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

The Pericope Adulterae

Expand Messages
  • Curtis Dubreuil
    Greetings, In Dr. Metzger s Textual Commentary (p. 220) he states concerning the PA No Greek Church Father prior to Euthymius Zigabenus (twelfth century)
    Message 1 of 20 , Nov 8, 2005
      Greetings,

      In Dr. Metzger's Textual Commentary (p. 220) he states concerning the
      PA "No Greek Church Father prior to Euthymius Zigabenus (twelfth
      century) comments on the passage, and Euthymius declares that the
      accurate copies of the Gospel do not contain it."

      Dr. Willker's paper on the PA quotes Didymus the Blind, "(Didymus'
      Commentary on Ecclesiastes, according to the Tura Papyrus). ['We
      find, therefore, in certain gospels: A woman, it says, was condemned
      by the Jews for a sin and was being sent to be stoned in the place
      where that was customary to happen. The saviour, it says, when he saw
      her and observed that they were ready to stone her, said to those who
      were about to cast stones, 'He who has not sinned, let him take a
      stone and cast it. If anyone is conscious in himself not to have
      sinned, let him take up a stone and smite her.' And no one dared.
      Since they knew in themselves and perceived that they themselves were
      guilty in some things, they did not dare to strike her.']"
      http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/TC-John-PA.pdf

      My question is why does Dr. Metzger not consider the comments of
      Didymus to be inclusive in his staements?

      Curtis Dubreuil
      North Carolina
    • sarban
      ... From: Curtis Dubreuil To: Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 5:39 AM Subject:
      Message 2 of 20 , Nov 9, 2005
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "Curtis Dubreuil" <curtis7777@...>
        To: <textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 5:39 AM
        Subject: [textualcriticism] The Pericope Adulterae


        > Greetings,
        >
        > In Dr. Metzger's Textual Commentary (p. 220) he states concerning the
        > PA "No Greek Church Father prior to Euthymius Zigabenus (twelfth
        > century) comments on the passage, and Euthymius declares that the
        > accurate copies of the Gospel do not contain it."
        >
        > Dr. Willker's paper on the PA quotes Didymus the Blind, "(Didymus'

        <SNIP>

        > Commentary on Ecclesiastes, according to the Tura Papyrus). >
        http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/TC-John-PA.pdf
        >
        > My question is why does Dr. Metzger not consider the comments of
        > Didymus to be inclusive in his staements?
        >
        > Curtis Dubreuil
        > North Carolina
        >
        When this was originally written (1971) the fact that the Tura papyrus
        has a reference to some form of the PA was not widely known.

        (The papyrus was discovered in 1941 I'm not sure of the precise
        date of publication.)

        In any case there are real problems with this reference.

        a/ There is no indication that Didymus' version of the PA is found in
        John and some scholars think Didymus is referring to an apocryphal
        Gospel such as the 'Gospel of the Hebrews'

        b/ The version of the story is very divergent from the form found
        in (late) copies of John. Some scholars regard it as an earlier version
        of the PA which is (one) source for the familiar form of the story.

        Andrew Criddle
      • Jan Krans
        Greetings, As Wieland s paper (nice word for an internet publication) shows, the story itself being known is something else than the story being part of
        Message 3 of 20 , Nov 9, 2005
          Greetings,

          As Wieland's "paper" (nice word for an internet publication) shows, the
          story itself being known is something else than the story being part of
          John's gospel. Metzger could have been a trifle more explicit in his TC;
          he apparently means Greek Church Fathers commenting on the story in
          commentaries on John or in series of homilies on it. But before writing
          such a conclusion in a published article, I would at least consult
          Ehrman's 1988 NTS article mentioned by Metzger (TC, 2nd ed., p. 188 n. 3).

          Regards,
          Jan Krans
          Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam

          Curtis Dubreuil wrote:

          > Greetings,
          >
          > In Dr. Metzger's Textual Commentary (p. 220) he states concerning the
          > PA "No Greek Church Father prior to Euthymius Zigabenus (twelfth
          > century) comments on the passage, and Euthymius declares that the
          > accurate copies of the Gospel do not contain it."
          > Dr. Willker's paper on the PA quotes Didymus the Blind, "(Didymus'
          > Commentary on Ecclesiastes, according to the Tura Papyrus). ['We
          > find, therefore, in certain gospels:
          [snip]
          > My question is why does Dr. Metzger not consider the comments of
          > Didymus to be inclusive in his staements?
          >
          > Curtis Dubreuil
          > North Carolina
        • Tommy Wasserman
          Dear list, I would also take a look at William L. Petersen, OUDE EGW SE [KATA]KRINW: John 8:11, the Protevangelium Iacobi, and the History of the Pericope
          Message 4 of 20 , Nov 9, 2005
            Dear list,

            I would also take a look at William L. Petersen, "OUDE EGW SE [KATA]KRINW: John 8:11, the Protevangelium Iacobi, and the History of the Pericope Adulterae." In William L. Petersen, at al., eds., _Sayings of Jesus: Canonical and Non-Canonical: Essays in Honour of Tjitze Baarda_. Leiden: Brill, 1997, 191-221.

            Petersen seems to suggests (within the bounds of appropriate cautions primarily on the grounds of the external evidence against the PA) that the author of ProtJac appears to have borrowed phraseology exclusively from canonical NT books to the exclusion of apocryphal NT books, and thus because the phrasing OUDE EGW SE (KATA)KRINW appears in ProtJac, it seems plausible that the copy of the Gospel of John he used must have been one that contained the PA at some place.

            With regards

            Tommy Wasserman
            Centre for Theology and Religious Studies
            Lund University
            Sweden





            > Från: "Jan Krans" <jlhkrans@...>
            > Till: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
            > Rubrik: Re: [textualcriticism] The Pericope Adulterae
            > Datum: Wed, 09 Nov 2005 09:47:05 +0100

            > Greetings,
            >
            > As Wieland's "paper" (nice word for an internet publication) shows, the
            > story itself being known is something else than the story being part of
            > John's gospel. Metzger could have been a trifle more explicit in his TC;
            > he apparently means Greek Church Fathers commenting on the story in
            > commentaries on John or in series of homilies on it. But before writing
            > such a conclusion in a published article, I would at least consult
            > Ehrman's 1988 NTS article mentioned by Metzger (TC, 2nd ed., p. 188 n. 3).
            >
            > Regards,
            > Jan Krans
            > Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam
            >
            > Curtis Dubreuil wrote:
            >
            > > Greetings,
            > >
            > > In Dr. Metzger's Textual Commentary (p. 220) he states concerning the
            > > PA "No Greek Church Father prior to Euthymius Zigabenus (twelfth
            > > century) comments on the passage, and Euthymius declares that the
            > > accurate copies of the Gospel do not contain it."
            > > Dr. Willker's paper on the PA quotes Didymus the Blind, "(Didymus'
            > > Commentary on Ecclesiastes, according to the Tura Papyrus). ['We
            > > find, therefore, in certain gospels:
            > [snip]
            > > My question is why does Dr. Metzger not consider the comments of
            > > Didymus to be inclusive in his staements?
            > >
            > > Curtis Dubreuil
            > > North Carolina
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > Yahoo! Groups Links
            >
            > href=http://groups.yahoo.com/group/textualcriticism/>http://groups.yahoo.com
            > /group/textualcriticism/</a>
            >
            > href=http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/</a>
          • Schmuel
            Hi TC, Thank you Curtis, Ann, Tommy and Andrew. Bruce Metzger No Greek Church Father prior to Euthymius Zigabenus (twelfth century) comments on the passage,
            Message 5 of 20 , Nov 9, 2005
              Hi TC,

              Thank you Curtis, Ann, Tommy and Andrew.

