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

"claims" of Milne and Skeat

Expand Messages
  • Jeffrey B. Gibson
    I just read this most interesting (but wholly undocumented) claim at: http://www.lamblion.net/Articles/ScottJones/false_citations.htm ******** The critical
    Message 1 of 20 , Mar 11 11:21 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      I just read this most interesting (but wholly undocumented) claim at:

      http://www.lamblion.net/Articles/ScottJones/false_citations.htm

      ********

      The critical apparatuses of NA/UBS are SATURATED with false citations.
      For example, there are no less than SIX FALSE CITATIONS by NA/UBS in 1
      Timothy 3:16 alone. Five uncials are falsely cited in support of OS
      instead
      of THEOS in 1 Timothy 3:16. These uncials are Aleph A C F G.

      Four of these uncials read THEOS in the original hand, whereas
      ultraviolet  technology demonstrated that most of the corrections of
      Aleph, ESPECIALLY those with doctrinal significance, were made before
      Aleph ever left the
      scriptorium. Tischendorf stated arbitrarily and without foundation that
      Aleph’s corrector operated on this passage in the 12th century. The
      technological evidence produced by Milne & Skeat in the mid-twentieth
      century refuted Tischendorf. In fact, the first scribe of Aleph simply
      copied from his exemplars without deviation. Then, before Aleph ever
      left the scriptorium, the same scribe or a fellow scribe came back and
      went over the manuscript, correcting as many obvious errors as he
      determined to exist. In other words, it is most
      probable that Aleph’s reading of THEOS is a correction contemporary with
      the original hand of the manuscript itself, and a correction
      contemporary with the original hand of the manuscript is more accurate
      than the original hand. Either way, the assertion that the corrector was
      a 12th century hand is dubious, at best.

      **********

      Does anyone know what the "technological evidence produced by Milne and
      Skeat" is that this author is referring to?  Do they ever make the
      claims attributed to them above?  If so, where?

      Yours,

      Jeffrey

      --
       
      Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)

      1500 W. Pratt Blvd. #1
      Chicago, IL 60626

      jgibson000@...
       
    • Jan Krans
      ... Do you really want to interact in some way or another with someone who writes sentences such as the following: In fact, these modern scholars are being
      Message 2 of 20 , Mar 12 3:20 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        Jeffrey Gibson wrote:

        > I just read this most interesting (but wholly undocumented) claim at:
        > http://www.lamblion.net/Articles/ScottJones/false_citations.htm

        Do you really want to interact in some way or another with someone who
        writes sentences such as the following: "In fact, these modern scholars
        are being WILLFULLY DECEITFUL, for these vipers who perpetrated this
        PROPAGANDA know better" (capitalization original)? The existence of such
        sites and internet pages is an interesting sociological phenomenon. Let us
        leave it at that.

        > Does anyone know what the "technological evidence produced by Milne an
        > Skeat" is that this author is referring to? Do they ever make the
        > claims attributed to them above? If so, where?

        If this could be called a reference, it would be to H.J.M. Milne and T.C.
        Skeat, _Scribes and correctors of the Codex Sinaiticus_, London, 1938, in
        which Tischendorf's analysis of the correctors was of course somewhat
        corrected and refined. Perhaps someone desires to check whether Milne and
        Skeat wrote anything in particular on 1 Tim 3:16 OS.

        And FWIW: The TC Ebind collection has Tischendorf's pseudo-facsimile,
        which even contains an image (not typeset) of the important part of 1 Tim
        3:16 (part of table XVII in the first volume; if the ebind link works
        (don't forgot the "any" & "any"):
        http://alpha.reltech.org:8083/Ebind/docs/BibleMSS/TischendorfSinv1/t017a.jpg;
        lower left corner).

        Greetings,
        Jan Krans
        Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam
      • P.J. Williams
        I cannot comment on the issue of Milne and Skeat. I can observe that from my own experience NA27 is relatively accurate when citing Greek witnesses. The main
        Message 3 of 20 , Mar 12 6:33 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          I cannot comment on the issue of Milne and Skeat. I can observe that from
          my own experience NA27 is relatively accurate when citing Greek witnesses.
          The main problems that I see are in the citation of versions, especially
          Syriac and Coptic. A recent estimate I made of the accuracy of citation of
          the Peshitta in Romans led me to conclude that 28% of the references were
          erroneous. I list a couple of hundred errors in Syriac citations of the
          Gospels at:

          http://www.abdn.ac.uk/divinity/williams/EarlySyriacTranslationTechniqueAppendices.pdf

          which gives the appendices of my book entitled _Early Syriac Translation
          Technique and the Textual Criticism of the Greek Gospels_ (Gorgias Press,
          2004). My investigations on the Coptic are only just beginning, though I
          have a brief article in the _Journal of Coptic Studies_ on NA27's citations
          due out next year. You can expect more from this source. My estimate is
          that Latin is the most accurately cited version, and that Coptic and Syriac
          versions (excluding the Harclean) are often cited in error.

