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

Re: tc-list Herman Hoskier

Expand Messages
  • James J. Cate
    ... Hoskier *only* had to work through 260 mss (usually with about 10 lacunose) in 404 verses of text and still wound up with 600+ pages of work (not to
    Message 1 of 25 , Jan 21, 1998
    • 0 Attachment
      >Hello,
      >
      >I was wondering if anything like Herman Hoskier's work on the book of
      >Revelation has been done. Hoskier collated every known Greek
      >manuscript
      >of the Apocalypse up to 1918? (I think that's about right). This to
      >me
      >seems the correct approach to textual criticism, i.e., the collation
      >of
      >all extant documents including manuscripts, versions, patristic
      >quotations, and lectionaries. Why someone as intelligent as Kurt
      >Aland
      >would simply discard thousands of manuscripts because they originate
      >later than 900A.D. seems absolutely ludicrous. To simply throw out
      >9/10ths of the evidence as being worthless because it doesn't fit in
      >with what John William Burgon calls "the dream" of Westcott and Hort
      >is
      >absurd. The recension theory(ies) need to be proven if they are to be
      >accepted and if they are going to be proven, then the scholars ought
      >to
      >put their money where their mouths are and do to all the books of the
      >New Testament what Hoskier did for the Apocalypse. Perhaps I am wrong
      >and there are some scholars out there who in fact are doing what
      >Hoskier
      >did, but I have to doubt it. If complete collations have been done on
      >any book of the New Testament, I would be interested in knowing where
      >the results might be found.
      >
      >Michael Olszta
      >
      >

      Hoskier *only* had to work through 260 mss (usually with about 10
      lacunose) in 404 verses of text and still wound up with 600+ pages of
      work (not to mention the first volume of the work which commented on the
      findings according to mss groupings). BTW, it was 1929 when his work was
      published. In light of the embarrassment of riches of having 5400+ Greek
      NT mss, working with the earlier mss seems to be the only logistical
      option for the time being. How can someone such as Aland who devoted an
      entire life to the meticulous, laborious analysis of hundreds and
      hundreds of mss be ridiculed for emphasizing the earlier ones?

      Jeff Cate, Ph.D.
      Assoc. Prof. of Christian Studies
      California Baptist College
    • Bart Ehrman
      I should point out that Aland did not simply discard all manuscripts that dated after the year 900 CE. The methods used by the Institut for determining which
      Message 2 of 25 , Jan 21, 1998
      • 0 Attachment
        I should point out that Aland did not simply discard all manuscripts
        that dated after the year 900 CE. The methods used by the Institut for
        determining which manuscripts are the most useful can be found in the
        intro by Aland and Aland, _Text of the NT_, and in the article by Barbara
        Aland and Klaus Wachtel on the "Greek Minuscule MSS of the NT" in the
        volume Mike Holmes and I edited, _The NT in Contemporary Research: Essays
        on the Status Quaestionis" (and in several other publications from the
        Institut).

        I myself am not completely comfortable with the methods used by the
        Institut (for reasons I spell out in an article called "A Case of Textual
        Circularity: The Alands on the Classification of NT MSS" _Biblical_ 70
        [1989] 377-88); but I think it goes much too far to say that they simply
        discard late manuscripts without bothering to consider them (since in fact
        they don't do this at all!).

        -- Bart D. Ehrman, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill


        On Wed, 21 Jan 1998, Michael S. Olszta wrote:

        > Hello,
        >
        > I was wondering if anything like Herman Hoskier's work on the book of
        > Revelation has been done. Hoskier collated every known Greek manuscript
        > of the Apocalypse up to 1918? (I think that's about right). This to me
        > seems the correct approach to textual criticism, i.e., the collation of
        > all extant documents including manuscripts, versions, patristic
        > quotations, and lectionaries. Why someone as intelligent as Kurt Aland
        > would simply discard thousands of manuscripts because they originate
        > later than 900A.D. seems absolutely ludicrous. To simply throw out
        > 9/10ths of the evidence as being worthless because it doesn't fit in
        > with what John William Burgon calls "the dream" of Westcott and Hort is
        > absurd. The recension theory(ies) need to be proven if they are to be
        > accepted and if they are going to be proven, then the scholars ought to
        > put their money where their mouths are and do to all the books of the
        > New Testament what Hoskier did for the Apocalypse. Perhaps I am wrong
        > and there are some scholars out there who in fact are doing what Hoskier
        > did, but I have to doubt it. If complete collations have been done on
        > any book of the New Testament, I would be interested in knowing where
        > the results might be found.
        >
        > Michael Olszta
        >
        >
      • Robert B. Waltz
        At this point, I think it fair to ask Dr./Mr. Olszta to clarify his position. Is he a supporter of the Byzantine/Majority text? Or an enquirer? It makes a
        Message 3 of 25 , Jan 21, 1998
        • 0 Attachment
          At this point, I think it fair to ask Dr./Mr. Olszta to clarify
          his position. Is he a supporter of the Byzantine/Majority text?
          Or an enquirer? It makes a difference in how we answer.

          But let's continue with the response.

          On Wed, 21 Jan 1998, "Michael S. Olszta" <msolszta@...> wrote:

          >Aland says:
          >
          >"They [the Byzantine minuscules] are irrelevant for textual criticism..."
          >
          > Then he says:
          >
          >"Admittedly no adequate history has yet been written of the Byzantine text ..."

          Let me state firmly that I believe in the importance of the Byzantine text.
          It is my opinion that the greatest single need of current NT criticism is
          a good critical edition of the Byzantine text. This would go far toward
          writing the history of the text as well.

          But even so, I agree (by and large) with Aland. The late Byzantine minuscules,
          as opposed to the Byzantine text, have *no importance.* There are, I believe,
          in excess of 2,000 Byzantine minuscules of the Gospels. We don't need that
          many. A representative set will suffice. Trying to slog through all that
          data, with all the trivial variations it contains, can have only one effect:
          To prevent us from engaging in real work.

          A good critical edition will include a large number of Byzantine manuscripts
          (more, e.g., than are found in the NA or UBS editions). But to include them
          in proportion to their numbers is silly.

          >He then goes on to say:
          >
          >"from the fourth century it began to exercise its influence on the other text
          >types."
          >
          >Hmm. They're irrelevent, but we don't know their history . But we do know that
          >their influence on the other text types from the 4th century downward is quite
          >dominating.

          This is true enough, but I don't see that it's relevant. If they have no influence
          prior to that time, they *are* irrelevant prior to that time.

          >Just based on these statements, I would think that such a text form
          >would gain the confidence of those studying the subject.

