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

Re: [textualcriticism] Jude 5

Expand Messages
  • Tommy Wasserman
    George F. Somsel wrote: The unique collocation θεὸς Χριστός read by P (did the scribe intend to write θεοῦ χριστός, “God’s
    Message 1 of 25 , Jan 6, 1970
    • 0 Attachment
      George F. Somsel wrote:

      " The unique collocation θεὸς Χριστός read by P (did the scribe intend
      to write θεοῦ χριστός, “God’s anointed one”?) is probably a scribal
      blunder; otherwise one would expect that Χριστός would be represented
      also in other witnesses." (cited from Metzger's Textual Commentary)

      Unfortunately, the Committee did not take into account the pattern of
      similar readings in P72, when they suggested "a scribal blunder" here.
      See further my article "Papyrus 72 and the Bodmer Miscellaneous Codex,"
      NTS 51 (2005): 137-54; and Barbara Aland, "Welche Rolle spielen
      Textkritik und Textgeschichte für das Verständnis des Neuen Testaments?
      Frühe Leserperspektiven," NTS 52 (2006): 303-318.

      Tommy Wasserman
    • Daniel B. Wallace
      There s a recent article in Novum Testament by Philipp Bartholomäe, Did Jesus Save the People out of Egypt? A Re-examination of a Textual Problem in Jude 5,
      Message 2 of 25 , May 9 9:53 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        There's a recent article in Novum Testament by Philipp Bartholomäe, "Did Jesus Save the People out of Egypt? A Re-examination of a Textual Problem in Jude 5," Novum Testamentum 50 (2008) 143-158. This is an excellent treatment of the problem, a revision of a term paper by Philipp in the master's course on NT textual criticism at Dallas Seminary.

        Dan Wallace

        ----- Start Original Message -----
        Sent: Fri, 9 May 2008 11:50:46 -0400
        From: "Percer, Leo R." <lpercer@...>
        To: <textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com>
        Subject: RE: [textualcriticism] Jude 5

        >
        > Hello all:

        I recently received a question from a student regarding alternative
        readings in Jude 5, and I do not have the necessary tools here to search
        the answer properly. So I thought I’d ask you all!

        As many of you may know, Jude 5 contains an alternative reading in the
        section that reads (in English) “. . . that the Lord saved a people out
        of the land of Egypt, . . . “ (emphasis added). The question is
        this—several newer English translations (ESV, NLT, NET) read
        “Jesus” where “Lord” is in the verse. As I looked at the few
        texts I have handy, I noticed that the witnesses for “Jesus” are
        texts like A B 33 81 1241 1739 1881, etc., while the texts for “Lord”
        (kurios) include Aleph, B, K, as witnesses. The one that intrigues me
        is the witness p72 has “God Christ” (theos Christos) as a reading.
        The question I have is this—which of these witnesses do you think is
        the most authoritative and why? I mean, it appears to me that the
        earliest reading is “God Christ,” but it is not offered as the
        reading of choice in any edition of the Greek NT that I can find. I
        guess I’m looking for help here until I can get home to my textual
        critical materials, but I’d appreciate hearing the opinions of this
        list. Which reading would you think as the best and why? Thanks!

        Leo Percer






        ----- End Original Message -----
      • George F Somsel
          ver. 5     πάντα ὅτι [ὁ] κύριος ἅπαξ{D} Despite the weighty attestation supporting
        Message 3 of 25 , May 10 1:12 PM
        • 0 Attachment
           
          ver. 5     πάντα ὅτι [ὁ] κύριος ἅπαξ {D}
          Despite the weighty attestation supporting Ἰησοῦς (A B 33 81 322 323 424 665 1241 1739 1881 2298 2344 vg cop, eth Origen Cyril Jerome Bede; ὁ Ἰησοῦς 88 915), a majority of the Committee was of the opinion that the reading was difficult to the point of impossibility, and explained its origin in terms of transcriptional oversight (ΚΧ being taken for ΙΧ). It was also observed that nowhere else does the author employ Ἰησοῦς alone, but always Ἰησοῦς Χριστός. The unique collocation θεὸς Χριστός read by P (did the scribe intend to write θεοῦ χριστός, “God’s anointed one”?) is probably a scribal blunder; otherwise one would expect that Χριστός would be represented also in other witnesses.
          The great majority of witnesses read before κύριος, but on the strength of its absence from א Ψ and the tendency of scribes to add the article, it was thought best to enclose within square brackets.
          [Critical principles seem to require the adoption of Ἰησοῦς, which admittedly is the best attested reading among Greek and versional witnesses (see above). Struck by the strange and unparalleled mention of Jesus in a statement about the redemption out of Egypt (yet compare Paul’s reference to Χριστός in 1 Cor 10.4), copyists would have substituted (ὁ) κύριος or ὁ θεός. It is possible, however, that (as Hort conjectured) “the original text had only , and that οτιο was read as οτιΙΧ and perhaps as οτιΚΧ” (“Notes on Select Readings,” ad loc.).
          The origin of the variations in the position of ἅπαξ is best explained by assuming that it originally stood after εἰδότας (as in P A B C L 049 33 81 104 181 326 330 436 451 629 945 1877 2127 al); because, however, the word did not seem to suit εἰδότας, and because the following τὸ δεύτερον appeared to call for a word like πρῶτον, ἅπαξ was moved within the ὅτι-clause so as to qualify σώσας. B.M.M. and A.W.]
           
          Metzger, B. M., & United Bible Societies. (1994). A textual commentary on the Greek New Testament, second edition a companion volume to the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament (4th rev. ed.) (657). London; New York: United Bible Societies.
           
          I think one of the stonger arguments for the reading being only κύριος rather than Ιησοῦς is the fact noted in ¶ #1 above that Ιησοῦς always appears with Χριστός and never alone in Jude (though it must also be noted that there are only 5 instances).
           
          george
          gfsomsel


          … search for truth, hear truth,
          learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
          defend the truth till death.


          - Jan Hus
          _________


          ----- Original Message ----
          From: "Percer, Leo R." <lpercer@...>
          To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Friday, May 9, 2008 11:50:46 AM
          Subject: RE: [textualcriticism] Jude 5

          Hello all:

           

          I recently received a question from a student regarding alternative readings in Jude 5, and I do not have the necessary tools here to search the answer properly.  So I thought I’d ask you all!