              Bruce Metzger
              "No Greek Church Father prior to Euthymius Zigabenus (twelfth century) comments on the passage, and Euthymius declares that the accurate copies of the Gospel do not contain it."

              I think it is important to point out that Metzger was repeating an assertion of Hort.
              And I will conjecture that Metzger was familiar with Hort's argumentation.

              Dr. Leslie McFall in the UK has given us background information when he gave us..
              "PASSAGES RELATING TO THE PERICOPE ADULTERY IN HORT¹S UNPUBLISHED LETTERS."

              (81/3.11.64) to BFW.
              "Have you realised that the Pericope [de adultera] was apparently absolutely unknown to every Greek
              Father whose writings have been preserved, till Euthymius Zigabenus in the 11th century?"

              My sense is that a lot of textual assertions are passed down in this manner, from Westcott or Hort, through Bruce Metzger who puts it in a more accessible place, and then down to Daniel Wallace, Bart Ehrman, James White and many others. And I wonder whether many such constructions are original to Bruce Metzger, perhaps some of our textual experts have insight on this.

              So the careful constructions may not be in fact checked for current accuracy, even if they were accurate to the extent of knowledge at the original stating. And another issue is ignored, whether the assertion contains careful 'parsing language' designed to make a case rather than give a full and accurate picture.

              And then on top of that the assertions can grow in the retelling, dropping the subtle language of the original, and becoming simply incorrect in fact. I saw a recent case on that with Bart Ehrman and the Johannine Comma, albeit second hand, so it could use more checking.

              The artificial delineation of "Greek Fathers", even including a time period when many writers were fluent with both the Greek and Latin literature, would be an example of a parsing language that is used time and again to give the impression that a verse was unknown when it fact it may have been copiously referenced and quoted.

              To my way of thinking, this misuse of language, with an intention to obscure information for textual political ends, is a fundamental scholastic integrity concern.

              Shalom,
              Steven Avery
              Queens, NY
              http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic
            • Peter Head
              ... So which bit of this is incorrect? ... Peter M. Head, PhD Sir Kirby Laing Senior Lecturer in New Testament Tyndale House 36 Selwyn Gardens
              Message 6 of 20 , Nov 9, 2005
                >Bruce Metzger
                >"No Greek Church Father prior to Euthymius Zigabenus (twelfth century)
                >comments on the passage, and Euthymius declares that the accurate copies
                >of the Gospel do not contain it."

                So which bit of this is incorrect?


                >

                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
              • Jeffrey B. Gibson
                  ... Isn t the standard understanding of who the Greek Fathers were/are those who were of Greek ancestry, whose first tongue was Greek, and who 
                Message 7 of 20 , Nov 9, 2005
                   

                  Schmuel wrote:

                  The artificial delineation of "Greek Fathers", even including a time period when many writers were fluent with both the Greek and Latin literature, would be an example of a parsing language that is used time and again to give the impression that a verse was unknown when it fact it may have been copiously referenced and quoted.
                  Isn't the standard understanding of who the "Greek Fathers" were/are "those who were of Greek ancestry, whose first tongue was Greek, and who  **wrote** in Greek",  not, as you claim (not entirely without equivocation), those (unnamed fathers) who could **read** both Greek and Latin literature?

                  If so,  how is the delineation you decry "artificial"?  I can read Greek, but that hardly makes "artificial" (let alone, inaccurate, incorrect, or, as you seem to imply it would be,  deceptive) any description of me as an Anglicized  American.

                  Jeffrey
                  --

                  Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)

                  1500 W. Pratt Blvd. #1
                  Chicago, IL 60626

                  jgibson000@...
                   

                • Schmuel
                  Hi TC, ... Jeffrey, ... To simplify the issue ... why is Greek ancestry, whose first tongue was Greek, and who **wrote** in Greek Even a particular relevant
                  Message 8 of 20 , Nov 9, 2005
                    Hi TC,

                    >Schmuel wrote:
                    >>The artificial delineation of "Greek Fathers", even including a time period when many writers were fluent with both the Greek and Latin literature, would be an example of a parsing language that is used time and again to give the impression that a verse was unknown when it fact it may have been copiously referenced and quoted.

                    Jeffrey,
                    >Isn't the standard understanding of who the "Greek Fathers" were/are "those who were of Greek ancestry, whose first tongue was Greek, and who **wrote** in Greek", not, as you claim (not entirely without equivocation), those (unnamed fathers) who could **read** both Greek and Latin literature?

                    To simplify the issue ... why is

                    "Greek ancestry, whose first tongue was Greek, and who **wrote** in Greek"

                    Even a particular relevant category in discussing early church writers textual authority ?

                    If a 4th century writer who worked with Greek and Latin texts (e.g. Jerome) or a Council
                    was held in a Latin speaking area (e.g. Council of Carthage), why is this considered
                    relevant as a separate category of early church writers ?
                    .. in discussing the 'plethora or dearth' of references to a passage.

                    From what I have seen, the category itself is artificial and used mostly to obscure
                    textual evidences. And I have actually seen it used that way time and again.

                    > If so, how is the delineation you decry "artificial"? I can read Greek, but that hardly makes
                    > "artificial" (let alone, inaccurate, incorrect, or, as you seem to imply it would be, deceptive) any
                    > description of me as an Anglicized American. .. Jeffrey

                    A category being artificial does not mean that it cannot not have a definition.

                    Shalom,
                    Steven
                    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic
                  • Jeffrey B. Gibson
                      ... It isn t -- since the issue isn t their -- or anyone s -- textual authority (even assuming that term is meaningful in this context), but by whom,
                    Message 9 of 20 , Nov 9, 2005
                       

                      Schmuel wrote:

                       Hi TC,

                      >Schmuel wrote:
                      >>The artificial delineation of "Greek Fathers", even including a time period when many writers were fluent with both the Greek and Latin literature, would be an example of a parsing language that is used time and again to give the impression that a verse was unknown when it fact it may have been copiously referenced and quoted.