          This is false logic. Consider a historical analogy: In the twentieth century,
          the Democratic party has generally been the majority party in America. Does
          this mean that it has always been the majority party, or was the original
          party in America? Hardly! The Democratic party was not even founded until
          the time of Andrew Jackson, more than fifty years after the American War of
          Independence.

          Or consider that, in 1600, the vast majority of the world's population regarded
          the sun as going around the earth. Does that mean they were right?

          The fact that the Majority Text is the majority says nothing about its originality.
          It may be original; it may not. But the mere fact that it is the majority text-type
          is completely irrelevant.

          >In fact, readings from
          >the so called "Byzantine" text type find themselves in documents (manuscripts,
          >patristic citations, versions) of the 4th, 3rd, and 2nd centuries, do they not?
          >If that's the case, is it not possible that complete "Byzantine" manuscripts were
          >being used during those centuries but, because of persecution and/or the scribe
          >destroying the manuscript he was copying from, we have no complete
          >representations of this text extant from that time?

          Of course it is possible. So what?

          The arguments you are using have been used before (particularly by Sturz).
          But the existence of Byzantine readings is not evidence. In more instances
          than not, if you count all variants in the NT tradition, the Byzantine
          reading is original. We should expect it to be found in other types.

          Thus to claim that the Byzantine text is older than its earliest commonly
          accepted witnesses, you must find a text which consistently displays the
          readings of the type. So far, none have been presented which predate the
          fourth century.

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

          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)
        • U. Schmid
          ... Dave, I think you are tackling a different issue. My understanding of Mr. O s argument is whether someone (e.g. Aland) is willing to *gather*, *look at*,
          Message 4 of 25 , Jan 21, 1998
          • 0 Attachment
            On Wed, 21 Jan 1998, Dave Washburn wrote:

            >Ulrich wrote:
            >> On Wed, 21 Jan 1998, Michael Olszta wrote in part:
            >>
            >> >Hello,
            >> >
            >> >I was wondering if anything like Herman Hoskier's work on the book of
            >> >Revelation has been done. Hoskier collated every known Greek manuscript
            >> >of the Apocalypse up to 1918? (I think that's about right). This to me
            >> >seems the correct approach to textual criticism, i.e., the collation of
            >> >all extant documents including manuscripts, versions, patristic
            >> >quotations, and lectionaries. Why someone as intelligent as Kurt Aland
            >> >would simply discard thousands of manuscripts because they originate
            >> >later than 900A.D. seems absolutely ludicrous. To simply throw out
            >> >9/10ths of the evidence as being worthless because it doesn't fit in
            >> >with what John William Burgon calls "the dream" of Westcott and Hort is
            >> >absurd.
            >> [snip]
            >>
            >> To me it is really hilarious to charge Kurt Aland of discarding "thousands
            >> of manuscripts". He is in fact the only scholar of the second half of the
            >> 20th century (do not forget von Soden for the beginning of the century) to
            >> *collect* (microfilms of) thousands of manuscripts. At the Muenster
            >> Institute there is practically 95% of the known Greek manuscript evidence
            >> available. Again, more than 90% of it originated later than 900 AD. Why for
            >> heaven's sake can someone even think Aland would simply discard them? Why
            >> should he have made all the efforts to collect them?
            >
            >While I also disagree with Mr. Olszta's evaluation of what is going
            >on (especially the Westcott-Hort part), I don't think that by
            >"discard" he meant to suggest that Aland was literally throwing them
            >in the trash. I am virtually certain that he meant Aland simply
            >ignored these mss. for purposes of TC. Aland's work of collecting
            >them for the Institut actually had little or nothing to do with
            >efforts to reconstruct the earliest form of the NT text, as he
            >dismissed the Byzantines as insignificant for the task. I don't
            >doubt that this is what Mr. O meant by "discard."

            Dave, I think you are tackling a different issue. My understanding of Mr.
            O's argument is whether someone (e.g. Aland) is willing to *gather*, *look
            at*, and *present _all_ the evidence* available or not (see the example of
            Hoskier). This is exactly what Aland planned to do. As Bob Waltz already
            pointed out, there is a huge amount of data involved - even when only
            dealing with test passages - which is very time consuming to collate,
            check, etc. Moreover, one may, of course, dislike the samples chosen. But
            Aland, at least, tried to have spot collations done from every Ms available
            (see Text und Textwert). Whether the gathered information weakened or
            reinforced his initial presuppositions is not at stake.
            BTW- The *editio critica maior* for James (respectively the Catholic
            Epistles) gives full collation of 181 Greek continuous text MSS out of a
            total of 552 MSS available (all spot checked) plus 20 lectionary MSS out of
            a total of some 400 MSS (all checked at 20 verses of James) including the
            state of the art for the Latin, Coptic, and Syriac versions as well as the
            Patristic testimonies. Moreover, scholars can easily and rightly disagree
            on the reconstructed text, but this is a matter of theory and different
            weighing of the evidence. However, never there has been so much evidence
            (full collations!) available for James. Since the remaining continuous text
            and lectionary MSS - not included, but all checked - agree more than 90% of
            the times with the majority of all MSS at the test passages, it is hard to
            imagine what they might contribute in essence to our knowledge of the
            earlier history of the text. If someone prefers the Byzantine text, well
            it's present in the edition with 97 more or less Byzantine Mss, among them,
            of course, the oldest ones. Noone is forced to accept Aland's theoretical
            views and noone must worship a reconstructed text, but, on the other hand,
            noone should ignore the material Aland and the Institut gathered for all
            sorts of dissenting views.

            Ulrich Schmid


            ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Netherlands Institute for Advanced Study
            schmiul@...
          • Robert B. Waltz
            ... It makes an answer in the sense that it decides whether there is any point in arguing. :-) If this is a faith issue, or raised just to trouble the list
            Message 5 of 25 , Jan 21, 1998
            • 0 Attachment
              On Thu, 22 Jan 1998, "Mark O'Brien" <markus@...> wrote:

              >Robert B. Waltz wrote:
              >>
              >> At this point, I think it fair to ask Dr./Mr. Olszta to clarify
              >> his position. Is he a supporter of the Byzantine/Majority text?
              >> Or an enquirer? It makes a difference in how we answer.
              >
              >Why does this make a difference? Surely there is a good reply to his
              >question (or a bad one, I guess!), irrespective of Mr. Olszta's
              >position? I think he raises some good questions regarding the Alands'
              >treatment of the Byzantine tradition, regardless of whatever position
              >you take at all.

              It makes an answer in the sense that it decides whether there is any
              point in arguing. :-) If this is a faith issue, or raised just to trouble
              the list (which is possible), then I don't want to fan the flames.

