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

Re: [textualcriticism] Re: New article on Western Non-Interpolations

Expand Messages
  • Dave Washburn
    ... I m with Wieland on this one. The tendency of some scholars to throw foreign words and phrases into their writing (usually German, but occasionally
    Message 1 of 27 , Jul 12 8:03 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      On Tuesday 12 July 2005 08:42, Wieland Willker wrote:
      > Stephen Carlson wrote:
      > > This reminds me of what Waltz wrote in his article on
      > > Mathematics:
      > > [...] "The six decimals tell us, of course, more about
      > > Goodspeed than about the MS."
      > >
      > :-) Good!
      > :
      > >> Btw. are theologians forced to use German words in their
      > >> scholarly articles? To me this looks just silly.
      > >
      > > Are you referring to his use of "Tendenz" or are there other
      > > terms? As for "Tendenz," I'm not aware of a good English
      > > equivalent for it: "bias"? "tendency"? "propensity"?
      > > "inclination"?
      >
      > I think English has enough words to state clearly what you mean. 
      > This was more a general observation and it is especially embarrassing when
      > the author uses the word in a wrong case or is spelling it erroneously. An
      > especially bad example is "Sitz im Leben" which is even in German an
      > artificial construction and one should really avoid it. It is always
      > possible to state the truth in simple words. At least you shouldn't make it
      > more difficult than necessary. The Western Non-Interpolations are already
      > difficult enough.
      >
      > :-)

      I'm with Wieland on this one. The tendency of some scholars to throw foreign
      words and phrases into their writing (usually German, but occasionally
      French) to me looks like showboating (sorry, I don't know the German word for
      it offhand :-) If you're going to write in English, write in English. If
      you're going to write in German, write in German. If you're going to write
      in Martian, write in Martian.

      And yes, "Western Non-Interpolations" would be much easier to say if it were
      "Neutral omissions." (Now, of course, Alexandrian omissions, since it has
      long been established that Hort's "Neutral Text" was a myth.) But Hort
      couldn't bring himself to use such a term with regard to his precious
      "Neutral" text. Since I have serious doubts about text-type theory in
      general, at least as it relates to the NT, I don't use either term ;-)

      --
      Dave Washburn
      http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
      Reality is what refuses to go away when
      you stop believing in it.
    • mjriii2003
      David wrote: ...And yes, Western Non-Interpolations would be much easier to say if it were Neutral omissions. (Now, of course, Alexandrian omissions, since
      Message 2 of 27 , Jul 12 8:27 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        David wrote:

        ...And yes, "Western Non-Interpolations" would be much easier to say
        if it were "Neutral omissions." (Now, of course, Alexandrian
        omissions, since it has long been established that Hort's "Neutral
        Text" was a myth.) But Hort couldn't bring himself to use such a term
        with regard to his precious "Neutral" text. Since I have serious
        doubts about text-type theory in general, at least as it relates to
        the NT, I don't use either term ;-)"

        This whole sneer is an unsupported myth.

        Cordially in Christ,

        Malcolm

        ________________________________

        --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, Dave Washburn
        <dwashbur@n...> wrote:
        > On Tuesday 12 July 2005 08:42, Wieland Willker wrote:
        > > Stephen Carlson wrote:
        > > > This reminds me of what Waltz wrote in his article on
        > > > Mathematics:
        > > > [...] "The six decimals tell us, of course, more about
        > > > Goodspeed than about the MS."
        > > >
        > > :-) Good!
        > > :
        > > >> Btw. are theologians forced to use German words in their
        > > >> scholarly articles? To me this looks just silly.
        > > >
        > > > Are you referring to his use of "Tendenz" or are there other
        > > > terms? As for "Tendenz," I'm not aware of a good English
        > > > equivalent for it: "bias"? "tendency"? "propensity"?
        > > > "inclination"?
        > >
        > > I think English has enough words to state clearly what you
        mean. 
        > > This was more a general observation and it is especially
        embarrassing when
        > > the author uses the word in a wrong case or is spelling it
        erroneously. An
        > > especially bad example is "Sitz im Leben" which is even in German
        an
        > > artificial construction and one should really avoid it. It is
        always
        > > possible to state the truth in simple words. At least you
        shouldn't make it
        > > more difficult than necessary. The Western Non-Interpolations are
        already
        > > difficult enough.
        > >
        > > :-)
        >
        > I'm with Wieland on this one. The tendency of some scholars to
        throw foreign
        > words and phrases into their writing (usually German, but
        occasionally
        > French) to me looks like showboating (sorry, I don't know the
        German word for
        > it offhand :-) If you're going to write in English, write in
        English. If
        > you're going to write in German, write in German. If you're going
        to write
        > in Martian, write in Martian.
        >
        > And yes, "Western Non-Interpolations" would be much easier to say
        if it were
        > "Neutral omissions." (Now, of course, Alexandrian omissions, since
        it has
        > long been established that Hort's "Neutral Text" was a myth.) But
        Hort
        > couldn't bring himself to use such a term with regard to his
        precious
        > "Neutral" text. Since I have serious doubts about text-type theory
        in
        > general, at least as it relates to the NT, I don't use either
        term ;-)
        >
        > --
        > Dave Washburn
        > http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
        > Reality is what refuses to go away when
        > you stop believing in it.
      • voxverax
        Dear Malcolm: I don t have the same level of doubt about text-types that DW seems to be having, but the intent of his statement (I m sure he meant Neutral
        Message 3 of 27 , Jul 15 12:43 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          Dear Malcolm:

          I don't have the same level of doubt about text-types that DW seems
          to be having, but the intent of his statement (I'm sure he meant
          "Neutral interpolations" and "Alexandrian interpolations," not
          omissions) is not a mere sneer. It seems plain enough that Hort came
          up with the term "Western Non-Interpolations" because it would work
          against his main idea if they were called "Neutral Interpolations."
          Metzger states this very point:

          "They [W&H] doubtless chose this cumbersome nomenclature [the term
          "Western Non-Interpolations"] simply because they could not bring
          themselves to refer directly to 'Neutral interpolations' - which is
          exactly what, on their own reconstruction, is involved in these
          readings." (p. 134, TotNT)

          I agree with DW that the "Neutral Text" as presented by Hort is a
          myth, in the sense that agreements of Aleph+B are not synonymous with
          the original text, and in the sense that the copyists who produced
          Aleph, and B, and their ancestors were not altogether uncreative.

          Speaking of text-types, here are a few ideas I'd like to kick around:

          (1) There is not a Caesarean Text in the sense that the Caesarean
          Text is not a stable and independent Local Text; it's a slow
          collision of Alexandrian, Proto-Byzantine, and Free ("Western")
          readings. Any given "Caesarean" witness testifies not to one local
          text, but to stages of one local process of textual assimilation.
          Where it disagrees with the Alexandrian and Byzantine texts, the
          "Caesarean Text" is almost never correct.

          (2) There is a Byzantine Text. It is the result of a recension in
          which three, rather than two, transmission-streams converged. One of
          these transmission-streams contained variants not found in Free mss
          or Alexandrian mss; these were essentially "Proto-Byzantine" mss.
          "Proto-Byzantine" readings in Mark embedded in the Byzantine Text can
          be frequently unearthed where the Majority Text and three of the set
          [A-W-Gothic-Peshitta-P45] agree without support from Aleph, B, D, or
          a consensus of Old Latin.

          (3) There is a Proto-Alexandrian Text. In Mark, variants supported
          by Aleph+B+Sah + at least two of the set [L-Delta-892-1241] should be
          regarded as the Proto-Alexandrian reading, representing a
          (temporarily) stable text that existed in the second century. (Some
          other witnesses, like 33, or 2427 -- if somebody would thoroughly
          test its pigments -- might do as good a job as 1241; this is just a
          back-up for 892.)

