On Wed, 21 Jan 1998, "Francisco Orozco" <fran4@...
>Thanks Robert B. Waltz for replying to my queries,
> I was wondering if the TC-List was still alive. I would appreciate the
>biblio for your source of Tasker's explanation as to the NEB reading(s).
>Do you agree with their (committee's) explanation for the reading "QEW" ?
>Since they clearly did not accept the p46 reading (though it is the
>shorter, and maybe might give some better reasons for the rise of the
>other readings, acc. to Tasker; it clearly has the weakest external
>support), plus they also rejected the QEW reading (in spite of some of the
>Western text, and late Alexandrian) it seemed to me that a "A" was
>deserved (I confess that my allegiance has shifted from a
>reasoned-eclecticism to the Byzantine camp).
>But I would like to understand the possible reasons for the QEW reading.
I don't do internal evidence :-); I can't really answer that.
But it would do to remember that these two readings differ by *only
one letter* (recall that QEOS is one of the nomina sacra). Chances
are that the change (whatever its direction) was accidental, and then
the altered reading was perpetuated by scribes. Even the reading of
P46 might arisen when the scribe misread a correction as an erasure.
(This is purely speculation, and is only a faint possibility.)
As for this "clearly the weakest support" business, while we can
say that QEOU has the strongest support (I think everyone would agree
on that), we cannot really say whether QEW or omit is in second place.
QEW has many more supporting witnesses, but their character is far
poorer than P46.
Given that all of us use slightly different methods of criticism,
we will never reach absolute consensus on which readings are most
or least probable. But by the same token, don't expect the UBS
committee to accept your method of rating variants. :-)
Robert B. Waltz
Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism?
Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn
(A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism)