[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #775
b-greek-digest Saturday, 8 July 1995 Volume 01 : Number 775
In this issue:
[none]
End of Mark Possibilities
Text-criticism & P75
Re: End of Mark Possibilities
Re: Text-criticism & P75
word order in NT
Re: Text-criticism & P75
Re: Text-criticism & P75
Re: P75 and Textual Criticism
New Syntax just published
Re: New Syntax just published
Biblical Greek Library
Re: End of Mark Possibilities
Re: word order in NT
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "James K. Tauber" <jtauber@tartarus.uwa.edu.au>
Date: Fri, 7 Jul 1995 20:20:22 +0800 (WST)
Subject: [none]
On Thu, 6 Jul 1995, Vincent Broman wrote:
> One thing I'm wondering about is whether anyone knows this Reuben Swanson
> who might approach him personally about making some contribution of data
> to the Electronic New Testament Manuscript Project.
Can anybody help us out here? His book was published by William Carey
International University in Pasadena. Does this give any clues?
James K. Tauber <jtauber@tartarus.uwa.edu.au>
University Computing Services and Centre for Linguistics
University of Western Australia, Perth, AUSTRALIA
http://www.uwa.edu.au/student/jtauber
------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Fri, 7 Jul 1995 07:35:54 -0500
Subject: End of Mark Possibilities
About a week ago, just before my mailing system went down for six days,
Bruce Terry listed possibilities regarding the ending of Mk and asked for
comment, which I now offer belatedly under the citation:
> Does anyone see any viable possibilities that explain the evidence for
> the ending of Mark other than the following?
>
> 1) Mark is the author of the long ending. A copy in the late first
> century or early second century lost the last sheet containing the
> last twelve verses. In the tradition that did not contain these
> verses, a short ending was devised.
>
> 2) Mark wrote another ending to the gospel which was lost from the
> autograph (or at least ancestor of all extant copies). The long
> ending was devised in the late first century or early second century
> to replace the lost ending. A shorter ending was later devised for
> the same reason in the tradition that did not include the longer
> ending.
>
> 3) Mark intended to provide an ending to his gospel covering the
> resurrection appearances but was hindered from doing so due to death,
> disease, persecution, etc. The long and short endings of Mark arose
> as noted in #2 above.
>
> 4) Mark intended to end his gospel with EFOBOUNTO GAR, but this was
> not satisfactory to a number of copists and consequently the long and
> short endings of Mark were added as noted in #2 above.
Bruce, your alternative possibilities do appear to be complete, but I
wonder about the ordering of the possibilities in terms of probability:
it appears to me that you proceed from the more remotely hypothetical
to the more probable (I realize that my satisfaction with 16:8 as the
ending is not universally shared, but it is nevertheless what the MSS
present as the alternative to be disproven, isn't it? Wouldn't
probabilities be stated more clearly if you started with #4 and
reversed the order of the whole group: 4, 3, 2, 1, with appropriate
rephrasing?
1) Mark intended to end his gospel with EFOBOUNTO GAR, but this was
not satisfactory to a number of copyists and consequently the long and
short endings of Mark were added The long ending was devised in the
late first century or early second century; a shorter ending was later
devised for the same reason in the tradition that did not include the
longer ending.
2) Mark intended to provide an ending to his gospel covering the
resurrection appearances but was hindered from doing so due to death,
disease, persecution, etc. The long and short endings of Mark arose
as noted in #1 above.
3) Mark wrote another ending to the gospel which was lost from the
> autograph (or at least ancestor of all extant copies). The long and
short endings of Mark arose as noted in #1 above.
4) Mark is the author of the long ending. A copy in the late first
century or early second century lost the last sheet containing the
last twelve verses. In the tradition that did not contain these
verses, a short ending was devised.
On this same matter, Dixon Murrah cited and commented on Wed 06 July
as follows:
> Bruce Terry's comments of Jun 27th;
>> Does anyone see any viable possibilities that explain the evidence
>> for the ending of Mark other than the following?
