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

tc-list KJ or not KJ

Expand Messages
  • Vinton A. Dearing
    What helps did the King James translators turn to when they translated the Hebrew Bible? They said themselves in their preface that they used every available
    Message 1 of 16 , Jul 15, 1998
      What helps did the King James translators turn to when they
      translated the Hebrew Bible? They said themselves in their preface
      that they used every available help. That should settle the question.
      Attempts to prove that they did what they said they did are more
      difficult, and I do not find Ronald Minton's of July 5 convincing.
      We do not know, for instance, what edition of the MT the
      translators used, or even that all members of the committee used the
      same one. And what edition of 1611 do we mean? The one that has "he
      went" in Ruth 3:15 or the one that has "she went"? And, for that
      matter, how do we know that when these two editions agree they always
      give what the translators intended their readers to see? In sixteenth
      and seventeenth century printing we cannot be sure that any edition
      of any book has every copy identical. Minute correspondences and
      differences, then, are not of themselves convincing. Specialists in
      editing the literature of the period compare as many copies of each
      edition in their purview as they can; all the surviving copies of
      Shakespeare's First Folio have been compared letter by letter,
      punctuation mark by punctuation mark, using an optical machine, the
      Hinman collator, named after its inventor, that makes even differences
      in spacing immediately obvious. No such work has been done on early
      editions of the MT or the KJV to my knowledge.
      I spent an hour this morning looking at a microfilm of the copy
      of KJV 1611 with "he went" in the Cambridge University Library. I
      shall call it CUL. My desk copy of KJV, American Bible Society, n.d.,
      I shall call ABS. Since I am anything but a Hebrew scholar I
      confined myself to the three instances of the divine name referred to
      by Minton. For the readings of the MT I used my desk copy of Snaith's
      edition, 1958, in the full knowledge that the King James translators had
      something else in front of them, if not several something elses.
      What did I find?
      Minton says that in Ex. 34:23 the MT reads "the Lord, the Lord
      God," whereas KJV reads "the Lord God, the God." Snaith reads "the
      Lord, the God of Israel," where Lord is YHWH with the vowels of
      adonai. CUL reads "the Lord God, the God of Israel," where the first
      "God" is in large and small caps, indicating that it translates YHWH
      with the vowels of elohim. Divergences in the pointing of YHWH, says
      IDB IV, 588, are fairly common in the manuscripts. May they not be
      equally common, then, in editions based on different manuscripts.
      Isn't it possible that CUL translates accurately?
      Minton says that in Gen. 6:5 the MT reads "LORD" whereas the KJV
      of 1611 reads "God." Snaith has YHWH with the vowels of adonai. CUL
      has "God," ABS has "God" in large and small capitals. Isn't it
      possible that CUL has a printer's error here, that "God" should have
      been in large and small capitals and is not a translation from some
      other source than the MT?
      Minton says that in 2 Ch. 17:4 the MT has "God" whereas the KJV
      has "LORD God." Snaith has elohim. CUL has "Lord God" with "Lord" in
      large and small capitals. ABS has the same, except that "Lord" is
      also in italics, indicating that it is an addition by the
      translators. May not the absence of italics in CUL be another
      printer's error? I made a cursory search in CUL for instances when
      "God" or "Lord" was in romans and could find none (CUL is in
      gothic type with the added words in romans instead of in roman type
      with the added words in italics). But it may be that there are instances
      in CUL of "Lord" in roman type, increasing the possibility that 2 Ch.
      17:4 in CUL contains a printer's error.
      And in any case, are these divergences from the MT significant?
      Do they refute the argument that we do not need to correct or
      interpret the KJV from anything but the MT? I cannot agree. I am
      myself willing to look elsewhere for better readings than those in
      the KJV, especially since the translators said they did. But proving
      their assertion is not as easy as Minton makes it seem.

      useLooking specifically,
    • Kevin W. Woodruff
      As far as the MT text goes, we know that they used the Hebrew text as reflected in the Complutesian Polyglot (1517), the Antwerp Polyglot (1572), the Platin
      Message 2 of 16 , Jul 15, 1998
        As far as the MT text goes, we know that they used the Hebrew text as
        reflected in the Complutesian Polyglot (1517), the Antwerp Polyglot (1572),
        the Platin Polyglot (1572) and Jacob Ben Chayyim's Second Rabbinic
        Bible(1524/5), which remained the Hebrew Textus Receptus until is was
        replaced by the Codex Leningrad in the 3rd edition of Kittel's Biblia
        Hebraica in 1937.

