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

Re: tc-list Biblical Cruxes

Expand Messages
  • Perry L. Stepp
    ... Barclay ... I ... 4:4, ... either ... If ... your ... One of my favorites is Lk 23.34. Two great resources to start with: Bruce Metzger s *Textual
    Message 1 of 26 , Jan 22, 1999
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      >I am an English professor preparing to teach a course in the Bible as
      >Literature for the first time.

      >I would like to know some of the 50 important variant readings to which
      Barclay
      >refers, and I'd also be interested in important variant readings in the OT.
      I
      >wish to use these to illustrate to undergraduates some of the issues
      >translators and readers confront. The only example I now have is I Thess.
      4:4,
      >where, apparently, the Greek original meaning "vessel" may be rendered
      either
      >"body" or "wife."
      >
      >Is there a single source, appropriate for a layman, that would help here?
      If
      >not, could you mention either on this list or by direct e-mail a couple of
      your
      >favorites?


      One of my favorites is Lk 23.34.

      Two great resources to start with:

      Bruce Metzger's *Textual Commentary*--it shouldn't be difficult to find
      nuggets and intrigue in the pages of this book.

      Bart Ehrman's *The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture*, especially his
      treatments of passages like Lk 22.19--Ehrman is a member of this list,
      perhaps he will have the time to suggest other avenues and v.l. as well.

      Perry L. Stepp

      ********************************************************************
      Pastor, DeSoto Christian Church, DeSoto TX
      Ph.D. Candidate in Religion, Baylor University
      #1 Cowboy Fan

      The reasonable man adapts himself to the world;
      the unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt
      the world to himself. Therefore all progress
      depends on the unreasonable man.
      -George Bernard Shaw

      ********************************************************************
    • William L. Petersen
      Barclay s statement is a half-truth, congenial from his point of view. A good source for examining variants (in English) is B.H. Throckmorton s *Gospel
      Message 2 of 26 , Jan 22, 1999
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Barclay's statement is a half-truth, congenial from his point of view.

        A good source for examining variants (in English) is B.H. Throckmorton's
        *Gospel Parallels* (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1992 [NRSV text; ISBN
        0-8407-7484-2]); it is a required text in all my NT and early Christianity
        courses here at Penn State.

        An example of the problem is at Matt 1:16, where some MSS speak of Joseph
        as the "husband" of Mary; here on the TC-list, I noticed that just today
        the vast (unanimous?) consensus was that Mark 16:9+ were not original.

        Before you teach your course, you should read Bart Ehrman's recent (and
        very well-received) book *The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture* (Oxford,
        1993). It provides a good overview of the development of textual variants
        in the early church, and is accessible to the non-specialist.

        But there is another problem, which is more critical: the real problem is
        not just textual variants, but the synoptic parallels. Dependence among
        the synoptic gospels (Matt, Mark, Luke) is accepted by critical
        scholarship. Therefore, the gospels themselves, when compared, show us
        what editing was going on *before* the manuscripts were copied which are
        preserved today.

        An example: Take Throckmorton, and read the parallel passages of the
        "Cursing of the Fig Tree" (Matt 21:18-22; Mark 11:12-14, 20-25).
        According to Mark, Jesus is a rather ignorant fool (and certainly not a
        divinity with foreknowledge), while Matthew has omitted precisely the two
        statements from Mark which make Jesus' "non-divine" status obvious (Mark
        11:13: "he went to see whether perhaps he would find anything on it";
        idem: "for it was not the season for figs"). Luke (perhaps embarrassed by
        the whole thing?) omits the whole story.

        Another example is the story of the "Rich Young Man/Ruler" (Matt 19:16-30;
        Mark 10:17-31; Luke 18:18-30). Here again, Mark's text (Mark 10:18)
        clearly states that Jesus is not God: "Why do you call *me* [Jesus] good?
        No one is good but God alone." In the parallel in Matt (Matt 19:16-17),
        the offending words (in Mark 10:17: "Good Master...") have once again been
        changed (Matt 19:16: "Teacher, what *good deed*..."), so as to remove the
        "problem."

        The so-called "comma Ioanneum" (I John 5:7-8) is a clear example of
        tampering with the text, this time regarding the Trinity (see B. M.
        Metzger, *The Text of the New Testament* [Oxford: OUP, various editions],
        pp. 101-102). The most "ancient" evidence for the reading now found in the
        King James Version is a theological treatise from the fourth century;
        Metzger gives a good reprise of the history of the insertion of this text
        into I John (it doesn't appear in any Vulgate MSS until the 8th cent., etc.).

        The ending of the Gospel of Matthew--the "Great Commission"--is also
        clearly not "authentic" (it may be part of the oldest text of Matthew, but
        it is clearly an invention of the second-century church, and never spoken
        by Jesus), because nowhere in the early and heated controversies between,
        on the one hand, James' "party of the circumcision" and, on the other hand,
        Paul and the Pauline Christians, is the "Great Commission" ever cited.
        Indeed, Peter and the ancient church in Jerusalem know nothing of it (cp.
        Acts 10-11; note that in Acts 10:48, Peter even acts contrary to the
        "Great Commission" by baptizing "in the name of Jesus Christ"--he does not
        baptize in the name of the Trinity, as his Lord Jesus ordered him to do in
        what were [according to Matt, at least] Jesus' last words on earth). Paul
        and the apostles also know nothing of the "Great Commission" at the
        Apostolic Council in Jerusalem in the year 49 or 50 (cp. Acts 15; Gal. 2).
        Indeed, had Jesus ever actually spoken the "Great Commission," then the
        entire controversy over circumcision and missionary work with Gentiles is
        completely inexplicable. Conclusion: the "Great Commission" is a fraud.
        Historically, our first text with the Trinitarian formula is either the
        *Didache* or Irenaeus. On the other hand, its theology perfectly agrees
        with the later (= second-century), evolving, Gentile church, which rejected
        the party of James. (This illustrates the importance of knowing the
        history of the early church, when these documents were put into the form in
        which they have come down to us.)

        Hmmm. Those two texts (I John 5:7-8 and Matt 28:16-20) are the only two
        references to the Trinity in the whole NT, and the one is textually
        rejected (the RSV, etc., all omit it), and the other can be demonstrated on
        historical grounds to be an invention.... Yet you quote Barclay as
        asserting: "there is no case in which an article of faith or a precept of
        duty is left in doubt." I conclude, therefore, that the Trinity was not an
        article of faith for Barclay....

        Nonsense similar to that of Barclay comes from F.F. Bruce, and many others.
        It is pious gibberish to placate the ignorant; in no way does it comport
        with the empirical facts determinable from an examination of the
        manuscripts, parallels among the gospels, and the earliest citations of the
        NT (in apocryphal and patristic sources). Before you teach your course,
        take a look at my review of a book by P.W. Comfort (*The Quest for the
        Original Text of the New Testament*); the review appeared in the *Journal
        of Biblical Literature* 113 (1994), pp. 529-531. For whatever reasons,
        demonstrably untrue statements are frequently made in matters theological
        and religious. These statements include the citation of non-existent
        sources (both ancient and modern) to "prove" one's point; assertions which
        are simply, empirically false; illogical arguments (illogical if one knows
        the history and texts); and emotion-laden appeals. The moral: Beware of
        the sources you use. Barclay was not a textual scholar; he was a pious,
        conservative churchman, making the case for his particular brand of
        Christianity. You might as well ask a mullah whether the Qur'an was
        dictated to Mohammed by Allah: you know the answer before you ask the
        question--and that means it is not scholarship.

        --Petersen, Penn State Univ.


        At 10:26 AM 1/22/99 -0500, you wrote:
        >Dear TC-er's:
        >
        >I am an English professor preparing to teach a course in the Bible as
        >Literature for the first time. In sending this message, I am jumping brashly
        >into unfamiliar territory, so please forgive my ignorance of things you take
        >for granted--for starters, knowledge of Greek and Hebrew.
        >
        >At any rate, William Barclay wrote, "It has been calculated that in the Greek
        >manuscripts of the New Testament there are 150,000 places in which there are
        >variant readings.... Of the 150,000 fewer than 400 affect the sense, fewer
        than
        >50 are of any importance, and there is no case in which an article of
        faith or
        >a precept of duty is left in doubt." (_Introducing the Bible_, 25th
        >Anniversary Edition, p. 154.)
        >
        >I would like to know some of the 50 important variant readings to which
        Barclay
        >refers, and I'd also be interested in important variant readings in the
        OT. I
        >wish to use these to illustrate to undergraduates some of the issues
        >translators and readers confront. The only example I now have is I Thess.
        4:4,
        >where, apparently, the Greek original meaning "vessel" may be rendered either
        >"body" or "wife."
        >
        >Is there a single source, appropriate for a layman, that would help here? If
        >not, could you mention either on this list or by direct e-mail a couple of
        your
        >favorites?
        >
        >Thanks,
        >
        >Robert A. White
        >English Department, The Citadel
        >whiter@...
        >
      • Bart Ehrman
        In my opinion Barclay is far too conservative in his estimation of places of significant variation in the NT (and far too conservative on the number of
        Message 3 of 26 , Jan 22, 1999
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          In my opinion Barclay is far too conservative in his estimation of
          places of significant variation in the NT (and far too conservative on the
          number of variations that actually exist). But he was driven, I think, by
          apologetic concerns -- wanting his readers to know that we can trust the
          NT.

          There is a difference between translation issues and textual issues
          (the business in 1 THessalonians is the former: it has to do with what a
          Greek word means in its ancient context). Here I'll mention some textual
          ones (this is Barclay's concern; the issue has to do with the problem that
          among our ca 5400 Greek, not to mention other kinds of, MSS, there are
          many many thousands of differences; and the question is what the oldest
          form of the text said and how/why it came to be changed)

          Among my list of personal favorites to talk to non-specialists about
          are the final twelve verses of Mark (they aren't original) and the story
          of the woman taken in adultery in John 7-8 (also not original). Others
          that are not *quite* so well known outside of the sphere of the
          specialists (but thrashed about a good deal from inside!) are the
          following (these are ones just from the Gospels, and ones that I've dealt
          with in my book _The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture_, and so I'm just
          throwing them out off the top of my head; there are lots of others that
          might appeal to others on the list):

          -- Mark 1:1 (does the Gospel begin by calling Jesus the "son of
          God"?)
          -- Mark 15:34 (does Jesus' question why God has mocked him?)
          -- Luke 2:33, 48 (is Joseph called Jesus' father?)
          -- Luke 3:22 (does the voice suggest that God has "adopted" Jesus
          to be his son?)
          -- Luke 22:19-20 (does Jesus talk about his death as salvific?)
          -- Luke 22:43-44 (does Jesus sweat blood?)
          -- Luke 24:12 (does Peter see the empty tomb?)
          -- John 1:18 (is Jesus called the "unique God"?)

