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

Re: tc-list P66: John 07-52: o profhths

Expand Messages
  • Jean Valentin
    ... Unfortunately, scores of important variants are not noted (one day I found scores of variants in codex Bezae that were not in NA s apparatus), while other
    Message 1 of 14 , Dec 31, 1969
      >Is it correct that this variant is not noted in the apparatus? Why is it
      >not noted?
      >
      Unfortunately, scores of important variants are not noted (one day I found scores of variants in codex Bezae that were not in NA's apparatus), while other that seem trivial are. I don't know why.


      _______________________________________________________________
      Jean Valentin - 34 rue du Berceau - 1000 Bruxelles - Belgique
      e-mail : jgvalentin@...
      _______________________________________________________________
      "Ce qui est trop simple est faux, ce qui est trop compliqué est inutilisable"
      _______________________________________________________________
    • Wieland Willker
      NA-27 reads: John 07-52 apekriqhsan kai eipan autw mh kai su ek ths galilaias ei eraunhson kai ide oti ek ths galilaias profhths ouk egeiretai P66* reads: ths
      Message 2 of 14 , Mar 20, 1999
        NA-27 reads:
        John 07-52 apekriqhsan kai eipan autw mh kai su ek ths galilaias ei
        eraunhson kai ide oti ek ths galilaias profhths ouk egeiretai

        P66* reads: ths galilaias o profhths
        The "O" seems to be corrected by erasion.

        Is it correct that this variant is not noted in the apparatus? Why is it
        not noted?

        Best wishes
        Wieland
        ------------------------
        Wieland Willker
        willker@...-bremen.de
        http://purl.org/WILLKER/index.html
      • Robert B. Waltz
        ... It s worth remembering that the variants noted in NA26/27 are essentially the same as the variants noted in NA25. With only minor exceptions, no new
        Message 3 of 14 , Mar 20, 1999
          On 3/20/99, Wieland Willker wrote:

          >NA-27 reads:
          >John 07-52 apekriqhsan kai eipan autw mh kai su ek ths galilaias ei
          >eraunhson kai ide oti ek ths galilaias profhths ouk egeiretai
          >
          >P66* reads: ths galilaias o profhths
          >The "O" seems to be corrected by erasion.
          >
          >Is it correct that this variant is not noted in the apparatus? Why is it
          >not noted?

          It's worth remembering that the variants noted in NA26/27 are
          essentially the same as the variants noted in NA25. With only
          minor exceptions, no new variants were added. The Nestle-Aland
          edition makes no claim to include all variants of the manuscripts
          it collates. It doesn't even list the differences between its
          text and the TR (something which I have always though a
          severe lack).

          Obviously one can only wish that NA27 were fuller (it would
          be wonderful if someone would combine the accuracy of NA27
          with the fuller set of variants in Merk, for instance). But
          it is only a pocket edition....
          Bob Waltz
          waltzmn@...

          "The one thing we learn from history --
          is that no one ever learns from history."
        • M A Robinson
          On Sat, 20 Mar 1999 18:09:30 +0100 Wieland Willker ... Actually, the variant *is* noted in the NA27 apparatus, but it is buried within the cryptic p(66*)
          Message 4 of 14 , Mar 24, 1999
            On Sat, 20 Mar 1999 18:09:30 +0100 "Wieland Willker"
            <willker@...-bremen.de> writes:

            >NA-27 reads:
            >John 07-52 apekriqhsan kai eipan autw mh kai su ek ths galilaias ei
            >eraunhson kai ide oti ek ths galilaias profhths ouk egeiretai
            >
            >P66* reads: ths galilaias o profhths
            >The "O" seems to be corrected by erasion.
            >
            >Is it correct that this variant is not noted in the apparatus? Why is
            >it not noted?

            Actually, the variant *is* noted in the NA27 apparatus, but it is buried
            within the cryptic "p(66*)" cited as supporting the main text (which
            occurs without the article before PROFHTHS). The way to find the reading
            of minority Greek witnesses enclosed in parentheses is to consult
            Appendix 2, "Variae Lectiones Minores", where under Jn 7:52 one finds a
            reference to the transposition variant (~), with "ut txt, sed add O a.
            PROFHTHS P66* ".