          Yours in Christ,

          Jim Snapp II
          Curtisville Christian Church
          www.curtisvillechristian.org
        • voxverax
          Dear Malcolm R.: (I haven t read the new article yet. I in the meantime ...) The intent of Dave Washburn s post (I am sure he meant to write Neutral
          Message 4 of 27 , Jul 20 10:05 AM
          • 0 Attachment
            Dear Malcolm R.:

            (I haven't read the new article yet. I in the meantime ...)

            The intent of Dave Washburn's post (I am sure he meant to write
            "Neutral Interpolations," not "Neutral omissions") is not a sneer.
            What he said is essentially the same thing that Bruce Metzger said in
            Text of the New Testament (p. 134):

            "They [W&H] doubtless chose this cumbersome nomenclature [the term
            "Western non-interpolations"] simply because they could not bring
            themselves to refer directly to 'Neutral interpolations' - which is
            exactly what, on their own reconstruction, is involved in these
            readings."

            Yours in Christ,

            Jim Snapp II
            Curtisville Christian Church
            Indiana (USA)
            www.curtisvillechristian.org
          • Dave Washburn
            ... [snip] Yes, that was what I meant to say. Thanks for the correction. I ll try to proofread myself a little better in the future... -- Dave Washburn
            Message 5 of 27 , Jul 27 9:07 AM
            • 0 Attachment
              On Wednesday 20 July 2005 11:05, voxverax wrote:
              > Dear Malcolm R.:
              >
              > (I haven't read the new article yet.  I in the meantime ...)
              >
              > The intent of Dave Washburn's post (I am sure he meant to write
              > "Neutral Interpolations," not "Neutral omissions") is not a sneer. 
              > What he said is essentially the same thing that Bruce Metzger said in
              > Text of the New Testament (p. 134):
              [snip]

              Yes, that was what I meant to say. Thanks for the correction. I'll try to
              proofread myself a little better in the future...

              --
              Dave Washburn
              http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
              "Well, if I'd wanted a safe life, I guess I wouldn't have
              married a man who studies rocks." - Betty Armstrong (Fay Masterson)
            • mjriii2003
              Dear Jim, Actually neither Metzger or Washburn are correct. The Western non- interpolations are designated thus exactly because they represent the Neutral
              Message 6 of 27 , Jul 27 11:51 AM
              • 0 Attachment
                Dear Jim,

                Actually neither Metzger or Washburn are correct. The Western non-
                interpolations are designated thus exactly because they represent
                the Neutral text (the original Autograph text) exactly where the
                Neutral text-type omits them. They are termed Western because they
                are preserved within this text-type.

                Cordially,

                Malcolm

                ________________________

                --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "voxverax" <snapp@p...>
                wrote:
                > Dear Malcolm R.:
                >
                > (I haven't read the new article yet. I in the meantime ...)
                >
                > The intent of Dave Washburn's post (I am sure he meant to write
                > "Neutral Interpolations," not "Neutral omissions") is not a
                sneer.
                > What he said is essentially the same thing that Bruce Metzger said
                in
                > Text of the New Testament (p. 134):
                >
                > "They [W&H] doubtless chose this cumbersome nomenclature [the term
                > "Western non-interpolations"] simply because they could not bring
                > themselves to refer directly to 'Neutral interpolations' - which
                is
                > exactly what, on their own reconstruction, is involved in these
                > readings."
                >
                > Yours in Christ,
                >
                > Jim Snapp II
                > Curtisville Christian Church
                > Indiana (USA)
                > www.curtisvillechristian.org
              • voxverax
                Dear Malcolm, MR3: The Western non-interpolations ... represent the Neutral text (the original Autograph text) exactly where the Neutral text-type omits
                Message 7 of 27 , Jul 28 7:23 PM
                • 0 Attachment
                  Dear Malcolm,

                  MR3: "The Western non-interpolations ... represent the Neutral text
                  (the original Autograph text) exactly where the Neutral text-type
                  omits them."

                  Look, if you employ Hort's nomenclature (by calling B's text
                  "Neutral"), then if he is correct that the Western mss display the
                  original text (or rather, non-text) in these passages, then the
                  "Neutral" text in these cases is not the original.

                  Meanwhile, if you employ *your* nomenclature (by calling the original
                  Autograph text "Neutral"), then if Hort is correct that the Western
                  mss display the original text (or rather, non-text) in these
                  passages, then B and its allies cease to be Neutral.

                  I think these are the only two options we have, unless we want the
                  word "Neutral" to mean two different things. Hort did not consider
                  the Neutral Text as he defined it (as the text of Aleph and B) to be
                  the Neutral text as you seem to be defining it (as the original
                  Autograph text), where "Western Non-interpolations" are concerned.
                  But he used the (loaded) term anyway.

                  MR3: "They are termed Western because they are preserved within this
                  text-type."

                  There's a variant of some sort or another preserved in /every/ text-
                  type; that alone does not elicit a particular designation. Hort did
                  not consider the Neutral text to be original ("Neutral" by your
                  definition) in these cases. I repeat: he believed that the mss in
                  which resided the "Neutral Text" were all wrong in these passages.
                  Using your definition of "Neutral," the Western mss display the
                  Neutral Text in these passages and the others (including the mss
                  containing what Hort called the "Neutral Text") do not. In other
                  words, according to Hort, the Neutral mss. do not display a neutral
                  text in these passages. Which to me is a good reason to dispense
                  with the term "Neutral" entirely as a name for a class of
                  manuscripts, and use "Proto-Alexandrian" instead.

                  To review: Hort contended that the manuscripts with the "Neutral
                  Text" consistently contained interpolations in these passages. Since
                  "Neutral Interpolations" would have sounded like "Original Glosses,"
                  he devised a new term to describe the phenomenon of non-neutral
                  readings in the "Neutral Text." I can understand him doing so, to
                  ruthlessly promote a new critical text that needed every advantage it
                  could get. But I don't understand why anyone today would continue to
                  call the text of B-Aleph "Neutral" instead of "Proto-Alexandrian."

                  Yours in Christ,

                  Jim Snapp II
                  Curtisville Christian Church
                  Indiana (USA)
                  www.curtisvillechristian.org
                • mjriii2003
                  Dear Jim, The Autographs are non extant (as far as we know). The text of the Autographs is perserved in copies. Hort s nomenclature is still quite useful for
                  Message 8 of 27 , Jul 29 6:24 AM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Dear Jim,

                    The Autographs are non extant (as far as we know). The text of the
                    Autographs is perserved in copies. Hort's nomenclature is still
                    quite useful for making hide or hair out of the text critical
                    problems that we as text critics now face.

                    The Neutral text type evidences itself as the less susceptible to
                    alteration and contamination among all other text types. Hence
                    Hort's choice of this term. Nevertheless it is still a text type
                    representation among other text type representations which are all
                    corrupted (to a certain extent and more or less) copies from the
                    original(s).

                    Neutral is indicative of the characteristics of this text type. It
                    has been the least susceptible to corruption. Does that mean that
                    it as a text type is at points not corrupted? Of course not.

                    There is an Autograph(s). It is clearly seen through the copies we
                    have at hand. Irrespective of how one comes down on the questions
                    of the individual Western non interpolations as to whether they all
                    or in part represent the Autograph does not eliminate Hort's attempt
                    to make intelligible the facts of the matter.

                    I really have no more patience for those who are either camp
                    orientated or rash in commenting on these matters as if they are
                    superior (to Hort) while they themselves know neither what they are
                    saying nor at what point they are affirming.

                    The goal of textual criticism is to restore the original text -
                    period. If one does not wish that they are misplaced.

                    Finally, if you wish to play games Jim go elsewhere (or at least
                    don't draw me into it). If you wish to advocate Byzantine priority -
                    fine. You have more words for wish you and all like you will be
                    accountable for.