        Readings from the LXX, the Vulgate and Hebrew scribal tradition were also
        used by the KJV translators in addition to the readings of earlier English
        Bibles and other Eurpeoan viersions such as the Cypriano Valers version of
        1602. After all the KJV was merely a revision of the Bishops Bible

        \At 05:24 PM 7/15/98 PST, you wrote:
        >What helps did the King James translators turn to when they
        >translated the Hebrew Bible? They said themselves in their preface
        >that they used every available help. That should settle the question.
        >Attempts to prove that they did what they said they did are more
        >difficult, and I do not find Ronald Minton's of July 5 convincing.
        > We do not know, for instance, what edition of the MT the
        >translators used, or even that all members of the committee used the
        >same one. And what edition of 1611 do we mean? The one that has "he
        >went" in Ruth 3:15 or the one that has "she went"? And, for that
        >matter, how do we know that when these two editions agree they always
        >give what the translators intended their readers to see? In sixteenth
        >and seventeenth century printing we cannot be sure that any edition
        >of any book has every copy identical. Minute correspondences and
        >differences, then, are not of themselves convincing. Specialists in
        >editing the literature of the period compare as many copies of each
        >edition in their purview as they can; all the surviving copies of
        >Shakespeare's First Folio have been compared letter by letter,
        >punctuation mark by punctuation mark, using an optical machine, the
        >Hinman collator, named after its inventor, that makes even differences
        >in spacing immediately obvious. No such work has been done on early
        >editions of the MT or the KJV to my knowledge.
        > I spent an hour this morning looking at a microfilm of the copy
        >of KJV 1611 with "he went" in the Cambridge University Library. I
        >shall call it CUL. My desk copy of KJV, American Bible Society, n.d.,
        >I shall call ABS. Since I am anything but a Hebrew scholar I
        >confined myself to the three instances of the divine name referred to
        >by Minton. For the readings of the MT I used my desk copy of Snaith's
        >edition, 1958, in the full knowledge that the King James translators had
        >something else in front of them, if not several something elses.
        >What did I find?
        > Minton says that in Ex. 34:23 the MT reads "the Lord, the Lord
        >God," whereas KJV reads "the Lord God, the God." Snaith reads "the
        >Lord, the God of Israel," where Lord is YHWH with the vowels of
        >adonai. CUL reads "the Lord God, the God of Israel," where the first
        >"God" is in large and small caps, indicating that it translates YHWH
        >with the vowels of elohim. Divergences in the pointing of YHWH, says
        >IDB IV, 588, are fairly common in the manuscripts. May they not be
        >equally common, then, in editions based on different manuscripts.
        >Isn't it possible that CUL translates accurately?
        > Minton says that in Gen. 6:5 the MT reads "LORD" whereas the KJV
        >of 1611 reads "God." Snaith has YHWH with the vowels of adonai. CUL
        >has "God," ABS has "God" in large and small capitals. Isn't it
        >possible that CUL has a printer's error here, that "God" should have
        >been in large and small capitals and is not a translation from some
        >other source than the MT?
        > Minton says that in 2 Ch. 17:4 the MT has "God" whereas the KJV
        >has "LORD God." Snaith has elohim. CUL has "Lord God" with "Lord" in
        >large and small capitals. ABS has the same, except that "Lord" is
        >also in italics, indicating that it is an addition by the
        >translators. May not the absence of italics in CUL be another
        >printer's error? I made a cursory search in CUL for instances when
        >"God" or "Lord" was in romans and could find none (CUL is in
        >gothic type with the added words in romans instead of in roman type
        >with the added words in italics). But it may be that there are instances
        >in CUL of "Lord" in roman type, increasing the possibility that 2 Ch.
        >17:4 in CUL contains a printer's error.
        > And in any case, are these divergences from the MT significant?
        >Do they refute the argument that we do not need to correct or
        >interpret the KJV from anything but the MT? I cannot agree. I am
        >myself willing to look elsewhere for better readings than those in
        >the KJV, especially since the translators said they did. But proving
        >their assertion is not as easy as Minton makes it seem.
        >
        >useLooking specifically,
        >
        >
        >
        >

