[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #612
b-greek-digest Tuesday, 14 March 1995 Volume 01 : Number 612
In this issue:
Question on homothumadon
Re: Question on homothumadon
Re: For information
Mounce's FlashWorks is *NOW* available
Re: Question on homothumadon
Re: For information
File: "DATABASE OUTPUT"
Re: For information
FOR INFORMATION
potential optative equivalent
Re: Question on homothumadon
Lexical Contacts and Cluster Analysis
Re: UBS Text
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Doug Hanley <dhanley@accessnv.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 1995 22:57:01 -0800
Subject: Question on homothumadon
I have a question on homothumadon (strongs#3661) and one of it's root words
thumos (Str# 2372).
It is used 12 times in the NT, 10 of which are in Acts.
How strongly is the passion, rushing etc. portrayed by thumos?
What Classical meanings did it portray (thumos) and the compound (or was
Homothumadon a word unique to Christian usage?)
Thank you for whatever input you might have.
Doug Hanley
- ------------------------------------
Doug Hanley dhanley@accessnv.com
- ------------------------------------
------------------------------
From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 1995 05:57:41 -0600 (GMT-0600)
Subject: Re: Question on homothumadon
On Mon, 13 Mar 1995, Doug Hanley wrote:
> I have a question on homothumadon (strongs#3661) and one of it's root words
> thumos (Str# 2372).
> It is used 12 times in the NT, 10 of which are in Acts.
> How strongly is the passion, rushing etc. portrayed by thumos?
> What Classical meanings did it portray (thumos) and the compound (or was
> Homothumadon a word unique to Christian usage?)
I can't respond to the second part of the question w/o resources at hand,
but I certainly can to the first: THUMOS is a word of very great
frequency already in Homer, where its range of meanings is considerable,
in that it may refer to the intellectual process of the mind even,
although it more often does have the sense of intense passion. R.B.
Onians, who wrote back in the 50's a book with an improbable and unwieldy
title something like, _The origin of the European idea of the soul, etc.,
etc...._ [my etc.s; the title lists a gamut of terms; the book, published
by Cambrige U. Press, has recently been re-issued in paperback] argued
with reasonable probability (I think) that the word's original sense was
"blood-soul," and that it referred to the thick, liquefied , hot spirit
that whirls in the chest and would break loose from the chest if it were
not contained (the Latin equivalent seems to be the m. pl.
ANIMI--"spirits"). Etymologically the word is cognate (indeed equivalent
formally) to the Latin word for "smoke," FUMUS, and it is cognate to
Greek words for "sacrifice" THUW (vb) and its many cognates: i.e.
sacrifice is to send the hot smoking essence of the sacrificial beast up
to the heavens for the enjoyment of the gods. But, moving on from
conceptual basis to its functional use, it seems that the active THUMOS
is pretty much equivalent to what we today understand as the effect of
the release of adrenalin--the rushing fresh onset of will to resist a
threat to selfhood and/or to lash out at a threatening or seeming
threatening opponent of any sort. A cognate form in Plato's Republic, the
substantival form, TO THUMOEIDES, translated by Jowett as "the spirited
element" or as "spirit," is employed for the chief asset of the guardian
or ultimately-termed auxiliary element of the state--soldiers. This too,
I believe, is generally equivalent to the function of adrenalin in
self-defense and self-assertion, but Plato goes on at great length about
the instability of this as a psychic element, of the need to train it
very carefully so that it responds aggressively to genuine threats but
calmly to non-threatening provocations. It could also be termed
"competitiveness," and it is clearly the predominant element in an
athlete's will to win. So: it is strong feeling, particularly associated
with self-defense or self-assertion, it can become intense passion, is
often anger or rage, etc., etc.
As for the word HOMOTHUMADON, I don't THINK it is that common in
pre-Hellenistic Greek, but the reference works, or a quick run of the TLG
disk through a search program could settle that question quickly.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO 63130, USA
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
------------------------------
From: Mari Olsen <molsen@astrid.ling.nwu.edu>
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 1995 08:32:33 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Re: For information
>From Ken Litwak...
> ... If you translate a strainght infinitive for see, blepein, with "to
> see", that does not seem like interpretation to me, but there is a measure of
> interpretation often involved in translation.
>
Provided, of course, that 'see' has precisely the same range of
meanings as blepw, and that the infinitive construction is possible in
English in the context under consideration. I think the former
assumption is false: there are no true word equivalents across
languages. The latter involves interpretation. Wish I knew who said
that first, too...
Mari Broman Olsen
Northwestern University
Department of Linguistics
2016 Sheridan Road
Evanston, IL 60208
molsen@astrid.ling.nwu.edu
molsen@babel.ling.nwu.edu
------------------------------
From: "James K. Tauber" <jtauber@tartarus.uwa.edu.au>
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 1995 22:53:05 +0800 (WST)
Subject: Mounce's FlashWorks is *NOW* available
Apologies to all those people who tried to get Bill Mounce's FlashWorks
from the Hellenistic Greek Linguistics pages. I made a mistake that I
have now (hopefully) fixed.
The URL to try again is:
http://www.uwa.edu.au/HGrk/Software
Thanks for your patience.
