Wieland, I believe Flink was actually arguing in favor not of the chosen one but the chosen son (which was the reading initially recorded in the NTMessage 1 of 8 , Mar 26, 2009View SourceWieland,
I believe Flink was actually arguing in favor not of "the chosen one" but "the chosen son" (which was the reading initially recorded in the NT transcript prototype from INTF in M�nster).
So I guess they were not opting for the exact same reading after all.
From: Wieland Willker [wie@...]
Sent: 26/3/2009 6:45:23 PM
Subject: RE: [textualcriticism] Jo 1:34 - The Chosen One
> Did they defend the same reading?
There is a correction in P75*, which was initially recorded
as "the chosen one" in the Muenster NT transcripts, but the
evidence is not clear.
Have a look here:
http://www-user. uni-bremen. de/~wie/TCG/ prob/Jo-1- 34-P75.pdf
------------ --------- --------- --------- ---------
Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
http://www.uni- bremen.de/ ~wie
http://www.uni- bremen.de/ ~wie/TCG/ index.html
Eniro Supers�k - �r vad det heter
... The colorless Byz ms are 187, 218, 228, and 1784. I find it very interesting that they attest a reading that had long since been corrected in ancientMessage 1 of 8 , Mar 26, 2009View Source--- In email@example.com, " Wieland Willker" wrote:
> Both represent a good collection and discussion of the evidence. Still, I am not convinced. Leaving the unsecure papyri aside, the reading is supported by a few Western witnesses, which are generally considered to the most unreliable. Then there are four colorless Byzantine minuscules. Why do they support this reading? <<The "colorless Byz ms" are 187, 218, 228, and 1784. I find it very interesting that they attest a reading that had long since been corrected in ancient Greek and Latin mss.
This was #7 in the Text und Textwert study, otherwise we would probably not even know of the existence of these four attestations. How many other minuscules attest to an ancient reading but have never been examined, but rather lumped together as if they all read the same?
In "The Significance of the Papyri," Aland wrote:
"The main problem of NT textual criticism lies in the fact that little more than their actual existence is known of most of the manuscripts so far identified, and that therefore we constantly have problems with many unknowns to solve. We proceed as if the few manuscripts, which have been fully, or almost fully, studied, contained all the problems in question" (pp. 330-1).
In other words, these four minuscules were examined only because they attested to a variant already identified in Sinaiticus. We are in a good position to say how many "Byzantine" readings have ancient support, but when will we know how many ancient readings have "Byzantine" support? What variants remain unidentified because they only exist within the Byzantine corpus and a yet-unearthed papyrus manuscript?
Thanks for that pdf Wieland. I notice that you have Papyrus 106 supporting O EKLEKTOS whereas the Muenster site projects that it supports O UIOS. Also, I seeMessage 1 of 8 , Mar 26, 2009View SourceThanks for that pdf Wieland.
I notice that you have Papyrus 106 supporting O EKLEKTOS whereas the Muenster site projects that it supports O UIOS.
Also, I see that Muenster shows Papyrus 5 reading _ UIOS TOU QEOU, whereas the UBS3 and UBS4 say P5vid supports O EKLEKTOS.
David Robert Palmer
> Have a look here:
David Robert Palmer wrote. ... They give the complete last 4 words in red brackets. This means that this text is not present in the papyrus. The wordsMessage 1 of 8 , Mar 27, 2009View SourceDavid Robert Palmer wrote.
> I notice that you have Papyrus 106 supporting O EKLEKTOSThey give the complete last 4 words in red brackets. This means that this
> whereas the Muenster
> site projects that it supports O UIOS.
text is not present in the papyrus. The words included in these brackets are
probably just those of NA.
In the printed NA they have P106vid for hO EKLEKTOS.
But note that this reading is not secure.
P5 was earlier read as hO EKLEKTOS, but after re-inspection this seems to be
Check my files:
Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
A side-leap into the history of textual criticism: Baljon, 1898, and Souter, 1910, recorded for evidence of the variant chosen for son in John 1,34 theMessage 1 of 8 , Mar 29, 2009View SourceA side-leap into the history of textual criticism: Baljon, 1898, and Souter, 1910, recorded for evidence of the variant "chosen" for "son" in John 1,34 the minuscules 77 and 218. They owed Tischendorf's ed. major 8, 1869.
In earlier editions Tischendorf did not pay attention to the reading "chosen", but since he knew the support of the Sinaiticus it is in his apparatus. Tischendorf, in his turn, owed Griesbach, but he overlooked an important feature in Griesbach's annotation: eklektos 218 (c. 77). c(um) 77 in parentheses are an indication for uncertainty of correctitude.
218 is the main text in Alter's NT, 1787. The text from this ms from the (former) Imperial Library, Vienna, is follewed by collations of other mss of the Greek text and some versions. Griesbach used Alter's work. When Alter did not offer a variant reading against 218, Griesbach decided that a ms witnessed as 218. But there is a caveat in the Prologemena, p. LII, at the end of note *, of the ed. of Schulz, 1827. When Griesbach collected a variant "e solo Alteri silentio" the nr of the ms will be included in parentheses. Refered is to the example at Matth. 2,9, note r: ho aster, omission of ho = L 218 (c. 3. 76. 77. 108. 124. 125. 219. 224) Ev. 44.
Gregory, Prolegomena to Tischendorf's ed. major 8, p. listed Alter's Greek codices.
So, be suspicious with references to 218 and other "Alter manuscripts".
In Willker's textual commentary I see at John 1,34:
P106vid(3rd CE), 01*, 187, 218, 228, 1784
Tischendorf adds: 77, 218 (repeated by Harnack, Ehrman and also Fee "01 in John")
77 is a ghost-witness, I suppose?
Teunis van Lopik,
Leidschendam, The Netherlands
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Wieland Willker" <wie@...> wrote:
> After Timo Flink,
> "Son and Chosen. A text-critical study of John 1:34", Filologia
> Neotestamentaria 18 (2005) 87-111,
> now another treatment of Jo 1:34 appeared:
> T.-M. Quek
> "A text-critical study of Jo 1:34"
> NTS 55 (2009) 22-34
> Both represent a good collection and discussion of the evidence.
> Still, I am not convinced. Leaving the unsecure papyri aside, the reading is
> supported by a few Western witnesses, which are generally considered to be
> the most unreliable. Then there are four colorless Byzantine minuscules. Why
> do they support this reading?
> Thoughts? Comments?
> PS: Those who want to check out the papyrological evidence can find files
> with images here:
> Best wishes
> Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
> Textcritical commentary: