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

1 Timothy 3:16 in Codex Alexandrinus

Expand Messages
  • Michael Marlowe
    Concerning 1 Timothy 3:16 in Codex Alexandrinus, Samuel Tregelles wrote: Both A and C have suffered correction in this word; A in modern times, and C at a
    Message 1 of 21 , Mar 26, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Concerning 1 Timothy 3:16 in Codex Alexandrinus, Samuel Tregelles wrote:

      "Both A and C have suffered correction in this word; A in modern times, and
      C at a remote period. Such a change was effected by altering OC into QC
      [with a line drawn above] by introducing two little strokes, and then there
      was the contraction commonly found for QEOC. The ink in which this has been
      done in A is sufficiently modern and black to declare its recent application
      ..."

      So I was eager to have a look at this page in the new Codex A online at
      csntm.org. But when I saw the QC in 3:16, it was not how I imagined it would
      be. Perhaps it is mainly due to the quality of the photo, or the fact that
      it is not in color, but the "correction" is not obvious to my untrained
      eyes. The "dot" in the omicron is suspicious enough, because it is not a
      line, but it is not darker than the rest of the characters; and it seems
      unlikely to me that a modern corrector would have drawn the abbreviation
      stroke the way it appears. I've created a page about the "correction" here:

      http://www.bible-researcher.com/alexandrinus4.html

      I wonder if someone on the list could help me with this. Has anyone seen the
      actual page of the codex in this place? Or another facsimile that may be
      more helpful? I would like to know if there is something very inadequate
      about the photo online, and I want to give a more satisfactory explanation
      of why the QC is regarded as a correction (not that I doubt the opinion of
      experts who say that it is a modern correction). Any comments would be
      appreciated.

      Michael Marlowe
    • Ben Davidson
      There is a huge controversy about what exactly happened: The original (quite faded) stroke in the theta had almost completely vanished by Scrivener s time.
      Message 2 of 21 , Mar 26, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        There is a huge controversy about what exactly happened:
        The original (quite faded) stroke in the theta had almost completely vanished by Scrivener's time.  This happened over a period in which quite a few 'textual critics' had 'examined' the spot with very little in the way of 'security' or supervision.  No point in besmirching anyone's reputation without any actual proof, but several scholars had been observing and documenting the 'fade' at the time (mid - late 1800s) and actually noticed the 'disappearing' trick the stroke had performed. (for some documentation on this see Scrivener/Burgon or Miller).  The 'replacement' stroke on one manuscript may have been an attempt to 'repair' the manuscript.
         
        In any case, the value of A as a witness (for or against this reading) has now been permanently tarnished, and we must look elsewhere for serious evidence as to the reading.
         
        Hope this helps:
        Eeyore

        Michael Marlowe <marlow@...> wrote:
        Concerning 1 Timothy 3:16 in Codex Alexandrinus, Samuel Tregelles wrote:

        "Both A and C have suffered correction in this word; A in modern times, and
        C at a remote period. Such a change was effected by altering OC into QC
        [with a line drawn above] by introducing two little strokes, and then there
        was the contraction commonly found for QEOC. The ink in which this has been
        done in A is sufficiently modern and black to declare its recent application
        ..."

        So I was eager to have  a look at this page in the new Codex A online at
        csntm.org. But when I saw the QC in 3:16, it was not how I imagined it would
        be. Perhaps it is mainly due to the quality of the photo, or the fact that
        it is not in color, but the "correction" is not obvious to my untrained
        eyes. The "dot" in the omicron is suspicious enough, because it is not a
        line, but it is not darker than the rest of the characters; and it seems
        unlikely to me that a modern corrector would have drawn the abbreviation
        stroke the way it appears. I've created a page about the "correction" here:

        http://www.bible-researcher.com/alexandrinus4.html

        I wonder if someone on the list could help me with this. Has anyone seen the
        actual page of the codex in this place? Or another facsimile that may be
        more helpful? I would like to know if there is something very inadequate
        about the photo online,  and I want to give a more satisfactory explanation
        of why the QC is regarded as a correction (not that I doubt the opinion of
        experts who say that it is a modern correction). Any comments would be
        appreciated.

        Michael Marlowe







        SPONSORED LINKS
        Bible theologyTheologyChristianity


        YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS






        Blab-away for as little as 1¢/min. Make PC-to-Phone Calls using Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.

      • Ben Davidson
        ..okay I found some more info: The passage has been examined so many times that the parchment is worn away, rendering its present evidence doubtful, but we
        Message 3 of 21 , Mar 26, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          ..okay I found some more info:
           
          "The passage has been examined so many times that the parchment is worn away, rendering its present evidence doubtful, but we may refer to the weighty opinions of those who had the copy in their hands earlier:
          Patrick Young had custody of the mss from 1628-1652 A.D. and assured Ussher that the original reading was "God".
          In 1657 Huish collated the mss for Walton, who then printed "God" in his polygott.
          Bishop Pearson wrote in 1659 "we find not 'who' in *any* copy".
          Mill worked on his edition from 1677 to 1707 and clearly states that he found "God" in Codex Alexandrinus in this place.
          In 1718 Wotton wrote, "There can be no doubt that this mss always read 'God' in this place."
          In 1716 Wetstein wrote, "Though the middle stroke has been retouched*, the fine stroke originally on the letter is discernable at each end of the fuller stroke of the corrector." (This is the first notice of an attempt at correction).
          In 1737 Berriman declared, "If at any time the old line should become altogether indiscernible ther will never be a just cause to doubt but that the genuine and original reading of this mss was 'God'."
          In 1785 Woide who edited (published) this mss remarked that he had seen traces of the original stroke in 1765 which had ceased to be clearly visible 20 years later.
          (this is the first notice that the older thin stroke had somehow 'eroded'.)
          In 1885 Scrivener examined the mss at least 20 times, and asserted that in 1861 he could still discern the 'all important stroke' which Berriman had seen clearly in 1741.
           