          Best wishes,

          Pete



          At 13:21 11/03/2005 -0600, you wrote:

          >I just read this most interesting (but wholly undocumented) claim at:
          >
          ><http://www.lamblion.net/Articles/ScottJones/false_citations.htm>http://www.lamblion.net/Articles/ScottJones/false_citations.htm
          >
          >********
          >
          >The critical apparatuses of NA/UBS are SATURATED with false citations.
          >For example, there are no less than SIX FALSE CITATIONS by NA/UBS in 1
          >Timothy 3:16 alone. Five uncials are falsely cited in support of OS
          >instead
          >of THEOS in 1 Timothy 3:16. These uncials are Aleph A C F G.
          >
          >Four of these uncials read THEOS in the original hand, whereas
          >ultraviolet technology demonstrated that most of the corrections of
          >Aleph, ESPECIALLY those with doctrinal significance, were made before
          >Aleph ever left the
          >scriptorium. Tischendorf stated arbitrarily and without foundation that
          >Aleph's corrector operated on this passage in the 12th century. The
          >technological evidence produced by Milne & Skeat in the mid-twentieth
          >century refuted Tischendorf. In fact, the first scribe of Aleph simply
          >copied from his exemplars without deviation. Then, before Aleph ever
          >left the scriptorium, the same scribe or a fellow scribe came back and
          >went over the manuscript, correcting as many obvious errors as he
          >determined to exist. In other words, it is most
          >probable that Aleph's reading of THEOS is a correction contemporary with
          >the original hand of the manuscript itself, and a correction
          >contemporary with the original hand of the manuscript is more accurate
          >than the original hand. Either way, the assertion that the corrector was
          >a 12th century hand is dubious, at best.
          >
          >**********
          >
          >Does anyone know what the "technological evidence produced by Milne and
          >Skeat" is that this author is referring to? Do they ever make the
          >claims attributed to them above? If so, where?
          >
          >Yours,
          >
          >Jeffrey
          >
          >--
          >
          >Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)
          >
          >1500 W. Pratt Blvd. #1
          >Chicago, IL 60626
          >
          >jgibson000@...
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
          >ADVERTISEMENT
          ><http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=1297sg1ej/M=298184.6018725.7038619.3001176/D=groups/S=1706113926:HM/EXP=1110695978/A=2593423/R=0/SIG=11el9gslf/*http://www.netflix.com/Default?mqso=60190075>3ce7b7.jpg
          >3ce843.jpg
          >
          >
          >----------
          >Yahoo! Groups Links
          > * To visit your group on the web, go to:
          > *
          > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/textualcriticism/>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/textualcriticism/
          >
          > *
          > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          > *
          > <mailto:textualcriticism-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>textualcriticism-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
          >
          > *
          > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
          > <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>Yahoo! Terms of Service.
        • mjriii2003
          Dear Jeffery, It will be a welcomed relief when exegetes - whether real, would- be s or wanta be s - recognize that they are prating about nothing. The extra
          Message 4 of 20 , Mar 12 6:41 AM
          • 0 Attachment
            Dear Jeffery,

            It will be a welcomed relief when exegetes - whether real, would-
            be's or wanta be's - recognize that they are prating about nothing.
            The "extra linguistic referent" of theos, hos, or hon is the entire
            preceding verse's subject - "megas estin to ths eusebeias musthrion."
            Doubtless, Paul's original linguistic choice is important, but the
            One referenced does not nor has not changed. Consider the
            antecedent of "en hw" in 1 P 3:19 which is vs 18 in toto.

            Cordially in Christ,

            Malcolm

            --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "Jeffrey B. Gibson"
            <jgibson000@c...> wrote:
            >
            > I just read this most interesting (but wholly undocumented) claim
            at:
            >
            > http://www.lamblion.net/Articles/ScottJones/false_citations.htm
            >
            > ********
            >
            > The critical apparatuses of NA/UBS are SATURATED with false
            citations.
            > For example, there are no less than SIX FALSE CITATIONS by NA/UBS
            in 1
            > Timothy 3:16 alone. Five uncials are falsely cited in support of OS
            > instead
            > of THEOS in 1 Timothy 3:16. These uncials are Aleph A C F G.
            >
            > Four of these uncials read THEOS in the original hand, whereas
            > ultraviolet  technology demonstrated that most of the
            corrections
            of
            > Aleph, ESPECIALLY those with doctrinal significance, were made
            before
            > Aleph ever left the
            > scriptorium. Tischendorf stated arbitrarily and without foundation
            that
            > Aleph's corrector operated on this passage in the 12th century.
            The
            > technological evidence produced by Milne & Skeat in the mid-
            twentieth
            > century refuted Tischendorf. In fact, the first scribe of Aleph
            simply
            > copied from his exemplars without deviation. Then, before Aleph
            ever
            > left the scriptorium, the same scribe or a fellow scribe came back
            and
            > went over the manuscript, correcting as many obvious errors as he
            > determined to exist. In other words, it is most
            > probable that Aleph's reading of THEOS is a correction
            contemporary with
            > the original hand of the manuscript itself, and a correction
            > contemporary with the original hand of the manuscript is more
            accurate
            > than the original hand. Either way, the assertion that the
            corrector was
            > a 12th century hand is dubious, at best.
            >
            > **********
            >
            > Does anyone know what the "technological evidence produced by
            Milne and
            > Skeat" is that this author is referring to?  Do they ever make
            the
            > claims attributed to them above?  If so, where?
            >
            > Yours,
            >
            > Jeffrey
            >
            > --
            >  
            > Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)
            >
            > 1500 W. Pratt Blvd. #1
            > Chicago, IL 60626
            >
            > jgibson000@c...
            >  
          • Dave Washburn
            ... I can t help wondering why the page says POIMHN at the top, which seems to suggest that it s actually a page from Shepherd of Hermas rather than 1
            Message 5 of 20 , Mar 12 8:57 AM
            • 0 Attachment
              On Saturday 12 March 2005 04:20, Jan Krans wrote:
              > Jeffrey Gibson wrote:
              > > I just read this most interesting (but wholly undocumented) claim at:
              > > http://www.lamblion.net/Articles/ScottJones/false_citations.htm
              >
              > Do you really want to interact in some way or another with someone who
              > writes sentences such as the following: "In fact, these modern scholars
              > are being WILLFULLY DECEITFUL, for these vipers who perpetrated this
              > PROPAGANDA know better" (capitalization original)? The existence of such
              > sites and internet pages is an interesting sociological phenomenon. Let us
              > leave it at that.
              >
              > > Does anyone know what the "technological evidence produced by Milne an
              > > Skeat" is that this author is referring to? Do they ever make the
              > > claims attributed to them above? If so, where?
              >
              > If this could be called a reference, it would be to H.J.M. Milne and T.C.
              > Skeat, _Scribes and correctors of the Codex Sinaiticus_, London, 1938, in
              > which Tischendorf's analysis of the correctors was of course somewhat
              > corrected and refined. Perhaps someone desires to check whether Milne and
              > Skeat wrote anything in particular on 1 Tim 3:16 OS.
              >
              > And FWIW: The TC Ebind collection has Tischendorf's pseudo-facsimile,
              > which even contains an image (not typeset) of the important part of 1 Tim
              > 3:16 (part of table XVII in the first volume; if the ebind link works
              > (don't forgot the "any" & "any"):
              > http://alpha.reltech.org:8083/Ebind/docs/BibleMSS/TischendorfSinv1/t017a.jp
              >g; lower left corner).

              I can't help wondering why the page says "POIMHN" at the top, which seems to
              suggest that it's actually a page from Shepherd of Hermas rather than 1
              Timothy?

              --
              Dave Washburn
              http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
              "No good. Hit on head." -Gronk
            • Jan Krans
              ... In his table XVII, Tischendorf actually collects a number of images from different part of the codex, the largest part, at the top, indeed being from
              Message 6 of 20 , Mar 12 10:34 AM
              • 0 Attachment
                Dave Washburn wrote:

                > I can't help wondering why the page says "POIMHN" at the top, which
                > seems to suggest that it's actually a page from Shepherd of Hermas
                > rather than 1
                > Timothy?

                In his table XVII, Tischendorf actually collects a number of images from
                different part of the codex, the largest part, at the top, indeed being
                from Hermas.

                Greetings,
                Jan Krans
                Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam
              • Peter Head
                Hi Pete, Are you talking about inaccurate citations here or rather inappropriate ones? The Syriac may be cited in error (because the Greek text underlying
                Message 7 of 20 , Mar 14 4:35 AM
                • 0 Attachment
                  Hi Pete,

                  Are you talking about inaccurate citations here or rather inappropriate
                  ones? The Syriac may be 'cited in error' (because the Greek text underlying
                  the Syriac cannot be determined with confidence) even when it is cited
                  accurately (e.g. if one consulted the Syriac one would find the Syriac text
                  accurately represented).

                  These are two different types of error. One is an error at the level of
                  failure of principle, the other is an error of inaccurate citation.

                  I presume you mean on the Peshitta of Romans that 28% of citations in the
                  NA apparatus fail to live up the principle that the Syriac should only be
                  cited when its Greek Vorlage can be determined with confidence.

                  Cheerilly pi

                  Pete




                  At 02:33 PM 3/12/05, P.J. Williams wrote:
                  >I cannot comment on the issue of Milne and Skeat. I can observe that from
                  >my own experience NA27 is relatively accurate when citing Greek witnesses.
                  >The main problems that I see are in the citation of versions, especially
                  >Syriac and Coptic. A recent estimate I made of the accuracy of citation of
                  >the Peshitta in Romans led me to conclude that 28% of the references were
                  >erroneous. I list a couple of hundred errors in Syriac citations of the
                  >Gospels at:
                  >
                  >http://www.abdn.ac.uk/divinity/williams/EarlySyriacTranslationTechniqueAppendices.pdf
                  >
                  >which gives the appendices of my book entitled _Early Syriac Translation
                  >Technique and the Textual Criticism of the Greek Gospels_ (Gorgias Press,
                  >2004). My investigations on the Coptic are only just beginning, though I
                  >have a brief article in the _Journal of Coptic Studies_ on NA27's
                  >citations due out next year. You can expect more from this source. My
                  >estimate is that Latin is the most accurately cited version, and that
                  >Coptic and Syriac versions (excluding the Harclean) are often cited in error.
                  >
                  >Best wishes,
                  >
                  >Pete
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >At 13:21 11/03/2005 -0600, you wrote:
                  >
                  >>I just read this most interesting (but wholly undocumented) claim at:
                  >>
                  >><http://www.lamblion.net/Articles/ScottJones/false_citations.htm>http://www.lamblion.net/Articles/ScottJones/false_citations.htm
                  >>
                  >>********
                  >>
                  >>The critical apparatuses of NA/UBS are SATURATED with false citations.
                  >>For example, there are no less than SIX FALSE CITATIONS by NA/UBS in 1
                  >>Timothy 3:16 alone. Five uncials are falsely cited in support of OS
                  >>instead
                  >>of THEOS in 1 Timothy 3:16. These uncials are Aleph A C F G.
                  >>
                  >>Four of these uncials read THEOS in the original hand, whereas
                  >>ultraviolet technology demonstrated that most of the corrections of
                  >>Aleph, ESPECIALLY those with doctrinal significance, were made before
                  >>Aleph ever left the
                  >>scriptorium. Tischendorf stated arbitrarily and without foundation that
                  >>Aleph's corrector operated on this passage in the 12th century. The
                  >>technological evidence produced by Milne & Skeat in the mid-twentieth
                  >>century refuted Tischendorf. In fact, the first scribe of Aleph simply
                  >>copied from his exemplars without deviation. Then, before Aleph ever
                  >>left the scriptorium, the same scribe or a fellow scribe came back and
                  >>went over the manuscript, correcting as many obvious errors as he
                  >>determined to exist. In other words, it is most
                  >>probable that Aleph's reading of THEOS is a correction contemporary with
                  >>the original hand of the manuscript itself, and a correction
                  >>contemporary with the original hand of the manuscript is more accurate
                  >>than the original hand. Either way, the assertion that the corrector was
                  >>a 12th century hand is dubious, at best.
                  >>
                  >>**********
                  >>
                  >>Does anyone know what the "technological evidence produced by Milne and
                  >>Skeat" is that this author is referring to? Do they ever make the
                  >>claims attributed to them above? If so, where?
                  >>
                  >>Yours,
                  >>
                  >>Jeffrey
                  >>
                  >>--
                  >>
                  >>Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)
                  >>
                  >>1500 W. Pratt Blvd. #1
                  >>Chicago, IL 60626
                  >>
                  >>jgibson000@...
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                  >>ADVERTISEMENT
                  >><http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=1297sg1ej/M=298184.6018725.7038619.3001176/D=groups/S=1706113926:HM/EXP=1110695978/A=2593423/R=0/SIG=11el9gslf/*http://www.netflix.com/Default?mqso=60190075>3ce7b7.jpg
                  >>3ce843.jpg
                  >>
                  >>
                  >>----------
                  >>Yahoo! Groups Links
                  >> * To visit your group on the web, go to:
                  >> *
                  >> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/textualcriticism/>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/textualcriticism/
                  >>
                  >> *
                  >> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                  >> *
                  >> <mailto:textualcriticism-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>textualcriticism-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                  >>
                  >> *
                  >> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
                  >> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>Yahoo! Terms of Service.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >------------
                  >Dr P.J. Williams
                  >Lecturer in New Testament
                  >School of Divinity, History and Philosophy
                  >University of Aberdeen, AB24 3UB
                  >p.j.williams@...
                  >
                  >noli esse incredulus sed fidelis IOH. XX xxvii