          Plenty here for thought!

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

          On Fri, 22 Jan 1999 WHITER@... wrote:

          > Dear TC-er's:
          >
          > I am an English professor preparing to teach a course in the Bible as
          > Literature for the first time. In sending this message, I am jumping brashly
          > into unfamiliar territory, so please forgive my ignorance of things you take
          > for granted--for starters, knowledge of Greek and Hebrew.
          >
          > At any rate, William Barclay wrote, "It has been calculated that in the Greek
          > manuscripts of the New Testament there are 150,000 places in which there are
          > variant readings.... Of the 150,000 fewer than 400 affect the sense, fewer than
          > 50 are of any importance, and there is no case in which an article of faith or
          > a precept of duty is left in doubt." (_Introducing the Bible_, 25th
          > Anniversary Edition, p. 154.)
          >
          > I would like to know some of the 50 important variant readings to which Barclay
          > refers, and I'd also be interested in important variant readings in the OT. I
          > wish to use these to illustrate to undergraduates some of the issues
          > translators and readers confront. The only example I now have is I Thess. 4:4,
          > where, apparently, the Greek original meaning "vessel" may be rendered either
          > "body" or "wife."
          >
          > Is there a single source, appropriate for a layman, that would help here? If
          > not, could you mention either on this list or by direct e-mail a couple of your
          > favorites?
          >
          > Thanks,
          >
          > Robert A. White
          > English Department, The Citadel
          > whiter@...
          >
          >
        • Mike Logsdon
          ... Supposed and theorized editing! ... OR it is possible that Mark added to Matthew, and that the entire pericope was outside the larger scope of Luke who
          Message 4 of 26 , Jan 22, 1999
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            >But there is another problem, which is more critical: the real problem is
            >not just textual variants, but the synoptic parallels. Dependence among
            >the synoptic gospels (Matt, Mark, Luke) is accepted by critical
            >scholarship. Therefore, the gospels themselves, when compared, show us
            >what editing was going on *before* the manuscripts were copied which are
            >preserved today.
            >

            Supposed and theorized editing!

            >An example: Take Throckmorton, and read the parallel passages of the
            >"Cursing of the Fig Tree" (Matt 21:18-22; Mark 11:12-14, 20-25).
            >According to Mark, Jesus is a rather ignorant fool (and certainly not a
            >divinity with foreknowledge), while Matthew has omitted precisely the two
            >statements from Mark which make Jesus' "non-divine" status obvious (Mark
            >11:13: "he went to see whether perhaps he would find anything on it";
            >idem: "for it was not the season for figs"). Luke (perhaps embarrassed by
            >the whole thing?) omits the whole story.

            OR it is possible that Mark added to Matthew, and that the entire pericope
            was outside the larger scope of Luke who certainly had a larger body of
            material to draw from than simply Mark and Matthew (See Luke 1:1-4). That
            he was embarrassed at all is a purely psychological conjecture!

            >
            >Another example is the story of the "Rich Young Man/Ruler" (Matt 19:16-30;
            >Mark 10:17-31; Luke 18:18-30). Here again, Mark's text (Mark 10:18)
            >clearly states that Jesus is not God: "Why do you call *me* [Jesus] good?
            >No one is good but God alone." In the parallel in Matt (Matt 19:16-17),
            >the offending words (in Mark 10:17: "Good Master...") have once again been
            >changed (Matt 19:16: "Teacher, what *good deed*..."), so as to remove the
            >"problem."
            >

            Again, it is possible that Mark altered Matthew's text . . .

            In response to the larger question at hand, however, and since, at the
            present, I am studying in a seminar on John, the so called purpose
            statement of John 20:31 contains a variant worthy of mention since one's
            choice can actually alter the way the entire Gospel is read, evangelistic
            or edification. Additionally, The Woman Caught in Adultery pericope (John
            7:53-8:11) is perhaps the most well known from the larger textual variants.

            Like others I would recommend Metzger's Textual Commentary Supplement to
            the UBS 3d and 4th editions as a beginning point for the rational behind
            the choices made in the UBS text about each of these textual variants.

            Mike Logsdon
            PhD Student
            Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary
          • William L. Petersen
            Re: Mike Logsdon s comments: ... ??? I don t follow you. We *know*, from comparison of the synoptic parallels and from the patristic citations of the NT that
            Message 5 of 26 , Jan 22, 1999
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              Re: Mike Logsdon's comments:

              At 01:44 PM 1/22/99 -0600, you wrote:
              >>But there is another problem, which is more critical: the real problem is
              >>not just textual variants, but the synoptic parallels. Dependence among
              >>the synoptic gospels (Matt, Mark, Luke) is accepted by critical
              >>scholarship. Therefore, the gospels themselves, when compared, show us
              >>what editing was going on *before* the manuscripts were copied which are
              >>preserved today.
              >>
              >
              >Supposed and theorized editing!

              ??? I don't follow you. We *know*, from comparison of the synoptic
              parallels and from the patristic citations of the NT that editing occurred.
              How is that "supposed and theorized"?

              >
              >>An example: Take Throckmorton, and read the parallel passages of the
              >>"Cursing of the Fig Tree" (Matt 21:18-22; Mark 11:12-14, 20-25).
              >>According to Mark, Jesus is a rather ignorant fool (and certainly not a
              >>divinity with foreknowledge), while Matthew has omitted precisely the two
              >>statements from Mark which make Jesus' "non-divine" status obvious (Mark
              >>11:13: "he went to see whether perhaps he would find anything on it";
              >>idem: "for it was not the season for figs"). Luke (perhaps embarrassed by
              >>the whole thing?) omits the whole story.
              >
              >OR it is possible that Mark added to Matthew, and that the entire pericope
              >was outside the larger scope of Luke who certainly had a larger body of
              >material to draw from than simply Mark and Matthew (See Luke 1:1-4). That
              >he was embarrassed at all is a purely psychological conjecture!

              (1) You fail to address the two crucial points: (a) an omniscient divinity
              would "know" whether or not there were figs on the tree *without* going to
              see if there were [and this is precisely what Matt omits]; (b) Mark paints
              Jesus a not only *not* a divinity, but also dumber than the average
              peasant, for, according to Mark's text, Jesus doesn't even know when the
              season for figs is [and Matt also omits this unflattering detail].
              (2) It is possible that--as you suggest--"Mark added to Matthew".
              Whichever way you look at it, however, you are acknowledging that there is
              editing going on, contrary to your remark above about editing being
              "supposed and theorized"....
              (3) If one accepts your scenario, then you must explain to me how Matthew's
              earlier, theologically acceptable tale would have been taken over by a
              *later* writer (Mark, in your reconstruction), who would have inserted
              theologically *unacceptable* details, which depict Jesus as just plain dumb
              (he's so ignorant of common knowledge that he wonders if there are figs on
              trees--when it isn't even the season for figs...) and lacking omniscience
              (he doesn't know whether there are figs on the tree or not, and need to
              approach it to determine this...).
              As a general principle, we do *not* find texts becoming *less* in tune with
              later theology the later we go in church history; quite the contrary, as
              the *comma Ioanneum* shows, the tendency has always been to move the text
              in the direction of contemporary beliefs. An example from the 1990s is the
              *Living Bible* at John 1:1: "In the beginning was Christ, and Christ was
              God." (LOGOS and CHRISTOS are two different words in Greek; how can they
              even venture such a translation? Well, they are "correcting" the theology
              of John, and "protecting" it from the misinterpretation of people who might
              have read Plato or Philo...)
              (4) I try to write carefully, so please read carefully. You say that "That
              he [Luke ] was embarrassed at all is a purely psychological conjecture!"
              Indeed it is, as I clearly indicate, by prefacing the words with "perhaps"
              and not even making it a statement, but a question: "perhaps embarrassed
              by the whole thing?"


              >>Another example is the story of the "Rich Young Man/Ruler" (Matt 19:16-30;
              >>Mark 10:17-31; Luke 18:18-30). Here again, Mark's text (Mark 10:18)
              >>clearly states that Jesus is not God: "Why do you call *me* [Jesus] good?
              >>No one is good but God alone." In the parallel in Matt (Matt 19:16-17),
              >>the offending words (in Mark 10:17: "Good Master...") have once again been
              >>changed (Matt 19:16: "Teacher, what *good deed*..."), so as to remove the
              >>"problem."
              >>
              >
              >Again, it is possible that Mark altered Matthew's text . . .

              Indeed. But then comments #2 and 3 above obtain here: (2) you are
              admitting editing takes place among the gospels--that Matthew is being
              revised and substantially changed on theological points by Mark, or the
              reverse.
              (3) What about the theological difference between the two--whichever way
              you wish to have the dependence? And does not both logic and the evidence
              of texts everywhere (even the *Living Bible*) suggest that the
              theologically *unacceptable* text is earlier (= Mark) and the theologically
              more palatable text (= Matthew) is later?


              > In response to the larger question at hand, however, and since, at the
              >present, I am studying in a seminar on John, the so called purpose
              >statement of John 20:31 contains a variant worthy of mention since one's
              >choice can actually alter the way the entire Gospel is read, evangelistic
              >or edification. Additionally, The Woman Caught in Adultery pericope (John
              >7:53-8:11) is perhaps the most well known from the larger textual variants.

              Indeed, there are theological issues associated with the *pericope
              adulterae*; although it doesn't focus on them, you might enjoy looking at
              my textual study of the origins of the *per.ad.* in *Sayings of Jesus:
              Canonical and Non-canonical*, Supp. Novum Testamentum 89 (Brill, 1997), pp.
              191-221.