> Yes - If the book of Mark is inspired, why isn't the ending just what
> God wanted it to be? That would be another viable possibility.
I would not argue with the proposition that the gospel of Mark is
inspired, but is this supposed to mean that ALL THREE endings are as
God intended them to be? I honestly don't see how the doctrine of
inspiration is helpful by itself in resolving problems of MS variants.
------------------------------
From: Tim McLay <nstn1533@fox.nstn.ca>
Date: Fri, 7 Jul 95 09:36:55 -0400
Subject: Text-criticism & P75
I would appreciate some input from some NT textual critics and I don't
believe this subject was covered in the recent discussion. On p. 57 of
the revised ed. of their text, the Alands state that in contrast to the
views of scholars that the NT text was treated freely in the initial
centuries, P75 proves that this was not the case. For them, P75 is the
"key" to understanding the textual transmission of the NT. Accordingly,
P75, B and others represent the "strict text." This judgment is based on
the fact that P75 and B are so close that P75 might have been the exemplar
for B.
My question is, is there something amiss with their logic?
It seems to me that they are assuming that since B is so close to P75, P75
in turn must be close to its exemplar (which must be close to the original
text). Hence the category "strict text." Or, am I misunderstanding the
intention of these statements? I would appreciate your thoughts.
Tim McLay
--
Tim McLay
Halifax, NS
nstn1533@fox.nstn.ca
------------------------------
From: WINBROW@aol.com
Date: Fri, 7 Jul 1995 14:33:31 -0400
Subject: Re: End of Mark Possibilities
"4) Mark is the author of the long ending. A copy in the late first century
or early second century lost the last sheet containing the last twelve
verses. In the tradition that did not contain these verses, a short ending
was devised."
I would agree with Carl Conrad that this is the least likely of the
explanations of the textual data on the ending of Mark. The reasons are
clearly stated by Metzger in the Textual Commentary. This ending clearly is
a compilation of the other three resurrection narratives except the part
about speaking in tongues, handling snakes, and drinking poison. Most will
remember the story of Paul and the snake on the island in Acts. Papias
(probably about 125), according to Eusebius, tells of a Christian (Justus, I
think) who accidently drank poison and survived (after prayers). Tatian (ca.
160) clearly used the long ending in making his Diatessaron. Hence, I would
say that the origin of the ending may have been in the early to middle second
century by a (charismatic) scribe who was acauainted with these stories. The
vocabulary and style speak against Markan construction.
Carlton Winbery
Prof. Religion
LA College Pineville, LA
------------------------------
From: WINBROW@aol.com
Date: Fri, 7 Jul 1995 14:45:50 -0400
Subject: Re: Text-criticism & P75
Tim McLay wrote,
"My question is, is there something amiss with
their logic? It seems to me that they are assuming
that since B is so close to P75, P75 in turn must be
close to its exemplar (which must be close to the
original text). Hence the category "strict text." Or,
am I misunderstanding the intention of these
statements?"
I would say that the Alands position on B and the
"so called" Alexandrian text goes back to Westcott
and Hort and their "neutral" text. If P75 has significant
agreement (and it seems to from all that I have seen)
with these, then it would be part of the strict/neutral
texts. That seems logical to me. I think though that
this does not mean that is some places and circum-
stances that there was not "free" copying activity
going on. In the context of persecution, not everyone
could take time to do a strick text.
Carlton Winbery
Prof. Religion
LA College Pineville, LA
------------------------------
From: gorazd.kocjancic@nuk.uni-lj.si
Date: Fri, 07 Jul 1995 21:02:28 +0200
Subject: word order in NT
Would someone on the list be so kind to suggest the most important
studies on the order of words in the Greek New Testament or the
bibliographical source, where I could find them?