                      Jeffrey,
                      >Isn't the standard understanding of who the "Greek Fathers" were/are "those who were of Greek ancestry, whose first tongue was Greek, and who  **wrote** in Greek",  not, as you claim (not entirely without equivocation), those (unnamed fathers) who could **read** both Greek and Latin literature?

                      To simplify the issue ... why is

                      "Greek ancestry, whose first tongue was Greek, and who  **wrote** in Greek"

                      Even a particular relevant category in discussing early church writers textual authority ?

                      It isn't -- since the issue isn't their -- or anyone's -- "textual authority" (even assuming that term is meaningful in this context), but by whom, where, and when, and in what stream of the textual tradition a text  was known.

                      But more importantly, your "simplification" of "the issue"  is, I fear,  not only another equivocation on your part, but a dodge of the question I posed about whether or not what determines the delineation of an early Christian writer as a Greek father is not what he read or worked with, but whether that author was  ethnically Greek, whose first tongue was Greek, and who **wrote** in Greek.   I'd be grateful if you'd do me the kindness of actually answering **that** question instead of raising the an entirely different one about whether the categorizing of someone as a Greek father has any relevance in matters text critical.

                       

                      If a 4th century writer who worked with Greek and Latin texts (e.g. Jerome) or a Council
                      was held in a Latin speaking area (e.g. Council of Carthage), why is this considered
                      relevant as a separate category of early church writers ?

                      You haven't yet shown that what an/any author was able to read or worked with (let alone where a council was held!) **is** used by any text critic as a way or a means of categorizing early church writers as Greek Fathers  or that it has ever played any part in determining  whether early church writers are/have been called Greek or Latin fathers.  So you seem be decrying  something that no one has ever done.
                       
                        .. in discussing the 'plethora or dearth' of references to a passage.

                      From what I have seen, the category itself is artificial and used mostly to obscure
                      textual evidences.  And I have actually seen it used that way time and again.

                      Please provide instances.
                      > If so,  how is the delineation you decry "artificial"?  I can read Greek, but that hardly makes
                      > "artificial" (let alone, inaccurate, incorrect, or, as you seem to imply it would be,  deceptive) any
                      > description of me as an Anglicized  American.  .. Jeffrey

                      A category being artificial does not mean that it cannot not have a definition.

                      But the question is whether the definition **is** artificial given that it is in the end a description of the ethnicity of a particular writer, what his native tongue was, where he was from, and what language he wrote in, not, as you claim,  what texts he "worked with" (which is, BTW, a change of your original criterion which was that an author was "fluent with both the Greek and Latin literature").

                      So I ask again, does what I'm capable of reading or what texts I'm able to "work with" make categorizing me as an American "artificial", especially when the only issue at hand is what my ethnicity/origin is?  If not, then the designation of early Christian authors who were Greek as Greek fathers is not nor cannot be "artificial".

                      Jeffrey
                      --

                      Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)

                      1500 W. Pratt Blvd. #1
                      Chicago, IL 60626

                      jgibson000@...
                       

                    • James Miller
                      Going over WH s introduction, I see that they address the matter of whether codices S and B might be copies made from a common exemplar. The question is
                      Message 10 of 20 , Nov 10, 2005
                        Going over WH's introduction, I see that they address the matter of
                        whether codices S and B might be copies made from a common exemplar. The
                        question is dismissed almost as quickly as it is raised owing to obvious
                        external differences between the two manuscripts (structure and content),
                        though they do go on to address divided readings as additional evidence
                        against any notion of these manuscripts sharing a common vorlage. Did they
                        effectively put this question to rest with their discussion, or has it
                        been raised subsequently by any other scholar? I note that Milne and Skeat
                        briefly address the matter of whether S and B might have been copied, in
                        part, by the same scribe--the question (raised first by Tischendorf, it
                        seems) that prompted WH to deal with the possibility they were copies of a
                        common vorlage--though they do not agree with Tischendorf about which
                        scribe of S is more likely to have worked on B. But they do not address
                        the matter of a common exemplar. Going beyond the case of codices S and B,
                        the only instance I know of where a relation of copy and vorlage is
                        proposed between two extant mss is for 205 and 205abs (Metzger,
                        Manuscripts of the Gk Bible)--this instance being one where there is no
                        question of two mss being copies of the same exemplar, but only of a
                        vorlage and a likely copy of it. Are there other such instances known to
                        scholarship of 1) two extant mss thought to have been copied from a common
                        exemplar, or 2) of any extant ms thought to have been copied from another
                        extant ms (i.e., its vorlage)? Relevant input will be appreciated.

                        Thanks, James
                      • Jack Kilmon
                        ... From: Jeffrey B. Gibson To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 1:12 PM Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] The Pericope
                        Message 11 of 20 , Nov 10, 2005

                          ----- Original Message -----
                          From: Jeffrey B. Gibson
                          To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
                          Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 1:12 PM
                          Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] The Pericope Adulterae


                           
                          Jeffrey,
                          It isn't -- since the issue isn't their -- or anyone's -- "textual authority" (even assuming that term is meaningful in this context), but by whom, where, and when, and in what stream of the textual tradition a text  was known.
                          But more importantly, your "simplification" of "the issue"  is, I fear,  not only another equivocation on your part, but a dodge of the question I posed about whether or not what determines the delineation of an early Christian writer as a Greek father is not what he read or worked with, but whether that author was  ethnically Greek, whose first tongue was Greek, and who **wrote** in Greek.   I'd be grateful if you'd do me the kindness of actually answering **that** question instead of raising the an entirely different one about whether the categorizing of someone as a Greek father has any relevance in matters text critical.
                           
                          Jack
                          There is a mindset among Messianics that the "Greek Fathers" corrupted the New Testament by translating the "original Hebrew or Aramaic" autographs to Greek hence "Greek Fathers" has a tad bit of the perjorative about it as those who kidnapped the "original" texts.  I am not speaking for Shmuel but for those who coined the term.  The New Testament writings were composed in Greek but the authors used various sources that were either Aramaic or translations from Aramaic and there are lexical and syntactic traces, particulaely for the vox Iesu.  19th and early 20th century "Aramaic Fathers" like Dahlman, Torrey and Burney carried their appreciation for the Aramaic idiom in the Greek texts...not unlike myself...a bit too far.  The Aramaic substructure in the Greek texts is a result of sources and not the original composition and I beliieve text critics err in not giving enough attention to Aramaic idiom in Greek exegesis for those "patches" of Semitic underpinning but I digress.  Among many Messianics the Church Fathers become the "Greek Fathers" for having kidnapped the "Semitic New Testamant."
                           
                          Jack
                           
                          Jack Kilmon
                          San Marcos, Texas

                           
                        • Schmuel
                          Hi TC, ... Jeffrey ... Schmuel No, that is not why these artificial formulations are created. They are used as an apologetic for explaining why the minority
                          Message 12 of 20 , Nov 10, 2005
                            Hi TC,

                            >>>Schmuel wrote:
                            >>>>The artificial delineation of "Greek Fathers", even including a time period when many writers were fluent with both the Greek and Latin literature, would be an example of a parsing language that is used time and again to give the impression that a verse was unknown when it fact it may have been copiously referenced and quoted.