          This was documented by Brown in T.B.S. article #10.
           
          Hope this helps:
          Eeyore


          Michael Marlowe <marlow@...> wrote:
          Concerning 1 Timothy 3:16 in Codex Alexandrinus, Samuel Tregelles wrote:

          "Both A and C have suffered correction in this word; A in modern times, and
          C at a remote period. Such a change was effected by altering OC into QC
          [with a line drawn above] by introducing two little strokes, and then there
          was the contraction commonly found for QEOC. The ink in which this has been
          done in A is sufficiently modern and black to declare its recent application
          ..."

          So I was eager to have  a look at this page in the new Codex A online at
          csntm.org. But when I saw the QC in 3:16, it was not how I imagined it would
          be. Perhaps it is mainly due to the quality of the photo, or the fact that
          it is not in color, but the "correction" is not obvious to my untrained
          eyes. The "dot" in the omicron is suspicious enough, because it is not a
          line, but it is not darker than the rest of the characters; and it seems
          unlikely to me that a modern corrector would have drawn the abbreviation
          stroke the way it appears. I've created a page about the "correction" here:

          http://www.bible-researcher.com/alexandrinus4.html

          I wonder if someone on the list could help me with this. Has anyone seen the
          actual page of the codex in this place? Or another facsimile that may be
          more helpful? I would like to know if there is something very inadequate
          about the photo online,  and I want to give a more satisfactory explanation
          of why the QC is regarded as a correction (not that I doubt the opinion of
          experts who say that it is a modern correction). Any comments would be
          appreciated.

          Michael Marlowe







          Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2¢/min or less.

        • Ben Davidson
          An important footnote to this is the following observation: None of the textual critics who examined the manuscript in the critical period (1700-1900) were
          Message 4 of 21 , Mar 26, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            An important footnote to this is the following observation:
            None of the textual critics who examined the manuscript in the critical period (1700-1900) were fooled by any 'later' correcting or restoring stroke.  All of them clearly distinguished between the newer, thicker cross-stroke in the 'theta' and the original thin line.  Not to belabour the point, but the 'well intentioned corrector' carefully made this possible by making a thick short stroke instead of inking completely over the original thin stroke.  All who observed the manuscript in this less worn condition were able to tell the difference.
            Finally, consider the fact that the group of textual critics who examined and commented upon the reading were reasonably honest and sound as a group.  They were not particularly aligned theologically on other issues (it being the 'middle-age' of the Protestant Reformation).  In light of the condition of the manuscript now, they are the strongest witness to the original reading, being independant witnesses.
             
            It would be great if you posted these notes on your site along with Tregelles, since you are trying to achieve both detailed information and balance in your presentation.
             
            Enjoy!
            Eeyore


            Michael Marlowe <marlow@...> wrote:
            Concerning 1 Timothy 3:16 in Codex Alexandrinus,...
             
             


            New Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC for low, low rates.

          • xt7rt
            Someone needs to use the ultra-violet light on the manuscript to see if that can resolve anything. Perhaps one day someone can use a high power microscope to
            Message 5 of 21 , Mar 27, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              Someone needs to use the ultra-violet light on the manuscript to see
              if that can resolve anything. Perhaps one day someone can use a high
              power microscope to see if this thin stroke ever existed and if so
              whether the scratch marks from the quill in the manuscript are
              consistent with the original hand.

