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

RE: tc-list 1 Cor. 14.34-35 and the Western Tradition

Expand Messages
  • Curt Niccum
    The manuscript was edited by Souter in 1922. By the way, in my previous posting I noted the ms lacked the folio containing 1 Cor 14.34-5. It actually is
    Message 1 of 9 , Sep 22, 1998
    • 0 Attachment
      The manuscript was edited by Souter in 1922. By the way, in my previous
      posting I noted the ms lacked the folio containing 1 Cor 14.34-5. It
      actually is missing an entire quaternion.

      Curt Niccum

      -----Original Message-----
      From: Robert B. Waltz [SMTP:waltzmn@...]
      Sent: Monday, September 21, 1998 8:52 PM
      To: tc-list@...
      Subject: Re: tc-list 1 Cor. 14.34-35 and the Western
      Tradition

      On Mon, 21 Sep 1998, mikeykennedy@... wrote, in part:

      >I am particularly stuck on Old Latin a and b. It seems to me
      that Fee
      >lists it in the NICNT but not in his later book. Am I
      misreading the
      >presentation of the evidence? Any suggestions would be helpful.
      For that
      >matter, why does UBS 4 include b, while UBS 3 leave it out?

      UBS3 does not cite b at all. The manuscript is a relatively
      recent
      discovery; I don't think it was properly edited when UBS3 was
      first published. So the lack of citation in UBS3 means nothing.

      For what it's worth.

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

      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)
    • Robert B. Waltz
      ... Thanks for the information. This is *not* evident from any of the sources I consulted (NA27, Metzger s manual). The most interesting thing is that NA27
      Message 2 of 9 , Sep 22, 1998
      • 0 Attachment
        On Tue, 22 Sep 1998, Curt Niccum <curt.niccum@...> wrote:

        >The manuscript [b/89] was edited by Souter in 1922. By the way, in my previous
        >posting I noted the ms lacked the folio containing 1 Cor 14.34-5. It
        >actually is missing an entire quaternion.

        Thanks for the information. This is *not* evident from any of the
        sources I consulted (NA27, Metzger's manual).

        The most interesting thing is that NA27 lists b as being *complete*.
        From the previous post, I assume the editors filled it out from other
        sources. But I find myself wondering what the lacunae in the
        actual manuscript are. Anyone have a list?

        Thanks.

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

        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)
      • Curt Niccum
        I apologize once again for misinformation. Perhaps I should refrain from making comments on the list until I actually have time to formulate proper responses.
        Message 3 of 9 , Sep 22, 1998
        • 0 Attachment
          I apologize once again for misinformation. Perhaps I should refrain from
          making comments on the list until I actually have time to formulate
          proper responses. UBS4 does not refer to the Balliol ms. of Pelagius'
          Commentary (and who knows where I came up with that one!). It refers to
          a commentary manuscript located in Budapest edited in 1973 by Frede.

          Well, back to the dissertation.

          Extremely embarrassed,

          Curt Niccum

          -----Original Message-----
          From: Robert B. Waltz [SMTP:waltzmn@...]
          Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 1998 8:22 AM
          To: tc-list@...
          Subject: RE: tc-list 1 Cor. 14.34-35 and the Western
          Tradition

          On Tue, 22 Sep 1998, Curt Niccum <curt.niccum@...> wrote:

          >The manuscript [b/89] was edited by Souter in 1922. By the way,
          in my previous
          >posting I noted the ms lacked the folio containing 1 Cor
          14.34-5. It
          >actually is missing an entire quaternion.

          Thanks for the information. This is *not* evident from any of
          the
          sources I consulted (NA27, Metzger's manual).

          The most interesting thing is that NA27 lists b as being
          *complete*.
          From the previous post, I assume the editors filled it out from
          other
          sources. But I find myself wondering what the lacunae in the
          actual manuscript are. Anyone have a list?

          Thanks.

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

          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)
        • DC PARKER
          Old Latin b of Paul is edited by H.J. Frede, Ein Neue Paulustext und Kommentar (Aus der Geschichte der Lateinischen Bibel 7-8), 1973-4. DR DC PARKER READER IN
          Message 4 of 9 , Sep 23, 1998
          • 0 Attachment
            Old Latin b of Paul is edited by H.J. Frede, Ein Neue Paulustext und
            Kommentar (Aus der Geschichte der Lateinischen Bibel 7-8), 1973-4.


            DR DC PARKER
            READER IN NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL CRITICISM AND PALAEOGRAPHY
            DEPT OF THEOLOGY
            UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM
            TEL. 0121-414 3613
            FAX 0121-414 6866
            E-MAIL PARKERDC@...
          • D.R. Edwards
            Has the textual family of Polycarp s NT citations been established? Thanks in advance. D. Edwards University of Kentucky Lexington, KY, USA
            Message 5 of 9 , Sep 23, 1998
            • 0 Attachment
              Has the textual family of Polycarp's NT citations been established? Thanks
              in advance.

              D. Edwards
              University of Kentucky
              Lexington, KY, USA
            • Michael Holmes
              ... No, for two reasons. First, while Polycarp in his letter to the Philippians has numerous allusions to what we now refer to as the NT, his actual
              Message 6 of 9 , Sep 23, 1998
              • 0 Attachment
                At 09:33 AM 9/23/98 -0400, D. Edwards wrote:
                >Has the textual family of Polycarp's NT citations been established? Thanks
                >in advance.

                No, for two reasons. First, while Polycarp in his letter to the Philippians
                has numerous allusions to what we now refer to as the NT, his actual
                "citations" (instances where his reference is precise enough to permit his
                text to be reconstructed with some certainty) are extremely sparse. Second,
                even where a citation contains what appears to be a textual variant, it is
                not clear whether he is citing a variant *text* or a pre-textual tradition
                that later led to the rise of a variant text. E.g., in PolPhil 1.2,
                Polycarp's reference to Acts 2:24 contains a "Western" variant. But is
                Polycarp here a witness to the "Western" text, or a witness to an
                interpretive tradition that influenced the "Western" text? We do not know.
                In short, there is very little evidence with which to work, and what
                evidence there is is often ambiguous.

                Mike Holmes
                Bethel College
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.