James K. Tauber <jtauber@tartarus.uwa.edu.au>
4th year Honours Student, Centre for Linguistics
University of Western Australia, WA 6009, AUSTRALIA
Hellenistic Greek Linguistics Pages: http://www.uwa.edu.au/HGrk
------------------------------
From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 1995 09:51:28 -0600 (GMT-0600)
Subject: Re: Question on homothumadon
I originally responded from home, where I had few resources handy. Now in
my office, I can affirm that the word HOMOTHUMADON is indeed found in
pre-Hellenistic Greek, regularly in the sense of "in one accord." The key
element in the compound would appear to be HOMO- (same element as in
"homogeneous," "homosexual," and in that most divisive word in the Nicene
Creed, HOMOOUSIOS "of one substance"). L&S (Classical Grk lexicon) notes
that it commonly is used with PANTES in the phrase, "all with one accord"
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO 63130, USA
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
------------------------------
From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 1995 09:58:15 -0600 (GMT-0600)
Subject: Re: For information
On Tue, 14 Mar 1995, Mari Olsen wrote:
> >From Ken Litwak...
> > ... If you translate a strainght infinitive for see, blepein, with "to
> > see", that does not seem like interpretation to me, but there is a measure of
> > interpretation often involved in translation.
>
> Provided, of course, that 'see' has precisely the same range of
> meanings as blepw, and that the infinitive construction is possible in
> English in the context under consideration. I think the former
> assumption is false: there are no true word equivalents across
> languages. The latter involves interpretation. Wish I knew who said
> that first, too...
(1) It's always struck me as curious that BLEPW, which in classical Attic
has the sense "look at", has more or less replaced (though not, of
course, completely) HORAW in the NT Koine. Another such interesting word
is the Homeric DERKOMAI, which means something like "look daggers," "have
a fierce look in one's eyes," although it too CAN mean "look at"; but
it's the source of our word "dragon" (from the aor. ptc. DRAKWN).
(2) "Translation is interpretation"--who said it? I think it's been said
many times on this list by mean respondents. It's certainly true.
Similar, but more tendentious, is the Italian tag, "traduttori
traditori": "translators are traitors (or betrayers)."
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO 63130, USA
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
------------------------------
From: Gregory Bloomquist <GBLOOMQUIST@spu.stpaul.uottawa.ca>
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 1995 11:08:16 EDT
Subject: File: "DATABASE OUTPUT"
The recent request for information on the role of HOMOTHUMADON caused
me to go back through the archives of ACTS-L, where I had asked about
the term in Acts. What follows is the discussion of the term on ACTS-
L (with headers edited out):
- - - - - - - - Forwarded Message Follows - - - - - - -
Item # Date Time Recs Subject
- ------ ---- ---- ---- -------
000145 94/10/05 08:06 39 ACTS-L: Contemporary parallels
000151 94/10/05 21:59 63 ACTS-L: Contemporary parallels
000154 94/10/06 16:08 82 ACTS-L: 1.12-26
From: Gregory Bloomquist <GBLOOMQ@ACADVM1.UOTTAWA.CA>
Subject: ACTS-L: Contemporary parallels
I think that the question that Doug De Lacey poses is a
valuable one: what are the literary parallels between Acts and,
say, Josephus. (This question arose as a result of the
introduction of the healing story and Paul.)
I do think, though, that we need to refine the question
somewhat. What is a parallel: any story that looks and sounds
like another? a story that may loo k entirely different but
fulfills the same rhetorical function? Both of these are of
course possible. Or, is there some stereotypical pattern of
story tha t Doug is looking for? I wonder if Doug could define
the parametres of what he understands by parallels.
Let me note why I ask this: today in class the students and I
are looking at Acts 1.15-26, the assembling (motif?) and the
election of Matthias (motif?). Now, regardless of the
historicity of these events -- the unity of the commun it y on
the one hand and the fulfilment of the apostolic "college" on
the other -- both of these stories clearly play a significant
role in the Acts agenda. It
would indeed be interesting to me to find a parallel -- lexical
or narratolog ic al -- to either story in Josephus or any other
contemporary. But what would I be looking for: lexical
parallels (e.g., homothumadon 1.14), parallels of names
(Mathhias), parallels of story (election by lots, by prayer, of
a suc- cessor in leadership), etc.? What would constitute a
parallel here? The question seems to me to have relevance to
the rest of the book, too.
>>> Item number 151, dated 94/10/05 21:59:53 -- ALL
From: Maurice O'Sullivan <mauros@IOL.IE>
Subject: ACTS-L: Contemporary parallels
Responding to msg by GBLOOMQ@ACADVM1.UOTTAWA.CA (Gregory
Bloomquist) on Wed, 05 Oct 8:6 AM
>But what would I be looking for: lexical parallels
>(e.g., homothumadon 1.14), parallels of names
>(Mathhias), parallels of story (election by lots, by
>prayer, of a suc- cessor in leadership), etc.? What
>would constitute a parallel here? The question seems
>to me to have relevance to the rest of the book, to
I wonder if I could ask you to expand on the -- necessarily --
brief reference to >> lexical parallels (e.g., homothumadon
1.14) <<.
With 10 of the 11 NT uses of 'homothumadon' occuring in Acts it
does indeed suggest something worth following up. [ BTW,
forgive me if this is something taken up in Krodel -- my copy
is still in transit. Isn't there _always_ somebody at the
beginning of term who still hasn't got the prescribed text <g>
].
And Haenchen, in footnote (1) on p.154 notes:
" In Acts 1:14; 2:46; 4:24; 5:12; and 8:6 on the one hand, and
7:57; 18:12; and 19:29 on the other hand, Luke uses
homothumadon to depict respectively the Chrisian's exemplary
unity and the unanimity of a hostile group ".
