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

tc-list Mark 7:31

Expand Messages
  • Joseph Crea
    Hello everyone! The following was forwarded to me for comment -- which I have already done from the limited resources at my disposal (a copy of UBS/GNT^4 is on
    Message 1 of 8 , Aug 1, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      Hello everyone!

      The following was forwarded to me for comment -- which I have already
      done from the limited resources at my disposal (a copy of UBS/GNT^4 is on
      order but hasn't arrived yet, so I'm stuck with just NA^27 along with
      Metzger's __The Text of the New Testament__ and Aland & Aland's __The
      Text of the New Testament__). The name of the writer is omitted in order
      to protect the quilty. Hope you find it as interesting as I did!

      With Mettaa,

      Joseph Crea
      <Joseph.Crea@...>

      ==============================


      The textual history of Mark 7:24, and the judgment of the Nestle-Aland
      editorial board, is pretty easy to follow in the textual apparatus of either
      the 27th edition of the Nestle-Aland or in the 4th edition of the UBS text.

      1. According to the textual apparatus, the following manuscripts LACK "kai
      Sidonos" ("and Sidon"):

      D -- Codex "Bezae Cantabrigiensis" is dated to the late 5th century, and is a
      Greek-Latin diglot, with the Greek text on the opposite side from the Latin,
      written in sense lines for use in worship. It is classified as a category IV
      manuscript, meaning that it doesn't reflect any particular family of
      manuscripts, but is sometimes thought of as being of the "Western" Family
      ("Western" being a misnomer, since it was produced in Egypt). Our
      difficulty in identifying its family is due to the fact that its readings are
      frequently very unusual and/or unique to it alone, and while it does contain
      some interesting early readings, it is not generally considered to be a
      manuscript of a quality approaching that of the "Great" Uncials (Sinaiticus
      and Vaticanus).

      L -- Codex "Regius" is dated to the mid 8th century, is of the late
      "Egyptian" family of manuscripts, but is generally classified as a Category
      II manuscript (hence, important readings can be found in it). Its lateness
      in the textual history, however, limits its strength as a textual exemplar.

      W -- Codex "Freerianus" is dated to the late 5th or the very early 6th
      century, is located in the Freer Gallery of Art in Washington, DC (hence
      "W"), and is specially noted by its highly irregular textual readings. It is
      a Category III manuscript, and hence rather poor even though it is from the
      late 5th century. The irregularity of its text makes it hard to identify its
      family, however the majority of its readings appear to have an affinity
      with the "Egyptian Family."

      Delta -- Codex "Sangallensis" is dated to the early 9th century, is another
      example of a Latin - Greek diglot, with the Latin interlinear with the Greek.
      It is a Category III manuscript, and in its Greek text is reflective, yet
      again, of the late Alexandrian Text type, often called the "Egyptian Family."

      Theta -- Codex "Coridethianus" is dated to the mid 9th century, has a
      severely uneven textual quality, is written in an very awkward hand by a
      scribe who evidently didn't know Greek. This doesn't speak well for the
      quality of the scribes copying, and its many severe errors can be seen in its
      VERY HIGH unique variant count -- 95. By comparison, most manuscripts of
      this size will only have about 10 - 25 unique readings.

      28 -- this is an 11th century minuscule of category III text ... family
      unknown.

      565 -- this is a 9th century minuscule of category III text .... again,
      family unknown.

      some Italian (later Latin) manuscripts ... mostly dated to the 4th - 7th
      centuries

      some Syriac manuscripts ... mostly dated 5th - 7th centuries.

      2. According to the textual apparatus, the following manuscripts INCLUDE
      "kai Sidonos" ("and Sidon"):

      Aleph -- Codex "Sinaiticus" is dated to the early 4th century, is one of the
      best copies of the entire New Testament available to us today, reflects a
      very regular though sometimes imprecise copy of the Alexandrian Family.

      B -- Codex "Vaticanus" is dated to the early 4th century, is THE BEST copy of
      most of the New Testament available to us today, and reflects a VERY regular
      and VERY strict copy of the proto-Alexandrian family.

      A -- Codex "Alexandranus" is dated to the early 5th century and, in its
      Gospels, reflects a very early version of the Byzantine Family.

      K -- Codex "Cyprius" is dated to the 9th century and reflects the Byzantine
      Family.