              The answer to the question, of course, has already been given: No
              matter what one's opinion of the Byzantine tradition (and many are
              possible), the bulk of the Byzantine manuscripts is too large for
              anyone to deal with in its entirety. We have to deal with samples.

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

              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)
            • Robert B. Waltz
              ... Actually, I *don t* agree with that. While I agree, tentatively, with Hort s conclusion that the Byzantine text is late, I think it urgently important that
              Message 6 of 25 , Jan 21, 1998
              • 0 Attachment
                On Thu, 22 Jan 1998, "Mark O'Brien" <markus@...> wrote:

                >Agreed. And, of course, the Byzantine tradition is basically irrelevant,
                >so waste your time, eh? <G>

                Actually, I *don't* agree with that. While I agree, tentatively, with
                Hort's conclusion that the Byzantine text is late, I think it urgently
                important that we study it, simply because the type has influenced so
                many mixed manuscripts.

                And, for that matter, we have to revisit Hort once in a while, to see
                if his results still hold in the light of modern evidence. So far, I
                think they do. But who knows what the next papyrus will bring? :-)

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

                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)
              • Michael S. Olszta
                Dear Gentlemen, It was not my intention to trouble the list as one responder put it. The same writer mentioned it possibly being a faith issue . Somehow I
                Message 7 of 25 , Jan 22, 1998
                • 0 Attachment
                  Dear Gentlemen,

                  It was not my intention to "trouble the list" as one responder put it. The same
                  writer mentioned it possibly being a "faith issue". Somehow I think any
                  settling of the text, whatever method one uses to reach conclusions, is a "faith
                  issue". Obviously the text you "believe" (pisteuw) is a "faith" (pistis) issue
                  because of the fact that you BELIEVE it. I think the question would be: "Why do
                  you believe it?"

                  The writings that have greatly influenced me were authored by Scrivener, Miller,
                  Burgon, Cook, Hoskier, Hills, Pickering, et al. I simply feel that Burgon
                  delivered enough punch to blow away the theories of Westcott & Hort in his The
                  Revision Revised and other writings, and that Hoskier finished him off with
                  Codex Vaticanus and Its Allies. From Aland's own comments, although he
                  obviously doesn't agree with the "textus receptus crew", he speaks differently
                  than he acts:

                  "I, too, have spoken of mixed texts, in connection with the form of the NT text
                  in the second and third centuries, but I have always doen so with a GUILTY
                  CONCIENCE (emphasis mine). For according to the rules of linguistic philology,
                  it is impossible to speak of mixed texts before recensions have been made (they
                  only can follow them), whereas, the NT manuscripts of the second and third
                  centuries which have a "mixed text" clearly existed before recensions were made
                  ... We still live in the world of Westcott and Hort with OUR CONCEPTION
                  (emphasis mine) of different recensions and text-types, although this conception
                  has lost its raison detre, or it needs at least to be newly and convincingly
                  demonstrated. For, the increase of the documentary evidence and the entirely
                  new areas of research whcih were opened to us on the discovery of the papryi,
                  MEAN THE END (emphasis mine) of Westcott and Hort's conception." Pickering
                  citing Aland in True or False, page 233, edited by David Otis Fuller.

                  Yes, it is a "faith issue". It appears that the textus receptus camp has more
                  faith than the recension theory crew. They at least believe the words they have
                  in the text before them. Kurt Aland, with all his learning and skill, still
                  can't make up his mind and I suspect the same condition is to be found among
                  those who follow him.

                  If the above is considered to be "troubl(ing) the list", then I will remove
                  myself accordingly. If, however, you would like to glean a bit of the knowledge
                  I have gained in reading thousands of pages regarding this subject, time
                  permitting, I will continue to give my opinions and will always cite my
                  references.

                  By the way, I am not a Doctor in this field. I just find it very interesting
                  and could only wish that I had time to pursue it more fully.

                  Michael Olszta

                  dwashbur@... wrote:

                  > Ulrich wrote:
                  > > On Wed, 21 Jan 1998, Dave Washburn wrote:
                  > >
                  > [snip]
                  > > >While I also disagree with Mr. Olszta's evaluation of what is going
                  > > >on (especially the Westcott-Hort part), I don't think that by
                  > > >"discard" he meant to suggest that Aland was literally throwing them
                  > > >in the trash. I am virtually certain that he meant Aland simply
                  > > >ignored these mss. for purposes of TC. Aland's work of collecting
                  > > >them for the Institut actually had little or nothing to do with
                  > > >efforts to reconstruct the earliest form of the NT text, as he
                  > > >dismissed the Byzantines as insignificant for the task. I don't
                  > > >doubt that this is what Mr. O meant by "discard."
                  > >
                  > > Dave, I think you are tackling a different issue. My understanding of Mr.
                  > > O's argument is whether someone (e.g. Aland) is willing to *gather*, *look
                  > > at*, and *present _all_ the evidence* available or not (see the example of
                  > > Hoskier). This is exactly what Aland planned to do.
                  >
                  > Agreed. My only point was to clarify what Mr. O meant by "discard."
                  > Yes, Aland did much to further this project, but it's also true that,
                  > *for purposes of recovering the original text*, he dismissed the
                  > entire body out of hand (see the quote that Mr. O posted). It is in
                  > this very narrow sense that the term "discard" was used.
                  >
                  > > Noone is forced to accept Aland's theoretical
                  > > views and noone must worship a reconstructed text, but, on the other hand,
                  > > noone should ignore the material Aland and the Institut gathered for all
                  > > sorts of dissenting views.
                  >
                  > Agreed. I can appreciate Mr. O's viewpoint WRT the
                  > Byzantine/Majority text thing because I've been there. Ultimately I
                  > wound up as a semi-eclectic (don't ask what I mean by that term
                  > unless you have a LOT of time for my answer!), but I do understand
                  > the reasoning, the suggested evidence, and some of the puzzlement at
                  > the approach of certain eclectics, having seen these things from the
                  > "inside."
                  > Dave Washburn
                  > dwashbur@...
                  > http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur/
                  > If you don't know where you're going, don't lead.
                • Robert B. Waltz
                  ... As the aforesaid responder, I suppose I should clarify as best I can. I ll try not to get too out of control -- though I will likely fail as this whole
                  Message 8 of 25 , Jan 22, 1998
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On Thu, 22 Jan 1998, "Michael S. Olszta" <msolszta@...> wrote:

                    >Dear Gentlemen,
                    >
                    >It was not my intention to "trouble the list" as one responder put it.

                    As the aforesaid responder, I suppose I should clarify as best I can.
                    I'll try not to get too out of control -- though I will likely fail
                    as this whole subject really bothers me.