            NA26 did not contain this appendix, so it instead included the P66*
            variant in its main apparatus.

            If I recall my collation data correctly, I think there is also one
            non-significant minuscule which also reads O PROFHTHS in Jn 7:52, though
            without a search through my collation sheets I could not tell you which
            minuscule that might be..


            ==============================================================
            Maurice A. Robinson, Ph. D.
            Professor of Greek and New Testament
            Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary
            Wake Forest, North Carolina, USA
          • Yuri Kuchinsky
            Greetings, The verse Phil 2:6 is quite interesting. It presents some problems for translators, and is often mistranslated, it seems. The original Greek is, os
            Message 5 of 14 , Mar 25, 1999
              Greetings,

              The verse Phil 2:6 is quite interesting. It presents some problems for
              translators, and is often mistranslated, it seems.

              The original Greek is,

              "os en morphe theou iparkhon oukh arpagmon egesato to einai isa theo"

              meaning literally,

              "Who in the form of God subsisting (iparkhon), deemed (egesato) it not
              robbery (arpagmon) to be equal with God"

              KJV follows very closely,

              "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with
              God"

              And here is the standard (and somewhat problematic) "modern" translation,

              NIV: "Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God
              something to be grasped"

              Also followed by NASB, RSV, WE, etc.

              The implication here is that equality can either be retained, or given up
              on orders of God. The third possibility, that equality with God can also
              be challenged, and superiority demanded (as rebellious angels did in times
              of yore) is not implied at all. But this third possibility, on the other
              hand, is clearly implied in the Greek.

              Also Darby gives an interesting variation of KJV,

              "Who, subsisting in the form of God, did not esteem it an object of rapine
              [=robbery] to be on an equality with God"

              The slight difference from KJV is that, according to Darby, the equality
              comes through a little more clearly as a potential object of robbery,
              whereas in KJV the exact meaning of "robbery" remains more vague.

              What the original Greek (and KJV and Darby) conveys, and "modern"
              translations fail to convey, is the idea that, while Christ was originally
              one of the angels who were on par with God, he did not do like they did,
              and remained faithful to God. Then, after the rebellious angels' rebellion
              brought great discord into the world, Christ was sent on a mission to
              restore the world to its original shape, and ended up suffering on the
              Cross. And thus he helped to correct all the trouble started by the
              rebellious angels. Total defeat for Satan will be the end result.

              In other words, the Greek conveys a very special gnosis and a very special
              metaphysical world view that is missed by modern translators.

              All in all, I think Darby translation is probably the best. Any opinions?

              Also, what about the "bishops and deacons" (episkopois kai diakonois) in
              v. 1:1? This does seem like a later gloss to me (also the view of some
              other scholars).

              It seems unlikely that "bishops and deacons" existed during Paul's
              lifetime. KJV/RSV translates "episkopois kai diakonois" as "bishops and
              deacons", but the more "modern" translations seem to politely mistranslate
              this verse. Perhaps trying to avoid the question of what else may have
              been added to this epistle by later editors?

              Regards,

              Yuri.

              PS:

              These items came up as a result of a more general discussion of
              Philippians on Crosstalk-L. For more context, you may look up this and
              other articles at eGroups,

              http://www.egroups.com/list/crosstalk/5934.html


              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
            • Dave Washburn
              [snip] ... *yawn* Not only is this off-topic for TC-list, but it s nothing more than the same tired old stuff that Arians have been preaching for centuries.
              Message 6 of 14 , Mar 25, 1999
                [snip]
                > What the original Greek (and KJV and Darby) conveys, and "modern"
                > translations fail to convey, is the idea that, while Christ was originally
                > one of the angels who were on par with God, he did not do like they did,
                > and remained faithful to God. Then, after the rebellious angels' rebellion
                > brought great discord into the world, Christ was sent on a mission to
                > restore the world to its original shape, and ended up suffering on the
                > Cross. And thus he helped to correct all the trouble started by the
                > rebellious angels. Total defeat for Satan will be the end result.