              --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, Ben Davidson
              <mr.scrivener@...> wrote:
              >
              > There is a huge controversy about what exactly happened:
              > The original (quite faded) stroke in the theta had almost
              completely vanished by Scrivener's time. This happened over a
              period in which quite a few 'textual critics' had 'examined' the
              spot with very little in the way of 'security' or supervision. No
              point in besmirching anyone's reputation without any actual proof,
              but several scholars had been observing and documenting the 'fade'
              at the time (mid - late 1800s) and actually noticed
              the 'disappearing' trick the stroke had performed. (for some
              documentation on this see Scrivener/Burgon or Miller).
              The 'replacement' stroke on one manuscript may have been an attempt
              to 'repair' the manuscript.
              >
              > In any case, the value of A as a witness (for or against this
              reading) has now been permanently tarnished, and we must look
              elsewhere for serious evidence as to the reading.
              >
              > Hope this helps:
              > Eeyore
              >
              > Michael Marlowe <marlow@...> wrote:
              > Concerning 1 Timothy 3:16 in Codex Alexandrinus, Samuel
              Tregelles wrote:
              >
              > "Both A and C have suffered correction in this word; A in modern
              times, and
              > C at a remote period. Such a change was effected by altering OC
              into QC
              > [with a line drawn above] by introducing two little strokes, and
              then there
              > was the contraction commonly found for QEOC. The ink in which this
              has been
              > done in A is sufficiently modern and black to declare its recent
              application
              > ..."
              >
              > So I was eager to have a look at this page in the new Codex A
              online at
              > csntm.org. But when I saw the QC in 3:16, it was not how I
              imagined it would
              > be. Perhaps it is mainly due to the quality of the photo, or the
              fact that
              > it is not in color, but the "correction" is not obvious to my
              untrained
              > eyes. The "dot" in the omicron is suspicious enough, because it is
              not a
              > line, but it is not darker than the rest of the characters; and it
              seems
              > unlikely to me that a modern corrector would have drawn the
              abbreviation
              > stroke the way it appears. I've created a page about
              the "correction" here:
              >
              > http://www.bible-researcher.com/alexandrinus4.html
              >
              > I wonder if someone on the list could help me with this. Has
              anyone seen the
              > actual page of the codex in this place? Or another facsimile that
              may be
              > more helpful? I would like to know if there is something very
              inadequate
              > about the photo online, and I want to give a more satisfactory
              explanation
              > of why the QC is regarded as a correction (not that I doubt the
              opinion of
              > experts who say that it is a modern correction). Any comments
              would be
              > appreciated.
              >
              > Michael Marlowe
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > SPONSORED LINKS
              > Bible theology Theology Christianity
              >
              > ---------------------------------
              > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
              >
              >
              > Visit your group "textualcriticism" on the web.
              >
              > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
              > textualcriticism-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
              >
              > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
              Service.
              >
              >
              > ---------------------------------
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > ---------------------------------
              > Blab-away for as little as 1¢/min. Make PC-to-Phone Calls using
              Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.
              >
            • Peter M. Head
              I seem to recall that we have discussed this before. Worth checking for some fairly full discussions of this in the archives, perhaps of the old TC List. Peter
              Message 6 of 21 , Mar 27, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                I seem to recall that we have discussed this before. Worth checking
                for some fairly full discussions of this in the archives, perhaps of
                the old TC List.

                Peter

                At 23:25 26/03/2006, you wrote:
                >Concerning 1 Timothy 3:16 in Codex Alexandrinus, Samuel Tregelles wrote:
                >
                >"Both A and C have suffered correction in this word; A in modern times, and
                >C at a remote period. Such a change was effected by altering OC into QC
                >[with a line drawn above] by introducing two little strokes, and then there
                >was the contraction commonly found for QEOC. The ink in which this has been
                >done in A is sufficiently modern and black to declare its recent application
                >..."
                >
                >So I was eager to have a look at this page in the new Codex A online at
                >csntm.org. But when I saw the QC in 3:16, it was not how I imagined it would
                >be. Perhaps it is mainly due to the quality of the photo, or the fact that
                >it is not in color, but the "correction" is not obvious to my untrained
                >eyes. The "dot" in the omicron is suspicious enough, because it is not a
                >line, but it is not darker than the rest of the characters; and it seems
                >unlikely to me that a modern corrector would have drawn the abbreviation
                >stroke the way it appears. I've created a page about the "correction" here:
                >
                >http://www.bible-researcher.com/alexandrinus4.html
                >
                >I wonder if someone on the list could help me with this. Has anyone seen the
                >actual page of the codex in this place? Or another facsimile that may be
                >more helpful? I would like to know if there is something very inadequate
                >about the photo online, and I want to give a more satisfactory explanation
                >of why the QC is regarded as a correction (not that I doubt the opinion of
                >experts who say that it is a modern correction). Any comments would be
                >appreciated.
                >
                >Michael Marlowe
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >Yahoo! Groups Links
                >
                >
                >
                >

                Peter M. Head, PhD
                Sir Kirby Laing Senior Lecturer in New Testament
                Tyndale House
                36 Selwyn Gardens
                Cambridge CB3 9BA
                01223 566601
              • Michael Marlowe
                ... The statements concerning a faint transverse stroke in the omicron/theta visible at some earlier time don t concern me much, coming as they do from a time
                Message 7 of 21 , Mar 27, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  Ben Davidson wrote:

                  > "The passage has been examined so many times
                  > that the parchment is worn away, rendering its
                  > present evidence doubtful, but we may refer
                  > to the weighty opinions of those who had the
                  > copy in their hands earlier ...

                  The statements concerning a faint transverse stroke in the omicron/theta
                  visible at some earlier time don't concern me much, coming as they do from a
                  time when various respectable theologians were still insisting on the
                  genuineness of the Johannine Comma. In the intellectual climate of those
                  days, it seems to me, any excuse whatsoever for maintaining that there was
                  such an original stroke would have been used as the basis for confident
                  assertions about it. I don't give much credit to the idea that such a stroke
                  was visible at a time when everyone wanted to see it, but had entirely
                  disappeared by the nineteenth century, when it became possible for textual
                  scholars to speak their mind on such subjects without being branded as
                  heretics. And judging by the photo online, the page does not seem to have
                  been so deteriorated in the nineteenth century that one could say, with
                  Scrivener, "the page is much too far gone to admit of any present judgement
                  which would weigh against past judgements." This looks like so much
                  special-pleading on his part. Further, I note that on the page image we can
                  clearly see that the writing on the reverse side does show through in
                  places, which makes it seem all the more probable that Tregelles was right
                  in supposing that the faint transverse-stroke seen by earlier examiners was
                  part of an epsilon on the other side.

