to be assigned. So for example data labelled 021 will
        consist of words which are used by Mark, where the equivalent
        passage is not there in Matthew, and where Luke uses a different
        word from the one Mark used. (I am trying to keep wording as
        theory neutral as possible - so avoiding "omits" "changes" etc.)

        The problem is how much of Mark's wording/sentence/passage
        has to be absent in Matthew to get an 021. How much of Mark's
        wording/sentence/passage has to be present to get a 121 or a 221?

        This may seem an abstruse technical issue but it can have serious
        implications when one tries to decide on the HHB evidence whether
        the stuff in Mark correlates better than the stuff in Matthew. The
        evidence is that it does. That should be the case if Matthew used Mark.
        The opposite should be the case if Mark used Matthew. David Inglis
        argues that the data in the relevant columns based on HHB shows
        Mark to be more consistent, and Matthew to be more diverse.
        I think his analysis of this is correct.

        It would be interesting to know if anyone has experience of agreeing
        with, or dissenting from, the judgements on the assignments of words
        to categories in the HHB Synoptic Concordance, especially in relation
        to their assessment of "parallel" passages.

        David M.




        ---------
        David Mealand, University of Edinburgh


        --
        The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
        Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
      • Chuck Jones
        There are indeed terminological issues here.  An important word to add to the discussion is dependence. Lk generally demonstrates more freedom in his
        Message 3 of 18 , Oct 6, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          There are indeed terminological issues here.  An important word to add to the discussion is "dependence."

          Lk generally demonstrates more freedom in his wording with pericope that also occur in Mt and Mk.  When this happens in the triple tradition, as is the case in "armies surrounding Jerusalem" vs. "the abomination....," we learn at least that Lk is not the "middle term" of the synoptics, i.e., Lk is dependent on Mk or Mt or both or sumpin'.

          Chuck

          Rev. Chuck Jones
          Atlanta, Georgia



          ________________________________
          From: Bob Schacht <r_schacht@...>
          To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Thursday, October 6, 2011 1:17 AM
          Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] When is a parallel not a parallel? Also, when is a verse not a verse?


           
          At 10:13 AM 10/5/2011, David Inglis wrote:
          >I originally asked the first of these questions on another forum,
          >but as it has relevance to my synoptic stylometric
          >analysis
          >here <https://sites.google.com/site/inglisonmarcion/Home/the-synoptic-problem>
          >https://sites.google.com/site/inglisonmarcion/Home/the-synoptic-problem
          >, I would like to bring it up on synoptic.

          I don't think there is any standard answer to your question. The
          problem, ISTM, is that the word "parallel" has no precise definition
          in textual criticism, so there is no definitive answer to your question.
          This is essentially a question of the practice of Textual Criticism.
          An easy to read introduction to the subject may be found at
          http://www.skypoint.com/members/waltzmn/intro.html#Practice

          The idea of "parallels" has been heavily influenced by parallel
          Bibles and harmonies, that list Biblical "parallels" in columns to
          facilitate comparison. In fact, of course, parallels are the very
          stuff out of which synoptic studies are made. As you can imagine, the
          texts arranged in parallel columns range from placing passages that
          are literally identical side by side with passages that have only a
          few key words in common. In other words, the idea of literary
          "parallels" has been the object of so much abuse that it is difficult
          to say what they are.

          The problem is easily illustrated by the "minor agreements," which
          are a special type of "parallel":
          >Specifically, there are 347 instances (by Neirynck's count) where
          >one or more words are added to the Markan text in both Matthew and
          >Luke; these are called the "minor agreements" against Mark. Some 198
          >instances involve one word, 82 involve two words, 35 three, 16 four,
          >and 16 instances involve five or more words in the extant texts of
          >Matthew and Luke as compared to Markan passages.
          (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_source)

          So, how many different words are required before it is no longer a
          parallel? Or should we be using percentages instead of raw counts? Or
          to come from the opposite direction, how many words (or what
          percentage of words) do two passages have to have in common before
          they are considered "parallel"? And surely we have to address the
          order of the words as well.
          Pretty soon, the whole idea of trying to precisely define what a
          parallel is, and what it is not, becomes hopeless.

          Again, I refer you to the article above on the Practice of Textual Criticism.