                *yawn* Not only is this off-topic for TC-list, but it's nothing more
                than the same tired old stuff that Arians have been preaching for
                centuries. The NT NOWHERE gives any indication that Christ was
                ever an angel; as for the meaning of harpagmos, see Moulton-
                Milligan and BAG, to name just a couple. TDNT 1:473-474 gives a
                full exposition of the 3 possible meanings of the word and treats all
                of them grammatically, concluding that the meaning is "He did not
                regard equality with God as a gain, either in the sense of
                something not to be let slip, or in the sense of something not to be
                left unutilised." IOW, the Arian nonsense expounded above has
                been answered many, many, many times and it's high time it was
                put to bed for good.

                And since this subject has nothing at all to do with textual
                criticism, that will be my final word on this subject in this forum.

                Dave Washburn
                http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
                A Bible that's falling apart means a life that isn't.
              • lakr
                ... Oh, are you aware of any textual critical issues surrounding Galatians 4:14 which would make this doubtfull? Sincerely, Larry Kruper
                Message 7 of 14 , Mar 25, 1999
                  > The NT NOWHERE gives any indication that Christ was
                  > ever an angel;
                  > Dave Washburn
                  > http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
                  > A Bible that's falling apart means a life that isn't.

                  Oh, are you aware of any textual critical issues surrounding
                  Galatians 4:14 which would make this doubtfull?

                  Sincerely,
                  Larry Kruper
                • Frank Glenn
                  ... Before you put the light out, reread the NT and many of the Church Fathers. Frank
                  Message 8 of 14 , Mar 25, 1999
                    At 11:27 AM 3/25/99 -0700, Dave wrote:
                    >[snip]
                    >> What the original Greek (and KJV and Darby) conveys, and "modern"
                    >> translations fail to convey, is the idea that, while Christ was originally
                    >> one of the angels who were on par with God, he did not do like they did,
                    >> and remained faithful to God. Then, after the rebellious angels' rebellion
                    >> brought great discord into the world, Christ was sent on a mission to
                    >> restore the world to its original shape, and ended up suffering on the
                    >> Cross. And thus he helped to correct all the trouble started by the
                    >> rebellious angels. Total defeat for Satan will be the end result.
                    >
                    >*yawn* Not only is this off-topic for TC-list, but it's nothing more
                    >than the same tired old stuff that Arians have been preaching for
                    >centuries. The NT NOWHERE gives any indication that Christ was
                    >ever an angel; as for the meaning of harpagmos, see Moulton-
                    >Milligan and BAG, to name just a couple. TDNT 1:473-474 gives a
                    >full exposition of the 3 possible meanings of the word and treats all
                    >of them grammatically, concluding that the meaning is "He did not
                    >regard equality with God as a gain, either in the sense of
                    >something not to be let slip, or in the sense of something not to be
                    >left unutilised." IOW, the Arian nonsense expounded above has
                    >been answered many, many, many times and it's high time it was
                    >put to bed for good.

                    Before you put the light out, reread the NT and many of the Church Fathers.
                    Frank
                  • Dave Washburn
                    ... I have. Look at the creeds and see what they concluded. Again, this has nothing to do with TC. Dave Washburn http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur A Bible that s
                    Message 9 of 14 , Mar 25, 1999
                      > At 11:27 AM 3/25/99 -0700, Dave wrote:
                      > >[snip]
                      > >> What the original Greek (and KJV and Darby) conveys, and "modern"
                      > >> translations fail to convey, is the idea that, while Christ was originally
                      > >> one of the angels who were on par with God, he did not do like they did,
                      > >> and remained faithful to God. Then, after the rebellious angels' rebellion
                      > >> brought great discord into the world, Christ was sent on a mission to
                      > >> restore the world to its original shape, and ended up suffering on the
                      > >> Cross. And thus he helped to correct all the trouble started by the
                      > >> rebellious angels. Total defeat for Satan will be the end result.
                      > >
                      > >*yawn* Not only is this off-topic for TC-list, but it's nothing more
                      > >than the same tired old stuff that Arians have been preaching for
                      > >centuries. The NT NOWHERE gives any indication that Christ was
                      > >ever an angel; as for the meaning of harpagmos, see Moulton-
                      > >Milligan and BAG, to name just a couple. TDNT 1:473-474 gives a
                      > >full exposition of the 3 possible meanings of the word and treats all
                      > >of them grammatically, concluding that the meaning is "He did not
                      > >regard equality with God as a gain, either in the sense of
                      > >something not to be let slip, or in the sense of something not to be
                      > >left unutilised." IOW, the Arian nonsense expounded above has
                      > >been answered many, many, many times and it's high time it was
                      > >put to bed for good.
                      >
                      > Before you put the light out, reread the NT and many of the Church Fathers.
                      > Frank
                      >
                      I have. Look at the creeds and see what they concluded. Again,
                      this has nothing to do with TC.