          As many of you may know, Jude 5 contains an alternative reading in the section that reads (in English) “. . . that the Lord saved a people out of the land of Egypt, . . . “  (emphasis added).  The question is this—several newer English translations (ESV, NLT, NET) read “Jesus” where “Lord” is in the verse.  As I looked at the few texts I have handy, I noticed that the witnesses for “Jesus” are texts like A B 33 81 1241 1739 1881, etc., while the texts for “Lord” (kurios) include Aleph, B, K,  as witnesses.  The one that intrigues me is the witness p72 has “God Christ” (theos Christos) as a reading.  The question I have is this—which of these witnesses do you think is the most authoritative and why?   I mean, it appears to me that the earliest reading is “God Christ,” but it is not offered as the reading of choice in any edition of the Greek NT that I can find.  I guess I’m looking for help here until I can get home to my textual critical materials, but I’d appreciate hearing the opinions of this list.  Which reading would you think as the best and why?  Thanks!

          Leo Percer

          .



          Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
        • James Snapp, Jr.
          Wieland ~ I haven t had much time to study the images this weekend (it s Mother s Day over here in the USA) but from what I was able to see, it looks like a
          Message 4 of 25 , May 10 10:31 PM
          • 0 Attachment
            Wieland ~

            I haven't had much time to study the images this weekend (it's
            Mother's Day over here in the USA) but from what I was able to see,
            it looks like a nice, neat Byzantine lectionary-portion for the
            second Sunday after Easter (KURIAKE G, i.e., Sunday #3).

            Yours in Christ,

            James Snapp, Jr.
            Minister, Curtisville Christian Church
            Tipton, Indiana (USA)
            www.curtisvillechristian.org/MarkOne.html

            P.S. Over at TC-Alternate, I've added a bootleg English translation
            of K. Aland's 1969 essay "Comments on the End of Mark" to the Files.
            Since I don't read German, this is probably a mess in some places;
            nevertheless it may at least give non-German-readers some insight
            into Dr. Aland's approach to the subject. (And if anyone fluent in
            German offers corrections, I might incorporate then into a later
            revision of the translation.)
          • mjriii2003
            Dear Tommy, I guess I m on the other hand. To me the anarthrous IC, whether with or without hAPAX, is solely more intelligable in light of the early
            Message 5 of 25 , May 12 7:10 AM
            • 0 Attachment
              Dear Tommy,

              I guess I'm "on the other hand." To me the anarthrous IC, whether
              with or without hAPAX, is solely more intelligable in light of the
              early patristic exegesis that without qualm made this identification.

              The scribal alteration to KC - while not nullifying such an
              identification - does however limit the 'expressiveness' of St Jude
              somewhat.

              Doubtless, as the textual evidence shows, the transmission history is
              plagued by alterations. The question of the location of hAPAX is
              more interesting - next to this one.

              Cheers!