                  What really concerns me is the need to explain Tregelles' statement "The ink
                  in which this has been done in A is sufficiently modern and black to declare
                  its recent application" when it does NOT appear to be especially black in
                  the photo. And what did he mean by "modern"? I don't understand why the word
                  "modern" would be used to describe this correction, which looks so feathered
                  and faded. If it were so modern, should we not expect it to be at least as
                  sharp and black as much of the *original* writing elsewhere on the page?

                  Michael Marlowe
                • Michael Marlowe
                  ... Did you discuss the blackness of the ink? I understand that everyone who is competent to judge this matter agrees that the dot and the line are not
                  Message 8 of 21 , Mar 27, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Peter Head wrote:

                    >I seem to recall that we have discussed
                    > this before. Worth checking for some
                    > fairly full discussions of this in the archives,
                    > perhaps of the old TC List.

                    Did you discuss the blackness of the ink? I understand that everyone who is
                    competent to judge this matter agrees that the dot and the line are not
                    original. I don't dispute that. I am just trying to understand why this is
                    so, while looking at the page image available to me, because the dot and the
                    line do not appear to be especially black, or obviously modern, to me.

                    Michael
                  • Benjamin Pehrson
                    What seems striking to me is that there is more space between the final nu of MYSTHRION and the supposed theta in question than appears between almost any
                    Message 9 of 21 , Mar 27, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                      What seems striking to me is that there is more space between the final nu
                      of MYSTHRION and the supposed theta in question than appears between almost
                      any other letters on the whole page (except for the division bewteen vv. 15
                      and 16 two lines above). I would be curious to know what the tendency in
                      Alexandrinus is for leaving such spaces, and if there is a correspondence
                      between the size of the space and some feature of the text. There is exactly
                      enough space for the first half of an omega. So is there evidence of an
                      original omega besides this spacing?

                      Benjamin Pehrson


                      -----Original Message-----
                      From: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
                      [mailto:textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Michael Marlowe
                      Sent: Monday, March 27, 2006 9:17 AM
                      To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
                      Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] 1 Timothy 3:16 in Codex Alexandrinus

                      Ben Davidson wrote:

                      > "The passage has been examined so many times
                      > that the parchment is worn away, rendering its
                      > present evidence doubtful, but we may refer
                      > to the weighty opinions of those who had the
                      > copy in their hands earlier ...

                      The statements concerning a faint transverse stroke in the omicron/theta
                      visible at some earlier time don't concern me much, coming as they do from a

                      time when various respectable theologians were still insisting on the
                      genuineness of the Johannine Comma. In the intellectual climate of those
                      days, it seems to me, any excuse whatsoever for maintaining that there was
                      such an original stroke would have been used as the basis for confident
                      assertions about it. I don't give much credit to the idea that such a stroke

                      was visible at a time when everyone wanted to see it, but had entirely
                      disappeared by the nineteenth century, when it became possible for textual
                      scholars to speak their mind on such subjects without being branded as
                      heretics. And judging by the photo online, the page does not seem to have
                      been so deteriorated in the nineteenth century that one could say, with
                      Scrivener, "the page is much too far gone to admit of any present judgement
                      which would weigh against past judgements." This looks like so much
                      special-pleading on his part. Further, I note that on the page image we can
                      clearly see that the writing on the reverse side does show through in
                      places, which makes it seem all the more probable that Tregelles was right
                      in supposing that the faint transverse-stroke seen by earlier examiners was
                      part of an epsilon on the other side.

                      What really concerns me is the need to explain Tregelles' statement "The ink

                      in which this has been done in A is sufficiently modern and black to declare

                      its recent application" when it does NOT appear to be especially black in
                      the photo. And what did he mean by "modern"? I don't understand why the word

                      "modern" would be used to describe this correction, which looks so feathered

                      and faded. If it were so modern, should we not expect it to be at least as
                      sharp and black as much of the *original* writing elsewhere on the page?

                      Michael Marlowe







                      Yahoo! Groups Links
                    • Daniel Buck
                      ... online at csntm.org. But when I saw the QS in 3:16, it was not how I imagined it would be. Perhaps it is mainly due to the quality of the photo, or the
                      Message 10 of 21 , Mar 27, 2006
                      • 0 Attachment
                        "Michael Marlowe" <marlow@...> wrote:
                        >> I was eager to have a look at this page in the new Codex A
                        online at csntm.org. But when I saw the QS in 3:16, it was not how I
                        imagined it would be. Perhaps it is mainly due to the quality of the
                        photo, or the fact that it is not in color, but the "correction" is
                        not obvious to my untrained eyes. The "dot" in the omicron is
                        suspicious enough, because it is not a line, but it is not darker
                        than the rest of the characters;>>

                        It seems to be a matter of not being ablet to see the forest for the
                        trees. While poring over the images of A, I key in on the NS as a
                        way of indexing my way through the text to the passage I'm looking
                        for. I noticed pretty early on that the superscribed line over the
                        NS is mostly only on the terminal letter. So I see nothing
                        whatsoever unusual about the truncated nature of the line over QS in
                        1 Tim 3:16.

                        It would be interesting to compare what Tregelles and Burgon had to
                        say about the passage in C. Burgon wrote that when he examined C the
                        two horizontal lines weren't detectable at 3:16, nor at any number
                        of other occurrences of QS in C, for that matter. But he had
                        specific testimony that they had been, centuries earlier.

                        Daniel Buck
                      • Michael Marlowe
                        ... I found an electronic copy of your source for this statement at http://www.wayoflife.org/articles/truefalse/truefalse03.htm But here Wetstein s opinion is
                        Message 11 of 21 , Mar 27, 2006
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Ben Davidson (quoting Terence H. Brown) wrote:

                          > In 1716 Wetstein wrote, "Though the middle
                          > stroke has been retouched*, the fine stroke
                          > originally on the letter is discernable at
                          > each end of the fuller stroke of the
                          > corrector."


                          I found an electronic copy of your source for this statement at
                          http://www.wayoflife.org/articles/truefalse/truefalse03.htm

                          But here Wetstein's opinion is misrepresented. True, he noticed the apparent
                          stroke, but as Tregelles explains further, "Wetstein attributed this stroke,
                          which in some lights is visible at one side of the O, to a part of the
                          transverse line of the letter E on the back of the leaf. He says that it was
                          only visible when he held it in such a position that he could see some light
                          through the leaf."

                          This is the kind of misrepresentation that one often finds in writers of the
                          "KJV-Only" school. Writers like Brown are never to be trusted as sources of
                          information.

                          Michael
                        • mr.scrivener
                          ... wrote: Did you discuss the blackness of the ink? I understand that everyone who is competent to judge this matter agrees that the dot and the line are not
                          Message 12 of 21 , Mar 27, 2006
                          • 0 Attachment


                            --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Marlowe" <marlow@...> wrote:
                             

                            Did you discuss the blackness of the ink? I understand that everyone who is competent to judge this matter agrees that the dot and the line are not original. I don't dispute that. I am just trying to understand why this is
                            so, while looking at the page image available to me, because the dot and the line do not appear to be especially black, or obviously modern, to me.

                            Here you accept the expert opinion that the dot/line are not original.  This was the opinion, not only of Metzger and modern critics, but all the critics who examined it from the 17oos onward.  The credit for the 'discovery' if it goes anywhere, belongs to the earlier, not the later group of experts. 

                            On this point you are willing to happily accept their judgements, even though the modern evidence from the poor quality photo of the manuscript done a century or two later contradicts this, or at least offers no evidence to support it, according to your own eyes.

                            This actually is not so remarkable.  Had modern critics been forced to rely upon poor quality photo reproductions, they could never have done the detailed accurate analysis of the original readings and various correcting hands for Sinaiticus.  In these cases it is not only natural, but necessary, to defer to the expert opinions of those who have actually examined the manuscripts in person.

                            What is problematic, is that in spite of these known facts, and concessions on your part, you then dive into what is essentially a theory of a 'mass delusion', a kind of "the emperor has no clothes" tale:

                            "The statements concerning a faint transverse stroke in the omicron/theta  visible at some earlier time don't concern me much, coming as they do from a time when various respectable theologians were still insisting on the
                            genuineness of the Johannine Comma. In the intellectual climate of those days, it seems to me, any excuse whatsoever for maintaining that there was  such an original stroke would have been used as the basis for confident assertions about it. I don't give much credit to the idea that such a stroke  was visible at a time when everyone wanted to see it, but had entirely disappeared by the nineteenth century, when it became possible for textual scholars to speak their mind on such subjects without being branded as heretics."

                            It is your opinion, (and only an opinion after all,) that somehow a dozen or more textual critics spanning two continents and nearly two centuries, and holding quite diverse opinions at that,  would be obligated (by threat of heresy?) to engage in a fantasy of no credibility according to the presumed evidence (assuming here the accompanying premise that the evidence has not changed at all in the 200 year time period in question).

                            This conjecture of 'unchanged evidence'  however, is based in turn upon your examination of the poor quality photo images of which you yourself have legitimately drawn attention to the limitations thereof.

                            "And judging by the photo online, the page does not seem to have been so deteriorated in the nineteenth century that one could say, with Scrivener, "the page is much too far gone to admit of any present judgement which would weigh against past judgements." This looks like so much special-pleading on his part. "

                            "Further, I note that on the page image we can clearly see that the writing on the reverse side does show through in places, which makes it seem all the more probable that Tregelles was right in supposing that the faint transverse - stroke seen by earlier examiners was part of an epsilon on the other side."

                            This appears to be the only important observation possible from the current images.  And it would have had some credible weight as a conjecture, had not the majority of textual critics come to a completely different conclusion after personally inspecting the manuscript for hours, some of them twenty or more times.  And yet again, who is the 'expert'?  Tregelles, who has been known to fudge things himself more than just occasionally, in causes he chooses to champion. 

                            Yet instead of following Tregelles' lead, in what appears to be the only plausible alternative to the opinion of the majority of critics who have examined the mss firsthand, you have decided to travel down another side-road that apparently leads nowhere:


                             "What really concerns me is the need to explain Tregelles' statement "The ink in which this has been done in A is sufficiently modern and black to declare its recent application" when it does NOT appear to be especially black in the photo. And what did he mean by "modern"? I don't understand why the word  "modern" would be used to describe this correction, which looks so feathered and faded. If it were so modern, should we not expect it to be at least as sharp and black as much of the *original* writing elsewhere on the page?"

                            This Choice again is based upon your own examination of the poor quality images, from which it is rather obviously impossible to settle the issue. Having refused to travel either of the two paths that all other critics have followed, you appear to have only two options left:
                            1. Fall back upon one or the other of the set of two expert opinions available.
                            2. Get better quality images, or even examine the manuscript yourself if you can.


                             Just observing the obvious,

                            Eeyore

                          • Peter M. Head
                            ... Can you provide examples please? Peter ... Peter M. Head, PhD Sir Kirby Laing Senior Lecturer in New Testament Tyndale House 36 Selwyn Gardens Cambridge
                            Message 13 of 21 , Mar 28, 2006
                            • 0 Attachment
                              At 05:06 28/03/2006, you wrote:
                              >Tregelles, who has been known to fudge things himself more than just
                              >occasionally, in causes he chooses to champion.

                              Can you provide examples please?

                              Peter


                              >

                              Peter M. Head, PhD
                              Sir Kirby Laing Senior Lecturer in New Testament
                              Tyndale House
                              36 Selwyn Gardens
                              Cambridge CB3 9BA
                              01223 566601
                            • Michael Marlowe
                              ... A dozen or more on two continents? ... This is rather naive. If you delve into the old theological literature, you will see that up till the nineteenth
                              Message 14 of 21 , Mar 28, 2006
                              • 0 Attachment
                                "mr. scrivener" wrote:

                                > It is your opinion, (and only an
                                > opinion after all,) that somehow a dozen
                                > or more textual critics spanning
                                > two continents and nearly two
                                > centuries, and holding quite
                                > diverse opinions at that,

                                A dozen or more on two continents?

                                > would be obligated (by threat of
                                > heresy?) to engage in a fantasy
                                > of no credibility according to
                                > the presumed evidence

                                This is rather naive. If you delve into the old theological literature, you
                                will see that up till the nineteenth century there was a great deal of
                                special pleading for readings of the TR, from academics who were capable of
                                better things. Bengel, for instance, defended the Johannine Comma--and I
                                think he must have done this against his own better judgment. At the time,
                                anyone who expressed doubts about the genuineness of the Comma was denounced
                                as a socinian or "freethinker."

                                > Tregelles, who has been known to
                                > fudge things himself more than
                                > just occasionally ..

                                Well, I'd like to have examples of this.

                                > Just observing the obvious

                                It's fairly obvious to me that you are unable to help me with my question
                                about Codex A.

                                Michael
                              • Daniel Buck
                                ... will see that up till the nineteenth century there was a great deal of special pleading for readings of the TR, from academics who were capable of better
                                Message 15 of 21 , Mar 29, 2006
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  "Michael Marlowe" <marlow@...> wrote:
                                  > If you delve into the old theological literature, you
                                  will see that up till the nineteenth century there was a great deal
                                  of special pleading for readings of the TR, from academics who were
                                  capable of better things. Bengel, for instance, defended the
                                  Johannine Comma--and I think he must have done this against his own
                                  better judgment. At the time, anyone who expressed doubts about the
                                  genuineness of the Comma was denounced as a socinian
                                  or "freethinker.">

                                  This is what J. N. Darby (whose critical-text English translation
                                  was consulted by the 1881 Revision Committee) said in his NT
                                  introduction:

                                  "The three greatest questions are 1 Timothy 3:16, the beginning of
                                  John 8, and the last verses of Mark 16. In the first I pronounce no
                                  judgment, as full dissertations have been written on it by many
                                  critics. As to John 8, I do not doubt its genuineness. Augustine
                                  tells us it was left out in some untrustworthy MSS. because it was
                                  thought injurious to morality: and not only so, but in my
                                  examination of the text I found that in one of the best MSS. of the
                                  old Latin, two pages had been torn out because it was there,
                                  carrying away part of the text preceding and following.

                                  "As to the end of Mark and its apparently independent form, I would
                                  remark that we have two distinct closes to the Lord's life in the
                                  Gospels: . . . Now Mark, up to the end of verse eight, gives the
                                  Matthew close; from verse nine a summary of the Bethany and
                                  ascension scene, and facts related in Luke and John. It is a
                                  distinct part, a kind of appendix, so to speak."

                                  In the mid-19th century, one need not have accepted the Comma--nor
                                  even considered it worthy of mention in a discussion of questionable
                                  passages--to pronounce a scholarly opinion on the genuineness of
                                  Mark's LE.

                                  Daniel Buck
                                • Peter M. Head
                                  J.N. Darby as Textual Critic . Up until now I d have thought this was only a spoof conference paper. Maybe there is more to the man that I thought. Pete ...
                                  Message 16 of 21 , Mar 30, 2006
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    "J.N. Darby as Textual Critic". Up until now I'd have thought this
                                    was only a spoof conference paper. Maybe there is more to the man
                                    that I thought.

