[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #37
b-greek-digest Friday, 8 December 1995 Volume 01 : Number 037
In this issue:
confused
Re: b-greek-digest V1 #32
Re: confused
Re: confused
Re: Inerrancy discussion
God didn't "fail"
Re: Inerrancy discussion
Textus Receptus
Re: confused
Re > Textus Receptus
Re: Re > Textus Receptus
RE: THE PRESERVATION OF THE ...
Re: FREE Magazine Problem
FREE Magazine Subscriptions
Re: b-greek-digest V1 #32 /inerrancy
Re:L Inerrancy Discussion (End to)
Re: Acts 15:18
Re: Greek orthography
Re:Textus Receptus
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jeff Needle <jeff.needle@giffy.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 1995 04:52:00 GMT
Subject: confused
W > From: Carlton Winbery <winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net>
W > To: b-greek@virginia.edu
W > Date: Thu, 7 Dec 1995 21:07:06 +0400
W > Subject: confused
W >
W > It's a slow night. I am a bit confused. I am being told that there must
W > be an inerrant text of Scripture or I have nothing to base my faith on.
W > Some even say I can't be a Christian without believing (I suppose that
W > means give mental assent to) in an inerrant text. But they also tell me
W > that the texts that are inerrant are the original autographs which I can't
W > quite get to. Woe is me for I am in a pickle. I can't be saved without an
W > inerrant text and we haven't yet found the autographs. If anyone finds
W > them, fax them to me quick!
W >
W > Calton L. Winbery
W > Prof. Religion
W > LA College, Pineville, La
W > winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net
W >
W >
W >
Sorry, misplaced the original autographs -- saw them just the other
day, can't put my finger on them now.
BTW, you must be a very short person, if you're in a pickle. I'm
surprised the literalists on this list did not pick up on this before.
Pax.
Jeff Needle
jeff.needle@giffy.com
- ---
RoseReader 2.10 P008106
------------------------------
From: Will Wagers <wagers@computek.net>
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 1995 00:50:18 -0600
Subject: Re: b-greek-digest V1 #32
>Anyone who doesn't believe in the inerrancy of the scriptures DOESN'T believe
>in Christ, or God for that matter. Part of believing in Christ, is believing
>his divinity, which includes the characteristic of omnipotence. How could an
>omnipotent being fail at anything, including giving us a nonerrant scripture?
>I think you may be confused on what it may mean to believe in Christ.
Frankly, I don't get the connection between believing in Christ - which is often
come upon prior to reading the Bible - and the actions of hundreds and thousands
of ordinary, mortal men, who wrote down, transcribed, and translated the
books now known as the Bible.
In any case, what's this to do with b-greek?
Sincerely,
Will
------------------------------
From: Mike Adams <mikadams@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 1995 23:23:09 -0800
Subject: Re: confused
You wrote:
>
>It's a slow night. I am a bit confused. I am being told that there
must
>be an inerrant text of Scripture or I have nothing to base my faith on.
>Some even say I can't be a Christian without believing (I suppose that
>means give mental assent to) in an inerrant text. But they also tell me
>that the texts that are inerrant are the original autographs which I
can't
>quite get to. Woe is me for I am in a pickle. I can't be saved without
an
>inerrant text and we haven't yet found the autographs. If anyone finds
>them, fax them to me quick!
>
>Calton L. Winbery
Quel chance!!
Would you believe it? An angel just dropped off a complete set of
autographs in a single volume. He said I could keep them a while, long
enough to look them over. Unfortunately, the pages won't run through the
fax, being gold and all. But if you can bear with me for a couple of
days, I'll come up with an inerrant translation!
Sincerely,
js
P.S. I don't care what others may say, I'm certain you're just as tall as
Bildad the Shuhite.
------------------------------
From: "Keith A. Clay" <keithc@ramlink.net>
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 1995 02:53:59 -0500
Subject: Re: confused
>You wrote:
>>
>>It's a slow night. I am a bit confused. I am being told that there
>must
>>be an inerrant text of Scripture or I have nothing to base my faith on.
>>Some even say I can't be a Christian without believing (I suppose that
>>means give mental assent to) in an inerrant text. But they also tell me
>>that the texts that are inerrant are the original autographs which I
>can't
>>quite get to. Woe is me for I am in a pickle. I can't be saved without
>an
>>inerrant text and we haven't yet found the autographs. If anyone finds
>>them, fax them to me quick!
