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

Re: [textualcriticism] Re: When Is A Neutral Reading Not Neutral?

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 27 , Jul 29, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      On Friday 29 July 2005 07:24, mjriii2003 wrote:
      > Dear Jim,
      >
      > The Autographs are non extant (as far as we know).  The text of the
      > Autographs is perserved in copies. Hort's nomenclature is still
      > quite useful for making hide or hair out of the text critical
      > problems that we as text critics now face.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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      outdated and inaccurate terminology.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      --
      Dave Washburn
      http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
      "Well, if I'd wanted a safe life, I guess I wouldn't have
      married a man who studies rocks." - Betty Armstrong (Fay Masterson)
    • mjriii2003
      Dear David, Kurt Aland s history of the text is attendent to and bent toward the goal of textual restoration and the recovery of the original NT text as it was
      Message 2 of 27 , Jul 29, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Dear David,

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

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

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

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

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

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

        Cordially,

        Malcolm
        ______________________________________


        --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, Dave Washburn
        <dwashbur@n...> wrote:
        > On Friday 29 July 2005 07:24, mjriii2003 wrote:
        > > Dear Jim,
        > >
        > > The Autographs are non extant (as far as we know).  The text of
        the
        > > Autographs is perserved in copies. Hort's nomenclature is still
        > > quite useful for making hide or hair out of the text critical
        > > problems that we as text critics now face.
        >
        > Hort's contemporaries and fans often referred to it as a "question-
        begging
        > nomenclature."
        >
        > > The Neutral text type evidences itself as the less susceptible
        to
        > > alteration and contamination among all other text types.  Hence
        > > Hort's choice of this term.  Nevertheless it is still a text
        type
        > > representation among other text type representations which are
        all
        > > corrupted (to a certain extent and more or less) copies from the
        > > original(s).
        >
        > That's the whole question, isn't it? Nice bit of circular
        reasoning.
        > According to his own writings, Hort called it "Neutral" precisely
        because he
        > thought it most faithfully represented the text of the autographs
        and
        > *wasn't* "corrupted."
        >
        > > Neutral is indicative of the characteristics of this text
        type.  It
        > > has been the least susceptible to corruption.  Does that mean
        that
        > > it as a text type is at points not corrupted?  Of course not.
        >
        > Then it is not neutral. That's precisely the point that you seem
        to be
        > missing.
        >
        > > There is an Autograph(s).  It is clearly seen through the
        copies we
        > > have at hand.  Irrespective of how one comes down on the
        questions
        > > of the individual Western non interpolations as to whether they
        all
        > > or in part represent the Autograph does not eliminate Hort's
        attempt
        > > to make intelligible the facts of the matter.
        >
        > Nobody said it does. The problem here is your puzzling adherence
        to Hort's
        > outdated and inaccurate terminology.
        >
        > > I really have no more patience for those who are either camp
        > > orientated or rash in commenting on these matters as if they are
        > > superior (to Hort) while they themselves know neither what they
        are
        > > saying nor at what point they are affirming.
        >
        > Nice bit of ad hominem, but obviously it gets us nowhere,
        especially since you
        > seem to be commenting on other people's views as if you're
        superior to them
        > even though you're trying to defend terms that scholars far beyond
        all of us
        > such as Metzger, Aland(s), Lake, and many others have concluded
        are
        > erroneous.
        >
        > > The goal of textual criticism is to restore the original text -
        > > period.  If one does not wish that they are misplaced.
        >
        > Wow. I'll bet Kurt Aland would be surprised to know he had wasted
        his life
        > trying to build an accurate history of the text instead of just
        trying to
        > "restore the original text - period." If you're going to make a
        loaded
        > statement like this one, I suggest you have a flameproof suit
        handy because
        > you'll probably need it (not from me, I just find such statements
        amusing).
        >
        > > Finally, if you wish to play games Jim go elsewhere (or at least
        > > don't draw me into it).  If you wish to advocate Byzantine
        priority -
        > > fine.  You have more words for wish you and all like you will be
        > > accountable for.
        >
        > Oh, now we're into guilt by inference. I didn't see him say
        anything about