                            >>Jeffrey,
                            >>>Isn't the standard understanding of who the "Greek Fathers" were/are "those who were of Greek ancestry, whose first tongue was Greek, and who **wrote** in Greek", not, as you claim (not entirely without equivocation), those (unnamed fathers) who could **read** both Greek and Latin literature?
                            >>
                            >>To simplify the issue ... why is
                            >>"Greek ancestry, whose first tongue was Greek, and who **wrote** in Greek"
                            >>Even a particular relevant category in discussing early church writers textual authority ?

                            Jeffrey
                            >It isn't -- since the issue isn't their -- or anyone's -- "textual authority" (even assuming that term is meaningful in this context), but by whom, where, and when, and in what stream of the textual tradition a text was known.

                            Schmuel
                            No, that is not why these artificial formulations are created. They are used as an apologetic for explaining why the minority reading is preferred, and they are carefully formulated to mask the full evidences.

                            The classic example is the Johannine Comma. Many of the less informed folks get the impressions from these formulations that it was simply an invention around the 1500's, I hear this argument quite frequently. The folks offering the arguments are simply taking what they feel is the prima facie sense of the artificial formulation that they have read in the Metzger, White or Wallace article or book.

                            Another proof of this gerry-rigging is that the Latin stream is simply ignored, so the goal is NOT to show where a " stream of the textual tradition a text was known." In fact, it is designed precisely to hide that fact by ignoring the whole stream that has the textual tradition en masse.

                            I find your adversarial approach, as usual, a bit tiresome. I'll check later and see if there is anything substantive to continue with this dialog, after catching up on some stuff having come home after work. Others are more than welcome to jump in, of course.

                            Shalom,
                            Steven Avery
                            Queens, NY
                            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic
                          • Tommy Wasserman
                            James wrote: 1) two extant mss thought to have been copied from a common ... In my article at:
                            Message 13 of 20 , Nov 10, 2005
                              James wrote:

                              1) two extant mss thought to have been copied from a common
                              > exemplar, or 2) of any extant ms thought to have been copied from another
                              > extant ms (i.e., its vorlage)? Relevant input will be appreciated.

                              In my article at:
                              http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/vol07/Wasserman2002/Wasserman2002.html

                              you will find examples of both 1 and 2, i.e. the Patmos family, and related MSS (see also heading "other previously unknown pairs and families"). Otherwise I know of MSS 322 (XV) and 323 (XII), and there are probably some more cases.

                              With regards

                              Tommy Wasserman
                              Centre for Theology and Religious Studies
                              Lund University
                              Sweden
                            • Daniel Buck
                              Tommy Wasserman wrote: ... exemplar, or 2) of any extant ms thought to have been copied from another extant ms (i.e., its vorlage)? Relevant input will be
                              Message 14 of 20 , Nov 11, 2005
                                Tommy Wasserman wrote:

                                James wrote:
                                >> 1) two extant mss thought to have been copied from a common
                                exemplar, or 2) of any extant ms thought to have been copied from
                                another extant ms (i.e., its vorlage)? Relevant input will be
                                appreciated.>>

                                > In my article at:
                                http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/vol07/Wasserman2002/Wasserman2002.html
                                you will find examples of both 1 and 2, i.e. the Patmos family, and
                                related MSS (see also heading "other previously unknown pairs and
                                families"). Otherwise I know of MSS 322 (XV) and 323 (XII), and
                                there are probably some more cases.>

                                Daniel Buck adds:

                                There is a set of three minuscules which, according to Burgon, have
                                been corrected to identity by the same hand. These also all contain,
                                in vermillion uncials, around the end of Mark 16:15, a notation to
                                this effect:

                                ‡FROM HERE TO THE END IN SOME COPIES IS NOT EXTANT, BUT IN THE
                                ARCHTYPES ALL IS EXTANT

                                (Wieland's online commentary has a rendition of the Gk text at
                                http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/TC-Mark-Ends.pdf)

                                According to Maurice Robinson, the nature of MSS 20, 215 (which may
                                be a copy of 20), and 300 indicates that they had a common exemplar
                                which contained this colophon below 16:8, and due to lack of room
                                because of the surrounding commentary was continued on the right
                                hand leaf, below the text (which in 20 and 215 is at the end of
                                v.15 and in 300 is 1½ words into verse 16).
                                The portion on the left hand page then became illegible, and the
                                colophon was then partially reproduced in the 'wrong' places in the
                                three copies we now have.


                                Daniel Buck
                              • James Miller
                                Thank you for pointing out this article, Tommy. I found it interesting and relevant to my interests in many ways. As I understand it after a fairly cursory
                                Message 15 of 20 , Nov 11, 2005
                                  Thank you for pointing out this article, Tommy. I found it interesting and
                                  relevant to my interests in many ways. As I understand it after a fairly
                                  cursory review, you've looked at excerpts of a few dozen NT manuscripts in
                                  an attempt to determine more precisely their relationships. Being familiar
                                  with the huge amount of data with which NT TC deals, I understand the need
                                  of sampling when attempting to determine textual relationships. I'm also
                                  generally familiar with the procedures of quantitative analysis and the
                                  results it aims to produce. The sampling you've done leads you to propose
                                  some adjustments to current notions about families and groups evidenced in
                                  these manuscripts, if I understood your argument correctly.

                                  I would like to pose some additional questions. First, at what remove does
                                  your Patmos family stand from its exemplar? Are points b, c, d, and e in
                                  your stemma diagram real conjectured manuscripts, or are they more like
                                  representational nodes in a tree that may be more complex but that have
                                  been presented here in the simplest form possible? Second, I didn't find
                                  much explanation for the relation of copy to vorlage you propose between
                                  1068 and 1065. I don't take issue with your findings, but I would be
                                  interested in knowing the criteria by which such relations are
                                  established. You mention dating and external characteristics and present
                                  location: are there other criteria? Have you come to this conclusion based
                                  on these considerations along with just the sample passages, or did you
                                  also examine other passages before concluding on the matter? If the
                                  conclusion is based on a sampling it seems to me a bit more reserve might
                                  be called for in characterizing this as a copy/vorlage relationship--maybe
                                  saying something like "the limited sampling gives a strong indication of a
                                  copy/vorlage relationship between these two mss" (please take what I'm
                                  saying as observations of someone fairly new to TC and trying to come to
                                  grips with its procedures--a sort of thinking out loud--rather than as
                                  criticism, which I am not qualified to offer). Can you, or anyone else
                                  onlist, point me to any study/article/essay on criteria for determining
                                  the copy/vorlage relationship? I have so far not found any and I believe
                                  this is because it is such a rarely-encountered possibility that no
                                  systematic approach for dealing with it has been developed. Rather, there
                                  seems a reliance on "self-evidentness" when such a relation is posed.