                  Peter M. Head, PhD
                  Sir Kirby Laing Senior Lecturer in New Testament
                  Tyndale House
                  36 Selwyn Gardens Phone: (UK) 01223
                  566607
                  Cambridge, CB3 9BA Fax: (UK) 01223 566608
                  http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Tyndale/staff/Head/Staff.htm
                • P.J. Williams
                  Hi Peter, Thanks for the request for clarification. I agree that, in theory, these are two different types of error. However, in practice it is often not
                  Message 8 of 20 , Mar 14 9:02 AM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Hi Peter,

                    Thanks for the request for clarification. I agree that, in theory, these
                    are two different types of error. However, in practice it is often not
                    possible to know what proportion of 'inappropriate citations' would (from
                    an omniscient perspective) prove to be historically erroneous. The level of
                    citations which can conclusively be proven to be erroneous remains low
                    (though see, for example, the citation of (P) in Mark 11:15, discussed in
                    Williams, 2004, p. 274). The majority of citations that I query fall into
                    the category of 'inappropriate citations'.

                    Best wishes,

                    Pete



                    At 12:35 14/03/2005 +0000, you wrote:

                    >Hi Pete,
                    >
                    >Are you talking about inaccurate citations here or rather inappropriate
                    >ones? The Syriac may be 'cited in error' (because the Greek text underlying
                    >the Syriac cannot be determined with confidence) even when it is cited
                    >accurately (e.g. if one consulted the Syriac one would find the Syriac text
                    >accurately represented).
                    >
                    >These are two different types of error. One is an error at the level of
                    >failure of principle, the other is an error of inaccurate citation.
                    >
                    >I presume you mean on the Peshitta of Romans that 28% of citations in the
                    >NA apparatus fail to live up the principle that the Syriac should only be
                    >cited when its Greek Vorlage can be determined with confidence.
                    >
                    >Cheerilly pi
                    >
                    >Pete
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >At 02:33 PM 3/12/05, P.J. Williams wrote:
                    > >I cannot comment on the issue of Milne and Skeat. I can observe that from
                    > >my own experience NA27 is relatively accurate when citing Greek witnesses.
                    > >The main problems that I see are in the citation of versions, especially
                    > >Syriac and Coptic. A recent estimate I made of the accuracy of citation of
                    > >the Peshitta in Romans led me to conclude that 28% of the references were
                    > >erroneous. I list a couple of hundred errors in Syriac citations of the
                    > >Gospels at:
                    > >
                    > ><http://www.abdn.ac.uk/divinity/williams/EarlySyriacTranslationTechniqueA
                    > ppendices.pdf>http://www.abdn.ac.uk/divinity/williams/EarlySyriacTranslationTechniqueAppendices.pdf
                    > >
                    > >which gives the appendices of my book entitled _Early Syriac Translation
                    > >Technique and the Textual Criticism of the Greek Gospels_ (Gorgias Press,
                    > >2004). My investigations on the Coptic are only just beginning, though I
                    > >have a brief article in the _Journal of Coptic Studies_ on NA27's
                    > >citations due out next year. You can expect more from this source. My
                    > >estimate is that Latin is the most accurately cited version, and that
                    > >Coptic and Syriac versions (excluding the Harclean) are often cited in
                    > error.
                    > >
                    > >Best wishes,
                    > >
                    > >Pete
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >At 13:21 11/03/2005 -0600, you wrote:
                    > >
                    > >>I just read this most interesting (but wholly undocumented) claim at:
                    > >>
                    > >><<http://www.lamblion.net/Articles/ScottJones/false_citations.htm>http:/
                    > /www.lamblion.net/Articles/ScottJones/false_citations.htm>http://www.lamblion.net/Articles/ScottJones/false_citations.htm
                    > >>
                    > >>********
                    > >>
                    > >>The critical apparatuses of NA/UBS are SATURATED with false citations.
                    > >>For example, there are no less than SIX FALSE CITATIONS by NA/UBS in 1
                    > >>Timothy 3:16 alone. Five uncials are falsely cited in support of OS
                    > >>instead
                    > >>of THEOS in 1 Timothy 3:16. These uncials are Aleph A C F G.
                    > >>
                    > >>Four of these uncials read THEOS in the original hand, whereas
                    > >>ultraviolet technology demonstrated that most of the corrections of
                    > >>Aleph, ESPECIALLY those with doctrinal significance, were made before
                    > >>Aleph ever left the
                    > >>scriptorium. Tischendorf stated arbitrarily and without foundation that
                    > >>Aleph's corrector operated on this passage in the 12th century. The
                    > >>technological evidence produced by Milne & Skeat in the mid-twentieth
                    > >>century refuted Tischendorf. In fact, the first scribe of Aleph simply
                    > >>copied from his exemplars without deviation. Then, before Aleph ever
                    > >>left the scriptorium, the same scribe or a fellow scribe came back and
                    > >>went over the manuscript, correcting as many obvious errors as he
                    > >>determined to exist. In other words, it is most
                    > >>probable that Aleph's reading of THEOS is a correction contemporary with
                    > >>the original hand of the manuscript itself, and a correction
                    > >>contemporary with the original hand of the manuscript is more accurate
                    > >>than the original hand. Either way, the assertion that the corrector was
                    > >>a 12th century hand is dubious, at best.
                    > >>
                    > >>**********