      X -- Codex "Monacensis" is dated to the mid 10th century and reflects the
      Byzantine Family.

      Pi -- Codex "Petropolitanus" is dated to the 9th century and reflects the
      Byzantine Family.

      Family 1 Minuscles and Family 13 Minuscules, both of which are excellent
      examples of Category III (heavily Caesarian) text. There are 16 manuscripts
      in these two collections.

      33 -- is a minuscule from the 9th century of a Category II, Alexandrian Family

      700 -- is a minuscule from the 11th century of a Category III, mixed Family

      892 -- is a minuscule from the 9th century of a Category II, Alexandrian
      Family

      The MAJORITY TEXT (i.e., the VAST majority of the Byzantine Text Type
      exemplars (about a thousand manuscripts) all contain "kai Sidonos" ("and
      Sidon").

      The Byzantine Lectionary
      Some Old Latin/Italian manuscripts, some of which date to the 3rd century
      The Latin Vulgate
      The majority of the Syriac version
      The Coptic version
      The Gothic version
      The Armenian version
      The Ethiopian version
      The Gregorian version
      Tatian's Diatessaron -- which is a "Gospel Harmony" that dates from PRIOR to
      the 3rd century.

      3. Analysis.

      The textual evidence is quite overwhelming in support of the inclusion of the
      words "kai Sidonos" ("and Sidon") at Mark 7:24. Not only do we have the
      earliest and the best manuscripts in support of its inclusion (Sinaiticus and
      Vaticanus), but we also have a BROAD range of Geographical (Africa,
      Palestine, Byzantium, and Rome) and Text Type (Alexandrian, Caesarian,
      Byzantine, and Western versions) support for its inclusion. The very fact
      that
      Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, Alexandranus, and the Majority Text all support the
      inclusion of "kai Sidonos" is a STRONG indicator in and of itself that the
      words should be considered as original.

      The reason for its being left out of body-text of the Nestle-Aland is curious
      indeed, and may well be based upon a hypothetical reasoning processes which
      runs something like this:

      1. A few manuscripts leave out "kai Sidonos"
      2. We cannot figure out any reason why "kai Sidonos" would have been left
      out of these manuscripts
      3. We CAN posit a guess as to how "kai Sidonos" got added to the earliest
      and best manuscripts AND the majority text
      4. Therefore, even though textual support is VERY strong for the inclusion
      of "kai Sidonos," we prefer to leave the words out.

      Their guess as to how "kai Sidonos" got added to the text of Mark 7:24 is
      that the scribes who were making copies of the Gospels added the words based
      upon their memory of having written the words in the previous book (Matthew
      15:21).

      This theory works well to help determine the proper reading in cases where
      the textual evidence is poor or inconclusive. In this case, however, this
      theory is VERY WEAK INDEED when compared with the strength of the textual
      witness of Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, Alexandranus, and the Majority Text.

      It is made even MORE problematic when one considers the relatively weak
      character of the manuscripts which leave out "kai Sidonos." They are: (1) of
      one basic textual family, (2) mostly late, (3) mostly from the same
      geographical region, and (4) all manuscripts with irregular or "sloppy"
      scribal characteristics. Any of these 4 reasons, and especially the 4th
      reason, provide sufficient grounds for asserting why they left out "kai
      Sidonos" contrary
      to its presence in earlier, superior, manuscripts.

      I had never noticed this before ... it is an interesting example of where the
      editors of the Nestle-Aland and the UBS text have allowed their methodology
      to get in the way of the actual physical textual exemplars, and what those
      exemplars demonstrate. For example, in almost any other place in the Greek
      New Testament you would care to indicate, when and where we find Sinaiticus
      and Vaticanus BOTH agreeing together, and ESPECIALLY when they not only
      agree together, but agree with the Majority Text, in such places they almost
      ALWAYS are followed. And, they should be followed here, too. This is my
      professional opinion as a ThM and PhD (second concentration) in Textual
      Criticism.
    • Robert B. Waltz
      ... I found this message more than a little disturbing (e.g. in its use of the Aland Manuscript Categories, which it treats as if they were measures of
      Message 2 of 8 , Aug 1, 1999
      • 0 Attachment
        On 8/1/99, Joseph Crea wrote:

        >Hello everyone!
        >
        > The following was forwarded to me for comment -- which I have already
        >done from the limited resources at my disposal (a copy of UBS/GNT^4 is on
        >order but hasn't arrived yet, so I'm stuck with just NA^27 along with
        >Metzger's __The Text of the New Testament__ and Aland & Aland's __The
        >Text of the New Testament__). The name of the writer is omitted in order
        >to protect the quilty. Hope you find it as interesting as I did!

