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

correction of my error on Rev. 17:8e variants

Expand Messages
  • David Robert Palmer
    Sorry, but I made an error in my previous post about Rev. 17:8 variants. Upon re-examination, I realize Hoskier says the Vulgate and Ethiopic omit KAIPER ESTIN
    Message 1 of 30 , Sep 2, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Sorry, but I made an error in my previous post about Rev. 17:8 variants.
      Upon re-examination, I realize Hoskier says the Vulgate and Ethiopic omit
      KAIPER ESTIN altogether. Thus I have corrected it to as follows.

      omit KAIPER ESTIN aeth vg Pseudo-Ambrose

      Hoskier has a minus sign before KAIPER ESTIN for those witnesses.

      So, the TR reading has no witnesses backing it whatsoever.

      David Robert Palmer
    • Jan Krans
      ... I can only consult the 1516 and 1522 editions here. It turns out that Erasmus first ed. actually reads KAIPER ESTI (καίπερ ἔστι). His third
      Message 2 of 30 , Sep 3, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        In an earlier post (August 15th) David Robert Palmer wrote:

        > KAI PER ESTI Eras. First Edition Aldus' printed edition

        > KAI PER ESTIN 2049 Eras. 3,4,5

        I can only consult the 1516 and 1522 editions here. It turns out that
        Erasmus' first ed. actually reads KAIPER ESTI (καίπερ ἔστι). His third
        (as, I assume, his fourth and fifth and even his second) reads KAIPER
        ESTIN (καίπερ ἔστιν). The apparent space after KAI in the third edition
        may be misleading; the acute accent on KAI shows that KAIPER is intended
        as a single word. Does Hoskier really give KAI PER? In the first edition,
        there is even no (apparent) space between KAI and PER.

        Erasmus' reading is a blunder, grammatically, and Eberhard Nestle used it
        as an important example of the bad quality of the Textus Receptus. For
        that reason, it was recorded in the Nestle editions (up to NA25).

        Greetings,
        Jan Krans
        Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam
      • David Robert Palmer
        Hello Jans, Thanks so much for looking that up. ... In Hoskier, Text, Volume 2, p. 454, line 20, he has: KAI acute acc.over the iota, space, PER, space,
        Message 3 of 30 , Sep 3, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          Hello Jans,

          Thanks so much for looking that up.

          At 02:11 PM 9/3/2006 +0200, you wrote:
          >I can only consult the 1516 and 1522 editions here. It turns out that
          >Erasmus' first ed. actually reads KAIPER ESTI (καίπερ ἔστι).


          In Hoskier, "Text," Volume 2, p. 454, line 20, he has:

          KAI acute acc.over the iota, space, PER, space, ESTI, with smooth breathing
          and acute over epsilon, space, Er. 1. Ald. Parenthesis KAI acute over
          Iota, space PER, ESTIN with smooth and acute over epsilon, Close
          Parenthesis, sic in vinculis Er. 2. KAI acute, PER space ESTIN with smooth
          and acute over epsilon 141 Er. 3. 4. 5.

          The above is line 20 complete.


          >His third
          >(as, I assume, his fourth and fifth and even his second) reads KAIPER
          >ESTIN (καίπερ ἔστιν). The apparent space after KAI in the
          >third edition
          >may be misleading; the acute accent on KAI shows that KAIPER is intended
          >as a single word. Does Hoskier really give KAI PER? In the first edition,
          >there is even no (apparent) space between KAI and PER.


          Is your point that KAI when standing alone usually has the grave
          accent? You might have a point there, maybe Erasmus had printing
          limitations of some sort affecting how it resulted as to spacing?


          >Erasmus' reading is a blunder, grammatically, and Eberhard Nestle used it
          >as an important example of the bad quality of the Textus Receptus. For
          >that reason, it was recorded in the Nestle editions (up to NA25).
        • David Robert Palmer
          Speaking of typological blunders, the TR has a grave accent over the Iota in KAIPER rather than acute. Regarding the space Hosker has between KAI and PER,
          Message 4 of 30 , Sep 3, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            Speaking of typological blunders, the TR has a grave accent over the Iota
            in KAIPER rather than acute.

            Regarding the space Hosker has between KAI and PER, could the typographical
            mistake have possibly been by Hoskier's publisher?

            At 02:11 PM 9/3/2006 +0200, you wrote:

            >In an earlier post (August 15th) David Robert Palmer wrote:
            >
            > > KAI PER ESTI Eras. First Edition Aldus' printed edition
            >
            > > KAI PER ESTIN 2049 Eras. 3,4,5
            >
            >I can only consult the 1516 and 1522 editions here. It turns out that
            >Erasmus' first ed. actually reads KAIPER ESTI (καίπερ ἔστι).
            >His third
            >(as, I assume, his fourth and fifth and even his second) reads KAIPER
            >ESTIN (καίπερ ἔστιν). The apparent space after KAI in the
            >third edition
            >may be misleading; the acute accent on KAI shows that KAIPER is intended
            >as a single word. Does Hoskier really give KAI PER? In the first edition,
            >there is even no (apparent) space between KAI and PER.
            >
            >Erasmus' reading is a blunder, grammatically, and Eberhard Nestle used it
            >as an important example of the bad quality of the Textus Receptus. For
            >that reason, it was recorded in the Nestle editions (up to NA25).
            >
            >Greetings,
            >Jan Krans
            >Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam
            >
            >
          • Jan Krans
            Hello, Correction to my previous posting: I forgot that PER is enclitic, so KAI in KAI PER (with space) is demanded to have an acute. Thus Hoskier is after all
            Message 5 of 30 , Sep 4, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              Hello,

              Correction to my previous posting: I forgot that PER is enclitic, so KAI
              in KAI PER (with space) is demanded to have an acute.
              Thus Hoskier is after all correct on Erasmus' 1522 edition. But, as I
              said, the 1516 does not show a space between KAI and PER.
              BTW, KAI PER is nowadays usually written as KAIPER (cf. LSJ s.v. KAIPER).

              > Speaking of typological blunders, the TR has a grave accent over the Iota
              > in KAIPER rather than acute.

              "The TR" does not exist. Which edition do you mean?

              Greetings,
              Jan Krans
              Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam
            • Dr. K.Martin Heide
              David Robert Palmer wrote: Sorry, but I made an error in my previous post about Rev. 17:8 variants. Upon re-examination, I realize Hoskier says the Vulgate and
              Message 6 of 30 , Sep 4, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                David Robert Palmer wrote:


                Sorry, but I made an error in my previous post about Rev. 17:8 variants.
                Upon re-examination, I realize Hoskier says the Vulgate and Ethiopic omit
                KAIPER ESTIN altogether. Thus I have corrected it to as follows.

                omit KAIPER ESTIN aeth vg Pseudo-Ambrose

                Hoskier has a minus sign before KAIPER ESTIN for those witnesses.

                So, the TR reading has no witnesses backing it whatsoever.

