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

Re: acc. vs gen reading

Expand Messages
  • Ben Crick
    ... Hullo Andrew, I think you ll find that D in the Epistles is Codex Claramontanus (Paris, sixth century), containing the Pauline epistles; not C Bezae
    Message 1 of 5 , Dec 7, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      On Fri 4 Jul 97 (10:04:42 +0930), anku@... wrote:
      >�Metzger, in his textual commentary states that the variant should be
      >�discounted because even though it is supported by B it is also
      >�supported by D and G, which weakens the authority of B. Now I checked
      >�Metzger's Text of the NT where he describes D as western witness
      >�containing the Gospels and Acts and G as a Byzantine witness containing
      >�the gospels - no mention of Romans anywhere!

      Hullo Andrew,

      I think you'll find that "D" in the Epistles is Codex Claramontanus (Paris,
      sixth century), containing the Pauline epistles; not C Bezae which is Gospels
      and Acts only.

      "G" is a ninth-century MSS in Dresden (v Dobschuetz 012; v Soden a1028),
      containing the Pauline epistles.

      FWIW the King James opted for DIA TO ENOIKOUN (Byzantine text). The
      Revised Version of 1881 relegated that to the margin, and opted for
      TOU ENOIKOUNTOS AUTOU PNEUMATOS. It is well known that Westcott and Hort
      frequently preferred the "difficult" reading, on the grounds that that would
      be the more likely to have been "improved" by an editor; therefore the
      more likely to have been the original. IMHO this is rather a subjective
      approach to the problem. I think Fee has got it right.

      Charles Hodge, /Romans/, new edition, Edinburgh, 1864, pp 260f has an
      interesting comment antedating W&H:

      "For the reading DIA TO ENOIKOUN AUTOU PNEUMA, Wetstein quotes the MSS D.E
    • Andrew Kulikovsky
      Filloi, (Aussie translation: G day mates!) I was reading Fee s exegesis of Rom 8:11 in his book God s Empowering Presence where he accepted a variant reading
      Message 2 of 5 , Jul 3, 1997
      • 0 Attachment
        Filloi, (Aussie translation: G'day mates!)

        I was reading Fee's exegesis of Rom 8:11 in his book God's Empowering
        Presence
        where he accepted a variant reading over the UBS4 reading. The UBS4
        reading has:
        DIA TOU ENOIKOUNTOS

        and the variant:
        DIA TO ENOIKOUN

        Metzger, in his textual commentary states that the variant should be
        discounted because even though it is supported by B it is also supported
        by D and G, which weakens the authority of B. Now I checked Metzger's
        Text of the NT where he describes D as western witness containing the
        Gospels and Acts and G as a Byzantine witness containing the gospels -
        no mention of Romans anywhere!

        So firstly, are the citations of D and G in UBS4 correct and if so then
        what about Metzger's descriptions?

        Secondly, Fee's acceptance of the variant means DIA must be taken with
        the accustive and therefore is causal making the translation "because
        of" instead of the genative "through". This argument fits the context
        very well and seems very convincing to me - I'm just a bit worried about
        the manuscript confusion...

        So what do the rest of you 'oll think?

        cheers,
        Andrew S. Kulikovsky B.App.Sc(Hons) MACS
        Software Engineer
        CelsiusTech Australia
        Module 6 Endeavor House
        Technology Park
        Adelaide Australia 5095
        Ph: +618 8343 3837
        Fax: +618 8343 3777
        email: anku@...

        Some people are so narrow-minded,
        they can see through a key hole with both eyes
        Others are so open-minded
        their brain has fallen out.
      • Robert B. Waltz
        ... You were reading the Gospels list. In Paul, D is Codex Claromontanus, not Bezae, and G is also a different manuscript. Both are Western -- *in Paul.* Not
        Message 3 of 5 , Jul 3, 1997
        • 0 Attachment
          On Fri, 04 Jul 1997, Andrew Kulikovsky <anku@...> wrote:

          >Filloi, (Aussie translation: G'day mates!)
          >
          >I was reading Fee's exegesis of Rom 8:11 [ ... ]
          > The UBS4 reading has:
          >DIA TOU ENOIKOUNTOS
          >
          >and the variant:
          >DIA TO ENOIKOUN
          >
          >Metzger, in his textual commentary states that the variant should be
          >discounted because even though it is supported by B it is also supported
          >by D and G, which weakens the authority of B. Now I checked Metzger's
          >Text of the NT where he describes D as western witness containing the
          >Gospels and Acts and G as a Byzantine witness containing the gospels -
          >no mention of Romans anywhere!

          You were reading the Gospels list. In Paul, D is Codex Claromontanus, not
          Bezae, and G is also a different manuscript.

          Both are Western -- *in Paul.*

          Not that Metzger's manuscript lists are worth much. (IMHO.)

          >So firstly, are the citations of D and G in UBS4 correct and if so then
          >what about Metzger's descriptions?

