tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post1984788404341705745..comments2024-03-17T17:46:24.354+00:00Comments on Evangelical Textual Criticism: New Dissertation in TC on the Pericope of the AdulteressP.J. Williamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04388225485348300613noreply@blogger.comBlogger94125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-87554183190530220942011-01-09T17:37:29.700+00:002011-01-09T17:37:29.700+00:00Hi Folks,
While I agree with lots of what Nazaroo...Hi Folks,<br /><br />While I agree with lots of what Nazaroo shares on the PA, I think his whole continuous text argument misses the point. <br /><br />If a codex includes all (or most all) of the Gospel of John, preferably in something like normative order, and excludes the Pericope Adultera, it clearly is apparatus evidence against the PA. This is basic sound logic whatever your definition of the nature of the manuscript, and how text and commentary are interspersed. <br /><br />Even a lectionary or early church writer section that "jumps over" a verse section like the heavenly witnesses or the PA, is proper considered an omission evidence, although in some cases the apparatus may want to use (brackets).<br /><br />This was a fascinating thread above, and I really felt it got a smidgen derailed on a non-issue of semantics.<br /><br />Shalom,<br />Steven Avery<br />Queens, NYSteven Averyhttp://www.purebibleforum.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-21806252494057352492010-06-09T00:06:34.129+01:002010-06-09T00:06:34.129+01:00I've found the discussion to be very enlighten...I've found the discussion to be very enlightening. Silly me, I didn't realise that a 'continuous-text manuscript' didn't necessarily exhibit a continuous text.<br /><br />Now I know better.The White Manhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06732782601569135839noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-41997249988597565882010-05-31T09:56:37.341+01:002010-05-31T09:56:37.341+01:00Nazaroo: “The classifcation of Codex X as ‘continu...Nazaroo: “The classifcation of Codex X as ‘continuous-text’ implies nothing more or less than the absence of these specialized features at the beginning and ending of each standard section (well-known from the Lectionary tradition).”<br /><br />Thank you, Codex X is, as you say (and Wieland said), a “continuous-text MS.”<br /><br />Nazaroo: “It does not indicate (as the language of W. Willker, P. Head, and T. Wasserman wrongly suggests) anything else about the quality or text-type contained in the manuscript.”<br /><br />I wonder who and where someone said that the fact that Codex X is a “continuous-text MS” has anything to do with “the quality or text-type contained in the manuscript” – I certainly did not. However, I did point out that Nazaroo, apart from “continuous-text” also used “text-type” in an idiosyncratic way. It is very difficult, or impossible to discuss any text-critical matters when there is no agreement about basic definitions and nomenclatura to be used in the discussion. I am reminded again why I do not subscribe to the several various texual criticism discussion groups available. One ends up in futile and time-consuming discussions.<br /><br />The attitude reflected in this statement is something that speaks of itself:<br /><br />“The issue was never about how the manuscript has been classified by a bunch of self-appointed German critics, or any minor quibble about what the definition of a ‘continuous-text’ MS is. Your appeal to authority is misplaced, and you have misunderstood the topic of the debate.”<br /><br />Hmm, this makes me wonder about the definition of "self-appointed". <br /><br />However, I have had it with this discussion.Tommy Wassermanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10674769923361035721noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-14548750843661520422010-05-31T09:37:31.352+01:002010-05-31T09:37:31.352+01:00"Oh Ace, you make me laugh!" - girl in A..."Oh Ace, you make me laugh!" - girl in Ace Ventura When Nature Calls<br /><br />Dear Mr. Wasserman: <br /><br />The issue was never about how the manuscript has been classified by a bunch of self-appointed German critics, or any minor quibble about what the definition of a "continuous-text" MS is. Your appeal to authority is misplaced, and you have misunderstood the topic of the debate. <br /><br />But for what its worth, its not *us* who have misunderstood the meaning or significance of the classification of X as a 'continuous-text MS'. We have understood it perfectly well and uphold the 'standard' definition, which is this:<br /><br />This designation means simply that a manuscript contains a text which has not been edited or modified so that the sections can be used as "stand-alone" lections. <br /><br />*non*-"continuous-text" MSS divide the text into sections which are then modified at the beginning and end of each section, so that each can function as an independant story unit, and be read in isolation publicly in church. <br /><br />The purpose of the classification is *not* to indicate how complete the MS is as a copy, nor even to indicate whether the text has been divided up into sections physically, or marked off. Nor is the designation intended to indicate the quality of the text-type, other than whether or not it exhibits this special editing feature.