                      Dave Washburn
                      http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
                      A Bible that's falling apart means a life that isn't.
                    • Yuri Kuchinsky
                      On Thu, 25 Mar 1999, Dave Washburn wrote: [Yuri:] ... Dave, This subject is not really off-topic for TC-list. The reason why you thought so is because you seem
                      Message 10 of 14 , Mar 26, 1999
                        On Thu, 25 Mar 1999, Dave Washburn wrote:

                        [Yuri:]
                        > > What the original Greek (and KJV and Darby) conveys, and "modern"
                        > > translations fail to convey, is the idea that, while Christ was originally
                        > > one of the angels who were on par with God, he did not do like they did,
                        > > and remained faithful to God. Then, after the rebellious angels' rebellion
                        > > brought great discord into the world, Christ was sent on a mission to
                        > > restore the world to its original shape, and ended up suffering on the
                        > > Cross. And thus he helped to correct all the trouble started by the
                        > > rebellious angels. Total defeat for Satan will be the end result.
                        >
                        > *yawn* Not only is this off-topic for TC-list, but it's nothing more
                        > than the same tired old stuff that Arians have been preaching for
                        > centuries.

                        Dave,

                        This subject is not really off-topic for TC-list. The reason why you
                        thought so is because you seem to have misunderstood my post to some
                        extent.

                        My second question re Phil 1:1 should have given you the idea, but you
                        snipped it, unfortunately.

                        What all this was leading towards, as my question re Phil 1:1 should have
                        indicated, was the question of interpolations in Philippians. In other
                        words, textual integrity of Philippians.

                        "Bishops and deacons" in Phil 1:1 seem like an obvious late interpolation.
                        And the reason why I was asking about the hymn to Christ in Phil is
                        because it also seems like it was not written by Paul. Therefore,
                        questions arise about the history, authorship, and the dating of this
                        text. (Actually, I happen to think that the hymn dates from the time after
                        Paul's lifetime).

                        > The NT NOWHERE gives any indication that Christ was ever an angel;

                        Debatable.

                        > as for the meaning of harpagmos, see Moulton- Milligan and BAG, to
                        > name just a couple.

                        Thanks for helping me with this.

                        I've been trying to understand the meaning of this passage, along with
                        great many other students of the NT. This is a very difficult passage
                        indeed (and it generated huge amounts of literature, as you've pointed
                        out). This is why the correct translation is important. And once this is
                        clarified, the focus should logically move further to the history of this
                        text.

                        Now, I certainly would not like to post off-topic material to tc-list.
                        If after this post some people still think this subject is irrelevant, I
                        will certainly stop, and will try to move the discussion elsewhere.
                        Because I consider myself a good cyber-citizen. <grin>

                        > IOW, the Arian nonsense expounded above has been answered many, many,
                        > many times and it's high time it was put to bed for good.

                        I find it very interesting that you should have brought up Arianism. Do
                        you think KJV was Arian-influenced?

                        Arianist controversy was supposed to be the controversy about the nature
                        of the relationship of Father to Son. I wasn't really aware of the Arian
                        angle on this passage before. So I'm thankful to you for pointing me in
                        that direction. Now, after some more reading, I confess that my position
                        on this passage has changed already. I would like to take back and modify
                        some of the things I said before.

                        This is the translation that I prefer now (of course something similar has
                        been proposed before by other scholars),

                        "Who, while in the form of God,
                        did not esteem it as his lawful prize
                        to become equal to God."

                        Where Arianism comes in this debate, is the question of whether the
                        pre-existent Son was equal to the Father, or he was merely on the similar
                        heavenly level with the Father, while not being equal.

