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

When Is A Neutral Reading Not Neutral?

Expand Messages
  • voxverax
    Dear Malcolm, MR3: The Western non-interpolations ... represent the Neutral text (the original Autograph text) exactly where the Neutral text-type omits
    Message 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 of 27 , Sep 8, 2005
                      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 10 of 27 , Sep 12, 2005
                        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 11 of 27 , Sep 12, 2005
                          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 12 of 27 , Sep 12, 2005
                            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 13 of 27 , Sep 12, 2005
                              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 14 of 27 , Sep 12, 2005
                                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 15 of 27 , Sep 12, 2005
                                  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 16 of 27 , Sep 12, 2005
                                    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 17 of 27 , Sep 13, 2005
                                      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 18 of 27 , Sep 15, 2005
                                        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.