                David Robert Palmer


                One additional point:


                Hoskier adds at the bottom of  page 454 the readings "et tamen ventura" for the Arabic and "et (tamen) adventare" for the Syriac,
                but these are the Latin translations of these texts you find  in Walton's Polyglott,
                of which the "tamen" has nothing to do with the Arabic and Syriac in Rev 17:8 itself.


                Best wishes,
                K. Martin Heide
              • Schmuel
                Hi Folks, ... Dr. K.Martin Heide - ... Schmuel Would it be possible for someone to take the various Latin readings (and other non-Greek, especially any Syriac
                Message 7 of 30 , Sep 4, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  Hi Folks,

                  >David Robert Palmer wrote:
                  >>....the Vulgate and Ethiopic omit KAIPER ESTIN altogether. Thus I have corrected it to as follows.
                  >>omit KAIPER ESTIN aeth vg Pseudo-Ambrose

                  Dr. K.Martin Heide -
                  >One additional point:
                  >Hoskier adds at the bottom of page 454 the readings "et tamen ventura" for the Arabic and "et (tamen) adventare" for the Syriac, but these are the Latin translations of these texts you find in Walton's Polyglott, of which the "tamen" has nothing to do with the Arabic and Syriac in Rev 17:8 itself.

                  Schmuel
                  Would it be possible for someone to take the various Latin readings (and other non-Greek, especially any Syriac and Coptic) and give a reasonable English translation of each, in one place ? David, is that in your work ? If it is in an earlier post, I can try to dig it out.

                  Thanks.

                  Shalom,
                  Steven Avery
                  Queens, NY
                  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic
                • David Robert Palmer
                  ... Hoskier collates all MSS against the 3rd Edition Stephens TR.
                  Message 8 of 30 , Sep 4, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    At 09:05 AM 9/4/2006 +0200, Jans Krans wrote:
                    >"The TR" does not exist. Which edition do you mean?


                    Hoskier collates all MSS against the 3rd Edition Stephens TR.
                  • David Robert Palmer
                    ... Then is Hoskier saying that the et here (or the equivalent therefor in Arabic and Syriac) means yet just as also KAI can mean yet in Greek? These
                    Message 9 of 30 , Sep 4, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                      At 11:00 AM 9/4/2006 +0200, K. Martin Heide wrote:
                      >Hoskier adds at the bottom of page 454 the readings "et tamen ventura"
                      >for the Arabic and "et (tamen) adventare" for the Syriac,
                      >but these are the Latin translations of these texts you find in Walton's
                      >Polyglott,
                      >of which the "tamen" has nothing to do with the Arabic and Syriac in Rev
                      >17:8 itself.


                      Then is Hoskier saying that the "et" here (or the equivalent therefor in
                      Arabic and Syriac) means "yet" just as also KAI can mean "yet" in Greek?

                      These readings, ventura and adventare are still not present tense like the
                      KJV, but rather imminent and future.
                    • Jan Krans
                      David Robert Palmer wrote ... (BTW: my name is Jan, not Jans.) ... 3rd Edition Stephens TR still does not answer the question. In any case it is not use the
                      Message 10 of 30 , Sep 5, 2006
                      • 0 Attachment
                        David Robert Palmer wrote

                        > At 09:05 AM 9/4/2006 +0200, Jans Krans wrote:
                        >> "The TR" does not exist. Which edition do you mean?
                        >
                        > Hoskier collates all MSS against the 3rd Edition Stephens TR.

                        (BTW: my name is Jan, not Jans.)

                        Having written in an earlier post:
                        > Speaking of typological blunders, the TR has a grave accent over the Iota
                        > in KAIPER rather than acute.

                        "3rd Edition Stephens TR" still does not answer the question. In any case
                        it is not use the original 1550 edition. There the end of Rev 17:8 reads
                        καίπέρ ἐστιν (acute on both KAI and PER). This use of accents is
                        considered incorrect nowadays, for it does not follow the rule that the
                        ultima of the word preceding an enclitic does not get an acute when its
                        penultima already has the acute. Even taking ἐστιν as simply enclitic here
                        and not applying any other rules/possibilities to it may also be
                        questionable.

                        FYI: in 1565 Beza's edition takes over καίπέρ ἐστιν; in a later edition (I
                        can only consult the 1589 edition here at home) it is changed to καίπερ
                        ἐστί. Elzevir 1624 reads καίπέρ ἐστιν with Stephanus.

                        Conclusion: do not trust later (nineteenth-century) editions said to
                        provide the text of Stephanus' 1550 TR edition to reflect it faithfully in
                        all particulars.

                        Greetings,
                        Jan Krans
                        Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam
                      • David Robert Palmer
                        ... Hello Schmuel, Yes, it is my work; no, I did not include translations in my earlier post. Though I m not a Latin scholar, let these my rude renderings
                        Message 11 of 30 , Sep 5, 2006
                        • 0 Attachment
                          At 08:44 AM 9/4/2006 -0400, Schmuel wrote:

                          >Would it be possible for someone to take the various Latin readings (and
                          >other non-Greek, especially any Syriac and Coptic) and give a reasonable
                          >English translation of each, in one place ? David, is that in your work ?
                          >If it is in an earlier post, I can try to dig it out.
                          >
                          >Thanks.


                          Hello Schmuel, Yes, it is my work; no, I did not include translations in my
                          earlier post. Though I'm not a Latin scholar, let these my rude renderings
                          suffice until someone more expert in Latin responds. I don't have Syriac
                          or Arabic or Coptic documents; I will translate Hoskier's Latin renderings
                          for those versions.

                          The main Greek verb, PARISTHMI, here means, "to be present, to have come."

                          KAI means "and" or sometimes, "yet"

                          PARESTAI means "he will be present"

                          PARESTIN means "he is present"

                          PALIN, as in the Sinaiticus original hand, means "again"

                          KAIPER ESTIN, and all the variants thereof in Erasmus and Aldus, means
                          "although is [present]" Thus the reading KAIPER ESTIN means essentially
                          the same as the other major present tense variant, when you consider that
                          KAI in the other main variant, "KAI PARESTIN can be interpreted as
                          "yet." Looks like KAIPER ESTIN could be a typesetting error for KAI PARESTIN.

                          ESTIN and ESTI are the same; ESTI is the actual word, it is just that
                          originally you would add N to certain words that ended with a vowel if the
                          next word started with a vowel. This is called "euphony," and is a
                          function of "phonology." The ancient Greeks, Attic dialect especially, did
                          not like the sound of it when a word or syllable that ended in a vowel, was
                          immediately followed by a word or syllable that started with a vowel. I
                          will put phonological terminology in laymen's terms: this means they
                          thought the glottal stop sounded ugly, so they would add a liquid consonant
                          in order to glide smoothly into the next syllable that started with a
                          vowel, wanting to avoid the glottal stop (the glottal stop is like an
                          Aleph). Thus "euphony" is the process of making something "nicer
                          sounding." We actually do the same thing in English, in fact I did it
                          earlier in this paragraph- I added an N to the indefinite article, "a"
                          because we don't like the sound of a glottal stop in between when we say "a
                          N." Thus, "an N." The usual illustration is "a apple" versus "an
                          apple." We add the "n" to "a" before the word apple, for the same reason
                          that the Attics did such a thing. But I am annoyed that even newspapers
                          and schools in the USA are gradually dropping this euphonious practice.

