On Mon, 18 Dec 1995, Stephen Jones wrote:
> DL>The standard
> >Greek lexicon used by NT theologians (Bauer's) makes that very clear in
> >calling it a "technical term" for "sowing seed, for begetting." So clear
> >is the meaning of the term, this entery goes on to state with regard to
> >the "problem" in Heb 11: 11 that "there is probably some error in the
> >text, SINCE THIS EXPRESSION COULD NOT BE USED OF SARAH, BUT ONLY ABRAHAM."
>
> Yes indeed. That is what the TWNT said also - there has probably been
> "textual corruption". IMHO it is unsound to base claims that the
> Scripture here in the original contained an error.
It is not an "error" for that day any more than the sun "stopped" in Josh 10.
It was the science of the day. However, like geocentricity, female
seminal emissions have now been deemed incorrect. The Bible is a
historically conditionned text.
It is "unsound" to suggest textual corruption with no textual or historical
support for it.
> DL>But Stephen, our best manuscripts show no problem with the
> >text--see the footnotes in the eclectic standard Greek NT (Aland's).
> >No wonder the NIV slips "Abraham" in the main text, but there is not
> >one hint of manuscript evidence to support this translation decision.
>
SJ> It is acknowledged that there is no mention of Abraham in the Gk.
Good, and not only that what are you going to do with the word
S-T-E-I-R-A? It shows up in Aland's MAIN TEXT & all the VERSE VARIANTS.
Does the translation: "Now by faith Abraham was BARREN and . . ." make
any sense? Are going to suggest that not only do we have a copyist
error--Sarah for Abraham--but STEIRA was also tossed in?
SJ> However Guthrie states in his commentary on Hebrews that:
>
> "An alternative text attributes to Abraham the power to conceive,
> which is more natural than attributing it to Sarah" (Guthrie D.,
> "Hebrews", Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, IVP, p232)
What alternative text? If it was of any importance it would be cited in
Aland's Greek NT with the manuscript variants--and it is NOT there.
> To be fair, Guthrie is disinclined to accept that alternative reading,
> but the point is that there is one, which might be the original text.
Obviously it was not that significant a text. And proof is the fact it
is not cited as marginal note in the Standard Greek NT that is used by
the professionals.
> Perhaps someone with the "double-seed theory" added "Sarah" in the
> margin where the text was unclear and it has been taken up into the
> NT? If there was an error it was an early one and has been taken up
> into the major MSS.
Yes, you are right about this--because there is NOT ONE IMPORTANT
MANUSCRIPT that cites "Abraham", and for your thesis to work
the error has to have been made exceedingly early . . . and that a copier
had to miscopy "Abraham" into "Sarah", and "STEIRA" had to be added.
Kind of takes a lot of faith, eh?
> But as the TWNT and even Bauer states, there is a deeper problem.
> There is no evidence in the OT of Sarah being an example of faith.
> The verse does not really make sense, so the possibility must exist
> that there has been "textual corruption" here at an early stage, as
> the TWNT and even Bauer suggest.
There are a lot of things stated in the NT that are not recorded in the
OT. Using your methodology, does this mean we should disregard them?
> DL>But better yet, read Pieter Willem Van Der Horst's "Did Sarah Have
> >A Seminal Emission?" Bible Review (Feb 1992): 35-39. He shows how
> >the 1st century literature clearly supports they believed that women
> >had seminal emissions--that was the science of the day. And when the
> >writer of Hebrews wrote the letter, he/she employed his/her
> >intellectual horizon--it was not suspended.
>
SJ> This is a possible interpretation, but while there are other
> possibilities (eg. of textual corruption), I don't believe you can be
> dogmatic that this is an error in the NT original. It could just as
> easily be that copyists who held that "science of the day" that "women
> >had seminal emissions" view have let an early gloss into the text.
Dogmatic? Who is being dogmatic? For your theory to work:
1) Must occur very early, if not at the first copying.
2) Abraham must be "transmuted" to Sarah.
3) STEIRA (barren) must be added to the text.
4) One must disregard the FACT that the 1st reproductive science
clearly acknowledged women had seminal emissions.
5) Your copyist must even be a Double Seed theorist.
I ask you Stephen, now, between the two of us, who is DOGMATIC?
SJ> It isn't as clear as you make out. There is an alternative reading
> and both the TWNT and Bauer suggest that there has been textual
> corruption.
There is NOT an alternative reading, Stephen. Quit using your
interlinears and get yourself Aland's Greek NT. Your "alternative"
reading comes from Guthrie who is "disinclined" to use it.
It is "clear"--that is what the Greek says. . . how much clearer can that be?
> SJ>I believe we should treat the Bible writers like any other
> >trustworthy witness - as innocent until *proven* guilty - and exhaust
> >every other reasonable possibility before we conclude they made a
> >mistake. In this case there are such other reasonable possibilities.
Very interesting comment. That is exactly what I am doing. I am claim
the text stands!!! You are the one insisting the text is corrupt, not
me. You are the one claiming that not only was their a copyist error,
but that it occurred very early--you are the one offering a theory with a
number of qualifications.
> This is your *assumption* that those who disagree with you are
> "troubled". You don't know that. They just might know a little more
> about the "primary sources" than you give them credit for, Denis! :-)
Stephen, I access the primary sources . . . not interlinears :-).
And it is very clear what the primary sources say.
I am not troubled by them whatsoever. But those who apply all sorts
of gerrymeandering theories to get away from the Text as is stands are
obviously troubled by the verse.
As always, good clean fun.
In Christ,
Denis
----------------------------------------------------------
Denis O. Lamoureux DDS PhD PhD (cand)
Department of Oral Biology Residence:
Faculty of Dentistry # 1908
University of Alberta 8515-112 Street
Edmonton, Alberta Edmonton, Alberta
T6G 2N8 T6G 1K7
CANADA CANADA
Lab: (403) 492-1354
Residence: (403) 439-2648
Dental Office: (403) 425-4000
E-mail: dlamoure@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca
"In all debates, let truth be thy aim, and endeavor to gain
rather than expose thy opponent."
------------------------------------------------------------