        > Byzantine priority. And I have no idea what "words for wish you"
        means.
        >
        > My two klatnus' worth, and that's all I'll say.
        >
        > > --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "voxverax" <snapp@p...>
        > >
        > > wrote:
        > > > Dear Malcolm,
        > > >
        > > > MR3:  "The Western non-interpolations ... represent the
        Neutral
        > >
        > > text
        > >
        > > > (the original Autograph text) exactly where the Neutral text-
        type
        > > > omits them."
        > > >
        > > > Look, if you employ Hort's nomenclature (by calling B's text
        > > > "Neutral"), then if he is correct that the Western mss
        display the
        > > > original text (or rather, non-text) in these passages, then
        the
        > > > "Neutral" text in these cases is not the original.
        > > >
        > > > Meanwhile, if you employ *your* nomenclature (by calling the
        > >
        > > original
        > >
        > > > Autograph text "Neutral"), then if Hort is correct that the
        > >
        > > Western
        > >
        > > > mss display the original text (or rather, non-text) in these
        > > > passages, then B and its allies cease to be Neutral. 
        > > >
        > > > I think these are the only two options we have, unless we
        want the
        > > > word "Neutral" to mean two different things.  Hort did not
        > >
        > > consider
        > >
        > > > the Neutral Text as he defined it (as the text of Aleph and
        B) to
        > >
        > > be
        > >
        > > > the Neutral text as you seem to be defining it (as the
        original
        > > > Autograph text), where "Western Non-interpolations" are
        > >
        > > concerned. 
        > >
        > > > But he used the (loaded) term anyway.         
        > > >
        > > > MR3:  "They are termed Western because they are preserved
        within
        > >
        > > this
        > >
        > > > text-type."
        > > >
        > > > There's a variant of some sort or another preserved in /every/
        > >
        > > text-
        > >
        > > > type; that alone does not elicit a particular designation. 
        Hort
        > >
        > > did
        > >
        > > > not consider the Neutral text to be original ("Neutral" by
        your
        > > > definition) in these cases.  I repeat:  he believed that the
        mss
        > >
        > > in
        > >
        > > > which resided the "Neutral Text" were all wrong in these
        > >
        > > passages. 
        > >
        > > > Using your definition of "Neutral," the Western mss display
        the
        > > > Neutral Text in these passages and the others (including the
        mss
        > > > containing what Hort called the "Neutral Text") do not.  In
        other
        > > > words, according to Hort, the Neutral mss. do not display a
        > >
        > > neutral
        > >
        > > > text in these passages.  Which to me is a good reason to
        dispense
        > > > with the term "Neutral" entirely as a name for a class of
        > > > manuscripts, and use "Proto-Alexandrian" instead. 
        > > >
        > > > To review:  Hort contended that the manuscripts with
        the "Neutral
        > > > Text" consistently contained interpolations in these
        passages. 
        > >
        > > Since
        > >
        > > > "Neutral Interpolations" would have sounded like "Original
        > >
        > > Glosses,"
        > >
        > > > he devised a new term to describe the phenomenon of non-
        neutral
        > > > readings in the "Neutral Text."  I can understand him doing
        so, to
        > > > ruthlessly promote a new critical text that needed every
        advantage
        > >
        > > it
        > >
        > > > could get.  But I don't understand why anyone today would
        continue
        > >
        > > to
        > >
        > > > call the text of B-Aleph "Neutral" instead of "Proto-
        Alexandrian."
        > > >
        > > > Yours in Christ,
        > > >
        > > > Jim Snapp II
        > > > Curtisville Christian Church
        > > > Indiana (USA)
        > > > www.curtisvillechristian.org
        >
        > --
        > Dave Washburn
        > http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
        > "Well, if I'd wanted a safe life, I guess I wouldn't have
        > married a man who studies rocks." - Betty Armstrong (Fay Masterson)
      • voxverax
        Dear Malcolm, Hort s nomenclature was useful, and so was his horse, but I prefer objective (and more accurate) nomenclature and a car. MR3: The Neutral text
        Message 3 of 27 , Jul 29, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          Dear Malcolm,

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

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

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

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

          Exactamente.

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

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

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

          Yours in Christ,

          Jim Snapp II
          Curtisville Christian Church
          Indiana (USA)
          www.curtisvillechristian.org
        • mjriii2003
          Dear Jim, This is exactly where we part company (in our thinking and historical understandings/reconstructions). The whole idea of the necessity of some
          Message 4 of 27 , Jul 30, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            Dear Jim,