                                  In my own study, I find myself in a situation the reverse of what text
                                  criticism expects. Where biblical TC expects to confront a mass of fairly
                                  diverse (both chronologically and geographically) materials transmitting
                                  biblical texts, interrelations between which must be worked out in various
                                  more or less conjectural ways, I confront two copies of a given (non-NT)
                                  work transmitted in the same ms. I don't need to establish any sort of
                                  more external relation between these texts: the fact that they make up two
                                  parts of the same ms and were evidently included from the ms's initial
                                  production means there is no question of a relationship of time and place.
                                  They were copied in the same time and place, parts even (evidently) by the
                                  same scribe. The question is not one of how I might go about relating
                                  them, but rather just how intimate is the relation? Would such
                                  simultenaeity of time, place, and copyist be prima facie grounds among
                                  text critics for assuming such intimate relations as copy/vorlage or
                                  perhaps two copies from a common vorlage? My analysis of the texts
                                  indicates they cannot be copies from a common vorlage. I'd rather not
                                  invent my own criteria for arguing this, but if text critics have posed no
                                  such criteria, I may need to do some sort of invention.

                                  James

                                  On Fri, 11 Nov 2005, Tommy Wasserman wrote:

                                  > James wrote:
                                  >
                                  > 1) two extant mss thought to have been copied from a common
                                  >> exemplar, or 2) of any extant ms thought to have been copied from another
                                  >> extant ms (i.e., its vorlage)? Relevant input will be appreciated.
                                  >
                                  > In my article at:
                                  > http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/vol07/Wasserman2002/Wasserman2002.html
                                  >
                                  > you will find examples of both 1 and 2, i.e. the Patmos family, and
                                  > related MSS (see also heading "other previously unknown pairs and
                                  > families"). Otherwise I know of MSS 322 (XV) and 323 (XII), and there
                                  > are probably some more cases.
                                  >
                                  > With regards
                                  >
                                  > Tommy Wasserman
                                  > Centre for Theology and Religious Studies
                                  > Lund University
                                  > Sweden
                                • Tommy Wasserman
                                  ... It confirmed the existence of the Patmos family (three MSS, where 1385 is exemplar of 1169 and 1173, but not 1204. ... Yes,perhaps more complex. Note also
                                  Message 16 of 20 , Nov 12, 2005
                                    James wrote:

                                    > The sampling you've done leads you to propose
                                    > some adjustments to current notions about families and groups
                                    > evidenced in
                                    > these manuscripts, if I understood your argument correctly.

                                    It confirmed the existence of the Patmos family (three MSS, where 1385
                                    is exemplar of 1169 and 1173, but not 1204.
                                    >
                                    > I would like to pose some additional questions. First, at what remove
                                    > does
                                    > your Patmos family stand from its exemplar? Are points b, c, d, and e
                                    > in
                                    > your stemma diagram real conjectured manuscripts, or are they more like
                                    > representational nodes in a tree that may be more complex but that have
                                    > been presented here in the simplest form possible?

                                    Yes,perhaps more complex. Note also the fact that MS 2295 stood very
                                    close to 1402, 725, but in closer to Mk 2146, 1549 and 651. Probably,
                                    the copyist used another exemplar in Mk.

                                    > Second, I didn't find
                                    > much explanation for the relation of copy to vorlage you propose
                                    > between
                                    > 1068 and 1065.

                                    I think I stated that if the dating is correct, logically the later MS
                                    has been copied from the earlier . In this case the dates are for MS
                                    1068, 1562 and for MS 1068, 1576, and the dates being so exact, I trust
                                    that the manuscript are explicitly dated, and, hence 1068 is the
                                    Vorlage.

                                    > "the limited sampling gives a strong indication of a
                                    > copy/vorlage relationship between these two mss" (please take what I'm
                                    > saying as observations of someone fairly new to TC and trying to come
                                    > to
                                    > grips with its procedures--a sort of thinking out loud--rather than as
                                    > criticism, which I am not qualified to offer). Can you, or anyone else
                                    > onlist, point me to any study/article/essay on criteria for determining
                                    > the copy/vorlage relationship? I have so far not found any and I
                                    > believe
                                    > this is because it is such a rarely-encountered possibility that no
                                    > systematic approach for dealing with it has been developed. Rather,
                                    > there
                                    > seems a reliance on "self-evidentness" when such a relation is posed.

                                    When we are on the family level, so to speak, even those variations
                                    which would be insignificant genealogically on the greater scale, take
                                    on significance, i.e. common ortographic variance and scribal errors. I
                                    suggest you read the relevant chapters in Westcott Hort, then maybe
                                    some articles by E.J. Epp and Fee in their "Studies..." (see the
                                    bibliography in my article ). Then you can also study the demonstration
                                    of such a method of family-reconstruction e.g. in the Lake-Ferrar
                                    group:

                                    Family 13 : (the Ferrar group) : the text according to Mark with a
                                    collation of Codex 28 of the Gospels / by Kirsopp and Silva Lake
                                    (London : Christophers, cop. 194).

                                    There are very much other relevant literature that you do well to study
                                    carefully, before you go on inventing your own methods...

                                    Good luck!

                                    Tommy

                                    >
                                    > In my own study, Good
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                  • James Miller
                                    I wrote a couple of related posts some months ago as I was doing some research. I ve now concluded the major part of that research and want to revisit and
                                    Message 17 of 20 , Apr 28, 2006
                                      I wrote a couple of related posts some months ago as I was doing some
                                      research. I've now concluded the major part of that research and want to
                                      revisit and maybe summarize the topics I was addressing in those threads.
                                      In my study I was facing a situation in which two copies of the same work
                                      are found in a single biblical manuscript, and trying to answer the
                                      question of how it might be proven or disproven that the two were copied
                                      from a common original. In my posts to the list, I asked about two
                                      things: 1) whether anyone knew of any study which had tried to
                                      prove/disprove that two manuscripts had been copied from the same original
                                      (excepting WH's brief treatment of the relation of B to S, which I already
                                      knew about); and 2) whether any study attempting to prove a copy/Vorlage
                                      relation exists.

                                      No one answered in the positive to 1), so I still assume that, apart from
                                      WH's brief discussion of a possible common exemplar for B and S, no one
                                      knows of any such study. I did not manage to find one, and perhaps one
                                      has never been done. To question 2) Tommy Wasserman pointed out a study
                                      he'd done to clarify family relations within a certain group of NT mss,
                                      during the course of which study he asserted a Vorlage/copy relationship
                                      between two mss within that group. To put it in the vernacular, this was
                                      "close, but no cigar." Tommy asserted the relationship in the article and
                                      noted a couple of factors that led him to believe such a relationship
                                      obtained, but he really didn't attempt to formally establish the
                                      Vorlage/copy relationship (that would have been worthy of a cigar, btw).
                                      In other words, the Vorlage/copy relationship was a concern quite
                                      incidental to the main aim of his study. With regard to point 2), then, I
                                      likewise have yet to run across any study preoccupied with an attempt to
                                      prove a possible Vorlage/copy relationship. If anyone can point me to
                                      such a study--one that does not simply assert the relation and then offer
                                      an indication or two that leads the author to believe the relationship
                                      obtains, doing so in a more or less offhand way, but rather one that
                                      attempts systematically to prove the relationship--I would be most
                                      grateful to know about it.