<br /><br />The reason for the interest in alterations at the beginning and end of each section is that the presumption is that the gospels were originally "continuous-text" in this sense, and that the 'pericopizing features' are in fact secondary. <br /><br />The classifcation of Codex X as "continuous-text" implies nothing more or less than the absence of these specialized features at the beginning and ending of each standard section (well-known from the Lectionary tradition). It does not indicate (as the language of W. Willker, P. Head, and T. Wasserman wrongly suggests) anything else about the quality or text-type contained in the manuscript.<br /><br />This (distracting) side-issue being finally dealt with once and for all, lets move back to the real topic at hand.<br /><br />regards,<br />NazarooNazaroohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03584331774685466296noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-46048895100428937902010-05-30T18:10:00.987+01:002010-05-30T18:10:00.987+01:00Nazaroo: “The text of John in Codex X is *NOT* con...Nazaroo: “The text of John in Codex X is *NOT* continuous, if by that we mean what any reasonable person would assume by such an expression.”<br /><br />Reasonable or not, Wieland used the standard definition in the field of textual criticism. Things get very complicated indeed when individuals come up with their own reasonble definitions of whatever terms, otherwise properly defined in standard handbooks, e.g., “continuous text MSS” (as opposed to e.g., lectionaries) or “text-types …”<br /><br />Having said that, not all commentary MSS have a continuous text of the NT. Some commentary MSS in fact just have excerpts of the NT, and therefore many of them are not registered as continuous text MSS in the official registry of NT MSS – some have been registered but then deleted. (But that is of course not the case with Codex X, as Wieland pointed out – it has the complete text and is registered as a continuous text MS in the official registry.)Tommy Wassermanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10674769923361035721noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-40769833649898263352010-05-30T17:05:32.127+01:002010-05-30T17:05:32.127+01:00Manuscript # 33 - is listed incorrectly as 9th cen...Manuscript # 33 - is listed incorrectly as 9th cent. in UBS-2. Although the O.T. portions may be 9th century, the NT portions are by a later hand dated to the 10th or 11th. (See both Gregory, & Scrivener). <br /><br />If Codex X is comparable to 33, this again links its production to the 10th/11th century. <br /><br />This may hint at when the text/commentary combo was put together (i.e., post-11th cent.).<br /><br />Mr.Willker may want to associate Codex X with 33 because 33 omits the PA, although this is the exception for this period, not the rule, even for mixed texts.<br /> <br />From the 10th century onward, over 90% of copies contain the PA. <br /><br />Assuming textual evidence trumps internal evidence, the exemplar behind the text of John in Codex X likely had the PA.<br /><br />regards,<br />NazarooNazaroohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03584331774685466296noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-21703630193131603502010-05-30T10:43:48.529+01:002010-05-30T10:43:48.529+01:00Yes. The last thing we want is to expose the disho...Yes. The last thing we want is to expose the dishonesty in the way the "evidence" is being handled. [/sarcasm]<br /><br />The text of John in Codex X is *NOT* continuous, if by that we mean what any reasonable person would assume by such an expression. <br /><br />Just as the text of the commentary is not continuous, that is not physically contiguous, but interspersed in blocks with the text of John, so equally is the text of John not physically contiguous, but interspersed in blocks with the text of the commentary.<br /><br />Each text is physically chopped up into sections and placed alternately in blocks, A/B/A/B throughout the manuscript. <br /><br />Just where we would like to know if the text of JOHN actually was contiguous in the original exemplar, (i.e., running continuously from 7:52 to 8:12), the text has been physically chopped up and placed in separate blocks. <br /><br />Thus we can never know whether the Gospel used by the compiler had the PA or not.<br /><br />regards,<br />NazarooNazaroohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03584331774685466296noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-79008409542404706362010-05-29T16:52:39.175+01:002010-05-29T16:52:39.175+01:00WW: "Codex X is a commentary manuscript and t...WW: "Codex X is a commentary manuscript and the commentary is not continuous. But the Gospel text is continuous. This is all clear and straightforward. There is no confusion. The PA is not in the text.