                    > >>
                    > >>Does anyone know what the "technological evidence produced by Milne and
                    > >>Skeat" is that this author is referring to? Do they ever make the
                    > >>claims attributed to them above? If so, where?
                    > >>
                    > >>Yours,
                    > >>
                    > >>Jeffrey
                    > >>
                    > >>--
                    > >>
                    > >>Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)
                    > >>
                    > >>1500 W. Pratt Blvd. #1
                    > >>Chicago, IL 60626
                    > >>
                    > >>jgibson000@...
                    > >>
                    > >>
                    > >>
                    > >>
                    > >>
                    > >>
                    > >>Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                    > >>ADVERTISEMENT
                    > >><<http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=1297sg1ej/M=298184.6018725.7038619.3001176
                    > /D=groups/S=1706113926:HM/EXP=1110695978/A=2593423/R=0/SIG=11el9gslf/*http://www.netflix.com/Default?mqso=60190075>http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=1297sg1ej/M=298184.6018725.7038619.3001176/D=groups/S=1706113926:HM/EXP=1110695978/A=2593423/R=0/SIG=11el9gslf/*http://www.netflix.com/Default?mqso=60190075>3ce7b7.jpg
                    > >>3ce843.jpg
                    > >>
                    > >>
                    > >>----------
                    > >>Yahoo! Groups Links
                    > >> * To visit your group on the web, go to:
                    > >> *
                    > >>
                    > <<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/textualcriticism/>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/textualcriticism/>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/textualcriticism/
                    >
                    > >>
                    > >> *
                    > >> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                    > >> *
                    > >>
                    > <mailto:textualcriticism-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>textualcriticism-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                    >
                    > >>
                    > >> *
                    > >> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
                    > >>
                    > <<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>Yahoo!
                    > Terms of Service.
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >------------
                    > >Dr P.J. Williams
                    > >Lecturer in New Testament
                    > >School of Divinity, History and Philosophy
                    > >University of Aberdeen, AB24 3UB
                    > >p.j.williams@...
                    > >
                    > >noli esse incredulus sed fidelis IOH. XX xxvii
                    >
                    >Peter M. Head, PhD
                    >Sir Kirby Laing Senior Lecturer in New Testament
                    >Tyndale House
                    >36 Selwyn Gardens Phone: (UK) 01223
                    >566607
                    >Cambridge, CB3 9BA Fax: (UK) 01223 566608
                    ><http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Tyndale/staff/Head/Staff.htm>http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Tyndale/staff/Head/Staff.htm
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                    >ADVERTISEMENT
                    ><http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=129s1574g/M=298184.6018725.7038619.3001176/D=groups/S=1706113926:HM/EXP=1110905242/A=2593423/R=0/SIG=11el9gslf/*http://www.netflix.com/Default?mqso=60190075>1b46f7d.jpg
                    >1b46fe1.jpg
                    >
                    >
                    >----------
                    >Yahoo! Groups Links
                    > * To visit your group on the web, go to:
                    > *
                    > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/textualcriticism/>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/textualcriticism/
                    >
                    > *
                    > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                    > *
                    > <mailto:textualcriticism-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>textualcriticism-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                    >
                    > *
                    > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
                    > <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>Yahoo! Terms of Service.
                  • AndysDad
                    Jeffrey Gibson wrote:
                    Message 9 of 20 , Mar 14 12:23 PM
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Jeffrey Gibson wrote:
                      <<<I just read this most interesting (but wholly undocumented) claim at:
                      http://www.lamblion.net/Articles/ScottJones/false_citations.htm
                      Do you really want to interact in some way or another with someone
                      who writes sentences such as the following: "In fact, these modern
                      scholars are being WILLFULLY DECEITFUL, for these vipers who
                      perpetrated this PROPAGANDA know better" (capitalization original)?
                      The existence of such sites and internet pages is an interesting
                      sociological phenomenon. Let us leave it at that.<<<

                      If we can overlook the ad hominem being perpetrated by both sides,
                      there is an interesting textual question here which really needs to be
                      adressed. It is simply that determining the original text of I Timothy
                      3:16 is a matter to be undertaken by historians rather than modern
                      textual critics, for the reason that the two horizontal lines which
                      distinguish the word QS (God) from OS (who)are not visible in Codex C
                      or Codex A. Therefore, any modern collator is going to assign these
                      codices to the column supporting the OS reading. And rightfully so,
                      were it not a matter of historical record that collators of past
                      centuries were still able to read these faded lines, and even
                      predicted that they would soon become altogether invisible. Their
                      historical accounts hold the high ground, and no amount of modern
                      textual critcism can dislodge them.