Thank you in advance,
Gorazd Kocijancic
Ljubljana, Slovenija
gorazd.kocjancic@uni-lj.si
------------------------------
From: "Larry W. Hurtado" <hurtado@cc.umanitoba.ca>
Date: Fri, 7 Jul 1995 14:23:35 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Text-criticism & P75
On Fri, 7 Jul 1995, Tim McLay wrote:
> I would appreciate some input from some NT textual critics and I don't
> believe this subject was covered in the recent discussion. On p. 57 of
> the revised ed. of their text, the Alands state that in contrast to the
> views of scholars that the NT text was treated freely in the initial
> centuries, P75 proves that this was not the case. For them, P75 is the
> "key" to understanding the textual transmission of the NT. Accordingly,
> P75, B and others represent the "strict text." This judgment is based on
> the fact that P75 and B are so close that P75 might have been the exemplar
> for B.
> My question is, is there something amiss with their logic?
> It seems to me that they are assuming that since B is so close to P75, P75
> in turn must be close to its exemplar (which must be close to the original
> text). Hence the category "strict text." Or, am I misunderstanding the
> intention of these statements? I would appreciate your thoughts.
> Tim McLay
You've identified the basic inference being made, Tim, although there is
a bit more to be said in its favor. In addition to the high agreement of
P75 with B, there is also the textual character of P75: very few
corrections (cf. many more in P66 or P45) and other indications of a more
careful scribe of relatively disciplined copying habits. Further, there
is the nomina sacra to take account of, which suggest that there were
elements of standardization in early Christian scribal practice *very*
early (early 2nd cent. or earlier).
So, all in all the best inference (though it technically remains
an inference) is that P75 reflects a textual tradition, with antecedents
as well as descendents, that can be characterized as one of fairly high
quality and careful, disciplined scribal copying.
For more discussion, see two important studies, both available in
the recent volume by E. J. Epp, G. D. Fee, _Studies in the Theory and
Method of New Testament Textual Criticism_ (Eerdmans, 1993), chaps. 13
and 14.
Larry Hurtado, Religion, Univ. of Manitoba
------------------------------
From: Nichael Lynn Cramer <nichael@sover.net>
Date: Fri, 7 Jul 1995 15:32:31 -0400
Subject: Re: Text-criticism & P75
At 9:36 AM 07/07/95, Tim McLay wrote:
>I would appreciate some input from some NT textual critics and I don't
>believe this subject was covered in the recent discussion. On p. 57 of
>the revised ed. of their text, the Alands state that in contrast to the
>views of scholars that the NT text was treated freely in the initial
>centuries, P75 proves that this was not the case. For them, P75 is the
>"key" to understanding the textual transmission of the NT. Accordingly,
>P75, B and others represent the "strict text." This judgment is based on
>the fact that P75 and B are so close that P75 might have been the exemplar
>for B.
> My question is, is there something amiss with their logic?
>It seems to me that they are assuming that since B is so close to P75, P75
>in turn must be close to its exemplar (which must be close to the original
>text). Hence the category "strict text." Or, am I misunderstanding the
>intention of these statements? I would appreciate your thoughts.
If I understand the Alands' point here, it is written in reaction to the
old argument that the text in B represented a later (2nd-4th cent)
recension. The discovery of p75 showed that this was not the case. The
point, I believe, is not that this _necessarily_ proves that the text
represented in B is very close to the original text but rather that 1] at
the very least, it goes back to around 200CE and 2]that the text of this
early period was not one of "considerable irregularity" [the Alands'
term]).
More on this matter can be found in Gordon Fee's essay "p75, p66, and
Origen: The Myth of the Early Textual Recension in Alexandria" (which is
reprinted in _Studies in the Theory and Method of NT Textual Criticism_, a
collection of essays by Fee and Eldon Epp).