<br /><br />Wieland, I think most of us find this straightforward enough, but I think perhaps Nazaroo has different definitions of "continuous text" or "text-type." In fact I do not understand his reply.<br /><br />I suggest we end this futile discussion. It is not leading anywhere.Tommy Wassermanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10674769923361035721noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-37810243428090245672010-05-29T13:25:49.941+01:002010-05-29T13:25:49.941+01:00I want to respond directly to WW's last post, ...I want to respond directly to WW's last post, because his questions are serious and important.<br /><br />But first let me recap the essential issue, to show how the 'confusion' element enters.<br /><br />There are three key questions:<br /><br />(1) What exactly is "codex X"?<br /><br />(2) Is it relevant evidence re: the PA? And if so, how?<br /><br />(3) How should it be cited in an apparatus, if at all?<br /><br /><br />Lets take question 1:<br /><br />(1) What exactly is "codex X"?<br /><br />For our needs, this has two parts:<br /><br />a) W.Willker: "Codex X is a commentary manuscript". <br /><br />Willker's expression here is both concise and precise enough. This introduces the problem. To go any further, a detailed description of its physical features and contents is required. <br /><br />b) NAZ: "Codex X *contains* a near-complete 'continuous-text' copy of John." <br /><br />This expression makes two necessary distinctions: (1) 'continuous-text' is in single-quotes to make clear that we are only categorizing the *type* of text it contains, not the quality, accuracy, or value of that text. (2) Codex X is itself NOT a 'continuous-text' MS, nor is it a simple copy of one. Key features of that text and info about it have been lost because of how Codex X has presented that text.<br /><br />This second part b) of the question is precisely where the 'confusion' element enters, and that is why Mr. Willker's less precise expression is inadequate:<br /><br />Mr.Willker says, "But the Gospel text is continuous."; <br /><br />But he uses 'continuous' as if it were an ordinary adjective implying something about the text itself, whereas what is needed is to make clear that categorizing the text-type as "continuous-text" does not and should not imply anything about the contents or quality of its readings, or even what we may be able to know about them from the physical form of the text given by codex X.<br /><br />regards,<br />NazarooNazaroohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03584331774685466296noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-59457305448266059162010-05-28T14:02:59.022+01:002010-05-28T14:02:59.022+01:00Please show one instance where the Gospel text in ...Please show one instance where the Gospel text in X is not continuous (except for the missing folios). Codex X is a commentary manuscript and the commentary is not continuous. But the Gospel text is continuous. <br />This is all clear and straightforward. There is no confusion. <br />The PA is not in the text.Wieland Willkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02376942788228063430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-49449181425862571062010-05-28T12:34:22.861+01:002010-05-28T12:34:22.861+01:00RE: JOHN:
You yourself have conveniently document...RE: JOHN:<br /><br />You yourself have conveniently documented the obvious fact that the copy of JOHN used to provide the accompanying text and the copy of JOHN used by the commentary author were not the same:<br /><br />Mr.Willker: "p. 104 Jo 19:14 is cited in the text as "it were the third hour". Several other witnesses read so, too. The commentary has "it were the sixth hour", noting explicitly the difference between Mark and John."<br /><br />That is, the commentator is using a different copy of John from the one that has now been embedded into this block-copied composite document. <br /><br />Evidence from the commentary itself is worthless and unsurprising, since we know already that Chrysostom and friends never quote the PA when commenting only on passages which are read publicly during services. <br /><br />Turning to the supposed "continuous text" of John accompanying the commentary, we find that is also worthless, for it is separated precisely at the spot where the PA might have accidentally been included, had this not contradicted the plan of the compiler. <br /><br />Its hardly any surprise that this compiler of several documents did not include the PA, whether or not it was found in the copy he used to provide text for the commentary. <br /><br />It was known to be controversial, & not read in its "continuous-text" order during the popular Easter/passover. <br /><br />Including it might have made for a "complete" copy of John to be preserved, but that was not the main goal of the compiler, and it is doubtful that even this compiler is the copyist of this copy. <br /><br />It is more likely that someone has made a copy of a copy, and added Mark to the extant copy, putting the compiler yet one further step back from our copyist.