4769Re: tc-list Mt 23:26
- Oct 7, 1998On Wed, 7 Oct 1998, Jim Deardorff <deardorj@...> wrote:
>I came across a peculiarity here that perhaps someone can explain. TheThe official explanation for this variant in the UBS commentary is:
>phrase KAI THS PARAYIDOS, or "and of the plate," is listed by N-A 27 as
>being supported by aleph, B and others, but is left out of the text. Yet
>its ms support seems stronger, does it not, than for omitting it. Did
>ordinary logic, then, play a role here, in that it does not make very much
>sense to speak of a plate having an interior?
The weight of external evidence appears to support the longer
text. At the same time the presence of AUTOU (instead of
AUTWN) in B* f13 28 al seems to be a hint that the archetype
lacked KAI THS PAROYIDOS. On balance, there is a slight
probability that the words were inserted by copyists from
(Note: I had, obviously, to transliterate the accented lower-case
Greek of the Commentary.)
The committee labelled this a D decision in both the fourth and
fifth editions, meaning that they really don't know what the
original text is.
Looking solely at the external evidence, I incline, very slightly,
to agree with them. This reading is clearly that of the "Caesarean"
witnesses, and all the other types are split. At least, that's
my top-of-the-head reaction; if I looked at it in more detail, I
might well change my mind. :-)
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)
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>