              --Petersen, Penn State Univ.
            • Stephen C. Carlson
              ... [...] ... Peter M. Head, CHRISTOLOGY AND THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM: An Argument for Markan Priority (Cambridge: University Press, 1997), has devoted
              Message 6 of 26 , Jan 22, 1999
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                At 03:31 PM 1/22/99 -0500, William L. Petersen wrote:
                >Re: Mike Logsdon's comments:
                >At 01:44 PM 1/22/99 -0600, you wrote:
                >>>Another example is the story of the "Rich Young Man/Ruler" (Matt 19:16-30;
                >>>Mark 10:17-31; Luke 18:18-30). Here again, Mark's text (Mark 10:18)
                >>>clearly states that Jesus is not God: "Why do you call *me* [Jesus] good?
                >>>No one is good but God alone." In the parallel in Matt (Matt 19:16-17),
                >>>the offending words (in Mark 10:17: "Good Master...") have once again been
                >>>changed (Matt 19:16: "Teacher, what *good deed*..."), so as to remove the
                >>>"problem."
                >>
                >>Again, it is possible that Mark altered Matthew's text . . .
                [...]
                >(3) What about the theological difference between the two--whichever way
                >you wish to have the dependence? And does not both logic and the evidence
                >of texts everywhere (even the *Living Bible*) suggest that the
                >theologically *unacceptable* text is earlier (= Mark) and the theologically
                >more palatable text (= Matthew) is later?

                Peter M. Head, CHRISTOLOGY AND THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM: An Argument for
                Markan Priority (Cambridge: University Press, 1997), has devoted
                considerable attention to this pericope, concluding:

                "The common assumption that Matthew's alteration of Jesus'
                response to the man (Matt. 19.17) is a redactional evasion
                of the christological implications of Mark 10.18 does not
                cohere with the positive emphasis within Matthew's version
                of the account or with comparison of later preferences in
                the manuscripts and Tatian." [p.64]

                Earlier on page 60, Head states that Tatian chose the Markan/Lukan
                version over the Matthean version [Arabic 28.42-51, Ephraem XV.1f;
                Persian II.39]. Furthermore, there are wide number of MSS that
                harmonize the already more palatable text of Matthew to the
                unacceptable text of Mark or Luke: e.g. C W Delta fam.13 syr:p
                cop:sa Byz [E F G H]. Typically, however, harmonization goes
                the other direction.

                Have you been able to consider Head's analysis?

                Stephen Carlson
                --
                Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
                Synoptic Problem Home Page http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
                "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35
              • Bart Ehrman
                BTW, a terrific little book that would be ideal for you would be David Parker s _Living Text of the Gospels_ -- written for the non-specialist but showing how
                Message 7 of 26 , Jan 22, 1999
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  BTW, a terrific little book that would be ideal for you would be David
                  Parker's _Living Text of the Gospels_ -- written for the non-specialist
                  but showing how the differences among the manuscripts have significant
                  affects on the meaning of the texts (with references to the
                  analogous problems, e.g., in Shakespeare) (though w/o benefit of Tom
                  Stoppard's suggestions :-)).

                  -- Bart Ehrman
                  University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill


                  On Fri, 22 Jan 1999 WHITER@... wrote:

                  > Dear TC-er's:
                  >
                  > I am an English professor preparing to teach a course in the Bible as
                  > Literature for the first time. In sending this message, I am jumping brashly
                  > into unfamiliar territory, so please forgive my ignorance of things you take
                  > for granted--for starters, knowledge of Greek and Hebrew.
                  >
                  > At any rate, William Barclay wrote, "It has been calculated that in the Greek
                  > manuscripts of the New Testament there are 150,000 places in which there are
                  > variant readings.... Of the 150,000 fewer than 400 affect the sense, fewer than
                  > 50 are of any importance, and there is no case in which an article of faith or
                  > a precept of duty is left in doubt." (_Introducing the Bible_, 25th
                  > Anniversary Edition, p. 154.)
                  >
                  > I would like to know some of the 50 important variant readings to which Barclay
                  > refers, and I'd also be interested in important variant readings in the OT. I
                  > wish to use these to illustrate to undergraduates some of the issues
                  > translators and readers confront. The only example I now have is I Thess. 4:4,
                  > where, apparently, the Greek original meaning "vessel" may be rendered either
                  > "body" or "wife."
                  >
                  > Is there a single source, appropriate for a layman, that would help here? If
                  > not, could you mention either on this list or by direct e-mail a couple of your
                  > favorites?
                  >
                  > Thanks,
                  >
                  > Robert A. White
                  > English Department, The Citadel
                  > whiter@...
                  >
                  >
                • Jim Deardorff
                  ... At the risk of adding to a debate that may then be considered off-topic for tc and more appropriate for those more interested in the synoptic problem, let
                  Message 8 of 26 , Jan 23, 1999
                  View Source
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On Fri, 22 Jan 1999, William L. Petersen wrote:

                    > >>An example: Take Throckmorton, and read the parallel passages of the
                    > >>"Cursing of the Fig Tree" (Matt 21:18-22; Mark 11:12-14, 20-25).
                    > >>According to Mark, Jesus is a rather ignorant fool (and certainly not a
                    > >>divinity with foreknowledge), while Matthew has omitted precisely the two
                    > >>statements from Mark which make Jesus' "non-divine" status obvious (Mark
                    > >>11:13: "he went to see whether perhaps he would find anything on it";
                    > >>idem: "for it was not the season for figs"). Luke (perhaps embarrassed by
                    > >>the whole thing?) omits the whole story.

                    Mike Logsdon replied:
                    > >OR it is possible that Mark added to Matthew, and that the entire pericope
                    > >was outside the larger scope of Luke who certainly had a larger body of
                    > >material to draw from than simply Mark and Matthew (See Luke 1:1-4). That
                    > >he was embarrassed at all is a purely psychological conjecture!

                    Petersen responded:
                    > (1) You fail to address the two crucial points: (a) an omniscient divinity
                    > would "know" whether or not there were figs on the tree *without* going to
                    > see if there were [and this is precisely what Matt omits]; (b) Mark paints
                    > Jesus a not only *not* a divinity, but also dumber than the average
                    > peasant, for, according to Mark's text, Jesus doesn't even know when the
                    > season for figs is [and Matt also omits this unflattering detail].
                    > (2) It is possible that--as you suggest--"Mark added to Matthew".
                    > Whichever way you look at it, however, you are acknowledging that there is
                    > editing going on, contrary to your remark above about editing being
                    > "supposed and theorized"....
                    > (3) If one accepts your scenario, then you must explain to me how Matthew's
                    > earlier, theologically acceptable tale would have been taken over by a
                    > *later* writer (Mark, in your reconstruction), who would have inserted
                    > theologically *unacceptable* details, which depict Jesus as just plain dumb
                    > (he's so ignorant of common knowledge that he wonders if there are figs on
                    > trees--when it isn't even the season for figs...) and lacking omniscience
                    > (he doesn't know whether there are figs on the tree or not, and need to
                    > approach it to determine this...).

                    At the risk of adding to a debate that may then be considered off-topic
                    for tc and more appropriate for those more interested in the synoptic
                    problem, let me contribute the following here, since the two fields do overlap.

                    There is an interesting and plausible alternative that allows the writer
                    of Mark to have expanded upon Matthew at times, even in the above example,
                    while abbreviating away portions he deemed unnecessary or anti-gentile or
                    non-understandable. In the above example, the writer of Mark wished to
                    split Matthew's miracle of the fig-tree withering into two pieces a day
                    apart. So he invented the phony sounding intro of Mk 11:11 where Jesus
                    does nothing more than walk into the temple, look around, and walk out
                    again, so as to allow a first encounter with the fig tree to occur in the
                    morning. Then after a full day had elapsed, he allowed the withered tree
                    to be observed. Thus he avoided Matthew's abrupt withering. Why? It seems
                    quite plausible to me that the writer had heard objections to Matthew at
                    this point, to the effect that anyone knew a tree could even be uprooted
                    or chopped down yet its leaves wouldn't look withered right away. So he
                    was just improving upon Matthew's miracle here to make it more acceptable
                    to his gentile audience. It would still be a miracle even if it took up to
                    a day for its leaves to wither.

                    As for Jesus being dumb here, I would contend that the writer of Mark
                    needs to be blamed for this, and for not being a careful editor. In his
                    desire to make changes for the sake of change, so that his gospel would be
                    more than a mere abbreviation of Matthew, he thought he could safely add
                    "for it was not the season for figs." (He did the same elsewhere, e.g.,
                    the "green" grass of Mk 6:39 occurring over a large area yet in a
                    desert or deserted region, with Mt 14:19 not mentioning "green.")

                    > As a general principle, we do *not* find texts becoming *less* in tune with
                    > later theology the later we go in church history; quite the contrary, as
                    > the *comma Ioanneum* shows, the tendency has always been to move the text
                    > in the direction of contemporary beliefs.

                    There are quite a few examples of Mark being an upgrade of Matthew. Like
                    in Mk 1:1 where "Son of God" would not then have been a later scribal
                    alteration. In Mk 1:7 Jesus is upgraded relative to John by having John be
                    unworthy even to touch the thong of Jesus' sandals, let alone carry them.
                    (Mark's omission of practically all of Mt 11:1-14, with its praise for
                    John, is consistent with this.) Mk 6:29-31 avoids the implication that
                    Jesus withdrew because he was afraid, which Mt 14:13 allows. Mark has
                    greater emphasis upon the gospel as a written account (e.g., Mk 1:1,
                    8:35). Mk 11:3 has the promise that Jesus would send the colt back
                    immediately; this avoids Matthew's implication that the colt was usurped
                    (the writer of Mark emphasized the right of ownership, as in Mk 10:19 and
                    its "Do not defraud"). Mk 10:17 has "Good teacher" while Mt 19:16 simply
                    has "Teacher;" Mk 10:20 has "Teacher" while Mt 19:20 just leaves it as
                    "him," and the same with Mk 10:35 vs Mt 20:20.

                    Equally important, however, is to bear in mind that with the tradition
                    that Matthew came out first, written in a Semitic tongue, that its
                    translator did not translate it into Greek likely until after both Mark
                    and Luke had appeared. At that time, numerous small alterations and
                    upgrades could or would have been emplaced within Matthew, such as
                    replacing Mark's "Teacher" with "Lord" here and there.