But could I point out that in 8:6 it is " the multitude (RSV)"
which in the Greek is 'hoi ochloi' -- not 'ho laos', so this is
not an example of "the Christian exemplary unity".
Then there are the two examples ignored by Haenchen: 12:20
where it is the people of Tyre and Sidon who came to Herod and
who "homothumadon de parHsan pros autov". And, more curiously,
he ignores 15:25, where the apostles and elders of the assembly
at Jerusalem "came to one accord".
As Haenchen notes, there are 36 uses of 'homothumadon' in the
LXX.
I note that 14 of these are from Job, but have not had time to
explore all 36 just yet.
So, I await with interest the development of your ideas on
'humothumadon' as a lexical theme.
BTW, could someone with access to the TLG CD-ROM tell us of the
use of the term in Josephus?
Regards,
Maurice
Maurice A. O'Sullivan [Bray,Ireland]
mauros@iol.ie
>>> Item number 154, dated 94/10/06 16:08:22 -- ALL
From: Gregory Bloomquist <GBLOOMQ@ACADVM1.UOTTAWA.CA>
Subject: ACTS-L: 1.12-26
Many thanks to Maurice O'Sullivan for responding to my comments
on the passage 1.12-26 (the subject of this past class).
Maurice takes my search seriously: >But what would I be looking
for: lexical parallels >(e.g., homothumadon 1.14), parallels of
names >(Mathhias), parallels of story (election by lots, by
>prayer, of a successor in leadership), etc.? What >would
constitute a parallel here? The question seems >to me to have
relevance to the rest of the book and suggests that perhaps we
should take seriously the example I gave of homothumadon.
He notes that the word occurs 11x in the NT, 10x of which are
in Acts. He further notes that the use of the word throughout
Acts is not uniform, pace Haenchen. I do think, however, that
the theme of like-minded unity is a theme in Luke. The question
that the recent discussion has raised, and Maurice does so
explicitly, is whether it is also a BORROWED or SOURCED theme?
A quick search by our somewhat tempermental TLG search engine
revealed only two uses in Josephus Ant (15.277 and 19.357) and
one in C. Apionem (1.242) before it went on the blink. (This
leaves mainly the Wars.) So, it doesn't appear to be a highly
significant theme there. A search of Jos. and Asen. might be
interesting, too. It is only a guess at this point but, with
Haench en , I think that I would probably begin to conclude that
the term is redactiona l.
Which leads me to Edith Humphrey's posting, in which she seems
to take issue with my attempt to control the search for sources
by emphasising lexical parallels: "I am not at all sure that in
such an enterprise one needs to set up a hierarchy of parallels,
with the lexical similarity seen as foundational. It all
depends on what you intend to make of the parallel." but then
appears to come back to the need to make the lexical parallel
fundamental, if not foundational.
I would be interested to read Edith's examination of Acts 10
and 11, in light of Joseph and Aseneth, for example, since it
takes into consideration the use of eiserchomai. This is a
popular word in Acts, as well as in Jos and Asen. (BTW: is
there significance in that the word is never used in Acts in the
linear, but only in the aorist?) I am unclear from Edith's
posti ng alone whether the word triggered the parallel, or
whether the parallel was intuited by Edith and the word
eiserchomai seemed to fit in the context of th e parallel. Is
the word used elsewhere in Acts in connection with purity (out-
side/inside questions), and if not, why then is it so popular
outside of Acts 10-11, yet in a different context? These are
the kinds of questions tha t , as I suggested in a previous
posting, I would want to probe in order to know whether we
indeed do have a parallel, source, or whatever. The fact that
both books exhibit interest in purity, for example, may be due
to their common Jewish roots, or to their apologetic function
(which would again, I have argued, be more generic than
specific).
So I am interested that Edith concludes: "in the case of JA and
Acts, de Lacey's appeal to a stereotype is more probable than
actual dependance. While the stories employ similar narratival
strategies, such as twin visions and a combination of discursive
argument with suggestive visionary symbolism, there is not
enough sustained lexical parallelism (in Greg's sense of the
word) to warrant any speculation regarding an actual
relationship.
I think for us to talk about strategies across texts will
demand some serious facing of the controls necessary for
such comparisons to exist. Clearly, the
lexical is a start, but inadequate. (Two monkeys sitting at
the same type- writers will clearly come up with similar
patterns over time!) But, what are these controls, that remains
the question.
Greetings,
L. Gregory Bloomquist
Faculty of Theology | Faculte de theologie
Saint Paul University | Universite Saint-Paul
(University of Ottawa | Universite d'Ottawa)
223 Main, Ottawa, Ontario K1S 1C4 CANADA
Internet: GBLOOMQ@ACADVM1.UOTTAWA.CA iNET: DR.BLOOMQUIST
Fax: (613) 236-4108 Voice: (613) 782-3027 / (613) 236-1393
------------------------------
From: "David B. Gowler" <dgowler@rock.ncren.net>
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 1995 09:37:08 -0400
Subject: Re: For information
>-- [ From: Alan R. Craig
>Some years back, in some book on Bible translations, I came across a
>comment that I have yet to find again nor identify who made it.
>Perhaps some of you might know who and where this was said:
>
> "Translation is interpretation."
I have no precise answer, but two quotes that spring to mind that state
similar feelings are:
"Translation is at best an echo." G. Borrow
And, my personal favorite: "Traduttori, traditori."
With some trepidation, I will paraphrase this as "all translators are
traitors."
Even if we may not completely agree, these quotes reinforce necessary humility.