>>
>>Calton L. Winbery
>
>Quel chance!!
>Would you believe it? An angel just dropped off a complete set of
>autographs in a single volume. He said I could keep them a while, long
>enough to look them over. Unfortunately, the pages won't run through the
>fax, being gold and all. But if you can bear with me for a couple of
>days, I'll come up with an inerrant translation!
>
>Sincerely,
>js
>
>P.S. I don't care what others may say, I'm certain you're just as tall as
>Bildad the Shuhite.
>
>
>
>
Would this angel happen to have been named Moroni? Just a thought I had
about gold tablets and all. And as always, this has absolutely nothing to do
with Greek.
keith a. clay - I personally like the great salt lake...
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keith A. Clay Tri-State Oxygen, Inc
4013 Blackburn Avenue 2927 Greenup Avenue
Ashland, KY 41101-5019 P.O. Box 121
(606)325-8331 Ashland, KY 41105-0121
(606)329-9638
(800)828-1620
School Address:
100 Academic Parkway
Kentucky Christian College
Box 171
Grayson, KY 41143
e-mail: keithc@ramlink.net
Fax: (606)325-8331 -- my computer answers both my phone and receives faxes.
(606)325-9962 -- Tri-State Oxygen fax
==========================================================================
"Christianity has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found
difficult and left untried." -- G. K. Chesterton
==========================================================================
------------------------------
From: Russ Reeves <russr@pe.net>
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 1995 01:28:19 +0000
Subject: Re: Inerrancy discussion
> Anyone who doesn't believe in the inerrancy of the scriptures DOESN'T believe
> in Christ, or God for that matter. Part of believing in Christ, is believing
> his divinity, which includes the characteristic of omnipotence. How could an
> omnipotent being fail at anything, including giving us a nonerrant scripture?
> I think you may be confused on what it may mean to believe in
Christ.
Though off-topic, it might be of interest to mention that New
Testment scholar J. Gresham Machen (whose conservativism, strict
confessionalism, and belief in inerrancy can hardly be faulted),
would have disagreed. "There are many who believe that the Bible is
right at the central point, in its account of the redeeming work of
Christ, and yet believe that it contains many errors. Such men are
not really liberals, but Christians; because they have accepted as
true the message upon which Christianity depends." J. Grehsam
Machen, _Christianity and Liberalism_, 75. It must be strenuous work
to out-fundamentalize Dr. Machen.
Promising to stick to greek next time,
Russ Reeves (whose M.A. thesis on Machen makes the same point)
russr@pe.net
------------------------------
From: CAROL CLARK TAYLOR <TAYLOC@micah.chowan.edu>
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 1995 08:48:28 EST
Subject: God didn't "fail"
As several have pointed out, inerrancy, in depth, really doesn't
belong on this list, but if one is going to get in the pool, one may
as well swim.
There has been some equation of God with "failure" if Scripture is
NOT inerrant, someone even asked when God failed if it does err. Why
does this have to be looked at as God "failing"? (BTW, if you do
choose to look at it like this, He "failed" when he brought humans
into the picture instead of just dropping a copy from heaven).
Why can't we allow God to work as He chooses? And this is from
someone who used to be an inerrantist and didn't believe any other
way of evaluting Scripture was possible. That was until I came back
to school and learned about all these manuscripts and discrepancies,
etc. that I'd never heard about at Church. The evidence is there,
and while it may have been news to me, it wasn't news to God.
The point is, God is well aware of the problems and can work anyway.
He isn't dependent on human efforts, which BTW, were very good and
extremely faithful, especially considering first-century working
conditions and lack of technology.
I suggest God hasn't "failed," Scripture hasn't "failed," and even
the Biblical authors (who weren't writing to be published as Biblical
authors) didn't "fail." Maybe we're the ones "failing" by bickering
over this issue instead of acknowledging the miracle of Scripture and
working from there...not to mention getting back to Greek.
Carol
------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 1995 08:13:55 -0600
Subject: Re: Inerrancy discussion
If I may inject what I wish but can hardly hope might be a last
"theological" comment on this whole business, I think injecting the issue
into discussion was the work of the Devil--no matter WHAT one understands
that assertion to mean. It was mischief; it has served to fuel a flame war
that some have found much more interesting than Greek questions. And now it
has evoked the sort of sarcasm on autographs more likely to fuel "autos da
fe." There has to be some mutual respect here if there's to be discussion.