                    >The same
                    >writer mentioned it possibly being a "faith issue". Somehow I think any
                    >settling of the text, whatever method one uses to reach conclusions, is a "faith
                    >issue". Obviously the text you "believe" (pisteuw) is a "faith" (pistis) issue
                    >because of the fact that you BELIEVE it. I think the question would be: "Why do
                    >you believe it?"

                    I've seen statements to this effect before, and they always trouble me. Textual
                    criticism should be done without faith assumptions. Obviously one should believe
                    in one's methods. But there is no theoretical reason why NT TC should be different
                    from TC applied to the classics. (There are practical reasons, having to do with
                    the number of manuscripts, but that's beside the point.) Faith should not play
                    any part in one's reconstruction of the text.

                    >The writings that have greatly influenced me were authored by Scrivener, Miller,
                    >Burgon, Cook, Hoskier, Hills, Pickering, et al.

                    Surely you are not of the opinion that all of the above authors hold the same
                    views! Scrivener generally preferred the Byzantine text, but he was eclectic
                    and had great respect for the old manuscripts. Burgon (apart from his more than
                    slightly uncivil writing style) believed entirely in the Majority Text -- but
                    believed in reconstructing it, and did good work in examining manuscripts.
                    Hills, by contrast, believes only in the King James version and the Textus
                    Receptus (which is by no means the same as the Majority Text). Pickering is
                    not even a textual critic (and, speaking as one trained in mathematics, his
                    book is a bunch of hogwash).

                    It is possible to hold that the Byzantine text is the original or a very early
                    text form. Most of us will disagree with you, but it is a valid position. But
                    to hold, with Hills and Pickering, that the Textus Receptus has any authority
                    whatsoever -- is to declare that you are unwilling to practice textual criticism.

                    [ ... ]

                    >Yes, it is a "faith issue". It appears that the textus receptus camp has more
                    >faith than the recension theory crew. They at least believe the words they have
                    >in the text before them.

                    I'm not going to get into the question of "more faith" or "better faith." It is
                    irrelevant.

                    But I will say this: Textual criticism must be approached as a science. We must
                    look for rules and apply them consistently. Rigour is the key here -- and a faith
                    approach denies rigour.

                    You are welcome to ignore science. But if you wish to do so, should you not
                    also be avoiding computers and electric lights and all the other things that
                    science discovered and faith did not?

                    (For the record: I freely admit that I have no use whatsoever for those who
                    take Genesis literally or the like.)

                    >Kurt Aland, with all his learning and skill, still
                    >can't make up his mind and I suspect the same condition is to be found among
                    >those who follow him.

                    Not many of us follow Kurt Aland -- as will be seen by the discussions on this
                    list. It may appear from the outside that we do so -- our texts are more like
                    his than they are like the KJV. But believe me, our approaches are different.

                    >If the above is considered to be "troubl(ing) the list", then I will remove
                    >myself accordingly. If, however, you would like to glean a bit of the knowledge
                    >I have gained in reading thousands of pages regarding this subject, time
                    >permitting, I will continue to give my opinions and will always cite my
                    >references.

                    This list is devoted to textual criticism. If you are willing to discuss
                    criticism, then you are welcome. We need people to shake us up. But you must
                    be willing to be critical. :-)

                    As a rule of thumb, I would consider it reasonable to cite Scrivener or
                    Hoskier. Burgon is may be cited when he talks about manuscripts (but not
                    when he is calling B "scandalously corrupt" or the like, and not when
                    he is spewing vitriol). Hills or Pickering are out. Also, if you want
                    to cite Aland, try to cite Aland from his own writings, not out-of-
                    context quotations.

                    And -- to return to the original point -- while it is reasonable to
                    support the Byzantine text as original (dead wrong, but reasonable :-),
                    it is still impossible to collate every manuscript.

                    >By the way, I am not a Doctor in this field. I just find it very interesting
                    >and could only wish that I had time to pursue it more fully.

                    With that I have no argument. I'm not a doctor in this or any field, either.

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

                    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)
                  • Kennedy, Michael
                    Michael Olszta said: ...Yes, it is a faith issue . It appears that the textus receptus camp has more faith than the recension theory crew. They at least
                    Message 9 of 25 , Jan 22, 1998
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Michael Olszta said:

                      "...Yes, it is a "faith issue". It appears that the textus receptus
                      camp has more faith than the recension theory crew. They at least
                      believe the words they have in the text before them. Kurt Aland, with
                      all his learning and skill, still can't make up his mind and I suspect
                      the same condition is to be found among those who follow him."


                      And in response:

                      It is not about faith -- but the work of the text critic can inform the
                      faithful.

                      Westcott and Hort's theories of TC are open to debate. Aland was not
                      speaking about abandoning these theories. On the contrary, further work
                      has largely confirmed the pioneering work of Westcott and Hort.
                      Modification of these theories continue as new evidence points to new
                      ideas. But the general theory is still regarded as trustworthy. This is
                      not to say the Westcott and Hort, Aland, et al., were right on all
                      points. And sometimes their polemical arguments makes them quotable to
                      their pundits!

                      But by and large, this list follows the tradition of reasoned
                      ecclecticism. And exceptions abound.


                      Michael L. Kennedy
                      Phoenix, AZ
                    • Mark O'Brien
                      ... Why does this make a difference? Surely there is a good reply to his question (or a bad one, I guess!), irrespective of Mr. Olszta s position? I think he
                      Message 10 of 25 , Jan 22, 1998
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Robert B. Waltz wrote:
                        >
                        > At this point, I think it fair to ask Dr./Mr. Olszta to clarify
                        > his position. Is he a supporter of the Byzantine/Majority text?
                        > Or an enquirer? It makes a difference in how we answer.

                        Why does this make a difference? Surely there is a good reply to his
                        question (or a bad one, I guess!), irrespective of Mr. Olszta's
                        position? I think he raises some good questions regarding the Alands'
                        treatment of the Byzantine tradition, regardless of whatever position
                        you take at all.

