tc-list Mark 7:31, as promised
- 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
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
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)
- On Sun, 1 Aug 1999, Robert B. Waltz wrote:
> I found this message more than a little disturbing (e.g. in its useRobert,
> 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.
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
"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
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
- On Mon, 2 Aug 1999, Jim Deardorff wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Aug 1999, Robert B. Waltz wrote:Etc.
> > 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.
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.