Hi Daniel, Thanks for the additional comments. I didn t do a full examination of 783, only the specific variation on the beginning of Mark 1:41... so yourMessage 1 of 1 , Jul 19, 2011View SourceHi Daniel,Thanks for the additional comments. I didn't do a full examination of 783, only the specific variation on the beginning of Mark 1:41... so your comments are helpful regarding the nature of that manuscript.Basically, when I was looking into the matter of the ORGISQEIS / SPLAGXNISQEIS variant in Mark 1:41, I tried to look at all the manuscripts that did not have SPLAGXNISQEIS... based on what is mentioned in UBS4, Legg, and TUT. And I was especially interested in why 1358 would have such an interesting reading (acc. to TUT) when it generally tends to follow the Byz majority... but of course, it actually omits the participle. And looking at the image of 1358, if you just glance at the reading I have underlined, O DE IS EK TEINAS almost looks like ORGISQEIS in cursive if a collator wasn't paying close attention.I do find the variant regarding KAI and O DE IS at the beginning of Mark 1:41 to be interesting. In Latin, there is a noticeable use of ET with IRATUS (it-a, it-d, it-ff2, it-r1) over against IESUS AUTEM with MISERATUS (it-f, it-l, vulgate, it-aur, it-c).Also, it's noteworthy that Hurtado observed years ago that Washingtonius tends to have more western tendencies in the opening chapters of Mark... and there's a noticeable western variant in W at Mark 1:42b-43. W omits 8 words (last 2 words of v. 42, and all of v. 43) just like it-b, it-c, and it-e... which makes the reading of SPLAGXNISQEIS (not ORGISQEIS) in 1:41 all the more significant. (Granted, none of those 3 Old Latins have ORGISQEIS in 1:41... but they aren't verbatim identical either... it-b omits the participle, it-c has MISERTUS, and it-e has MISERICORDIA ACTUS.)Thanks again,--JeffNote: Just for clarification for others reading this post, 738 should be 783 below.
---------- Original Message ----------
From: "bucksburg" <bucksburg@...>
Subject: [textualcriticism] Re: Corrections at Mark 1:41 in 738
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 14:08:35 -0000
In email@example.com, "Jeff Cate" wrote:
>> (2) The data for minuscule 783 in TUT is misleading. 783* omits an entire *line* (SPLAGXNISQEIS EK TEINAS THN XEIRA AUTOU), not simply the participle... and the line is then added in the marginby what seems to be the original hand. So 783* really isn't evidence for the omission of the participle as TUT indicates. Here's a link to an image of 783 from the National Library of Greece (http://tinyurl.com/6zf66vn). <<Thanks so much, Jeff. Comparing the two mss images really shows the benefits of digital photographs vs microfilm! But I don't think your assessment of 738 is quite accurate. I don't know if it was your reliance on the UBS text to compare Byz manuscripts or not, but this is what actually happened:
738 has a rather unusual text. It reads EIPON for LEGEI; actually a rather common substitution in the NT mss, but without any support from the main Alexandrians here. It may have been influenced by the Byz reading EIPONTOS in the next verse. At any rate, this mss otherwise reads as Byz/02 in vv. 40-42. So we should use the text of 02 to reconstruct the missing line, which is:
SPLAGXNISQEIS EK TEINAS THN XEIRA HYATO AUTOU KAI
Notice that the very next word is the ?singular? reading EIPON. Furthermore, with the extra two missing words, there are too many characters to fit on a line. Forty-two characters is a little shy of two lines (the 5 lines in context have a range of 24-30 and an average of 27). So something strange is definitely going on here.
Penny Stock Soaring 3000%
Sign up for Free to find out what the next 3000% Stock Winner is!