                          Moveable Nu is added to words ending in -SI, to the third person singular
                          in -E, and to ESTI. But the moveable Nu was also added at the end of a
                          clause, and to the end of a verse. Also, before a consonant, to add length
                          (that is, longer duration of time). The correct English term is Moveable
                          Nu. The Greeks called it "Nu EPHELKUSTIKON" or Nu dragging after.

                          Hebrew actually adds a glottal stop symbol sometimes, the Aleph, because
                          all syllables must be CVC, consonant-vowel-consonant. This is very
                          different from Greek, where no word can end with a consonant, with the
                          exception of rho, nu, or sigma (plus Ksi and Psi, which when at the end of
                          a word end with the s sound).

                          I am probably digressing too much about phonology; sorry, I just find it
                          fascinating. Phonology is like the science of chemistry for the word
                          world, how the sounds in different syllables change in reaction to each
                          other when they meet. Come to think of it, phonology and euphony, or lack
                          thereof, is a cause of many Greek New Testament textual variants. One
                          thing I have observed, for example, that seems have become muddled, is the
                          phonology of euphony, Nu removables, and hiatus where a rough-breathed
                          vowel is present following a syllable ending in a vowel. Is an "h" sound a
                          vowel or a consonant, or in between?

                          The Greek word hWDE, means "here," and is properly understood to be part of
                          the next sentence in the next verse, thus, "Here the mind having wisdom,"
                          with the verb "is" that is required by English, having been elided, as the
                          simple copula often is. Many idiomatic translations render this something
                          like "Here is a call for a mind having wisdom." "This calls for a mind
                          having wisdom." Here is a need for a mind having wisdom."

                          "et advenit" gig. Italic "and he is coming near / toward / he is
                          approaching"

                          "et adhuc ventura erit " Beatus "and thus far he will be about to come"

                          "et ventura est" Primasius "and he is about to come"

                          KAI PARESTIN EGGUS arm 3 "and he is coming near"

                          KAI PARESTAI EGGUS arm 4 "and he will be near / will come near"

                          KAI PARESTAI KAI APOLLUTAI TO QHRION 2053 commentary "and the beast will
                          come present (near), and be destroyed." (cf. arm 2: "and which was passing
                          by to perdition"

                          KAI PARESTAI hW (sic) O ECHWN 1094 (cf. copt ___, cf. syr) "and will be
                          here, he who has"

                          KAI EPESEN Bohairic Coptic "and he has fallen"

                          KAI ESTAI Sahidic Coptic "and he will be"

                          et tamen ventura arab "and yet about to come"

                          et (tamen) adventare Harklean Syriac "and (yet) to approach"


                          The confusion I see, is that the present tense (really originally the
                          continuous aspect in Indo-European languages) often is used with a future
                          meaning, or imminent meaning. I know we do this all the time in English;
                          for example, I recently said this to my 5 year old daughter, "Ok, I am
                          coming upstairs." She had asked me to come upstairs. She shortly
                          responded, "Daddy, you lied. You are not coming; you are still sitting
                          there." But I had to explain to her that "I am coming," thought present in
                          form, really means, "I will come in the near future."

                          Another confusion, is from PARESTAI, where the morpheme PAR means
                          "nearby." Did some languages like Armenian add "near" to literally
                          translate the constituent parts of PARESTAI?

                          The best place to read the above (with English translations) plus the rest
                          of the variants all in one place is to download my Word document with
                          English variant footnotes:

                          http://www.bibletranslation.ws/trans/rev.zip

                          David Robert Palmer
                        • David Robert Palmer
                          ... Thanks Jan. All I know is Hoskier says he collated against Stephens 3rd ed. Are you using Unicode Greek characters? If so, I should switch to a newer
                          Message 12 of 30 , Sep 5, 2006
                          • 0 Attachment
                            At 10:14 AM 9/5/2006 +0200, Jan wrote:
                            >3rd Edition Stephens TR" still does not answer the question. In any case
                            >it is not use the original 1550 edition. There the end of Rev 17:8 reads
                            >καίπέρ ἐστιν (acute on both KAI and PER). This use of
                            >accents is
                            >considered incorrect nowadays, for it does not follow the rule that the
                            >ultima of the word preceding an enclitic does not get an acute when its
                            >penultima already has the acute. Even taking ἐστιν as simply
                            >enclitic here
                            >and not applying any other rules/possibilities to it may also be
                            >questionable.

                            Thanks Jan.

                            All I know is Hoskier says he collated against Stephens 3rd ed.

                            Are you using Unicode Greek characters? If so, I should switch to a newer
                            email application than this old Eudora. It is not rendering the Unicode.

                            Does Microsoft Outlook Express render Unicode correctly?
                          • Viktor Golinets
                            Dear group members, does anybody know the e-mail address of prof. Emanuel Tov or does anybody know the title of the book that Tov cites on the page 358, note
                            Message 13 of 30 , Sep 5, 2006
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Dear group members,
                               
                              does anybody know the e-mail address of prof. Emanuel Tov or does anybody know the title of the book that Tov cites on the page 358, note 10, of his Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible: “Luzzatto (ed. A. I. Menkes, Lemberg 1876; repr. Jerusalem 1969)“?
                              I was not successful in finding this book knowing only the year of printing.
                               
                              Victor Golinets


                              Besseren Schutz gegen Spam - jetzt bei dem neuen Yahoo! Mail .
                            • mr.scrivener
                              There was a lot of discussion and experimentation on TC-Alternate List regarding YahooGroups & Greek. Symbol works the best. You can use the Rich text Editor
                              Message 14 of 30 , Sep 5, 2006
                              • 0 Attachment
                                There was a lot of discussion and experimentation on TC-Alternate
                                List regarding YahooGroups & Greek. Symbol works the best. You can
                                use the Rich text Editor to add html commands for the symbol font.
                                (go into 'view html' by clicking the box.)

                                Eeyore


                                --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, David Robert Palmer
                                <watutman@...> wrote:
                                >
                                > At 10:14 AM 9/5/2006 +0200, Jan wrote:
                                > >3rd Edition Stephens TR" still does not answer the question. In
                                any case
                                > >it is not use the original 1550 edition. There the end of Rev 17:8
                                reads
                                > >καίπέρ ἐστιν (acute on both KAI and PER). This use
                                of
                                > >accents is
                                > >considered incorrect nowadays, for it does not follow the rule
                                that the
                                > >ultima of the word preceding an enclitic does not get an acute
                                when its
                                > >penultima already has the acute. Even taking ἐστιν as simply
                                > >enclitic here
                                > >and not applying any other rules/possibilities to it may also be
                                > >questionable.
                                >
                                > Thanks Jan.
                                >
                                > All I know is Hoskier says he collated against Stephens 3rd ed.
                                >
                                > Are you using Unicode Greek characters? If so, I should switch to
                                a newer
                                > email application than this old Eudora. It is not rendering the
                                Unicode.
                                >
                                > Does Microsoft Outlook Express render Unicode correctly?
                                >
                              • Jan Krans
                                ... Well, this may be a more general problem; I would say that the time has come for accepting message with only Unicode (Extended) Greek. Outlook works OK;
                                Message 15 of 30 , Sep 5, 2006
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  David Robert Palmer wrote:

                                  > Are you using Unicode Greek characters? If so, I should switch to a newer
                                  > email application than this old Eudora. It is not rendering the Unicode.

                                  > Does Microsoft Outlook Express render Unicode correctly?

                                  Well, this may be a more general problem; I would say that the time has
                                  come for accepting message with only Unicode (Extended) Greek.
                                  Outlook works OK; Outlook Express probably as well.

                                  Besides, one can always consult the messages in a properly configured
                                  web-browser.

                                  Greetings,
                                  Jan Krans
                                  Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam
                                • Jan Krans
                                  ... Why use conjecture ( looks like ... could be ) when more precise information is available? Delitzsch writes in _Handschriftliche Funde_ 1, pp. 42-43 (my
                                  Message 16 of 30 , Sep 5, 2006
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    > KAIPER ESTIN, and all the variants thereof in Erasmus and Aldus, means
                                    > "although is [present]" Thus the reading KAIPER ESTIN means essentially
                                    > the same as the other major present tense variant, when you consider that
                                    > KAI in the other main variant, "KAI PARESTIN can be interpreted as
                                    > "yet." Looks like KAIPER ESTIN could be a typesetting error for KAI
                                    > PARESTIN.

                                    Why use conjecture ("looks like ... could be") when more precise
                                    information is available? Delitzsch writes in _Handschriftliche Funde_ 1,
                                    pp. 42-43 (my remarks between [...]):

                                    καίπερ ἔστι.. T.
                                    [Tischendorf] bemerkt: Ϛ [TR] (= Gb [Griesbach] Sz [Scholz]) c. min.
                                    vix mu [cum minusculis vix multis]). In Wahrheit aber ist dieses
                                    ungriechisch mit dem v. fin. [verbum finitum] verbundene
                                    καίπερ ἔστι (in Ausg.
                                    2 eingeklammert) eine Schöpfung des ER. [Erasmus], deren Entstehung schon
                                    Bengel divinatorisch durchschaut hat. Der Cod. [min. 2814] hat nämlich
                                    καὶ πάρ εστι mit etwas
                                    abgerücktem εστι, aber unzweideutiger Accentuation und
                                    deutlichem α des παρ, also καὶ
                                    πάρεστι. ... Bis auf den heutigen Tag
                                    hat hier ER. den neutest. [neutestamentlichen] Textkritik getäuscht,
                                    nachdem er zuvor vielleicht selbst durch seinen Abschreiber getäuscht
                                    worden ist.

                                    Maybe learning some German _is_ text-critically relevant after all.

                                    Greetings,
                                    Jan Krans,
                                    Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam
                                  • Wieland Willker
                                    If you really want EVERYBODY to be able to read your message, I suggest not to use any special fonts in email lists. Please use the transliteration suggested
                                    Message 17 of 30 , Sep 5, 2006
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      If you really want EVERYBODY to be able to read your message, I suggest not to use any special fonts in email lists. Please use the transliteration suggested here:

                                      http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/transliteration.txt

                                      For accents note:
                                      "If accents are really necessary, to distinguish otherwise
                                      identical words, acute is represented by {/}, grave by {\}, and
                                      circumflex either by tilde {~ [preferable]} or {=} -- always
                                      AFTER the vowel over which it would be written."



                                      Best wishes
                                      Wieland
                                      <><
                                      ------------------------------------------------
                                      Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
                                      mailto:willker@...-bremen.de
                                      http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie
                                      Textcritical commentary:
                                      http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/index.html
                                    • Jan Krans
                                      ... It concerns: Samuel David Luzatto, Erläuterungen über einen Theil der Propheten und Hagiographen, Lemberg : [Menkes], 1876. You can easily find it when
                                      Message 18 of 30 , Sep 5, 2006
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        > Dear group members,
                                        >
                                        > does anybody know the e-mail address of prof. Emanuel Tov or does
                                        > anybody know the title of the book that Tov cites on the page 358, note
                                        > 10, of his Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible: “Luzzatto (ed. A. I.
                                        > Menkes, Lemberg 1876; repr. Jerusalem 1969)“?
                                        > I was not successful in finding this book knowing only the year of
                                        > printing.
                                        >
                                        > Victor Golinets

                                        It concerns:
                                        Samuel David Luzatto, Erläuterungen über einen Theil der Propheten und
                                        Hagiographen, Lemberg : [Menkes], 1876. You can easily find it when
                                        searching on "luzzatto menkes" (and then "luzzatto erläuterungen") in
                                        WorldCat.

                                        Greetings,
                                        Jan Krans
                                        Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam
                                      • Harold P. Scanlin
                                        ... Dear Viktor, It s probably his commentary, *Erläuterungen über einen Theil der Propheten und Hagiographen* although I don t have a copy of the book to
                                        Message 19 of 30 , Sep 5, 2006
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Viktor Golinets wrote:
                                          Dear group members,
                                           
                                          does anybody know the e-mail address of prof. Emanuel Tov or does anybody know the title of the book that Tov cites on the page 358, note 10, of his Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible: “Luzzatto (ed. A. I. Menkes, Lemberg 1876; repr. Jerusalem 1969)“?






                                          Dear Viktor,

                                          It's probably his commentary, Erläuterungen über einen Theil der Propheten und Hagiographen

                                          although I don't have a copy of the book to verify the reference.

