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

Re: tc-list scribal errors

Expand Messages
  • Robert B. Waltz
    ... While I heartily agree with the sentiment, I have to point out that this has not actually been tested. The key word is *eventually*. I won t go into the
    Message 1 of 15 , Nov 2, 1998
    • 0 Attachment
      On Mon, 2 Nov 1998, Prof. Ron Minton" <rminton@...> wrote:

      >We have all heard that a million monkeys banging on a million typewriters
      >will eventually reproduce the entire works of Shakespeare.
      >Now, thanks to the Internet, we know this is not true.

      While I heartily agree with the sentiment, I have to point out that
      this has not actually been tested. The key word is *eventually*.

      I won't go into the math -- my calculator doesn't run that high --
      but the odds of the monkeys doing the job in any given period of
      time are extremely low. We'd need something like the lifetime of
      the universe to conduct the test.

      While we have our million monkeys, and more, we haven't had the time.

      Besides, the monkey are supposed to type *random* letters. The people
      driving the Internet don't type random letters. They type things they
      think are meaningful. Net result: They will probably *never* manage
      the complete works of Shakespeare. The average Internet user isn't
      nearly as smart as random chance. :-)
      -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

      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)
    • Kevin W. Woodruff
      Codices of manuscripts used by Erasmus for his first edition (1516) Most of these codices are at the University Library at the University of Basel, Switzerland
      Message 2 of 15 , Nov 2, 1998
      • 0 Attachment
        Codices of manuscripts used by Erasmus for his first edition (1516)

        Most of these codices are at the University Library at the University of
        Basel, Switzerland

        Evan. 2
        15th century or earlier. According to Scrivener "is the the inferior
        manuscript chiefly used by Erasmus for his first edition of the N.T. (1516)."

        Act. Paul 2
        13th or 14th century according to Burgon. Erasmus grounded on this
        copy in some passages with some alterations of the manuscripts the text of
        his first edition

        Paul. 7
        date not known

        Evan.Act.Paul 1
        12th or 13th century according to Burgon

        Act.Paul 4
        15th century according to Scrivener, most likely 12th century
        Apoc. 1
        12th century according to Scrivener


        At 02:11 PM 11/2/98 -0600, you wrote:
        >On Mon, 2 Nov 1998, lakr wrote:
        >> 1Jo 4:3 TR
        >> KAI PAN PNEUMA O MH OMOLOGEI TON IHSOUN
        >> [ XRISTON EN SARKI ELHLUQOTA ]
        >> EK TOU QEOU OUK ESTIN KAI TOUTO ESTIN TO TOU ANTIXRISTOU O AKHKOATE
        >> OTI ERXETAI KAI NUN EN TW KOSMW ESTIN HDH
        >>
        >> 1Jo 4:3 W&H
        >> KAI PAN PNEUMA O MH OMOLOGEI TON IHSOUN
        >> EK TOU QEOU OUK ESTIN KAI TOUTO ESTIN TO TOU ANTIXRISTOU O AKHKOATE
        >> OTI ERXETAI KAI NUN EN TW KOSMW ESTIN HDH
        >>
        >> Notice that in the top example the words 'Christ in flesh came' are
        >> inserted into the Textus Receptus.
        >
        >Can someone check to see if the few mss. Erasmus used have the words or
        >did he use another source? They are in Aleph [kurion instead of christon]
        >which, of course, he did not have.
        >
        >Ron Minton
        >5379 North Farm Road 179
        >Springfield, MO 65803
        >(417)833-9581
        >
        >

        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
      • Julio Anjos
        Info on the book can be found on: http://westarinstitute.org/Books/Author/Savior/savior.html I have mine ordered sice August. More info on the find can be
        Message 3 of 15 , Nov 3, 1998
        • 0 Attachment
          Info on the book can be found on:
          http://westarinstitute.org/Books/Author/Savior/savior.html
          I have mine ordered sice August.

          More info on the find can be found in:
          http://scholar.cc.emory.edu/scripts/jv/rsn_may_gosp.html
          But in short the facts are:

          Designated the Berlin Manuscript P. 22220, the manuscript is comprised of
          approximately thirty fragments, which are the remains of at least eighteen
          parchment leaves. The fragments range in size from a few centimeters square
          to at least one complete, though damaged, sheet comprising two leaves. One
          or two fragments show evidence of having been burned. Hedrick and Mirecki
          estimate on codicological grounds that the fragments come from leaves 97114
          of the original codex.
          ...
          Written in Coptic, the document is probably a translation of an original
          Greek text. Hedrick describes the Coptic as a rather pure example of the
          Sahidic dialect, with only one possible Achmimic variant extant.
          ....
          . The Lord is portrayed as speaking with his apostles, and the names
          James, John, and Andrew are extant.


