Re: acc. vs gen reading
- On Fri 4 Jul 97 (10:04:42 +0930), anku@... wrote:
>�Metzger, in his textual commentary states that the variant should beHullo Andrew,
>�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!
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
- On Thu, 03 Jul 1997, kdlitwak <kdlitwak@...> wrote:
> I gound Robert Waltx's analysis quite helpful but now I have aRemember that I do my own analysis of text-types, using computer
>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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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)