        I found this message more than a little disturbing (e.g. in its use
        of the Aland "Manuscript Categories," which it treats as if they
        were measures of manuscripts' actual *values,* when in fact they
        are simply descriptions of how Byzantine the manuscripts are). That
        being the case, I've decided simply to analyse the variant myself
        and ignore the rest.

        It is interesting to see that this is a reading where the UBS committee
        actually *raised* the level of uncertainty in UBS4 (from A to B). But
        let's start at the beginning.

        As usual, we start with the evidence:

        TUROU: D L W Delta Theta
        28 565
        a b d ff2 i n r1 sin (hiat cur) pal
        Origen Ambrosiaster

        TUROU KAI SIDONOS: Aleph A B E F G H K N X Pi Sigma
        f1 f13 33 157 579 700 892 1010 1071 1079 1241 1243 1342 1424
        1505 1506 1579 2427 Byz
        aur c f l q vg pesh hark sa bo arm eth geo goth slav

        The next step is to break these up by text-types:

        TUROU TUROU KAI SIDONOS

        Alexandrian L Delta Aleph B 33 579 892 sa ba
        and all other witnesses

        Byzantine - All witnesses

        "Caesarean" W Theta 28 565 f1 f13 700 arm geo
        pal Origen

        "Western" D a b d ff2 i n r1 aur c f l q
        sin Ambrosiaster

        Thus TUROU KAI SIDONOS is Byzantine and Alexandrian; TUROU has some
        late Alexandrian support, plus the "Western" text, and on the face of
        it is also "Caesarean" (as defined by Streeter, at least, before the
        fights start :-).

        Majority of text-types says that TUROU is the better reading, but it's
        very close.

        Internal evidence, however, is entirely clear. The parallel in Matt.
        15:21 reads TUROU KAI SIDONOS without variant. TYROU KAI SIDONOS is
        the more familiar reading. There is no basis for scribal error here.
        The internal evidence overwhelmingly supports the shorter reading.

        Given that the internal evidence overwhelming supports the variant weakly
        supported by the external evidence, the reading TUROU is clearly superior.
        I think the UBS4 committee was right; there is some slight doubt. But
        TUROU is clearly the better reading.

        Bob Waltz
        waltzmn@...

        "The one thing we learn from history --
        is that no one ever learns from history."
      • Joseph Crea
        Hello Robert! ... CREA Now I m REALLY confused, since my copy of NA^27 adduces the following witnesses in favor of (as opposed to
        Message 3 of 8 , Aug 1, 1999
        • 0 Attachment
          Hello Robert!

          At 08:28 PM 8/1/99 -0500, you wrote:
          >On 8/1/99, Joseph Crea wrote:
          >
          >>Hello everyone!
          >>
          >> The following was forwarded to me for comment -- which I have already
          >>done from the limited resources at my disposal (a copy of UBS/GNT^4 is on
          >>order but hasn't arrived yet, so I'm stuck with just NA^27 along with
          >>Metzger's __The Text of the New Testament__ and Aland & Aland's __The
          >>Text of the New Testament__). The name of the writer is omitted in order
          >>to protect the quilty. Hope you find it as interesting as I did!
          >
          >I found this message more than a little disturbing (e.g. in its use
          >of the Aland "Manuscript Categories," which it treats as if they
          >were measures of manuscripts' actual *values,* when in fact they
          >are simply descriptions of how Byzantine the manuscripts are). That
          >being the case, I've decided simply to analyse the variant myself
          >and ignore the rest.
          >
          >It is interesting to see that this is a reading where the UBS committee
          >actually *raised* the level of uncertainty in UBS4 (from A to B). But
          >let's start at the beginning.
          >
          >As usual, we start with the evidence:
          >
          >TUROU: D L W Delta Theta
          > 28 565
          > a b d ff2 i n r1 sin (hiat cur) pal
          > Origen Ambrosiaster
          >
          >TUROU KAI SIDONOS: Aleph A B E F G H K N X Pi Sigma
          > f1 f13 33 157 579 700 892 1010 1071 1079 1241 1243 1342 1424
          > 1505 1506 1579 2427 Byz
          > aur c f l q vg pesh hark sa bo arm eth geo goth slav