          As far as I know there are new sayings strong in gnostic imagery, and new
          versions like:
          Whoever is near me is near the fire; whoever is far from me is far from
          life. A slightly different version of the same saying is attested in the
          Gospel of Thomas, logion 82: Whoever is near me is near the fire; whoever
          is far from me is far from the kingdom.


          The info on the Westar Fall 1998 Meeting where the first presentation was to
          be made was removed once the meeting was held, but it stated very clearly
          both authours were to be there.

          Best regards.
          Julio
        • Yuri Kuchinsky
          ... Dear Bart, I have read your treatment now, and I agree with you on some points, while disagree on others. We agree that the opponents in 1Jn 4:1-3 are
          Message 4 of 15 , Nov 3, 1998
          • 0 Attachment
            On Mon, 2 Nov 1998, Bart Ehrman wrote:

            > I've dealt with the textual problem at length in my _Orthodox
            > Corruption of Scripture_ pp. 125-35, if you want to see the evidence,
            > arguments, and counterarguments. (I push strongly for _me homologei_
            > against _luei_).

            Dear Bart,

            I have read your treatment now, and I agree with you on some points, while
            disagree on others.

            We agree that the opponents in 1Jn 4:1-3 are docetists. But your treatment
            of this passage focuses primarily on _me homologei_ against _luei_
            problem. For all I can see you're right on this, but this does not really
            seem relevant to the issues I'm dealing with at this time.

            There are many interpretative problems with 1Jn. I've just read Anchor BD
            (1992) article on the Johannine epistles by Robert Kysar, and he admits
            that plenty is disputed as to authorship, context, and dating. According
            to him,

            "The dates of the documents can be fixed only approximately."

            He, himself, gives ca. 100, but other opinions are possible.

            Now, the question as to whether the opponents in 1Jn 4:1-3 are Marcionites
            is not directly relevant to my larger thesis, and depends on the dating. I
            think it is possible to date the epistles to mid-second century, and I
            prefer such later dating.

            My larger thesis is that there are two distinct sets of opponents
            discernable in 1Jn, and this has been argued by a number of commentators.
            You mention Smalley yourself. According to such a view, some opponents are
            Ebionites, and have low Christology. These are the opponents in 1Jn
            2:18-23. Others, in 1Jn 4:1-3, and in 2Jn, are docetists with high
            Christology.

            You don't like this sort of an interpretation, but I disagree on this. I'm
            just taking the most literal reading of these passages, and this is what
            the texts seem to say to me. I have a more detailed treatment of these
            matters that I posted to Synoptic-l in the last few days.

            http://www.egroups.com/list/synoptic-l/1253.html

            and

            http://www.egroups.com/list/synoptic-l/1259.html

            Johannine correspondence is only a part of my larger argument in these two
            long articles that deal mostly with Papias and Irenaeus.

            I see no real need to conflate the opponents in 1Jn 2:18-23, and in 1Jn
            4:1-3 like you tend to. But this question is very complex, since it
            involves the exact understanding of various Christologies. In spite of
            many apparent similarities between the two, I think there was a pretty
            clear distinction between the much earlier group of
            Ebionites/Adoptionists, and the rather later docetists, although this
            distinction is often neglected by scholars.

            On this, see M. Goulder, ST. PAUL VERSUS ST. PETER: A TALE OF TWO
            MISSIONS, Westminster/John Knox Press, 1995, p. 117. (Goulder uses the
            term Possessionist to describe Adoptionists.) He points out that, while in
            mainstream academic literature "Adoptionists" are often conflated with
            "Docetists", according to him this is confusing, and he advocates defining
            these terms more precisely.

            It was the Adoptionists/Possessionists who resisted identifying Jesus with
            Christ, just like the opponents in 1Jn 2:22.

            Now, the question that I posted to tc-list originally only focused on the
            reading of 4:3a, which, in itself, is a rather narrow problem that does
            not need to involve larger issues, since the interpretation of 4:2 is
            already pretty clear.

            According to Kevin, the longer reading comes mostly from the Byzantine
            mss. Whether or not XRISTON EN SARKI ELHLUQOTA was added later, or was
            edited out later, still seems not too clear to me. In any case, the phrase
            just seems to fit the meaning of the passage rather well.

            Best wishes,

            Yuri.

            Yuri Kuchinsky || Toronto

            http://www.trends.net/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.