jgibson000

Anal or not, sour grapes on your part or not, and whether or not NTS has a right to be "anal" -- if such they are -- in not making it available to you (what bastards! how do they dare ignore the needs of "Nazaroo"!!), I have obtained a PDF copy of Wallace's article by writing to Wallace himself.

I'd present it here, but I do not seem to be able to transform it from a scanned image to text.

If anyone here knows how to do this, please contact me OFF LIST at jgibson000@comcast.net

Jeffrey

Nazaroo

There's no point in doing this 'offlist'. With a public post, we can benefit the maximum number of people.


There's an amazing new device based upon the Underwood typewriter layout of the 60s; its called a computer keyboard. I've typed in about 37 such articles in the last 3 months.

If that's too much work for you, you can just read it into your computer microphone and record it as an audio file, then feed that to SRS software. From there you can run a spellcheck in word, but then you will have to hand-read the document because many words will be mis-recognized or spelled as another word that sounds the same but means something different (e.g. to, two, too).

If that's too much work for you, you can run the scans (if they are in files on your computer harddrive through any 'scanned document to text' software, which is free to download from the internet:

For instance the second hit for google "converting scanned text to text" gives this free downloadable program.

http://www.snapfiles.com/get/SimpleOCR.html


Again, you'll have to spellcheck and proofread. None of these methods is foolproof (!), and judging by your last attempt to post an article, I suggest you learn a bit about formatting a message in the editing box before posting.


To do this from Microsoft Office 2003 you can follow these instructions:

http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/he...347561033.aspx

To do this from Adobe Acrobat there are instructions here:

http://www.felgall.com/dtpac1.htm

For charts, you can use professional software like this (Able2Extract Pro):

http://www.investintech.com/prod_a2e_pro.htm

Note that often even software for sale allows a free trial period that lets you do most operations, and so for just one document you don't need to purchase the program.

Notice that for complicated charts, or text which contains hundreds of foreign or rare symbols, you are often better off just leaving the relevant chart or section as a picture, either a .jpg (for photos) or a .gif (for discrete charts containing only a few colors).

There is no such software package that can automatically recognize and type in a piece of technical text containing complex spacially oriented math symbols or 'field specific' mnemonics such as articles on textual criticism generally have.

In the case of Wallace's article, I would guess that there may be at least some Greek, along with many other symbols for MSS etc., which you will need to either set up with the Symbol font, or represent by using UNICODE. In any case, key lexical and grammatical signals, like italics to represent Latin MSS, or Latin or Greek technical terms used by NT textual critics will not be 'scannable'. You will have to type all those in by hand, and learn how to manually format a .WORD or HTML document.

Or, you could just send the scans to me, and I would be delighted to type it in overnight.

Try nazaroo@gmail.com

hatsoff

Ignoring them--calling them not "real"--is not an adequate response.

That's not at issue.

That P66 does not include the pericope is evidence against its authenticity. That a mark (I would need to see an image to verify it) suggests it was known by the scribe is evidence that it had been added to some copies by AD 200.

Again, ignoring these arguments because they are extrapolated backwards from later textual evidence is not helping your case.

Which also casts doubt on the passage.

Nazaroo

Lets just see if your statement holds up:

To begin with, the previous 'internal evidence' against the passage has been shown to be a large but fanciful structure built upon pure subjectivity:

Internal Evidence against Passage Examined <-- Click here.

Next we can turn to Culpepper's observation that sections of John which are NOT under dispute are interconnected:

(Culpepper, The Gospel and Letters of John, p. 166)


Now, we can look at the PA (John 7:53-8:11) and see that it is connected to John chapter 6 in exactly the same way:


John 6__________________________________John 8:1-11

6:14............ the Prophet to come.......................................7:52
6:15.............Jesus retires to mountain alone.......................8:1
6:17............it was now night............................................. ...8:1
6:22..........the following day, the crowd/people stood.........8:2
6:37,44...........the people came to Him...............................8:2
6:21................they willingly received Him...........................8:2
6:45................they were taught of God..............................8:2
6:25................they said to Him Rabbi/Teacher..................8:4
6:32................Moses gave them bread/law........................8:5
6:30..............."What do you work/say?"..............................8:5
6:36.................they believed Him not................................. 8:6
6:21................on the ground............................................ ...8:6
6:41-2.............they murmered at/pressed Him....................8:7


To this we can add the extensive nearly exact phrases in parallel between our passage and John chapter 6:

The word-for-word parallels between John 8:1-11 and John 6:1-21:

John 6:3 : anhlqen de eiV to oroV IhsouV (But Jesus went to the mountain...)
John 8:1 : IhsouV de anhlqen eiV to oroV (But Jesus went to the mountain..)