                      To me, the interesting sociological phenomenon is that this very text,
                      minus the two horizontal lines, has been almost universally used for
                      16 centuries by Arians, Unitarians, and others who deny the Trinity,
                      in an attempt to deny it to the other side as a proof-text of their
                      position; yet, most of the supporters of the OS reading today are
                      Trinitarians who assure us that, although they are personally opposed
                      to Unitarianism, they cannot, for sound scientific reasons, accept the
                      historically verified QS reading. And that furthermore, it doesn't
                      matter, because everyone knows that God is being referred to here.
                      But do they?
                      Andy's Dad
                    • Peter Head
                      ... Milne & Skeat examined a few passages using an ultra-violet lamp (famously the end of John s gospel); and they did argue that both the A and B groups of
                      Message 10 of 20 , Mar 15 9:19 AM
                      • 0 Attachment
                        At 07:21 PM 3/11/05, Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.) wrote:


                        >I just read this most interesting (but wholly undocumented) claim at:
                        >
                        >http://www.lamblion.net/Articles/ScottJones/false_citations.htm
                        >
                        >********
                        >
                        >
                        >Does anyone know what the "technological evidence produced by Milne and
                        >Skeat" is that this author is referring to? Do they ever make the
                        >claims attributed to them above? If so, where?

                        Milne & Skeat examined a few passages using an ultra-violet lamp (famously
                        the end of John's gospel); and they did argue that both the A and B groups
                        of correctors were part of the work of the scriptorium. BUT they didn't
                        pronounce on this passage, they didn't discuss corrections of a doctrinal
                        significance, so it is all a bit garbled I'm afraid.
                        It is worth noting that notwithstanding all the rubbish and rhetoric the
                        discussion actually confirms the accuracy of NA on Sinaiticus at 1 Tim
                        3.16: original OS, corrector QEOS. [NB with QE interlinear above and before
                        OS] [? was this correction later deleted??]


                        Incidentally they are also wrong on Alexandrinus (although in principle I'd
                        accept that early writers might preserve information which ought to be
                        borne in mind).The reason so many early scholars were arguing about it was
                        that the manuscript wasn't regarded as clear at this point. I'm not so sure
                        that Wettstein should be taken as supporting the QS reading for
                        Alexandrinus. Certainly Woide (1786) was undecided and printed it as
                        undecided, not as a clear nomen sacrum; and there was no unanimity among
                        readers of the manuscript in his day. In Woide's preface he refers
                        sympathetically to the solution that the line in the OMICRON is a
                        bleed-through from ESEBIAN on the other side, since the upper line of the
                        NS is clearly not the normal A line for NS.
                        My view: NA correct to say that for Alexandrinus original: OS, correction
                        QS (nomen sacrum).

                        Peter


                        Peter M. Head, PhD
                        Sir Kirby Laing Senior Lecturer in New Testament
                        Tyndale House
                        36 Selwyn Gardens Phone: (UK) 01223
                        566607
                        Cambridge, CB3 9BA Fax: (UK) 01223 566608
                        http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Tyndale/staff/Head/Staff.htm
                      • P.J. Williams
                        What institutions are there within the state of Alabama or its surrounding states where there are faculty who specialise in textual criticism? Thanks, P.J.
                        Message 11 of 20 , Mar 15 9:23 AM
                        • 0 Attachment
                          What institutions are there within the state of Alabama or its surrounding
                          states where there are faculty who specialise in textual criticism?

                          Thanks,

                          P.J. Williams

                          ------------
                          Dr P.J. Williams
                          Lecturer in New Testament
                          School of Divinity, History and Philosophy
                          University of Aberdeen, AB24 3UB
                          p.j.williams@...

                          noli esse incredulus sed fidelis IOH. XX xxvii
                        • sarban
                          ... From: AndysDad To: Sent: Monday, March 14, 2005 8:23 PM Subject: [textualcriticism] Re: claims
                          Message 12 of 20 , Mar 15 9:36 AM
                          • 0 Attachment
                            ----- Original Message -----
                            From: "AndysDad" <elwabuck@...>
                            To: <textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com>
                            Sent: Monday, March 14, 2005 8:23 PM
                            Subject: [textualcriticism] Re: "claims" of Milne and Skeat


                            >
                            >
                            <SNIP>
                            >
                            >
                            > To me, the interesting sociological phenomenon is that this very text,
                            > minus the two horizontal lines, has been almost universally used for
                            > 16 centuries by Arians, Unitarians, and others who deny the Trinity,
                            > in an attempt to deny it to the other side as a proof-text of their
                            > position; yet, most of the supporters of the OS reading today are
                            > Trinitarians who assure us that, although they are personally opposed
                            > to Unitarianism, they cannot, for sound scientific reasons, accept the
                            > historically verified QS reading. And that furthermore, it doesn't
                            > matter, because everyone knows that God is being referred to here.
                            > But do they?
                            > Andy's Dad
                            >
                            As far as I know I Timothy 3:16 played no important role
                            in the Arian controversy in the Ancient Church (Its role in
                            Post-Reformation disputes is another matter.)

                            Mainstream 4th and 5th century Arians were in any case
                            entirely willing to call Christ 'God' ( in some sense) .

                            However this verse is one of the very few passages where the
                            true text became a matter of serious controversy, but it was in
                            the context of 'Monophysite' disputes over the Incarnation not
                            Arian disputes over the Trinity.

