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

Re: tc-list Mark 7:31

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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.