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

tc-list archive update

Expand Messages
  • James R. Adair
    I sent a message a few days ago to the list announcing that the messages on the list are now being archived by Reference.COM, and I gave the general URL as
    Message 1 of 12 , Mar 7, 1997
    • 0 Attachment
      I sent a message a few days ago to the list announcing that the messages
      on the list are now being archived by Reference.COM, and I gave the
      general URL as http://www.reference.com This URL will allow to search
      the tc-list archives as well as the archives of many other lists. If you
      just want to search the archives of this list, you can use the URL

      http://www.reference.com/cgi-bin/pn/listarch?
      list=tc-list@...

      This should all be on one line--don't hit return or put a space after the
      question mark. Remember that the archives at Reference.COM only go back
      to Feb 27, 1997. For earlier archives, see

      http://scholar.cc.emory.edu/scripts/TC/archives/tc-list/tc-list.html

      where the messages are divided into files that each contain a month's
      worth of data (dating back to November 1995).

      In case anyone has been confused by the fact that some addresses have
      scholar.cc.emory.edu and others have shemesh.scholar.emory.edu, our recent
      move to a bigger computer necessitated a change in our URL to
      shemesh.scholar.emory.edu. However, the old address scholar.cc.emory.edu
      should continue to work as an alias for the foreseeable future. As a
      riddle for Hebrew scholars on the list, and since we've had very little
      traffic the past few days, can you guess from our new name what kind of
      computer we have?

      Jimmy Adair, Listowner, TC-List
      Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press
      and
      Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site
      ---------------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu <-----------------
    • Lewis Reich
      ... Clearly, Sun Microsystems. Lewis Reich lbr@sprynet.com
      Message 2 of 12 , Mar 7, 1997
      • 0 Attachment
        On 7 Mar 97 at 11:42, James R. Adair wrote:

        > As a riddle for Hebrew scholars on the list, and since we've had
        > very little traffic the past few days, can you guess from our new
        > name what kind of computer we have?


        Clearly, Sun Microsystems.

        Lewis Reich
        lbr@...
      • Ronald L. Minton
        I know that the KJV team relied mostly on Beza, but I have heard that they likely used a few Greek manuscripts as well. Is there any definitive word on this?
        Message 3 of 12 , Mar 7, 1997
        • 0 Attachment
          I know that the KJV team relied mostly on Beza, but I have heard that
          they likely used a few Greek manuscripts as well. Is there any definitive
          word on this?

          --
          Prof. Ron Minton: rminton@... W (417)268-6053 H 833-9581
          Baptist Bible Graduate School 628 E. Kearney St. Springfield, MO 65803
        • Ronald L. Minton
          When was the first draft of the W-H text completed so that they could share it with others? -- Prof. Ron Minton: rminton@mail.orion.org W (417)268-6053 H
          Message 4 of 12 , Mar 7, 1997
          • 0 Attachment
            When was the first draft of the W-H text completed so that they could
            share it with others?

            --
            Prof. Ron Minton: rminton@... W (417)268-6053 H 833-9581
            Baptist Bible Graduate School 628 E. Kearney St. Springfield, MO 65803
          • Matthew Johnson
            ... Yes, there is definitive word on this. First of all, the KJV team did NOT rely mostly on Beza. Beza is a Western manuscript (Amphoux p 16), whereas the
            Message 5 of 12 , Mar 8, 1997
            • 0 Attachment
              On Fri, 7 Mar 1997, Ronald L. Minton wrote:

              > I know that the KJV team relied mostly on Beza, but I have heard that
              > they likely used a few Greek manuscripts as well. Is there any definitive
              > word on this?
              >
              > --
              Yes, there is definitive word on this. First of all, the KJV team did NOT
              rely mostly on Beza. Beza is a Western manuscript (Amphoux p 16),
              whereas the KJV team followed the "majority text". This "majority text" is
              basically the same as the "textus receptus", which, however, was not
              published by de Beze until 1624, after the Authorized Version of 1611.

              In fact, what little Amphoux has to say about the text used by the KJV
              team and Beza's influence is not complimentary:

              His text was essntially the same as the 4th edition of
              R. Estienne, with some occasional elements borrowed from
              Erasmus or the Complutensian Polyglot, and very few
              contributions of his own.
              ...
              He appears, in fact, to have understood very little about
              the importance of a correct text. And yet, despite these
              shortcomings, he exerted a great deal of influence, and the
              closeness of several of the later editions to the text of Estienne
              is due to their use of that of Beza. Such was the case with
              those responsible for the Authorized Version of 1611, which
              has been held in honour for so long by the Church of England.
              (Amphoux, p 134)


              See "An Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism" by
              Leon Vaganay and Christian-Bernard Amphoux.