Else we'll all be in the coffin carried by the students in Browning's
"Grammarian's Funeral":
So, with the throttling hands of death at strife,
Ground he at grammar;
Still, thor' the rattle, parts of speech were rife:
While he could stammer
He settled hOTI's business--let it be!--
Properly based OUN--
Gave us the doctrine of the enclitic DE,
Dead from the waist down ...
Is anyone for Greek?
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
------------------------------
From: Mike Adams <mikadams@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 1995 06:53:24 -0800
Subject: Textus Receptus
I have been wading through my first and only (so far) book concerning
the history of the New Testament, Metzger's "The Text of the New
Testament". I am a complete novice in this aspect, but I found the
chapter on the Textus Receptus most interesting, and I think applicable
to the current thread, so here's the story as I understand it:
The printing press was invented in about 1450, and subsequently several
Latin editions of the Bible were published. The 1500's saw a push to
print the scriptures in Greek. The first two endeavors of this kind
were the Complutensian (Polyglot), and Erasmus's Greek New Testament.
The Polyglot, being a more ambitious work took longer to produce, and
was by far more bulky and expensive. The the work of Erasmus was,
according to Metzger, "inferior in critical value to the Complutensian,
yet because it was the first on the market and was available in a
cheaper and more convenient form, it attained a much wider circulation
and exercised a far greater influence than its rival". (p 103)
Due to its popularity Erasmus's work became the foundation of that of
Stephanus and Beza. In 1624 the Elzevir brothers also published a Greek
Testament. As printers, not scholars, they safely chose what seemed the
generally accepted text at that time, Beza's 1565 edition, and did not
presume to significantly alter it. They explain this in their
introduction to their second edition: "Textum ergo habes, nunc ab
omnibus receptum: in quo nihil immutatum aut corruptum damus." (p. 106)
Now my knowledge Latin isn't that great, coming only from my
pre-ecumenical years as a Catholic, but isn't there a double meaning
here? Did not the whole precept of inerrancy stem from this little
printer's blurb which has been misunderstood and misapplied?
I am reminded of one of the Constitution of the United States, most
fundamental provisions "separation of church and state", which is
universally accepted and applied in our legal system, and which,
unfortunately, has been most succesful in restricting our religious
freedom.
Selah!
Ellen Adams
------------------------------
From: Mike Adams <mikadams@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 1995 07:27:32 -0800
Subject: Re: confused
You wrote:
>
>On Thu, 7 Dec 1995, Mike Adams wrote:
>
>> fax, being gold and all. But if you can bear with me for a couple of
>> days, I'll come up with an inerrant translation!
>>
>> Sincerely,
>> js
>>
>> P.S. I don't care what others may say, I'm certain you're just as
tall
as
>> Bildad the Shuhite.
>
>Two things: 1) could you explain "Bildad the Shuite?" and 2) Even JS
>rejected the concept for an inerrant translation even though he
claimed
>to have used autographs and to have translated by inspiration.
>
>Alma Allred
>
>
1. Bildad the Shoe Height: shortest man in the Bible.
2. Well, if by casting Urim and Thummin one can not elicit an inerrant
translation, how much more inexact mere efforts with lexica and papyri.
Speaking of papyri, I understand js accomplished wonders in decifering
the Book of Abraham from the Egyptian autographs.
Ellen Adams
(sometimes a bit too irreverent for this forum...
but here nonetheless.)
------------------------------
From: Karen Pitts <karen_pitts@maca.sarnoff.com>
Date: 8 Dec 1995 10:44:20 U
Subject: Re > Textus Receptus
Re > Textus Receptus 12/8/95 10:37 AM
On 12/8/95 Ellen Adams wrote
>"I am reminded of one of the Constitution of the United States, most
>fundamental provisions "separation of church and state", which is
>universally accepted and applied in our legal system, and which,
>unfortunately, has been most succesful in restricting our religious
>freedom.
