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

tc-list Mark 7:31, as promised

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 8 , Aug 2, 1999
      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 2 of 8 , Aug 2, 1999
        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 3 of 8 , Aug 2, 1999
          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 4 of 8 , Aug 2, 1999
            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.