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

Re: tc-list archive update

Expand Messages
  • Lewis Reich
    ... Clearly, Sun Microsystems. Lewis Reich lbr@sprynet.com
    Message 1 of 12 , Mar 7, 1997
      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 2 of 12 , Mar 7, 1997
        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 3 of 12 , Mar 7, 1997
          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 4 of 12 , Mar 8, 1997
            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 5 of 12 , Mar 8, 1997
              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 6 of 12 , Mar 8, 1997
                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 7 of 12 , Mar 10, 1997
                  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 8 of 12 , Mar 10, 1997
                    > > 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 9 of 12 , Mar 11, 1997
                      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 10 of 12 , Mar 14, 1997
                        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 11 of 12 , Mar 14, 1997
                          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.