                    > >>Another example is the story of the "Rich Young Man/Ruler" (Matt 19:16-30;
                    > >>Mark 10:17-31; Luke 18:18-30). Here again, Mark's text (Mark 10:18)
                    > >>clearly states that Jesus is not God: "Why do you call *me* [Jesus] good?
                    > >>No one is good but God alone." In the parallel in Matt (Matt 19:16-17),
                    > >>the offending words (in Mark 10:17: "Good Master...") have once again been
                    > >>changed (Matt 19:16: "Teacher, what *good deed*..."), so as to remove the
                    > >>"problem."

                    > >Again, it is possible that Mark altered Matthew's text . . .

                    But in this instance the analysis of Lamar Cope seems quite viable. In
                    Matthew, the "Good" had referred to the Torah. That's why its discussion
                    goes on to discuss the commandments. But the writer of Mark, along with
                    many of us today, did not understand this, so he tried to resolve the
                    apparent ambiguity in Matthew by explaining what "Good" applied to, but
                    succeeded only in generating his own problem. Also, note again that it is
                    Mark that has "Good Teacher" while Matthew has only "Teacher."

                    Jim Deardorff
                    Web Page: http://www.proaxis.com/~deardorj
                    (See section on "Evidence that Mark is secondary to Matthew")
                  • M A Robinson
                    On Fri, 22 Jan 1999 13:43:30 -0500 William L. Petersen ... consensus was that Mark 16:9+ were not original. Although the response was related
                    Message 9 of 26 , Jan 23, 1999
                    View Source
                    • 0 Attachment
                      On Fri, 22 Jan 1999 13:43:30 -0500 "William L. Petersen" <wlp1@...>
                      writes:

                      >here on the TC-list, I noticed that just today the vast (unanimous?)
                      consensus was >that Mark 16:9+ were not original.

                      Although the response was related to the question about the English
                      bible, there are indeed some (few) of us who hold Mk. 16:9-20 as
                      original. I didn't chime in with the recent question since I had already
                      discussed my position on that passage during last Fall's discussion. I
                      only speak now because I don't want to get lumped in summarily by
                      "(unanimous?)" with a position which I would not espouse.

                      As for two of the other texts mentioned, even though I obviously concur
                      with Petersen in regard to the inauthenticity of 1 Jn. 5:7, since the
                      textual evidence there is strong and clear, I would strongly demur in
                      regard to Mt. 28:19-20 (and other references cited which have no textual
                      variants among the known MS base); such reflects a judgment made from
                      higher critical praxis and assumptions regarding the pre-transmissional
                      development and stages of the NT documents before there exists
                      text-critical evidence. Petersen also espouses a higher-critical approach
                      which I do not happen to share, and we would have serious differences of
                      interpretation of the identical evidence; but there is no need to discuss
                      such in this forum, since it strays off-topic from tc in particular.

                      However, I would like to ask Petersen this: why Throckmorton and not the
                      Aland "Synopsis of the Four Gospels"? Aside from an English presentation
                      of text-critical variant readings in Throckmorton versus English Bible
                      version variants in Aland, do you see a greater benefit in Throckmorton's
                      layout or pericope arrangement, or are there other benefits which I
                      haven't necessarily noticed? (I have used both in NT Introduction classes
                      during the past 15 years, but I settled on Aland's Synopsis about 7 years
                      ago, primarily due to the low cost factor, since it can be obtained at a
                      very reasonable price from the Bible Society).

                      ==============================================================
                      Maurice A. Robinson, Ph. D.
                      Professor of Greek and New Testament
                      Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary
                      Wake Forest, North Carolina, USA
                    • William L. Petersen
                      At 05:25 PM 1/23/99 -0500, Maurice Robinson wrote: [snip] ... There are four main reasons for my preference for Throckmorton. (1) The editions of Aland s
                      Message 10 of 26 , Jan 25, 1999
                      View Source
                      • 0 Attachment
                        At 05:25 PM 1/23/99 -0500, Maurice Robinson wrote:

                        [snip]

                        >However, I would like to ask Petersen this: why Throckmorton and not the
                        >Aland "Synopsis of the Four Gospels"? Aside from an English presentation
                        >of text-critical variant readings in Throckmorton versus English Bible
                        >version variants in Aland, do you see a greater benefit in Throckmorton's
                        >layout or pericope arrangement, or are there other benefits which I
                        >haven't necessarily noticed? (I have used both in NT Introduction classes
                        >during the past 15 years, but I settled on Aland's Synopsis about 7 years
                        >ago, primarily due to the low cost factor, since it can be obtained at a
                        >very reasonable price from the Bible Society).

                        There are four main reasons for my preference for Throckmorton.

                        (1) The editions of Aland's English *Synopsis* (RSV text) which I have seen
                        (mine is 1985 printing of the 1st edition) give NO manuscript evidence.
                        The apparatus consists primarily of readings from *English
                        translations*--hardly a satisfactory way to educate students about
                        manuscripts and the radically different readings present in the MSS. One
                        of my aims is to educate students about the manuscript tradition of the NT
                        and to make them (painfully) aware of the enormous range and variety among
                        the MSS and versions. Aland's *Synopsis* is useless for this purpose.
                        (There are--but only very occasionally--references to sources in the notes
                        at the bottom of the page [I am loath to call it an apparatus], but these
                        are useless: e.g.: "other ancient authorities omit *in his day*". But
                        Aland does not tell you *what* ancient authorities, or in what languages,
                        "omit *in his day*"--and most pages are entirely devoid of *any* references
                        to MS variants.

                        Therefore, for many students, who enter university with the defective and
                        empirically incorrect notion that we "have" the "original text" of the NT,
                        or that their English Bibles are all translations of the *same* Greek
                        manuscript (!!), Aland is misleading by tacitly encouraging that view.
                        Throckmorton does not.

                        Aland's (English) *Synopsis* is, in my view, bizarre, for it wastes up to a
                        quarter of the page sometimes giving nothing more than variants between the
                        KJV, the RSV and the 1881 English Revised Version. Look at p. 268, for
                        example. Of what use is this to teaching about the text of the NT? It may
                        be useful for comparing English translations, but it is of no help is
                        showing the textual chaos what was the first centuries of Christianity.

                        (2) Throckmorton (RSV text in older editions; the NRSV in the most recent
                        edition) has an extensive introduction, describing all the major
                        manuscripts of the NT (including the papyri), in addition to providing a
                        description of the major "families" of the NT MSS (Alexandrian, Western,
                        Koine, etc.) and even the Versions (!) and non-canonical sources (!!).
                        Furthermore, he offers a brief overview of the copying of MSS and the
                        materials (papyrus, parchment, etc.), and even the Fathers (who was Clement
                        of Alex., etc.). I assign this as reading, for I know of no NT Intro
                        textbook (Bart, yours may, but I don't remember at the moment...) which
                        provides such a detailed and extensive overview of the MS tradition of the
                        NT, papyri, fathers, codices, and copying practices.

                        (3) Throckmorton gives a rather extensive set of *quotations*--the actual
                        texts--from Patristic and non-canonical sources in his apparatus. If you
                        look at Aland, there is not a *single* reference to the *Gospel of Thomas*
                        in it (as far as I can see). Is it really possible to do synoptic textual
                        and source criticism without taking *Thomas* into consideration? Can one
                        really study the "Parables of the Salt and Light" (Matt 5:13-16) with just
                        the canonical gospels in front of one? I say one can, but that is not
                        scholarship. At this passage, Throckmorton provides an English translation
                        of P.Oxy. 1 and Thomas log. 32 (they differ slightly); in the next verse
                        (Matt 5:17) he provides English translations of the Gospel of the Ebionites
                        and the Gospel of the Egyptians (as cited by Clement Al., Misc. II.9.63
                        [Throckmorton even gives you the reference in the Father...]). I do NOT
                        want to artificially limit the perspective of my students; I want them to
                        see the full breadth of evidence available, in Thomas, in P.Oxy. 1, and the
                        Fathers. Conclusion: Throckmorton offers more information--more *useful*
                        information for the scholar--than Aland.

                        (4) The setup of Throckmorton is easier on the eyes: the type is bigger
                        (even though the volume is thinner), the headers, layout and typography are
                        better than Aland. Throckmorton also provides useful tools, including a
                        cross-index between all of his non-canonical sources and the appropriate
                        passage in the gospels (pp. xxvii to xxxi: 5 pages!), which guides the
                        student to where certain sources (e.g. Thomas, of the Gospel of Peter)
                        offer parallels. While Throckmorton does not present all the parallels
                        from these sources, he gives *much* more info than any other source.

                        That is why I vastly prefer Throckmorton to Aland. Any questions?

                        --Petersen, Penn State University.
                      • William L. Petersen
                        ... No. I ve seen the title, but not had time to look at the book; also, I don t have time to muck about in the Diatessaronic materials at the moment. Two
                        Message 11 of 26 , Jan 25, 1999
                        View Source
                        • 0 Attachment
                          At 04:56 PM 1/22/99 -0500, Stephen Carlson wrote:

                          >Peter M. Head, CHRISTOLOGY AND THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM: An Argument for
                          >Markan Priority (Cambridge: University Press, 1997), has devoted
                          >considerable attention to this pericope, concluding:
                          >
                          > "The common assumption that Matthew's alteration of Jesus'
                          > response to the man (Matt. 19.17) is a redactional evasion
                          > of the christological implications of Mark 10.18 does not
                          > cohere with the positive emphasis within Matthew's version
                          > of the account or with comparison of later preferences in
                          > the manuscripts and Tatian." [p.64]
                          >
                          >Earlier on page 60, Head states that Tatian chose the Markan/Lukan
                          >version over the Matthean version [Arabic 28.42-51, Ephraem XV.1f;
                          >Persian II.39]. Furthermore, there are wide number of MSS that
                          >harmonize the already more palatable text of Matthew to the
                          >unacceptable text of Mark or Luke: e.g. C W Delta fam.13 syr:p
                          >cop:sa Byz [E F G H]. Typically, however, harmonization goes
                          >the other direction.
                          >
                          >Have you been able to consider Head's analysis?


                          No. I've seen the title, but not had time to look at the book; also, I
                          don't have time to muck about in the Diatessaronic materials at the moment.
                          Two observations, however.

