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

Re: tc-list Mark 7:31

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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.