<br /><br />You divert the issue to whether or not this is an "Uncial". That is settled forever, since it is obviously *not* an Uncial, but just a miniscule with some "uncial-like" stylisms used to distinguish text and commentary in a useful but artificial manner, as Tregelles noted 140 years ago. <br /><br />Codex X is in no way a "continuous-text" MS, but is simply a copy of a late composite document of disparate sources, one being a 5th century commentary made from a different JOHN than the one now combined with it. <br /><br />All we can know of the copy of JOHN actually included with the commentary is that it was added later (6th cent?). <br /><br />And the most important point of all, we cannot know anything about whether or not this lost copy of JOHN had the PA, unless we try to deduce it from the extant text indirectly. <br /><br />Examining the text, it appears to be basically Byzantine, and we may guesstimate a 50/50% chance it had the PA. <br /><br />The compiler of "codex X" or his exemplar gives no clue or reason to assert anything strongly one way or another re: this now lost copy of JOHN of unknown date. <br /><br />With this more detailed look, its obvious it can't be intelligently cited in any apparatus as evidential value re: the authenticity of the PA.<br /><br />What the evidence of "codex X" *does* show is that there once was a commentary on John, that probably didn't discuss the PA, and that there once was also an unknown copy of John unrelated to it, which is now preserved second-hand with a possible lacuna (i.e. the PA). <br /><br />This "evidence" doesn't belong in an apparatus, but in a footnote on Medieval copying. <br /> <br />peace<br />NazarooNazaroohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03584331774685466296noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-52478871137496606442010-05-28T12:33:59.642+01:002010-05-28T12:33:59.642+01:00Dear Mr. Willker:
The issue of "Codex X"...Dear Mr. Willker:<br /><br />The issue of "Codex X" still remains confused, dispite your helpful comments:<br /><br />Willker: "Codex X/033 is a continuous text manuscript."<br /><br />This is at best misleading. X remains a composite document, in 3 gospels 60-70% commentary, with parts of John interposed between longer commentary sections, which is the main function of the final document. <br /><br />We may call the description of its composition the "two document fact" since at least 2 documents (probably 3, possibly up to 5) were used. <br /><br />MARK:<br /><br />We may ignore the inclusion of Mark, since that appears /not/ to be a part of the "commentary" sections (no accompanying commentary.)<br /><br />As already noted, Mark seems to have been included simply to complete the 4 gospels or to preserve an ancient copy. <br /><br />The others as you are aware (and the photos show), are not physically continuous, but broken up between long commentary sections. <br /><br />Matthew & Luke:<br /><br />It may be that Matthew / Luke themselves have been indeed copied from "continuous-text" MSS. That is irrelevant as to citing "codex X" as if it were a "continuous-text" Uncial /itself/ in any apparatus for or against the inclusion of the PA. So lets move right to JOHN.<br /><br />....Nazaroohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03584331774685466296noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-8897593174343410652010-05-27T16:26:44.198+01:002010-05-27T16:26:44.198+01:00p. 334, regarding Origen's silence in his com....p. 334, regarding Origen's silence in his com. on John:<br /><i>"Against this argument, it should be noted that he does comment on every verse from 7:40 to 7:52 and then continues directly from 8:12 in the same manner."</i><br /><br />I am wondering what this means, since AFAIK Origen's commentary is not extant for these portions, but starts in book 19 with Jo 8:19. <br /><br /><i>"Origen's commentary is designed to follow the public reading traditions of the early lectionary system."</i><br /><br /><b>the</b> early lectionary system?<br />What is this? How do we know?Wieland Willkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02376942788228063430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-71789448846569864492010-05-26T10:59:18.438+01:002010-05-26T10:59:18.438+01:00There actually is an error in the external evidenc...There actually <b>is</b> an error in the external evidence: 565 is listed as omitting the PA. <br />565 is a member of f1 in John and has therefore the PA at the end of the Gospel. The last page of the manuscript is missing, but the introductory comments (as in 1) are still present. <br />This error is also in the Text & Textwert analyses of John, but it does not appear that Punch utilized these.Wieland Willkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02376942788228063430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-11607352011757922322010-05-26T07:57:33.245+01:002010-05-26T07:57:33.245+01:00Codex X/033 is a continuous text manuscript. I hav...Codex X/033 <b>is</b> a continuous text manuscript. I have collated it for the online commentary. It is only debatable if it should be considered an uncial manuscript, but that doesn't matter much. <br />It is noteworthy that X is only about 50% Byzantine in John, comparable to 33. <br /><br />I posted some comments on the manuscript <a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/textualcriticism/message/5613" rel="nofollow">here</a>.Wieland Willkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02376942788228063430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-55724989017257192062010-05-26T07:19:54.806+01:002010-05-26T07:19:54.806+01:00Getting back to the original article by Dr. Punch,...Getting back to the original article by Dr. Punch, there is one obvious error in the discussion of textual evidence, and apparently a stubborn one at that:<br /><br />We find the late 12th cent. COMMENTARY "Codex X" still being referred to as if it were an ordinary continuous-text MS. <br /><br />On pg 279 (under section 2.11 Later Grk MSS) Dr. Punch references "codex X" as follows:<br /><br />" There are, however, additional later<br />manuscripts such as Y, X, Θ, Ψ, 0141, 0211, 22, 33, 157, 213, 397, 799,<br />1241, family 1424, and 2768, that clearly omit the passage with no marks<br />identifying knowledge of the pericope; all are ninth century or later."<br /><br />...and again on pg 279-280:<br /><br />"Others such as X and Ψ, resemble the Alexandrian manuscripts (Metzger,<br />1992:xxix), and therefore may have related reasons for omissions (Hodges,<br />1979:324)."<br /><br />This error in citing "codex X" as if it were an Uncial MS was first noted by Dean Burgon in 1882, yet has had a difficult time being acknowledged in any Greek apparatus.<br /><br />Yet even the NETBIBLE, notorious for its support of the Alexandrian text-type finally corrected this error, by simply omitting "X" from its online footnotes on the PA, back in 2007. <br /><br />This is the kind of error in reportage which obviously prejudices the textual case and the impression of the textual evidence. <br /><br />However, the relevant portions of "codex X" can be freely viewed online here for verification that it is in fact a late commentary which only discusses portions of the Gospels that were read publicly from the Lectionary:<br /><br />http://adultera.awardspace.com/TEXT/Codex-X.html<br /><br />best wishes,<br />NazarooNazaroohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03584331774685466296noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-16795601527830255962010-05-25T15:39:27.687+01:002010-05-25T15:39:27.687+01:00... nine ...... nine ...Peter M. Headhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03379103292621457026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-46296578881096048942010-05-24T11:21:54.100+01:002010-05-24T11:21:54.100+01:00Dear Dr. Keith:
I wholeheartedly assent to all yo...Dear Dr. Keith:<br /><br />I wholeheartedly assent to all you have posted immediately above. <br /><br />My previous post, I believe if read carefully, does not imply your article was heavily dependant upon material from my site. A careful read of the review of your article onsite will also confirm I have made no such claim. <br /><br />Your work is your own, and obviously we differ significantly in reconstructing the early history of the PA. <br /><br />I post this to remove any lingering confusion others reading not so carefully may have retained in this matter.<br /><br />Best wishes, <br />NazarooNazaroohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03584331774685466296noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-32030184378841682422010-05-23T03:21:50.616+01:002010-05-23T03:21:50.616+01:00Oh goodness. I can't believe I'm actually...Oh goodness. I can't believe I'm actually going to respond to this. I feel like counting "nine" for Dr. Head as his apocalypse arrives.<br /><br />Dear Nazaroo,<br /><br />First, I did not claim I own the information in my chart. I claimed that Dr. Punch appears to have taken the organization and language of the chart verbatim while claiming it is only "similar." And this is not a minor quibble--there are reasons intellectual property is copyrighted and reasons why scholars observe particular citation conventions. <br /><br />Second, I "freely accessed" information on your website because it was "freely available" on the internet and your site popped up when I googled PA. I acknowledged that I have consulted your website in two locations--in my response to your review of my 2008 article on your website and in the introduction of my monograph, where I cite it--along with Ehrman's appearances on Comedy Central shows and a Wikipedia article--as evidence of PA's popular-level appeal. These have not been in a "low-key fashion" (as