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

And the Winner Is....

Expand Messages
  • Robert B. Waltz
    TCers -- I guess it s true. Make something controversial, and more people will get interested in it. Over the last ten days or so, my web site has experienced
    Message 1 of 4 , Aug 1, 1997
      TCers --

      I guess it's true. Make something controversial, and more people
      will get interested in it. Over the last ten days or so, my web
      site has experienced a huge upsurge in traffic -- all of ten hits
      per day, up from about six per day in the preceding weeks.
      If we keep this up, no doubt we will cause the server to
      break down. :-)

      Now for the results of the voting on the Fathers page. Apparently
      I didn't need to wait; no new people were heard from. Although
      I did receive a clarification, which made it clear that the
      person's approval was conditional. Since I cannot guarantee to
      meet the conditions, I make the final score eight in favour
      of the page, five opposed, and two neutral. So I suppose the
      page will stay. If it makes those of you who were opposed
      feel any better, I truly regret putting it up there. :-)

      I just posted a second draft of the page. This incorporates,
      in one form or another, all the information sent to me so far.
      It also includes, in LARGE UNFRIENDLY LETTERS, a warning saying
      that the page needs work.

      I did make some other changes -- fixing some typos, adding a
      little new information, and starting the list of sources.
      The latter is going to take longer than I thought; I'm going
      to have to go through every book again. And I'm also under
      several deadlines this week....

      I will repeat my appeal: If you have anything to add, let me
      know.

      Also, a suggestion (or should I say an order?) from Matthew
      Johnson. He suggests that we need to list critical editions
      for all the fathers cited. Now I would argue that this is
      a job for an Introduction, not an Encyclopedia -- but I would
      also agree that this is a good thing to have on line where it
      can be updated frequently.

      My problem is, I don't have the information required. Do people
      want this enough to be willing to help out?

      Also, it occurs to me that we might want to have some sort of
      notation for the critical methodology used. Particularly in
      assessing the text-type of the Father. For example -- for all
      that I disagree with the details of Ehrman's Comprehensive
      Profile Method -- I readily concede that it is the best tool
      currently in use for determining text-types. So an assessment
      based on this method would be far better than an assessment
      based on, say, divergences from the TR.

      Comments? Volunteers?

      -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

      Robert B. Waltz
      waltzmn@...

      Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism?
      Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn
      (A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism)
    • Sipilä Seppo
      Dear Mr Waltz Concerning the Fathers page, which I had some troubles to look at. (You could add a backflash at the end of the URL on your signature, just in
      Message 2 of 4 , Aug 4, 1997
        Dear Mr Waltz

        Concerning the Fathers page, which I had some troubles to look at.
        (You could add a backflash at the end of the URL on your signature,
        just in case there are some other dummies like me.... :-)

        > I will repeat my appeal: If you have anything to add, let me
        > know.

        I have some suggestions

        a) concerning Epiphanius: I wonder if you could mention his _De
        mensuris et ponderibus_ which was a fairly important "encyclopedia"
        of biblical matters in Antiquity. The problem with the work is, of
        course, that it is not completly extant in Greek any longer, but in
        Syriac.

        b) concerning Origen: Is it so clear that he knew Hebrew? Sidney
        Jellicoe in his "The Septuagint and the modern Study" (OUP, Oxford
        1968) offers a discussion of the matter (pp 104-106) but does not say
        how to solve the problem. Therefore I would suggest that you, instead
        of "he took the trouble to learn Hebrew" would use something like
        "perhaps he took..." or "it is claimed that he took..."

        Oh yes, a typo: you have _Theodotian_, should be _Theodotion_

        c) concerning Theodoret: I think that the way you describe his
        literary activity, does not give the reader the right idea. Because
        you say that "In addition to writings on these subjects [=
        christological debate] he wrote a commentary on the Pauline Epistles"
        the reader thinks that Thdt did not wrote any other exegetical work
        at all, but surely this is not the case. It may be the case that his
        commentary on the Pauline Ep. is the most important work from the
        point of view of the NTTC, but nevertheless you could say that there
        are some other writings, like commentaries on the Octateuch and on
        Kindoms and Chronicles [these are of importance in the TC of the
        LXX].

        When discussing the use of Fathers in TC, you describe three problems
        concerning the works of the Fathers. The first one is _not_ very
        serious, I think, and you could even say that.

        You could perhaps also say that one of the disturbing things with
        many Fathers is that the same author uses different wordings of the
        same biblical passage in different works! The problem is, of course,
        that it is difficult to know the reason for that and that it
        is also very difficult to know the actual wording(s) the given
        Father had access to. This has some relevance when we try to find out
        the texttype the Father is using.

        > Also, a suggestion (or should I say an order?) from Matthew
        > Johnson. He suggests that we need to list critical editions
        > for all the fathers cited.

        Instead of compling such a list you could say that the list is
        possible to compile by using a very usefull list of all the editions
        of the works of the Greek Fathers:
        Geerard, M (editor): _Clavis Patrum Graecorum_ 1-5 (Turnhout
        1974-1987)

        One needs only to check from a standard bibliography, like _L'Annee
        Philologique_ or _Bibliographia Patristica_ if there are new
        editions published since the Clavis came out.