              Matthew Johnson
              Waiting for the blessed hope and the appearance of the glory of our
              great God and Saviour Jesus Christ (Ti 2:13).
            • Maurice Robinson
              ... During the period from 1870-1881 a prepublication draft of the WH text was definitely in the hands of the ERV committee for their consultation. I have
              Message 6 of 12 , Mar 8, 1997
              • 0 Attachment
                On Fri, 7 Mar 1997, Ronald L. Minton wrote:

                > When was the first draft of the W-H text completed so that they could
                > share it with others?

                During the period from 1870-1881 a prepublication draft of the WH text was
                definitely in the hands of the ERV committee for their consultation. I
                have never seen a copy of the draft text, and wonder whether all copies
                might have been destroyed after the committee had finished its work. Does
                anyone have any enlightenment on that point?

                _________________________________________________________________________
                Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament
                Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina
                ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
              • Maurice Robinson
                ... May we please keep the facts straight? Minton s reference is not to Codex Bezae, but to the Beza 1598 edition of the Greek NT, and yes, the KJV
                Message 7 of 12 , Mar 8, 1997
                • 0 Attachment
                  On Sat, 8 Mar 1997, Matthew Johnson wrote:

                  > On Fri, 7 Mar 1997, Ronald L. Minton wrote:
                  >
                  > > I know that the KJV team relied mostly on Beza, but I have heard that
                  > > they likely used a few Greek manuscripts as well. Is there any definitive
                  > > word on this?
                  > >
                  > Yes, there is definitive word on this. First of all, the KJV team did NOT
                  > rely mostly on Beza. Beza is a Western manuscript (Amphoux p 16),
                  > whereas the KJV team followed the "majority text". This "majority text" is
                  > basically the same as the "textus receptus", which, however, was not
                  > published by de Beze until 1624, after the Authorized Version of 1611.

                  May we please keep the facts straight? Minton's reference is not to Codex
                  Bezae, but to the Beza 1598 edition of the Greek NT, and yes, the KJV
                  translators probably used that edition more than any other in print before
                  the period 1604-1611 (this _teste_ Scrivener).

                  Secondly, the Byzantine or "majority text" differs from any early printed
                  TR edition in over 1800 places and is not "basically the same" as any of
                  those early printed TR editions which basically do agree with each other
                  to a much higher degree than they do with the "majority text".

                  Finally, the TR 1624 was published by the Elzevirs, not by Theodore Beza.

                  _________________________________________________________________________
                  Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Greek and New Testament
                  Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary Wake Forest, North Carolina
                  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                • Ronald L. Minton
                  ... Now, once more. Do we know about any actual mss the KJV team likely used? -- Prof. Ron Minton: rminton@mail.orion.org W (417)268-6053 H 833-9581
                  Message 8 of 12 , Mar 10, 1997
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On Sun, 9 Mar 1997, Maurice Robinson wrote:
                    > On Sat, 8 Mar 1997, Matthew Johnson wrote:
                    >
                    > > On Fri, 7 Mar 1997, Ronald L. Minton wrote:
                    > >
                    > > > I know that the KJV team relied mostly on Beza, but I have heard that
                    > > > they likely used a few Greek manuscripts as well. Is there any definitive
                    > > > word on this?
                    > > >
                    > > Yes, there is definitive word on this.

                    Now, once more. Do we know about any actual mss the KJV team likely used?


                    --
                    Prof. Ron Minton: rminton@... W (417)268-6053 H 833-9581
                    Baptist Bible Graduate School 628 E. Kearney St. Springfield, MO 65803
                  • Mike Arcieri
                    ... Now, once more. Do we know about any actual mss the KJV team likely used? Dr. Minton, I don t think they used _any_ Greek MSS whatsoever. They did use
                    Message 9 of 12 , Mar 10, 1997
                    • 0 Attachment
                      > > On Fri, 7 Mar 1997, Ronald L. Minton wrote:
                      > >
                      > > > I know that the KJV team relied mostly on Beza, but I have heard that
                      > > > they likely used a few Greek manuscripts as well. Is there any definitive

                      > > > word on this?
                      > > >
                      > > Yes, there is definitive word on this.

                      Now, once more. Do we know about any actual mss the KJV team likely used?