                        Here's the NIV translation again (that is similar to most "modern"
                        translations).

                        "Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God
                        something to be grasped."

                        This sure seems like the equality of Father and Son is assumed in this
                        translation. But I don't think the Greek really supports this, since in
                        the Greek text "being in the form of God", and "being equal to God" do not
                        seem to be treated as identical concepts.

                        So what if my reading seems like an Arian reading? Why can't the Arians be
                        right about some things sometimes? What if their theology was actually
                        more reflective of earliest Christianity in some respects? Is this totally
                        impossible in your view?

                        The next and related question to consider is the vexing question of
                        "harpagmos". Here's some useful information I've found on the Web,

                        [quote]

                        The word "harpagmos" stems from the word "harpazo". According to
                        Zodhiates' "The Complete Wordstudy Dictionary, New Testament" the word
                        differs from "klepto" (to steal) in that it is an open act of theft,
                        or robbery. It is admitted that it is not exclusively used thus, but
                        also in a more general sense of forcible seizure. In Chadwick's
                        "Lexicographica Graeca" the word is said to mean [seizure] "executed
                        rapidly", "saisir l'instant", "to be caught" or "got by chance".
                        Hickie's "Greek-English Lexicon to the New Testament" has "to seize",
                        "take by force" & "snatch away" for "harpazo", but for the word in
                        question (harpagmos) it has "a thing to be seized; an accidental
                        acquisition".

                        http://www.bcca.org/srb/archive/980101-980228/0060.html

                        [end quote]

                        Also it is relevant to consider that, while "harpagmos" is found only once
                        in the Bible, there is a very similar word, "harpagma", that is quite
                        common in the Septuagint. This word is always found in the sense of
                        'booty' or 'prize'. And this is how I prefer to interpret "harpagmos".

                        Also, Vulgate translates "harpagmon" as "rapinam", a word which can mean
                        not only the act of plundering or robbery but also the concrete noun
                        'plunder' or 'booty'.

                        So this is the crux of our problem, it seems. What to do with this word,
                        and how to interpret it? I find these comments by Dr. Rodney J. Decker
                        quite valid,

                        [quote]

                        The word group of which [hARPAGMOS] is a part seems to convey ideas that
                        are totally out of character with the context of Phil. 2: robbery,
                        plunder, greediness, swindler, rape, booty, stolen, to seize hastily, to
                        be a thief, etc. It is the attempt to make these meanings suitable in a
                        Christological reference that has engendered much of the confusion over
                        the text.

                        [end quote]

                        So how do we interpret this unusual word? It implies certain amount of
                        violence, and seems to allude to some past conflict in the heavenly
                        spheres. This is important, it seems to me. To continue with Dr. Decker's
                        comments,

                        [quote]

                        Two primary explanations have been offered for this word.

                        1) Res rapta, equality with God was his by right and by nature and was not
                        a theft, i.e., he did not steal his position unjustly. This takes
                        hARPAGMOS in an active sense to mean "robbery, snatching."

                        2) Res rapienda, equality with God was not viewed by Christ as something
                        to be seized; i.e., he was not equal with God and did not make any
                        "snatching effort" to achieve that position. (Cf. NEB, "he did not think
                        to snatch at equality with God.") This is a passive sense, "something to
                        be seized."

                        http://faculty.bbc.edu/rdecker/rd_ken.htm

                        [end quote]

                        So here I prefer the solution #2. This is how I interpret this text. But
                        of the seven translations available at The Bible Gateway

                        http://www.gospelcom.net/bible

                        only the Darby translation reflects this point of view.

                        Any way you consider this problem, pre-existence of Christ is clearly
                        implied in this passage. The question is, What was the exact status of the
                        pre-existent Christ as reflected in our hymn?

                        You continued in your post:

                        > TDNT 1:473-474 gives a full exposition of the 3 possible meanings of
                        > the word and treats all of them grammatically, concluding that the
                        > meaning is "He did not regard equality with God as a gain, either in
                        > the sense of something not to be let slip, or in the sense of
                        > something not to be left unutilised."

                        So you're offering yet another translation that assumes that in his
                        pre-existence Christ was equal to God. I doubt that this is a valid
                        interpretation for the reasons already outlined.