David
*****************************************
David B. Gowler
Associate Professor of Religion
Chowan College
internet: dgowler@rock.ncren.net
or: dgowler@micah.chowan.edu
------------------------------
From: RonnieG94@aol.com
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 1995 14:44:04 -0500
Subject: FOR INFORMATION
CSRT29A =
I have that written in my Summers Grammar - an instructor must have quoted
it.
Below it I have two sentences taken from Romans 1.13
I would not have you, ignorant brethren.
I would not have you ignorant, Brethren.
I must admit, both sentences have applied.
Yours Ronnie G. -
------------------------------
From: Kent Sutorius <kassutor@clark.net>
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 1995 16:31:47 +0500
Subject: potential optative equivalent
I don't have the resouces that Carl Conrad has but I think your
answer is in BDF 385. It states that the, "future indicative is often used
in the NT where in Attic a potential optative could have been used. The
deliberative subjunctive also may substitute for the potential optative (366
(1)), also TAXA with the indicative." He gives Arnim using Byzantine texts
and Scham using other Christian literature as the sources.
Kent Sutorius
Maryland Bible College and Seminary
kassutor@clark.net
------------------------------
From: Doug Hanley <dhanley@accessnv.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 1995 13:44:08 -0800
Subject: Re: Question on homothumadon
Carl,
Thank you for your input on this.
I appreciate it.
A lexicon is dandy, word studies are nice, but living people are much more
dynamic...
In Him,
Doug Hanley
- ------------------------------------
Doug Hanley dhanley@accessnv.com
- ------------------------------------
------------------------------
From: Stephen Carlson <scc@reston.icl.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 95 17:41:45 EST
Subject: Lexical Contacts and Cluster Analysis
Some months ago I shared with the B-GREEK mailing list some of the
results of my stylometrical analysis of the NT canon using the
concept of a lexical contact. My analysis had been directed to
investigating the authorship of the disputed Pauline epistles. This
message presents the result of a cluster analysis on the issue. Briefly,
cluster analysis using lexical contacts is negative evidence against
the authenticity of the Pastorals (1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus). On
the other hand, this method indicates that Colossians is genuine.
A "lexical contact" between two books (or corpora) is a shared
word or phrase (of which each word is in lexical form). The "order" of
a lexical contact is the number of words being compared at a time.
Thus, "first-order lexical contacts" comprise the shared vocabulary
between two corpora, and "third-order lexical contacts" are the shared
three-word phrases. Although other order lexical contacts are possible,
the third order is used because that order generates the most contacts.
One further concept is defined with respect to a supercorpus, in this
case the NT canon. An "exclusively shared lexical contact" is a contact
found in only two corpora of the supercorpus. I shall use the term
"characteristic" as a short hand for this concept.
Lexical contacts, especially for phrases, tends to show a common
authorship because (it is hoped) an author has certain pet expressions
that recur. However, as we shall see, it cannot distinguish a work
that is literary dependent on another, in which large amounts of one
work have been incorporated into another. It can show, on the other
hand, that two corpora are sufficiently distinct to cast doubt upon a
thesis that they have a common author.
Cluster analysis is a procedure which hierarchically groups the closest
two items (or clusters) at time into a larger cluster until all the items
have been clusters. The closeness is measured by a distance function.
For this analysis, the distance function is calculated by counting the
number of contacts. For each book, the number of contacts to another
is calculated and normalized to account for the length of the books.
The pair with the greatest number of normalized contacts are then combined
to form a corpus and put back into the analysis.
Two different normalizations were used in this analysis. The first
normalized the contacts based on the number of distinct words or
phrases in each corpus. The second normalized based on the total
number of contacts of each corpus.
The following a presentation and analysis of my results.
Case I: Characteristic [i.e., exclusive] Phrases (1st normalization)
25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 09 08 07 06 05 04 03 02 01 00
*--------------------------------------------------------jd,p2
\-hb-*--*--*-----------c1-*--*--*-----pp----------------------------q1,q2
\ \ \ \ \ \-------------------------------------co,ep
\ \ \ \ \----------c2,pm
\ \ \ \-----ga,rm
\ \ \----------------------------jm,p1
\ \------------------------------------------------ t1-t2,tt
\--rv-ac-*-----------------------------lk-mk,mt
\-------------------------jn----------j1-------------j2,j3
Notes:
1. The Johannine Epistles and the Gospel of John are clustered.
2. The Synoptic Gospels are clustered (hence the famous problem).
3. Colossians and Ephesians cluster early, as well at 1, 2 Thessalonians.
4. The Pastorals cluster early yet are further separated from the 10 Paulines
than the Catholic James and 1 Peter.
5. 2 Peter and Jude cluster early yet remain distinct. Some of it is
undoubtedly due to a literary (not authorial) dependence.
6. Hebrews is distinct.
Case II: Common [non-exclusive] Phrases (1st normalization)
25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 09 08 07 06 05 04 03 02 01 00
*--*-----ac-------hb,rv
\ \-------*--------------------lk-------------mk,mt
\ \----------------------------jn-------------------j1----------j2,j3
\--*--------*--------c1----c2-------------*-----pp-------------q1----pm,q2
\ \ \----------------------co,ep
\ \---------jm----------ga,rm
\-----------*--------------p1-------------------jd,p2
\-------------------------------t1----t2,tt
Notes.
1. Again we see the Pastorals, Jude & 2 Peter, Col./Eph., Synoptics,
and the Johannines cluster.