                      Dr. Minton,

                      I don't think they used _any_ Greek MSS whatsoever. They did use Beza's GNT as
                      the primary basis (as Robinson correctly pointed out) and they did occasionally
                      use Stephanus, the Complutensian and, very rarely, Erasmus. The occasional
                      textual ref in the margin obviously came from one of the printed editions. The
                      only person I know of who claims the KJV translators used Greek and/or Latin MSS
                      (Old Latin at that) is Peter Ruckman - and the evidence he presents for this is
                      his own opinion. :-)

                      Had the KJV translators used MSS, I suspect they would have made mention of this
                      in their "Translators to the Reader" but they only speak about Hebrew and Greek
                      texts: the title page does say "Original tongues: & with the former
                      Translations diligently compared" (an obvious ref. to the Heb/Greek texts and
                      various translations available to them).

                      Hope this helps.

                      Mike A.
                    • Ronald L. Minton
                      aI have seen the price date A.D. 157 used to date the first OL translation. I have read what Aland and a few others say about the OL and I have not seen the
                      Message 10 of 12 , Mar 11, 1997
                      • 0 Attachment
                        aI have seen the price date A.D. 157 used to date the first OL translation.
                        I have read what Aland and a few others say about the OL and I have not
                        seen the 157. What is the source of the 157, and is it accurate? My
                        initial reaction is that it is not accurate, but there may be some
                        evidence I do not know of. I have always taught approximately 180 or 190
                        as the date. Also, do we have evidence that anyone before Cyprian used
                        it? How about Irenaeus?

                        --
                        Prof. Ron Minton: rminton@... W (417)268-6053 H 833-9581
                        Baptist Bible Graduate School 628 E. Kearney St. Springfield, MO 65803
                      • willrut@uni-muenster.de
                        ... My apologize for late dealing with this post. Without further references I simply fail to assess this date (A.D. 157). Some hold that Tertullian used at
                        Message 11 of 12 , Mar 14, 1997
                        • 0 Attachment
                          On Tue, 11 Mar 1997, Ronald Minton wrote:

                          >aI have seen the price date A.D. 157 used to date the first OL translation.
                          >I have read what Aland and a few others say about the OL and I have not
                          >seen the 157. What is the source of the 157, and is it accurate? My
                          >initial reaction is that it is not accurate, but there may be some
                          >evidence I do not know of. I have always taught approximately 180 or 190
                          >as the date. Also, do we have evidence that anyone before Cyprian used
                          >it? How about Irenaeus?

                          My apologize for late dealing with this post. Without further references I
                          simply fail to assess this date (A.D. 157).

                          Some hold that Tertullian used at least parts of the Bible in a Latin
                          translation, but his testimony is notoriously difficult to assess.

                          Irenaeus wrote in Greek (around A.D. 180). Unfortunately, his work *adversus
                          Haereses* has been preserved only in a slavish (and therefore poor) Latin
                          translation (Greek fragments have been preserved only in one papyrus MS, in
                          Euseb's Church History, and in Epiphanius' Panarion). Some ascribe this Latin
                          translation to the 3rd century, others to the late 4th century. There seems to
                          be some connection between Latin Irenaeus and Cyprian.
                          To sum up: Irenaeus has not helped us so far in assessing the date A.D. 157.

                          Ulrich Schmid, Muenster
                        • William L. Petersen
                          Regarding Ronald Minton s query about how the Old Latin is dated to 157 CE, and Ulrich Schmid s post, it suddenly occurs to me that what *may* lie behind the
                          Message 12 of 12 , Mar 14, 1997
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Regarding Ronald Minton's query about how the Old Latin is dated to 157 CE,
                            and Ulrich Schmid's post, it suddenly occurs to me that what *may* lie
                            behind the date is a reference from the *Acts of the Scillitian Martyrs*.
                            They were beheaded in July 180, and during their (gentle) questioning by the
                            Roman governor, they were asked what they had in a basket. They reply "the
                            works/writings of a just man, Paul" (I'm quoting from memory here, so don't
                            hold me to the exact wording). Since the names of the martyrs are Latin,
                            and they are rustics (and Scilli was in the sticks), it is usually assumed
                            that these "writings of Paul" were in Latin translation, since the "locals"
                            probably wouldn't have been Greek-reading (or so the theory goes). This
                            would place the translation into Latin before 180, certainly, at least for
                            part(s) of the Pauline corpus. How one gets 157 *precisely* (and not 158 or
                            156) remains a mystery to me, however.

                            The Scilli evidence is mentioned (with refernces, discussion, and
                            literature) in virtually all of the studies of the NT Versions (Voeoebus,
                            Metzger, as well as the older ones [Kenyon, Souter, Gregory, etc.]), as I
                            recall.

                            --Petersen, Penn State Univ.
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.