          Bob Schacht
          Northern Arizona University

          >
          >
          >
          >Mk 13:14a But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation,
          >[spoken of by Daniel the prophet,] standing where it
          >ought not, (let him that readeth understand,)
          >
          >Mt 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation,
          >spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy
          >place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)
          >
          >Lk 21:20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then
          >know that the desolation thereof is nigh.
          >
          >
          >Mk 13:14b then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains:
          >
          >Mk 3:15 And let him that is on the housetop not go down into the
          >house, neither enter therein, to take any thing out of
          >his house:
          >
          >Mk 13:16 And let him that is in the field not turn back again for to
          >take up his garment.
          >
          >Mt 24:16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:
          >
          >Mt 24:17 Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any
          >thing out of his house:
          >
          >Mt 24:18 Neither let him which is in the field return back to take
          >his clothes.
          >
          >Lk 21:21 Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains;
          >and let them which are in the midst of it depart out;
          >and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto.
          >
          >
          >
          >In the above example it is clear that Mk 13:14a and Mt 24:15 are
          >very close parallels. It is also clear that Mk 13:14b,
          >Mt 24:16, and Lk 21:21a are close parallels. However, can Lk 21:20
          >in any way be called a parallel of Mk 13:14a/Mt
          >24:15? It doesn't seem reasonable to me to call it a parallel;
          >instead I see it as a rejection and replacement of Mk
          >13:14a/Mt 24:15. So, as well as asking how other people view Lk
          >21:20 in particular, I would like to ask just how this
          >situation is viewed generally, i.e. how far apart can two pieces of
          >text in the synoptics be and still be regarded as
          >parallels? Is there even any common 'standard,' because if not,
          >doesn't this at least blur the edges of the synoptic
          >sonderguts, double/triple traditions, etc?
          >
          >
          >
          >On a related issue, the above passages provide an example of another
          >synoptic phenomenon that has puzzled me for a
          >while, which is: Why are the verse divisions in the synoptics so
          >inconsistent? For example, why does Mk 13:14 encompass
          >in one verse what is two verses in Mt? My understanding is that
          >Robert Estienne created our modern verse divisions
          >around 1551, but if they were the work or (or at least under the
          >control of) one person, then why are the synoptic
          >verses not always divided up the same way? Does anyone know whether
          >this is a 'hangover' from some characteristic of the
          >Greek mss Estienne was used to seeing at the time, or perhaps
          >something else? If so, is there anything that the verse
          >divisions can tell us with regard to the synoptic problem itself?
          >
          >
          >
          >David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA
          >
          >
          >
          >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          >
          >
          >
          >------------------------------------
          >
          >Synoptic-L homepage: http://NTGateway.com/synoptic-lYahoo! Groups Links
          >
          >
          >

          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Dennis
          Canonical Luke seems dependent. I like Klinghardt s proposal, which posits Luke and Matt to be dependent upon Mark and an early version of Luke that Marcion
          Message 4 of 18 , Oct 6, 2011
          • 0 Attachment
            Canonical Luke seems dependent. I like Klinghardt's proposal, which posits Luke and Matt to be dependent upon Mark and an early version of "Luke" that Marcion used.
            Dennis Carpenter
            Dahlonega, Ga.


            ----- Original Message -----
            From: Chuck Jones
            To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
            Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2011 9:40 AM
            Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] When is a parallel not a parallel? Also, when is a verse not a verse?



            There are indeed terminological issues here. An important word to add to the discussion is "dependence."

            Lk generally demonstrates more freedom in his wording with pericope that also occur in Mt and Mk. When this happens in the triple tradition, as is the case in "armies surrounding Jerusalem" vs. "the abomination....," we learn at least that Lk is not the "middle term" of the synoptics, i.e., Lk is dependent on Mk or Mt or both or sumpin'.

            Chuck

            Rev. Chuck Jones
            Atlanta, Georgia




            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • David Inglis
            David I: I posed the following question: Why are the verse divisions in the synoptics so inconsistent? For example, why does Mk 13:14 encompass in one verse
            Message 5 of 18 , Oct 6, 2011
            • 0 Attachment
              David I: I posed the following question:

              Why are the verse divisions in the synoptics so inconsistent? For example, why does Mk 13:14 encompass
              in one verse what is two verses in Mt? My understanding is that Robert Estienne created our modern verse divisions
              around 1551, but if they were the work or (or at least under the control of) one person, then why are the synoptic
              verses not always divided up the same way? Does anyone know whether this is a 'hangover' from some characteristic of the
              Greek mss Estienne was used to seeing at the time, or perhaps something else? If so, is there anything that the verse
              divisions can tell us with regard to the synoptic problem itself?



              Rev. Chuck Jones responded:

              If I had to guess about your second question, it is that he demarcated the gospel verses over time, and simply forgot what he'd done earlier.



              David I: Chuck, I find it hard to believe that this was the case, because if so then why would these divisions have become universally accepted? Unless there was some logic or pattern behind the divisions then I don’t see how this could become so dominant. One interesting consideration is that in Panarion 42 (c. 375), Epiphanius frequently mentions ‘verses’ in Lk (or rather, that’s the word used in English translations). For example:

              Scholion 55: Again, he excised the material about the vineyard which was let out to husbandmen, and the verse, ”What is this then, The stone which the builders rejected?”