                                      Now, to respond to some old posts from the thread by Tommy and Wieland.

                                      On Sat, 12 Nov 2005, Tommy Wasserman wrote:

                                      > When we are on the family level, so to speak, even those variations
                                      > which would be insignificant genealogically on the greater scale, take
                                      > on significance, i.e. common orthographic variance and scribal errors. I
                                      > suggest you read the relevant chapters in Westcott Hort, then maybe
                                      > some articles by E.J. Epp and Fee in their "Studies..." (see the
                                      > bibliography in my article ). Then you can also study the demonstration
                                      > of such a method of family-reconstruction e.g. in the Lake-Ferrar
                                      > group:
                                      >
                                      > Family 13 : (the Ferrar group) : the text according to Mark with a
                                      > collation of Codex 28 of the Gospels / by Kirsopp and Silva Lake
                                      > (London : Christophers, cop. 194).

                                      I had read over both WH and Epp and Fee quite carefully before making my
                                      posts. If there is anything I missed in their writings that somehow
                                      answers my questions, I would appreciate if you could more explicitly
                                      point it out to me. I still do not understand how a family reconstruction
                                      could bear on my questions. If the readings of two manuscripts show too
                                      much disparity from one another (like maybe to the degree that would lead
                                      scholars to place them in different families), no one would even consider
                                      addressing the question of a common exemplar or Vorlage/copy relationship
                                      between them. Or are you saying that one should only consider the
                                      possibility of Vorlage/copy relation or descent from an immediate common
                                      exemplar within the parameters of the family? I suppose if one were
                                      searching for cases to prove such relations, this could be a good starting
                                      criterion. But there can be other impetuses(i) for investigating such
                                      cases: WH's premise was, not only familial affinities between B and S, but
                                      also their similar ages and geographical origin and, perhaps even more
                                      importantly Tischendorf's assertion that the work of one and the same
                                      scribe was to be seen in both mss. In the case of my study, the fact that
                                      two copies of the same work were included within the same ms raises the
                                      likelihood (expectation?) that the two will have been copied from the same
                                      original. I'm not sure going to the level of families would be in any way
                                      decisive in proving/disproving descent from an immediate common exemplar
                                      in the case with which I deal. It could play some role in my argument,
                                      but it seems to me better to simply examine disparate readings and to try
                                      and account for them (e.g., are they accountable as patent scribal
                                      error?). If there seem to be too many, and many that are not accountable
                                      as scribal error, looking at familial affinities of the two texts could
                                      add some weight to the probability that they were not copied from a common
                                      exemplar. More helpful yet would be to simply look at other manuscripts,
                                      regardless of family, to see how they read relative to readings where my
                                      texts disagree. But it seems to me that dragging in family considerations
                                      is not going to be decisive in proving Vorlage/copy relations or descent
                                      from an immediate common exemplar. It would enter into the discussion
                                      only secondarily, if at all. With all due respect it seems to me that
                                      pointing to family relations as answering my queries is a bit like telling
                                      me to go out under the street light where there's more light to search for
                                      the dollar/euro bill I lost in my backyard.

                                      > There are very much other relevant literature that you do well to study
                                      > carefully, before you go on inventing your own methods...

                                      I have missed the relevant literature of which you speak. So, I kind of
                                      had to invent my own method--actually I adapted WH's reasoning for the
                                      most part, but rated my data on a strictly chronological basis.

                                      On Tue, 6 Dec 2005, Wieland Willker wrote:

                                      James Miller writes:
                                      >> How would scholars and/or text critics go about
                                      >> establishing whether these two manuscripts were
                                      >> copies made from the same vorlage?
                                      >
                                      > Of course you can never be certain. It's always possible that there is
                                      > one intermediate copying step for one of them. Normally this is done via
                                      > agreement in error. You have to find some significant agreement in
                                      > (preferably singular) errors. The more strange or curious the errors
                                      > are, and the higher their number, the more probable is a common origin.
                                      > Compare f1 or f13. Additionally the two texts must be almost identical.

                                      This is, essentially, WH's reasoning. But it's not agreement in just any
                                      type of error. Scribes were known to correct blatant errors after all
                                      (even if while introducing new ones), weren't they? Why should we suppose
                                      that a scribe making a copy and finding in his original a blatant spelling
                                      or grammatical mistake would not correct it in his copy? I understand one
                                      of the fundamental suppositions of TC to be that scribes were prone to
                                      such "smoothing" even to the point of correcting unusual, though still
                                      sensible, readings. WH speak of a highly rarefied form of scribal error
                                      or "individualism(s)" which, if present in sufficient quantity and shared
                                      by two manuscripts thought to have been copied from a common original, can
                                      act to bolster the probability that they are direct descendents from a
                                      common exemplar.

                                      > This, then would of course suppose that there were errors in Paul's
                                      > autograph. :-) If we assume no errors in the autograph, the case gets
                                      > more difficult. Then, I think we can only say that if the two texts are
                                      > extremely similar, with only some errors here and there, and if the two
                                      > texts can explain the textual history as we know them, then it is
                                      > possible that they are what they suppose to be.

                                      He's making up his own methods, Tommy. What should we do with this guy?
                                      :) Actually, here's where a major problem arises and presents a red
                                      herring for the type of study I was trying to do--I mean in Wieland's
                                      closing sentence. The question of whether two manuscripts are direct
                                      descendants of a common exemplar can be asked and answered quite
                                      independently of the larger TC question of where those manuscripts fit
                                      within the conjectured stemma of all manuscripts. The Vorlage/copy
                                      relationship can likewise be so treated. The question of ultimate
                                      derivation of the manuscript tradition has no necessary connection to
                                      questions of Vorlage/copy relations or direct descent of two manuscripts
                                      from a common exemplar. It just happens that scholars attempting to
                                      answer questions about ultimate origins run across such relations as they
                                      study manuscripts, and they sometimes treat them as incidental concerns of
                                      their main aim (like Tommy Wasserman did). So whether "the two texts can
                                      explain the textual history as we know them" has nothing at all to do with
                                      the task I was trying to accomplish. Rather, it misguidedly introduces
                                      the aim of TC as though it provides some answer. It does not. It may be
                                      true that TC scholars could show a degree of interest in such
                                      relations--mainly insofar as they further the aim of explaining textual
                                      history--but that doesn't mean that someone whose aim is not so
                                      comprehensive as explaining textual history (rather it is trying to
                                      explain the relation of two manuscripts that seem to have a close
                                      connection--regardless of where these stand within the history) cannot
                                      pose the question independently of that pursuit. And that, ultimately, a
                                      resolution can be provided that makes little or no recourse to the
                                      question of the larger history of the manuscript tradition.