                          (1) One must always be concerned about the use of the Diatessaron, even by
                          specialists, for it is a very complex, difficult beast. We have no text of
                          "the" Diatessaron; it must be reconstructed from various sources, which is
                          a difficult, time-consuming and painstaking task. Ephrem cannot be assumed
                          to be the text of the Diatessaron; we know that Eprhem knew not just the
                          Diatessaron, but also the Vetus Syra as well as the "Greek" (he cites it as
                          such several times [ 7 or so, I think] in his Commentary. Also, Ephrem's
                          *own* text appears to have been revised in its transmission history.

                          (2) Head's comments (at least as you quote them) are a bit vague: what,
                          for example, is the "the positive emphasis within Matthew's version"? I,
                          for one, don't know what a "positive emphasis" is. I can assume what he
                          means by the "later preferences in the manuscripts [and Tatian]"? I've
                          already pointed out that we don't have "Tatian"--and we'd certainly have to
                          do a much more extensive analysis to reconstruct Tatian's text. As for the
                          MSS (C, the Koine, etc.,--see your apparatuses, folks) which interpolate
                          the "good" into the salutation in Matt, and also substitute Jesus' Marcan
                          answer for the Matthean answer, it is, indeed, a puzzling picture. But
                          *none* of these MSS (at least so far as my Aland Greek Synopsis shows)
                          delete the distinctively Matthean "AGATHON POIHSW" in Matt 19:16. And it
                          is *this* change which, in B and aleph and a few other early sources, is
                          the key to circumlocuting the Christologically objectionable reading of Mark.

                          The problem here is simple: If the Christologically "orthodox" version (=
                          Matt, in B, etc.) were the earliest version of the passage, then how can
                          one account for the incredible theological "mucking up" this entirely
                          "acceptable" passage gets at the hands of Mark? Ditto for the parallel
                          case in the "Cursing of the Fig Tree" episode: why would Mark interpolate
                          into an acceptable text (Matthew's version) items which are objectionable,
                          and make Jesus out to be a dolt? (Examples of such "improvements" in Matt
                          are legion: cp. the omission in Matt 27:54 of the word "man/anthropos",
                          which is in the Marcan parallel [15:39].) We know that, as time goes on,
                          "theological corrections" are made in the text: Augustine says the
                          *pericope adulterae* was excised in areas he knew because people thought it
                          was too "liberal" a story (so much for the "reverence" accorded "received
                          text" of the gospels in the fifth century...); John "corrects" (even
                          acknowledging its corrections) synoptic events/sayings in John 2:19-22 and
                          John 21:21-23; what editors now often set in brackets (Mark 7:19)
                          certainly must come from a time late in or after the apostolic era, for
                          Peter and the rest certainly don't know they can eat anything in Acts 10
                          &11--and, indeed, the Acts version of the Apostolic Decree (Acts 15:20)
                          does *not* allow Christians to eat anything... Etc., etc.

                          To the frustration of some of my colleagues, I am an agnostic about
                          synoptic relationships; I think it needs to be decided on a case-by-case,
                          reading-by-reading basis, not "en bloc" (= Matt is *always* using Mark, or
                          the reverse). My point in introducing these examples was *not* to become
                          embroiled in a discussion of the precise synoptic relationships, but to
                          provide some examples for the faculty member at the Citadel, who was
                          looking for text-critical cruxes. These certainly exist (and he now has a
                          goodly handful of them from numerous members of the list); what I also
                          wanted to draw his attention to (he is a professor of English, if I recall)
                          is that there is modification going on *among* the gospels as well--and
                          that these changes *among* the parallel passages are (1) often significant,
                          (2) sometimes have *theological* significance (recall that the Citadel
                          prof's original query was about Barclay's bold assertion that no variants
                          touched on points of doctrine...), and--most importantly for students to
                          understand--that (3) these differences must reflect either (a) a deliberate
                          rewriting of the text which came into the author's (or later revisor's)
                          hands ("Mark" revised by "Matthew"--or, also possible, "Matthew" revised by
                          "Mark," or later redactors revising one or the other or both), or (b) a
                          version of "Mark" (or "Matthew") in manuscript form which is no longer
                          preserved for us in the surviving manuscript tradition. (This is nothing
                          new: the so-called "minor agreements" are an example of this.) While item
                          (a) is not directly of interest to textual criticism--although it may well
                          be of significance, as shown by harmonization and assimilation...), item
                          (b) is (or should be...) of direct interest to all textual critics. This
                          is especially so when such readings are buttressed by early Patristic,
                          versional, or non-canonical evidence.

                          --Petersen, Penn State Univ.
                        • Lamerson, Sam
                          Message 12 of 26 , Jan 25, 1999
                          View Source
                          • 0 Attachment
                            I would recommend Black's book on Textual Criticism as a helpful starting
                            point. I would also point out a few places where one should concentrate if
                            one wants to see "big differences" in the text. The most obvious of course
                            are the Lords prayer in Matthew, The Pericope of the Woman Taken in Adultery
                            (John 8), and the end of the gospel of Mark. There are other smaller
                            differences like the use of the word musterion in I Cor. 2. If you would
                            like a syllabus from my TC class which points out the passages that we
                            worked on please let know off list.

                            Blessings,

                            Sam Lamerson
                            Knox Seminary

                            > -----Original Message-----
                            > From: WHITER@... [SMTP:WHITER@...]
                            > Sent: Friday, January 22, 1999 10:26 AM
                            > To: tc-list@...
                            > Cc: whiter@...
                            > Subject: tc-list Biblical Cruxes
                            >
                            > Dear TC-er's:
                            >
                            > I am an English professor preparing to teach a course in the Bible as
                            > Literature for the first time. In sending this message, I am jumping
                            > brashly
                            > into unfamiliar territory, so please forgive my ignorance of things you
                            > take
                            > for granted--for starters, knowledge of Greek and Hebrew.
                            >
                            > At any rate, William Barclay wrote, "It has been calculated that in the
                            > Greek
                            > manuscripts of the New Testament there are 150,000 places in which there
                            > are
                            > variant readings.... Of the 150,000 fewer than 400 affect the sense, fewer
                            > than
                            > 50 are of any importance, and there is no case in which an article of
                            > faith or
                            > a precept of duty is left in doubt." (_Introducing the Bible_, 25th
                            > Anniversary Edition, p. 154.)
                            >
                            > I would like to know some of the 50 important variant readings to which
                            > Barclay
                            > refers, and I'd also be interested in important variant readings in the
                            > OT. I
                            > wish to use these to illustrate to undergraduates some of the issues
                            > translators and readers confront. The only example I now have is I Thess.
                            > 4:4,
                            > where, apparently, the Greek original meaning "vessel" may be rendered
                            > either
                            > "body" or "wife."
                            >
                            > Is there a single source, appropriate for a layman, that would help here?
                            > If
                            > not, could you mention either on this list or by direct e-mail a couple of
                            > your
                            > favorites?
                            >
                            > Thanks,
                            >
                            > Robert A. White
                            > English Department, The Citadel
                            > whiter@...
                          • Lamerson, Sam
                            Message 13 of 26 , Jan 25, 1999
                            View Source
                            • 0 Attachment
                              I would recommend Black's book on Textual Criticism as a helpful starting
                              point. I would also point out a few places where one should concentrate if
                              one wants to see "big differences" in the text. The most obvious of course
                              are the Lords prayer in Matthew, The Pericope of the Woman Taken in Adultery
                              (John 8), and the end of the gospel of Mark. There are other smaller
                              differences like the use of the word musterion in I Cor. 2. If you would
                              like a syllabus from my TC class which points out the passages that we
                              worked on please let know off list.

                              Blessings,

                              Sam Lamerson
                              Knox Seminary

                              > -----Original Message-----
                              > From: WHITER@... [SMTP:WHITER@...]
                              > Sent: Friday, January 22, 1999 10:26 AM
                              > To: tc-list@...
                              > Cc: whiter@...
                              > Subject: tc-list Biblical Cruxes
                              >
                              > Dear TC-er's:
                              >
                              > I am an English professor preparing to teach a course in the Bible as
                              > Literature for the first time. In sending this message, I am jumping
                              > brashly
                              > into unfamiliar territory, so please forgive my ignorance of things you
                              > take
                              > for granted--for starters, knowledge of Greek and Hebrew.
                              >
                              > At any rate, William Barclay wrote, "It has been calculated that in the
                              > Greek
                              > manuscripts of the New Testament there are 150,000 places in which there
                              > are
                              > variant readings.... Of the 150,000 fewer than 400 affect the sense, fewer
                              > than
                              > 50 are of any importance, and there is no case in which an article of
                              > faith or
                              > a precept of duty is left in doubt." (_Introducing the Bible_, 25th
                              > Anniversary Edition, p. 154.)
                              >
                              > I would like to know some of the 50 important variant readings to which
                              > Barclay
                              > refers, and I'd also be interested in important variant readings in the
                              > OT. I
                              > wish to use these to illustrate to undergraduates some of the issues
                              > translators and readers confront. The only example I now have is I Thess.
                              > 4:4,
                              > where, apparently, the Greek original meaning "vessel" may be rendered
                              > either
                              > "body" or "wife."
                              >
                              > Is there a single source, appropriate for a layman, that would help here?
                              > If
                              > not, could you mention either on this list or by direct e-mail a couple of
                              > your
                              > favorites?
                              >
                              > Thanks,
                              >
                              > Robert A. White
                              > English Department, The Citadel
                              > whiter@...
                            • Mike Myers
                              Message 14 of 26 , Jan 25, 1999
                              View Source
                              • 0 Attachment
                                ------------------------
                                From: Mike Logsdon <logsdon@...>
                                Subject: Re: tc-list Biblical Cruxes
                                Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 13:44:02 -0600
                                To: tc-list@...


                                Mike Logsdon wrote:
                                "Supposed and theorized editing!"

                                Gotta ask..are you claiming, or are you being apprised by your
                                advisors, that the issue of editing/redaction of these MSS is an
                                open one?

                                Mike Myers

                                ****************************************************
                              • Bill Combs
                                Could you send me the syllabus? -- Bill Combs Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary
                                Message 15 of 26 , Jan 26, 1999
                                View Source
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Could you send me the syllabus?
                                  --
                                  Bill Combs
                                  Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary

                                  ----------
                                  >From: "Lamerson, Sam" <slamerson@...>
                                  >To: "'tc-list@...'" <tc-list@...>
                                  >Subject: RE: tc-list Biblical Cruxes
                                  >Date: Tue, Jan 26, 1999, 12:14 AM
                                  >

                                  > I would recommend Black's book on Textual Criticism as a helpful starting
                                  > point. I would also point out a few places where one should concentrate if
                                  > one wants to see "big differences" in the text. The most obvious of course
                                  > are the Lords prayer in Matthew, The Pericope of the Woman Taken in Adultery
                                  > (John 8), and the end of the gospel of Mark. There are other smaller
                                  > differences like the use of the word musterion in I Cor. 2. If you would
                                  > like a syllabus from my TC class which points out the passages that we
                                  > worked on please let know off list.
                                  >
                                  > Blessings,
                                  >
                                  > Sam Lamerson
                                  > Knox Seminary
                                • M A Robinson
                                  On Mon, 25 Jan 1999 10:27:52 -0500 William L. Petersen ... Good answer, Bill. I think you are probably on target, especially in regard to the
                                  Message 16 of 26 , Jan 26, 1999
                                  View Source
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    On Mon, 25 Jan 1999 10:27:52 -0500 "William L. Petersen" <wlp1@...>
                                    writes:

                                    >That is why I vastly prefer Throckmorton to Aland. Any questions?

                                    Good answer, Bill. I think you are probably on target, especially in
                                    regard to the matter of the wasted space in the Aland Synopsis with all
                                    those (generally) irrelevant citations of readings from older English
                                    versions when they could have made a more concerted effort by dumping
                                    those and including English translations of all the patristic and
                                    extra-biblical quotations which they do include in their Greek Synopsis.

                                    I would hope that maybe someone from Muenster or the Bible Societies is
                                    listening to that complaint, since it seems that it could be rectified in
                                    future editions and they could strive to produce a synopsis in English
                                    which has the patristic and extra-biblical material in English as well.
                                    It will not do to suggest that one purchase the (overpriced) combined
                                    version of the Greek Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum plus the English
                                    Synopsis of the Four Gospels, since that still would leave NT
                                    Introduction students without any means of understanding the Greek
                                    patristic and extra-biblical quotes.

                                    My reasons for using the Aland Synopsis were threefold: (1) as mentioned
                                    already, price was a primary factor (it is obviously a bargain from the
                                    Bible Societies); (2) but in addition I wanted to use it because it also
                                    included all the Johannine gospel text (which Throckmorton gives only
                                    small samples of when parallel, and even omits long portions when
                                    parallel); (3) also, the arrangement of the pericopes is identical with
                                    that found in the SQE, and this made a good transitional bridge for those
                                    students moving on to comparative work in Greek once they learned the
                                    language since the format would be not only familiar but identical.

                                    On balance, I still will stay with the Aland Synopsis as the main
                                    required text, not because it is best, but because of those three factors
                                    noted. I only wish that the Aland English Synopsis would similarly
                                    include English translation of major variant readings with MS evidence
                                    like Throckmorton and (especially) bring in the patristic and
                                    extra-biblical parallel quotation in English like Throckmorton. The
                                    Muenster staff has the power and the resources to do this, and if not,
                                    certainly the Bible Societies.

                                    Otherwise, I still tend to feel quite comfortable (more so) in having the
                                    text of all four gospels in complete form rather than a partial citation
                                    of John (and that not even partial where the parallels are lengthy). Yet
                                    there are very good reasons for retaining Throckmorton as an recommended
                                    text in addition, or maybe allowing the students to pick whichever one
                                    they prefer as their required text (though this would not make the
                                    bookstore people very happy when we request an indeterminate number to be
                                    ordered):

                                    >(2) Throckmorton (RSV text in older editions; the NRSV in the most
                                    recent
                                    >edition) has an extensive introduction, describing all the major
                                    manuscripts of the >NT (including the papyri), in addition to providing a
                                    description of the major >"families" of the NT MSS (Alexandrian, Western,
                                    Koine, etc.) and even the Versions >(!) and non-canonical sources (!!).
                                    Furthermore, he offers a brief overview of the >copying of MSS and the
                                    materials (papyrus, parchment, etc.), and even the Fathers >(who was
                                    Clement of Alex., etc.).

                                    This also is a plus with Throckmorton which the Aland Synopsis does not
                                    come close to matching.

                                    >(3) Throckmorton gives a rather extensive set of *quotations*--the
                                    >actual texts--from Patristic and non-canonical sources in his apparatus.
                                    If
                                    >you look at Aland, there is not a *single* reference to the *Gospel of
                                    >Thomas* in it (as far as I can see). Is it really possible to do
                                    synoptic
                                    >textual and source criticism without taking *Thomas* into consideration?


                                    And yet the entire GTh is included in Coptic and English within SQE (!)
                                    when they probably should have reproduced at least the full English text
                                    as an appendix to SFG.(Of course, so should Throckmorton; instead we only
                                    get clips of GTh where parallels occur, and this is also a weakness).

                                    >I do NOT want to artificially limit the perspective of my students; I
                                    want
                                    >them to see the full breadth of evidence available

                                    This also is a good point, and one which SFG misses by wasting space with
                                    all the English versional translation differences instead of what really
                                    matters.

                                    >(4) The setup of Throckmorton is easier on the eyes: the type is
                                    >bigger (even though the volume is thinner), the headers, layout and
                                    >typography are better than Aland.

                                    The volume is thinner because John is not included. So why does the price
                                    go up as the pages decrease? :-)

                                    However, I do happen to like the style of type in SFG as opposed to the
                                    oversized type in Throckmorton (the older editions of Throckmorton were
                                    about the same size type as SFG) -- I just wish SFG were about 2-3 points
                                    larger (which it could be if 1/4 of the page had not been given over to
                                    those English versional differences).

                                    My conclusion thus is still to prefer Aland, but also to recommend
                                    Throckmorton. Thanks for your input, Bill. It was helpful.

                                    ==============================================================
                                    Maurice A. Robinson, Ph. D.
                                    Professor of Greek and New Testament
                                    Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary
                                    Wake Forest, North Carolina, USA
                                  • Stephen C. Carlson
                                    Seeing how this thread is about to diverge from textual criticism, I will thank William Petersen for this thoughtful and thought-provoking reply, forego the
                                    Message 17 of 26 , Jan 26, 1999
                                    View Source
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Seeing how this thread is about to diverge from textual criticism, I
                                      will thank William Petersen for this thoughtful and thought-provoking
                                      reply, forego the usual point-by-point response, and just touch on a
                                      few issues.

                                      At 11:59 AM 1/25/99 -0500, William L. Petersen wrote:
                                      >The problem here is simple: If the Christologically "orthodox" version (=
                                      >Matt, in B, etc.) were the earliest version of the passage, then how can
                                      >one account for the incredible theological "mucking up" this entirely
                                      >"acceptable" passage gets at the hands of Mark?
                                      [...]
                                      >To the frustration of some of my colleagues, I am an agnostic about
                                      >synoptic relationships; I think it needs to be decided on a case-by-case,
                                      >reading-by-reading basis, not "en bloc" (= Matt is *always* using Mark, or
                                      >the reverse). My point in introducing these examples was *not* to become
                                      >embroiled in a discussion of the precise synoptic relationships, but to
                                      >provide some examples for the faculty member at the Citadel, who was
                                      >looking for text-critical cruxes.

                                      In looking for text-critical cruxes, Mt19:17 might be one such example
                                      just in terms of the difference between the TR (+ C W f13 33 Byz f q
                                      sy:p sy:h sa and bo:mss) and the modern critical text (01 B, etc.).
                                      If the Mt19:17[TR] (along with Mk10:18=Lk18:19) is "theologically
                                      unacceptable" then the variation with 01 and B features an important
                                      difference in meaning.

                                      Mt19:17 also brings up an interesting text-critical issue: shouldn't
                                      the "theologically unacceptable" TR variant be the harder reading,
                                      despite 01, B and the synoptic harmonization? I think that there
                                      are two answers:
                                      (1) The theological unacceptability is overstated. Mk10:18
                                      clearly affirms uniquely God's goodness, which not controversial for
                                      most of Christianity, but it is a best an iffy inference -- if one
                                      does not detect irony -- that Jesus is not God.
                                      (2) Mt19:17 then is actually the harder reading, because of
                                      its obscurity. (What does hEIS ESTIN hO AGAQOS really mean?)

                                      My last point is on its application to synoptic source criticism. It is
                                      important to remember the time and place of theological acceptability.
                                      Even if Mk10:18 clearly means that Jesus is not God, which is arguable,
                                      who is to say that *first century* writers would be so troubled by it?

                                      Stephen Carlson
                                      --
                                      Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
                                      Synoptic Problem Home Page http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
                                      "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35
                                    • William L. Petersen
                                      At this risk of causing several list members to keel over with heart attacks, I agree with M. Robinson s agreement with me on the virtues/vices of Aland s
                                      Message 18 of 26 , Jan 27, 1999
                                      View Source
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        At this risk of causing several list members to keel over with heart
                                        attacks, I agree with M. Robinson's agreement with me on the virtues/vices
                                        of Aland's English Synopsis vs. Throckmorton.

                                        Indeed, were the apparatus and a goodly dash of non-canonical and Patristic
                                        parallels added to the Aland English Synopsis, it would be a very good
                                        alternative to Throckmorton. The problem, however, is that they are *not*
                                        included, and undergrad students rarely have Greek--at least at a standard
                                        good enough to use the Aland Greek Synopsis.

                                        As for Aland having John, yes, it would be beneficial to have it included
                                        in Throckmorton, but the advantage of having the Thomas and Patristic and
                                        MS evidence there outweighs the lack of John. I assign Throckmorton and a
                                        Bible; I could assign Aland and a Bible--but then students would somehow
                                        also have to get Thomas, the Patristic info, plus the MSS--and I know of
                                        *no* English source other than Throckmorton which gives such an extensive
                                        apparatus. In short: John is easy to get hold of; the information *in
                                        English* given in Throckmorton's apparatus is *not* easy to get hold of.

                                        Robinson writes of Throckmorton:

                                        >The volume is thinner because John is not included. So why does the price
                                        >go up as the pages decrease? :-)

                                        The answer: The publisher of Throckmorton, Thomas Nelson, is a commercial
                                        (= profit-making) enterprise (they used to be a NASDQ-listed stock; I
                                        think they were bought out by another commercial house about 3 years ago);
                                        the Bible Societies enjoy bequests, endowments, subvention from churches,
                                        and are *not* profit-making.

