Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

4769Re: tc-list Mt 23:26

Expand Messages
  • Robert B. Waltz
    Oct 7, 1998
    • 0 Attachment
      On Wed, 7 Oct 1998, Jim Deardorff <deardorj@...> wrote:

      >I came across a peculiarity here that perhaps someone can explain. The
      >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 official explanation for this variant in the UBS commentary is:

      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
      ver. 25.

      (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
      waltzmn@...

      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)
    • Show all 10 messages in this topic