N
------------------------------
From: "Bart D. Ehrman" <BARTUNC@uncmvs.oit.unc.edu>
Date: Fri, 07 Jul 95 17:25 EDT
Subject: Re: P75 and Textual Criticism
I must say that I've always found the Alands' logic
a shade peculiar when it comes to assessing the papyri.
How can one know that a surviving manuscript has strictly,
normally, or freely reproduced its exemplar if the exemplar
itself is lost? I have a full (some might say fulsome) discussion
of this and (principally) other related issues in an article
entitled, "A Problem of Textual Circularity: The Alands on
the Classification of NT MSS," in _Biblica_ 70 (1989) 377-88.
- -- Bart D. Ehrman
------------------------------
From: Rod Decker <rdecker@accunet.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Jul 1995 17:34:26 -0500
Subject: New Syntax just published
The following book was just recently released. This is not a full review,
but only my initial impression upon browsing through it the first time.
Wesley J. Perschbacher, _NT Greek Syntax: An Illustrated Manual_ Chicago:
Moody Press, 1995. xxii + 449 pgs., glossary, bibliographies, Scripture
index.
W.P. has a BA from Calvin College and an MA, DMin from Trinity (TEDS). You
may recognize the name as the editor of both _Refresh Your Greek_ and a
revised version of Wigram's analytical lexicon.
Outline format with brief discussions of selected grammatical/syntactical
principles followed by an extensive catalog of examples. The dust jacket
says "over 3,000." The script. index shows only a few refs. with multiple
pg. refs., so the coverage is quite broad.
Negatives:
- -- Poor typographic design (reduces legibility):
- Greek font is considerably larger than the normal text font
- Leading is too tight
- Text font is sans serif
- Outline format is too choppy for easy use; headings are hard to find
due to Greek font used and to too much bold face type (poor page color)
- -- No explanation or discussion of examples
- -- Does not reflect the current discussion of verbal aspect; the entire
verb section is aktionsart oriented (though neither term is used). Porter
and Fanning are listed s.v. imperative and optative, but not elsewhere, and
their contributions re. aspect are not reflected.
- -- Classifications (outline headings) are listed under formal criteria
(i.e., parsings), but the examples relate primarily to pragmatic features.
- -- There is little reflection of modern linguistic study.
Positives:
- -- Extensive bibliography to secondary literature
- -- Most useful as a catalog of examples rather than as an explanation of
grammar and syntax.
Concl.:
If you teach Greek, you'd best buy it.
If you are a "working pastor," you will be better served by Porter's
_Idioms_ and Young's _Intermediate NT Greek_ (and prob. even better by
Wallace's syntax when it is eventually available.*)
If you are a student learning Greek, start with Young and supplement it
with Wallace for reference purposes.
_____________
*This judgment is based on the pre-pub MS copy I used this past year. Major
revisions to that copy have been promised. Pub. date has been delayed from
Aug. 95 to prob. Dec. 95. I anticipate a very useful volume when it is
finally available (but one that at last look is far too detailed for
textbook use).
Rod
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rodney J. Decker Calvary Theological Seminary
Asst. Prof./NT 15800 Calvary Rd.
Kansas City, Missouri 64147
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
------------------------------
From: Bill Mounce <billm@teknia.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Jul 1995 17:15:29 -0700
Subject: Re: New Syntax just published
>If you are a student learning Greek, start with Young and supplement it
>with Wallace for reference purposes.
>
I am typsetting Wallace's grammar right now. I don't know if Zondervan has
a firm publication date, but I would certainly think it will be done and
bound by SBL time.
Bill Mounce
- -------------------------------
Teknia Software, Inc.
1306 W. Bellwood Drive
Spokane, WA 99218-2911
Internet: billm@teknia.com (preferred)
AOL: Mounce
CIS: 71540,2140 (please, only if necessary)
"It may be Greek to you, but it is life to me."