                            Shortly After 500 Macedonius was deposed as Patriarch of
                            Constantinople partly as a result of a dispute over whether
                            1 Timothy 3:16 should read OS or ThS

                            Macedonius was condemned for supporting the reading ThS

                            Andrew Criddle
                          • Stephen C. Carlson
                            ... It depends on where you are in Alabama. If you are in Mobile, for example, the Center for New Testament Textual Studies, headed by Bill Warren, is at the
                            Message 13 of 20 , Mar 15 10:52 AM
                            • 0 Attachment
                              At 05:23 PM 3/15/2005 +0000, P.J. Williams wrote:
                              >What institutions are there within the state of Alabama or its surrounding
                              >states where there are faculty who specialise in textual criticism?

                              It depends on where you are in Alabama. If you are in Mobile,
                              for example, the Center for New Testament Textual Studies,
                              headed by Bill Warren, is at the New Orleans Baptist Theological
                              Seminary, is only about 150 miles away, even though is not,
                              technically speaking, in a neighboring state.

                              http://www.nobts.edu/CNTTS/MoreInformation.html

                              Stephen Carlson

                              --
                              Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
                              Weblog: http://www.hypotyposeis.org/weblog/
                              "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35
                            • malcolm robertson
                              Greetings all, In light of Peter s remarks (with which I concur) the question naturally arises (should arise) with which reading are these early collators
                              Message 14 of 20 , Mar 15 10:56 AM
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Greetings all,
                                 
                                In light of Peter's remarks  (with which I concur)  the question naturally arises (should arise) with which reading are these early collators interacting?  It seems unclear to me that they are solely concerned with theos/os.
                                 
                                Nevertheless, syntactically (intrinsic) the relative hos is to be preferred.  The external evidence concurs.
                                 
                                Cordially in Christ,
                                 
                                Malcolm 

                                Peter Head <pmh15@...> wrote:

                                At 07:21 PM 3/11/05, Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.) wrote:


                                >I just read this most interesting (but wholly undocumented) claim at:
                                >
                                >http://www.lamblion.net/Articles/ScottJones/false_citations.htm
                                >
                                >********
                                >
                                >
                                >Does anyone know what the "technological evidence produced by Milne and
                                >Skeat" is that this author is referring to?  Do they ever make the
                                >claims attributed to them above?  If so, where?

                                Milne & Skeat examined a few passages using an ultra-violet lamp (famously
                                the end of John's gospel); and they did argue that both the A and B groups
                                of correctors were part of the work of the scriptorium. BUT they didn't
                                pronounce on this passage, they didn't discuss corrections of a doctrinal
                                significance, so it is all a bit garbled I'm afraid.
                                It is worth noting that notwithstanding all the rubbish and rhetoric the
                                discussion actually confirms the accuracy of NA on Sinaiticus at 1 Tim
                                3.16: original OS, corrector QEOS. [NB with QE interlinear above and before
                                OS] [? was this correction later deleted??]


                                Incidentally they are also wrong on Alexandrinus (although in principle I'd
                                accept that early writers might preserve information which ought to be
                                borne in mind).The reason so many early scholars were arguing about it was
                                that the manuscript wasn't regarded as clear at this point. I'm not so sure
                                that Wettstein should be taken as supporting the QS reading for
                                Alexandrinus. Certainly Woide (1786) was undecided and printed it as
                                undecided, not as a clear nomen sacrum; and there was no unanimity among
                                readers of the manuscript in his day. In Woide's preface he refers
                                sympathetically to the solution that the line in the OMICRON is a
                                bleed-through from ESEBIAN on the other side, since the upper line of the
                                NS is clearly not the normal A line for NS.
                                My view: NA correct to say that for Alexandrinus original: OS, correction
                                QS (nomen sacrum).

                                Peter


                                Peter M. Head, PhD
                                Sir Kirby Laing Senior Lecturer in New Testament
                                Tyndale House
                                36 Selwyn Gardens                                       Phone: (UK) 01223
                                566607
                                Cambridge, CB3 9BA                                      Fax: (UK) 01223 566608
                                http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Tyndale/staff/Head/Staff.htm








                                Do you Yahoo!?
                                Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!

                              • mjriii2003
                                Dear P.J., 1. W.F. Warren - a participant on this list - is at the following: http://www.nobts.edu/ wfwarren@aol.com 2. In addition Emory University in
                                Message 15 of 20 , Mar 15 1:23 PM
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Dear P.J.,

                                  1. W.F. Warren - a participant on this list - is at the following:

                                  http://www.nobts.edu/

                                  wfwarren@...

                                  2. In addition Emory University in Atlanta, GA is rather enclined so
                                  to speak. Religion and Technology Center at Emory University headed
                                  by James R. Adair.

                                  http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/TC.html

                                  http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/Ebind/docs/TC/

                                  http://alpha.reltech.org:8080/

                                  3. In Dallas, TX Daniel B. Wallace Executive Director,
                                  Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts

                                  csntm.org

                                  Cordially in Christ,

                                  Malcolm

                                  --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "P.J. Williams"
                                  <p.j.williams@a...> wrote:
                                  >
                                  > What institutions are there within the state of Alabama or its
                                  surrounding
                                  > states where there are faculty who specialise in textual criticism?
                                  >
                                  > Thanks,
                                  >
                                  > P.J. Williams
                                  >
                                  > ------------
                                  > Dr P.J. Williams
                                  > Lecturer in New Testament
                                  > School of Divinity, History and Philosophy
                                  > University of Aberdeen, AB24 3UB
                                  > p.j.williams@a...
                                  >
                                  > noli esse incredulus sed fidelis IOH. XX xxvii
                                • Jan Krans
                                  ... In his NTG Wettstein actually describes how the solution referred to by Woide (and Peter) was found by him and an old friend of his (see his NTG, part I,
                                  Message 16 of 20 , Mar 15 3:31 PM
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Peter Head wrote:

                                    > I'm not so sure that Wettstein should be taken as supporting the QS
                                    > reading for
                                    > Alexandrinus. Certainly Woide (1786) was undecided and printed it as
                                    > undecided, not as a clear nomen sacrum; and there was no unanimity among
                                    > readers of the manuscript in his day. In Woide's preface he refers
                                    > sympathetically to the solution that the line in the OMICRON is a
                                    > bleed-through from ESEBIAN on the other side, since the upper line of the
                                    > NS is clearly not the normal A line for NS.