                                        --Petersen, Penn State Univ.
                                      • William L. Petersen
                                        ... I agree: it is something of a puzzle. But note your presupposition: that the Matthean text we now have is first century . (1) We have no evidence for
                                        Message 19 of 26 , Jan 27, 1999
                                        View Source
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          A quick response to Steve Carlson, on one of his points:

                                          >My last point is on its application to synoptic source criticism. It is
                                          >important to remember the time and place of theological acceptability.
                                          >Even if Mk10:18 clearly means that Jesus is not God, which is arguable,
                                          >who is to say that *first century* writers would be so troubled by it?
                                          >

                                          I agree: it is something of a puzzle. But note your presupposition: that
                                          the Matthean text we now have is "first century". (1) We have no evidence
                                          for this claim; (2) it is, therefore, open to debate. I'd have to look
                                          (and I don't have the time to do so now), but my guess is that the Matthean
                                          parallel to Mark 10:18 is first evidenced in the late 2nd cent (at the
                                          earliest!), in the Fathers (Justin? Origen? Clement? Irenaeus?). The
                                          Alands' chart of the papyri in their 1st English ed. of *The Text of the
                                          NT* shows--interestingly enough--*no* evidence in the papyri for Matt
                                          19:16-17 (P25 gives part of Matt 19, but is defective for these verses;
                                          P71 apparently has vv. 17-18 [whether it includes the beginning of 17,
                                          which is our focus, is unclear from Aland], but P71 is *fourth* century!);
                                          therefore our earliest MS evidence would be aleph, B, etc.

                                          I am, therefore, reluctant to assume that these "theological changes"--if
                                          that is what they are--were made in the "first century," as you submit.
                                          Rather, they could have been made at any time between the first
                                          and--what?--late second or third century... We simply don't know when the
                                          changes were made, by whom, or for what purposes. All we know is that
                                          someone mucked about with the Young Man's question and Jesus' answer;
                                          depending on your view of synoptic dependence, Matt changed Mark's
                                          (theology appears the most likely reason), or Mark changed Matt's (for
                                          which I can find no explanation). As to the "when", we have no evidence;
                                          as to they "why" we must intuit--and to my mind, theology seems to scream
                                          out here, as it does in other, similar changes (the Fig Tree, the
                                          Centurion's Confession, etc., etc.).

                                          Another well-known example of this same phenomenon is Mark 6:5 ("And
                                          [Jesus] could do *NO* deed of power there") vs. Matt 13:58 ("And [Jesus]
                                          did not do *MANY* deeds of power there"). Mark qualified his "no" later in
                                          the verse ("..except that he laid his hands on a few sick people and cured
                                          them"), but Matt, in the same pattern we have seen elsewhere, makes it
                                          impossible to quote *his* (Matt's) gospel as saying "Jesus could do no deed
                                          of power" in a certain place: according to Matt, Jesus was bloody well
                                          capable of doing miracles anyplace he bloody well pleased. Note also the
                                          subtle shift in the onus as to *why* Jesus didn't do more miracles in
                                          Nazareth: in Mark, it is KAI OUK *EDUNATO* EKEI POIHSAI OUDEMIAN DUNAMIN
                                          ("and he *COULD not do* there *no/any* powerful deed"), while in Matt it
                                          is KAI OUK *EPOIHSEN* EKEI DUNAMEIS POLLAS ("and *he DID not do* there
                                          *many* powerful deeds"). In Mark, the reason is clear: Jesus can only
                                          work miracles if the people have faith; in Matthew, Jesus *chose* not to
                                          work miracles *because* (DIA) they didn't have faith. So we see it is not
                                          just the "no/any" miracles of Mark vs. the "many" miracles of Matthew--it
                                          is much more subtle and complex. Ladies and gentlemen: this is theology,
                                          and it is clearly influencing the text of the gospels--and Mark's "bad"
                                          theology (from the standpoint of later orthodoxy) appears to be corrected
                                          at these points by Matthew. Elsewhere in the gospels it may be different;
                                          perhaps there are places where Mark corrects Matthew's "bad"/low theology.
                                          But at the points listed above, I suggest Mark is earlier, and Matthew (or
                                          a later redactor of Matthew) has clearly cleaned things up. And someone
                                          has been mucking about with the text they received.


                                          --Petersen, Penn State Univ.
                                        • Yuri Kuchinsky
                                          Thanks for your informative post, William. ... I will wholeheartedly agree with you on this. This is my own attitude as well. Unfortunately all too many
                                          Message 20 of 26 , Jan 29, 1999
                                          View Source
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            Thanks for your informative post, William.

                                            On Mon, 25 Jan 1999, William L. Petersen wrote:

                                            > To the frustration of some of my colleagues, I am an agnostic about
                                            > synoptic relationships; I think it needs to be decided on a
                                            > case-by-case, reading-by-reading basis, not "en bloc" (= Matt is
                                            > *always* using Mark, or the reverse).

                                            I will wholeheartedly agree with you on this. This is my own attitude as
                                            well. Unfortunately all too many commentators, both of conservative and of
                                            liberal tendencies, still consider the Synoptic problem as something that
                                            can be solved in one fell swoop, i.e. either Mk is the earliest, or some
                                            other gospel is the earliest.

                                            The truth seems to be far more complicated. In my view, writing and
                                            editing of all four canonical gospels continued well into the 2nd century.
                                            So, although I do believe Mk is the earliest _for the most part_, still
                                            many large parts of it seem to have been based on the other gospels, and
                                            added later.

                                            Best wishes,

                                            Yuri.

                                            Yuri Kuchinsky || Toronto

                                            http://www.trends.net/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm

                                            The goal proposed by Cynic philosophy is apathy, which is
                                            equivalent to becoming God -=O=- Julian
                                          • Stephen C. Carlson
                                            ... First century changes are, of course, presupposed in synoptic source criticism , to which I took the trouble to explicitly confine this one remark of
                                            Message 21 of 26 , Jan 30, 1999
                                            View Source
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              At 11:24 AM 1/27/99 -0500, William L. Petersen wrote:
                                              >A quick response to Steve Carlson, on one of his points:
                                              >
                                              >>My last point is on its application to synoptic source criticism. It is
                                              >>important to remember the time and place of theological acceptability.
                                              >>Even if Mk10:18 clearly means that Jesus is not God, which is arguable,
                                              >>who is to say that *first century* writers would be so troubled by it?
                                              >
                                              >I agree: it is something of a puzzle. But note your presupposition: that
                                              >the Matthean text we now have is "first century". [...]

                                              First century changes are, of course, presupposed in "synoptic source
                                              criticism", to which I took the trouble to explicitly confine this one
                                              remark of mine. The omitted reminders about text critical issues are
                                              therefore beside the point.

                                              >I am, therefore, reluctant to assume that these "theological changes"--if
                                              >that is what they are--were made in the "first century," as you submit.

                                              Actually, what I had submitted is that the commonly assumed, christological unacceptability of Mk10:18 is, frankly, overstated.

                                              Stephen Carlson
                                              --
                                              Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
                                              Synoptic Problem Home Page http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
                                              "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35
                                            • William L. Petersen
                                              Thanks for the comments. --Petersen. ... christological unacceptability of Mk10:18 is, frankly, overstated.
                                              Message 22 of 26 , Feb 1, 1999
                                              View Source
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                Thanks for the comments.

                                                --Petersen.

                                                At 11:22 PM 1/30/99 -0500, you wrote:
                                                >At 11:24 AM 1/27/99 -0500, William L. Petersen wrote:
                                                >>A quick response to Steve Carlson, on one of his points:
                                                >>
                                                >>>My last point is on its application to synoptic source criticism. It is
                                                >>>important to remember the time and place of theological acceptability.
                                                >>>Even if Mk10:18 clearly means that Jesus is not God, which is arguable,
                                                >>>who is to say that *first century* writers would be so troubled by it?
                                                >>
                                                >>I agree: it is something of a puzzle. But note your presupposition: that
                                                >>the Matthean text we now have is "first century". [...]
                                                >
                                                >First century changes are, of course, presupposed in "synoptic source
                                                >criticism", to which I took the trouble to explicitly confine this one
                                                >remark of mine. The omitted reminders about text critical issues are
                                                >therefore beside the point.
                                                >
                                                >>I am, therefore, reluctant to assume that these "theological changes"--if
                                                >>that is what they are--were made in the "first century," as you submit.
                                                >
                                                >Actually, what I had submitted is that the commonly assumed,
                                                christological unacceptability of Mk10:18 is, frankly, overstated.
                                                >
                                                >Stephen Carlson
                                                >--
                                                >Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
                                                >Synoptic Problem Home Page http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
                                                >"Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35
                                                >
                                              • James R. Adair
                                                No one has addressed any Old Testament biblical cruxes yet, so let me list a few. 1. The most obvious examples are the books like Daniel and Esther whose Greek
                                                Message 23 of 26 , Feb 1, 1999
                                                View Source
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  No one has addressed any Old Testament biblical cruxes yet, so let me list
                                                  a few.

                                                  1. The most obvious examples are the books like Daniel and Esther whose
                                                  Greek forms have substantial additional material (often called
                                                  deuterocanonical or apocryphal) in comparison with the Masoretic Text.

                                                  2. There are also other books that, taken as a whole, differ
                                                  significantly in the standard versions (i.e., MT and Rahlfs' LXX). These
                                                  include (but are not limited to) Job, Proverbs, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, and
                                                  Kings. In the Greek version, numerous verses are left out, or added, or
                                                  rearranged, in comparison with the MT.

                                                  These first two categories are really examples of the overlap of textual
                                                  and literary (or source) criticism, similar to the case with the Synoptic
                                                  Gospels in the NT.

                                                  3. There are of course also numerous examples of important differences
                                                  among the OT witnesses that are of a more limited scope. I'll list a few
                                                  of the more interesting ones. (The following abbreviations are used:
                                                  MT=Masoretic Text, xQyyy=Qumran ms, LXX=Septuagint (as represented in
                                                  Rahlfs' edition), SP=Samaritan Pentateuch, P=Peshitta, T=Targum,
                                                  V=Vulgate, Tiq Soph=scribal correction [noted in Masoretic mss],
                                                  Arm=Armenian.)