                    Cordially,

                    Malcolm
                    ___________________________



                    --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "voxverax" <snapp@p...>
                    wrote:
                    > Dear Malcolm,
                    >
                    > MR3: "The Western non-interpolations ... represent the Neutral
                    text
                    > (the original Autograph text) exactly where the Neutral text-type
                    > omits them."
                    >
                    > Look, if you employ Hort's nomenclature (by calling B's text
                    > "Neutral"), then if he is correct that the Western mss display the
                    > original text (or rather, non-text) in these passages, then the
                    > "Neutral" text in these cases is not the original.
                    >
                    > Meanwhile, if you employ *your* nomenclature (by calling the
                    original
                    > Autograph text "Neutral"), then if Hort is correct that the
                    Western
                    > mss display the original text (or rather, non-text) in these
                    > passages, then B and its allies cease to be Neutral.
                    >
                    > I think these are the only two options we have, unless we want the
                    > word "Neutral" to mean two different things. Hort did not
                    consider
                    > the Neutral Text as he defined it (as the text of Aleph and B) to
                    be
                    > the Neutral text as you seem to be defining it (as the original
                    > Autograph text), where "Western Non-interpolations" are
                    concerned.
                    > But he used the (loaded) term anyway.
                    >
                    > MR3: "They are termed Western because they are preserved within
                    this
                    > text-type."
                    >
                    > There's a variant of some sort or another preserved in /every/
                    text-
                    > type; that alone does not elicit a particular designation. Hort
                    did
                    > not consider the Neutral text to be original ("Neutral" by your
                    > definition) in these cases. I repeat: he believed that the mss
                    in
                    > which resided the "Neutral Text" were all wrong in these
                    passages.
                    > Using your definition of "Neutral," the Western mss display the
                    > Neutral Text in these passages and the others (including the mss
                    > containing what Hort called the "Neutral Text") do not. In other
                    > words, according to Hort, the Neutral mss. do not display a
                    neutral
                    > text in these passages. Which to me is a good reason to dispense
                    > with the term "Neutral" entirely as a name for a class of
                    > manuscripts, and use "Proto-Alexandrian" instead.
                    >
                    > To review: Hort contended that the manuscripts with the "Neutral
                    > Text" consistently contained interpolations in these passages.
                    Since
                    > "Neutral Interpolations" would have sounded like "Original
                    Glosses,"
                    > he devised a new term to describe the phenomenon of non-neutral
                    > readings in the "Neutral Text." I can understand him doing so, to
                    > ruthlessly promote a new critical text that needed every advantage
                    it
                    > could get. But I don't understand why anyone today would continue
                    to
                    > call the text of B-Aleph "Neutral" instead of "Proto-Alexandrian."
                    >
                    > Yours in Christ,
                    >
                    > Jim Snapp II
                    > Curtisville Christian Church
                    > Indiana (USA)
                    > www.curtisvillechristian.org
                  • mjriii2003
                    Dear Jim, Self-Correction 1. The Western non-interpolations *(since the Western text-type is normally characterized by such inordinate interpolations) *
                    Message 9 of 27 , Jul 29 10:18 AM
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Dear Jim,

                      Self-Correction 1.

                      "The Western non-interpolations *(since the Western text-type is
                      normally characterized by such inordinate interpolations)
                      * ...*possibily* represents the Neutral text better in these
                      instances (the original Autograph text) exactly where the *Western*
                      text-type omits them."

                      Self-Correction 2.

                      "They are termed Western because *these readings* are *not*
                      preserved within this text-type *which normally contains such
                      dubious additions which are not normally indicative of the Neutral,
                      but are consistently indicative of the Western and have caused Mr.
                      Westcott and I to consider these instances (so few in number) to be
                      called into question as uncharacteristic of this Neutral text-type
                      which so unashamedly and consistently represents the the reading of
                      the Autographs.*"

                      *In making these corrections it should not be assumed that the
                      Western non-interpolations are spurious readings but only of
                      doubtful origin as having been originally contained in the Autograph
                      (s).*

                      Cordially,

                      Malcolm
                      ________________________

                      --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "voxverax" <snapp@p...>
                      wrote:
                      > Dear Malcolm,
                      >
                      > MR3: "The Western non-interpolations ... represent the Neutral
                      text
                      > (the original Autograph text) exactly where the Neutral text-type
                      > omits them."
                      >
                      > Look, if you employ Hort's nomenclature (by calling B's text
                      > "Neutral"), then if he is correct that the Western mss display the
                      > original text (or rather, non-text) in these passages, then the
                      > "Neutral" text in these cases is not the original.
                      >
                      > Meanwhile, if you employ *your* nomenclature (by calling the
                      original
                      > Autograph text "Neutral"), then if Hort is correct that the
                      Western
                      > mss display the original text (or rather, non-text) in these
                      > passages, then B and its allies cease to be Neutral.
                      >
                      > I think these are the only two options we have, unless we want the
                      > word "Neutral" to mean two different things. Hort did not
                      consider
                      > the Neutral Text as he defined it (as the text of Aleph and B) to
                      be
                      > the Neutral text as you seem to be defining it (as the original
                      > Autograph text), where "Western Non-interpolations" are
                      concerned.
                      > But he used the (loaded) term anyway.
                      >
                      > MR3: "They are termed Western because they are preserved within
                      this
                      > text-type."
                      >
                      > There's a variant of some sort or another preserved in /every/
                      text-
                      > type; that alone does not elicit a particular designation. Hort
                      did
                      > not consider the Neutral text to be original ("Neutral" by your
                      > definition) in these cases. I repeat: he believed that the mss
                      in
                      > which resided the "Neutral Text" were all wrong in these
                      passages.
                      > Using your definition of "Neutral," the Western mss display the
                      > Neutral Text in these passages and the others (including the mss
                      > containing what Hort called the "Neutral Text") do not. In other
                      > words, according to Hort, the Neutral mss. do not display a
                      neutral
                      > text in these passages. Which to me is a good reason to dispense
                      > with the term "Neutral" entirely as a name for a class of
                      > manuscripts, and use "Proto-Alexandrian" instead.
                      >
                      > To review: Hort contended that the manuscripts with the "Neutral
                      > Text" consistently contained interpolations in these passages.
                      Since
                      > "Neutral Interpolations" would have sounded like "Original
                      Glosses,"
                      > he devised a new term to describe the phenomenon of non-neutral
                      > readings in the "Neutral Text." I can understand him doing so, to
                      > ruthlessly promote a new critical text that needed every advantage
                      it
                      > could get. But I don't understand why anyone today would continue
                      to
                      > call the text of B-Aleph "Neutral" instead of "Proto-Alexandrian."
                      >
                      > Yours in Christ,
                      >
                      > Jim Snapp II
                      > Curtisville Christian Church
                      > Indiana (USA)
                      > www.curtisvillechristian.org
                    • Dave Washburn
                      ... Hort s contemporaries and fans often referred to it as a question-begging nomenclature. ... That s the whole question, isn t it? Nice bit of circular
                      Message 10 of 27 , Jul 29 10:26 AM
                      • 0 Attachment
                        On Friday 29 July 2005 07:24, mjriii2003 wrote:
                        > Dear Jim,
                        >
                        > The Autographs are non extant (as far as we know).  The text of the
                        > Autographs is perserved in copies. Hort's nomenclature is still
                        > quite useful for making hide or hair out of the text critical
                        > problems that we as text critics now face.

                        Hort's contemporaries and fans often referred to it as a "question-begging
                        nomenclature."

                        > The Neutral text type evidences itself as the less susceptible to
                        > alteration and contamination among all other text types.  Hence
                        > Hort's choice of this term.  Nevertheless it is still a text type
                        > representation among other text type representations which are all
                        > corrupted (to a certain extent and more or less) copies from the
                        > original(s).

                        That's the whole question, isn't it? Nice bit of circular reasoning.
                        According to his own writings, Hort called it "Neutral" precisely because he
                        thought it most faithfully represented the text of the autographs and
                        *wasn't* "corrupted."