              Malcolm
              _______________




              --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, Tommy Wasserman <tomwas@...>
              wrote:
              >
              > Dear Leo
              >
              > The text below is an extract from my dissertation, The Epistle of
              Jude:
              > Its Text and Transmission, 262-266 (without footnotes). The whole
              thing
              > is available from Eisenbrauns. I don't know how all the fonts come
              out
              > in the e-mail, but I hope it is ok.
              >
              > Good luck!
              >
              > Tommy Wasserman
              >
              > 4) The subject of ἀπώλεσεν in the ὅτι-clause {e=i}
              (ECM •ιησους•/•[o]
              > κυριος)
              >
              > This is arguably the most difficult point of variation in the
              passage,
              > mainly because of the presence of the difficult reading
              Ἰησοῦς,
              > regarded by many commentators as virtually impossible.
              > The external evidence is distributed as follows:
              >
              > κυριος 01 044 1875 al
              > ο κυριος 18 35 307 326 424* 431 436 453 630 808 1505 1611
              1836 1837
              > 2138 2200 2495 ð" PsOec
              > (ο) κυριος S:H
              > ιησους 02 03 33C 81 323 424C 665 1739 pc K:S
              > ο ιησους 88 915
              > (ο) ιησους L:V
              > κυριος ιησους 1735
              > ο κυριος ιησους L241 L591 L1178
              > ο θεος 04C2V 442 621 623 1845 pc L:TVmss S:Ph
              > θεος χριστος P72
              >
              > The reading (ὁ) Ἰησοῦς has strongest support, but (ὁ)
              κύριος and ὁ θεός
              > are attested in important witnesses, showing that the text suffered
              > corruption early on. The singular reading of ð""72, θεὸς
              Χριστός, is
              > interesting, but definitely not original.
              >
              > If the better attested reading, Ἰησοῦς, is original, one
              has to account
              > for the idea that Jesus saved the people out of Egypt. The author
              > possibly could have made a typology between Joshua and Jesus (both
              > Ἰησοῦς in LXX) seeing both persons in one. This typology
              occurs already
              > in the Epistle of Barnabas (12:8-10) and became quite common among
              > subsequent patristic authors. Black objects to this interpretation,
              > since it would ascribe to Joshua the destruction of Israel in the
              > wilderness, as well as the keeping of the rebellious angels until
              the
              > judgment (Jude 5b-6). Bauckham is of the same opinion, but he
              points
              > out that the potential typology “could have attracted a scribe
              (who
              > could miss its pitfalls).”
              >
              > On the other hand, Osburn supplies an example from 1 En. 69:26-29,
              > where the Son of Man sits in judgment upon the imprisoned angels,
              and
              > he points out that, regardless of the presence of a Joshua-Jesus
              > typology, the author could still have Ἰησοῦς in mind,
              referring to the
              > preexistent activity of Christ in OT history (cf. John 12:41; 1 Cor
              > 10:4-5; 9; Heb 11:26). Further, Osburn suggests that Ἰησοῦς
              could have
              > been altered to κύριος or θεός because of the heated
              Christological
              > controversies during the third and fourth centuries. He goes far to
              > explain the variation between Χριστόν, κύριον and
              θεόν in 1 Cor 10:9
              > along these lines. Evidently, the passage in 1 Cor 10:9 gave rise
              to
              > controversy and may have led to modifications of the text. However,
              the
              > opposite motivation seems to have given rise to the reading ὁ
              κύριος
              > Ἰησοῦς attested here in Jude by some Byzantine witnesses
              (L241 L591
              > L1178; cf. 1735), which is certainly a development of ὁ
              κύριος (ð").
              > Nevertheless, the main question is whether 1 Cor 10:9 can really
              offer
              > an analogy to Jude 5, since the simple Ἰησοῦς is not
              attested in the
              > former passage, and the simple Χριστός is lacking in the
              latter.
              > Nowhere in the NT is the personal name Jesus applied to the
              > pre-existent Christ.
              >
              > Jarl E. Fossum suggests that the reading Ἰησοῦς refers to
              “an
              > intermediary figure whose basic constituent is the Angel of the
              Lord,”
              > but, at the same time, he admits that the reference could equally
              apply
              > to κύριος, especially in light of the Christological
              confession in v.
              > 4, (“our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ”). This brings us
              to the
              > next major objection to Ἰησοῦς raised on intrinsic grounds:
              Wachtel
              > points out that Ἰησοῦς stands in stark contrast to the full
              formula, ὁ
              > κύριος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, used with
              regularity by the author
              > throughout the epistle (vv. 4, 17, 21, 25 v.l.). I would like to
              adduce
              > another argument: among all witnesses to the text of 1 En. 1:9, the
              > author of Jude alone added the subject κύριος to the clause
              in the
              > citation in vv. 14-15. Undoubtedly, the text in Jude, written for
              > Christians, refers to the Parousia; the same expectation of the
              “Son of
              > Man” coming with his holy myriads for judgment is reflected in
              Matt
              > 25:31. Thus, we have another instance where the author consciously
              uses
              > the simple κύριος in reference to Jesus Christ, in a
              judgment-context.
              >
              > The reading ὁ θεός has weaker attestation but was defended
              as original
              > by Friedrich Spitta who thought that an indistinct Θ̅C̅ could
              have given
              > rise to Ι̅C̅ and Κ̅C̅. Spitta, who thought that 2 Peter was
              prior to Jude,
              > referred to the parallel in 2 Pet 2:4 (where God is said to keep
              the
              > rebellious angels until their judgment) in support of ὁ θεός
              in Jude.
              > However, in my view Jude is clearly prior, and the author of 2
              Peter,
              > like many scribes, changed an original κύριος in Jude to the
              more
              > natural subject, ὁ θεός.
              >
              > The singular reading of ð""72, θεὸς Χριστός (Θ̅C̅
              X̅P̅C̅), is not a
              > conflation, since no witnesses read Χριστός. The members of
              the UBS
              > Committee regarded it as a scribal blunder and speculated whether
              the
              > scribe intended to write θεοῦ Χριστός. Another
              possible scribal error
              > could have involved the confusion of Κ̅C̅ and X̅C̅.
              Admittedly, the scribe
              > of ð""72 used another form considered to be older (X̅P̅C̅) but
              both forms
              > were in use during this time (ca. 300 C.E.) and Κ̅C̅ could have
              been
              > present in the exemplar (read as X̅C̅)â€"evidently the scribe
              used
              > alternative forms of nomina sacra elsewhere. More significantly,
              the
              > committee did not consider similar theological or Christological
              > modifications elswhere in ð""72. For example, in the passage in 1
              Pet
              > 2:3, the scribe explicitly emphasizes the belief that Christ is
              Lord
              > and God, εἰ ἐγεύσασθε ἐπιστεύσατε ὅ
              τι Χριστός ὁ κύριος. The replacement
              > of χρηστός with Χριστός is shared by other Greek
              witnesses (018 019 049
              > 33 al) as well as the earliest witness to 1 Peter, the Coptic Codex
              > Schøyen, and is in line with a common wordplay in early
              Christianity,
              > i.e., the referring of LXX quotations in which God is called
              χρηστός to
              > Christ. ð""72 further inserts ἐπιστεύσατε, which
              specifies the ‘tasting’
              > as believing in Christ. In this way the scriptural allusion is now
              > turned into a confessional formula, “Christ is Lord,” that is
              to be
              > believed. Thus, in Jude 5, I think the scribe read the ambiguous
              κύριος
              > in his exemplar, and associated it to Χριστός (as in 1 Pet
              2:3) and
              > θεός in line with such identifications elsewhere (1 Pet 5.1; 2
              Pet
              > 1.2); a single Ἰησοῦς in the exemplar is less likely.
              >
              > In sum, the external evidence is divided and corruption occured
              early
              > on. The reading Ἰησοῦς has the best manuscript support and
              is indeed a
              > difficult reading to the point of impossibility. I find it very
              > unlikely that this early Christian author would write the simple
              Ἰησοῦς
              > if he had the pre-existent Christ in mind, especially in light of
              his
              > style, and of the whole context of vv. 5-7. The ambiguous (ὁ)
              κύριος,
              > on the other hand, could explain all other readings, which may
              > represent conscious alterations or else copying mistakes involving
              > nomina sacra. Moreover, the typology Jesus-Joshua which became
              popular
              > in the patristic era could have led a scribe to supply
              Ἰησοῦς. I prefer
              > the anarthrous form, κύριος, as original because of the
              weighty
              > attestation of Ἰησοῦς without the article.
              >
              > 9 maj 2008 kl. 17.50 skrev Percer, Leo R.:
              >
              > > Hello all:
              > >
              > >  
              > >
              > > I recently received a question from a student regarding
              alternative
              > > readings in Jude 5, and I do not have the necessary tools here to
              > > search the answer properly.  So I thought I’d ask you all!
              > >
              > > As many of you may know, Jude 5 contains an alternative reading
              in the
              > > section that reads (in English) “. . . that the Lord saved a
              people
              > > out of the land of Egypt, . . . “  (emphasis added).  The
              question is
              > > thisâ€"several newer English translations (ESV, NLT, NET) read
              “Jesus”
              > > where “Lord” is in the verse.  As I looked at the few texts
              I have
              > > handy, I noticed that the witnesses for “Jesus” are texts
              like A B 33
              > > 81 1241 1739 1881, etc., while the texts for “Lord” (kurios)
              include
              > > Aleph, B, K,  as witnesses.  The one that intrigues me is the
              witness
              > > p72 has “God Christ” (theos Christos) as a reading.  The
              question I
              > > have is thisâ€"which of these witnesses do you think is the most
              > > authoritative and why?   I mean, it appears to me that the
              earliest
              > > reading is “God Christ,” but it is not offered as the reading
              of
              > > choice in any edition of the Greek NT that I can find.  I guess
              I’m
              > > looking for help here until I can get home to my textual critical
              > > materials, but I’d appreciate hearing the opinions of this
              list. 
              > > Which reading would you think as the best and why?  Thanks!
              > >
              > > Leo Percer
              > >
              > >  
              > >
              > >  
              > >
              > >
              > >
              >
            • mjriii2003
              One of the more interesting significant features of this lectionary is the fact that it ends with Mk 16:8. This evidence will doubtless appear (or at least
              Message 6 of 25 , May 12 7:47 AM
              • 0 Attachment
                One of the more interesting significant features of this lectionary
                is the fact that it ends with Mk 16:8. This evidence will doubtless
                appear (or at least should appear) in the apparatus of NA28 to
                further support the early MSS reading that St Mark ended at vs 8.

                The fact that this 10th cent. lectionary minuscule witnesses to this
                reading/ending is quite remarkable.

                On another note the introductory lectionary reading ...BASILIKOS hOU
                hO IC HSQENEI as well as ERGAZESQAI MN THN BRWSIN THN MENOUSIN EIS
                THN ZWHN AIWNION...are glaring scribal blunders that the corrector
                himself overlooked.

                Praise God for CSNTM!

                Malcolm

                _____________________


                --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "James Snapp, Jr."
                <voxverax@...> wrote:
                >
                > Wieland ~
                >
                > I haven't had much time to study the images this weekend (it's
                > Mother's Day over here in the USA) but from what I was able to see,
                > it looks like a nice, neat Byzantine lectionary-portion for the
                > second Sunday after Easter (KURIAKE G, i.e., Sunday #3).
                >
                > Yours in Christ,
                >
                > James Snapp, Jr.
                > Minister, Curtisville Christian Church
                > Tipton, Indiana (USA)
                > www.curtisvillechristian.org/MarkOne.html
                >
                > P.S. Over at TC-Alternate, I've added a bootleg English
                translation
                > of K. Aland's 1969 essay "Comments on the End of Mark" to the
                Files.
                > Since I don't read German, this is probably a mess in some places;
                > nevertheless it may at least give non-German-readers some insight
                > into Dr. Aland's approach to the subject. (And if anyone fluent in
                > German offers corrections, I might incorporate then into a later
                > revision of the translation.)
                >
              • James Snapp, Jr.
                Dear Malcolm, Since this lectionary-fragment contains, as is stated in the upper margin of its first column, the readings for the second week after Easter, it
                Message 7 of 25 , May 12 2:27 PM
                • 0 Attachment
                  Dear Malcolm,

                  Since this lectionary-fragment contains, as is stated in the upper
                  margin of its first column, the readings for the second week after
                  Easter, it is Not Remarkable or surprising at all that its first
                  reading-unit ends with Mark 16:8. That is where that reading-section
                  is supposed to end in the normal Byzantine lectionary.

                  At R. Waltz's Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism, in the entry
                  for "Lectionaries," you can read a thorough list of Byzantine
                  lectionary reading-units. The fragment's contents align perfectly
                  with the list for the second week after Easter (because that's where
                  it's taken from!).

                  Yours in Christ,

                  James Snapp, Jr.
                  Minister, Curtisville Christian Church
                  Tipton, Indiana (USA)
                  www/curtisvillechristian.org/MarkOne.html

                  "James Snapp, Jr." wrote:
                  > >
                  > > Wieland ~
                  > >
                  > > I haven't had much time to study the images this weekend (it's
                  > > Mother's Day over here in the USA) but from what I was able to
                  see,
                  > > it looks like a nice, neat Byzantine lectionary-portion for the
                  > > second Sunday after Easter (KURIAKE G, i.e., Sunday #3).
                  > >
                  > > Yours in Christ,
                  > >
                  > > James Snapp, Jr.
                  > > Minister, Curtisville Christian Church
                  > > Tipton, Indiana (USA)
                  > > www.curtisvillechristian.org/MarkOne.html
                  > >
                  > > P.S. Over at TC-Alternate, I've added a bootleg English
                  > translation
                  > > of K. Aland's 1969 essay "Comments on the End of Mark" to the
                  > Files.
                  > > Since I don't read German, this is probably a mess in some
                  places;
                  > > nevertheless it may at least give non-German-readers some insight
                  > > into Dr. Aland's approach to the subject. (And if anyone fluent
                  in
                  > > German offers corrections, I might incorporate then into a later
                  > > revision of the translation.)
                  > >
                • malcolm robertson
                  James, The significance that St Mk 15:43-16:8 is read AFTER Easter in the Synaxarion illustrates adequately not only the original ending of this Gospel at
                  Message 8 of 25 , May 13 6:29 AM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    James,
                     
                    The significance that St Mk 15:43-16:8 is read AFTER Easter in the Synaxarion illustrates adequately not only the original ending of this Gospel at verse 8, but also reproduces the effect that the author himself wanted to produce in his readers by so concluding his narration.
                     
                    To reiterate, as far as text-critical issues are concerned, this MS should find its way into the apparatus of NA28.
                     
                    Malcolm
                    _________________


                  • James Snapp, Jr.
                    Dear Malcolm: Mark 16:9-20 s place in the lectionary on Ascension Day rather than at some point closer to Easter does not suggest that the Gospel of Mark
                    Message 9 of 25 , May 13 12:03 PM
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Dear Malcolm:

                      Mark 16:9-20's place in the lectionary on Ascension Day rather than at
                      some point closer to Easter does not suggest that the Gospel of Mark
                      originally ended at 16:8. Luke 24:36-53 is likewise located in the
                      lectionary on Ascension Day. Yet we do not deduce from this that the
                      Gospel of Luke originally ended at 24:35.