                                                  a. Gen 2:2--(God completed his work of creation on the) "seventh" (day):
                                                  MT V] "sixth": LXX SP P. Most commentators think the reading of MT is
                                                  original, with LXX a scribal correction to emphasize that God did not in
                                                  fact work on the seventh day (Hendel, _The Text of Genesis 1-11_,
                                                  disagrees).

                                                  b. 1 Sam 3:13--(Eli's sons cursed) "themselves": MT P T (V)] "God":
                                                  Tiq soph LXX. To avoid pronouncing the words "curse God" together, a
                                                  reading tradition developed that changed the words (cf. also Job 1:5, 11;
                                                  2:5, 9, where Tiq soph is not indicated).

                                                  c. Isa 53:11--(out of his anguish he shall see) "light": 1QIsa-a,b LXX]
                                                  omit: MT etc.

                                                  d. 1 Sam 17:12-31; 17:55-18:6--present in MT, absent in LXX. This variant
                                                  really belongs to #2 above, but it's interesting enough to list
                                                  separately. The story of David playing the harp for Saul is omitted in
                                                  LXX, so when Saul later asks who it is that has fought Goliath, he really
                                                  hasn't met him yet.

                                                  e. Deut 32:8--(Elyon fixed the boundaries of the nations according to the
                                                  number of the) "sons of Israel" MT V] "angels of God" LXX] "sons of God"
                                                  4QDeut-q[?-maybe a different ms] LXX-848 Arm. The presumably original
                                                  reading "sons of God" (which Wevers says is in fact the original reading
                                                  of LXX) was modified to accord more fully with monotheistic thinking.

                                                  f. Judges 18:30--(ancestor of an idolatrous priest) "Manasseh" MT (some
                                                  mss with suspended nun) LXX-B] "Moses" LXX-A V. The revered name of Moses
                                                  had to be protected, so a "nun" was added to transform it to Manasseh, the
                                                  name of the most wicked king of Israel.

                                                  g. Ps 100:3--(God made us,) "and not we ourselves" MT-kethib LXX] "and we
                                                  are his" MT-qere V(iuxta Heb) T Aquila. This variation from lamed-alef to
                                                  lamed-waw (pronounced the same) shifts the meaning from the first to the
                                                  second of the variant readings.

                                                  h. Mal 1:1--(identity of the prophet) "Malachi" (a proper name) MT etc.]
                                                  "his messenger" (an anonymous prophet) LXX. Malachi can mean "my
                                                  messenger," and a change in the final letter yields the LXX reading.

                                                  i. Isa 7:14--"a young woman" MT T Aquila Symmachus Theodotion] "virgin"
                                                  LXX V. Although LXX's translation originally had no theological
                                                  motivation (the LXX translation in Isaiah is generally a free
                                                  translation), Matthew's appropriation of the verse in Matt 1:23 gave the
                                                  LXX rendering added meaning among Christians.

                                                  j. Gen 5, genealogical list from Adam to Noah--
                                                  (A=age when successor born, B=balance of life, C=total years)

                                                  MT-A MT-B MT-C LXX-A LXX-B LXX-C SP-A SP-B SP-C

                                                  Adam 130 800 930 230 700 930 130 800 930
                                                  Seth 105 807 912 205 707 912 105 807 912
                                                  Enosh 90 815 905 190 715 905 90 815 905
                                                  Kenan 70 840 910 170 740 910 70 840 910
                                                  Mahalalel 65 830 895 165 730 895 65 830 895
                                                  Jared 162 800 962 162 800 962 62 785 847
                                                  Enoch 65 300 365 165 200 365 65 300 365
                                                  Methuselah 187 782 969 167 802 969 67 653 720
                                                  Lamech 182 595 777 188 565 753 53 600 653
                                                  Noah 500 450 950 500 450 950 500 450 950

                                                  There are numerous differences in dates in the three versions of the
                                                  genealogy--cf. also the genealogy from Shem to Terah in Gen 11.

                                                  These are some of the more interesting textual problems in the OT/HB.

                                                  ******************************************************
                                                  James R. Adair, Jr.
                                                  Director, ATLA Center for Electronic Texts in Religion
                                                  ******************************************************
                                                • Kristin DeTroyer
                                                  Message 24 of 26 , Feb 2, 1999
                                                  View Source
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    Well, I think I have addressed your first crux. However, my Ph.D.
                                                    dissertation (Leiden University, The End of the Alpha-text of Esther) has
                                                    been published in Dutch and is currently being translated into English. It
                                                    will be published by SBL. So, have patience!
                                                    See you, Kristin De Troyer

                                                    BTW I love your list of cruxes

                                                    -----Original Message-----
                                                    From: James R. Adair [SMTP:jadair@...]
                                                    Sent: Monday, February 01, 1999 12:06 PM
                                                    To: tc-list@...
                                                    Subject: Re: tc-list Biblical Cruxes (OT)

                                                    No one has addressed any Old Testament biblical cruxes yet, so let me list
                                                    a few.

                                                    1. The most obvious examples are the books like Daniel and Esther whose
                                                    Greek forms have substantial additional material (often called
                                                    deuterocanonical or apocryphal) in comparison with the Masoretic Text.

                                                    2. There are also other books that, taken as a whole, differ
                                                    significantly in the standard versions (i.e., MT and Rahlfs' LXX). These
                                                    include (but are not limited to) Job, Proverbs, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, and
                                                    Kings. In the Greek version, numerous verses are left out, or added, or
                                                    rearranged, in comparison with the MT.

                                                    These first two categories are really examples of the overlap of textual
                                                    and literary (or source) criticism, similar to the case with the Synoptic
                                                    Gospels in the NT.

                                                    3. There are of course also numerous examples of important differences
                                                    among the OT witnesses that are of a more limited scope. I'll list a few
                                                    of the more interesting ones. (The following abbreviations are used:
                                                    MT=Masoretic Text, xQyyy=Qumran ms, LXX=Septuagint (as represented in
                                                    Rahlfs' edition), SP=Samaritan Pentateuch, P=Peshitta, T=Targum,
                                                    V=Vulgate, Tiq Soph=scribal correction [noted in Masoretic mss],
                                                    Arm=Armenian.)

                                                    a. Gen 2:2--(God completed his work of creation on the) "seventh" (day):
                                                    MT V] "sixth": LXX SP P. Most commentators think the reading of MT is
                                                    original, with LXX a scribal correction to emphasize that God did not in
                                                    fact work on the seventh day (Hendel, _The Text of Genesis 1-11_,
                                                    disagrees).

                                                    b. 1 Sam 3:13--(Eli's sons cursed) "themselves": MT P T (V)] "God":
                                                    Tiq soph LXX. To avoid pronouncing the words "curse God" together, a
                                                    reading tradition developed that changed the words (cf. also Job 1:5, 11;
                                                    2:5, 9, where Tiq soph is not indicated).

                                                    c. Isa 53:11--(out of his anguish he shall see) "light": 1QIsa-a,b LXX]
                                                    omit: MT etc.

                                                    d. 1 Sam 17:12-31; 17:55-18:6--present in MT, absent in LXX. This variant
                                                    really belongs to #2 above, but it's interesting enough to list
                                                    separately. The story of David playing the harp for Saul is omitted in
                                                    LXX, so when Saul later asks who it is that has fought Goliath, he really
                                                    hasn't met him yet.

                                                    e. Deut 32:8--(Elyon fixed the boundaries of the nations according to the
                                                    number of the) "sons of Israel" MT V] "angels of God" LXX] "sons of God"
                                                    4QDeut-q[?-maybe a different ms] LXX-848 Arm. The presumably original
                                                    reading "sons of God" (which Wevers says is in fact the original reading
                                                    of LXX) was modified to accord more fully with monotheistic thinking.

                                                    f. Judges 18:30--(ancestor of an idolatrous priest) "Manasseh" MT (some
                                                    mss with suspended nun) LXX-B] "Moses" LXX-A V. The revered name of Moses
                                                    had to be protected, so a "nun" was added to transform it to Manasseh, the
                                                    name of the most wicked king of Israel.

                                                    g. Ps 100:3--(God made us,) "and not we ourselves" MT-kethib LXX] "and we
                                                    are his" MT-qere V(iuxta Heb) T Aquila. This variation from lamed-alef to
                                                    lamed-waw (pronounced the same) shifts the meaning from the first to the
                                                    second of the variant readings.

                                                    h. Mal 1:1--(identity of the prophet) "Malachi" (a proper name) MT etc.]
                                                    "his messenger" (an anonymous prophet) LXX. Malachi can mean "my
                                                    messenger," and a change in the final letter yields the LXX reading.

                                                    i. Isa 7:14--"a young woman" MT T Aquila Symmachus Theodotion] "virgin"
                                                    LXX V. Although LXX's translation originally had no theological
                                                    motivation (the LXX translation in Isaiah is generally a free
                                                    translation), Matthew's appropriation of the verse in Matt 1:23 gave the
                                                    LXX rendering added meaning among Christians.

                                                    j. Gen 5, genealogical list from Adam to Noah--
                                                    (A=age when successor born, B=balance of life, C=total years)

                                                    MT-A MT-B MT-C LXX-A LXX-B LXX-C SP-A SP-B SP-C

                                                    Adam 130 800 930 230 700 930 130 800 930
                                                    Seth 105 807 912 205 707 912 105 807 912
                                                    Enosh 90 815 905 190 715 905 90 815 905
                                                    Kenan 70 840 910 170 740 910 70 840 910
                                                    Mahalalel 65 830 895 165 730 895 65 830 895
                                                    Jared 162 800 962 162 800 962 62 785 847
                                                    Enoch 65 300 365 165 200 365 65 300 365
                                                    Methuselah 187 782 969 167 802 969 67 653 720
                                                    Lamech 182 595 777 188 565 753 53 600 653
                                                    Noah 500 450 950 500 450 950 500 450 950

                                                    There are numerous differences in dates in the three versions of the
                                                    genealogy--cf. also the genealogy from Shem to Terah in Gen 11.

                                                    These are some of the more interesting textual problems in the OT/HB.

                                                    ******************************************************
                                                    James R. Adair, Jr.
                                                    Director, ATLA Center for Electronic Texts in Religion
                                                    ******************************************************
                                                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.