2. Col./Eph. are well within the Pauline camp. Even with the intrusive
entry of James, the Pastorals remain distinct from Paul, being closer
the the Petrines.
Case III: Characteristic Vocabulary (1st norm.)
25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 09 08 07 06 05 04 03 02 01 00
j3-*--q2-q1-pp-ga-*--c2-p1-rm-*--*--c1-jm-hb-rv-jn-ac-lk-mk,mt
\ \ \ \----------------------------t2----------t1,tt
\ \ \---------------------------jd,p2
\ \--------------------------------------------ep----co,pm
\-------------------------------------------------------------j1,j2
Notes:
1. The results of this run are pathological; everything pretty much
clustered against the Gospels.
2. The order of clustering is interesting: 1 Cor. and 1 Pet. are outliers.
Case IV: Common Vocabulary (1st norm.)
25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 09 08 07 06 05 04 03 02 01 00
*--ac----*-----lk----------mk,mt
\ \-------------------jn,rv
\---*-----*--------*-----------------c2-------ga----pp----------q1,q2
\ \ \-------------c1-------------------co,ep
\ \---------rm----------------jm,p1
\--------hb-------------*-----------*--------------tt-------j1-pm-j2,j3
\ \----------------jd,p2
\---------------t1,t2
Notes:
1. Some of the smaller books clustered early, so this Case is not useful.
2. However note that the Pastorals are distinct from Paul, but Colossians
is in the middle of Paul.
Case V: Characteristic Phrases (2nd norm.)
25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 09 08 07 06 05 04 03 02 01 00
*--------rv-*--ac-hb-*--*--*--c1-------------ga,rm
\ \ \ \ \----------------------c2,pm
\ \ \ \------*--*-----------------------------------jd,p2
lk-mk,mt \ \ \ \----------pp-------------q1,q2
\ \ \------------------------co,ep
\ \------------*--------------------------tt-t1,t2
\ \----------------jm,p1
\----------------------jn----------j1-------------------j2,j3
Notes.
1. The Pastoral cluster with other Catholics first (except for 2 Peter/Jude
right in the middle of the Pauline 10.
2. The Johannines cluster together.
Case VI: Shared Phrases (2nd norm.)
25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 09 08 07 06 05 04 03 02 01 00
rv-ac-*--*--lk-mk,mt
\ \----------jn----------------------------------j1----------------j2,j3
\---------hb----jm-*--*--c1-*--c2-------*--------------pp,pm
\ \ \ \----q1,q2
\ \ \---------------------co,ep
\ \-----------ga,rm
\----------*--------------------------tt-t2,tt
\-------p1-------------p2,jd
Notes:
1. Johannines cluster together (with John).
2. Petrines cluster, and with the Pastorals.
3. Col/Eph right in the middle of the Paulines, but the Pastoral just ouside.
Case VII: Characteristic Vocabulary (2d norm.)
25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 09 08 07 06 05 04 03 02 01 00
rv-ac-*--jm-hb-p1-c1-*--------rm-*-----------------q1----------ep-------co,pm
\ \ \----ga----------------c2,q2
\ \------------pp----*-----------t1-------------t1,tt
\ \----------------------jd,p2
\-------------*--lk----------------mk-j3,mt
\----------------------------------jn-------------j1,j2
Notes:
1. Pastoral cluster early, then with Jude, then with Philippians (!).
2. Eph/Col in the middle of Paul.
3. Johannines (except for the short 3 John) are together.
Case VIII: Shared Vocabulary (2d norm.)
25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 09 08 07 06 05 04 03 02 01 00
*--pp-*--ga-*--p1-jm-*--c2-*--rm-c1-------------hb-------rv-jn-ac-lk-mk,mt
\ \ \ \ \-------t2-------------t1,tt
\ \ \ \---------------------co,ep
\ \ \--------------------------------------jd,p2
\ \----------------------------q1,q2
\------------------------------------j1----------------------------pm-j2,j3
Notes:
1. This is pathological, showing that 3d-order contacts are more stable.
Conclusions:
1. Pastorals probably not by Paul.
2. Johannine Epistle probably by same author of John.
3. The Colossians-Ephesians corpus is Pauline as a whole.
4. Common early clusters: 1,2 Thess; Jude/2 Pet.; Col./Eph.; Pastorals;
Johannines; and Synoptics.
5. Hebrews and Revelation are distinct. Probably not by Paul (nor translated
by Luke) or John, respectively.
Stephen Carlson
- --
Stephen Carlson : Poetry speaks of aspirations, : ICL, Inc.
scc@reston.icl.com : and songs chant the words. : 11490 Commerce Park Dr.
(703) 648-3330 : Shujing 2:35 : Reston, VA 22091 USA
------------------------------
From: Orthopodeo@aol.com
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 1995 18:57:36 -0500
Subject: Re: UBS Text
>As to the Traditional Text, as you know, the phrase is ambiguous. Do you
>refer to the TR with this phrase, or to the broader Majority Text? Surely
>you know that the Majority Text differs from the TR in many places. And if
>you speak of the TR, which one? Which of Erasmus' five editions? Stephanus?
> Beza? Or the eclectic text created by the KJV translators as they chose
>between variations in the above texts?
<You ask questions that are excellent, but at the present time I don't think
I can completely answer tham with the clarity that you are looking for.>
OK, well, I can only suggest that a thorough study of these issues would be
something I would highly recommend, for it is very easy to say "I hold to the
Traditional Text," but identifying exactly what that "Traditional Text" is
proves to be a bit more problematic. And since you speak of a word-for-word
model of preservation, it would seem logical that you be able to identify a
*specific* text that gives us this "word-for-word" revelation.