                                          Harold Scanlin


                                        • Bob Buller
                                          Victor, According to the Harvard online catalog, this citation presumably refers to: Luzzatto, Samuel David, 1800-1865. Perushe Shadal : al Yirmeyah
                                          Message 20 of 30 , Sep 5, 2006
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            Victor,

                                            According to the Harvard online catalog,  this citation presumably refers to:

                                            Luzzatto, Samuel David, 1800-1865.
                                            Perushe Shadal : 'al Yirmeyah Yehezkel, Mishle ve-Iyov
                                            Lemberg : A. I. Menkes, 1876.
                                               
                                            which was reprinted as

                                            Perush Shadal ʻal Yirmeyah, Yehezkel, Mishle ve-Iyov.
                                            Published :     Jerusalem : Makor, 729 [1968 or 1969]


                                            Bob Buller
                                            Society of Biblical Literature


                                            Viktor Golinets wrote:
                                            Dear group members,
                                             
                                            does anybody know the e-mail address of prof. Emanuel Tov or does anybody know the title of the book that Tov cites on the page 358, note 10, of his Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible: “Luzzatto (ed. A. I. Menkes, Lemberg 1876; repr. Jerusalem 1969)“?
                                            I was not successful in finding this book knowing only the year of printing.
                                             
                                            Victor Golinets










                                             All best wishes,
                                          • goranson@duke.edu
                                            ... Perhaps: Perushe Shadal `al Yirmiyahu, Yehezkel, Mishle, ve-Iyov Erläuterungen über einen Theil der Propheten und Hagiographen. Samuel David Luzzatto
                                            Message 21 of 30 , Sep 5, 2006
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              Quoting Viktor Golinets <viktor_golinets@...>:

                                              > Dear group members,
                                              >
                                              > does anybody know the e-mail address of prof. Emanuel Tov or does
                                              > anybody know the title of the book that Tov cites on the page 358,
                                              > note 10, of his Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible: “Luzzatto (ed.
                                              > A. I. Menkes, Lemberg 1876; repr. Jerusalem 1969)“?
                                              > I was not successful in finding this book knowing only the year of printing.


                                              Perhaps:
                                              Perushe Shadal `al Yirmiyahu, Yehezkel, Mishle, ve-Iyov
                                              Erläuterungen über einen Theil der Propheten und Hagiographen.
                                              Samuel David Luzzatto 1876
                                              Hebrew Book : Microform 216 p. 22 cm.
                                              Lemberg, A.I. Menkes,

                                              Erläuterungen über einen Theil der Propheten und Hagiographen /
                                              Samuel David Luzzatto
                                              1969 [Nachdr.].
                                              Hebrew Book 216 p. ; 25 cm.
                                              Yerusalayim : Maqor,

                                              Stephen Goranson
                                              http:/wwww.duke.edu/~goranson
                                            • mr.scrivener
                                              ... newer ... Unicode. ... has ... First of all note: The reply system in YAHOO GROUPS cannot properly copy many forms of UNICODE, as is obvious. But now for a
                                              Message 22 of 30 , Sep 5, 2006
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "Jan Krans" <jlhkrans@...> wrote:
                                                >
                                                > David Robert Palmer wrote:
                                                >
                                                > > Are you using Unicode Greek characters? If so, I should switch to a newer
                                                > > email application than this old Eudora. It is not rendering the Unicode.
                                                >
                                                > > Does Microsoft Outlook Express render Unicode correctly?
                                                >
                                                > Well, this may be a more general problem; I would say that the time has
                                                > come for accepting message with only Unicode (Extended) Greek.
                                                > Outlook works OK; Outlook Express probably as well.
                                                >
                                                > Besides, one can always consult the messages in a properly configured
                                                > web-browser.
                                                >
                                                > Greetings,
                                                > Jan Krans
                                                > Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam
                                                >

                                                First of all note:
                                                The reply system in YAHOO GROUPS cannot properly copy many forms of UNICODE, as is obvious.

                                                But now for a more important point.
                                                The UNICODE looks good while you are editing in the Rich Text Editor, but is not properly stored.  You can check this by looking at your own original message.

                                                This is why I am for now recommending you don't use UNICODE at all, and instead stick to the SYMBOL font. With the SYMBOL font, the user and browser will almost always be able to see the Greek,

                                                And most importantly, the YAHOO message system including the Rich Text Editor can actually handle the HTML instructions to use SYMBOL, but cannot handle the UNICODE properly as far as I can see.

                                                For instance, while all lines below look good while I am in the Rich Text Editor, it is another story how it looks once it is posted and requoted here in the LIST:

                                                Using HTML & SYMBOL FONT, with ordinary Latin characters:


                                                en arch hn o logoV kai o logoV hn proV ton qeon 

                                                Now using UNICODE from the multilingual support (direct from keyboard)

                                                åí áñ÷ç çí ï ëïãïò êáé ï ëïãïò çí ðñïò ôïí èåïí

                                                If you quote this message, then review what was saved by YAHOO, you may see problems.  But it doesn't end here.  The List, like other scholarly lists, is resampled, quoted and archived by thousands of people and software packages, many of which only support simple ASCII text.

                                                 

                                                In summary:

                                                (1) When responding to messages, the primitive 'quoting' system for YAHOO GROUPS doesn't always properly copy or save the encoded UNICODE Greek.

                                                (2) SYMBOL is a platform-independant font not only available on both IBMs and MACs, but also on all operating systems, even as old as Windows 98 or early Macs.   The point here is that you can't go by the 'latest' standard, unless you are deliberately being elitist.  In 80% of developing countries, our old second-hand computers and operating systems are not only the norm, they are the *only* available computer equipment for ordinary students and internet users.

                                                (3) UNICODE both limits the operating systems that can read the messages, and also mailing systems used on the net to copy and archive text.  It further excludes large groups of users from 3rd world and developing countries.

                                                (4) When text systems fail to preserve FONT information, or cannot process extended fonts like UNICODE, the base-text used by SYMBOL is both recoverable and readable without the font information.  The essential information is NOT lost.  With garbled UNICODE, the information is unreadable and unuseable, and usually unrecoverable by ordinary users.

                                                (5) Other ordinary Greek fonts are so unstandardized that they are useless, because people either don't have the fonts, or don't know what the keyboard mapping is.  So SYMBOL remains the DEFAULT STANDARD for GREEK.

                                                Mr. Scrivener

                                                .

                                              • Dr. K.Martin Heide
                                                In addition, you not only find the passage in question (Rev 17:8) reproduced as a facsimile in Delitzsch s Handschriftliche Funde , you find it also in my
                                                Message 23 of 30 , Sep 5, 2006
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  In addition, you not only find the passage in question (Rev 17:8) reproduced as a facsimile
                                                  in Delitzsch's "Handschriftliche Funde", you find it also in my book
                                                  "Der einzig wahre Bibeltext? Erasmus von Rotterdam und die Frage nach dem Urtext", 4th edition (5th forthcoming), photographed from the manuscript itself (which is stored in the  library of the University of Augsburg). You can, of course
                                                  also order a microfilm of Codex 2814 from the Augsburg library ...

                                                  From these photos, everything becomes clear (I reproduced passages such as Rev 3:5; 17:13; 21:24, which are well-known for
                                                  their peculiar readings) : you realize Erasmus's errors for the book of Revelation, most of which were described by Delitzsch and Tregelles already,
                                                  beyond doubt, when you look at the manuscript itself.

                                                  Greetings,

                                                  Martin Heide




                                                  Maybe learning some German _is_ text-critically relevant after all.