                        > Neutral is indicative of the characteristics of this text type.  It
                        > has been the least susceptible to corruption.  Does that mean that
                        > it as a text type is at points not corrupted?  Of course not.

                        Then it is not neutral. That's precisely the point that you seem to be
                        missing.

                        > There is an Autograph(s).  It is clearly seen through the copies we
                        > have at hand.  Irrespective of how one comes down on the questions
                        > of the individual Western non interpolations as to whether they all
                        > or in part represent the Autograph does not eliminate Hort's attempt
                        > to make intelligible the facts of the matter.

                        Nobody said it does. The problem here is your puzzling adherence to Hort's
                        outdated and inaccurate terminology.

                        > I really have no more patience for those who are either camp
                        > orientated or rash in commenting on these matters as if they are
                        > superior (to Hort) while they themselves know neither what they are
                        > saying nor at what point they are affirming.

                        Nice bit of ad hominem, but obviously it gets us nowhere, especially since you
                        seem to be commenting on other people's views as if you're superior to them
                        even though you're trying to defend terms that scholars far beyond all of us
                        such as Metzger, Aland(s), Lake, and many others have concluded are
                        erroneous.

                        > The goal of textual criticism is to restore the original text -
                        > period.  If one does not wish that they are misplaced.

                        Wow. I'll bet Kurt Aland would be surprised to know he had wasted his life
                        trying to build an accurate history of the text instead of just trying to
                        "restore the original text - period." If you're going to make a loaded
                        statement like this one, I suggest you have a flameproof suit handy because
                        you'll probably need it (not from me, I just find such statements amusing).

                        > Finally, if you wish to play games Jim go elsewhere (or at least
                        > don't draw me into it).  If you wish to advocate Byzantine priority -
                        > fine.  You have more words for wish you and all like you will be
                        > accountable for.

                        Oh, now we're into guilt by inference. I didn't see him say anything about
                        Byzantine priority. And I have no idea what "words for wish you" means.

                        My two klatnus' worth, and that's all I'll say.

                        > --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "voxverax" <snapp@p...>
                        >
                        > wrote:
                        > > Dear Malcolm,
                        > >
                        > > MR3:  "The Western non-interpolations ... represent the Neutral
                        >
                        > text
                        >
                        > > (the original Autograph text) exactly where the Neutral text-type
                        > > omits them."
                        > >
                        > > Look, if you employ Hort's nomenclature (by calling B's text
                        > > "Neutral"), then if he is correct that the Western mss display the
                        > > original text (or rather, non-text) in these passages, then the
                        > > "Neutral" text in these cases is not the original.
                        > >
                        > > Meanwhile, if you employ *your* nomenclature (by calling the
                        >
                        > original
                        >
                        > > Autograph text "Neutral"), then if Hort is correct that the
                        >
                        > Western
                        >
                        > > mss display the original text (or rather, non-text) in these
                        > > passages, then B and its allies cease to be Neutral. 
                        > >
                        > > I think these are the only two options we have, unless we want the
                        > > word "Neutral" to mean two different things.  Hort did not
                        >
                        > consider
                        >
                        > > the Neutral Text as he defined it (as the text of Aleph and B) to
                        >
                        > be
                        >
                        > > the Neutral text as you seem to be defining it (as the original
                        > > Autograph text), where "Western Non-interpolations" are
                        >
                        > concerned. 
                        >
                        > > But he used the (loaded) term anyway.         
                        > >
                        > > MR3:  "They are termed Western because they are preserved within
                        >
                        > this
                        >
                        > > text-type."
                        > >
                        > > There's a variant of some sort or another preserved in /every/
                        >
                        > text-
                        >
                        > > type; that alone does not elicit a particular designation.  Hort
                        >
                        > did
                        >
                        > > not consider the Neutral text to be original ("Neutral" by your
                        > > definition) in these cases.  I repeat:  he believed that the mss
                        >
                        > in
                        >
                        > > which resided the "Neutral Text" were all wrong in these
                        >
                        > passages. 
                        >
                        > > Using your definition of "Neutral," the Western mss display the
                        > > Neutral Text in these passages and the others (including the mss
                        > > containing what Hort called the "Neutral Text") do not.  In other
                        > > words, according to Hort, the Neutral mss. do not display a
                        >
                        > neutral
                        >
                        > > text in these passages.  Which to me is a good reason to dispense
                        > > with the term "Neutral" entirely as a name for a class of
                        > > manuscripts, and use "Proto-Alexandrian" instead. 
                        > >
                        > > To review:  Hort contended that the manuscripts with the "Neutral
                        > > Text" consistently contained interpolations in these passages. 
                        >
                        > Since
                        >
                        > > "Neutral Interpolations" would have sounded like "Original
                        >
                        > Glosses,"
                        >
                        > > he devised a new term to describe the phenomenon of non-neutral
                        > > readings in the "Neutral Text."  I can understand him doing so, to
                        > > ruthlessly promote a new critical text that needed every advantage
                        >
                        > it
                        >
                        > > could get.  But I don't understand why anyone today would continue
                        >
                        > to
                        >
                        > > call the text of B-Aleph "Neutral" instead of "Proto-Alexandrian."
                        > >
                        > > Yours in Christ,
                        > >
                        > > Jim Snapp II
                        > > Curtisville Christian Church
                        > > Indiana (USA)
                        > > www.curtisvillechristian.org

                        --
                        Dave Washburn
                        http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
                        "Well, if I'd wanted a safe life, I guess I wouldn't have
                        married a man who studies rocks." - Betty Armstrong (Fay Masterson)
                      • mjriii2003
                        Dear David, Kurt Aland s history of the text is attendent to and bent toward the goal of textual restoration and the recovery of the original NT text as it was
                        Message 11 of 27 , Jul 29 11:03 AM
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Dear David,

                          Kurt Aland's history of the text is attendent to and bent toward the
                          goal of textual restoration and the recovery of the original NT text
                          as it was first wriiten.

                          As far a guilt goes the Scriptures make it plain that the word is
                          what we will be judged by. If you are not convinced by that (I'm
                          not impling that you aren't) then NT textual criticism may be no
                          more amusing to you than I apparently have become to you.

                          The term *Neutral* can equally be applied to any piece of writing
                          irrespective of its content. However, once the original is altered
                          the neutral representation of its content becomes biased through
                          contamination of it's original state.

                          To adopt the terms *Alexandrian* (already wide spread in usage) or
                          *Proto-Alexandrian* (as Jim is suggesting) will cause undue
                          confusion (at least as I see it anyway) to the study of the text-
                          types.

                          There is little doubt about Jim's camp leanings. He has a right to
                          them. I simply do not share them. That too there is little doubt
                          about. Its not a personal thing. It is rather a scientific
                          conclusion.

                          As far as the words that you are in doubt about "And I have no idea
                          what 'words for wish you' means," they are a typo and should
                          read '...words for which you....