          Let's give the raw evidence, then classify. (I maintain this is how
          *all* variants should be analysed -- though of course others use
          different approaches.)

          TOU ENOIKOUNTOS
          Aleph A C P**
          81 88 104 206 223 256 263 326 436 623 1319 1505 1506 1611 1799 1852
          1962 2127 2495
          f m hark sa bo arm eth geo slav
          Clement

          TO ENOIKOUN
          B D F G K L P* Psi
          6 33 181 330 424 451 (614) 629 630 1022 1175 1241 1739 1881 (1912) 2200
          2412 2464 2492 Byz
          a b d vg pesh (pal)
          Ir-lat Origen Ambrosiaster

          ********

          Analysing by text-types, we find

          TOU ENOIKOUNTOS:
          p46-B: sa
          Alexandrian: Aleph A C 81 104 1506
          family 2127 (=256 263 [hiat 365] 1319 2127 etc.) bo eth
          "Western:" f m
          family 1739: (none)
          Byzantine: slav pc
          Misc:
          family 1611: 1505 1611 2495 hark
          family 330: (none)
          arm geo Clement

          TO ENOIKOUN:
          p46-B: B
          Alexandrian (none -- 33 1175 1241 are Byzantine in Romans)
          "Western": D F G a b d vg Ir-lat Ambrosiaster
          family 1739: 6 630-2200 1739 1881 Origen (no correction in 424)
          Byzantine: K L Psi 33 (614)-2412 1022 1175 1241 pm Byz
          Misc:
          family 1611: (none)
          family 330: 330 451 2492
          pal

          In other words, TOU ENOIKOUNTOS is the reading of the Alexandrian
          text, supported only by family 1611 and some scattered witnesses.
          TO ENOIKOUN has the support of B, the "Western" text, and family
          1739. It is also supported by family 330, but this might be
          Byzantine influence. Even so, since three text-types support
          TO ENOIKOUN, it should be adopted barring extremely strong
          internal evidence -- which I don't see here.

          In other words, I agree with Fee against UBS.

          It's worth remembering that the UBS committee almost always adopted
          the Alexandrian reading, whatever the other evidence says....

          -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

          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)
        • kdlitwak
          I gound Robert Waltx s analysis quite helpful but now I have a question. I can t say that I remember ever reading the classification of miniscule MSS like
          Message 4 of 5 , Jul 3, 1997
          • 0 Attachment
            I gound Robert Waltx's analysis quite helpful but now I have a
            question. I can't say that I remember ever reading the classification
            of miniscule MSS like 33,81, and 1739, etc., but it seems to me that
            usually, these three MSS agree with major Alexandrian MSS like A and B.
            This seems so much the case that I'd assumed these miniscules were
            Alexandrian. I thought I'd seen them classified that way long ago.
            Robert Waltz has treated them, if I've read his analysis correctly, as
            either Western, or not belonging to a "text type." Would someone please
            clear this up for me? Thanks.

            Ken Litwak
            Graduate Theological Union
            Berkeley, CA

            Robert B. Waltz wrote:
            [snip]


            > You were reading the Gospels list. In Paul, D is Codex Claromontanus,
            > not
            > Bezae, and G is also a different manuscript.
            >
            > Both are Western -- *in Paul.*
            >
            > Not that Metzger's manuscript lists are worth much. (IMHO.)
            >
            > >So firstly, are the citations of D and G in UBS4 correct and if so
            > then
            > >what about Metzger's descriptions?
            >
            > Let's give the raw evidence, then classify. (I maintain this is how
            > *all* variants should be analysed -- though of course others use
            > different approaches.)
            >
            > TOU ENOIKOUNTOS
            > Aleph A C P**
            > 81 88 104 206 223 256 263 326 436 623 1319 1505 1506 1611 1799 1852
            > 1962 2127 2495
            > f m hark sa bo arm eth geo slav
            > Clement
            >
            > TO ENOIKOUN
            > B D F G K L P* Psi
            > 6 33 181 330 424 451 (614) 629 630 1022 1175 1241 1739 1881 (1912)
            > 2200
            > 2412 2464 2492 Byz
            > a b d vg pesh (pal)
            > Ir-lat Origen Ambrosiaster
            >
            > ********
            >
            > Analysing by text-types, we find
            >
            > TOU ENOIKOUNTOS:
            > p46-B: sa
            > Alexandrian: Aleph A C 81 104 1506
            > family 2127 (=256 263 [hiat 365] 1319 2127 etc.) bo eth
            > "Western:" f m
            > family 1739: (none)
            > Byzantine: slav pc
            > Misc:
            > family 1611: 1505 1611 2495 hark
            > family 330: (none)
            > arm geo Clement
            >
            > TO ENOIKOUN:
            > p46-B: B
            > Alexandrian (none -- 33 1175 1241 are Byzantine in Romans)
            > "Western": D F G a b d vg Ir-lat Ambrosiaster
            > family 1739: 6 630-2200 1739 1881 Origen (no correction in 424)
            > Byzantine: K L Psi 33 (614)-2412 1022 1175 1241 pm Byz
            > Misc:
            > family 1611: (none)
            > family 330: 330 451 2492
            > pal
            >
            > In other words, TOU ENOIKOUNTOS is the reading of the Alexandrian
            > text, supported only by family 1611 and some scattered witnesses.
            > TO ENOIKOUN has the support of B, the "Western" text, and family
            > 1739. It is also supported by family 330, but this might be
            > Byzantine influence. Even so, since three text-types support
            > TO ENOIKOUN, it should be adopted barring extremely strong
            > internal evidence -- which I don't see here.
            >
            > In other words, I agree with Fee against UBS.
            >
            > It's worth remembering that the UBS committee almost always adopted
            > the Alexandrian reading, whatever the other evidence says....
            >
            > -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
            >
            > Robert B. Waltz
            > waltzmn@...
          • Robert B. Waltz
            ... Remember that I do my own analysis of text-types, using computer sampling techniques. Thus my results are somewhat different (I say better, Larry Hurtado
            Message 5 of 5 , Jul 4, 1997
            • 0 Attachment
              On Thu, 03 Jul 1997, kdlitwak <kdlitwak@...> wrote:

              > I gound Robert Waltx's analysis quite helpful but now I have a
              >question. I can't say that I remember ever reading the classification
              >of miniscule MSS like 33,81, and 1739, etc., but it seems to me that
              >usually, these three MSS agree with major Alexandrian MSS like A and B.
              >This seems so much the case that I'd assumed these miniscules were
              >Alexandrian. I thought I'd seen them classified that way long ago.
              >Robert Waltz has treated them, if I've read his analysis correctly, as
              >either Western, or not belonging to a "text type." Would someone please
              >clear this up for me? Thanks.

              Remember that I do my own analysis of text-types, using computer
              sampling techniques. Thus my results are somewhat different (I
              say better, Larry Hurtado would probably say worse) than those
              in the standard manuals.

              But let's look at what I said.

              In the case of 81, I classified it as Alexandrian. No disagreements
              there.

              In the case of 33, it is of course generally Alexandrian. In fact,
              after Aleph, it appears to be the best Alexandrian witness in Paul.
              *Except* in Romans. I have read that 33's text of Romans comes from
              another hand. Certainly its text is different. In Romans -- and *only*
              in Romans -- 33 is a primarily Byzantine witness.

              Then there is the truly complicated matter of 1739. When it was
              first discovered, it was listed as Alexandrian. That was based on
              the fact that it wasn't Byzantine (obviously) and wasn't "Western."

              It was Zuntz who first noted that the Alexandrian text wasn't just
              a monolithic entity. He split it into two subgroups, "proto-Alexandrian"
              and Alexandrian proper. He put 1739, along with p46 and B, in the
              former group.

              Zuntz's great achievement lay in "breaking the mold"; he didn't assume
              existing text-types. Instead, he started from p46 -- the earliest
              witness -- and tried to see where that led.

              This was a real advance, but even it was an imperfect approach. Zuntz
              noted that 1739 came closer to p46 and B than did other Alexandrian
              witnesses such as Aleph and A. Therefore Zuntz classified 1739 with
              those witnesses.

              My approach is different and, I think, more complete. I start *everywhere*
              at once. And in that process I found that 1739 is closer to all three
              established groups (p46-B, Alexandrian, "Western") than they are to each
              other.

              This leads to one of two possible conclusions. Either 1739 is a sort of
              primitive eclectic text, compiled from proto-Alexandrian, Alexandrian,
              and "Western" witnesses, or it represents a text-type in its own
              right.

              The question then becomes, "Are there any other witnesses of the 1739
              type?" The answer is emphatically YES! There are two uncials: 0121 (M)
              and 0243. And there are quite a few minuscules, among them (in Paul)
              6 424** 630+2200 (in Romans-Galatians) 1881.

              One of these -- 0121 -- gives some evidence of being actually descended
              from 1739 (with at least one intermediate copy which was partly accomodated
              to the Byzantine text). But the others are *not*. 6 and 424** form a
              subgroup with some non-Byzantine readings not found in 1739. 1881 (the
              best "1739-type" witness other than 1739 itself) also has some independent
              readings. 0243 looks like a sister or first cousin of 1739, but it does
              not appear to be either parent or child.

              Thus we have several "family 1739" witnesses not directly derived from
              1739 itself. On this basis I consider it to be a text-type in its own
              right. Hence my listing of 1739, and its relatives, apart from the
              Alexandrian text.

              If you want more details, check the article on "text-types" at the
              web site below. Also see the individual articles on 33, 81, 1739, and
              any other minuscules that interest you.

              I'm working -- slowly -- on a detailed study of family 1739 -- particularly
              on the relationship between 1739 and 0243 -- but I can't promise when it
              will be complete.


              -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

              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)
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.