        Kevin W. Woodruff, M.Div.
        Library Director/Reference Librarian
        Cierpke Memorial Library
        Tennessee Temple University/Temple Baptist Seminary
        1815 Union Ave.
        Chattanooga, Tennessee 37404
        United States of America
        423/493-4252 (office)
        423/698-9447 (home)
        423/493-4497 (FAX)
        Cierpke@... (preferred)
        kwoodruf@... (alternate)
        http://web.utk.edu/~kwoodruf/woodruff.htm
      • Ronald Minton
        I pass this on because Dr. Price gave a helpful reply.
        Message 3 of 16 , Jul 23, 1998
          I pass this on because Dr. Price gave a helpful reply.

          << Ron (to James D. Price): I saw nothing in Dr. Dearings comments to
          actually disquallify what I said in the chart. It seems a mistake to use
          Snaith because of his date and text, but I do not teach in this area; any
          comments for us? >>

          > << Dearing:
          > << .... I spent an hour this morning looking at a microfilm of the copy
          > of KJV 1611 with "he went" in the Cambridge University Library. I
          > shall call it CUL. My desk copy of KJV, American Bible Society, n.d.,
          > I shall call ABS. Since I am anything but a Hebrew scholar I
          > confined myself to the three instances of the divine name referred to
          > by Minton. For the readings of the MT I used my desk copy of Snaith's
          > edition, 1958, in the full knowledge that the King James translators had
          > something else in front of them, if not several something elses.
          > What did I find?
          >
          > Price:
          > The Americal Bible Society's edition is a modern (c. 1850) independent
          > revision of the KJV. It differs from the standard Oxford and Cambridge
          > editions in hundreds of places.
          > Snaith's edition was published in 1958. It is based on Shephardic
          > manuscripts (B.M. Or. 2375, 2626, 2628, and also on the "Shem
          > Tov" Bible). [Emanuel Tov, _Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible_
          > (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992), p. 79]. That text was not
          > based on Bomberg's 2nd edition, or on any other edition of the
          > Hebrew Bible available to the KJV translators.
          > Good representatives of Bomberg's 2nd edition would be:
          > M. H. Letteris (1852)
          > E. van der Hooght (1705)
          > R. Kittel, 1st or 2nd ed. (pre 1937)
          > Miqraoth Gedoloth [Hebrew]--the Rabbinic Bible of the Jews.
          > I have access to all of these except Kittel.
          >
          > <<Dearing:
          > Minton says that in Ex. 34:23 the MT reads "the Lord, the Lord
          > God," whereas KJV reads "the Lord God, the God." Snaith reads "the
          > Lord, the God of Israel," where Lord is YHWH with the vowels of
          > adonai. CUL reads "the Lord God, the God of Israel," where the first
          > "God" is in large and small caps, indicating that it translates YHWH
          > with the vowels of elohim. Divergences in the pointing of YHWH, says
          > IDB IV, 588, are fairly common in the manuscripts. May they not be
          > equally common, then, in editions based on different manuscripts.
          > Isn't it possible that CUL translates accurately? >>
          >
          > Price:
          > The KJV translators did not use manuscripts, but printed editions.
          > All the current representatives of Bomberg's 2nd edition are in agreement
          > on the vowel pointing here. The KJV translators may have done what they
          > did in order to avoid the redundancy of "the Lord, the LORD, the God of
          > Israel." They are known to have done that sort of thing in other places.
          >
          > << Dearing:
          > Minton says that in Gen. 6:5 the MT reads "LORD" whereas the KJV
          > of 1611 reads "God." Snaith has YHWH with the vowels of adonai. CUL
          > has "God," ABS has "God" in large and small capitals. Isn't it
          > possible that CUL has a printer's error here, that "God" should have
          > been in large and small capitals and is not a translation from some
          > other source than the MT? >>
          >
          > Price:
          > It always possible that a printer's error occurred. But one cannot judge
          > a translation on such possibilities, especially those are not self evident.
          > The later revisions of the KJV (i.e., 1769) have GOD here. It is just as
          > likely that the revisors retained GOD in order to avoid changing a word
          > in a well known passage. A more important question is: Why did they
          > translate YHWH as "God" when their Hebrew text read YHWH with the
          > vowels of "Adonai"? The Latin Vulgate reads DEOS "God" here. It is
          > likely that the KJV translators were influenced by the Vulgate in this
          > verse, as in a number of other places.
          >
          > << Dearing:
          > Minton says that in 2 Ch. 17:4 the MT has "God" whereas the KJV
          > has "LORD God." Snaith has elohim. CUL has "Lord God" with "Lord" in
          > large and small capitals. ABS has the same, except that "Lord" is
          > also in italics, indicating that it is an addition by the
          > translators. May not the absence of italics in CUL be another
          > printer's error? I made a cursory search in CUL for instances when
          > "God" or "Lord" was in romans and could find none (CUL is in
          > gothic type with the added words in romans instead of in roman type
          > with the added words in italics). But it may be that there are instances
          > in CUL of "Lord" in roman type, increasing the possibility that 2 Ch.
          > 17:4 in CUL contains a printer's error. >>
          >
          > Price:
          > The LXX reads "Lord God" here. It is likely that the KJV translators
          > were influenced by the LXX to depart from their Hebrew text.
          > The later revision of the KJV (1769) reads "_LORD_ God," to indicate
          > that "LORD" was not in the Hebrew text. It is very likely that the revisors
          > elected to retain the word in italics rather that take the chance of
          > removing the name of God from the text.
          >
          > <<Dearing:
          > And in any case, are these divergences from the MT significant?
          > Do they refute the argument that we do not need to correct or
          > interpret the KJV from anything but the MT? I cannot agree. I am
          > myself willing to look elsewhere for better readings than those in
          > the KJV, especially since the translators said they did. But proving
          > their assertion is not as easy as Minton makes it seem.
          > >>
          >
          > Price:
          > I think Dr. Minton's intent was to show that the KJV needs to be
          > revised in places where it fails to follow well validated Hebrew
          > readings. I'm sure he would agree that the MT should not be
          > followed where strong textual evidence indicates otherwise.
          > His point is particularly applicable for those who regard the
          > KJV as the only reliable translation.
          >
          > Another example of what Dr. Minton was driving at:
          > Ezra 8:27
          > MT--Keley nechosheth mitshab tobah
          > KJV vessels of fine copper
          > NKJV vessels of fine polished bronze
          > NASB utensils of fine shiny bronze
          > NRSV vessels of fine polished bronze
          > It is evident that the KJV omitted a word in their translation. That
          > word is supported by the ancient versions, and there seems to
          > be no textual evidence for its omission. Surely the KJV should
          > be corrected here.
          >
          > Sincerely,
          > Jim Price