                      If you need further evidence that the Byzantine lectionary offers no
                      support for the view that the Gospel of Mark originally ended at 16:8,
                      I refer you to the 11 readings specially reserved for a group of early
                      morning services, the eothina: the first one consists of Matthew
                      28:16-20; the second one = Mk. 16:1-8; the third one = Mk. 16:9-20; the
                      fourth one = Lk. 24:1-12. (If you happen to have Metzger's "Text of
                      the NT" handy, you can see abbreviated notes about the end of the
                      second Eothina and the beginning og the third Eothina in Plate XI, the
                      picture of a page of MS 274.) It should be obvious to everyone that
                      attempts to make evidence such as this say that Mark ended at 16:8 when
                      the lectionary was made are completely illusory.

                      To reiterate: there is Nothing Remarkable about the fact that this
                      lectionary-fragment concludes the lection for the second Sunday after
                      Easter at the same place where all other Byzantine lectionaries
                      conclude the lection for the second Sunday after Easter! The actual
                      implication here is that when the lectionary-MS of which this fragment
                      is a portion was intact, it contained Mark 16:9-20 as a lection for
                      Ascension-Day. So there is no reason to add this witness to the
                      apparatus as if it says anything that the already-accounted-for
                      lectionary evidence does not say.

                      Yours in Christ,

                      James Snapp, Jr.
                      Minister, Curtisville Christian Church
                      Tipton, Indiana (USA)
                      www.curtisvillechristian.org/BasicTC.html

                      ----- malcolm robertson wrote:
                      James,

                      The significance that St Mk 15:43-16:8 is read AFTER Easter in the
                      Synaxarion illustrates adequately not only the original ending of this
                      Gospel at verse 8, but also reproduces the effect that the author
                      himself wanted to produce in his readers by so concluding his narration.

                      To reiterate, as far as text-critical issues are concerned, this MS
                      should find its way into the apparatus of NA28.

                      Malcolm
                    • Kevin P. Edgecomb
                      ... I write: Malcolm, the second Sunday after Easter is the Sunday of the Myrophoroi in Greek Orthodox usage, commemorating the Myrrh-bearing women who came to
                      Message 10 of 25 , May 13 1:10 PM
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Quoting malcolm robertson <mjriii2003@...>:
                        > The significance that St Mk 15:43-16:8 is read AFTER Easter in the
                        > Synaxarion illustrates adequately not only the original ending of
                        > this Gospel at verse 8, but also reproduces the effect that the
                        > author himself wanted to produce in his readers by so concluding his
                        > narration.

                        I write:
                        Malcolm, the second Sunday after Easter is the Sunday of the
                        Myrophoroi in Greek Orthodox usage, commemorating the Myrrh-bearing
                        women who came to Jesus' tomb, and found it empty. It's perfectly
                        fitting for the reading to end at Mark 16.8, as the focus is on them
                        as a group precisely to that point. The lectionary reading ending
                        there can thus only be viewed as equivocal.

                        Regards,
                        Kevin P. Edgecomb
                        Berkeley, California
                      • malcolm robertson
                        James, As usual we strongly disagree. According to information presented at the site The Encyclopedia of New Testament Textual Criticism by Robert B. Waltz
                        Message 11 of 25 , May 13 2:15 PM
                        • 0 Attachment
                          James,
                           
                          As usual we strongly disagree.  According to information presented at the site The Encyclopedia of New Testament Textual Criticism by Robert B. Waltz the verses 9-20 allegedly from St Mark's Gospel, are not to be found in the quite stable text of the Byzantine lectionary.
                           
                           
                          As I see it, and since the Church early on, developed such a lectionary, I see no reason to think that this stable environment does not reflect the early and true disposition of the composition of St Mark.
                           
                          This perspective is, of course, different from the situation and circumstances that the biblical MSS texts were subjected - evidenced by their own subjection to corruption from alien and even inimical quarters.  Remember I think vss 9-20 are of docetic/heretical origin?
                           
                          Besides, this inference as represented by the evidence is most reasonable. Yes, a most remarkable indicator indeed!
                           
                          Malcolm
                           
                          _____________________  


                          "James Snapp, Jr." <voxverax@...> wrote:
                          Dear Malcolm:

                          Mark 16:9-20's place in the lectionary on Ascension Day rather than at
                          some point closer to Easter does not suggest that the Gospel of Mark
                          originally ended at 16:8. Luke 24:36-53 is likewise located in the
                          lectionary on Ascension Day. Yet we do not deduce from this that the
                          Gospel of Luke originally ended at 24:35.

                          If you need further evidence that the Byzantine lectionary offers no
                          support for the view that the Gospel of Mark originally ended at 16:8,
                          I refer you to the 11 readings specially reserved for a group of early
                          morning services, the eothina: the first one consists of Matthew
                          28:16-20; the second one = Mk. 16:1-8; the third one = Mk. 16:9-20; the
                          fourth one = Lk. 24:1-12. (If you happen to have Metzger's "Text of
                          the NT" handy, you can see abbreviated notes about the end of the
                          second Eothina and the beginning og the third Eothina in Plate XI, the
                          picture of a page of MS 274.) It should be obvious to everyone that
                          attempts to make evidence such as this say that Mark ended at 16:8 when
                          the lectionary was made are completely illusory.

                          To reiterate: there is Nothing Remarkable about the fact that this
                          lectionary-fragment concludes the lection for the second Sunday after
                          Easter at the same place where all other Byzantine lectionaries
                          conclude the lection for the second Sunday after Easter! The actual
                          implication here is that when the lectionary-MS of which this fragment
                          is a portion was intact, it contained Mark 16:9-20 as a lection for
                          Ascension-Day. So there is no reason to add this witness to the
                          apparatus as if it says anything that the already-accounted- for
                          lectionary evidence does not say.

                          Yours in Christ,

                          James Snapp, Jr.
                          Minister, Curtisville Christian Church
                          Tipton, Indiana (USA)
                          www.curtisvillechri stian.org/ BasicTC.html

                          ----- malcolm robertson wrote:
                          James,

                          The significance that St Mk 15:43-16:8 is read AFTER Easter in the
                          Synaxarion illustrates adequately not only the original ending of this
                          Gospel at verse 8, but also reproduces the effect that the author
                          himself wanted to produce in his readers by so concluding his narration.

                          To reiterate, as far as text-critical issues are concerned, this MS
                          should find its way into the apparatus of NA28.