              In other words, there was an early pattern of divisions more than 1,000 years before Estienne, so what was it based on, and did Estienne use the same ‘markers’ as Epiphanius when creating his verses?



              David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA



              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • David Mealand
              Re the translation cited: Scholion 55: Again, he excised the material about the vineyard which was let out to husbandmen, and the verse, ”What is this then,
              Message 6 of 18 , Oct 6, 2011
              • 0 Attachment
                Re the translation cited:
                Scholion 55: Again, he excised the material about the vineyard which
                was let out to husbandmen, and the verse, ”What is this then, The
                stone which the builders rejected?”

                The Greek at the Epiphanius passage (nu epsilon = 55) does
                not have the words which appear in the translation as
                "material" and "verse".  It simply has the neuter plural of
                the definite article the first time  i.e. the things
                about, or the bits about, or the words about.  The second
                time it simply has the neuter singular of the definite
                article i.e. the bit, or the sentence, or the saying, or
                the question. The reader of the Greek has to supply
                a suitable noun.  So sadly the quest for verse division
                can't be established as early as this from this passage.

                Incidentally is the story true that the 16th C verse division
                was done as the scholar in question "travelled across Europe
                on horseback" as I heard a lecturer declare many years ago?
                Presumably he meant the work was done in the inns after the
                route for the day had been completed.

                David M.

                ---------
                David Mealand,     University of Edinburgh


                --
                The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
                Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
              • Stephen Carlson
                ... I usually heard it joked that every time there was a bump in the road, a new verse came into being. Stephen -- Stephen C. Carlson Graduate Program in
                Message 7 of 18 , Oct 6, 2011
                • 0 Attachment
                  On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 4:30 PM, David Mealand <D.Mealand@...> wrote:

                  > **
                  >
                  > Incidentally is the story true that the 16th C verse division
                  > was done as the scholar in question "travelled across Europe
                  > on horseback" as I heard a lecturer declare many years ago?
                  > Presumably he meant the work was done in the inns after the
                  > route for the day had been completed.
                  >

                  I usually heard it joked that every time there was a bump in the road, a new
                  verse came into being.

                  Stephen
                  --
                  Stephen C. Carlson
                  Graduate Program in Religion
                  Duke University


                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Emmanuel Fritsch
                  ... For the bump, I did not know, but the horse travel is considered to be true in France. The scholar was the great printer, publisher and editor Robert
                  Message 8 of 18 , Oct 7, 2011
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Stephen Carlson a écrit :
                    >
                    >
                    > On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 4:30 PM, David Mealand <D.Mealand@...
                    > <mailto:D.Mealand%40ed.ac.uk>> wrote:
                    >
                    > I usually heard it joked that every time there was a bump in the road,
                    > a new
                    > verse came into being.
                    >
                    For the bump, I did not know, but the horse travel is considered to be
                    true in France.
                    The scholar was the great printer, publisher and editor Robert Estienne.

                    Some details and other stuff (including a reference in english) in :

                    http://books.google.com/books?id=ULHVwKJYO38C&lpg=PA54&ots=qLLSqRnDUL&dq=d%C3%A9coupage%20des%20versets%20estienne&pg=PA54#v=onepage&q=d%C3%A9coupage%20des%20versets%20estienne&f=false

                    a+
                    manu
                  • Chuck Jones
                    Don t know if it s true, but I heard the same story, including the bumps in the road. Chuck Rev. Chuck Jones Atlanta, Georgia ________________________________
                    Message 9 of 18 , Oct 7, 2011
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Don't know if it's true, but I heard the same story, including the bumps in the road.

                      Chuck

                      Rev. Chuck Jones
                      Atlanta, Georgia


                      ________________________________
                      From: Stephen Carlson <stemmatic@...>
                      To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
                      Sent: Thursday, October 6, 2011 4:37 PM
                      Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] when is a verse not a verse?


                       
                      On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 4:30 PM, David Mealand <D.Mealand@...> wrote:

                      > **
                      >
                      > Incidentally is the story true that the 16th C verse division
                      > was done as the scholar in question "travelled across Europe
                      > on horseback" as I heard a lecturer declare many years ago?
                      > Presumably he meant the work was done in the inns after the
                      > route for the day had been completed.
                      >

                      I usually heard it joked that every time there was a bump in the road, a new
                      verse came into being.