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

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

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

            Cordially in Jesus,

            Malcolm
            ________________________________________


            --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "voxverax" <snapp@p...>
            wrote:
            > Dear Malcolm,
            >
            > Hort's nomenclature was useful, and so was his horse, but I prefer
            > objective (and more accurate) nomenclature and a car.
            >
            > MR3: "The Neutral text type evidences itself as the less
            susceptible
            > to alteration and contamination among all other text types. Hence
            > Hort's choice of this term."
            >
            > But "less flawed" or "Better-than-the-Western-Text-and-the-Syrian-
            > Text" is far from being "neutral." Hence my choice to reject
            Hort's
            > term.
            >
            > MR3: "Neutral is indicative of the characteristics of this text
            > type. It has been the least susceptible to corruption. Does that
            mean
            > that it as a text type is at points not corrupted? Of course not."
            > DW: "Then it is not neutral. That's precisely the point that you
            seem
            > to be missing."
            >
            > Exactamente.
            >
            > MR3: … "If you wish to advocate Byzantine priority - fine." ...
            > "There is little doubt about Jim's camp leanings."
            >
            > There may be no doubt, but there sure seems to be some
            misperception
            > about them. Let me fix that: I don't advocate Byzantine
            priority.
            > Imho the basic premises currently employed to argue for the
            primacy
            > of the Majority Text are flawed. I *do* advocate the existence of
            an
            > early Asian/Antiochan or "Proto-Byzantine" Text, though, many
            traces
            > of which are embedded in the Byzantine Text. I suppose that this
            > could be called a modified "Sturzian" approach rather than a
            > "Hortian" approach. But perhaps if Hort had had Sturz's data
            > demonstrating that some "Syrian" readings existed prior to the
            > recension which, according to Hort's theory of the Syrian
            Recension,
            > brought them into being, he would have been somewhat Sturzian too.
            >
            > In other news: you mentioned that "The text of the Autographs is
            > preserved in copies." Maybe a strong case for that can be made
            for
            > the NT text, but when it comes to the OT, at least, getting to the
            > text of the autographs tends to take some conjecture, after an
            > archetype-text has been reconstructed. It looks to me like the
            > reconstruction of the archetype (not necessarily the same as the
            text
            > of the autographs) is Job One for NT textual critics, and after
            that
            > is done, one can either make conjectural emendations or have faith
            > that the archetypical text = the text of the autographs.
            >
            > Yours in Christ,
            >
            > Jim Snapp II
            > Curtisville Christian Church
            > Indiana (USA)
            > www.curtisvillechristian.org
          • voxverax
            Dear Malcolm, MR3: ... The whole idea of the necessity of some recension and archtypical representation is historically invalid. Are you saying that you do
            Message 5 of 27 , Aug 1 2:01 PM
            • 0 Attachment
              Dear Malcolm,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

              Yours in Christ,

              Jim Snapp II
              Curtisville Christian Church
              Indiana (USA)
              www.curtisvillechristian.org
            • K. Martin Heide
              Wieland Willker wrote: Defending the Western Non-Interpolations : The Case for an Anti Separationist Tendenz in the Longer Alexandrian Readings by Michael
              Message 6 of 27 , Sep 8, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                Wieland Willker wrote:
                "Defending the 'Western Non-Interpolations': The Case for an Anti Separationist Tendenz in the Longer Alexandrian Readings"
                by Michael W. Martin
                JBL 124/2 (2005) 269–294
                
                I haven't really digested it yet, just skimmed through it, but already found this gem:
                "the chance or probability of exactly seven mistaken verdicts of authenticity occurring with regard to the eight Lukan verses is 0.003574092055824." (sic! 15 digits). 
                Not discussing the faulty premises, would it not be enough to say it is less than 1%? Is this a peer reviewed journal? Alas, Bob Waltz is not here anymore. 
                
                Ok, so much for a bad start, I will nevertheless read it carefully, just skipping the "mathematical" part. 
                Btw. are theologians forced to use German words in their scholarly articles? To me this looks just silly. 
                
                  
                Meanwhile, I had the chance to read the article.

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

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

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

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

                Best wishes,  Martin
              • Peter Head
                Does anyone know why the middle epsilon is printed bold in NA27 and NA26. Cheers Peter ... Peter M. Head, PhD Sir Kirby Laing Senior Lecturer in New Testament
                Message 7 of 27 , Sep 12, 2005
                • 0 Attachment
                  Does anyone know why the middle epsilon is printed bold in NA27 and NA26.

                  Cheers

                  Peter

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

                  Peter M. Head, PhD
                  Sir Kirby Laing Senior Lecturer in New Testament
                  Tyndale House
                  36 Selwyn Gardens Phone: (UK) 01223
                  566607
                  Cambridge, CB3 9BA Fax: (UK) 01223 566608
                  http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Tyndale/staff/Head/Staff.htm
                • Jim West
                  It isn t bold in Merk s edition- but it is in all the copies of NA I have here. Maybe just extra ink flowed at that spot? I don t think there s any textual
                  Message 8 of 27 , Sep 12, 2005
                  • 0 Attachment
                    It isn't bold in Merk's edition- but it is in all the copies of NA I
                    have here. Maybe just extra ink flowed at that spot? I don't think
                    there's any textual reason for it. I take it to be a printer's error.

