4779Re: tc-list Mt 23:26
- Oct 7, 1998
>On Wed, 7 Oct 1998, Jim Deardorff <deardorj@...> wrote:I wonder also if Luke 11:39 might have influenced a scribe or the tradition
>>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. :-)
behind both Luke and Matt (maybe Q?). In Luke there a different word for
plate, TOU PINAKOS. Perhaps someone will also straighten out the fact that
in Luke, they are commanded to give those dirty things inside the cup for
Carlton L. Winbery
Fogleman Professor of Religion
Pineville, LA 71359
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>