          --
          Prof. Ron Minton: rminton@... W (417)268-6053 H 833-9581
        • Carlton Winbery
          Larry Kuyper wrote; ... This is indeed an involved place of variation. The variation unit in N-A27 is PANTA . . . hAPAX. The only reading which has IHSOUS
          Message 4 of 16 , Jul 27, 1998
            Larry Kuyper wrote;

            >I was aware that there were differences in Jude with regard to verse 5,
            >but was very suprised to find that in my UBS3 it actually has
            >IHSOUS, while my NA27 does not. Is this one a close call ?
            >
            This is indeed an involved place of variation. The variation unit in N-A27
            is PANTA . . . hAPAX. The only reading which has IHSOUS instead of KURIOS
            is supported by Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, min 33, 81, 2344, and pc along
            with the vulgate. Now this is not bad evidence, esp. A in the Catholics.
            Most other witnesses has KURIOS (with or without the article). The reading
            with the M siglum (TR reading) has hAPAX at the beginning and TOUTO instead
            of PANTA. The reading of the N-A25 left out the article. The reading of
            N-A27 has rather weak external support and so I would suppose that the
            decision was made on internal grounds. Metzger explains the inclusion of
            IHSOUS as a scribal mistake (confusion of IC for KC). It is hard to
            imagine that another scribe would have left out IHSOUS even though its
            presence makes the sentence difficult to read.