                        Regards,

                        M.
                        --
                        Rev. Mark B. O'Brien
                        Subiaco Church of Christ, 260 Bagot Rd, Subiaco, WA 6008, Australia

                        (Hm) 08-9344-3327 (Fx) 08-9388-1042
                        (Wk) 08-9388-1030 Email: markus@...
                      • Mark O'Brien
                        ... Agreed. And, of course, the Byzantine tradition is basically irrelevant, so waste your time, eh? M. ... When we consider a book, we mustn t ask
                        Message 11 of 25 , Jan 22, 1998
                        • 0 Attachment
                          At 07:45 PM 1/21/98 -0600, you wrote:
                          >On Thu, 22 Jan 1998, "Mark O'Brien" <markus@...> wrote:
                          >
                          >>Robert B. Waltz wrote:
                          >>>
                          >>> At this point, I think it fair to ask Dr./Mr. Olszta to clarify
                          >>> his position. Is he a supporter of the Byzantine/Majority text?
                          >>> Or an enquirer? It makes a difference in how we answer.
                          >>
                          >>Why does this make a difference? Surely there is a good reply to his
                          >>question (or a bad one, I guess!), irrespective of Mr. Olszta's
                          >>position? I think he raises some good questions regarding the Alands'
                          >>treatment of the Byzantine tradition, regardless of whatever position
                          >>you take at all.
                          >
                          >It makes an answer in the sense that it decides whether there is any
                          >point in arguing. :-) If this is a faith issue, or raised just to trouble
                          >the list (which is possible), then I don't want to fan the flames.
                          >
                          >The answer to the question, of course, has already been given: No
                          >matter what one's opinion of the Byzantine tradition (and many are
                          >possible), the bulk of the Byzantine manuscripts is too large for
                          >anyone to deal with in its entirety. We have to deal with samples.

                          Agreed. And, of course, the Byzantine tradition is basically irrelevant,
                          so waste your time, eh? <G>

                          M.

                          -----
                          "When we consider a book, we mustn't ask ourselves what it says but what it
                          means."
                          -- Brother William of Baskerville
                          (Umberto Eco, "The Name of the Rose")
                          -----
                          Rev. Mark B. O'Brien
                          Assoc. Pastor, Subiaco Church of Christ, Western Australia
                          Lecturer, South Perth Christian College, Western Australia

                          markus@...
                        • Mike and Jeanne Arcieri
                          ... Michael, May I make a small suggestion? In your discussion of the Byz text, the TR and W&H, you should disassociate Burgon-Miller-Scrivener-Hoskier from
                          Message 12 of 25 , Jan 22, 1998
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Michael S. Olszta wrote:
                            >
                            > Dear Gentlemen,
                            >
                            >
                            > The writings that have greatly influenced me were authored by Scrivener, Miller,
                            > Burgon, Cook, Hoskier, Hills, Pickering, et al. I simply feel that Burgon
                            > delivered enough punch to blow away the theories of Westcott & Hort in his The
                            > Revision Revised and other writings, and that Hoskier finished him off with
                            > Codex Vaticanus and Its Allies.

                            > Yes, it is a "faith issue". It appears that the textus receptus camp has more
                            > faith than the recension theory crew. They at least believe the words they have
                            > in the text before them. Kurt Aland, with all his learning and skill, still
                            > can't make up his mind and I suspect the same condition is to be found among
                            > those who follow him.
                            >

                            Michael,

                            May I make a small suggestion? In your discussion of the Byz text, the TR and W&H, you should disassociate
                            Burgon-Miller-Scrivener-Hoskier from the TR camp, since Burgon et al. were _Textual Critics_ who collated
                            many MSS, systematically applied TC Canons to determine the 'original text', and based "all" their
                            decisions on the MSS evidence.

                            This is something Hills, Fuller, Waite and the rest of the TR boys have never done, and will never do. It
                            is the TR people who first make an assumption and them force the evidence to fit the assumption (ie. the
                            TR is the Word of God, so lets find the evidence to 'prove' it). The TR camp is not really using the MSS
                            evidence to determine the 'original text'--they have already made up their minds that the KJV is the
                            autograph in English. They are not intellectually honest and have no scholarly intergrity (my opinion). It
                            is the TR people who use 'faith' arguments more than everyone else combined, simply because their position
                            is so untenable that they must use meaningless claims--claims which cannot be proven/disproven.

                            Burgon-Miller-Scrivener-Hoskier and modern advocates of the Byz text (Hodges, Robinson/Pierpont, van
                            Bruggen, etc) have nothing in common with the TR people, and thank God for it.


                            Mike
                          • Ronald Minton
                            ... manuscripts.... Robert, thanks for your many contributions and this note. Some KJV defenders claim Burgon was KJVO or that he was TR only. Yet Burgon
                            Message 13 of 25 , Jan 22, 1998
                            • 0 Attachment
                              On Thu, 22 Jan 1998, Robert B. Waltz wrote:
                              > ... Burgon ... believed entirely in the Majority Text -- but
                              > believed in reconstructing it, and did good work in examining
                              manuscripts....

                              Robert, thanks for your many contributions and this note. Some KJV
                              defenders claim Burgon was KJVO or that he was TR only. Yet Burgon
                              believed that both the TR and the KJV needed revision. His "traditional
                              text" was basically the Byzantine or majority, NOT THE TR as some claim!

                              --
                              Prof. Ron Minton: rminton@... W (417)268-6053 H 833-9581
                              Baptist Bible Graduate School 628 E. Kearney St. Springfield, MO 65803
                            • Robert B. Waltz
                              ... It s worth noting that moderns such as Maurice Robinson, who edited a modern edition of the Majority Text, are followers primarily of Burgon. I think
                              Message 14 of 25 , Jan 22, 1998
                              • 0 Attachment
                                On Thu, 22 Jan 1998, Ronald Minton <rminton@...> wrote:

                                >On Thu, 22 Jan 1998, Robert B. Waltz wrote:
                                >> ... Burgon ... believed entirely in the Majority Text -- but
                                >> believed in reconstructing it, and did good work in examining
                                >manuscripts....
                                >
                                >Robert, thanks for your many contributions and this note. Some KJV
                                >defenders claim Burgon was KJVO or that he was TR only. Yet Burgon
                                >believed that both the TR and the KJV needed revision. His "traditional
                                >text" was basically the Byzantine or majority, NOT THE TR as some claim!

                                It's worth noting that moderns such as Maurice Robinson, who edited
                                a modern edition of the Majority Text, are followers primarily of
                                Burgon.

                                I think Burgon believed that the Majority Text would prove closer
                                to the TR than in fact it did. But I think he had enough intellectual
                                honesty that he would have adopted a text such as Hodges & Farstad
                                or Pierpont & Robinson had it been available.

                                Burgon really did do good work. The problem is, his writings were so
                                incredibly inflammatory that he simultaneously made himself almost
                                unreadable AND masked his contributions.

                                Which should, perhaps, be a warning to all of us on this list
                                (and I include myself) who are too touchy....