                          Cordially,

                          Malcolm
                          ______________________________________


                          --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, Dave Washburn
                          <dwashbur@n...> wrote:
                          > On Friday 29 July 2005 07:24, mjriii2003 wrote:
                          > > Dear Jim,
                          > >
                          > > The Autographs are non extant (as far as we know).  The text of
                          the
                          > > Autographs is perserved in copies. Hort's nomenclature is still
                          > > quite useful for making hide or hair out of the text critical
                          > > problems that we as text critics now face.
                          >
                          > Hort's contemporaries and fans often referred to it as a "question-
                          begging
                          > nomenclature."
                          >
                          > > The Neutral text type evidences itself as the less susceptible
                          to
                          > > alteration and contamination among all other text types.  Hence
                          > > Hort's choice of this term.  Nevertheless it is still a text
                          type
                          > > representation among other text type representations which are
                          all
                          > > corrupted (to a certain extent and more or less) copies from the
                          > > original(s).
                          >
                          > That's the whole question, isn't it? Nice bit of circular
                          reasoning.
                          > According to his own writings, Hort called it "Neutral" precisely
                          because he
                          > thought it most faithfully represented the text of the autographs
                          and
                          > *wasn't* "corrupted."
                          >
                          > > Neutral is indicative of the characteristics of this text
                          type.  It
                          > > has been the least susceptible to corruption.  Does that mean
                          that
                          > > it as a text type is at points not corrupted?  Of course not.
                          >
                          > Then it is not neutral. That's precisely the point that you seem
                          to be
                          > missing.
                          >
                          > > There is an Autograph(s).  It is clearly seen through the
                          copies we
                          > > have at hand.  Irrespective of how one comes down on the
                          questions
                          > > of the individual Western non interpolations as to whether they
                          all
                          > > or in part represent the Autograph does not eliminate Hort's
                          attempt
                          > > to make intelligible the facts of the matter.
                          >
                          > Nobody said it does. The problem here is your puzzling adherence
                          to Hort's
                          > outdated and inaccurate terminology.
                          >
                          > > I really have no more patience for those who are either camp
                          > > orientated or rash in commenting on these matters as if they are
                          > > superior (to Hort) while they themselves know neither what they
                          are
                          > > saying nor at what point they are affirming.
                          >
                          > Nice bit of ad hominem, but obviously it gets us nowhere,
                          especially since you
                          > seem to be commenting on other people's views as if you're
                          superior to them
                          > even though you're trying to defend terms that scholars far beyond
                          all of us
                          > such as Metzger, Aland(s), Lake, and many others have concluded
                          are
                          > erroneous.
                          >
                          > > The goal of textual criticism is to restore the original text -
                          > > period.  If one does not wish that they are misplaced.
                          >
                          > Wow. I'll bet Kurt Aland would be surprised to know he had wasted
                          his life
                          > trying to build an accurate history of the text instead of just
                          trying to
                          > "restore the original text - period." If you're going to make a
                          loaded
                          > statement like this one, I suggest you have a flameproof suit
                          handy because
                          > you'll probably need it (not from me, I just find such statements
                          amusing).
                          >
                          > > Finally, if you wish to play games Jim go elsewhere (or at least
                          > > don't draw me into it).  If you wish to advocate Byzantine
                          priority -
                          > > fine.  You have more words for wish you and all like you will be
                          > > accountable for.
                          >
                          > Oh, now we're into guilt by inference. I didn't see him say
                          anything about
                          > Byzantine priority. And I have no idea what "words for wish you"
                          means.
                          >
                          > My two klatnus' worth, and that's all I'll say.
                          >
                          > > --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "voxverax" <snapp@p...>
                          > >
                          > > wrote:
                          > > > Dear Malcolm,
                          > > >
                          > > > MR3:  "The Western non-interpolations ... represent the
                          Neutral
                          > >
                          > > text
                          > >
                          > > > (the original Autograph text) exactly where the Neutral text-
                          type
                          > > > omits them."
                          > > >
                          > > > Look, if you employ Hort's nomenclature (by calling B's text
                          > > > "Neutral"), then if he is correct that the Western mss
                          display the
                          > > > original text (or rather, non-text) in these passages, then
                          the
                          > > > "Neutral" text in these cases is not the original.
                          > > >
                          > > > Meanwhile, if you employ *your* nomenclature (by calling the
                          > >
                          > > original
                          > >
                          > > > Autograph text "Neutral"), then if Hort is correct that the
                          > >
                          > > Western
                          > >
                          > > > mss display the original text (or rather, non-text) in these
                          > > > passages, then B and its allies cease to be Neutral. 
                          > > >
                          > > > I think these are the only two options we have, unless we
                          want the
                          > > > word "Neutral" to mean two different things.  Hort did not
                          > >
                          > > consider
                          > >
                          > > > the Neutral Text as he defined it (as the text of Aleph and
                          B) to
                          > >
                          > > be
                          > >
                          > > > the Neutral text as you seem to be defining it (as the
                          original
                          > > > Autograph text), where "Western Non-interpolations" are
                          > >
                          > > concerned. 
                          > >
                          > > > But he used the (loaded) term anyway.         
                          > > >
                          > > > MR3:  "They are termed Western because they are preserved
                          within
                          > >
                          > > this
                          > >
                          > > > text-type."
                          > > >
                          > > > There's a variant of some sort or another preserved in /every/
                          > >
                          > > text-
                          > >
                          > > > type; that alone does not elicit a particular designation. 
                          Hort
                          > >
                          > > did
                          > >
                          > > > not consider the Neutral text to be original ("Neutral" by
                          your
                          > > > definition) in these cases.  I repeat:  he believed that the
                          mss
                          > >
                          > > in
                          > >
                          > > > which resided the "Neutral Text" were all wrong in these
                          > >
                          > > passages. 
                          > >
                          > > > Using your definition of "Neutral," the Western mss display
                          the
                          > > > Neutral Text in these passages and the others (including the
                          mss
                          > > > containing what Hort called the "Neutral Text") do not.  In
                          other
                          > > > words, according to Hort, the Neutral mss. do not display a
                          > >
                          > > neutral
                          > >
                          > > > text in these passages.  Which to me is a good reason to
                          dispense
                          > > > with the term "Neutral" entirely as a name for a class of
                          > > > manuscripts, and use "Proto-Alexandrian" instead. 
                          > > >
                          > > > To review:  Hort contended that the manuscripts with
                          the "Neutral
                          > > > Text" consistently contained interpolations in these
                          passages. 
                          > >
                          > > Since
                          > >
                          > > > "Neutral Interpolations" would have sounded like "Original
                          > >
                          > > Glosses,"
                          > >
                          > > > he devised a new term to describe the phenomenon of non-
                          neutral
                          > > > readings in the "Neutral Text."  I can understand him doing
                          so, to
                          > > > ruthlessly promote a new critical text that needed every
                          advantage
                          > >
                          > > it
                          > >
                          > > > could get.  But I don't understand why anyone today would
                          continue
                          > >
                          > > to
                          > >
                          > > > call the text of B-Aleph "Neutral" instead of "Proto-
                          Alexandrian."
                          > > >
                          > > > Yours in Christ,
                          > > >
                          > > > Jim Snapp II
                          > > > Curtisville Christian Church
                          > > > Indiana (USA)
                          > > > www.curtisvillechristian.org
                          >
                          > --
                          > Dave Washburn
                          > http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
                          > "Well, if I'd wanted a safe life, I guess I wouldn't have
                          > married a man who studies rocks." - Betty Armstrong (Fay Masterson)
                        • voxverax
                          Dear Malcolm, Hort s nomenclature was useful, and so was his horse, but I prefer objective (and more accurate) nomenclature and a car. MR3: The Neutral text
                          Message 12 of 27 , Jul 29 8:18 PM
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Dear Malcolm,

                            Hort's nomenclature was useful, and so was his horse, but I prefer
                            objective (and more accurate) nomenclature and a car.

                            MR3: "The Neutral text type evidences itself as the less susceptible
                            to alteration and contamination among all other text types. Hence
                            Hort's choice of this term."

                            But "less flawed" or "Better-than-the-Western-Text-and-the-Syrian-
                            Text" is far from being "neutral." Hence my choice to reject Hort's
                            term.

                            MR3: "Neutral is indicative of the characteristics of this text
                            type. It has been the least susceptible to corruption. Does that mean
                            that it as a text type is at points not corrupted? Of course not."
                            DW: "Then it is not neutral. That's precisely the point that you seem
                            to be missing."

                            Exactamente.

                            MR3: … "If you wish to advocate Byzantine priority - fine." ...
                            "There is little doubt about Jim's camp leanings."