if I'm afraid to say so out loud in public) but simply where it has been appropriate. You have been professional towards me thus far and so I have been professional towards you as well, but I do not appreciate you insinuating that I am deeply dependent upon your website for my research. I am not ashamed, as you hint one might be, of having looked through the information on PA you have helpfully collected, along with MS images as well, in a handy location. Nevertheless, I did not even know about your website until I was 4/5 of the way through my program, and I most certainly did not use your ideas, publications, website, or anything else of yours in making any of my own arguments, which is why I do not otherwise refer to you--in addition to the facts that engaging website discussions in a doctoral thesis or monograph is not appropriate and, even if it was, I am not sure how to cite an anonymous person according to the SBL Handbook of Style.<br /><br />If you want to argue with the good folks at ETC on all things PA, then, by all my means, do so. Please do not do so, however, by roping me into the fray and insinuating to everyone that somehow I am covering up the fact that I have had dealings with your website by saying "as Dr. Keith knows full well." I have done no such thing. Quite to the contrary, I think I have dealt openly, kindly, and favorably with you despite the facts that I do not agree with your main argument about PA and I did not have the protective cover of anonymity in responding to your criticisms of my work on your website and you did when making them.<br /><br />I believe I'll retire from this post now and slink back into silence before the apocalypse of Dr. Head's inevitable "ten" appears.<br />clkChris Keithnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-86730825966922350832010-05-22T23:14:59.676+01:002010-05-22T23:14:59.676+01:00I deleted the previous comment from N because it w...I deleted the previous comment from N because it was very troll-like - teasing to get a reaction.<br />This subject may soon have run its course. Even before I get to ten.<br /><br />... eight ...Peter M. Headhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03379103292621457026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-61902531865416265542010-05-22T16:47:23.068+01:002010-05-22T16:47:23.068+01:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Nazaroohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03584331774685466296noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-50862352744611509252010-05-22T16:34:19.271+01:002010-05-22T16:34:19.271+01:00Feeding trolls again.Feeding trolls again.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-33472795645710894702010-05-22T14:43:54.718+01:002010-05-22T14:43:54.718+01:00Dr Head,
I've not commented here before, but ...Dr Head,<br /><br />I've not commented here before, but I have followed the discussions off and on. I just completed a semester of NTTC at Dallas Seminary under Dan Wallace. So I am by no means an expert, but I do enjoy the field. Also, I have read a number of your articles (Dan requires it) as well as articles by a number of other gentlemen I've seen here including Wasserman, Robinson, and others.<br /><br />I do have an opinion to offer, but it does not concern TC at this point. One particular contributor to this particular posting has been suggested to be the original author of the thesis in question regarding the PA. I'm referring, of course, to the anonymous Nazaroo.<br /><br />I think it might be productive - to whomever runs this blog - to require actual names. Nazaroo has a rather colorful history posting on numerous novice (and below) level boards such as CARM and Theology Web. He also has a Wikipedia entry of his name that states: Nazaroo - a legendary hero whose sworned dedication to exposing the truth about textual criticism of the scriptures is well known among the 20th and 21st century Christians of the English-speaking West.<br /><br />I think legend probably sums it up. Legend can, after all, be defined as "a popularized myth of modern times" and that about summarizes it. (He also seemingly cannot decide whether he is a 'he' or a 'we.' <br /><br />So perhaps the banishment of those who hide behind such cowardice (what does he have to fear?) and requiring regular names would be a productive start.<br /><br />I would also note that Nazaroo - on such novice level discussion boards - has both tried to argue for the authenticity of I John 5:7 and actually cited a chart including the asinine musings of Gail Riplinger as a scholarly source.<br /><br />http://www.easy-share.com/1905424397/bibletree.jpg<br /><br />Hence, I don't pay much attention to what he has to say. I think it would be wise of ETC to do the same.<br /><br />Thank you.Bill Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16230613559896591748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-70967438086087157862010-05-22T08:12:23.690+01:002010-05-22T08:12:23.690+01:00"Borrowing" from Nazaroo website?