                                    In his NTG Wettstein actually describes how the solution referred to by
                                    Woide (and Peter) was found by him and an 'old friend' of his (see his
                                    NTG, part I, Prolegomena, pp. 19-22, esp. p. 22; cf. NTG II ad 1 Tim
                                    3:16). A fascinating story and a good read. I can post it here or put it
                                    on my site if someone is interested.

                                    In conclusion: Wettstein's (real or imaginary) friend found the
                                    aforementioned solution; thus the theta in A is both real and imaginary.
                                    According to Wettstein, without any doubt, A* read(s) OS.

                                    BTW, Wettstein himself preferred the reading ὅ (hO) (see NTG II a.h.l.),
                                    following D*, the Vulgate etc., and also Erasmus - who suspected some kind
                                    of "orthodox corruption of scripture" here -, Grotius and Newton (nice
                                    company). Followed by more than five pages of apparatus in which he
                                    discusses the history of the reading θεός (QEOS). Again a fascinating
                                    story.

                                    Greetings,
                                    Jan Krans
                                    Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam
                                  • Countach
                                    ... Unless those faded lines is a letter showing through from the other side as Tichendorf strongly claimed. I would have thought examination with a microscope
                                    Message 17 of 20 , Mar 15 4:00 PM
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      AndysDad wrote:

                                      > Therefore, any modern collator is going to assign these
                                      > codices to the column supporting the OS reading. And rightfully so,
                                      > were it not a matter of historical record that collators of past
                                      > centuries were still able to read these faded lines, and even
                                      > predicted that they would soon become altogether invisible.


                                      Unless those faded lines is a letter showing through from the other side
                                      as Tichendorf strongly claimed.

                                      I would have thought examination with a microscope or something might
                                      shed light on whether the type of scratches made by the original hand
                                      exist here.
                                    • WFWarren@aol.com
                                      We are not too far from Alabama here in New Orleans. Otherwise, I would think the best settings would be in North Carolina either with Bart Ehrman at UNC
                                      Message 18 of 20 , Mar 15 5:13 PM
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        We are not too far from Alabama here in New Orleans.  Otherwise, I would think the best settings would be in North Carolina either with Bart Ehrman at UNC Chapel Hill or at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary with Maurice Robinson.  While some other settings may be available, for NT studies these are perhaps the best options near Alabama. 

                                        paz,

                                        Bill Warren
                                        Center for New Testament Textual Studies, Director
                                        Landrum P. Leavell, II, Professor of NT and Greek
                                        New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary
                                        WWarren@...

                                        In a message dated 3/15/05 12:21:57 PM, p.j.williams@... writes:




                                        What institutions are there within the state of Alabama or its surrounding
                                        states where there are faculty who specialise in textual criticism?

                                        Thanks,

                                        P.J. Williams

                                        ------------
                                        Dr P.J. Williams
                                        Lecturer in New Testament
                                        School of Divinity, History and Philosophy
                                        University of Aberdeen, AB24 3UB
                                        p.j.williams@...

                                        noli esse incredulus sed fidelis IOH. XX xxvii






                                        ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
                                        Has someone you know been affected by illness or disease?
                                        Network for Good is THE place to support health awareness efforts!
                                        Click Here!
                                        --------------------------------------------------------------------~->


                                        Yahoo! Groups Links

                                        <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
                                            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/textualcriticism/

                                        <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                            textualcriticism-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                                        <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
                                            http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/







                                      • P.J. Williams
                                        Thanks to all those who replied re Alabama - roughly confirming my guesses. Still it s good to have confirmation from that side of the pond. I ll advise my
                                        Message 19 of 20 , Mar 16 1:30 AM
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Thanks to all those who replied re Alabama - roughly confirming my guesses.
                                          Still it's good to have confirmation from that side of the pond. I'll
                                          advise my enquirer accordingly.

                                          Best wishes,

                                          P.J. Williams

                                          ------------
                                          Dr P.J. Williams
                                          Lecturer in New Testament
                                          School of Divinity, History and Philosophy
                                          University of Aberdeen, AB24 3UB
                                          p.j.williams@...

                                          noli esse incredulus sed fidelis IOH. XX xxvii
                                        • P.J. Williams
                                          Where is the cheapest place to buy the new Vaticanus facsimile? Does anyone know of possibilities below 4500 USD? Best wishes, Pete Williams ... Dr P.J.
                                          Message 20 of 20 , Jun 3, 2005
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            Where is the cheapest place to buy the new Vaticanus facsimile? Does anyone
                                            know of possibilities below 4500 USD?

                                            Best wishes,

                                            Pete Williams

                                            ------------
                                            Dr P.J. Williams
                                            Lecturer in New Testament
                                            School of Divinity, History and Philosophy
                                            University of Aberdeen, AB24 3UB
                                            p.j.williams@...

                                            noli esse incredulus sed fidelis IOH. XX xxvii
                                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.