Ellen:
Your example may be more apropos than you thought, since the Constitution
(actually the first Amendment in the Bill of Rights) merely says that
"Congress shall enact no law regarding the establishment of religion nor
prohibiting the free exercise thereof" (or close to that wording: source is my
husband, whose interest in the Constitution is akin to my interest in Biblical
Greek). Jefferson wrote the famous words "wall of separation of church and
state" in a letter. It is a sign of the poor general education of our times
that most Congressmen don't even know what the Constitution says, since they
quote the "wall of separation" all the time.
Peace.
Karen Pitts
Hopewell Presbyterian Church, Hopewell, NJ, teacher of NT Greek
David Sarnoff Research Center, Princeton, NJ, statistician
kpitts@sarnoff.com
------------------------------
From: Mike Adams <mikadams@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 1995 08:28:37 -0800
Subject: Re: Re > Textus Receptus
You wrote:
>
>Your example may be more apropos than you thought, since the Constitution
>(actually the first Amendment in the Bill of Rights) merely says that
>"Congress shall enact no law regarding the establishment of religion nor
>prohibiting the free exercise thereof" (or close to that wording: source
is my
>husband, whose interest in the Constitution is akin to my interest in
Biblical
>Greek). Jefferson wrote the famous words "wall of separation of church
and
>state" in a letter. It is a sign of the poor general education of our
times
>that most Congressmen don't even know what the Constitution says, since
they
>quote the "wall of separation" all the time.
>
>Peace.
>
>Karen Pitts
EXACTLY! The letter, in fact, was written to allay the fears of a citizen
concerned that the government would interfere too much with our religious
freedom.
Go figure!
ea
------------------------------
From: Jim Beale <jbeale@gdeb.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 95 12:30:17 EST
Subject: RE: THE PRESERVATION OF THE ...
On Thu, 7 Dec 1995 Carlton Winbery wrote:
> Jim Beale wrote;
> >I'll just say that for me, the presupposition of inerrancy of the
> >autographs forms the basis for my worldview. It is not appropriate, IMHO,
> >to approach Scripture with the philosophical presupposition of errancy.
> >That sets the human mind over the Biblical revelation, in deciding which
> >sentence, or clause, or jot or tittle is inspired, and which is not. I
> >would be willing to defend the claim that this leads to pure subjectivism.
>
> Jim,
> The next to the last sentence just won't hold up. This speaks as though
> the person who sees an inconsistency in the text decided where that
> inconsistency was going to be. The text itself determines where such
> problems are located not the person who points them out. I had nothing to
> do with the fact that Stephen said (in the power of the Spirit) that
> Abraham left Haran _after his father died_ and that this is at odds with
> Gen. 11 and 12. I didn't decide one day that this problem existed, I found
> it in the text. In honesty I must point it out and if my presupposition
> about Scripture won't stand in the face of it, I will change my
> presupposition not the text. My faith is not dependent upon my being able
> to explain away this text for I know God can use human beings who do not
> always get it right to get his message through. Stephen's message still
> stands in spite of several historical problems in his Spirit inspired
> sermon.
I would say that the next to last sentence does hold up. If there
is a contradiction between the two passages, and you choose whether
in this respect Genesis 11,12 or Acts 7:4 is correct, it cannot be
based on revelation. It is based on some external criteria.
Logically speaking, if there is a real contradiction in Scripture,
then is there any reason to accept any of it? Especially in light
of 2 Timothy 3:16, it would seem that "not all Scripture is
Scripture." How will one winnow the wheat from the chaff?
But I would question whether a contradiction is necessary. You seem
to be saying that:
1) Terah was 70 years old when he had Abram. (11:26)
2) Terah lived 250 years. (11:32)
3) Abraham left Haran when he was 75. (12:4)
4) So, Terah lived another 175 years after Abram left.
and that this conflicts with Stephen's saying,
Then he departed from the land of the Chaldeans,
and lived in Haran. And after his father died,
God removed him from there into this land in
which you are now living;
(Acts 7:4)
But, many responses are possible. It seems to me that the passage:
The days of Terah were two hundred and five years;
and Terah died in Haran. Now the LORD said to Abram,
"Go from your country and your kindred and your
father's house to the land that I will show you.
(Genesis 11:32-12:1)
would at least cast doubt on the assumption of dating the age of Terah
at Abram's birth. Since Genesis 11:26 does not explicitly state the
age of Terah at the birth of Abram, I simply don't know how old he
was.