            Carlton L. Winbery
            Fogleman Professor of Religion
            Louisiana College
            Pineville, LA 71359
            winberyc@...
            winbery@...
          • lakr
            Greetings TC ers, I was aware that there were differences in Jude with regard to verse 5, but was very suprised to find that in my UBS3 it actually has IHSOUS,
            Message 5 of 16 , Jul 27, 1998
              Greetings TC'ers,

              I was aware that there were differences in Jude with regard to verse 5,
              but was very suprised to find that in my UBS3 it actually has
              IHSOUS, while my NA27 does not. Is this one a close call ?

              Thanks for considering this.

              Sincerely,
              Larry Kruper
            • Robert B. Waltz
              ... Which UBS edition are you using? I checked my (uncorrected) UBS3, my UBS4, and my NA27; all three omit IHSOUS. It is worth noting that UBS3 and UBS4 both
              Message 6 of 16 , Jul 27, 1998
                On Mon, 27 Jul 1998, lakr@... (lakr) wrote:

                >Greetings TC'ers,
                >
                >I was aware that there were differences in Jude with regard to verse 5,
                >but was very suprised to find that in my UBS3 it actually has
                >IHSOUS, while my NA27 does not. Is this one a close call ?
                >
                >Thanks for considering this.

                Which UBS edition are you using? I checked my (uncorrected) UBS3,
                my UBS4, and my NA27; all three omit IHSOUS. It is worth noting that
                UBS3 and UBS4 both rate the decision a {D}. And, in fact, I agree
                with them. This is one of those relatively rare readings where
                even *I* don't see one obviously correct reading. I'd have to
                think about how I would analyse it. And, since we had a computer
                go down around here today and I'm trying to get things back to where
                it was before it went bad, I will have to wait until others have
                had their say. :-)

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

                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)
              • lakr
                ... I have a GNT which has the UBS with an English version side by side (TEV?) that I picked up at a used book store. It s not with me at the moment, so I
                Message 7 of 16 , Jul 27, 1998
                  >
                  > On Mon, 27 Jul 1998, lakr@... (lakr) wrote:
                  >
                  > >Greetings TC'ers,
                  > >
                  > >I was aware that there were differences in Jude with regard to verse 5,
                  > >but was very suprised to find that in my UBS3 it actually has
                  > >IHSOUS, while my NA27 does not. Is this one a close call ?
                  > >
                  > >Thanks for considering this.
                  >
                  > Which UBS edition are you using?

                  I have a GNT which has the UBS with an English version side by
                  side (TEV?) that I picked up at a used book store. It's not with
                  me at the moment, so I will try to remember to look and get back
                  to you.

                  Thanks,
                  Larry Kruper
                • Robert B. Waltz
                  ... It s only a guess, but I d guess that that edition uses UBS1 or UBS2 rather than UBS3. There were some significant textual changes from the second to the
                  Message 8 of 16 , Jul 27, 1998
                    On Mon, 27 Jul 1998, lakr@... (lakr) wrote:

                    >> On Mon, 27 Jul 1998, lakr@... (lakr) wrote:
                    >>
                    >> >Greetings TC'ers,
                    >> >
                    >> >I was aware that there were differences in Jude with regard to verse 5,
                    >> >but was very suprised to find that in my UBS3 it actually has
                    >> >IHSOUS, while my NA27 does not. Is this one a close call ?
                    >> >
                    >> >Thanks for considering this.
                    >>
                    >> Which UBS edition are you using?
                    >
                    >I have a GNT which has the UBS with an English version side by
                    >side (TEV?) that I picked up at a used book store. It's not with
                    >me at the moment, so I will try to remember to look and get back
                    >to you.

                    It's only a guess, but I'd guess that that edition uses UBS1
                    or UBS2 rather than UBS3. There were some significant textual
                    changes from the second to the third edition. Unfortunately, I
                    don't have a copy of UBS1/2 to check this against.

                    Bob Waltz
                    waltzmn@...

                    "The one thing we learn from history --
                    is that no one ever learns from history."
                  • lakr
                    ... My copy is from the ABS in 1966. The UBS is from 1966 and the TEV is from 1967. It gives no numeral for the UBS version. Perhaps that means it is #1.
                    Message 9 of 16 , Jul 29, 1998
                      >
                      > On Mon, 27 Jul 1998, lakr@... (lakr) wrote:
                      >
                      > >> On Mon, 27 Jul 1998, lakr@... (lakr) wrote:
                      > >>
                      > >> >Greetings TC'ers,
                      > >> >
                      > >> >I was aware that there were differences in Jude with regard to verse 5,
                      > >> >but was very suprised to find that in my UBS3 it actually has
                      > >> >IHSOUS, while my NA27 does not. Is this one a close call ?
                      > >> >
                      > >> >Thanks for considering this.
                      > >>
                      > >> Which UBS edition are you using?
                      > >
                      > >I have a GNT which has the UBS with an English version side by
                      > >side (TEV?) that I picked up at a used book store. It's not with
                      > >me at the moment, so I will try to remember to look and get back
                      > >to you.
                      >
                      > It's only a guess, but I'd guess that that edition uses UBS1
                      > or UBS2 rather than UBS3. There were some significant textual
                      > changes from the second to the third edition. Unfortunately, I
                      > don't have a copy of UBS1/2 to check this against.
                      >
                      > Bob Waltz
                      > waltzmn@...
                      >
                      > "The one thing we learn from history --
                      > is that no one ever learns from history."
                      >
                      >

                      My copy is from the ABS in 1966. The UBS is from 1966 and the TEV
                      is from 1967. It gives no numeral for the UBS version. Perhaps
                      that means it is #1.

                      Larry Kruper
                    • Robert B. Waltz
                      ... That s the explanation, all right. The copyright dates in my UBS3 are 1966, 1968, 1975. So an edition published before 1968 must be using UBS1. Clearly
                      Message 10 of 16 , Jul 30, 1998
                        On Wed, 29 Jul 1998, lakr@... (lakr) wrote:

                        >My copy is from the ABS in 1966. The UBS is from 1966 and the TEV
                        >is from 1967. It gives no numeral for the UBS version. Perhaps
                        >that means it is #1.

                        That's the explanation, all right. The copyright dates in my
                        UBS3 are 1966, 1968, 1975. So an edition published before 1968
                        must be using UBS1. Clearly this is a reading that changed between
                        the first and third editions.

                        Obviously it was a close call for the committee. :-)

                        Bob Waltz
                        waltzmn@...

                        "The one thing we learn from history --
                        is that no one ever learns from history."
                      • Carlton Winbery
                        ... Keven, could you send me the bibliographic info from the title page of Vaticanus. I have some money and am thinking of purchasing a published facsimile if
                        Message 11 of 16 , Aug 13, 1998
                          >We have Kirsopp Lake's photographs of Vaticanus here. What passages do you
                          >need and please supply a fax number

                          Keven, could you send me the bibliographic info from the title page of
                          Vaticanus. I have some money and am thinking of purchasing a published
                          facsimile if possible. We have the Bodmer and Beatty Papyri and the
                          Sinaiticus in published form. We also have a number of minuscules on
                          microfilm. They are good for introducing majors to simple paliographical
                          features of TC.

                          Thanks,

                          Carlton
                        • D.R. Edwards
                          My apologies in advance is this turns out to be a case of a lurker asking a laughably simple question. In any event, would anyone know how (assuming it s
                          Message 12 of 16 , Aug 13, 1998
                            My apologies in advance is this turns out to be a case of a lurker asking a
                            laughably simple question. In any event, would anyone know how (assuming
                            it's possible) one would get photocopies of any portions of B (G of Mark, in
                            particular)? I've seen the occasional image posted on a web site or two,
                            but I've been unable to find anything further.

                            Thanks in advance.
                          • Kevin W. Woodruff
                            We have Kirsopp Lake s photographs of Vaticanus here. What passages do you need and please supply a fax number Kevin ... Kevin W. Woodruff, M.Div. Library
                            Message 13 of 16 , Aug 13, 1998
                              We have Kirsopp Lake's photographs of Vaticanus here. What passages do you
                              need and please supply a fax number

                              Kevin

                              At 09:43 AM 8/13/98 -0400, you wrote:
                              >My apologies in advance is this turns out to be a case of a lurker asking a
                              >laughably simple question. In any event, would anyone know how (assuming
                              >it's possible) one would get photocopies of any portions of B (G of Mark, in
                              >particular)? I've seen the occasional image posted on a web site or two,
                              >but I've been unable to find anything further.
                              >
                              >Thanks in advance.
                              >
                              >

                              Kevin W. Woodruff, M.Div.
                              Library Director/Reference Librarian
                              Cierpke Memorial Library
                              Tennessee Temple University/Temple Baptist Seminary
                              1815 Union Ave.
                              Chattanooga, Tennessee 37404
                              United States of America
                              423/493-4252 (office)
                              423/698-9447 (home)
                              423/493-4497 (FAX)
                              Cierpke@... (preferred)
                              kwoodruf@... (alternate)
                              http://web.utk.edu/~kwoodruf/woodruff.htm
                            • Dave Washburn
                              ... What would you charge to make a copy of the entire thing? Please contact me off-list... Dave Washburn http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur When in doubt, go for
                              Message 14 of 16 , Aug 13, 1998
                                > We have Kirsopp Lake's photographs of Vaticanus here. What passages do you
                                > need and please supply a fax number

                                What would you charge to make a copy of the entire thing? Please
                                contact me off-list...
                                Dave Washburn
                                http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
                                When in doubt, go for chocolate. Life is too short
                                not to.
                              • Maurice Taraschi
                                ... you might also want to check with Hill Monastic Manuscript Library on the web at: http://www.csbsju.edu/hmml/
                                Message 15 of 16 , Aug 13, 1998
                                  D.R. Edwards wrote:

                                  > My apologies in advance is this turns out to be a case of a lurker asking a
                                  > laughably simple question. In any event, would anyone know how (assuming
                                  > it's possible) one would get photocopies of any portions of B (G of Mark, in
                                  > particular)? I've seen the occasional image posted on a web site or two,
                                  > but I've been unable to find anything further.
                                  >
                                  > Thanks in advance.

                                  you might also want to check with Hill Monastic Manuscript Library on the web
                                  at:

                                  http://www.csbsju.edu/hmml/
                                • Kevin W. Woodruff
                                  Dr. Winbery: The info we have says: Bibliorum Sacrum Graecus Codex Vaticanus auspice Pio IX. Pontifice Maximo collatis studiis Caroli Vercellone Sodalis
                                  Message 16 of 16 , Aug 13, 1998
                                    Dr. Winbery:

                                    The info we have says:

                                    Bibliorum Sacrum Graecus Codex Vaticanus auspice Pio IX. Pontifice Maximo
                                    collatis studiis Caroli Vercellone Sodalis Barnabitae et Ioseph Cozza
                                    Monachi Basiliani editus. Originally Published in 1868. Reproduced by Brown
                                    and Thomas, Detroit Michigan, 1982.


                                    At 01:50 PM 8/13/98 +0400, you wrote:
                                    >>We have Kirsopp Lake's photographs of Vaticanus here. What passages do you
                                    >>need and please supply a fax number
                                    >
                                    >Keven, could you send me the bibliographic info from the title page of
                                    >Vaticanus. I have some money and am thinking of purchasing a published
                                    >facsimile if possible. We have the Bodmer and Beatty Papyri and the
                                    >Sinaiticus in published form. We also have a number of minuscules on
                                    >microfilm. They are good for introducing majors to simple paliographical
                                    >features of TC.
                                    >
                                    >Thanks,
                                    >
                                    >Carlton
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >

                                    Kevin W. Woodruff, M.Div.
                                    Library Director/Reference Librarian
                                    Cierpke Memorial Library
                                    Tennessee Temple University/Temple Baptist Seminary
                                    1815 Union Ave.
                                    Chattanooga, Tennessee 37404
                                    United States of America
                                    423/493-4252 (office)
                                    423/698-9447 (home)
                                    423/493-4497 (FAX)
                                    Cierpke@... (preferred)
                                    kwoodruf@... (alternate)
                                    http://web.utk.edu/~kwoodruf/woodruff.htm
                                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.