                      Stephen
                      --
                      Stephen C. Carlson
                      Graduate Program in Religion
                      Duke University

                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • Stephen Carlson
                      ... All joking aside, my experience from preparing my own synopsis is that while the chapter seem to line up fairly well with synoptic parallels, the verses do
                      Message 10 of 18 , Oct 7, 2011
                      • 0 Attachment
                        On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 1:13 PM, David Inglis <davidinglis2@...>wrote:

                        > **
                        >
                        >
                        > On a related issue, the above passages provide an example of another
                        > synoptic phenomenon that has puzzled me for a
                        > while, which is: Why are the verse divisions in the synoptics so
                        > inconsistent? For example, why does Mk 13:14 encompass
                        > in one verse what is two verses in Mt? My understanding is that Robert
                        > Estienne created our modern verse divisions
                        > around 1551, but if they were the work or (or at least under the control
                        > of) one person, then why are the synoptic
                        > verses not always divided up the same way? Does anyone know whether this is
                        > a 'hangover' from some characteristic of the
                        > Greek mss Estienne was used to seeing at the time, or perhaps something
                        > else? If so, is there anything that the verse
                        > divisions can tell us with regard to the synoptic problem itself?
                        >
                        All joking aside, my experience from preparing my own synopsis is that while
                        the chapter seem to line up fairly well with synoptic parallels, the verses
                        do not.

                        In fact, I would like to take this opportunity to urge all people interested
                        in the synoptic problem to prepare a synopsis themselves (ideally in Greek
                        but an old-fashioned formal equivalent can do). There is no substitute for
                        getting down into the data, and getting a feel for what's going on at its
                        most basic level. Unfortunately in the U.S., the synoptic problem is
                        usually taught as a single lecture in an undergraduate or master's level
                        class, generally by presenting the Mark-Q theory as the solution and
                        refracting what little data that can be described in an hour through that
                        lens.

                        Stephen
                        --
                        Stephen C. Carlson
                        Graduate Program in Religion
                        Duke University


                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • Chuck Jones
                        Good ole wiki.  I would say that given the prestige and stature of his publishing house, the horse story goes out the window (back to the barn?). Chuck
                        Message 11 of 18 , Oct 7, 2011
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Good ole wiki.  I would say that given the prestige and stature of his publishing house, the horse story goes out the window (back to the barn?).

                          Chuck
                          ______________________

                          Robert Estienne:

                          "In 1532, he published the remarkable Thesaurus linguae latinae, and twice he published the entire Hebrew Bible — "one with the Commentary of Kimchi on the minor prophets, in 13 vols. 4to (quarto) (Paris, 1539-43), another in 10 vols. 16mo (sextodecimo) (ibid. 1544-46)."[4] Both of these editions are rare.

                          "Of more importance are his four editions of the Greek New Testament, 1546, 1549, 1550, and 1551, the last in Geneva. The first two are among the neatest Greek texts known, and are called O mirificam; the third is a splendid masterpiece of typographical skill, and is known as the Editio Regia; the edition of 1551 contains the Latin translation of Erasmus and the Vulgate, is not nearly as fine as the other three, and is exceedingly rare. It was in this edition that the division of the New Testament into verses was for the first time introduced."


                          ________________________________
                          From: Emmanuel Fritsch <emmanuel.fritsch@...>
                          To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
                          Sent: Friday, October 7, 2011 6:11 AM
                          Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] when is a verse not a verse?


                           
                          Stephen Carlson a écrit :
                          >
                          >
                          > On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 4:30 PM, David Mealand <D.Mealand@...
                          > <mailto:D.Mealand%40ed.ac.uk>> wrote:
                          >
                          > I usually heard it joked that every time there was a bump in the road,
                          > a new
                          > verse came into being.
                          >
                          For the bump, I did not know, but the horse travel is considered to be
                          true in France.
                          The scholar was the great printer, publisher and editor Robert Estienne.

                          Some details and other stuff (including a reference in english) in :

                          http://books.google.com/books?id=ULHVwKJYO38C&lpg=PA54&ots=qLLSqRnDUL&dq=d%C3%A9coupage%20des%20versets%20estienne&pg=PA54#v=onepage&q=d%C3%A9coupage%20des%20versets%20estienne&f=false

                          a+
                          manu



                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • David Mealand
                          The French passage cited here recently runs that Stephanus himself says in his letter to the reader (Concordance 1594) that he did the verse division on his
                          Message 12 of 18 , Oct 7, 2011
                          • 0 Attachment
                            The French passage cited here recently
                            runs that Stephanus himself says in his
                            letter to the reader (Concordance 1594)
                            that he did the verse division on his journey
                            from Paris to Lyon - mostly on horseback...

                            So Stephen Carlson seems to be right about
                            the bumps...

                            The account is not quite from the horse's mouth
                            though, but seems to be the nearest thing...


                            ---------
                            David Mealand, University of Edinburgh


                            --
                            The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
                            Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.