                        Generally speaking, I don't think this hymn dates to the lifetime of Paul,
                        primarily because of the rather high Christology implied in it, and
                        because of its more developed gnosis. In my view, the Historical Paul
                        followed low (quasi-Ebionite) Christology. Pre-existence does generally
                        seem like a rather late theological concept.

                        But the Christology of the hymn, while rather high, is still not quite as
                        high as almost all modern translations would like it to make, in my view.

                        Regards,

                        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
                      • Dave Washburn
                        ... I don t understand how a comment on the meaning of harpagmos in Phil 2:6 has anything to do with the textual integrity of Phil 1:1. ... That s form
                        Message 11 of 14 , Mar 26, 1999
                          Yuri wrote:
                          >
                          > On Thu, 25 Mar 1999, Dave Washburn wrote:
                          >
                          > [Yuri:]
                          > > > What the original Greek (and KJV and Darby) conveys, and "modern"
                          > > > translations fail to convey, is the idea that, while Christ was originally
                          > > > one of the angels who were on par with God, he did not do like they did,
                          > > > and remained faithful to God. Then, after the rebellious angels' rebellion
                          > > > brought great discord into the world, Christ was sent on a mission to
                          > > > restore the world to its original shape, and ended up suffering on the
                          > > > Cross. And thus he helped to correct all the trouble started by the
                          > > > rebellious angels. Total defeat for Satan will be the end result.
                          > >
                          > > *yawn* Not only is this off-topic for TC-list, but it's nothing more
                          > > than the same tired old stuff that Arians have been preaching for
                          > > centuries.
                          >
                          > Dave,
                          >
                          > This subject is not really off-topic for TC-list. The reason why you
                          > thought so is because you seem to have misunderstood my post to some
                          > extent.
                          >
                          > My second question re Phil 1:1 should have given you the idea, but you
                          > snipped it, unfortunately.
                          >
                          > What all this was leading towards, as my question re Phil 1:1 should have
                          > indicated, was the question of interpolations in Philippians. In other
                          > words, textual integrity of Philippians.

                          I don't understand how a comment on the meaning of harpagmos in
                          Phil 2:6 has anything to do with the textual integrity of Phil 1:1.

                          > "Bishops and deacons" in Phil 1:1 seem like an obvious late interpolation.
                          > And the reason why I was asking about the hymn to Christ in Phil is
                          > because it also seems like it was not written by Paul. Therefore,
                          > questions arise about the history, authorship, and the dating of this
                          > text. (Actually, I happen to think that the hymn dates from the time after
                          > Paul's lifetime).

                          That's form criticism, not textual criticism. So it's still off-topic.

                          > > The NT NOWHERE gives any indication that Christ was ever an angel;
                          >
                          > Debatable.
                          >
                          > > as for the meaning of harpagmos, see Moulton- Milligan and BAG, to
                          > > name just a couple.
                          >
                          > Thanks for helping me with this.
                          >
                          > I've been trying to understand the meaning of this passage, along with
                          > great many other students of the NT. This is a very difficult passage
                          > indeed (and it generated huge amounts of literature, as you've pointed
                          > out). This is why the correct translation is important. And once this is
                          > clarified, the focus should logically move further to the history of this
                          > text.
                          >
                          > Now, I certainly would not like to post off-topic material to tc-list.
                          > If after this post some people still think this subject is irrelevant, I
                          > will certainly stop, and will try to move the discussion elsewhere.
                          > Because I consider myself a good cyber-citizen. <grin>
                          >
                          > > IOW, the Arian nonsense expounded above has been answered many, many,
                          > > many times and it's high time it was put to bed for good.
                          >
                          > I find it very interesting that you should have brought up Arianism. Do
                          > you think KJV was Arian-influenced?

                          One of the most annoying things in the world is when someone
                          doesn't actually read what a person writes, but tries to answer it
                          anyway. I didn't say anything in the KJV was Arian, I said your
                          post about Christ as an angel was Arian-influenced. If you're going
                          to try and respond to me, PLEASE read what I actually write.