                    Best

                    Jim



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

                    --
                    Jim West

                    Biblical Studies Resources - http://web.infoave.net/~jwest
                    Biblical Theology Weblog - http://biblical-studies.blogspot.com
                  • Peter Williams
                    NA27 is generally a photographic reproduction of NA26, except in the apparatus. See the phrase avoiding the necessity for altering the page makeup on p. 46*
                    Message 9 of 27 , Sep 12, 2005
                    • 0 Attachment
                      NA27 is generally a photographic reproduction of NA26, except in the
                      apparatus. See the phrase 'avoiding the necessity for altering the page
                      makeup' on p. 46* of NA27. I've wondered before whether this letter was
                      indeed bold, but I reckon that many graphical features are shared between
                      the editions.

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

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

                      Can anyone find any more dots?

                      Pete



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


                      ------------
                      Peter Williams
                      Deputy Head of Divinity, History and Philosophy
                      University of Aberdeen
                      p.j.williams@...
                    • Stephen C. Carlson
                      ... Typographical error, perhaps? If so, this would illuminate what is stated on p. 46* that the TEXT of this edition reproduces that of the 26th edition
                      Message 10 of 27 , Sep 12, 2005
                      • 0 Attachment
                        At 11:35 AM 9/12/2005 +0100, Peter Head wrote:
                        >Does anyone know why the middle epsilon is printed bold in NA27 and NA26.

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

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

                        Stephen

                        --
                        Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
                        Weblog: http://www.hypotyposeis.org/weblog/
                        Author of: The Gospel Hoax, http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1932792481
                      • Peter Head
                        There is some kind of a dot on the same page as ESESQE under the HENEKEN of 13.9 (shared in NA26 and NA 27). Fair enough the whole page is a straightforward
                        Message 11 of 27 , Sep 12, 2005
                        • 0 Attachment
                          There is some kind of a dot on the same page as ESESQE under the HENEKEN of
                          13.9 (shared in NA26 and NA 27). Fair enough the whole page is a
                          straightforward reproduction. So a single bold letter is just an unusual
                          typo or a type-setter making his mark, or is it supposed to signal
                          something like bold letters in the Hebrew Bible?

                          Pete

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

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

                            Dan Wallace

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

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

                            ----- End Original Message -----
                          • Viktor Golinets
                            In my copy of NA27, 8th Printing, 2001 (in German 27. Auflage, 2. Druck) , the middle epsilon is not printed bold. But it is bold in NA27, 2nd printing, 1994.
                            Message 13 of 27 , Sep 12, 2005
                            • 0 Attachment
                              In my copy of NA27, 8th Printing, 2001 (in German "27. Auflage, 2. Druck) , the middle epsilon is not printed bold. But it is bold in NA27, 2nd printing, 1994.
                               
                              In NA27, 2nd printing, 1994 in Acts 1:1 LOGON the last letter is bold. But in NA27, 8th printing, 2001 it is not bold.
                               
                              Here is the short list of other instances in NA27, 2nd printing, 1994 and in NA27, 8th printing, 2001 with bold letters:
                               

                              Lk 1,59 PERITEMEIN the first Iota

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

                              John 3,28 MARTUREITE the first four letters

                              John 10:23 PERIPATEI the second Iota

                              John 10:25 hA and the accent sign

                              John 11:31 MET THE first letter

                              Acts 1:1 W and the accent sign

                              Hebr 9,25 EAUTON the Ypsilon

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


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


                              Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail - Jetzt mit 1GB kostenlosem Speicher
                            • Viktor Golinets
                              I have just forgotten to share my opinion: I consider this bold printing of letters to be just typographical irregularities. Viktor Golinets Viktor Golinets
                              Message 14 of 27 , Sep 13, 2005
                              • 0 Attachment
                                I have just forgotten to share my opinion: I consider this bold printing of letters to be just typographical irregularities.
                                 
                                Viktor Golinets


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

                                Lk 1,59 PERITEMEIN the first Iota

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

                                John 3,28 MARTUREITE the first four letters

                                John 10:23 PERIPATEI the second Iota

                                John 10:25 hA and the accent sign

                                John 11:31 MET THE first letter

                                Acts 1:1 W and the accent sign

                                Hebr 9,25 EAUTON the Ypsilon

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


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


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


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

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

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

                                  Yours in Christ,

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