                            There may be no doubt, but there sure seems to be some misperception
                            about them. Let me fix that: I don't advocate Byzantine priority.
                            Imho the basic premises currently employed to argue for the primacy
                            of the Majority Text are flawed. I *do* advocate the existence of an
                            early Asian/Antiochan or "Proto-Byzantine" Text, though, many traces
                            of which are embedded in the Byzantine Text. I suppose that this
                            could be called a modified "Sturzian" approach rather than a
                            "Hortian" approach. But perhaps if Hort had had Sturz's data
                            demonstrating that some "Syrian" readings existed prior to the
                            recension which, according to Hort's theory of the Syrian Recension,
                            brought them into being, he would have been somewhat Sturzian too.

                            In other news: you mentioned that "The text of the Autographs is
                            preserved in copies." Maybe a strong case for that can be made for
                            the NT text, but when it comes to the OT, at least, getting to the
                            text of the autographs tends to take some conjecture, after an
                            archetype-text has been reconstructed. It looks to me like the
                            reconstruction of the archetype (not necessarily the same as the text
                            of the autographs) is Job One for NT textual critics, and after that
                            is done, one can either make conjectural emendations or have faith
                            that the archetypical text = the text of the autographs.

                            Yours in Christ,

                            Jim Snapp II
                            Curtisville Christian Church
                            Indiana (USA)
                            www.curtisvillechristian.org
                          • mjriii2003
                            Dear Jim, This is exactly where we part company (in our thinking and historical understandings/reconstructions). The whole idea of the necessity of some
                            Message 13 of 27 , Jul 30 8:31 AM
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Dear Jim,

                              This is exactly where we part company (in our thinking and
                              historical understandings/reconstructions). The whole idea of the
                              necessity of some recension and archtypical representation is
                              historically invalid. Eusebius points this out about Lucian's
                              alledged recension (most English translations omit this section).

                              In addition the use of Alexandrian lump sums the distictive qualties
                              of the Neutral with the Alexandrian. It blurs and confuses. The
                              *Proto-Alexandrian* will also mislead in that it's geographical
                              (hint)tint will bypass and obviate all other and more probable
                              (IMHO) provenances - in particular Greece and the Ionian coastal
                              borders as well as inland Asia minor.

                              The idea of the necessity of Abschriften/archtypes via recension(s)
                              (this far and no further yet) to reach back to the Autographs is a
                              non sequitur.

                              Cordially in Jesus,

                              Malcolm
                              ________________________________________


                              --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "voxverax" <snapp@p...>
                              wrote:
                              > Dear Malcolm,
                              >
                              > Hort's nomenclature was useful, and so was his horse, but I prefer
                              > objective (and more accurate) nomenclature and a car.
                              >
                              > MR3: "The Neutral text type evidences itself as the less
                              susceptible
                              > to alteration and contamination among all other text types. Hence
                              > Hort's choice of this term."
                              >
                              > But "less flawed" or "Better-than-the-Western-Text-and-the-Syrian-
                              > Text" is far from being "neutral." Hence my choice to reject
                              Hort's
                              > term.
                              >
                              > MR3: "Neutral is indicative of the characteristics of this text
                              > type. It has been the least susceptible to corruption. Does that
                              mean
                              > that it as a text type is at points not corrupted? Of course not."
                              > DW: "Then it is not neutral. That's precisely the point that you
                              seem
                              > to be missing."
                              >
                              > Exactamente.
                              >
                              > MR3: … "If you wish to advocate Byzantine priority - fine." ...
                              > "There is little doubt about Jim's camp leanings."
                              >
                              > There may be no doubt, but there sure seems to be some
                              misperception
                              > about them. Let me fix that: I don't advocate Byzantine
                              priority.
                              > Imho the basic premises currently employed to argue for the
                              primacy
                              > of the Majority Text are flawed. I *do* advocate the existence of
                              an
                              > early Asian/Antiochan or "Proto-Byzantine" Text, though, many
                              traces
                              > of which are embedded in the Byzantine Text. I suppose that this
                              > could be called a modified "Sturzian" approach rather than a
                              > "Hortian" approach. But perhaps if Hort had had Sturz's data
                              > demonstrating that some "Syrian" readings existed prior to the
                              > recension which, according to Hort's theory of the Syrian
                              Recension,
                              > brought them into being, he would have been somewhat Sturzian too.
                              >
                              > In other news: you mentioned that "The text of the Autographs is
                              > preserved in copies." Maybe a strong case for that can be made
                              for
                              > the NT text, but when it comes to the OT, at least, getting to the
                              > text of the autographs tends to take some conjecture, after an
                              > archetype-text has been reconstructed. It looks to me like the
                              > reconstruction of the archetype (not necessarily the same as the
                              text
                              > of the autographs) is Job One for NT textual critics, and after
                              that
                              > is done, one can either make conjectural emendations or have faith
                              > that the archetypical text = the text of the autographs.
                              >
                              > Yours in Christ,
                              >
                              > Jim Snapp II
                              > Curtisville Christian Church
                              > Indiana (USA)
                              > www.curtisvillechristian.org
                            • voxverax
                              Dear Malcolm, MR3: ... The whole idea of the necessity of some recension and archtypical representation is historically invalid. Are you saying that you do
                              Message 14 of 27 , Aug 1, 2005
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Dear Malcolm,

                                MR3: ... "The whole idea of the necessity of some recension and
                                archtypical representation is historically invalid."

                                Are you saying that you do not believe that there was ever a Syrian
                                Recension?

                                MR3: "Eusebius points this out about Lucian's alledged recension
                                (most English translations omit this section)."

                                We're getting away from the subject of tinted nomenclature, but I am
                                wondering what statement by Eusebius you have in mind, and what you
                                think it means. (Metzger wrote a nice essay about this in NTTS.)

                                MR3: "In addition the use of Alexandrian lump sums the distictive
                                qualties of the Neutral with the Alexandrian. It blurs and confuses."

                                Not at all; it brings things into focus by implying a sequence: the
                                "Alexandrian" Text emerged from the Proto-Alexandrian Text. For
                                instance: P75 is Proto-Alexandrian. 1241 is a mixed Alexandrian,
                                not Proto-Alexandrian, witness.

                                MR3: "The *Proto-Alexandrian* will also mislead in that it's
                                geographical (hint)tint will bypass and obviate all other and more
                                probable (IMHO) provenances - in particular Greece and the Ionian
                                coastal borders as well as inland Asia minor."

                                Only if one interprets the names as indicative of the area where the
                                texts originated rather than where they were primarily used. The
                                Proto-Alexandrian Text is the base-text of the earliest strata of the
                                Sahidic Version. That indicates that the Proto-Alexandrian Text is,
                                if not the local text of Alexandria, at least a local text somewhere
                                in Egypt. And when one looks at the somewhat later Egyptian versions
                                (Bohairic, Ethiopic), their base-text appears to be Alexandrian;
                                meanwhile the Alexandrian Text was not used as a base-text for any
                                translation being made anywhere else. Plus, we don't see the
                                Alexandrian Text being used much outside Egypt in the second
                                century.

                                So I think it is safe to say that the Proto-Alexandrian Text was, at
                                the very least, /a/ local text of Egypt. We have to call the text-
                                types something. If one uses the term "Byzantine" then it seems
                                inconsistent to object to the terms "Proto-Alexandrian" and
                                "Alexandrian."

                                MR3: "The idea of the necessity of Abschriften/archtypes via
                                recension(s) ... (this far and no further yet) to reach back to the
                                Autographs is a non sequitur."

                                Huh? My point about archetype-vs-autograph was in respect to your
                                statement that the text of the autographs is in extant manuscripts.
                                I was just pointing out that that's something taken on faith;
                                scientifically, limiting our resources to the contents of extant
                                witnesses, we can only reconstruct an archetype; the reception of
                                that archetype as the text of the autograph is not a given.