The second possible response is that by 'APOQNHSKW' Stephen did not
mean physical death but something more spiritual. I'm sure that you
are more aware than I that Paul uses this verb in two ways in his
writings. In Romans 7:9-10, for example, doesn't APOQNHSKW refer to
death in relation to obedience to the law? So, it is at least possible
that Stephen was implying that Terah had become useless for the things
of God. Acts 7:4 in this respect would be additional revelation, but
not contradictory revelation.
I may not even know what the meaning is, but I'll avoid drawing the
conclusion that it is a bald contradiction.
- --
In Christ,
Jim Beale
___________________________________________________________________
Now, this is the work I have to do, to make out this conclusion
to you, that any affliction is to be chosen rather than any sin;
that there is more evil in any sin, the least sin, than in the
greatest affliction.
(Jeremiah Burroughs, "The Exceeding Sinfulness of Sin", pg. 2)
___________________________________________________________________
------------------------------
From: David Housholder <73423.2015@compuserve.com>
Date: 08 Dec 95 12:49:54 EST
Subject: Re: FREE Magazine Problem
Bruce Terry placed before us the options on controlling submissions to the
B-Greek list.
If it is possible for the access control to be set so that those subscribing to
B-Greek-Digest only would also have the submission access (perhaps a problem if
Majordomo sees them as two different discussion groups as far as subscription is
concerned), I would not see a difficulty in limiting posting to subscribers.
I know we get some questions from people who request a personal response because
they are not subscribed. There could be various reasons for that to be necessary
at times, but it would eliminate the unwanted postings. I am not bothered by
them now that CompuServe is not charging for incoming Internet messages, but if
they had come when I was in India, paying both time and volume charges, it would
have been highly irritating.
I operate a couple of discussion groups; Majordomo is the software. Submissions
by non-subscribers are bounced to the conference owner. I can then approve them
for posting to the group or just leave them off. Would that be possible for this
list?
One further problem with non-member submissions: Some e-mail systems change the
e-mail address slightly (usually adding another element) when sending mail. So
if I am subscribed as deh@xxxx.com the mailer may show the sender as
deh@yyy.xxxx.com. Majordomo then rejects that submission as being non-member.
So the issue *is* complex. My solution, by the way, is to delete without reading
any messages with the magazine subject line. The problem now is that some of
this discussion is using that subject line; we need to have a clear subject line
so the useful discussion messages here are not deleted by irritated recipients.
David Housholder
writing at 11:39 AM on Friday, December 08, 1995
------------------------------
From: Travis Bauer <bauer@acc.jc.edu>
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 1995 12:15:05 -36000
Subject: FREE Magazine Subscriptions
It seems to me that more mail has passed though my inbox regarding unwanted
advertisements than advertisements themselves. Perhaps the problem is not
big enough yet to demand any change in current submission policies.
- -----------------------------------------------
Travis Bauer
bauer@acc.jc.edu
homepage: http://acc.jc.edu/~bauer/
We don't understand the software; and
sometimes we don't understand the
hardware; but we can see the blinking lights!
-fortune
- -----------------------------------------------
------------------------------
From: Timster132@aol.com
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 1995 13:59:13 -0500
Subject: Re: b-greek-digest V1 #32 /inerrancy
Subject: Re: b-greek-digest V1 #32 /inerrancy
Timster132@aol.com wrote...
>> Here you are totally wrong and in danger of hell-fire. If someone is a
>>scholar, but rejects CHRIST that person is nothing more than a fool.
>> Rejecting Christ and rejecting the doctrine of inerrancy are not the same
>>thing at all.
>> Your equating inerrancy with the Son of God is disturbing.
From: Eric Vaughan <jevaughan@sauaca.saumag.edu>
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 1995 11:08:58 CST
>Anyone who doesn't believe in the inerrancy of the scriptures DOESN'T
believe
>in Christ, or God for that matter. Part of believing in Christ, is
believing
>his divinity, which includes the characteristic of omnipotence. How could
an
>omnipotent being fail at anything, including giving us a nonerrant
scripture?
>I think you may be confused on what it may mean to believe in Christ.
Actually, my understanding of what it means to believe in Christ is
simpler. It is a simple trusting God for salvation.
Paul warned against those who would add requirements to salvation
by faith in Christ. He had to contend with those who made gentiles
become jewish first and accept all the Jewish laws before they could
be Christians.