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

                                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)
                              • Michael S. Olszta
                                ... Hello Mike, I don t disagree with you that the TR Crew believes that the TR is the correct text and that they look for evidence to support this belief.
                                Message 15 of 25 , Jan 22, 1998
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Mike and Jeanne Arcieri wrote:

                                  > Michael,
                                  >
                                  > May I make a small suggestion? In your discussion of the Byz text, the TR and W&H, you should disassociate
                                  > Burgon-Miller-Scrivener-Hoskier from the TR camp, since Burgon et al. were _Textual Critics_ who collated
                                  > many MSS, systematically applied TC Canons to determine the 'original text', and based "all" their
                                  > decisions on the MSS evidence.
                                  >
                                  > This is something Hills, Fuller, Waite and the rest of the TR boys have never done, and will never do. It
                                  > is the TR people who first make an assumption and them force the evidence to fit the assumption (ie. the
                                  > TR is the Word of God, so lets find the evidence to 'prove' it). The TR camp is not really using the MSS
                                  > evidence to determine the 'original text'--they have already made up their minds that the KJV is the
                                  > autograph in English. They are not intellectually honest and have no scholarly intergrity (my opinion). It
                                  > is the TR people who use 'faith' arguments more than everyone else combined, simply because their position
                                  > is so untenable that they must use meaningless claims--claims which cannot be proven/disproven.
                                  >
                                  > Burgon-Miller-Scrivener-Hoskier and modern advocates of the Byz text (Hodges, Robinson/Pierpont, van
                                  > Bruggen, etc) have nothing in common with the TR people, and thank God for it.
                                  >
                                  > Mike

                                  Hello Mike,

                                  I don't disagree with you that the "TR Crew" believes that the TR is the correct text and that they look for
                                  evidence to support this belief. However, on the other side of the coin are the likes of Aland, Metzger, and
                                  the many others who subscribe to the hypothesis of Westcott & Hort. There objectivity ceases or is confined
                                  to the manuscripts which only produce the type of text that is "somewhat" consistent with the hypothesis they
                                  subscribe to. Once again, read the words of Kurt Aland regarding the Byzantine text::


                                  "They are irrelevant for textual criticicism, at least for establishing the
                                  original form of the text and its development in the early centuries. Admittedly
                                  no adequate history has yet been written of the Byzantine text - a text which is
                                  in no sense a monolithic mass because its manuscripts share the same range of
                                  variation characteristic of all Greek New Testament manuscripts. But this is a
                                  task we may well leave to a future generation ... and consider our own generation
                                  fortunate if we can succeed in tracing the history of manuscripts with
                                  non-Byzantine texts ... Once this has been done the way will be clear for a
                                  better appreciation of the Byzantine text, for from the fourth century it began
                                  to exercise its influence on the other text types. In fact, the "Majority text"
                                  ... may yet prove to hold a multiple significance for the history of the text."
                                  The Text of the New Testament, Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, Page 155.

                                  You see Mike, what you state about the TR crew is just as true with the "Critical Text" crew, except on the
                                  opposite side. And that was the purpose of my first post, namely to find out if anyone was doing collation
                                  work such as Hoskier did with the Apocalypse. Until the "ditch is dug, the pipes can't be layed." But
                                  digging ditches is not easy nor "fun" work, i.e., collating manuscripts. Listen to Hoskier quoting Souter as
                                  the latter challenged Hoskier:

                                  "He ended by expressing gratitude for my collations of manuscripts as such, but added some very strong advice
                                  to hold my tongue as regarded commenting on the evidence so painfully asccumulated, which he and others would
                                  use - but which I must not use or discuss." Which Bible, page 134, citing Hoskier's Codex B And Its Allies.

                                  I freely admit that I am not qualified to do such collating because of the lack of linguistic training to do
                                  such. However, men such as Kurt Aland have that training and ability to do such and it seems to me a travesty
                                  when the "unproven" hypothesis of Westcott and Hort guides their thinking in the way they classify
                                  manuscripts. They have a preset standard on what is to be accepted as the true NT text just as the TR folks
                                  have theirs. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, Mike.

                                  Burgon established 7 notes of truth which, if you have read them, make a lot of sense. However, for these 7
                                  notes of truth to work, exact information is needed from extant manuscripts to use these notes of truth for
                                  determining the true text of scripture.

                                  That's all I wanted to say in the first place and I really think it is time for me to shut my mouth also.
                                  Perhaps if all the time spent theorizing was spent in the collation of manuscripts, we might have a much
                                  better base of information to work from. Since very few, if any, are making a concentrated effort in the
                                  exact collation of the manuscripts that are extant, then I suppose it will be the TR crew against the Critical
                                  Text crew for years and years to come. Judging by the evidence that has been gathered along with the fact
                                  that when the textus receptus was formed and translated into the languages of the common people, the yoke of
                                  bondage placed upon men's souls by the Roman catholic church began to be systematically taken apart, I will
                                  stay on the side of the TR advocates. Not only are the bulk of manuscripts on their side, but history and
                                  correct theology is as well. I realize that this position will not sit well with those participating on this
                                  list, so I am promptly removing myself after this posting. Further discussion on the subject from my point of
                                  view is futile seeing it is based mainly on the labours of those who hold to the Traditional Text belief (yes,
                                  it has to do with faith no matter how much you want to minimize such an argument!), and as far as I am
                                  concerned, those who argue with recension theories as their basis are in reality in a worse place than I am.

                                  I am willing to subject the textus receptus to a scrutiny after a fair sampling of the evidence has been
                                  presented. Unfortunately, those who agree with Aland regarding the Byzantine tradition, have shown themselves
                                  to be completely close minded to any kind of scrutiny since they have pretty much obliterated 80% of the
                                  evidence to start with and this, based upon some theory (Burgon calls it a dream!) which has never, ever been
                                  proven. Even Aland speaks of it as being against the rules of linguistics.

                                  Thank you for your time and your responses to my postings.

                                  Michael Olszta
                                • Robert B. Waltz
                                  ... This is not the point that Mike Arcieri was making (and which I made earlier). The point is that there are *two* groups who oppose the modern eclectic
                                  Message 16 of 25 , Jan 22, 1998
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    On Thu, 22 Jan 1998, "Michael S. Olszta" <msolszta@...> wrote:

                                    >Hello Mike,
                                    >
                                    >I don't disagree with you that the "TR Crew" believes that the TR is the correct text and that they look for
                                    >evidence to support this belief. However, on the other side of the coin are the likes of Aland, Metzger, and
                                    >the many others who subscribe to the hypothesis of Westcott & Hort. There objectivity ceases or is confined
                                    >to the manuscripts which only produce the type of text that is "somewhat" consistent with the hypothesis they
                                    >subscribe to. Once again, read the words of Kurt Aland regarding the Byzantine text::

                                    This is not the point that Mike Arcieri was making (and which I made earlier).
                                    The point is that there are *two* groups who oppose the modern eclectic
                                    school (which, BTW, is not the same as the Westcott & Hort school). One
                                    group consists of legitimate textual critics such as Scrivener, Hoskier,
                                    Robinson, Sturz, Wisselink, and Burgon. The members of this group believe,
                                    to a greater or lesser extent, in the originality of the Byzantine text.
                                    (Though it might be noted that they all offer different reasons for adhering
                                    to this text-type.)