                          Malcolm




                        • Steve Puluka
                          ... I m not able to find the reference on this page to comment on it directly. But as a cantor in a parish that uses the Byzantine lectionary I can assure you
                          Message 12 of 25 , May 14 3:43 AM
                          • 0 Attachment
                            On May 13, 2008, at 5:15 PM, malcolm robertson wrote:

                            > As usual we strongly disagree. According to information presented
                            > at the site The Encyclopedia of New Testament Textual Criticism by
                            > Robert B. Waltz the verses 9-20 allegedly from St Mark's Gospel,
                            > are not to be found in the quite stable text of the Byzantine
                            > lectionary.
                            >
                            > http://www.skypoint.com/members/waltzmn/Lectionary.html#Text
                            >
                            > As I see it, and since the Church early on, developed such a
                            > lectionary, I see no reason to think that this stable environment
                            > does not reflect the early and true disposition of the composition
                            > of St Mark.


                            I'm not able to find the reference on this page to comment on it
                            directly. But as a cantor in a parish that uses the Byzantine
                            lectionary I can assure you that Jim's comments are correct.

                            This pericope from Mark is assigned to two places in the lectionary
                            cycle

                            One of the eleven rotating Matins gospels used between Pentecost and
                            Easter
                            The Matins Gospel assigned to Ascension Thursday

                            The lectionary development does span many centuries and most
                            liturgists will say the final form we have now was not finalized till
                            sometime between the 7th and 9th century. So the value of the
                            evidence is really only on the inclusion side not the exclusion. We
                            really don't know how fast and where our reading cycle was
                            developed. In other words the presence of this pericope in early
                            Gospel books would be telling but the absence is not conclusive.

                            In any case Jim's point is without a lectionary section for Ascension
                            Thursday or the eleven matins Gospels one would not expect to even
                            see this pericope in a lectionary. And in most Gospel books this
                            would only appear in a single one of these places with a cross
                            reference from the other.

                            This site gives the general lectionary but does not include the
                            eleven matins gospels

                            http://www.archeparchy.ca/liturgy/lectionary.htm

                            Also note that the Byzantine lectionary is only one of several in
                            use. The Copts in Egypt, the Syrian Church and the Latin tradition
                            all have a different cycle (to name only the ones I know).

                            Steve Puluka
                            MA, Theology Duquesne University
                            Cantor Holy Ghost Church
                            Carpatho-Rusyn tradition
                            Mckees Rocks, PA
                            http://puluka.com
                          • William Warren
                            Mark 16:9-20 in the Synaxarion lectionary cycle, one of the oldest that we can trace in the Greek tradition, is read as a full unit on Thursday of the fifth
                            Message 13 of 25 , May 14 4:41 AM
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Mark 16:9-20 in the Synaxarion lectionary cycle, one of the oldest that we can trace in the Greek tradition, is read as a full unit on Thursday of the fifth week after Easter.  Here is a common entry for it (sorry if the Greek, SPIonic, doesn't transfer for some).

                              Mark 16:9-20                        th e8 thj analhyewj eij ton orqron            Thursday of the fifth week after Easter


                              paz, 


                              Bill Warren, Ph.D.

                              Director of the Center for New Testament Textual Studies

                              Landrum P. Leavell, II, Professor of New Testament and Greek

                              New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary




                              On May 14, 2008, at 5:43 AM, Steve Puluka wrote:

                              On May 13, 2008, at 5:15 PM, malcolm robertson wrote:

                              > As usual we strongly disagree. According to information presented 
                              > at the site The Encyclopedia of New Testament Textual Criticism by 
                              > Robert B. Waltz the verses 9-20 allegedly from St Mark's Gospel, 
                              > are not to be found in the quite stable text of the Byzantine 
                              > lectionary.
                              .  .  .


                              I'm not able to find the reference on this page to comment on it 
                              directly. But as a cantor in a parish that uses the Byzantine 
                              lectionary I can assure you that Jim's comments are correct.

                              This pericope from Mark is assigned to two places in the lectionary 
                              cycle

                              One of the eleven rotating Matins gospels used between Pentecost and 
                              Easter
                              The Matins Gospel assigned to Ascension Thursday

                              .  .  .

                              Also note that the Byzantine lectionary is only one of several in 
                              use. The Copts in Egypt, the Syrian Church and the Latin tradition 
                              all have a different cycle (to name only the ones I know).

                              Steve Puluka
                              MA, Theology Duquesne University
                              Cantor Holy Ghost Church
                              Carpatho-Rusyn tradition
                              Mckees Rocks, PA
                              http://puluka. com


                              =
                            • Michael Marlowe
                              ... The lectionary of the Western (Latin) tradition also includes Mark 16:14-20, as a reading for Ascension Day. The readings are listed here:
                              Message 14 of 25 , May 14 6:11 AM
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Steve Puluka wrote:
                                > This site gives the general lectionary but does not
                                > include the eleven matins gospels
                                >
                                > http://www.archeparchy.ca/liturgy/lectionary.htm
                                >
                                > Also note that the Byzantine lectionary is only one
                                > of several in use. The Copts in Egypt, the Syrian
                                > Church and the Latin tradition all have a different
                                > cycle (to name only the ones I know).

                                The lectionary of the Western (Latin) tradition also includes Mark
                                16:14-20, as a reading for Ascension Day. The readings are listed here:

                                http://www.bible-researcher.com/lectionary1.html

                                Michael Marlowe
                              • James Snapp, Jr.
                                Malcolm, And as usual, you are completely mistaken! Look more closely at the page about lectionaries at R. Waltz s ENTTC: in the Synaxarion- chart, the
                                Message 15 of 25 , May 14 6:51 AM
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Malcolm,

                                  And as usual, you are completely mistaken! Look more closely at the
                                  page about lectionaries at R. Waltz's ENTTC: in the Synaxarion-
                                  chart, the Gospel-reading for Ascension Day (in the week that is
                                  begun by the fifth Sunday after Easter) consists of Mark 16:9-20 and
                                  Luke 24:36-53. Further down the same page, just before
                                  the "Menologion" heading, the 11 Eothina are listed. The third one
                                  is Mark 16:9-20.

                                  (At least you can take heart that you're not alone, Malcolm: Dr.
                                  James A. Brooks, on p. 272 of his 1991 commentary on Mark in the The
                                  New American Commentary series, misinformed his readers that the text
                                  of Mark ends at 16:8 "in most Greek lectionaries (apparently because
                                  the lectionaries reflect older texts).")