Your demand that I adhere to your theological doctrines of
omnipotence of Christ and the inerrancy view of inspiration is similar.
God has forgiven me, and there's nothing you can say that will make
me change my mind about that.
EN XRISTWi,
Tim Staker
Timster132@aol.com
------------------------------
From: Calr <credmond@usa.pipeline.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 1995 14:01:46 -0500
Subject: Re:L Inerrancy Discussion (End to)
On Dec. 8, Carl Conrad wrote,
<Is anyone for Greek>
YES. As a relative newcomer to this list, I've been surprised at how the
discussion in the month or two I've subscribed has changed from grammar to
theology. I think we need to respect the positions of other group members,
rather than impugn them because their theological presuppositions are
different from our own.
I have been helped on several issues by those whose theological positions
are different from my own, and I appreciate the opportunity to receive that
help from this forum.
As someone who professes inerrancy as defined by the Chicago Statement, I
hope that some of those more militantly to the right of me will stop
attacking those to the left of me. Hopefully, we can all walk arm in arm!
- --
Cal Redmond
The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
credmond@usa.pipeline.com
------------------------------
From: "Edgar M. Krentz" <emkrentz@mcs.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 1995 13:20:40 -0500
Subject: Re: Acts 15:18
>For years I have wondered about the numerous variations for Acts 15:18,
>but really didn't know where to turn to for information. I did purchase
>Metzger's "Text of the N.T", (only such book in stock at the time),
>which I've found awfully interesting, but which sheds very little light
>on this particular passage.
>
>I kind of like "tauta gnwsta ap'aiwnos"...sweet and simple, but there are
>so many other options, all the way to "tauta panta. gnwsta ap'aiwnos
>estin tw Qew panta ta erga autou." What a mouthful! And it makes quite
>a shift in the conclusion of this entire discourse. Surely, this is not
>just another example of sleepy-scribe syndrome. There seems to have been
>a little tampering somewhere by someone. Has anyone a clue who did what?
>Any insight as to why?
>
>If you have any references for me, I'll trot on down to the library and
>look them up. If you've any comments or insights, I would certainly
>appreciate them as well.
>
>Ellen Adams
Complicated issue. Let me suggest two places you might want to read [all short]:
F. F. Bruce, _The Acts of the Apostles_ (3rd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1990) 341:He suggests the longer versin may byk a "lectionary type clausula
for a biblical quotation."
F. J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake,edd. _The Acts of the Apostles_
(Reprint by Baker Book Hoiuse, 1979) vol III, p. 144 [by James Hardy
Ropes].
Few scholars would accept the longer text as the original.
Edgar Krentz, New Testament
Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago
Tel.: 312-256-0752; (H) 312-947-8105
------------------------------
From: "Edgar M. Krentz" <emkrentz@mcs.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 1995 13:20:58 -0500
Subject: Re: Greek orthography
Tim, you wrote:
>In a message dated 95-12-05, "Edgar M. Krentz" <emkrentz@mcs.com> writes:
>
>>One mark of scholarship in Greek is the ability to read various Greek fonts
>>and hands
>
> It seems most of the printed fonts are based on the various handwritten
>forms that predate them. A familiarity with the manuscripts helps one in
>reading those printed fonts.
>
> BTW, I've been looking for a book that will help me better decipher
>miniscule cursive. Any suggestions?
>
>Tim Staker
>Timster132@aol.com
==================================
Carlton Winberry wrote the following useful note to you:
Tim,
The volume that I've depended on more than anything for the cursives as
well as the uncials is the old one by E.M. Thompson, Handbook of Greek and
Latin Paleography, Oxford, 1912 (It has been reprinted and possibly
revised). A shorter work and perhaps more available is B. A. van
Groningen, A Manual of Greek Palaeography, Leiden, 1940.
Carlton Winbery
Prof. Religion
==================================
Let me add to Carlton's posting.
The short manual by Groningen is a very useful text. Carlton lists the
first edtion; a 2nd edition, with revisions, was published by A. W.
Sijthoff at Leiden in 1955 (out of print, to my knowledge). It is a good
volume with which to begin. He has a very good collection of plates of MSS
at the end, but does not give you transcriptions to aid in decipherment.
For that the Thompson volume is superior.
I think Carlton may have confused two books, both by Edward Maund Thompson.