                                    On the other hand there are people (I cannot call them scholars) such as
                                    Hills and Letis who believe in the Textus Receptus and the King James
                                    Version. Their discussions are based on meaningless arguments such as
                                    "providential preservation," and do not lead to any useful results. Moreover,
                                    to associate such people with noble and honest scholars such as Scrivener
                                    is to insult the names of the scholars mentioned in the first paragraph.

                                    [ ... ]

                                    >You see Mike, what you state about the TR crew is just as true with the "Critical Text" crew, except on the
                                    >opposite side.

                                    Nonsense. The TR defenders refuse to examine the manuscripts. Whatever else
                                    one says, Aland has encouraged more study of the manuscripts than anyone since
                                    Tischendorf.

                                    [ ... ]

                                    >I freely admit that I am not qualified to do such collating because of the lack of linguistic training to do
                                    >such. However, men such as Kurt Aland have that training and ability to do such and it seems to me a travesty
                                    >when the "unproven" hypothesis of Westcott and Hort guides their thinking in the way they classify
                                    >manuscripts. They have a preset standard on what is to be accepted as the true NT text just as the TR folks
                                    >have theirs. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, Mike.

                                    Again, this is unfair. It is true that the texts published by Aland follow
                                    his theories (what, you expected him to follow yours?). But he and his
                                    colleagues *examined* almost every manuscript. For this he deserved immense
                                    gratitude. If he examines a manuscript and dismisses it as Byzantine, it
                                    is only because of him that you know with certainty that it is Byzantine.

                                    You have every right to say that Aland is wrong and that the Byzantine text
                                    is original. You cannot say he has not examined those manuscripts.

                                    >Burgon established 7 notes of truth which, if you have read them, make a lot of sense. However, for these 7
                                    >notes of truth to work, exact information is needed from extant manuscripts to use these notes of truth for
                                    >determining the true text of scripture.

                                    Let's examine those notes of truth. (I'm using Pickering's version, from _The
                                    Identity of the New Testament Text_, pp. 129-138; I don't have Burgon's version
                                    to hand):

                                    1. Antiquity. A reading must be old.
                                    Universally accepted. In fact, modern eclectics accept this more than
                                    did Burgon. Burgon would accept a reading attested only in manuscripts
                                    of the ninth century as old. Scrivener preferred the sixth. Westcott and
                                    Hort, on the other hand, usually demanded fourth century attestation,
                                    and Aland looks for attestation from the third and second centuries.
                                    2. Consent of witnesses, or number.
                                    Easily refuted. What constitutes a majority? Consider that Vulgate
                                    manuscripts outnumber continuous Greek witnesses by three or four to
                                    one. Does this mean we should accept only readings found in the Vulgate
                                    witnesses? Even if one has some silly democratic notion that the
                                    majority is always right, that is the logical conclusion of your argument.
                                    3. Variety of witnesses.
                                    This rule is followed far more by eclectics than by Burgon. Steeter,
                                    for example, argued for the reading supported by the most geographically
                                    widespread witnesses. I argue for the reading supported by the greatest
                                    number of text-types.
                                    4. Continuity, or unbroken tradition: A reading should be attested over a
                                    long period of time.
                                    Why? Even if one accepts the account in Genesis, the truth about
                                    Jesus and the Trinity has only been known for one-third of history.
                                    Why should the New Testament text be any different? In any case,
                                    Burgon would accept a reading attested only from the ninth through
                                    fifteenth centuries. How is this different from accepting one
                                    attested from the fourth through tenth?
                                    5. Respectability of witnesses
                                    Also universally accepted. The only difference is that not all of
                                    us agree with Burgon as to what is "respectable." But until proof
                                    of respectability is offered, you have to allow us our right to
                                    figure that out for ourselves.
                                    6. Context
                                    Essentially the same as the preceding, and subject to the same
                                    objections
                                    7. Reasonableness
                                    Pickering refers this to such things as "scientific impossibility."
                                    (What? Science is allowed? Since when?) This is accepted by
                                    every scholar I know of; at least, I know of no instance where
                                    scholars accepted nonsense readings when a sensible alternative
                                    was at hand.

                                    Thus you will see that modern eclectics agree with the majority of
                                    Burgon's notes. The difference is not in the rules, but in
                                    their application.

                                    [ ... ]

                                    >I am willing to subject the textus receptus to a scrutiny after a fair sampling of the evidence has been
                                    >presented. Unfortunately, those who agree with Aland regarding the Byzantine tradition, have shown themselves
                                    >to be completely close minded to any kind of scrutiny since they have pretty much obliterated 80% of the
                                    >evidence to start with and this, based upon some theory (Burgon calls it a dream!) which has never, ever been
                                    >proven.

                                    This is another exaggeration. The Alands have not obliterated the evidence; they
                                    have simply selected a subset.

                                    Compare it to political polling. Suppose a political leader wants to
                                    consult the opinion of the population. He/she cannot hold an election
                                    every day and ask dozens of questions along the lines of "Do you
                                    think egg inspectors should examine every sixth or every tenth egg?"
                                    Instead, they take polls to get the sense of the popular opinion.

                                    The Byzantine tradition is represented in modern critical apparati,
                                    and the Byzantine witnesses are consulted (not enough, perhaps,
                                    but consulted). Checking a thousand more Byzantine manuscripts
                                    is not going to change the fact that certain readings are Byzantine
                                    and some are not.

                                    Enough of this. I can't argue with someone's faith, after all....

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

                                    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)
                                  • Bruce Morrill
                                    ... The INTF s collation contributions need no defense to anyone knowledgable of the field. Allow me to repeat the appeal for volunteers for the IGNTP s work
                                    Message 17 of 25 , Jan 23, 1998
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      On Thu, 22 Jan 1998, Michael S. Olszta wrote:
                                      > That's all I wanted to say in the first place and I really think it is time for me to shut my mouth also.
                                      > Perhaps if all the time spent theorizing was spent in the collation of manuscripts, we might have a much
                                      > better base of information to work from. Since very few, if any, are making a concentrated effort in the
                                      > exact collation of the manuscripts that are extant, then I suppose it will be the TR crew against the Critical
                                      > Text crew for years and years to come.

