Re: On Swanson and Copyrights
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Kent Clarke" <kentc@...> wrote:
>that we could fix them!
> I would love to see those four plus percent or errors in John so
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
Mr. Gary S. Dykes
- Gary wrote
> Yes I still recommend Swanson, and I have always stated that his workThis may be irrelevant, but perhaps there is a lesson for us all to
> on the gospels thru Acts NEEDS revision!
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.
Centre for Theology and Religious Studies