                                                  Greetings,
                                                  Jan Krans,
                                                  Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam


                                                • Peter Williams
                                                  Try Samuel David Luzzatto, Perushe Shedal, commentary on Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Proverbs, and Job. Lemberg, 1876. Best, Pete Williams ... Peter Williams Senior
                                                  Message 24 of 30 , Sep 5, 2006
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    Try

                                                    Samuel David Luzzatto, Perushe Shedal, commentary on Jeremiah, Ezekiel,
                                                    Proverbs, and Job. Lemberg, 1876.

                                                    Best,

                                                    Pete Williams

                                                    At 15:46 05/09/2006 +0200, you wrote:

                                                    >Dear group members,
                                                    >
                                                    >does anybody know the e-mail address of prof. Emanuel Tov or does anybody
                                                    >know the title of the book that Tov cites on the page 358, note 10, of his
                                                    >Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible: "Luzzatto (ed. A. I. Menkes,
                                                    >Lemberg 1876; repr. Jerusalem 1969)"?
                                                    >I was not successful in finding this book knowing only the year of printing.
                                                    >
                                                    >Victor Golinets
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >Besseren Schutz gegen Spam - jetzt bei dem
                                                    ><http://de.rd.yahoo.com/evt=40589/*http://de.docs.yahoo.com/ymail/landing.html>neuen
                                                    >Yahoo! Mail .
                                                    >
                                                  • Jan Krans
                                                    Dear fellow-listers, Something went terribly wrong with my Unicode, because of my using of a Web Browser Email Interface somewhere on-the-road. And so I have
                                                    Message 25 of 30 , Sep 5, 2006
                                                    • 0 Attachment
                                                      Dear fellow-listers,

                                                      Something went terribly wrong with my Unicode, because of my using of a
                                                      Web Browser Email Interface somewhere on-the-road. And so I have to admit
                                                      to what others tell me as well: many things can still go wrong with
                                                      Unicode. Thus, I will adopt the following "best practice" (for me, that
                                                      is): both the Unicode and the transliteration. Everybody happy, I hope.

                                                      Here thus my corrected and completed message:

                                                      =====

                                                      David Robert Palmer wrote:

                                                      > KAIPER ESTIN, and all the variants thereof in Erasmus and Aldus, means
                                                      > "although is [present]" Thus the reading KAIPER ESTIN means essentially
                                                      > the same as the other major present tense variant, when you consider that
                                                      > KAI in the other main variant, "KAI PARESTIN can be interpreted as
                                                      > "yet." Looks like KAIPER ESTIN could be a typesetting error for KAI
                                                      > PARESTIN.

                                                      Why use conjecture ("looks like ... could be") when more precise
                                                      information is available? Delitzsch writes in Handschriftliche Funde 1,
                                                      pp. 42-43 (my remarks between [...]):

                                                      καίπερ ἔστι.. [KAI/PER E)/STI..] T. [Tischendorf] bemerkt: Ϛ [stigma] [TR]
                                                      (= Gb [Griesbach] Sz [Scholz]) c. min. vix mu [cum minusculis vix
                                                      multis]). In Wahrheit aber ist dieses ungriechisch mit dem v. fin. [verbum
                                                      finitum] verbundene καίπερ ἔστι [KAI/PER E)/STI] (in Ausg. 2
                                                      eingeklammert) eine Schöpfung des ER. [Erasmus], deren Entstehung schon
                                                      Bengel divinatorisch durchschaut hat. Der Cod. [min. 2814] hat nämlich καὶ
                                                      πάρ εστι [KAI\ PA/R ESTI] mit etwas abgerücktem εστι [ESTI], aber
                                                      unzweideutiger Accentuation und deutlichem α [A] des παρ [PAR], also καὶ
                                                      πάρεστι [KAI\ PA/RESTI]. ... Bis auf den heutigen Tag hat hier ER. den
                                                      neutest. [neutestamentlichen] Textkritik getäuscht, nachdem er zuvor
                                                      vielleicht selbst durch seinen Abschreiber getäuscht worden ist.

                                                      Maybe learning some German is text-critically relevant after all.

                                                      Greetings,
                                                      Jan Krans,
                                                      Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam

                                                      =====

                                                      SPS (Scholarly postscript): K. Martin Heide's book is an excellent reason
                                                      to learn German, if only to translate it into English for those who fail
                                                      to appreciate the beauty of that language.
                                                    • Daniel Buck
                                                      ... for the Arabic and et (tamen) adventare for the Syriac, but these are the Latin translations of these texts you find in Walton s Polyglott, of which the
                                                      Message 26 of 30 , Sep 7, 2006
                                                      • 0 Attachment
                                                        David Robert Palmer <watutman@...> wrote:
                                                        >> At 11:00 AM 9/4/2006 +0200, K. Martin Heide wrote:
                                                        >Hoskier adds at the bottom of page 454 the readings "et tamen ventura"
                                                        for the Arabic and "et (tamen) adventare" for the Syriac,
                                                        but these are the Latin translations of these texts you find in
                                                        Walton's Polyglott, of which the "tamen" has nothing to do with the
                                                        Arabic and Syriac in Rev 17:8 itself.<

                                                        Then is Hoskier saying that the "et" here (or the equivalent therefor
                                                        in Arabic and Syriac) means "yet" just as also KAI can mean "yet" in
                                                        Greek?<<

                                                        I can't say off the top of my head how Syriac is specifically, but in
                                                        Semitic languages generally, there is generally just one word, spelled
                                                        with the waw used as a prefix, that is translated as 'and'. I tried
                                                        looking up how else it is translated but the word does not appear in
                                                        Strongs!
                                                        'Et tamen' (Latin) which would come across in English as 'and but'
                                                        cannot be that distincly translated from Arabic. There are two ways of
                                                        saying 'but': 'wa(and) lakin' or 'lakin[+ pronominal suffix]', and the
                                                        two are indistinguishable in translation. Similarly, Classical English
                                                        equates "but and if" with "but if." Modern Arabic Bibles don't use
                                                        either 'but' expression; they read 'kana wa laisa alan maxa anahu
                                                        ka'in' or 'he was and is not, although he is being' (van Dyk)
                                                        and 'kana wa ma xad ka'inan wa sayuTHhur thaniatan' or 'he was and did
                                                        not go back to being and shall appear again' (TAV).