                                      The INTF's collation contributions need no defense to anyone knowledgable
                                      of the field. Allow me to repeat the appeal for volunteers for the
                                      IGNTP's work on the gospel of John -- no theoretical or faith
                                      presuppositions required! Qualified collators only, please.

                                      Bruce Morrill bruce@...
                                    • dwashbur@nyx.net
                                      ... [snip] ... Agreed. My only point was to clarify what Mr. O meant by discard. Yes, Aland did much to further this project, but it s also true that, *for
                                      Message 18 of 25 , Jan 24, 1998
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Ulrich wrote:
                                        > On Wed, 21 Jan 1998, Dave Washburn wrote:
                                        >
                                        [snip]
                                        > >While I also disagree with Mr. Olszta's evaluation of what is going
                                        > >on (especially the Westcott-Hort part), I don't think that by
                                        > >"discard" he meant to suggest that Aland was literally throwing them
                                        > >in the trash. I am virtually certain that he meant Aland simply
                                        > >ignored these mss. for purposes of TC. Aland's work of collecting
                                        > >them for the Institut actually had little or nothing to do with
                                        > >efforts to reconstruct the earliest form of the NT text, as he
                                        > >dismissed the Byzantines as insignificant for the task. I don't
                                        > >doubt that this is what Mr. O meant by "discard."
                                        >
                                        > Dave, I think you are tackling a different issue. My understanding of Mr.
                                        > O's argument is whether someone (e.g. Aland) is willing to *gather*, *look
                                        > at*, and *present _all_ the evidence* available or not (see the example of
                                        > Hoskier). This is exactly what Aland planned to do.

                                        Agreed. My only point was to clarify what Mr. O meant by "discard."
                                        Yes, Aland did much to further this project, but it's also true that,
                                        *for purposes of recovering the original text*, he dismissed the
                                        entire body out of hand (see the quote that Mr. O posted). It is in
                                        this very narrow sense that the term "discard" was used.

                                        > Noone is forced to accept Aland's theoretical
                                        > views and noone must worship a reconstructed text, but, on the other hand,
                                        > noone should ignore the material Aland and the Institut gathered for all
                                        > sorts of dissenting views.

                                        Agreed. I can appreciate Mr. O's viewpoint WRT the
                                        Byzantine/Majority text thing because I've been there. Ultimately I
                                        wound up as a semi-eclectic (don't ask what I mean by that term
                                        unless you have a LOT of time for my answer!), but I do understand
                                        the reasoning, the suggested evidence, and some of the puzzlement at
                                        the approach of certain eclectics, having seen these things from the
                                        "inside."
                                        Dave Washburn
                                        dwashbur@...
                                        http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur/
                                        If you don't know where you're going, don't lead.
                                      • Ronald L. Minton
                                        I am looking for information on Georg Pasor (spelling uncertain). I saw a note that he may have made a Greek/Latin N.T. about 1619. Any sources or
                                        Message 19 of 25 , Jan 29, 1998
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          I am looking for information on Georg Pasor (spelling uncertain). I saw a
                                          note that he may have made a Greek/Latin N.T. about 1619. Any sources or
                                          information will be appreciated.

                                          --
                                          Prof. Ron Minton: rminton@... W (417)268-6053 H 833-9581
                                          Baptist Bible Graduate School 628 E. Kearney St. Springfield, MO 65803
                                        • GLINCOLN @ LBC * GLINCOLN
                                          FORWARDED MESSAGE from Ronald L. Minton (rminton @ mail.orion.org) at RM 1/29/98 7:21 PM RM I am looking for information on Georg Pasor (spelling uncertain).
                                          Message 20 of 25 , Jan 30, 1998
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            FORWARDED MESSAGE from Ronald L. Minton (rminton @ mail.orion.org) at
                                            RM> 1/29/98 7:21 PM
                                            RM> I am looking for information on Georg Pasor (spelling uncertain). I
                                            RM> saw a
                                            RM> note that he may have made a Greek/Latin N.T. about 1619. Any sources
                                            RM> or
                                            RM> information will be appreciated.
                                            RM>
                                            RM> --
                                            RM> Prof. Ron Minton: rminton@... W (417)268-6053 H 833-9581
                                            RM> Baptist Bible Graduate School 628 E. Kearney St. Springfield, MO 65803
                                            ***** NOTES from GLINCOLN (GLINCOLN @ LBC) at 1/30/98 11:31 AM
                                            Below are two records that are cataloged as if they include a Greek New
                                            Testament. The bibliographic information is in tags 245 and 260. The OCLC
                                            numbers are included if you desired to have your librarians track them
                                            down.

                                            OCLC is a much richer source to search because it includes nearly 20,000
                                            libraries from every continent except Antartica. For manuscripts and
                                            incunabula it may be necessary to search the European libraries
                                            individually as already posted becuase they are only recently adding their
                                            records to the OCLC database.

                                            OCLC: 37160226

                                            � 5 130 0 Bible. �p N.T. �l Greek. �f 1674. Y
                                            � 6 245 10 E Kain�e Diath�ek�e. Novum testamentum. Huic editioni omnia
                                            difficiliorum vocabulorum themata, quae in Georgii Pasoris Lexico
                                            grammati�ce
                                            resolvuntur, in margine apposuit Carolus Hoole, in eorum scilicet gratiam,
                                            qui
                                            prima graecae linguae tyrocinia faciunt... Y
                                            � 7 260 Londini, �b Excudebat Andr. Clark, pro Sam. Mearne, Joan.
                                            Martyn, & Hen. Herringman, �c 1674. Y
                                            � 8 300 [648] p. �c 15 cm. Y




                                            OCLC: 20117685

                                            Rec stat: n
                                            � 5 130 0 Bible. �p N.T. �l Greek. �f 1653. Y
                                            � 6 245 03 H�e Kain�e Diath�ek�e. = Novum Testamentum. / �c Huic
                                            editioni
                                            omnia difficiliorum vocabulorum themata, qu� in Georgii Pasoris lexico
                                            grammatic�e resolvuntur, in margine apposuit Carolvs Hoole. ; In eorum
                                            scilicet gratiam, qui prima Gr�c� lingu� tyrocinia faciunt. Y
                                            � 7 260 Londini, : �b Excudebat R. Nortonus pro Josh. Kyrton ..., �c

                                            1653. Y
                                            � 8 300 [324+] p. ; �c 15 cm. (12mo) Y
                                            � 9 500 Title proper romanized from Greek. Y

                                            Gerald E. Lincoln *****************************
                                            Library Director Voice (717) 560-8250 Ext. 362
                                            Lancaster Bible College FAX (717) 560-8213
                                            901 Eden Rd. e-mail glincoln@...
                                            Lancaster, PA 17601 *****************************
                                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.