          CREA
          Now I'm REALLY confused, since my copy of NA^27 adduces the following
          witnesses in favor of <tyrou Elthen dia sidOnos> (as opposed to <tyrou kai
          sidOnos>):


          "txt Aleph B D L Delta Theta 33. 535. 700. 892. 2427. lat

          sa^mss bo"


          CREA
          Now it looks to me like the witnesses you cite in support of <tyrou kai
          sidOnos> are identical with a number of those cited by NA^27 in favor of
          <tyrou Elthen dia sidOnos> -- specifically Aleph B 33. 700. 892.
          2427. and bo. Which set of witnesses should be followed, those presented
          in NA^27 or those you list? Is my reading/understanding of the apparatus
          in NA^27 faulty or is the apparatus wrong?


          With Mettaa,

          Joseph Crea
          <Joseph.Crea@...>
        • Robert B. Waltz
          ... Ack! My fault. For some reason, I analysed Mark 7:24 instead of 7:31. Wrong variant. :-) (No doubt the reference to Tyre and Sidon helped. You just saw
          Message 4 of 8 , Aug 2, 1999
          • 0 Attachment
            On 8/1/99, Joseph Crea wrote:

            >CREA
            > Now I'm REALLY confused, since my copy of NA^27 adduces the following
            >witnesses in favor of <tyrou Elthen dia sidOnos> (as opposed to <tyrou kai
            >sidOnos>):

            Ack! My fault. For some reason, I analysed Mark 7:24 instead of 7:31. Wrong
            variant. :-) (No doubt the reference to "Tyre and Sidon" helped. You just saw
            scribal error in action. :-)

            I'll try again later, with the *right* variant. :-) No time now.


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

            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
            Well, now that I see the variant I m supposed to be studying, I m not sure what the big deal is (I though Mark 7:24 was a lot more fun :-). But here s the
            Message 5 of 8 , Aug 2, 1999
            • 0 Attachment
              Well, now that I see the variant I'm supposed to be studying, I'm not
              sure what the big deal is (I though Mark 7:24 was a lot more fun :-).
              But here's the story.

              THE MANUSCRIPT EVIDENCE:

              TUROU HLQEN DIA SIDWNOS
              Aleph B D L Delta Theta
              33 565 700 892 1342 2427
              a (aur) b c d (hiat e) f ff2 i (hiat k) l n r1 vg pal sa-pt bo eth

              TUROU KAI SIDWNOS HLQEN
              P45 A E F G H K N W X Pi Sigma 0131
              f1 f13 28 157 579 1010 1071 1079 1241 1243 1424 1505 1506 1546 Byz
              q sin (hiat cur) pesh hark sa-pt (arm) geo goth slav


              Once again organizing by text-types

              TUROU HLQEN DIA SIDWNOS TUROU KAI SIDWNOS HLQEN

              Alexandrian Aleph B L Delta 33 892 2427 579 sa-pt
              sa-pt bo

              Byzantine -- All

              "Caesarean" Theta 565 700 W f1 f13 28 arm geo

              "Western" D all lat but q q sin

              Thus the Alexandrian and "Western" texts support TUROU HLQEN DIA SIDWNOS,
              as do enough "Caesarean" witnesses to imply this is the reading of the
              type. Looking at this, I personally don't even have to look at internal
              evidence; TUROU HLQEN DIA SIDWNOS is the better reading. :-)

              If one insists upon using internal evidence, whether one needs to or
              not, I would note that TUROU KAI SIDWNOS HLQEN sounds much better and
              more familiar. I'd call this one of those garden-variety scribal accidents
              which was preserved because the accidental reading sounded more normal
              (and makes more geographic sense).