                                                        Daniel Buck
                                                      • Dr. K.Martin Heide
                                                        Daniel Buck wrote: ... ventura for the Arabic and et (tamen) adventare for the Syriac, but these are the Latin translations of these texts you find in
                                                        Message 27 of 30 , Sep 8, 2006
                                                        • 0 Attachment
                                                          Daniel Buck wrote:

                                                          David Robert Palmer <watutman@.. .> wrote:
                                                          >> At 11:00 AM 9/4/2006 +0200, K. Martin Heide wrote:
                                                          >Hoskier adds at the bottom of page 454 the readings "et tamen ventura"
                                                          for the Arabic and "et (tamen) adventare" for the Syriac,
                                                          but these are the Latin translations of these texts you find in
                                                          Walton's Polyglott, of which the "tamen" has nothing to do with the
                                                          Arabic and Syriac in Rev 17:8 itself.<

                                                          Then is Hoskier saying that the "et" here (or the equivalent therefor
                                                          in Arabic and Syriac) means "yet" just as also KAI can mean "yet" in
                                                          Greek?<<

                                                          I can't say off the top of my head how Syriac is specifically, but in
                                                          Semitic languages generally, there is generally just one word, spelled
                                                          with the waw used as a prefix, that is translated as 'and'. I tried
                                                          looking up how else it is translated but the word does not appear in
                                                          Strongs!
                                                          'Et tamen' (Latin) which would come across in English as 'and but'
                                                          cannot be that distincly translated from Arabic. There are two ways of
                                                          saying 'but': 'wa(and) lakin' or 'lakin[+ pronominal suffix]', and the
                                                          two are indistinguishable in translation. Similarly, Classical English
                                                          equates "but and if" with "but if." Modern Arabic Bibles don't use
                                                          either 'but' expression; they read 'kana wa laisa alan maxa anahu
                                                          ka'in' or 'he was and is not, although he is being' (van Dyk)
                                                          and 'kana wa ma xad ka'inan wa sayuTHhur thaniatan' or 'he was and did
                                                          not go back to being and shall appear again' (TAV).

                                                          Daniel Buck


                                                          Hoskier simply cited the Latin translation of Walton's Syriac-and-Arabic Texts in his Polyglott.
                                                          Maybe he thought that would somehow corroborate the TR-reading, maybe he did it only for
                                                          documentation.

                                                          This Latin translation of both versions, however, is wrong in this place, as I will show below.

                                                          The Syriac in Rev 17:8 (Gwilliam's edition) reads simply (please excuse my bad transliteration here)
                                                          "ditheh hewa, welatheh, weqerbat" "that was, and is not, and came near".
                                                          No "yet", no "tamen"! The same applies to Walton's text. Walton's Latin translation, however, has "non esse, & tamen adventare",
                                                          which is wrong, though he hinted at the intrusion of the tamen, because it is printed in italics. Hoskier took it over, without comment.

                                                          Daniel Buck said:
                                                          'Et tamen' (Latin) which would come across in English as 'and but'
                                                          cannot be that distincly translated from Arabic. There are two ways of
                                                          saying 'but': 'wa(and) lakin' or 'lakin[+ pronominal suffix]', and the
                                                          two are indistinguishable in translation. Similarly, Classical English
                                                          equates "but and if" with "but if." Modern Arabic Bibles don't use
                                                          either 'but' expression; they read 'kana wa laisa alan maxa anahu
                                                          ka'in' or 'he was and is not, although he is being' (van Dyk)
                                                          and 'kana wa ma xad ka'inan wa sayuTHhur thaniatan' or 'he was and did
                                                          not go back to being and shall appear again' (TAV).


                                                          We must be very careful with modern Arabic Bibles; some of them have been
                                                          modified after the Vulgate or the Erasmian text. Besides, Revelation has long held a
                                                          non-canonical status in the East, and even some pre-Reformation mss tend to
                                                          assimilate to the Latin Vulgate.

                                                          The Arabic Bible printed in Walton's Polyglott, however, is "genuine" (not influenced by post-Reformation
                                                          translations, and, as the early Arabic translations are in general, translated from or at least influenced by the Bohairic:
                                                          see Graf, Georg: „Arabische Übersetzungen der Apokalypse“, Biblica 10 (1929), pp. 170-194)
                                                          and does not read the way the Arabic Bible cited by Daniel Buck reads
                                                          ("kana wa laisa alan ma'a annahu ka'in": "... although he is being"),
                                                          but neither does it read the way ist was translated in Walton's polyglott into Latin
                                                          ("et tamen ...").
                                                          The Arabic in Walton's polyglott reads as follows:
                                                          "takunu walaisa hiya watadhhabu wahiya muqbilatun", meaning
                                                          "it is and it is not and will go away and comes near [IV. stem]". Now, if you compare that with Bohairic printed in Horner's edition,
                                                          you will find "it is, and it is not, and it fell", which is similar, except the "comes near", which reminds us of the Syriac.

                                                          All that, however, is translated in Walton's polyglott with the phrase "quae erit & non est & abitura est
                                                          [for our German friends: you see, the beast makes "Abitur" ...], & tamen ventura".

                                                          Again, no "tamen", no "yet" in the Arabic text,
                                                          and Hoskier just cited these two Latin translations, of the Syriac and Arabic, without commment (but we wonder for what purpose???).


                                                          All the best, Martin


                                                        • mr.scrivener
                                                          Obviously the transposition is useful, but the unicode isn t. If you want the good looks of unicode, to compliment your transliteration, try using the Symbol
                                                          Message 28 of 30 , Sep 8, 2006
                                                          • 0 Attachment
                                                            Obviously the transposition is useful, but the unicode isn't.  If you want the good looks of unicode, to compliment your transliteration, try using the Symbol Font command from the Rich Text Editor.

                                                            Most systems, even old ones like Windows98 will have the SYMBOL font installed, so I just defined the next paragraph to have the SYMBOL font for display. Unfortunately, this won't give accents, since the SYMBOL FONT is rather tricky to add accents with.  


                                                            1:1 en arch hn o logoV kai o logoV hn proV ton qeon kai qeoV hn o logoV 1:2 outoV hn en arch proV ton qeon 1:3 panta di autou egeneto kai cwriV autou egeneto oude en o gegonen 1:4 en autw zwh hn kai h zwh hn to fwV twn anqrwpwn 1:5 kai to fwV en th skotia fainei kai h skotia auto ou katelaben

                                                            KATA IWANNHN

                                                            The base text was cut and pasted from some Word files I have which have the NT typed in and ready for use with the SYMBOL font. 

                                                            While in the Rich Text Editor, I switched to 'View HTML source' (a small box near the bottom left is clicked with a checkmark). 

                                                            The HTML code can only be entered if you switch to this mode and edit the actual textfile representing your message. (I switched back to 'View Finished Product' to enter in the codes as ordinary text so that you could see them.  Otherwise they'd be interpreted as HTML commands and be invisible.)

                                                            Next, (while still viewing the HTML source) I typed in some Element tags to enclose the Greek text I wanted to post:

                                                            The following line would open a bordered paragraph using the SYMBOL font:

                                                            <P style="BORDER-RIGHT: solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 6px; BORDER-TOP: solid; PADDING-LEFT: 6px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 6px; MARGIN: 6px; BORDER-LEFT: solid; COLOR: blue; PADDING-TOP: 6px; BORDER-BOTTOM: solid; FONT-FAMILY: SYMBOL">

                                                            Note that I used the PADDING instruction to give a space between the text and the box. For vertical spacing, I used <BR> (newline) in appropriate places.