                                  MR3: "Remember I think vss 9-20 are of docetic/heretical origin?"

                                  Yes, (sigh) I remember. Those sneaky docetists sure pulled a fast
                                  one on Justin and Irenaeus, eh.

                                  MR3: "Yes, a most remarkable indicator indeed!"

                                  Look, a fragment is a fragment. Attempting to use this lectionary-
                                  fragment as evidence that its text of Mark ended at 16:8 would be
                                  like attempting to use P52 as evidence that its text ended at John
                                  20:31. I again mention the heading at the top of the first
                                  column: "th _B_ ths _G_ ebdo," which means, "The second reading for
                                  the third week." And that is the unit which begins in that column --
                                  just as we should expect in a Byzantine lectionary which, when
                                  intact, included Mark 16:9-20 for Ascension-Day and as the third
                                  Eothinon.

                                  Say, while the lectionary specialists are assembled here: does
                                  anyone know what is the earliest MS to include, or make reference to,
                                  the eleven eothina?

                                  Yours in Christ,

                                  James Snapp, Jr.
                                  Minister, Curtisville Christian Church
                                  Tipton, Indiana (USA)
                                  www.curtisvillechristian.org/CodexOne.html
                                • malcolm robertson
                                  Thanks Steve and Kevin and William and James for your remarks, but what I was referring to was the oldest form of the lectionary and not the later
                                  Message 16 of 25 , May 14 7:00 AM
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Thanks Steve and Kevin and William and James for your remarks, but what I was referring to was the "oldest form" of the lectionary and not the later development of it - either in the typikon or within the Greek Orthodox Church.
                                     
                                    Further, although I am not a liturgical scholar, it seems that the further development would have arose within and with the rise of monasticism - at least by the 5th cent.
                                     
                                    The fact that "the Lord's day" readings would have been employed first as the lectionary calendar developed, would tend to lend itself to the strong presumption that this reading is in fact early.
                                     
                                    Again, its location in the lectionary cycle 'AFTER Easter' also affords another significant example of the purpose the biblical author had in mind and his motive for ending his Gospel narrative with verse 8.
                                     
                                    Kevin, yes the tribute and celebration of the women is celebrated on this day in the present day lectionary (GOC), but this celebration is a later additional nuance isn't it?
                                     
                                    Malcolm
                                     
                                    _______________ 

                                    Steve Puluka <steve@...> wrote:
                                    On May 13, 2008, at 5:15 PM, malcolm robertson wrote:

                                    > As usual we strongly disagree. According to information presented
                                    > at the site The Encyclopedia of New Testament Textual Criticism by
                                    > Robert B. Waltz the verses 9-20 allegedly from St Mark's Gospel,
                                    > are not to be found in the quite stable text of the Byzantine
                                    > lectionary.
                                    >
                                    > http://www.skypoint .com/members/ waltzmn/Lectiona ry.html#Text
                                    >
                                    > As I see it, and since the Church early on, developed such a
                                    > lectionary, I see no reason to think that this stable environment
                                    > does not reflect the early and true disposition of the composition
                                    > of St Mark.

                                    I'm not able to find the reference on this page to comment on it
                                    directly. But as a cantor in a parish that uses the Byzantine
                                    lectionary I can assure you that Jim's comments are correct.

                                    This pericope from Mark is assigned to two places in the lectionary
                                    cycle

                                    One of the eleven rotating Matins gospels used between Pentecost and
                                    Easter
                                    The Matins Gospel assigned to Ascension Thursday

                                    The lectionary development does span many centuries and most
                                    liturgists will say the final form we have now was not finalized till
                                    sometime between the 7th and 9th century. So the value of the
                                    evidence is really only on the inclusion side not the exclusion. We
                                    really don't know how fast and where our reading cycle was
                                    developed. In other words the presence of this pericope in early
                                    Gospel books would be telling but the absence is not conclusive.

                                    In any case Jim's point is without a lectionary section for Ascension
                                    Thursday or the eleven matins Gospels one would not expect to even
                                    see this pericope in a lectionary. And in most Gospel books this
                                    would only appear in a single one of these places with a cross
                                    reference from the other.

                                    This site gives the general lectionary but does not include the
                                    eleven matins gospels

                                    http://www.archepar chy.ca/liturgy/ lectionary. htm

                                    Also note that the Byzantine lectionary is only one of several in
                                    use. The Copts in Egypt, the Syrian Church and the Latin tradition
                                    all have a different cycle (to name only the ones I know).

                                    Steve Puluka
                                    MA, Theology Duquesne University
                                    Cantor Holy Ghost Church
                                    Carpatho-Rusyn tradition
                                    Mckees Rocks, PA
                                    http://puluka. com



                                  • Kevin P. Edgecomb
                                    Malcolm Robertson wrote: Kevin, yes the tribute and celebration of the women is celebrated on this day in the present day lectionary (GOC), but this
                                    Message 17 of 25 , May 14 6:20 PM
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Malcolm Robertson wrote:
                                      Kevin, yes the tribute and celebration of the women is celebrated on this
                                      day in the present day lectionary (GOC), but this celebration is a later
                                      additional nuance isn't it?

                                      I write:
                                      Unfortunately the present state of liturgical studies is unable to do more
                                      than suggest, as do the ascriptions to various of the hymns composed for the
                                      liturgies of Myrrhbearers' Sunday/Week, that the commemoration was
                                      established at its present liturgical date, the third Sunday of Pascha, by
                                      the mid-fifth century. So, not too early, but not quite late, either. It
                                      very like antedated this time, however. The second Sunday of Pascha is
                                      commemorated as St Thomas Sunday, following the chronology of the NT itself
                                      in John 20. The commemorations of the following Sunday then return to other
                                      characters of the Pascha, based on and reading the appropriate texts,
                                      including the re-use of some of the hymnography of Holy Week. It would not
                                      have been the case that at this point any part of Mark 16.9-20 would have
                                      been utilized. As Mk 16.9-20 would is material more appropriate for
                                      Ascension, it is no surprise to find it used there instead.

