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

tc-list TC-List - Phi 3.3

Expand Messages
  • Francisco Orozco
    Hello, In his comments on the variant found at Phi 3.3, Metzger notes that: (1) The committee gave it a C rating. (2) The translators of the NEB prefer the
    Message 1 of 4 , Jan 20, 1998
      Hello,

      In his comments on the variant found at Phi 3.3, Metzger notes that:
      (1) The committee gave it a "C" rating.
      (2) The translators of the NEB prefer the omission of QEOU and simply read
      PNEUMATI (p46).
      (3) The committee preferred the longer reading (with ample support from
      all quarters).
      (4) They explained the reading of p46 as accidental oversight.
      (5) They explained the PNEUMATI QEWi of the corrector of Aleph, the
      original hand of D, P, Psi, 88, et al) as an apparent "emendation
      introduced in order to provide an object for LATREUOVTES (as in Rom 1.9
      and 2 Tm 1.3)".

      Questions:
      (1) With such ample support, why a "C" rating?
      (2) Is there any clear rational for the NEB preferred reading? Is it
      because p46 is the only papyrus witnessing to this variant, and being the
      chronological oldest witness deserves preference?
      (3) What error (sight, hearing, etc) could explain p46's reading?
      (4) The reading of the corrector of Aleph, the original of D, et al, is
      explained as the result of wanting to supply an object to the participle,
      the references noted do not seem to be *that* parallel, other than
      "worship" and "God". The three participles strung along by Paul in Phi 3.3
      (LATREUOVTES... KAUXWMEVOI... PEPOIQOTES) also have dative phrases (though
      with the EV preposition). Is there another reason(s) apparent for the
      reading QEWi?
      (5) The phrase PNEUMATI QEOU also appears in Matt. 12:28; Rom. 8:14; 1 Co.
      12:3 & 2 Co. 3:3. (true, PNEUMATI also appears 80+ times).

      I would think that, with such strong external evidence, and internal too,
      the rating should be an "A" or at least a "B".

      Thanks,
      Francisco Orozco
      fran4@...
    • Robert B. Waltz
      ... I m tempted to say, How are *we* supposed to know why the UBS committee made all the strange decisions they did. :-) But I would note that the reading is
      Message 2 of 4 , Jan 20, 1998
        On Tue, 20 Jan 1998, "Francisco Orozco" <fran4@...> wrote:

        >Questions:
        >(1) With such ample support, why a "C" rating?

        I'm tempted to say, "How are *we* supposed to know why the UBS committee
        made all the strange decisions they did. :-)

        But I would note that the reading is a "B" in UBS4.

        >(2) Is there any clear rational for the NEB preferred reading? Is it
        >because p46 is the only papyrus witnessing to this variant, and being the
        >chronological oldest witness deserves preference?

        The explanation offered by Tasker (for the NEB committee) reads:

        "pneumati, the reading of P46, was regarded as original on the
        ground that it best explains the existence of the variants
        pneumati Qew, cound in Aleph-corr D* P, the Latin versions, and Syr.
        pesh. and hkl., and Pneumati Qeou, found in Aleph* A B C Dcorr G,
        and Syr. hkl. (margin). Patristic evidence varies between Qew and
        Qeou."

        >(3) What error (sight, hearing, etc) could explain p46's reading?

        There is no obvious explanation -- but there are many instances
        of single words being dropped here and there in manuscripts. Many
        would regard P46, with its unusual text, as particularly subject
        to these sorts of errors.

        [ ... ]

        >I would think that, with such strong external evidence, and internal too,
        >the rating should be an "A" or at least a "B".

        I can't regard it as an "A." The reading "QEW" has the support of most
        of the "Western" text (D a b d f vg Ambst; QEOU only F G g) and the
        bulk of the late Alexandrian witnesses (P 075 1175 family 2127). I
        consider QEW inferior, but not strongly inferior.

        Of course, that's just me. :-)

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

        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)
      • Francisco Orozco
        Thanks Robert B. Waltz for replying to my queries, I was wondering if the TC-List was still alive. I would appreciate the biblio for your source of Tasker s
        Message 3 of 4 , Jan 21, 1998
          Thanks Robert B. Waltz for replying to my queries,
          I was wondering if the TC-List was still alive. I would appreciate the
          biblio for your source of Tasker's explanation as to the NEB reading(s).
          Do you agree with their (committee's) explanation for the reading "QEW" ?
          Since they clearly did not accept the p46 reading (though it is the
          shorter, and maybe might give some better reasons for the rise of the
          other readings, acc. to Tasker; it clearly has the weakest external
          support), plus they also rejected the QEW reading (in spite of some of the
          Western text, and late Alexandrian) it seemed to me that a "A" was
          deserved (I confess that my allegiance has shifted from a
          reasoned-eclecticism to the Byzantine camp).
          But I would like to understand the possible reasons for the QEW reading.

          Francisco Orozco
        • Robert B. Waltz
          ... I don t do internal evidence :-); I can t really answer that. But it would do to remember that these two readings differ by *only one letter* (recall that
          Message 4 of 4 , Jan 21, 1998
            On Wed, 21 Jan 1998, "Francisco Orozco" <fran4@...> wrote:

            >Thanks Robert B. Waltz for replying to my queries,
            > I was wondering if the TC-List was still alive. I would appreciate the
            >biblio for your source of Tasker's explanation as to the NEB reading(s).
            >Do you agree with their (committee's) explanation for the reading "QEW" ?
            >Since they clearly did not accept the p46 reading (though it is the
            >shorter, and maybe might give some better reasons for the rise of the
            >other readings, acc. to Tasker; it clearly has the weakest external
            >support), plus they also rejected the QEW reading (in spite of some of the
            >Western text, and late Alexandrian) it seemed to me that a "A" was
            >deserved (I confess that my allegiance has shifted from a
            >reasoned-eclecticism to the Byzantine camp).
            >But I would like to understand the possible reasons for the QEW reading.

            I don't do internal evidence :-); I can't really answer that.

            But it would do to remember that these two readings differ by *only
            one letter* (recall that QEOS is one of the nomina sacra). Chances
            are that the change (whatever its direction) was accidental, and then
            the altered reading was perpetuated by scribes. Even the reading of
            P46 might arisen when the scribe misread a correction as an erasure.
            (This is purely speculation, and is only a faint possibility.)

            As for this "clearly the weakest support" business, while we can
            say that QEOU has the strongest support (I think everyone would agree
            on that), we cannot really say whether QEW or omit is in second place.
            QEW has many more supporting witnesses, but their character is far
            poorer than P46.

            Given that all of us use slightly different methods of criticism,
            we will never reach absolute consensus on which readings are most
            or least probable. But by the same token, don't expect the UBS
            committee to accept your method of rating variants. :-)

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

            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.