                                                            <BR><STRONG>

                                                            I would paste my 'Greek Base' text here (merely latin letters that correspond to the right values for the Symbol font to display Greek)

                                                            Then I close the paragraph with :

                                                            </STRONG> /* this closes the section in Boldface Greek (symbol) */

                                                            <BR> /* this adds a blank line at the end of the text */

                                                            <CENTER> /* This starts the Title in caps and centers it  */

                                                            <FONT face=SYMBOL size=5>KATA IWANNHN</FONT>

                                                            </CENTER>


                                                            </P> /* this closes the whole paragraph with title */

                                                            This also puts the title of John's Gospel in Greek at the end of the paragraph.

                                                            This method, (if it works) I think is the best, because even though the 'Rich Text Editor' doesn't offer the SYMBOL font as an option from their mini-menu, it seems you can manually order it up through the HTML code. 

                                                            Finally, for most people, cutting and pasting 'visible' latin characters is easier than dealing with 'UNICODE' that seems to disappear, and will only be visible to people with new systems and UNICODE fonts installed.

                                                            So I have posted the necessary Greek WORD97 files at TC-AlternateList which you can use to cut and paste from when you want to quote the New Testament.  You should be able to copy and paste the codes from this message in another window while editing your posts in the Rich Text Editor.  The combination of having the WORD files open for the text, and having the HTML code handy to paste into your messages should give you good-looking Greek that anyone can see.


                                                            --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "Jan Krans" <jlhkrans@...> wrote:
                                                            >
                                                            > Dear fellow-listers,
                                                            >
                                                            > Something went terribly wrong with my Unicode, because of my using of a
                                                            > Web Browser Email Interface somewhere on-the-road. And so I have to admit
                                                            > to what others tell me as well: many things can still go wrong with
                                                            > Unicode. Thus, I will adopt the following "best practice" (for me, that
                                                            > is): both the Unicode and the transliteration. Everybody happy, I hope.
                                                            >
                                                            > Here thus my corrected and completed message:
                                                            >
                                                            > =====
                                                            >
                                                            > David Robert Palmer wrote:
                                                            >
                                                            > > KAIPER ESTIN, and all the variants thereof in Erasmus and Aldus, means
                                                            > > "although is [present]" Thus the reading KAIPER ESTIN means essentially
                                                            > > the same as the other major present tense variant, when you consider that
                                                            > > KAI in the other main variant, "KAI PARESTIN can be interpreted as
                                                            > > "yet." Looks like KAIPER ESTIN could be a typesetting error for KAI
                                                            > > PARESTIN.
                                                            >
                                                            > Why use conjecture ("looks like ... could be") when more precise
                                                            > information is available? Delitzsch writes in Handschriftliche Funde 1,
                                                            > pp. 42-43 (my remarks between [...]):
                                                            >
                                                            > καίπερ á¼"στι.. [KAI/PER E)/STI..] T. [Tischendorf] bemerkt: Ϛ [stigma] [TR]
                                                            > (= Gb [Griesbach] Sz [Scholz]) c. min. vix mu [cum minusculis vix
                                                            > multis]). In Wahrheit aber ist dieses ungriechisch mit dem v. fin. [verbum
                                                            > finitum] verbundene καίπερ á¼"στι [KAI/PER E)/STI] (in Ausg. 2
                                                            > eingeklammert) eine Schöpfung des ER. [Erasmus], deren Entstehung schon
                                                            > Bengel divinatorisch durchschaut hat. Der Cod. [min. 2814] hat nämlich καὶ
                                                            > πάρ εστι [KAI\ PA/R ESTI] mit etwas abgerücktem εστι [ESTI], aber
                                                            > unzweideutiger Accentuation und deutlichem α [A] des παρ [PAR], also καὶ
                                                            > πάρεστι [KAI\ PA/RESTI]. ... Bis auf den heutigen Tag hat hier ER. den
                                                            > neutest. [neutestamentlichen] Textkritik getäuscht, nachdem er zuvor
                                                            > vielleicht selbst durch seinen Abschreiber getäuscht worden ist.
                                                            >
                                                            > Maybe learning some German is text-critically relevant after all.
                                                            >
                                                            > Greetings,
                                                            > Jan Krans,
                                                            > Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam
                                                            >
                                                            > =====
                                                            >
                                                            > SPS (Scholarly postscript): K. Martin Heide's book is an excellent reason
                                                            > to learn German, if only to translate it into English for those who fail
                                                            > to appreciate the beauty of that language.
                                                            >
                                                          • Jan Krans
                                                            Mr Scrivener wrote ... The symbol font has nothing to do with Greek; it only looks like it in some respects. And where are the breathings and accents?
                                                            Message 29 of 30 , Sep 8, 2006
                                                            • 0 Attachment
                                                              "Mr Scrivener" wrote

                                                              > Obviously the transposition is useful, but the unicode isn't. If you
                                                              > want the good looks of unicode, to compliment your transliteration, try
                                                              > using the Symbol Font command from the Rich Text Editor.

                                                              The symbol font has nothing to do with Greek; it only looks like it in
                                                              some respects. And where are the breathings and accents?

                                                              Unicode is the future; I will adapt to the present for the moment (by
                                                              adding a transcription) while not forgetting the future. You can skip the
                                                              Unicode if to wish.

                                                              BTW 1. I take at you mean "transcription", not "transposition".
                                                              BTW 2. The example of my Unicode that went wrong was only due to the
                                                              limitations of my provider's "webmail" editor, not to Yahoo Groups or
                                                              whatever. Nevertheless I should have (tested and) noticed. In a properly
                                                              configured browser, compare the correct message 2583
                                                              (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/textualcriticism/message/2583) with the
                                                              scrambled message 2573
                                                              (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/textualcriticism/message/2573).

                                                              Greetings,
                                                              Jan Krans,
                                                              Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam
                                                            • David Robert Palmer
                                                              Jan Krans wrote:
                                                              Message 30 of 30 , Sep 9, 2006
                                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                                Jan Krans wrote:

                                                                << Something went terribly wrong with my Unicode, because of my using of a
                                                                Web Browser Email Interface somewhere on-the-road. And so I have to admit
                                                                to what others tell me as well: many things can still go wrong with
                                                                Unicode. Thus, I will adopt the following "best practice" (for me, that
                                                                is): both the Unicode and the transliteration. Everybody happy, I hope. >>

                                                                I copied your text that was gibberish, into a text editor (EditPad Lite)
                                                                and saved it as JanKrans.html and then opened it with my web browser, and
                                                                then it displayed the Unicode correctly.

                                                                << Unicode is the future; I will adapt to the present for the moment (by
                                                                adding a transcription) while not forgetting the future. You can skip the
                                                                Unicode if to wish. >>

                                                                Absolutely Amen to that. Unicode is the future, and really the present.

                                                                I will not mess with anything but Unicode in all my Word documents from now on.

                                                                David Robert Palmer
                                                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.