                                      On Thu, 8 Dec 2005, Wieland Willker wrote:

                                      James Miller wrote:
                                      >> So, we can be certain of more distant relations, but
                                      >> when it comes to determining closer relations such as
                                      >> two copies from a common vorlage, we're always
                                      >> dealing with greater or lesser degrees of improbability.
                                      >
                                      > Well, there is nothing so remarkable about this. The scenario you
                                      > imagined IS very difficult to solve. How would you prove that something
                                      > is a direct copy of the autograph?
                                      >
                                      <snip>
                                      >
                                      > What do you want? Exact numbers? Well, perhaps they must agree more than
                                      > 99% of the time? And share 5 or more singular readings? I am not sure
                                      > but something along these lines would do, I think. There actually are
                                      > some MSS that have been claimed to be direct copies of existing MSS. An
                                      > analysis of these cases would give an idea about the degree of agreement
                                      > and error.
                                      >
                                      > What is your take on this?

                                      WH provide what seems like a sensible resolution with their criteria of
                                      agreement in a certain class of error. Unfortunately, they argue only
                                      negatively: they do _not_ find such agreement in error between B and S,
                                      and so conclusively dismiss the possibility of an immediate common
                                      exemplar. I was hoping to find a positive treatment, i.e., a case wherein
                                      some scholar argued in favor of a Vorlage/copy relation between 2
                                      manuscripts (and scholarship does seem confident that such relations do
                                      occasionally obtain) or where someone argued positively that two
                                      manuscripts must have been copied from the same Vorlage, applying in their
                                      argumentation WH's criteria and perhaps adding some new criteria or
                                      considerations of their own. But I haven't found any such treatment. It
                                      seems this sort of undertaking is considered too extraneous to the main
                                      aims of TC, or that it perhaps detracts from them, and so it is not
                                      pursued. Or perhaps I have been lazy or inattentive and have overlooked
                                      something. If the latter is not true, then it seems I am justified in
                                      making up my own methods where such questions need to be answered (they
                                      did need to be answered in my study).

                                      James
                                    • Tommy Wasserman
                                      Dear James, Honestly I think you need to read more background. Please examine the volumes in Studies and Documents series, about Family 13, that I referred you
                                      Message 18 of 20 , Apr 29, 2006
                                        Dear James,

                                        Honestly I think you need to read more background. Please examine the
                                        volumes in Studies and Documents series, about Family 13, that I
                                        referred you to in the original message, and why check out the volumes
                                        on Family Pi too in the same series (by Silva Lake, J. Geerlings et
                                        al.). Also check B. Aland et al. on the Syrische Ûberlieferung, where
                                        you have an appendix with a reconstruction of the HK Vorlage in some
                                        epistles, reconstructed with the help of a couple of Greek MSS,
                                        stemmatically close to the Vorlage (1505 1611 2138 et al). Don't
                                        confuse this with the relationship between 01 and 03, which are not
                                        close on the stemmatic level.

                                        This reconstruction by Aland, led to the exclusion of 2495 from further
                                        consideration. That MS is cited in Nestle-Aland, but not any more in
                                        the ECM volumes of the Catholic Epistles.

                                        There are many more examples of "codex elimination", e.g. 322 in the
                                        Catholic Ep. which has a valuable text, but derives from 323. I also
                                        mentioned other MSS in my original post I think.


                                        >
                                        >> There are very much other relevant literature that you do well to
                                        >> study
                                        >> carefully, before you go on inventing your own methods...
                                        >
                                        > I have missed the relevant literature of which you speak. So, I kind
                                        > of
                                        > had to invent my own method--actually I adapted WH's reasoning for the
                                        > most part, but rated my data on a strictly chronological basis.

                                        See above for some examples. Check out Robert Waltz Encyclopedia, which
                                        may offer additional references. Why not visit Stephen Carlson's
                                        homepage, he is working with these questions concretely. After you have
                                        surveyed the field, lock yourself in a room and study all available
                                        literature by Gerd Mink on his method. I will not go into details.
                                        >
                                        > He's making up his own methods, Tommy. What should we do with this
                                        > guy?

                                        Please, do not involve me in the polemic. I just gave you some helpful
                                        references, and do not have time to broaden the discussion, sorry.
                                        >

                                        > If the latter is not true, then it seems I am justified in
                                        > making up my own methods where such questions need to be answered (they
                                        > did need to be answered in my study).

                                        Okay, it can be good to be persistent, so go on with you methods, but
                                        then I advice you to do a limited study if possible, trying out the
                                        method on the small scale first. Send that study to a journal and have
                                        it reviewed properly. If it gets published, go on to next step.

                                        Good luck! And note that these are just references offered for help. I
                                        do not have time to discuss your methods, at this point, but I do look
                                        forward to see your name on an article somewhere...

                                        Tommy Wasserman
                                        Centre for Theology and Religous Studies
                                        Lund University
                                        Sweden
                                      • James Miller
                                        ... Thank you for that advice, Tommy. I ll respond later to your specific reading suggestions. But for now, just some points of clarification. I have a
                                        Message 19 of 20 , May 6, 2006
                                          On Sat, 29 Apr 2006, Tommy Wasserman wrote:

                                          > Honestly I think you need to read more background.

                                          Thank you for that advice, Tommy. I'll respond later to your specific reading
                                          suggestions. But for now, just some points of clarification. I have a feeling
                                          we're somehow not on the same page, and this will be an attempt to determine if
                                          that's the case. Imagine you are faced with the following scenario: you have a
                                          full Bible manuscript in which brief excerpts from various biblical books are
                                          included as a short separate work within the whole. Maybe something like a
                                          mini-lectionary--mostly OT excerpts, but a couple of NT ones as well. The
                                          mini-lectionary was obviously included in the initial production of the
                                          manuscript. This is something like the scenario on which my study focuses.
                                          Would the fact that the same range of text appears at two places within the
                                          same manuscript raise for you the expectation that the two were copied from the
                                          same exemplar? It did in the case of the manuscript I studied. For almost 400
                                          years it has been the universal working conclusion that the two ranges of text
                                          were copied from a common exemplar. I decided it was high time to test this
                                          presumption. So, I was looking for ways to either prove or disprove the
                                          working conclusion. In light of this, do you maintain I am going to find means
                                          of so proving or disproving the working conclusion in the literature you point
                                          out? If so, should I expect what I find there to simply augment, or rather to
                                          supersede, what I was able to glean from WH's approach to the matter? Please
                                          bear in mind that, while for others the question of familial relations between
                                          these texts might be of prime interest, for me it is a yes or no question of
                                          immediate ancestry. The two either were or were not arguably copied from the
                                          same exemplar. The family question is for someone else's study, not mine.