<The issue of preservation has been an axiom to me up to this point, and am
in
the midst of compiling exactly what I _do_ believe. At the moment I will
say this - I believe that God has promised to preserve His word [Psalm
12:6-7, Psalm 119:89-90, Matthew 5:17-19, I Peter 1:23-24]. This doctrine
along with the doctrines of Inspiration and Inerrency, I completely base how
I view Scriptures, but how I view my very existence.>
I'll remain brief by simply noting that 1) the reality of preservation does
not define the means thereof, and 2) I approach the Scriptures from the
standpoint of faith, but this does not require me to adopt either the KJV Only
or Majority Text perspectives.
<I believe that God providentially preserved His Word through His Church.>
A sufficiently ambiguous statement to serve profitably to the agreement of
all. <grin> Erasmus heard that line often, but, in his case, it was used by
folks who were inveterately opposed to the use of anything other than the
Vulgate. Those same folks thought that the study of Greek was a waste of
time. "Greek is the language of the heretics" he was told. "God has
preserved the Scriptures through the Church" it was asserted. Of course, they
were referring to the Vulgate, not the KJV, with those statements.
<God did not give the Church the Bible and completely take His hands off of
it,
like some would believe, but has providentially moved men of God to preserve
His Word - completely and purly.>
One does not have to believe that God cares nothing about the Word to believe
that P46 or P66 or P75 are gifts of God's grace as well, John. What is more,
while it is very popular for people to refer to this "traditional text" as
having been the common possession of "the Church," the fact is that there is
no such united, single "traditional text." As you know, there are not two
manuscripts, even of the Byzantine family, that agree *word-for-word.* You
need to consider this fact closely and allow your understanding to be
informed by the facts of the matter. It is a fact of reality that God has
not seen fit to override human frailties in the *transmission* of the text of
the Bible. That is a fact, and all our theories cannot overthrow reality.
Does this mean God has not preserved His Word? No, it does not. But it
does require that we think more closely about *how* He has preserved His
Word.
<In the Old Testament we have the BHM -Massoretic Text, and in the New
Testament we have the Traditional Text.>
I would only note that again you use a term, "Traditional Text," that you
have yet to define. Given the 1800+ differences between the TR and the
Majority Text, and the differences between the various flavors of the TR,
which of these is the text to which you make reference above? Let me give
you an example. 2 Timothy 2:19 in the TR has the reading, "ho onomazwn to
onoma tou Christou." This is the reading of the KJV in translation as well.
However, the Majority Text, and all modern eclectic/critical texts, read,
"ho onomazwn to onoma kuriou." The manuscript evidence is overwhelmingly
against the reading "Christou." Von Soden lists a whopping two manuscripts,
en toto, that read "Christou" against all the rest which read "kuriou." Now,
which "Traditional Text" reading is the divinely inspired one? And what is
more important, how would you know?
<You're right, the Traditional Text does not mean the TR. I believe that God
used the Byzantine Empire to preserve His Word up to the point where Erasmus
could be used to get it into print [I find it amazing how the Byzantine
Empire had a great awe for the purity of God's Word, and was in existence up
to the time when Erasmus was used by God. After the Traditional Text was in
print, the Byzantine Empire was no longer needed, and thus fell to the
muslims].>
A very interesting theory, however: 1) The Byzantine manuscript tradition show
s a variety of readings that can even be turned into "streams" or sort of
"mini-families" within the broader tradition; in other words, as you've
noted, there are variants within the Byzantine. How does this impact your wor
d-for-word preservation concept? 2) Constantinople fell decades before
Erasmus began work on his NT. I don't believe the majority of the
manuscripts he referred to could be traced to the Byzantine empire
specifically to begin with; the manuscripts preserved in the Roman West were
Byzantine in textual orientation anyway.
<Yes, I admit Erasmus had made several flaws in his first edition,
but due to the providence of God, it was corrected before it was properly
used.>
Specifics, please? Luther used the first edition, I might note.
<Yes, later on we do have others that brought further editions out, but
before you ask that ominous question about how I'd handle the variences
between the texts, I am going to head you off at the pass <grin>, by saying
I do not know. What were the exact changes made? I do not know. What I do
know is that God has promised to preserve His Word, and that goes without
question.>
While that goes without question, as Christian scholars we must apply God's
truth to the realities around us. I am reminded of Tertullian's statement
that Christ surnamed Himself Truth, not Tradition. I mean no offense, but
KJV Onlyism and some of its related concepts (such as the dedication to the
"Traditional Text," whatever that might be) often take on the character of
the traditions of the scribes and elders, or of my Roman Catholic friends who
refuse to submit their traditions to the over-riding authority of Scripture.
When faced with facts that contradict the tradition, the superior authority
of the tradition is asserted in a circular fashion of reasoning. While
everyone is, at all times in their lives, ignorant of this or that, there shou
ld be a readiness to vanquish that ignorance through diligent study. I
suppose the most important question would be, if you were to determine that a
word-for-word perfect text, in a single manuscript or edition, does *not*
exist, what would you do? Or, (and this is very important), is your faith in
Christ mediated through a faith in a particular textual theory, or is it
personal and direct, and able to survive a challenge to a pet theory that may
not accord with the facts?
>While there may be those who have responded in kind to the writings of
>Ruckman, Riplinger, etc., I must say that I believe such behavior is so
>common amongst KJV Only advocates as to be descriptive of a majority of the
>movement.
