On Mon, 18 Dec 1995 23:03:15 -0700 (MST) you wrote:
[...]
>DL>The standard Greek lexicon used by NT theologians (Bauer's)...this
entry goes on to state with regard to the "problem" in Heb 11:11
that "there is probably some error in the text..."
SJ>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.
DL>It is not an "error" for that day any more than the sun "stopped"
>in Josh 10. It was the science of the day.
I agree that the Biblical writers wrote according to the "science of
the day". But I do not rule out that God did actually stop the Sun
(relative to the Earth) in Josh 10.
DL>However, like geocentricity, female seminal emissions have now been
>deemed incorrect. The Bible is a historically conditionned text.
I agree that "The Bible is a historically conditionned text". But
I do not believe that: a) the Bible teaches "geocentricity" any more
than Heb 11:11 necessarily teaches "female seminal emissions".
DL>It is "unsound" to suggest textual corruption with no textual or
>historical support for it.
Both your own quote from Bauer and mine from TWNT suggest that there
has been "textual corruption". I assume that the authorities have
good reasons for believing 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.
The NIV's reasons were for inserting "Abraham" were given in the NIV
commentary I quoted. You don't know that "there is not one hint of
manuscript evidence". There is none mentioned in your Aland and my
Nestle, but see Guthrie below.
>SJ> It is acknowledged that there is no mention of Abraham in the Gk.
DL>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?
My Nestle's (1964) show steira as a variant reading that only occurs
in p46 (Chester Beatty II - 3rd Century), D (Bezae 5-6th Century),
Psi (a few: 8-9th Century), Syriac. It is not found in the major MSS
such as Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus or Vaticanus. My Nestle's also shows
three lines of variant readings - an indication of possible textual
corruption.
>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)
DL>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.
You would have to ask Guthrie! :-) He was (or is) a Professor of NT,
and author of a monumental Introduction to the NT.
SJ>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.
DL>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.
Agreed, but truth is stranger than fiction. It is possible that an
insignificant late MSS could be the sole surviving original reading,
and the majority of MSS's in error due to an early copyist error.
SJ>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.
DL>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?
No. "Abraham" was added by the NIV to make the text clearer. Steira
is not in the best MSS. Heb 11:11 has a lot of variant readings,
and authorities such as Bauer, TWNT and Guthrie, believe there has
been textual corruption at an early stage. Not only are "exceedingly
early" copyist errors possible, they are a virtual certainty! Copyist
errors would almost certainly have begun *from the very first copies
made*. It actually "takes a lot of faith" to rule them out and claim
that the original writer must have made the error.
SJ>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.
DL>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?
It is not my "methodology". It is the TWNT and Bauer's - the latter
actually quoted by you! :-)
>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.
DL>Dogmatic? Who is being dogmatic?
You were Denis! :-) You claimed that the original of Heb 11:11
definitely taught that Sarah had a seminal emission because the author
held to a "double-seed" theory of reproduction. You also claimed that
the NIV translators inserted "Abraham" into the text because they were
"embarassed".
DL>For your theory to work:
>1) Must occur very early, if not at the first copying.
Agreed "very early" but not necessarily "at the first copying". If
ther is an alternative text as Guthrie indicates, then it couldn't be
the very first copy.
DL>2) Abraham must be "transmuted" to Sarah.
No. The NIV has inserted "Abraham" to make the sense clearer, and it
has kept "Sarah" as well.
DL>3) STEIRA (barren) must be added to the text.
No. Steira is a late addition, first cropping up in a 3rd century
papyrus and does not occur in the major MSS.
DL>4) One must disregard the FACT that the 1st reproductive science
clearly acknowledged women had seminal emissions.
No. It has not been demonstrated that the writer of Hebrews believed
that "women had seminal emissions". There are other possibilities:
a) The text may be corrupt (as TWNT and Baur believe); b) He may have
been speaking up Abraham (as the NIV translators believed); c) He
could have been referring to Sarah receiving Abraham's seminal
emission; or d) the "seed" may indeed refer popularly and
metaphorically to a woman's ovulation.
>5) Your copyist must even be a Double Seed theorist.
Indeed, that is possible. I said that in an earlier post.
DL>I ask you Stephen, now, between the two of us, who is DOGMATIC?
I sugest that you are Denis! :-) I am not asserting anything - I
acept that you might be right. I am merely pointing out that there
are other possibilities that must be considered, before we conclude
that the Biblical writer must have made an error.
>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.
DL>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.
There *is* "an alternative reading", according to Guthrie.
DL>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.
DL>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.
I am not "insisting the text is corrupt". I merely cited authorities
(eg. TWNT) who suggest it is. Your own quote re Bauer's NT Lexicon
said that with regard to Heb 11:11 that "there is probably some error
in the text".
SJ>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! :-)
DL>Stephen, I access the primary sources...not interlinears :-).
So does Guthrie and the writers of Bauer's lexicon and the TWNT! :-)
DL>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.
I will leave it to others to judge who is being "dogmatic" Denis. You
appear to believe that not only do you have the only "clear"
interpretation of "what the primary sources say", but also of the
state of mind ("embarrassed", "obviously troubled") of those NT Greek
scholars who differ from you in same! :-)
DL>As always, good clean fun.
I think we have done it to death, Denis! :-) Perhaps we will have to
agree to differ?
Happy New Year!
Stephen
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones | ,--_|\ | sjones@iinet.net.au |
| 3 Hawker Ave | / Oz \ | sjones@odyssey.apana.org.au |
| Warwick 6024 |->*_,--\_/ | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Perth, Australia | v | phone +61 9 448 7439 |
----------------------------------------------------------------