                                          I should also mention that my study does not really have a TC payload--other
                                          than pointing out the oversight TC scholars have been making regarding texts
                                          contained in this ms. My payload is actually a point about the history of
                                          worship in connection with this work. I of course realize that the scenario
                                          presented by this manuscript could have TC implications and that it could be
                                          studied and used for more properly TC ends. For example I ran across what
                                          appear to be a few singular readings that could be of interest to text critics,
                                          and some other instances in which I found a reading in Greek that previously
                                          seems to have had only versional support (I think they call these
                                          "sub-singular" in NT TC)--perhaps equally interesting. But my immediate goal
                                          was not text critical, so I'll either expand on those points in a subsequent
                                          study, or will leave that to someone else who may read it and want to explore
                                          those avenues.

                                          > referred you to in the original message, and why check out the volumes
                                          > on Family Pi too in the same series (by Silva Lake, J. Geerlings et
                                          > al.).

                                          I have Silva Lake's study on Family Pi, had read it previously, and have now
                                          reread it. I'll respond on that and the other recommended readings later.

                                          > See above for some examples. Check out Robert Waltz Encyclopedia, which
                                          > may offer additional references. Why not visit Stephen Carlson's
                                          > homepage, he is working with these questions concretely.

                                          I've known about and used Waltz's encyclopedia for a number of years now--7 or
                                          8 at least. I did use it to some extent as I was executing my study, but I am
                                          expected to use mostly dead-tree resources and must engage with
                                          well-established scholarship (e.g., WH) in the main. I've looked at Steven
                                          Carlson's page: what in specific do you refer to there? His cladistics
                                          approach? Nothing jumped out at me as being very relevant to my query, but
                                          maybe I did not look carefully enough.

                                          >> He's making up his own methods, Tommy. What should we do with this
                                          >> guy?
                                          >
                                          > Please, do not involve me in the polemic. I just gave you some helpful

                                          It's not a polemic, just a bit of ribbing.

                                          > Good luck! And note that these are just references offered for help. I
                                          > do not have time to discuss your methods, at this point, but I do look
                                          > forward to see your name on an article somewhere...

                                          We'll see if this work gets published. I _am_ writing an article for
                                          publication now, but on a quite different topic. You're likely to see that
                                          before anything appears regarding the study that is the subject of the present
                                          thread. Too bad you don't have time. I'm afraid only with time could
                                          productive dialogue on these issues be achieved. I always presume I could
                                          stand to learn something new, regardless of my assumed expertise in a given
                                          area: how about you?

                                          James
                                        • Tommy Wasserman
                                          James, ... Probably not on the same page. I haven t had time to respond in detail. My advice was very general, i.e. some bibliographic references that I
                                          Message 20 of 20 , May 7, 2006
                                            James,

                                            > I have a feeling
                                            > we're somehow not on the same page, and this will be an attempt to
                                            > determine if
                                            > that's the case.

                                            Probably not on the same page. I haven't had time to respond in detail.
                                            My advice was very general, i.e. some bibliographic references that I
                                            thought might be helpful. Very good if you are already familiar with
                                            the relevant literature. It is just that my warning system switched on
                                            when you started talking about inventing your own methods...

                                            > full Bible manuscript in which brief excerpts from various biblical
                                            > books are
                                            > included as a short separate work within the whole. Maybe something
                                            > like a
                                            > mini-lectionary--mostly OT excerpts, but a couple of NT ones as well.
                                            > The
                                            > mini-lectionary was obviously included in the initial production of the
                                            > manuscript. This is something like the scenario on which my study
                                            > focuses.

                                            Interesting. I look forward to read your study. I wonder what kind of
                                            manuscript this is...

                                            > Would the fact that the same range of text appears at two places
                                            > within the
                                            > same manuscript raise for you the expectation that the two were copied
                                            > from the
                                            > same exemplar?

                                            Not necessarily. For example, if a scribe was to produce a commentary
                                            manuscript, I suppose he would normally choose an existing commentary
                                            manuscript as his exemplar but this is not an absolute rule. Further,
                                            if he did choose a commentary manuscript as exemplar the two texts
                                            (lemma and commentary) could still be textually different (i.e. the NT
                                            text included in the commentary). I still wonder what kind of
                                            manuscript you are studying.

                                            > It did in the case of the manuscript I studied. For almost 400
                                            > years it has been the universal working conclusion that the two ranges
                                            > of text
                                            > were copied from a common exemplar. I decided it was high time to
                                            > test this
                                            > presumption. So, I was looking for ways to either prove or disprove
                                            > the
                                            > working conclusion. In light of this, do you maintain I am going to
                                            > find means
                                            > of so proving or disproving the working conclusion in the literature
                                            > you point
                                            > out?

                                            Hopefully. You have two texts which, as proposed, are copied from a
                                            common exemplar. Then you have lots of texts to use as control
                                            manuscripts. If both MSS are "Byzantine" you will expect to find a very
                                            high degree of common variants (+90%) and you cannot tell from e.g. a
                                            quantitative analysis that they are close on the stemmatic level, so
                                            that you can show that the two are immediately related, i.e. copied
                                            from a common exemplar. What becomes interesting in your case is
                                            "Leitfehler," provided that the two texts in a first step (e.g. a
                                            quantitative analysis with a good number of control MSS) are shown to
                                            be close. Then you can look for common and peculiar errors, spelling
                                            and so on, and again compare with other MSS (if you have such detailed
                                            collations for those other MSS, that is).



                                            > If so, should I expect what I find there to simply augment, or rather
                                            > to
                                            > supersede, what I was able to glean from WH's approach to the matter?
                                            > Please
                                            > bear in mind that, while for others the question of familial relations
                                            > between
                                            > these texts might be of prime interest, for me it is a yes or no
                                            > question of
                                            > immediate ancestry. The two either were or were not arguably copied
                                            > from the
                                            > same exemplar. The family question is for someone else's study, not
                                            > mine.

                                            To the recommended literature, you can add Paul Maas, Textkritik, 3d
                                            ed. (Leipzig: Teubner, 1957),
                                            also available in English translation: Textual Criticism, tr. Barbara
                                            Flower (Oxford: Clarendon, 1958).

                                            > We'll see if this work gets published. I _am_ writing an article for
                                            > publication now, but on a quite different topic. You're likely to see
                                            > that
                                            > before anything appears regarding the study that is the subject of the
                                            > present
                                            > thread.

                                            Good luck again.

                                            > Too bad you don't have time.
                                            > I'm afraid only with time could
                                            > productive dialogue on these issues be achieved. I always presume I
                                            > could
                                            > stand to learn something new, regardless of my assumed expertise in a
                                            > given
                                            > area: how about you?

                                            Absolutely. Actually I have learnt a lot from this scholars on this
                                            list, and the previous TC-list.

                                            With kind regards

                                            Tommy Wasserman
                                            Centre for Theology and Religious Studies
                                            Lund University
                                            Sweden
                                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.