<Please, James, let me recommend that this is NOT the norm! Yes, when it
comes to defending the Word of God, I myself will become polemic, but I will
do my absolute utmost to NOT be crude!>
I can only speak to my experiences, John. My experience is this: the
majority of those who have stood for the King James Version as the only
God-honoring English version have, in the vast majority of instances, not
only treated me with disrespect and behavior unbecoming a person professing
faith in Christ, but they have further treated the facts as playthings and
thrown reason and consistency to the wind. I speak not only of leaders in
the movement such as Peter Ruckman, Gail Riplinger, and Texe Marrs (you
should hear when Marrs called into a radio debate I was doing with Dr. D.A.
Waite in Austin last year--talk about wild!), but of the "everyday" type
folks I encounter in letters and in electronic forums. Pop on over to the
Open Bible echo in Fidonet sometime and read messages by individuals such as
Doug Snead, Steve Adair, Ralph Stokes and Bob Harris. These are regular
laypeople--not leaders, just your "normal" KJV Only type person. I have had
certain of those individuals write such lines as, "Do ya see the smoke?
Smell the sulfur? Keep on, you'll be getting there soon! . . . Jesus will
crush you under his heel! . . . Bible hater! Hypocrite!" etc. and etc. I
moderate an echo in the FamilyNet dedicated to discussing this topic, and I
had a KJV Only advocate, a SysOp of a BBS, post the following to another user
who has simply quoted a verse to him:
>> But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother
>> without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and
>> whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger
>> of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be
>> in danger of hell fire. (Matthew 5:22)
>You need to learn to rightly divide the word of truth, stupid. I'm
>sealed by the Holy Spirit unto the day of redemption, fool. I'm bone of
>his bone and flesh of his flesh, idiot. There ain't no way I'll ever be
>in danger of hell fire, fool.
By the way, I banned the fellow for that last comment. Anyway, by
maintaining a level of courtesy and decorum you are separating yourself from
such folks, and for that you are to be congratulated. However, I stand by my
statement that in *my* experience (and I'm racking up a whole lot more
experience in this area than most other folks, and with the release of my
book, I'll probably take the record), KJV Only folks are willing to use
sub-Christian means of expression and argumentation (how's THAT for a politica
lly correct way of phrasing it?) to advance their agenda.
<You're basing all your evidence on a few people - it's not a fair
evaluation! There is a difference between firmness and vulgarity. I am firm,
but God forbid, if I find myself vulgar!>
While I'm sure there are many godly people in your church (my father and
grandfather used nothing but the KJV for years and they were godly men, too),
that really has little bearing upon either 1) the fact that godliness is not
dependent upon the translation you use, 2) that the *leaders* of the KJV Only
movement generally engage in the behavior I have described, and 3) that it is
my experience that those who vocally defend KJV Onlyism in the public arena
follow the lead of the majority of their leaders, not the minority who
maintain a civil disposition. I am well aware that there are fine, kind,
godly men who use only the KJV. That's fine. What's more, I know there are
advocates such as Edward F. Hills and D.A. Waite who do not engage in the
kind of behavior that marks Ruckmanism or Riplingerism, etc. My statement
was a general one, and was properly identified as such originally.
<It's a shame you can't be here this week. We are having Bro. James Crumpton,
Johnny Pope coming down for our Bible Conference. Bro. Crumpton has been a
pastor inhis church for over 50 years, and the man loves the Word of God! He
is firm, yet polite. Attempt to corrupt the Word of God, and he will
politely dismiss you. But he will not be vulgar.>
What do you mean by "corrupt the Word of God"? I would say Erasmus'
wholesale insertion of passages from the Vulgate would come much closer to
"corrupting the Word of God" than, say, properly translating peripoiesis at 1
Peter 2:9, resulting in "a people belonging to God" rather than "a peculiar
people." Yet, KJV Only advocate Gail Riplinger makes the following amazing
statements in one of her outrageous attacks upon Edwin Palmer of the NIV.
Under the title "The Country Club or the Cross" she wrote,
A lifestyle driven by verses not vogue, will brand one as
`peculiar' (NERD, in the vernacular).
Unwilling to bear `his reproach,' the NIV's Edwin Palmer pushes the
`peculiar people' of Titus
2:14 and 1 Peter 2:9 into the closet--already crowded with the
`righteous' and `the perfect.'
Palmer writes, `...a peculiar people. Today that means odd. It
should be . . . " . . . It meant odd
when Peter and Paul wrote it and when Moses wrote it 4000 years
earlier.
Now John, what does peripoiesis mean? You teach Greek. Does it mean "odd"
or "strange"? How does the KJV translate the same term at Ephesians 1:14?
Yet it is Mrs. Riplinger who is accusing everyone else of "corrupting the
Word of God." Remember, this is the same fine lady (whose degrees are in
interior design, I might note in passing) who tells everyone that "The KJV is
also the only bible [she never capitalizes the word Bible] that distinguishes
between the Hebrew Adonai and JHVH, using `Lord' for the former and `LORD'
for the latter" (NABV, pp. 375-376). This kind of reporting is the NORM for
Mrs. Riplinger.
>Why just those two? Would you also include P46, P66, and P75 as well?