        The most important editions are also mentioned in the patrology of
        Altaner-Stuiber (the latest German edition appeared in 1993). The
        English translation is outdated what comes to the editions.


        Hope you will find these suggestions of some value!


        Seppo

        ---

        Mr Seppo Sipila
        Department of Biblical Studies
        University of Helsinki
        seppo.sipila@...
        http://www.helsinki.fi/~sesipila/
      • Robert B. Waltz
        ... I corrected some errors in the HTML yesterday. Beyond that, all I can say is that the page works on my machine. :-) ... Thank you. ... Well -- he *did*
        Message 3 of 4 , Aug 4, 1997
          On Mon, 4 Aug 1997, you wrote:

          >Dear Mr Waltz
          >
          >Concerning the Fathers page, which I had some troubles to look at.
          >(You could add a backflash at the end of the URL on your signature,
          >just in case there are some other dummies like me.... :-)

          I corrected some errors in the HTML yesterday. Beyond that, all I can
          say is that the page works on my machine. :-)

          >> I will repeat my appeal: If you have anything to add, let me
          >> know.
          >
          >I have some suggestions
          >
          >a) concerning Epiphanius: I wonder if you could mention his _De
          >mensuris et ponderibus_ which was a fairly important "encyclopedia"
          >of biblical matters in Antiquity. The problem with the work is, of
          >course, that it is not completly extant in Greek any longer, but in
          >Syriac.

          Thank you.

          >b) concerning Origen: Is it so clear that he knew Hebrew? Sidney
          >Jellicoe in his "The Septuagint and the modern Study" (OUP, Oxford
          >1968) offers a discussion of the matter (pp 104-106) but does not say
          >how to solve the problem. Therefore I would suggest that you, instead
          >of "he took the trouble to learn Hebrew" would use something like
          >"perhaps he took..." or "it is claimed that he took..."

          Well -- he *did* produce the Hexapla. Conceding that his Hebrew
          may not have been perfect, he must have had some knowledge of the
          language to have attempted such a thing.

          >Oh yes, a typo: you have _Theodotian_, should be _Theodotion_

          Thanks.

          >c) concerning Theodoret: I think that the way you describe his
          >literary activity, does not give the reader the right idea. Because
          >you say that "In addition to writings on these subjects [=
          >christological debate] he wrote a commentary on the Pauline Epistles"
          >the reader thinks that Thdt did not wrote any other exegetical work
          >at all, but surely this is not the case. It may be the case that his
          >commentary on the Pauline Ep. is the most important work from the
          >point of view of the NTTC, but nevertheless you could say that there
          >are some other writings, like commentaries on the Octateuch and on
          >Kindoms and Chronicles [these are of importance in the TC of the
          >LXX].

          OK.

          >When discussing the use of Fathers in TC, you describe three problems
          >concerning the works of the Fathers. The first one is _not_ very
          >serious, I think, and you could even say that.
          >
          >You could perhaps also say that one of the disturbing things with
          >many Fathers is that the same author uses different wordings of the
          >same biblical passage in different works! The problem is, of course,
          >that it is difficult to know the reason for that and that it
          >is also very difficult to know the actual wording(s) the given
          >Father had access to. This has some relevance when we try to find out
          >the texttype the Father is using.

          I thought I had said that. :-) I will try to make it clearer.

          >> Also, a suggestion (or should I say an order?) from Matthew
          >> Johnson. He suggests that we need to list critical editions
          >> for all the fathers cited.
          >
          >Instead of compling such a list you could say that the list is
          >possible to compile by using a very usefull list of all the editions
          >of the works of the Greek Fathers:
          > Geerard, M (editor): _Clavis Patrum Graecorum_ 1-5 (Turnhout
          > 1974-1987)
          >
          >One needs only to check from a standard bibliography, like _L'Annee
          >Philologique_ or _Bibliographia Patristica_ if there are new
          >editions published since the Clavis came out.
          >
          >The most important editions are also mentioned in the patrology of
          >Altaner-Stuiber (the latest German edition appeared in 1993). The
          >English translation is outdated what comes to the editions.
          >
          >
          >Hope you will find these suggestions of some value!

          I will try to find these books. I may not succeed; I have access to
          only one seminary, and I do not have loan priviledges. I also don't
          read German. (Remember, I'm a physicist and mathematician, not a
          linguist.) But I will try.

          And thank you for the suggestions.

          Bob Waltz
          waltzmn@...
        • Robert B. Waltz
          On Mon, 4 Aug 1997, I myself wrote to this list when I meant to post a private response. You have my apologies. I just assumed the original message was
          Message 4 of 4 , Aug 4, 1997
            On Mon, 4 Aug 1997, I myself wrote to this list when I meant to post
            a private response.

            You have my apologies. I just assumed the original message was off-list.


            Bob Waltz
            waltzmn@...
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.