------------------------------
From: rrilea <rrilea@cnw.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Jul 1995 18:03:05 -0700
Subject: Biblical Greek Library
Bruce,
Thanks for the list of materials you sent me, and the suggestion of
contacting University of Wisconsin about their Biblical Greek
Correspondence course.
>I can't tell exactly where you are at the moment when you say "beginning" or
>exactly how fast you hope to progress when you say "on my own." It sort of
>sounds like you are interested in what Goodrick calls "low road" Greek.
Well when I say beginning I mean I am a beginner. I have used Vines and
Strongs for years to help determine meanings of words, but realize that
these resources are limited. I also picked up an "old" copy of Thayers
from a used book store while working on my masters degree. So as you can
tell I have been doing "low road" Greek for some time and I have come to
the realization that I need to learn the language. However, I am doing so
on a limited buget. I was given a copy of "Basic Greek In 30 Minutes a
Day" by Jim Found and have been using that, and that has been doing nothing
but wetting my appetite for more.
>Considering the current price, Brooks & Winbery is a very good substitute,
>especially with the new
>typesetting. I'll know how good after I put my 2nd year Greek students
>through it this fall.
I look forward to hearing your critic of Brooks & Winbery.
>If you are interested in the "high road" instead, ignore many of the books
>listed first under each section, especially the interlinears. Take a course
>in beginning Greek at your local university, college, seminary, Bible
>institute, or by correspondence from the University of Wisconsin.
It is my desire to move towards "high road" Greek and what to do as much as
I can to move myself in that direction. I would love to take a beginning
level class in Biblical Greek, but finances are tight right now, and so I
find myself doing what ever I can to progress toward learning the language
without spending a lot of money. Thus I am desirous of any help I can
receive or suggestions that would continue to help me on my way. I have
thought about trying to find an online study partner who is ahead of me if
this would work.
>The main thing to learning Greek is continual use. Read a couple of verses
>every day in your private devotionals; it makes great "slow" reading. Use as
>much as you can in your sermon and lesson preparation (but as many have said,
>don't tell people you have done this). One can climb from the low road to the
>high road. I know; I have done it. You just have to keep on using it.
I recently picked up a copy of Online Bible for the Mac, and a copy of the
TR-BYZ-N26 Greek text module, to help me a long in my pursuits. I am
interested in knowing more about how to begin reading Biblical Greek with a
limited vocabulary, and also where should I begin in learning Greek
vocabulary, and how much time should I spend studying Greek Vocabulary? I
have recently developed some flash cards of Greek vocabulary using
Microsoft Works 3.0 for the Mac, and I began with "Lexical Aids For
Students Of New Testament Greek" by Bruce M. Metzger. The set of vocab.
words I am using are those that he listed as being found 500 times in the
New Testament. Is this a good place to start, or would I better off
pulling words our of my daily readings of the Biblical Greek New Testament?
Well I need to sign off for now, Thanks again for all of your help.
God Bless,
Rod
rrilea@cnw.com
P.S Sorry Bruce if you already received this piece of mail, but I received
a local delievery error message was not sure if you had or not.
------------------------------
From: Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu>
Date: Fri, 07 Jul 1995 21:58:40 CST
Subject: Re: End of Mark Possibilities
On Fri, 7 Jul 1995, Carl W. Conrad wrote:
>About a week ago, just before my mailing system went down for six days,
>Bruce Terry listed possibilities regarding the ending of Mk and asked for
>comment, which I now offer belatedly under the citation:
******citation deleted********
>Bruce, your alternative possibilities do appear to be complete, but I
>wonder about the ordering of the possibilities in terms of probability:
>it appears to me that you proceed from the more remotely hypothetical
>to the more probable (I realize that my satisfaction with 16:8 as the
>ending is not universally shared, but it is nevertheless what the MSS
>present as the alternative to be disproven, isn't it? Wouldn't
>probabilities be stated more clearly if you started with #4 and
>reversed the order of the whole group: 4, 3, 2, 1, with appropriate
>rephrasing?