                                      The origins of the Byzantine lectionary are unknown. The contenders are the
                                      Mar Saba Monastery and the Studion Monastery, with the former favored by a
                                      certain margin, last I read on it at any length. This may have changed.
                                      "Late seventh/early eighth" is probably the best guess for date of origin,
                                      an intriguing date as this was also the period of residence of St John
                                      Damascene at Mar Saba. It's important to note that of the books of the NT
                                      only the Apocalypse is lacking readings in this lectionary. As it was only
                                      about 1000 AD that this text came into general acceptance as truly and fully
                                      canonical in Greek-speaking regions, we would have to consider the
                                      lectionary to have antedated its full and undisputed canonization. Even
                                      these conclusions are only tentative, being based on the paleography of the
                                      surviving oldest lectionary fragments and on dating the hands which have
                                      added lesson indication markings to continuous manuscripts, neither of which
                                      yield precise dates.


                                      Regards,
                                      Kevin P. Edgecomb
                                      Berkeley, California
                                    • Jovial
                                      The absence of Mark 16:9-20 from any lectionary dated at 10th century hardly proves that it is a late addition when it is in manuscripts from much earlier
                                      Message 18 of 25 , May 14 6:39 PM
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        The absence of Mark 16:9-20 from any lectionary dated at 10th century hardly 'proves' that it is a late addition when it is in manuscripts from much earlier time period than that.  No lectionary has every passage and hardly trumps the presence/absence of an actual manuscript.  There's a wide multitude of reasons various groups may have chosen to leave a passage out of a lectionary.  They may not have considered it important enough to include.  They may have discovered that reading it caused some people to think they needed to pick up snakes, so they quit reading it due to confusion.    They may have simply felt like it didn't fit the theme of any portion or that there were just too many other more important passages and this one was more for those who wanted to read it all.  There's a whole lot of various reasons, and I guess a few argumentative people will take issue with the specific reasons I've cited here and thereby miss the point.  There's just a logical fallacy in trying to argue that a 10th century omission from a document not expected to be exhaustive (like a lectionary) somehow is more important than an 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th century inclusion in a document that is expected to be exhaustive (like a manuscript) and it is really kind of straining to try and hear an argument made from that kind of logical fallacy.
                                         
                                        Joe
                                         
                                         
                                         
                                        ----- Original Message -----
                                        Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 4:15 PM
                                        Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Re: Lectionary Fragment at CSNTM

                                        James,
                                         
                                        As usual we strongly disagree.  According to information presented at the site The Encyclopedia of New Testament Textual Criticism by Robert B. Waltz the verses 9-20 allegedly from St Mark's Gospel, are not to be found in the quite stable text of the Byzantine lectionary.
                                         
                                         
                                        As I see it, and since the Church early on, developed such a lectionary, I see no reason to think that this stable environment does not reflect the early and true disposition of the composition of St Mark.
                                         
                                        This perspective is, of course, different from the situation and circumstances that the biblical MSS texts were subjected - evidenced by their own subjection to corruption from alien and even inimical quarters.  Remember I think vss 9-20 are of docetic/heretical origin?
                                         
                                        Besides, this inference as represented by the evidence is most reasonable. Yes, a most remarkable indicator indeed!
                                         
                                        Malcolm
                                         
                                        ____________ _________  


                                        "James Snapp, Jr." <voxverax@yahoo. com> wrote:
                                        Dear Malcolm:

                                        Mark 16:9-20's place in the lectionary on Ascension Day rather than at
                                        some point closer to Easter does not suggest that the Gospel of Mark
                                        originally ended at 16:8. Luke 24:36-53 is likewise located in the
                                        lectionary on Ascension Day. Yet we do not deduce from this that the
                                        Gospel of Luke originally ended at 24:35.

                                        If you need further evidence that the Byzantine lectionary offers no
                                        support for the view that the Gospel of Mark originally ended at 16:8,
                                        I refer you to the 11 readings specially reserved for a group of early
                                        morning services, the eothina: the first one consists of Matthew
                                        28:16-20; the second one = Mk. 16:1-8; the third one = Mk. 16:9-20; the
                                        fourth one = Lk. 24:1-12. (If you happen to have Metzger's "Text of
                                        the NT" handy, you can see abbreviated notes about the end of the
                                        second Eothina and the beginning og the third Eothina in Plate XI, the
                                        picture of a page of MS 274.) It should be obvious to everyone that
                                        attempts to make evidence such as this say that Mark ended at 16:8 when
                                        the lectionary was made are completely illusory.

                                        To reiterate: there is Nothing Remarkable about the fact that this
                                        lectionary-fragment concludes the lection for the second Sunday after
                                        Easter at the same place where all other Byzantine lectionaries
                                        conclude the lection for the second Sunday after Easter! The actual
                                        implication here is that when the lectionary-MS of which this fragment
                                        is a portion was intact, it contained Mark 16:9-20 as a lection for
                                        Ascension-Day. So there is no reason to add this witness to the
                                        apparatus as if it says anything that the already-accounted- for
                                        lectionary evidence does not say.

                                        Yours in Christ,

                                        James Snapp, Jr.
                                        Minister, Curtisville Christian Church
                                        Tipton, Indiana (USA)
                                        www.curtisvillechri stian.org/ BasicTC.html

                                        ----- malcolm robertson wrote:
                                        James,

                                        The significance that St Mk 15:43-16:8 is read AFTER Easter in the
                                        Synaxarion illustrates adequately not only the original ending of this
                                        Gospel at verse 8, but also reproduces the effect that the author
                                        himself wanted to produce in his readers by so concluding his narration.

                                        To reiterate, as far as text-critical issues are concerned, this MS
                                        should find its way into the apparatus of NA28.

                                        Malcolm




                                      • crj560
                                        Kevin wrote: The origins of the Byzantine lectionary are unknown. The contenders are the Mar Saba Monastery and the Studion Monastery, with the former favored
                                        Message 19 of 25 , May 15 2:05 AM
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Kevin wrote:

                                          "The origins of the Byzantine lectionary are unknown. The contenders are the
                                          Mar Saba Monastery and the Studion Monastery, with the former favored by a
                                          certain margin, last I read on it at any length. This may have changed.
                                          "Late seventh/early eighth" is probably the best guess for date of origin,
                                          an intriguing date as this was also the period of residence of St John
                                          Damascene at Mar Saba."


                                          I am keen to know what books or articles you read when researching the origins of the
                                          Byzantine lectionary in particular where you read about the place of origin and the possible
                                          date?


                                          Chris
                                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.