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

Re: New article on Western Non-Interpolations

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 27 , Jul 12, 2005
      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 2 of 27 , Jul 15, 2005
        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 3 of 27 , Jul 20, 2005
          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 4 of 27 , Jul 27, 2005
            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 5 of 27 , Jul 27, 2005
              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 6 of 27 , Jul 28, 2005
                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 7 of 27 , Jul 29, 2005
                  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 8 of 27 , Jul 29, 2005
                    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 9 of 27 , Jul 29, 2005
                      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 10 of 27 , Jul 29, 2005
                        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 11 of 27 , Jul 29, 2005
                          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 12 of 27 , Jul 30, 2005
                            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 13 of 27 , Aug 1, 2005
                              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 14 of 27 , Sep 8 10:52 AM
                                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 15 of 27 , Sep 12 3:35 AM
                                  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 16 of 27 , Sep 12 4:57 AM
                                    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 17 of 27 , Sep 12 5:00 AM
                                      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 18 of 27 , Sep 12 6:16 AM
                                        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 19 of 27 , Sep 12 6:58 AM
                                          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 20 of 27 , Sep 12 6:59 AM
                                            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 21 of 27 , Sep 12 2:11 PM
                                              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 22 of 27 , Sep 13 2:54 AM
                                                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 23 of 27 , Sep 15 10:36 PM
                                                  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.