As th..."Borrowing" from Nazaroo website?<br /><br />As the author of many of the articles and commentary posted on our website, I am uniquely qualified to comment on the spectre raised by some here, re: any alleged "borrowing" from us by Dr. Punch.<br /><br />The only area even giving any credible appearance of borrowing would be in the analysis of the Internal Vocabulary Evidence (e.g., Dr J.D. Punch:2010, ch.5,pp.153-232).<br /><br />First of all, the close similarity in vocabulary lists is completely unavoidable if one is to deal with evidence from previous investigators, and deal with it in the order it appears (verse by verse). Dr. Punch has chosen to be thorough, and the result is predictable.<br /><br />Second, the similarity in content under various headings is also unavoidable, since the basic facts of grammar and usage (based on lexical/historical research) will also be the same, although expanded, as research accumulates.<br /><br />Third, any similarity in phraseology here and there, is either unavoidable, or else a very small tip of the hat to sources, which is much appreciated. This is no different than the scores of scholars who paraphrase Metzger regularly with or without acknowledgement, and is simply the nature of things.<br /><br />If Dr. Punch shows any detailed awareness of our work at all, it would be it seems from our longstanding public critique of Samuel Davidson's 1848 vocabulary list. We wrote that back in the 1980s, and it has been in the public domain ever since, in pamphlets, articles, letters, and emails, and forums.<br /><br />One version with a long history of rewrites, is found here:<br />http://adultera.awardspace.com/INT-EV/Davidson2.html<br /><br />But a fair comparison shows that we only spent an average of about a half-page on each proposed word/phrase, and left it to others to flesh out details.<br /><br />On average, Dr. Punch's work presents 3-5 pages on each variant, with a wealth of new material presented, and a far more adequate discussion than we ever offered on Davidson's original case.<br /><br />In additions, Dr. Punch's work is stamped with a scholarly even-handedness and reserve that we don't even pretend to desire emulating. His work is an entirely different category and order of scholarship than ours.<br /><br />I might also add there are frequent differences in our view of the meaning, significance, and weight of various linguistic evidence and arguments. Researchers here wishing to avoid extremism would do well to prefer Dr. Punch's approach to mine.<br /><br />I would make any special claim in this area re: linguistic discovery. I am not anything but one of the more recent of many, many pioneers here in PA studies, going back to the 1700s.<br /><br />I do not know Dr. Punch in any way, nor have I previously communicated with him on any level prior to reading about his article. <br /><br />I am utterly convinced, and completely satisfied that Dr. Punch, while he may have been aware of our site and may have noted a few of our webpages, has not plagarized our work, or inappropriately used our researches in way whatsoever. <br /><br />We have been publishing under the Commons Copyright Free Distribution licence for many years, and the whole point of publishing on the net is to make scientific and historical data freely available to the public. <br /><br />We are pleased that at least some textual critics think that the most important textual variant in the history of the NT is worth writing about.<br /><br />Peace<br />NazarooNazaroohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03584331774685466296noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-46925276248614237132010-05-22T07:27:03.278+01:002010-05-22T07:27:03.278+01:00RE: Alleged "sources", "borrowing&q...RE: Alleged "sources", "borrowing" etc.<br /><br />A comment on a comment:<br /><br />C.Keith:"Lastly, and I really do hate to say this, I feel as if Dr. Punch ripped his chart on 292–3 out of my book (pp. 120 – 21)."<br /><br />This should not be blown out of proportion: The "chart" is really just a point-form list of variants and MS support, almost identical to published lists and tabulations from Metzger and some 2 dozen other previous TC scholars.<br />Little creative activity is involved, and in fact both charts (Keith's & Punch's) have a serious error, listing MS 1333c as having the PA "at the end of Luke", when this manuscript does nothing of the kind. It comes really as a preface to John, with an accompanying note identifying it as belonging to John, not Luke.<br /><br />We know that Dr. Punch has not been "sourcing" us very closely, since both us and Dr. Maurice Robinson have gone out of our way to correct such errors, and this was covered in our review of Dr. Keith's 2008 article, which he acknowledges reading above. <br /><br />The chart borrowing has the appearance of a minor quibble, and as Dr. Keith knows full well, he himself freely accessed a large amount of material at our website over the years, and acknowledged the same in a low-key fashion in various publications.<br /><br />We thank Dr. Keith for his acknowledgement, and hardly expect that any scholar would want to associate themselves directly with our website, so any acknowledgement of our existance whatever must be considered an act of bravery.<br /><br />On this very example then, Dr. Punch's low-key acknowledgement of our resource site is typical of the best recent scholarship and as brave as any. <br /><br />Which brings to another related claim, Dr. Punch's use of our resources (in a post to follow)<br /><br />Peace<br />NazarooNazaroohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03584331774685466296noreply@blogger.com