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

Re: On Swanson and Copyrights

Expand Messages
  • mydogregae01
    ... that we could fix them! ... ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Mr. Dykes replies: I did numerous collations of some of the MSS Swanson used. I have copies of
    Message 1 of 9 , Apr 2, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "Kent Clarke" <kentc@...> wrote:
      >

      >
      > I would love to see those four plus percent or errors in John so
      that we could fix them!
      >
      > Kent
      ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
      Mr. Dykes replies:

      I did numerous collations of some of the MSS Swanson used. I have
      copies of those collations. Why should I send you my work on Swanson?
      You now have copies of Swanson's films, you do your own comparison.

      As for proof-reading, it is not good policy to claim that a work is
      proof-read when it is read by the same editor. Reuben often told me
      that he did not have time to submit his work to another, and that he
      would let future generations correct his work. In fact he did not even
      fully read or test the printing proofs sent to him. He simply looked
      over the format of each page and then PHONED in a few comments! He did
      it this way so as to save time. He was not capable of checking as to
      whether such-and-such a manusript was really such-and-such a manuscript.

      I recall that he thought 2492 was some other manuscript, and I
      corrected him just before he published Galatians, or we would have
      another 1346=346 and 1611=1828 scenario. Several more comments of mine
      and pictures of Reuben have been available at my website, navigate to
      "Images of Peoples and Places".

      No second or third party has fully tested Reuben's hurried efforts. So
      you have your work cut out for you. Swanson uses many prior collations
      of manuscripts, especially in the papyri and uncials. Thus those are
      more accurate. His work on the minuscules is generally poor, for
      example test your copy of 1424 against Swanson's John. Swanson had
      problems resolving ligatures, and his materials on papyri were not fit
      for critical use. (Except the facsimiles which I sent to him of
      several papyri :-).)

      Why the uproar?? Just correct Swanson and be done with it.

      Reuben is a fair collator, but a poor paleographer, and as to his
      belief on inspiration of the Scriptures, we discussed this numerous
      times. I have letters from him which state that -- to him, the text
      inspires the reader, but the text itself is not inspired.

      Have you read his sermons and other publications as a pastor? As for
      him being a Lutheran pastor, so what. Jim Jones was a Charismatic
      pastor. The BTK serial murderer was a long-time deacon. At any rate, I
      am not going to bring this up again. Critics need to examine their
      sources, this includes Reuben. To my knowledge the only solid critical
      texts we have today (full New Testaments) are those by Tischendorf and
      Tregelles. In order to test critical editions WE MUST HAVE good copies
      of the manuscripts. Thus the ABMC, the Library of Congress and the
      CSNTM become very importatnt necessities! And that ends this string
      for me.

      Mr. Gary S. Dykes
    • Tommy Wasserman
      Gary wrote ... This may be irrelevant, but perhaps there is a lesson for us all to lear from history; as I remember the initial discussions on the old TC-list,
      Message 2 of 9 , Apr 2, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Gary wrote

        > Yes I still recommend Swanson, and I have always stated that his work
        > on the gospels thru Acts NEEDS revision!

        This may be irrelevant, but perhaps there is a lesson for us all to
        lear from history; as I remember the initial discussions on the old
        TC-list, you did praise Swanson's work for being very accurate indeed,
        whereas the Nestle-Aland edition in contrast was crowded with errors.
        I also got the impression that Ivo Tamm's work (for the INTF) in
        checking Swanson for errors may in fact have had to do with that very
        critique ("counterstrike") - that only Ivo knows. As time went by, and
        you had a chance to evaluate Swanson's work yourself, you may have
        changed your mind and pointed to the need of revision, which is good. I
        think we all learn from this, which you also point out, that
        independent control from other scholars over time, will tell how an
        edition stands. The day I submit my own edition (of Jude) I will not
        say a word about its accuracy, but I will express my hopes that it will
        stand the test... In any case, I am confident that it contains
        errors...hopefully not too many.

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