<Because the matter we are dealing with here is the corrupted Codices Aleph
and B, which the Critical Texts leans strongly on. We can deal with the
Chester-Beatty papyri and the others later, but now, we need to concentrate
on Aleph and B.>
Why do I get the feeling I'm talking to someone who has read a lot of Dean
Burgon? <grin> John, modern texts do not simply "lean on" Aleph and B; the
papyri have made a huge impact, and what's more, since the papyri confirm the
Alexandrian readings in the vast majority of cases, you can no longer focus
attention upon Aleph and B to the exclusion of the papyri.
>Heresy was part and parcel of even the apostolic church, John. The polemic
>nature of Galatians, Colossians, and 1 John is sufficient evidence of this.
> Heresies were not geographically limited, either. Egypt had no more, or
>less, of its share of heresies than any place else, including Antioch or
>Rome.
<I'm not denying that, but you'll notice that there are certain areas that
heresies flourished. Alexandria was one such area.>
As was Antioch. Yes or no? As was Rome? Yes or no?
<Ever since Clement of
Alexandria, and then Origen <thank you for the corrected spelling - it was
late, and I am a self admitted terriblke speler! =3D) I am a product of the
public education system!> controlled the Catechetical School things had not
been good down there.>
I know its real popular to bash Alexandria, John. I grew up on circles where
that was very much accepted. Then I studied Church History, taught it, and
got a bit better perspective. I would like to suggest yet again that
Athanasius is the fly in your ointment, so to speak. May I inquire as to
what of his writings you have read or studied?
<If you think about it, it does make sense. Both men
mixed Platonic and Aristotilian philosophy with their doctrines. It's
clearly seen in Clement's works <refering to his writings Protreptikos,
Paedagogos, Stromata, and Hupotupses>.>
You won't find me defending Clement of Alexandria as being particularly
orthodox---but where your theory breaks down, in my opinion, is in the leap
that is made to the manuscripts copied in the same geographical area. If we
reject manuscripts because they come from the *area* where heretics lived,
does it not follow that we must be just as suspect of the East, including
Antioch, which was so friendly to Arianism, Nestorianism, Monotheletism, etc.
and etc.?
>Actually, John, Arianism "flourished" primarily in the East, especially
>around (gulp) Antioch and its environs.
<Only after Eusebius started promoting it in the Post-Nicene period. Sure,
during the bishopric of Peter of Alexandria (AD 300-311) he was temporarily
made a DEACON in Antioch, but that was only to "curb" him. Arius was born in
the area of Libya, and was strongly influenced by Origen.>
But remember, John, that during the Arian ascendency it was the East that
provided the majority of the impetus. If you are consistent, does it not
follow that we should be suspect of any manuscripts originating from this
area?
>Athanasius, the great defender of the deity of Christ, normally used a
biblical text >that was, by and large, Alexandrian, not Byzantine, in form.
<There is absolutely no proof of this. Look at the text of Aleph, and look at
the dogmas of that great Antipas! Sorry, you're wrong.>
Excuse me? Absolutely no proof of what? That Athanasius was the great
defender of the deity of Christ, or that he used a biblical text that was by
and large Alexandrian in form? And what does comparing Aleph with Antipas
have to do with either item?
>And wouldn't it be even more relevant, if we are to find such things
relevant, that these manuscripts, if they did come from Egypt, ....
<It appears that this logic is running in circles. First, it's suggested that
since it is Alexandrian, we can possibly tie it to Athanasius, then we
question whether the Alexandrian Texts were _really_ from Alexandria??>
I may not have been as clear as I should have been, John. Let me restate my
objection to your theory. Seemingly you are asserting that since there were
heretics in Alexandria, this somehow means that Aleph and B are heretical in
nature, or give evidence of tampering by heretics. Correct? Now, if this is
the case, then it follows that you believe that the presence of heretics in a
geographical area necessitates their interaction with, and corruption of, any
and all manuscripts written in that area. Now, I first pointed out that
heretics did not flourish ONLY in Alexandria, but that they flourished all
over the place, including in the backyard of your "Byzantine" manuscript
tradition. Secondly, I pointed out that areas such as Alexandria could
produce heretics *as well as* manifestly orthodox individuals, such as
Athanasius. It would seem, would it not, that if heretics living in an area
automatically cast doubt upon manuscripts allegedly written in that area,
that orthodox folks living in an area should automatically give weight to
manuscripts written in that area, too, right? Next, I pointed out that the
textual terms "Alexandrian" and "Byzantine," while derived from geographical
names, are not meant to indicate the actual point of origin of a manuscript.
One will find Alexandrian manuscripts copied half a world away, and one will
find Byzantine readings in the writings of men who lived in Alexandria. The
terms are descriptive, not geographically limiting in the way you are using
them. For example, Athanasius knew of both readings at John 1:18, and cited
the passage in both forms. Hence there was not the black and white
distinction between "text types" that you seem to believe existed. Does that
help you to understand what I was saying?
<James, I'll admit, the texts might _not_ have originated in the Egyptian
city, but they do ring of heresies! The greatest heresy of all is that they
question the Preservation of Scripture.>
I have to note, John, the circularity of your argumentation. How do they
"ring of heresy"? If you didn't start with that presupposition, I don't belie
ve you would arrive at that conclusion. What is more, where do they question
your concept of the preservation of Scripture??
< verbosity alert: continued in next message >
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #612
*****************************
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
To unsubscribe from this list write
majordomo@virginia.edu
with "unsubscribe b-greek-digest" as your message content. For other
automated services write to the above address with the message content
"help".
For further information, you can write the owner of the list at
owner-b-greek@virginia.edu
You can send mail to the entire list via the address:
b-greek@virginia.edu