                                Yours in Christ,

                                Jim Snapp II
                                Curtisville Christian Church
                                Indiana (USA)
                                www.curtisvillechristian.org
                              • K. Martin Heide
                                Wieland Willker wrote: Defending the Western Non-Interpolations : The Case for an Anti Separationist Tendenz in the Longer Alexandrian Readings by Michael
                                Message 15 of 27 , Sep 8, 2005
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Wieland Willker wrote:
                                  "Defending the 'Western Non-Interpolations': The Case for an Anti Separationist Tendenz in the Longer Alexandrian Readings"
                                  by Michael W. Martin
                                  JBL 124/2 (2005) 269–294
                                  
                                  I haven't really digested it yet, just skimmed through it, but already found this gem:
                                  "the chance or probability of exactly seven mistaken verdicts of authenticity occurring with regard to the eight Lukan verses is 0.003574092055824." (sic! 15 digits). 
                                  Not discussing the faulty premises, would it not be enough to say it is less than 1%? Is this a peer reviewed journal? Alas, Bob Waltz is not here anymore. 
                                  
                                  Ok, so much for a bad start, I will nevertheless read it carefully, just skipping the "mathematical" part. 
                                  Btw. are theologians forced to use German words in their scholarly articles? To me this looks just silly. 
                                  
                                    
                                  Meanwhile, I had the chance to read the article.

                                  What I do not understand is that M.W. Martin does not cite the final article of K. Aland, "Die Bedeutung des P75 für den Text des Neuen Testaments: Ein Beitrag zur Frage der "Western non-interpolations"" in: "Studien zur Überlieferung des Neuen Testaments und seines Textes", ANTF 2 (only  the early form of Aland's article in NTS 12; see Martin's footnote 2), and even worse, does not deal with Aland's observations.

                                  Aland compares the WNI (western non-interpolations), which are admittingly "orthodox" in their theology, with different omissions of the "western" texts, which are (from his viewpoint) neither orthodox nor heterodox in their theology: Lk 5:39; 10:41; 12:19: 12:21; 12:39; 22:19-20; 22:43-44; 22:62; 24:3; John 3:31-2; 4:9, and which point to a "western" tendency to omit at certain points .

                                  Now, from all these only one scripture is treated by M.W. Martin in detail (Lk 22:19-20), the others not. Why? Did I mistake s.th.?
                                  Neither did Ehrman deal with K.Aland's observations in his "Orthodox Corruption".

                                  I agree with Wieland pertaining to statistics and numbers. The German chancellor Konrad Adenauer said, "believe only in the statistics you faked yourself"! :-)

                                  Best wishes,  Martin
                                • Peter Head
                                  Does anyone know why the middle epsilon is printed bold in NA27 and NA26. Cheers Peter ... Peter M. Head, PhD Sir Kirby Laing Senior Lecturer in New Testament
                                  Message 16 of 27 , Sep 12, 2005
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Does anyone know why the middle epsilon is printed bold in NA27 and NA26.

                                    Cheers

                                    Peter

                                    >
                                    >----------

                                    Peter M. Head, PhD
                                    Sir Kirby Laing Senior Lecturer in New Testament
                                    Tyndale House
                                    36 Selwyn Gardens Phone: (UK) 01223
                                    566607
                                    Cambridge, CB3 9BA Fax: (UK) 01223 566608
                                    http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Tyndale/staff/Head/Staff.htm
                                  • Jim West
                                    It isn t bold in Merk s edition- but it is in all the copies of NA I have here. Maybe just extra ink flowed at that spot? I don t think there s any textual
                                    Message 17 of 27 , Sep 12, 2005
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      It isn't bold in Merk's edition- but it is in all the copies of NA I
                                      have here. Maybe just extra ink flowed at that spot? I don't think
                                      there's any textual reason for it. I take it to be a printer's error.

                                      Best

                                      Jim



                                      Peter Head wrote:
                                      > Does anyone know why the middle epsilon is printed bold in NA27 and NA26.
                                      >
                                      > Cheers
                                      >
                                      > Peter

                                      --
                                      Jim West

                                      Biblical Studies Resources - http://web.infoave.net/~jwest
                                      Biblical Theology Weblog - http://biblical-studies.blogspot.com
                                    • Peter Williams
                                      NA27 is generally a photographic reproduction of NA26, except in the apparatus. See the phrase avoiding the necessity for altering the page makeup on p. 46*
                                      Message 18 of 27 , Sep 12, 2005
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        NA27 is generally a photographic reproduction of NA26, except in the
                                        apparatus. See the phrase 'avoiding the necessity for altering the page
                                        makeup' on p. 46* of NA27. I've wondered before whether this letter was
                                        indeed bold, but I reckon that many graphical features are shared between
                                        the editions.

                                        Consider for instance p. 59 line 3 where at Matthew 21:14 there is a tiny
                                        dot just after XWLOI. This is shared in an edition of NA26 and of NA27 in
                                        my possession.

                                        NA27 is thus _literally_ a photographic reproduction of NA26, though within
                                        these editions there are corrected printings.

                                        Can anyone find any more dots?

                                        Pete



                                        At 11:35 12/09/2005 +0100, you wrote:
                                        >Does anyone know why the middle epsilon is printed bold in NA27 and NA26.
                                        >
                                        >Cheers
                                        >
                                        >Peter
                                        >
                                        > >
                                        > >----------
                                        >
                                        >Peter M. Head, PhD
                                        >Sir Kirby Laing Senior Lecturer in New Testament
                                        >Tyndale House
                                        >36 Selwyn Gardens Phone: (UK) 01223
                                        >566607
                                        >Cambridge, CB3 9BA Fax: (UK) 01223 566608
                                        ><http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Tyndale/staff/Head/Staff.htm>http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Tyndale/staff/Head/Staff.htm
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >----------
                                        >YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
                                        >
                                        > * Visit your group
                                        > "<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/textualcriticism>textualcriticism" on the web.
                                        > *
                                        > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                        > *
                                        > <mailto:textualcriticism-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>textualcriticism-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                        >
                                        > *
                                        > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
                                        > <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>Yahoo! Terms of Service.
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >----------


                                        ------------
                                        Peter Williams
                                        Deputy Head of Divinity, History and Philosophy
                                        University of Aberdeen
                                        p.j.williams@...
                                      • Stephen C. Carlson
                                        ... Typographical error, perhaps? If so, this would illuminate what is stated on p. 46* that the TEXT of this edition reproduces that of the 26th edition
                                        Message 19 of 27 , Sep 12, 2005
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          At 11:35 AM 9/12/2005 +0100, Peter Head wrote:
                                          >Does anyone know why the middle epsilon is printed bold in NA27 and NA26.

                                          Typographical error, perhaps? If so, this would illuminate what is stated on
                                          p. 46* that the "TEXT of this edition reproduces that of the 26th edition
                                          unchanged. Consequently, with rare exceptions, the paragraphing and punctuation
                                          remains the same, avoiding the necessity for altering the page makeup."

                                          This indicates to me that the page containing Mark 13:13 in the 26th edition
                                          may not have been re-typeset for the 27th edition.

                                          Stephen

                                          --
                                          Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
                                          Weblog: http://www.hypotyposeis.org/weblog/
                                          Author of: The Gospel Hoax, http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1932792481
                                        • Peter Head
                                          There is some kind of a dot on the same page as ESESQE under the HENEKEN of 13.9 (shared in NA26 and NA 27). Fair enough the whole page is a straightforward
                                          Message 20 of 27 , Sep 12, 2005
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            There is some kind of a dot on the same page as ESESQE under the HENEKEN of
                                            13.9 (shared in NA26 and NA 27). Fair enough the whole page is a
                                            straightforward reproduction. So a single bold letter is just an unusual
                                            typo or a type-setter making his mark, or is it supposed to signal
                                            something like bold letters in the Hebrew Bible?