Thanks for the response, Carl. I was mainly wondering if there are other
alternative possibilities. Perhaps I was also wondering if anyone would
dispute that the long ending must be dated early second century or even
earlier. I don't think I was intending to suggest anything at this point
about probabilities of the four possibilities by the ordering I gave. At
least I hadn't consciously thought about it.
>On this same matter, Dixon Murrah cited and commented on Wed 06 July
>as follows:
>> Bruce Terry's comments of Jun 27th;
>>> Does anyone see any viable possibilities that explain the evidence
>>> for the ending of Mark other than the following?
>
>> Yes - If the book of Mark is inspired, why isn't the ending just what
>> God wanted it to be? That would be another viable possibility.
I too would see the book of Mark as inspired, but the question is: How does it
or did it end? I see a clear possibility that the long ending is early
enough that even if it is not original with Mark, it may be apostolic, and
thus inspired and canonical. I do not believe that the shorter ending is
inspired (although I would not argue that it is untrue). Neither do I believe
that the expanded ending in the Freer MS (W) is inspired (or even true, in
this case).
********************************************************************************
Bruce Terry E-MAIL: terry@bible.acu.edu
Box 8426, ACU Station Phone: 915/674-3759
Abilene, Texas 79699 Fax: 915/674-3769
********************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu>
Date: Fri, 07 Jul 1995 22:30:25 CST
Subject: Re: word order in NT
On Fri, 07 Jul 1995, Gorazd Kocijancic wrote:
>Would someone on the list be so kind to suggest the most important
>studies on the order of words in the Greek New Testament or the
>bibliographical source, where I could find them?
I repost the following bibliography that I have earlier listed in response to
Shaughn Daniel.
Here is some bibliography on Greek word order, by date:
Moulton, James Hope, and Wilbert Francis Howard. 1920. Accidence and word
formation. In James Hope Moulton (ed.), A grammar of New Testament Greek,
vol. 2. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. [pages 416-418]
Rife, J. Merle. 1933. The mechanics of translation Greek. Journal of Biblical
Literature 52: 244-252.
Dover, K. J. 1960. Greek word order. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Turner, Nigel. 1963. Syntax. In James Hope Moulton (ed.), A grammar of New
Testament Greek, vol. 3. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. [chap. 27]
Friberg, Timothy. 1982. New Testament Greek word order in light of discourse
considerations. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Minnesota.
Callow, John. 1983. Word order in New Testament Greek 1. Selected Technical
Articles Related to Translation 7: 3-50.
________. 1983. Word order in New Testament Greek 2. Selected Technical
Articles Related to Translation 8: 3-32.
Radney, J. Randolph. 1988. Some factors that influence fronting in Koine
clauses. Occasional Papers in Translation and Textlinguistics 2(3):1-79.
Cervin, Richard S. 1990. Word order in ancient Greek. Ph.D. dissertation.
University of Illinois.
________. 1993. A critique of Timothy Friberg's dissertation: New Testament
Greek word order in light of discourse considerations. Journal of Translation
and Textlinguistics 6(1): 56-85.
Terry, Ralph Bruce. 1995. A discourse analysis of First Corinthians.
Publications in Linguistics 120. Dallas: SIL/UTA. [Section 5.3]
Notes: 1) The journals START, OPTAT, and JOTT are all available from the
Summer Institute of Linguistics, as is my book.
2) Callow's articles are a summary of the findings of Friberg in his
dissertation. They are generally supportive.
3) Cervin's article in JOTT and the section in my book are, in part, an
attack on Friberg's contention that Greek is a VSO language. It isn't!
********************************************************************************
Bruce Terry E-MAIL: terry@bible.acu.edu
Box 8426, ACU Station Phone: 915/674-3759
Abilene, Texas 79699 Fax: 915/674-3769
********************************************************************************
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #775
*****************************
** 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