John 6:5 : poluV ocloV ercetai proV auton (a great crowd came unto Him)
John 8:2 : paV o laoV hrceto proV auton (all the people came unto Him)

John 6:6 : touto de elegen peirazwn auton (this He said testing him)
John 8:6 : touto de elegon peirazonteV auton (this they said testing Him)

John 6:10 anapesein ...anepesan...oi andreV (sit down, the men sat down)
John 8:6 : o de InsouV katw kujaV (but Jesus bent down...)

John 6:21 ...kai euqewV egeneto to ploion epi thV ghV (... upon the ground )
John 8:6b ...kategrafen eiV thn ghn ([Jesus was] writing in the ground )
__________________________________________________ ____


To confirm the 'near verbatum' copying (not exact copying) is actually a stylism of John, we can turn to Grant:




Here is what the data looks like when put together:




The PA has more verbal and content correspondances with John's Gospel than with any other extant writing, including Luke/Acts.



Now we can see that the two parallel cases, John 5 and 7, and John 6 and 8, are interlocking sections of John:





This shows that not only is the PA carefully composed to fit into John, but that whoever omitted 7:53-8:11 had no idea of the existance of this internal structure.

That is, the Egyptian editors (red dotted line in chart) who originally deleted the passage had no comprehension of what it was they were butchering.

They damaged the structure of John, but did not remove it.

jgibson000

Except that I asked that it be done that way.

And which post was this?

JG

Nazaroo

"The needs of the many outweight the needs of the few." - Spock

This Post <-- Click Here.

Toto

Nazaroo - that post is by Joe Wallack, not Jeffrey Gibson.

It sounds like you are proposing to post some copyright material. This board does not have the funds to cover the legal fees required to defend lawsuits for copyright infringement, so we ask that you stay within the boundaries of the law.

Chris Weimer

Nazaroo - why did the passage get removed and why was it never replaced until the rennaissance?

Nazaroo

That is certainly my error, and I apologize. I should be able to tell them apart.



As a person who has been reviewing copyrighted material on the internet for many years, I am very familiar with reasonable quotation limits and rights of review.

There is an added issue with scientific material (or material that purports to be). Unless it is deemed propriatery (secret corporate intellectual property) or classified (secret Govt. research/National interest material involving special oaths, usually the USA), or harmful to the public interest (instructions on how to make dangerous devices or materials), or incites the breaking of a criminal code ordinance (encourages a person to commit a felony), then normally all scientific material is considered public domain and public interest. It is not possible to patent or copyright 'ideas'.

The two main rights of reviewers, and indeed all free people, is that to quote a reasonable enough portion of the said material to review the ideas presented and their scientific support. This is true both of pure sciences and also historical sciences.

Most publishers don't pursue reviewers, even when they quote overgenerous portions of a paper, because any advertising almost always inadvertantly results in more book sales.

I am certainly not suggesting anyone perform any infraction on the law.

Mr. Wallack, as legal and rightful possessor of some intellectual property (Wallace's publicly published article, personally sent to him by the author for review), is certainly entitled to make copies for personal use, for protection from loss or damage, and to share with his friends and acquantances.

Mr. Wallack has not indicated in any way that Mr. Wallace put any restrictions upon what Mr. Wallack does with his personal copies, including acquiring assistance to convert them into a more useable format for storage and viewing.

People submit published papers by the thousands every day for storage and reproduction for personal use, and also to translators for disemination into other languages. It is virtually unheard of that an author or publisher of a scientific work would object to quotations of substantial amounts of their work for review. After all, its why they wrote it.

No one here is suggesting that copies be reproduced and (re)sold for profit.

I am only offering my services as a media expert in converting Mr. Wallack's scans into a more useful format for himself, so that we can discuss and review Mr. Wallace's arguments.

Why else would Mr. Wallace give the article to Mr. Wallack, if he did not desire his opinion to be examined in a public forum and debated?

Secondly, all serious potential for any 'lawsuits' regarding copyright are essentially bypassed by paraphrase or indirect quotation, or by quotation of short segments germaine to review, or by long quotations from an even longer published work.

Any other issues, such as 'libel' questions due to defamation of character, or injury to a private business through inappropriate association, are entirely separate from copyright questions.

Nazaroo.

Nazaroo

This is a fascinating topic, and needs a thorough investigation. But we have an exactly parallel case occurring at exactly the same time (late 2nd century), fully documented by Origen:

The story of Susanna.

The answer to the omission of both stories found down the same road.



This however is an inaccurate caricature of the actual textual evidence, as fragmentary as it is.

I am quite convinced, that as Jerome describes, the PA was in the majority of copies from the end of the 4th century onward.

That so many copies were damaged or destroyed, only shows a real battle took place. As those investigating the Holocaust or even 9/11 know, evidence regarding political battles is rather quickly destroyed. We must be satisfied with 'traces', and careful interpretation of the same.