Re: And the Winner Is....
- View SourceOn Mon, 4 Aug 1997, you wrote:
>Dear Mr WaltzI corrected some errors in the HTML yesterday. Beyond that, all I can
>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.... :-)
say is that the page works on my machine. :-)
>> I will repeat my appeal: If you have anything to add, let meThank you.
>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
>b) concerning Origen: Is it so clear that he knew Hebrew? SidneyWell -- he *did* produce the Hexapla. Conceding that his Hebrew
>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..."
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 hisOK.
>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
>When discussing the use of Fathers in TC, you describe three problemsI thought I had said that. :-) I will try to make it clearer.
>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 MatthewI will try to find these books. I may not succeed; I have access to
>> 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
>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!
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.
- View SourceOn 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.