                                    Pete

                                    At 21:28 29/03/2006, you wrote:
                                    > "Michael Marlowe" <marlow@...> wrote:
                                    > > If you delve into the old theological literature, you
                                    > will see that up till the nineteenth century there was a great deal
                                    >of special pleading for readings of the TR, from academics who were
                                    >capable of better things. Bengel, for instance, defended the
                                    >Johannine Comma--and I think he must have done this against his own
                                    >better judgment. At the time, anyone who expressed doubts about the
                                    >genuineness of the Comma was denounced as a socinian
                                    >or "freethinker.">
                                    >
                                    >This is what J. N. Darby (whose critical-text English translation
                                    >was consulted by the 1881 Revision Committee) said in his NT
                                    >introduction:
                                    >
                                    >"The three greatest questions are 1 Timothy 3:16, the beginning of
                                    >John 8, and the last verses of Mark 16. In the first I pronounce no
                                    >judgment, as full dissertations have been written on it by many
                                    >critics. As to John 8, I do not doubt its genuineness. Augustine
                                    >tells us it was left out in some untrustworthy MSS. because it was
                                    >thought injurious to morality: and not only so, but in my
                                    >examination of the text I found that in one of the best MSS. of the
                                    >old Latin, two pages had been torn out because it was there,
                                    >carrying away part of the text preceding and following.
                                    >
                                    >"As to the end of Mark and its apparently independent form, I would
                                    >remark that we have two distinct closes to the Lord's life in the
                                    >Gospels: . . . Now Mark, up to the end of verse eight, gives the
                                    >Matthew close; from verse nine a summary of the Bethany and
                                    >ascension scene, and facts related in Luke and John. It is a
                                    >distinct part, a kind of appendix, so to speak."
                                    >
                                    >In the mid-19th century, one need not have accepted the Comma--nor
                                    >even considered it worthy of mention in a discussion of questionable
                                    >passages--to pronounce a scholarly opinion on the genuineness of
                                    >Mark's LE.
                                    >
                                    >Daniel Buck
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >Yahoo! Groups Links
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >

                                    Peter M. Head, PhD
                                    Sir Kirby Laing Senior Lecturer in New Testament
                                    Tyndale House
                                    36 Selwyn Gardens
                                    Cambridge CB3 9BA
                                    01223 566601
                                  • Michael Marlowe
                                    ... My point was, before the nineteenth century there was considerable pressure on scholars to adhere to the TR, and in connection with this there was a great
                                    Message 17 of 21 , Mar 30, 2006
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Daniel Buck wrote:
                                      > In the mid-19th century, one need not have
                                      > accepted the Comma--nor even considered
                                      > it worthy of mention ....

                                      My point was, before the nineteenth century there was considerable pressure
                                      on scholars to adhere to the TR, and in connection with this there was a
                                      great deal of special-pleading on its behalf, in which some otherwise
                                      respectable scholars were all-too-ready to find excuses for adhering to it.
                                      I have seen some apalling instances of this.

                                      Francis Turretin in his Institutio Theologicae Elencticae (1679) wrote
                                      concerning 1 John 5:7, "although some formerly called it into question and
                                      heretics now do, yet all the Greek copies have it, as Sixtus Senensis
                                      acknowledges: "they have been the words of never-doubted truth, and
                                      contained in all the Greek copies from the very times of the apostles."

                                      Turretin was a famous and well-respected theologian, and his Institutio was
                                      used as a textbook of theology in some Reformed seminaries up to the middle
                                      of the nineteenth century. But it's evident that this worthy author had no
                                      interest in investigating the possibility that a reading unconvenient to
                                      settled dogma could be the more authentic reading. False but "theologically
                                      correct" statements such as Turretin makes here set the tone for the time,
                                      and made it impossible for scholars to deal honestly with the evidence
                                      without fear of being tarred as heretics. Here is Turretin saying "all the
                                      Greek copies" have the Johannine Comma, when in fact *none* of the copies he
                                      could have examined in Switzerland contained the clause! And he quotes an
                                      Italian author who also maintained that the Comma is "in all the Greek
                                      copies." You see how utterly wrong and misleading some witnesses can be, and
                                      what a bad position we are in if we rely upon citations or testimony about
                                      readings from interested parties. (This, by the way, should be noted by
                                      anyone who is tempted to give much weight to uncomfirmable statements found
                                      in the Patristic writings.)

                                      We should not be naive about this. That's why I suspect that the
                                      now-invisible "original stoke" in the omicron in 1 Tim 3:16 was mostly a
                                      figment of theological correctness, which faded away when the need for it
                                      was gone.

                                      Michael Marlowe
                                    • Daniel Buck
                                      ... considerable pressure on scholars to adhere to the TR, and in connection with this there was a great deal of special-pleading on its behalf, in which some
                                      Message 18 of 21 , Mar 30, 2006
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        "Michael Marlowe" wrote:
                                        >> My point was, before the nineteenth century there was
                                        considerable pressure on scholars to adhere to the TR, and in
                                        connection with this there was a great deal of special-pleading on
                                        its behalf, in which some otherwise respectable scholars were all-
                                        too-ready to find excuses for adhering to it.
                                        I have seen some apalling instances of this.

                                        Francis Turretin in his Institutio Theologicae Elencticae (1679)
                                        wrote . . .>>

                                        This is the full quote:
                                        "There is no truth in the assertion that the Hebrew edition of the
                                        Old Testament and the Greek edition of the New Testament are said to
                                        be mutilated; nor can the arguments used by our opponents prove it.
                                        Not the history of the adulteress (John 8:1-11), for although it is
                                        lacking in the Syriac version, it is found in all the Greek
                                        manuscripts. Not 1 John 5:7, for although some formerly called it
                                        into question and heretics now do, yet all the Greek copies have it,
                                        as Sixtus Senensis acknowledges: "they have been the words of never-
                                        doubted truth, and contained in all the Greek copies from the very
                                        times of the apostles" (Bibliotheca sancta [1575], 2:298). Not Mark
                                        16 which may have been wanting in several copies in the time of
                                        Jerome (as he asserts); but now it occurs in all, even in the Syriac
                                        version, and is clearly necessary to complete the history of the
                                        resurrection of Christ."