                                            Pete

                                            At 01:00 PM 9/12/05, you wrote:
                                            >NA27 is generally a photographic reproduction of NA26, except in the
                                            >apparatus. See the phrase 'avoiding the necessity for altering the page
                                            >makeup' on p. 46* of NA27. I've wondered before whether this letter was
                                            >indeed bold, but I reckon that many graphical features are shared between
                                            >the editions.
                                            >
                                            >Consider for instance p. 59 line 3 where at Matthew 21:14 there is a tiny
                                            >dot just after XWLOI. This is shared in an edition of NA26 and of NA27 in
                                            >my possession.
                                            >
                                            >NA27 is thus _literally_ a photographic reproduction of NA26, though within
                                            >these editions there are corrected printings.
                                            >
                                            >Can anyone find any more dots?
                                            >
                                            >Pete
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >At 11:35 12/09/2005 +0100, you wrote:
                                            > >Does anyone know why the middle epsilon is printed bold in NA27 and NA26.
                                            > >
                                            > >Cheers
                                            > >
                                            > >Peter
                                            > >
                                            > > >
                                            > > >----------
                                            > >
                                            > >Peter M. Head, PhD
                                            > >Sir Kirby Laing Senior Lecturer in New Testament
                                            > >Tyndale House
                                            > >36 Selwyn Gardens Phone: (UK) 01223
                                            > >566607
                                            > >Cambridge, CB3 9BA Fax: (UK) 01223
                                            > 566608
                                            > ><http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Tyndale/staff/Head/Staff.htm>http://www.tyn
                                            > dale.cam.ac.uk/Tyndale/staff/Head/Staff.htm
                                            > >
                                            > >
                                            > >
                                            > >
                                            > >
                                            > >
                                            > >
                                            > >----------
                                            > >YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
                                            > >
                                            > > * Visit your group
                                            > > "<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/textualcriticism>textualcriticism" on
                                            > the web.
                                            > > *
                                            > > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                            > > *
                                            > >
                                            > <mailto:textualcriticism-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>textualcriticism-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                            >
                                            > >
                                            > > *
                                            > > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
                                            > > <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>Yahoo! Terms of Service.
                                            > >
                                            > >
                                            > >----------
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >------------
                                            >Peter Williams
                                            >Deputy Head of Divinity, History and Philosophy
                                            >University of Aberdeen
                                            >p.j.williams@...
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >Yahoo! Groups Links
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >

                                            Peter M. Head, PhD
                                            Sir Kirby Laing Senior Lecturer in New Testament
                                            Tyndale House
                                            36 Selwyn Gardens Phone: (UK) 01223
                                            566607
                                            Cambridge, CB3 9BA Fax: (UK) 01223 566608
                                            http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Tyndale/staff/Head/Staff.htm
                                          • Daniel B. Wallace
                                            It s not bold in my eighth printing of NA27. Dan Wallace ... From: Jim West To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re:
                                            Message 21 of 27 , Sep 12, 2005
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              It's not bold in my eighth printing of NA27.

                                              Dan Wallace

                                              ----- Start Original Message -----
                                              From: Jim West <jwest@...>
                                              To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
                                              Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Mark 13.13 ESESQE

                                              > It isn't bold in Merk's edition- but it is in all the copies of NA I
                                              > have here. Maybe just extra ink flowed at that spot? I don't think
                                              > there's any textual reason for it. I take it to be a printer's error.
                                              >
                                              > Best
                                              >
                                              > Jim
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              > Peter Head wrote:
                                              > > Does anyone know why the middle epsilon is printed bold in NA27 and NA26.
                                              > >
                                              > > Cheers
                                              > >
                                              > > Peter
                                              >
                                              > --
                                              > Jim West
                                              >
                                              > Biblical Studies Resources - http://web.infoave.net/~jwest
                                              > Biblical Theology Weblog - http://biblical-studies.blogspot.com
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >

                                              ----- End Original Message -----
                                            • Viktor Golinets
                                              In my copy of NA27, 8th Printing, 2001 (in German 27. Auflage, 2. Druck) , the middle epsilon is not printed bold. But it is bold in NA27, 2nd printing, 1994.
                                              Message 22 of 27 , Sep 12, 2005
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                In my copy of NA27, 8th Printing, 2001 (in German "27. Auflage, 2. Druck) , the middle epsilon is not printed bold. But it is bold in NA27, 2nd printing, 1994.
                                                 
                                                In NA27, 2nd printing, 1994 in Acts 1:1 LOGON the last letter is bold. But in NA27, 8th printing, 2001 it is not bold.
                                                 
                                                Here is the short list of other instances in NA27, 2nd printing, 1994 and in NA27, 8th printing, 2001 with bold letters:
                                                 

                                                Lk 1,59 PERITEMEIN the first Iota

                                                Lk 2,31 PROSWPON the first Omicron and the accent sign

                                                John 3,28 MARTUREITE the first four letters

                                                John 10:23 PERIPATEI the second Iota

                                                John 10:25 hA and the accent sign

                                                John 11:31 MET THE first letter

                                                Acts 1:1 W and the accent sign

                                                Hebr 9,25 EAUTON the Ypsilon

                                                These are the instances that I have just noted during my reading but I have not checked all the NT consequently. I also have not checked the 1st, the 3rd, the 5th, the 6th and the 7th printigs of NA27.


                                                Viktor Golinets, M.A.
                                                Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, München
                                                Institut für Semitistik


                                                Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail - Jetzt mit 1GB kostenlosem Speicher
                                              • Viktor Golinets
                                                I have just forgotten to share my opinion: I consider this bold printing of letters to be just typographical irregularities. Viktor Golinets Viktor Golinets
                                                Message 23 of 27 , Sep 13, 2005
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  I have just forgotten to share my opinion: I consider this bold printing of letters to be just typographical irregularities.
                                                   
                                                  Viktor Golinets


                                                  Viktor Golinets <viktor_golinets@...> schrieb:
                                                  In my copy of NA27, 8th Printing, 2001 (in German "27. Auflage, 2. Druck") , the middle epsilon is not printed bold. But it is bold in NA27, 2nd printing, 1994.
                                                   
                                                  In NA27, 2nd printing, 1994 in Acts 1:1 LOGON the last letter is bold. But in NA27, 8th printing, 2001 it is not bold.
                                                   
                                                  Here is the short list of other instances in NA27, 2nd printing, 1994 and in NA27, 8th printing, 2001 with bold letters:
                                                   

                                                  Lk 1,59 PERITEMEIN the first Iota

                                                  Lk 2,31 PROSWPON the first Omicron and the accent sign

                                                  John 3,28 MARTUREITE the first four letters

                                                  John 10:23 PERIPATEI the second Iota

                                                  John 10:25 hA and the accent sign

                                                  John 11:31 MET THE first letter

                                                  Acts 1:1 W and the accent sign

                                                  Hebr 9,25 EAUTON the Ypsilon

                                                  These are the instances that I have just noted during my reading but I have not checked all the NT consequently. I also have not checked the 1st, the 3rd, the 5th, the 6th and the 7th printigs of NA27.


                                                  Viktor Golinets, M.A.
                                                  Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, München
                                                  Institut für Semitistik


                                                  Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail - Jetzt mit 1GB kostenlosem Speicher


                                                  Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail - Jetzt mit 1GB kostenlosem Speicher
                                                • voxverax
                                                  Dear Peter: I m pretty sure the bold epsilon is a typo, possibly elicited by a typesetter s omission of es and a subsequent correction at the proof-reading
                                                  Message 24 of 27 , Sep 15, 2005
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    Dear Peter:

                                                    I'm pretty sure the bold epsilon is a typo, possibly elicited by a
                                                    typesetter's omission of "es" and a subsequent correction at the
                                                    proof-reading stage.

                                                    In the 1963 25th edition, "esesqe" is normal, without any bold
                                                    letters.

                                                    Yours in Christ,

                                                    James E. Snapp, Jr.
                                                    Curtisville Christian Church
                                                    Curtisville, OH (USA)
                                                    www.curtisvillechristian.org
                                                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.