                          [snip again - still off-topic]

                          Dave Washburn
                          http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
                          A Bible that's falling apart means a life that isn't.
                        • Yuri Kuchinsky
                          ... Clarifying the meaning of harpagmos may help to understand who wrote this hymn and when. ... Are you saying that asking about textual integrity of Phil is
                          Message 12 of 14 , Mar 28, 1999
                            On Fri, 26 Mar 1999, Dave Washburn wrote:
                            > Yuri wrote:

                            > > This subject is not really off-topic for TC-list. The reason why you
                            > > thought so is because you seem to have misunderstood my post to some
                            > > extent.
                            > >
                            > > My second question re Phil 1:1 should have given you the idea, but you
                            > > snipped it, unfortunately.
                            > >
                            > > What all this was leading towards, as my question re Phil 1:1 should have
                            > > indicated, was the question of interpolations in Philippians. In other
                            > > words, textual integrity of Philippians.
                            >
                            > I don't understand how a comment on the meaning of harpagmos in
                            > Phil 2:6 has anything to do with the textual integrity of Phil 1:1.

                            Clarifying the meaning of harpagmos may help to understand who wrote this
                            hymn and when.

                            > > "Bishops and deacons" in Phil 1:1 seem like an obvious late interpolation.
                            > > And the reason why I was asking about the hymn to Christ in Phil is
                            > > because it also seems like it was not written by Paul. Therefore,
                            > > questions arise about the history, authorship, and the dating of this
                            > > text. (Actually, I happen to think that the hymn dates from the time after
                            > > Paul's lifetime).
                            >
                            > That's form criticism, not textual criticism. So it's still off-topic.

                            Are you saying that asking about textual integrity of Phil is not textual
                            criticism? Identifying a possible interpolation in Phil 1:1 is irrelevant
                            to textual criticism?

                            Let me ask you this, Dave. Do you feel uncomfortable when questions about
                            interpolations in Pauline epistles are raised? If so, then you're probably
                            not alone. But I'm afraid, such questions need to be asked.

                            [Dave:]
                            > > > IOW, the Arian nonsense expounded above has been answered many, many,
                            > > > many times and it's high time it was put to bed for good.

                            [Yuri:]
                            > > I find it very interesting that you should have brought up Arianism. Do
                            > > you think KJV was Arian-influenced?

                            > One of the most annoying things in the world is when someone doesn't
                            > actually read what a person writes, but tries to answer it anyway. I
                            > didn't say anything in the KJV was Arian, I said your post about
                            > Christ as an angel was Arian-influenced. If you're going to try and
                            > respond to me, PLEASE read what I actually write.

                            So this was the meaning of your complaint then? In such a case, I would
                            like to assure you that I meant no Arian subversion whatsoever by the use
                            of this word. Sorry for the misunderstanding. If you replace "angel" in my
                            original post with "spiritual being", the meaning of my post would not be
                            affected in any way. (I do hope that you have no objections to Christ
                            being described as a spiritual being.)

                            Regards,

                            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
                          • Robert B. Waltz
                            ... Theological questions are not the point. Not on this list. In fact, the matter ought not to be discussed, because they interfere with our ability to work
                            Message 13 of 14 , Mar 28, 1999
                              On 3/28/99, Yuri Kuchinsky wrote, in part:

                              >Let me ask you this, Dave. Do you feel uncomfortable when questions about
                              >interpolations in Pauline epistles are raised? If so, then you're probably
                              >not alone. But I'm afraid, such questions need to be asked.

                              Theological questions are not the point. Not on this list. In fact,
                              the matter ought not to be discussed, because they interfere with
                              our ability to work together.

                              As best I can tell, you are proposing a conjectural emendation to
                              Phil. 1:1. Now conjectural emendations are a legitimate topic for
                              discussion on this list, as some critics allow them. However, I
                              think it safe to say that, in New Testament criticism, *no*
                              scholar will allow conjectural emendation unless the passage
                              involves a crux -- some sort of difficulty in understanding.

                              You need to establish the existence of that crux. And if you
                              need this much argument to establish its existence, that proves
                              on its very face that you have *not* established it. So your
                              conjectural emendation is not allowed.

                              You may still argue that the passage has been edited. But it
                              was edited in a primitive way (presumably before the Pauline
                              corpus was assembled). This is not the field of textual criticism;
                              it is indeed a matter for form criticism or some other
                              discipline.