                                        What Turretin was exibiting was an appalling ignorance of the
                                        textual corpus (which could have been remedied by a careful perusal
                                        of the CA in Beza's TR), not a blind adherence to the TR. In fact,
                                        Turretin (using Codex Bezae as the "oldest and best manuscript")
                                        proposed two changes to the TR that have been brought up on this
                                        very forum: the addition of IOAKEIM to Matthew 1:11 and the deletion
                                        of KAINAM from Luke 3:36. It was inerrancy and preservation he was
                                        defending, not a specific textual tradition.

                                        Daniel Buck
                                      • Peter M. Head
                                        ... Well, clearly there was more to the man that I thought. I have been educated off-list and found Darby s NT in the library (a 1920 edition). From a TC point
                                        Message 19 of 21 , Mar 31, 2006
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          At 11:00 30/03/2006, I wrote:
                                          >"J.N. Darby as Textual Critic". Up until now I'd have thought this
                                          >was only a spoof conference paper. Maybe there is more to the man
                                          >that I thought.

                                          Well, clearly there was more to the man that I thought. I have been
                                          educated off-list and found Darby's NT in the library (a 1920
                                          edition). From a TC point of view the most amazing thing about it is
                                          that the notes under the main ET provide detailed evidence of ms
                                          support for various readings. It is fantastic and a far cry from the
                                          scandalously vague sort of things we offer these days ['some ancient
                                          authorities lack this verse'] - which leaves no one any wiser about
                                          the nature of the evidence.

                                          As for text he says that for the first edition he followed 'the
                                          concurrent voice of Griesbach, Lachmann, Scholz and Tischendorf' (and
                                          following the received text unchanged where the true reading was a
                                          disputed point among them').

                                          He also says (re the second edition): 'I have further, in every
                                          questioned reading, compared the Sinaitic, Vatican, Dublin,
                                          Alexandrian, Codex Bezae, Codex Ephraimi, St. Gall, Claromontanus,
                                          Hearne's Laud in the Acts, Porphyry in great part, the Vulgate, the
                                          old Latin in Sabatier and Bianchini.'

                                          Very impressive.

                                          I'll look out for a copy. And promise to attend the conference paper
                                          on this subject (if I'm in town).

                                          Pete


                                          >

                                          Peter M. Head, PhD
                                          Sir Kirby Laing Senior Lecturer in New Testament
                                          Tyndale House
                                          36 Selwyn Gardens
                                          Cambridge CB3 9BA
                                          01223 566601
                                        • Michael Marlowe
                                          ... Daniel, I m the author of the article where you found that information. Textual Criticism in the Writings of Francis Turretin
                                          Message 20 of 21 , Mar 31, 2006
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            Daniel Buck wrote:
                                            > What Turretin was exibiting was an appalling
                                            > ignorance of the textual corpus (which could
                                            > have been remedied by a careful perusal
                                            > of the CA in Beza's TR), not a blind adherence
                                            > to the TR. In fact, Turretin (using Codex Bezae
                                            > as the "oldest and best manuscript") proposed
                                            > two changes to the TR that have been brought up
                                            > on this very forum ...

                                            Daniel, I'm the author of the article where you found that information.

                                            Textual Criticism in the Writings of Francis Turretin
                                            www.bible-researcher.com/turretin-text.html

                                            So I know all about his ad hoc appeals to Codex D. It was in the service of
                                            apologetics, not according to consistently applied principles of textual
                                            criticism. But I mentioned them in my article because it shows that
                                            "Turretin's concept of providential preservation in no way prevented him
                                            from calling the commonly received text corrupt in some details, and he
                                            points to the oldest available manuscripts as a superior authority." The
                                            unstated purpose of my article was to demonstrate that Theodore Letis was
                                            wrong about Turretin's teachings concerning providential preservation. I
                                            show that he did not hold to a concept of perfect preservation or perfect
                                            purity of the received text. But clearly Turretin was interested in
                                            maintaining the authority of the commonly received printed text in general,
                                            both in the OT and in the NT, especially where it served his dogmatic
                                            purposes. And that is why he erred in his assertions about the Comma and
                                            other passages. He was willing to repeat the "meme" about its being present
                                            in all the MSS without investigating the matter for himself. His ignorance
                                            on this point was not accidental or unrelated to dogmatic pre-committments.
                                            It was a consequence of the received text /propaganda/ of the times, which
                                            made it very hard for Protestant scholars to investigate theologically
                                            loaded textual questions. At the time, textual criticism in general was
                                            under a cloud of suspicion, being associated with socinians and with Roman
                                            Catholics, who called into question the authority of the received Greek text
                                            for their own dogmatic purposes.

                                            Michael Marlowe
                                          • Schmuel
                                            Hi Folks, ... Schmuel There aren t that many Old Latin manuscripts. Do we know to what manuscript Darby is referring to here, and how it is carried in the
                                            Message 21 of 21 , Apr 2, 2006
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              Hi Folks,

                                              > Subject was: Re: [textualcriticism] Re: 1 Timothy 3:16 in Codex Alexandrinus

                                              Daniel Buck wrote:
                                              >J. N. Darby ...said in his NT introduction: As to John 8 ... in my examination of the text I found that in one of the best MSS. of the old Latin, two pages had been torn out because it was there, carrying away part of the text preceding and following.

                                              Schmuel
                                              There aren't that many Old Latin manuscripts. Do we know to what manuscript Darby is referring to here, and how it is carried in the apparatuses ?

                                              Shalom,
                                              Steven Avery
                                              Queens, NY
                                              http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic
                                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.