|
|
|
||||||||
Debate On Luke 2:22; Final Letters
[The following letters are given as additional information and concern Minuscule 76 only]
Subj: Minuscule 76
Date: 97-01-03 16:08:50 EST
From: Logos1611
To: Orthopodeo
Dear James,
As stated in one of my last letters, I visited United Theological Sem., here in Dayton today and tried to find an online address for Kurt Aland in order that we could ask about minuscule 76 (i.e. dated 12th or 14th century). However, I could not find anything there in that the Web Site Yellow Pages I was looking for had been checked out. I did find a site in my own search which may be of some help. But, I have not been able to log on to this site as of yet. I am attaching the Internet address for you at the end of this letter.
Nonetheless, I came across a book by Frederik Wisse entitled, The Profile Method For Classifying And Evaluating Manuscript Evidence, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982). On page 54 Dr. Wisse also dates minuscule 76 to the 12th century. This, along with the others who have likewise dated this same manuscript to this same century, has caused me to believe that NA27 has a typo in dating 76 to the 14th century. At least it would seem more logical to me that this would be the case, don't you think? I guess it is possible that all other sources have been in error citing the wrong date from a misdated original source. But this does not seem as likely to me. It is also possible that the dating has been revised, but again this seems unlikely. Anyway, if you find any additional information yourself, I would be interested in learning what you discover. Until later, God bless as you labor for Him.
Yours in Christ Jesus,
Dr. Thomas Holland
Psalm 118:8
"Commendo vos dilectioni Dei, et odio papatus et superstitionis."
PS: I am also sending a copy of this to Thomas Hubeart (BasFawlty) in that he is interested in manuscripts and textual criticism.
>>Interpreting Ancient Manuscripts Web Additional information was taken from Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism, Trans. by Erroll F. Rhodes (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans ...
- Score 89% - http://www.stg.brown.edu/projects/mss/overview.... - Find Similar Pages<<
Subj: Re: Minuscule 76
Date: 97-01-03 23:12:01 EST
From: Orthopodeo
To: Logos1611
***********************************************
* 01-03-97, the day the Lord has made! *
* May He be glorified in it! *
***********************************************
In a message dated 97-01-03 16:08:50 EST, you write:
> Nonetheless, I came across a book by Frederik Wisse entitled, The
> Profile Method For Classifying And Evaluating Manuscript Evidence, (Grand
> Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982). On page 54 Dr. Wisse also dates minuscule 76 to the
> 12th century. This, along with the others who have likewise dated this same
> manuscript to this same century, has caused me to believe that NA27 has a
> typo in dating 76 to the 14th century. At least it would seem more logical
> to me that this would be the case, don't you think?
Sounds logical to me. Would "dated to the 12th and 14th centuries by different sources" cover all bases?
*/// James White, Orthopodeo@aol.com \\\*
>>> College of Christian Studies, Grand Canyon University <<<
>>> Faraston Theological Seminary <<<
"The Gospel is ours to proclaim, not to edit."
Web Page: http://www.aomin.org
Subj: Re: Minuscule 76
Date: 97-01-05 07:54:44 EST
From: Logos1611
To: Orthopodeo
In a message dated 97-01-03 23:12:01 EST, you write:
<< Sounds logical to me. Would "dated to the 12th and 14th centuries by different sources" cover all bases?>>
Dear James,
I was about to write you and state that we have found something on which we agree. Your above statement sounds logical and would cover all sources. However, I received the following which was forward to me by Tom Hubeart which was given to him by a textual critic who studied under Dr. Bruce Metzger. If this information is correct, then your dating from NA-27 would be correct also (in which case, I would stand corrected). But, it may be best to use your above quote in that it would cover all the bases in this study, at least until the dating is conclusive and accepted by all. Anyway, I am glad to see that there is now more information, and that there is something we both can agree on. :-). Until later, God bless as you labor for Him.
Yours in Christ Jesus,
Thomas Holland
Psalm 118:8
Forwarded Message:
Subj: Re: Can you help?
Date: 97-01-04 12:08:20 EST
From: Rev Neal
To: BasFawlty
Dear Tom (Hubeart),
According to the 27th Edition of the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece (1993), pg. 704 under "Codicies Graeci et Latini" ms 76 is dated XIV, or 14th century (the 1300s AD). You are correct that the 26th edition of the Nestle-Aland gives the 12th century as the date. However, this dating is now considered to be "out-dated," so to speak.
Between the publication of the 26th and the 27th editions of the Nestle-Aland the International Radiometic Dating Project (of which I was a part while working on my PhD at Duke) produced an up-dated dating base-line for many of the mss of the New Testament. Some mss dates haven't been changed because the prior method of hand-writing analysis, while clearly less accurate than the new method involving the use of linear accelerators, still yielded an excellent range for dating a ms. Nevertheless, several dozen mss were given new age-ranges. For example, several of the Chester Beaty Papyri were given broader, and earlier, age-ranges ... from just ca 200 AD to 125 - 200 AD. Others, like ms 76 and several others, were given different age ranges as well: 76, based upon the age of it's parchment, was dated 200 or so years later, with an age range of 1300 - 1375 AD (or, the 14th century).
Put simply, Tom, the 27th edition's dates are the latest, and they superceed any prior editions of the Nestle-Aland ... especially in the apparatus (the text itself isn't greatly changed over the 26th). Other sources for the dating of the mss are also somewhat "out-dated" by the IRP's work as well (unless the source post-dates the project).
Kurt, or his wife Barbara (who has been handling most of his corresondences these last few years since his stroke), may be reached at the University of Munster, Germany. That is, of course, if he hasn't left us a forwarding address for Heaven.
I've flashed a question to Bruce to confirm my information on this one, but I doubt I'll get a reply back until sometime next week, at the earliest, seeing as how classes are out.
Grace and peace,
Greg+
Subj: Re: Minuscule 76
Date: 97-01-06 11:10:59 EST
From: Orthopodeo
To: Logos1611
(Psalm 119:25) My soul cleaves to the dust; Revive me according to Your word.
In a message dated 97-01-05 07:54:44 EST, you write:
> I was about to write you and state that we have found something on which
> we agree. Your above statement sounds logical and would cover all sources.
> However, I received the following which was forward to me by Tom Hubeart
> which was given to him by a textual critic who studied under Dr. Bruce
> Metzger. If this information is correct, then your dating from NA-27 would
> be correct also (in which case, I would stand corrected). But, it may be
> best to use your above quote in that it would cover all the bases in this
> study, at least until the dating is conclusive and accepted by all. Anyway,
> I am glad to see that there is now more information, and that there is
> something we both can agree on. :-). Until later, God bless as you labor for
> Him.
My goodness! That was most interesting information! One wonders where the money came from to do such intricate testing! Nice to see it being done, but I personally was completely unaware of such a project. Did you know about it? I've always supported an earlier date than 200 for some of the papyri, and it's nice to see further evidence supporting that! I'll definitely be using that information in apologetic situations, to be sure! Thanks for the heads up!
+-------<<<<< Orthopodeo@aol.com >>>>>-------+
+ +
+ James White +
+ http://www.aomin.org +
+ +
+-------<<<<<<< Sola Scriptura! >>>>>>-------+
The Holy and Inspired Scriptures are sufficient of themselves for
the preaching of the Truth. (Athanasius, Contra Gentiles, I:1)
[To Logos1611 on 01-06-97]
Subj: Dating ms.76
Date: 97-01-08 09:51:21 EST
From: Logos1611
To: Orthopodeo
Dear James,
In regard to ms. 76 and the forwarded letter by Rev. Greg Neal, you wrote:
>>My goodness! That was most interesting information! One wonders where the money came from to do such intricate testing! Nice to see it being done, but I personally was completely unaware of such a project. Did you know about it? I've always supported an earlier date than 200 for some of the papyri, and it's nice to see further evidence supporting that! I'll definitely be using that information in apologetic situations, to be sure! Thanks for the heads up!<<
Glad to have been of some help. I did not know about this project, but I did know that Brother Greg had worked with Dr. Metzger and had been exposed to the dating of manuscripts. I have written Brother Greg, after I received his letter via Brother Thomas Hubeart, and asked for additional information. I am very much interested in this and would like to know what criteria was used for the revision of such dates. It has always been my understanding that the science of paleography was accurate within fifty years for manuscripts two thousand years or younger (at least such has been the case stated by scholars who have dated the findings at Qumran by both paleography and carbon-14).
As you stated, I would also like to see earlier dates given to the papyri manuscripts (although 125 AD to 200 AD still falls very close to the fifty year dating range). It would seem to me that the earlier manuscripts would reflect exactly what they do, that is a combination of textual lines. Clearly manuscripts such as the Bodmer and Chester Beatty manuscripts are Alexandrian in nature (coming from Egypt). However, they also reflect several Syrian readings which were thought to have come from the "Lucian Recension" by most scholars. In my view, which I realize you would not agree with, I would expect earlier manuscripts to reflect such combinations with clearer definitions of textual types established later. After all, if the corruption of Scripture began even during the time of the Apostles themselves (2 Cor. 2:17; 4:2) I would expect to find such evidence.
Anyway, it is rather interesting and I hope that Brother Greg will send me the information I requested. If so, I will gladly pass that information on to you for your consideration.
Yours in Christ Jesus,
Tom
Pslam 118:8
Scriptura est vitae magistra
Back to Debate Page