                              Hence I agree with the call for taking the matter off-list.

                              And note that I express no theological opinions in so
                              saying. :-)

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

                              Robert B. Waltz
                              waltzmn@...

                              Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism?
                              Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn
                              (A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism)
                            • Yuri Kuchinsky
                              Sorry for late reply, Robert. ... I agree completely. While my original post was not intended to be concerned with theological issues, I regret that it could
                              Message 14 of 14 , Mar 31, 1999
                                Sorry for late reply, Robert.

                                On Sun, 28 Mar 1999, Robert B. Waltz wrote:

                                > On 3/28/99, Yuri Kuchinsky wrote, in part:
                                >
                                > >Let me ask you this, Dave. Do you feel uncomfortable when questions about
                                > >interpolations in Pauline epistles are raised? If so, then you're probably
                                > >not alone. But I'm afraid, such questions need to be asked.
                                >
                                > Theological questions are not the point. Not on this list. In fact,
                                > the matter ought not to be discussed, because they interfere with
                                > our ability to work together.

                                I agree completely.

                                While my original post was not intended to be concerned with theological
                                issues, I regret that it could have been interpreted as such. My fault. I
                                should have expressed myself more clearly.

                                > As best I can tell, you are proposing a conjectural emendation to
                                > Phil. 1:1.

                                Yes.

                                > Now conjectural emendations are a legitimate topic for
                                > discussion on this list, as some critics allow them. However, I
                                > think it safe to say that, in New Testament criticism, *no*
                                > scholar will allow conjectural emendation unless the passage
                                > involves a crux -- some sort of difficulty in understanding.

                                Perhaps so.

                                > You need to establish the existence of that crux.

                                But it has already been established for a long time.

                                > And if you need this much argument to establish its existence, that
                                > proves on its very face that you have *not* established it.

                                You misunderstand. So far, I gave no argument to establish its existence.
                                Nevertheless, many scholars argued that this is an interpolation.

                                Here's this from the article on the Philippians in ANCHOR BD (1992) 5:319

                                "Critics frequently have viewed the reference to "bishops and deacons"
                                (1:1), for insance, as an ecclesiastical anachronism and dismissed it as
                                an ancient gloss (so, e.g., Riddle and Hutson 1946: 123; Schmithals 1971:
                                89-90 n. 14; Schenke and Fisher 1978: 126; Schenk 1984: 78-82, 334)."

                                Also, according to the article, the earliest ms of Phil is P46, one of the
                                three Chester Beatty papyri of the NT that dates from ca ad 200. It's only
                                missing a few insignificant verses. Generally, the article says that,
                                based only on mss, there are no significant textual problems with Phil.

                                > So your conjectural emendation is not allowed.
                                >
                                > You may still argue that the passage has been edited. But it
                                > was edited in a primitive way (presumably before the Pauline
                                > corpus was assembled).

                                I agree with you here.

                                There's actuallly very little textual mss evidence for later
                                interpolations in Pauline epistles. Existing mss of Pauline epistles are
                                remarkably consistent, and show very little variation, compared even to
                                the mss of the gospels. Two conclusions can be drawn from this.

                                Either

                                a) there are no later interpolations in Pauline epistles, or

                                b) epistles were standartised at a very early stage by some centralized
                                authority, and only "approved" versions were preserved for posterity.

                                Myself, I incline to version b).

                                While apparently textual criticism can do little to clarify this matter,
                                still the question needs to be asked. Because there's more than enough
                                evidence from other directions that the Pauline epistles had been
                                labouriously edited, collated from various much shorter epistles, and
                                heavily interpolated with later material. The scholar who has done more
                                than anyone else to analyse this subject was Alfred Loisy, but
                                unfortunately his work in this area is basically unknown the the current
                                generation of scholars.

                                > This is not the field of textual criticism; it is indeed a matter for
                                > form criticism or some other discipline.

                                Fine. But I think I was entitled to ask the question. Now it seems to be
                                answered, so I'm happy.

                                > Hence I agree with the call for taking the matter off-list.

                                Fine with me.

                                > And note that I express no theological opinions in so
                                > saying. :-)

                                Thank you. :-)

                                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
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.