His _Handbook of Greek and Latin Paleography_, originally publised in 1893
by D. Appleton and Company in New York, was reprinted by Ares Publishing
House in Chicago [without being updated, $25.00].The reprint may be of a
second ed,ition of 1912, since they list more pages than my copy 0f 1893
has. The reprint is probably more usable than my original printing, its
paper now brown and brittle. His longer _Introduction to Greek and Latin
Paleography_ (Oxford U. Press, 1912; over 600 pages) to my knowledge has
not been reprinted. Both give excellent tables of cursive letter forms.
Another older, still useful book is F. G. Kenyon, _The Paleography of Greek
Papyri_ (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1899). Reprint by Ares Publishers in
Chicago (still in print, $20.00). Kenyon gives a table of literary
alphabet forms and of common abbreviations. (The latter is reprinted in
Oikonomides, below.)
_Geschichte der Textueberlieferung der antiken und mittelalterlichen
Literatur_. By Herbert Hunger, et al. vol. 1 (Zurich: ATlantis Verlag,
1961). Special chapters on LXX and NT.
Robert Devreesse, _Introdution a l'etude des manuscrits grecs_ (Paris:
Librarie C. Klincksieck, 1954). Many plates with transcriptions, useful for
learning alphabets.
Oikonomides, Al. N. _Abbreviations in Greek inscriptions: papyri
manuscripts and early printed books_ (Chicago: Ares Publishers, 1974,
$25.00). Reprints material from M. Avi-Yonah, F. G. Kenyon, T. WE. Allen,
and G. F. Ostermann and A. E. Giegengack. Includes decipherment of
ligatures in early printed books in Greek (i.e., from 15th to 18th
centuries). Anyone who wants to use early printings of the Greek testament,
e.g. the Elzevir Textus Receptus or the Beza testament, will need this
work, since early printed texts modelled their fonts on cursive MSS and
therefore use many ligatures and other abbreviations. [The Complutensian is
an exception; it is printed in a magnficent and clear Greek font.]
Almost any university that teaches Greek and Latin will have most or all of
these volumes in their library. You may be able to find Antiquarian copies
from W. H. Allen, a bookseller in Philadelphia who specializes in classics,
or Carl S. Berkowitz, who puts out an annual catalog ink clasics and
archaeology.
Peace, Ed Krentz
Edgar Krentz, New Testament
Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago
Tel.: 312-256-0752; (H) 312-947-8105
------------------------------
From: Calr <credmond@usa.pipeline.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 1995 14:20:36 -0500
Subject: Re:Textus Receptus
On Dec. 8, Ellen Adams wrote,
< In 1624 the Elzevir brothers also published a Greek
<Testament. As printers, not scholars, they safely chose what <seemed the
<generally accepted text at that time, Beza's 1565 edition, and did <not
<presume to significantly alter it. They explain this in their
<introduction to their second edition: "Textum ergo habes, nunc ab
<omnibus receptum: in quo nihil immutatum aut corruptum damus." <(p. 106)
<Now my knowledge Latin isn't that great, coming only from my
<pre-ecumenical years as a Catholic, but isn't there a double <meaning
<here? Did not the whole precept of inerrancy stem from this little
<printer's blurb which has been misunderstood and misapplied?
Ellen, you are exactly right in the first part of your posting. As Donald
Carson (a fine conservative scholar) notes in his book _The King James
Version Debate: A Plea for Realism_, Baker Book House, 1979, p. 36: " 'The
text that you have is now received by all, in which we give you nothing
changed or perverted'.. (I never had Latin :-) ). The TR is not the
'received text' in the sense that it has been received by God _as over
against_(ital.) other Greek manuscripts. Rather it is the 'received text'
in the sense that it was the standard one at the time of the Elzevirs.
Nevertheless the textual basis of the TR is a small number of haphazardly
collected and relatively late miniscule manuscripts. In about a dozen
places its reading is attested by no known Greek manuscript witness." I
heartily recommend Carson's book when dealing with the "theological
blessing" (??) of the TR.
I would resist your suggestion that this advertising blurb was the
generative force in the doctrine of inerrancy, but even more would I resist
the temptation to get back into the inerrancy debate. So far what I have
said is related vaguely to Greek.
- --
Cal Redmond
The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
credmond@usa.pipeline.com
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #37
****************************
** 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