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

              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)
            • Jim Deardorff
              ... Robert, This case interested me because it is a good example of where an incorrect decision could easily be made on the basis of a faulty hypothesis --
              Message 6 of 8 , Aug 2, 1999
              • 0 Attachment
                On Sun, 1 Aug 1999, Robert B. Waltz wrote:
                > I found this message more than a little disturbing (e.g. in its use
                > of the Aland "Manuscript Categories," which it treats as if they
                > were measures of manuscripts' actual *values,* when in fact they
                > are simply descriptions of how Byzantine the manuscripts are). That
                > being the case, I've decided simply to analyse the variant myself
                > and ignore the rest.
                >
                > It is interesting to see that this is a reading where the UBS committee
                > actually *raised* the level of uncertainty in UBS4 (from A to B). But
                > let's start at the beginning.
                >
                > As usual, we start with the evidence:
                >
                > TUROU: D L W Delta Theta
                > 28 565
                > a b d ff2 i n r1 sin (hiat cur) pal
                > Origen Ambrosiaster
                >
                > TUROU KAI SIDONOS: Aleph A B E F G H K N X Pi Sigma
                > f1 f13 33 157 579 700 892 1010 1071 1079 1241 1243 1342 1424
                > 1505 1506 1579 2427 Byz
                > aur c f l q vg pesh hark sa bo arm eth geo goth slav
                > ....

                > Internal evidence, however, is entirely clear. The parallel in Matt.
                > 15:21 reads TUROU KAI SIDONOS without variant. TYROU KAI SIDONOS is
                > the more familiar reading. There is no basis for scribal error here.
                > The internal evidence overwhelmingly supports the shorter reading.
                >
                > Given that the internal evidence overwhelming supports the variant weakly
                > supported by the external evidence, the reading TUROU is clearly superior.
                > I think the UBS4 committee was right; there is some slight doubt. But
                > TUROU is clearly the better reading.

                Robert,

                This case interested me because it is a good example of where an incorrect
                decision could easily be made on the basis of a faulty hypothesis -- that
                of Markan priority over Matthew. Most of those who see Matthew as
                having come before Mark would prefer the longer reading. This would
                include neo-Griesbachians as well as supporters of the Augustinian
                hypothesis (AH) and the external traditions of Matthean priority. It also
                includes the modified Augustinian hyothesis I support, which includes
                Matthew having been in its Semitic form when utilized by the writers of
                Mark and Luke, with the later translator of Matthew into Greek having Mark
                and Luke before him during his translation. With the AH, it would not have
                been inconsistent for the writer of Mark to have abbreviated the two
                cities to one, considering how much other abbreviation he carried out,
                on this hypothesis.

                Now I must agree with the sentiment within certain statements you
                included in an earlier post (yesterday), namely:

                "If majority rule meant anything, the world would be flat and we'd all be
                pantheists."

                "The tendency is to decide this matter politically..."

                I see these views as applying to the present consensus of Markan priority
                also, for which it is "politically" incorrect to support an opposing
                minority position.

                Does anyone have an estimate of what fraction of TC preferences within NA
                were based upon Markan priority as a deciding factor? Would it be as large
                as 1%?

                Jim Deardorff
                http://www.proaxis.com/~deardorj
              • Jim Deardorff
                ... Etc. My eye also went straight to Mk 7:24 in N-A 27, rather than to Mk 7:31. But I hope that the 7:24 case is interesting enough to merit some comment. Jim
                Message 7 of 8 , Aug 2, 1999
                • 0 Attachment
                  On Mon, 2 Aug 1999, Jim Deardorff wrote:

                  > On Sun, 1 Aug 1999, Robert B. Waltz wrote:
                  > > I found this message more than a little disturbing (e.g. in its use
                  > > of the Aland "Manuscript Categories," which it treats as if they
                  > > were measures of manuscripts' actual *values,* when in fact they
                  > > are simply descriptions of how Byzantine the manuscripts are). That
                  > > being the case, I've decided simply to analyse the variant myself
                  > > and ignore the rest.
                  Etc.

                  My eye also went straight to Mk 7:24 in N-A 27, rather than to Mk 7:31.
                  But I hope that the 7:24 case is interesting enough to merit some comment.

                  Jim Deardorff
                • Robert B. Waltz
                  Message 8 of 8 , Aug 2, 1999
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On 8/2/99, Jim Deardorff wrote, in part:

                    >This case interested me because it is a good example of where an incorrect
                    >decision could easily be made on the basis of a faulty hypothesis -- that
                    >of Markan priority over Matthew
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.