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

RE: tc-list TC-List - Phi 3.3

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 4 , Jan 21, 1998
    • 0 Attachment
      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 2 of 4 , Jan 21, 1998
      • 0 Attachment
        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.