[tc-list] Re: Spelling of Mariam
- On Wed, 22 Dec 1999 18:05:17 +0100 "Wieland Willker"
>Some observations on MARIAM / MARIA in the NT:Indeclinable form versus declinable; should make no difference
translationally, though theologically there might be some inclination to
make a distinction between Mary mother of Jesus and the other Marys which
appear in the NT.
Listing only the MARIAM forms in both the Byzantine and NA27 texts
reveals the basic situation and is more manageable than looking at every
variant form of MARIA. There are variant readings between the declinable
and indeclinable forms involved in many of these locations, as would be
Byzantine Textform has MARIAM at:
Mt 1:20; 13:55
Lk 1:27, 30, 34, 38, 39, 46, 56; 2:5, 16, 19, 34.
NA27 has MARIAM at:
Mt 13:55; 27:61; 28:1
Lk 1:27, 30, 34, 38, 39, 46, 56; 2:5, 16, 19, 34; 10:39, 42
Jn 11:2, 19, 20, 28, 31, 32, 45; 12:3; 20:16, 18
>1. Genitive is always MARIAS (7 times)Normal declination. Not of significance.
2. Marie the mother of Jesus is named MARIAM (13 times) except one case:
Matt. 1:20 MARIAN (B, L, f1)
MARIAM (01, C, D, W, Z, 038, f13, Maj.)
Ac 1:14 also refers to Mary mother of Jesus, and there Byz reads MARIA,
while NA27 reads MARIAM.-- a situation opposite to that found in Mt 1:20
(which tends to demonstrate that the declinable and indeclinable forms
>3. Martha's Marie is always called MARIAMOnly in NA27; the Byzantine Textform always uses the declinable form.
>4. The mother of James and Joses is always called MARIA (10 times)Same for both NA27 and Byz.
>5. Maria Magdalene is always called MARIA (9 times) except:Add Jn 20:16 NA27 (also with Byz variant MARIA)
> Jn. 20:18 MARIAM (P66, 01, B, L)
> MARIA (A, D, W, 038, 044, f13, Maj.)
>I am not certain that any major pattern is visible, except in #4 (#1 is
> Matt. 27:61 MARIAM (01, B,C,L, 037, 038, f1)
> MARIA (A, D, W, f13, Maj.)
> Matt. 28:1 MARIAM (01, C, L, 037, 038)
> MARIA (A, B, D, W, f1, f13, Maj.)
>It seems to me that there is some system behind this.
irrelevant), which retains consistency in all texts.
#2 shows inconsistency, regardless of which texttype one follows;
#3 shows a distinct preference for a given form directly pertinent to
which texttype is being followed.
#5 is consistent within the Byzantine Textform; inconsistent in NA27.
>According to this system the four mentioned cases should bereconsidered.
For Byzantine supporters the only problematic situation is the
inconsistency in #2; within the NA27 text, #2 preserves the
inconsistency, though in regard to a different set of variants, while
also inconsistent in #5.
>I haven't checked the witnesses for the other 50 occurrences of Marie,Examination of all instances where the declinable form is found with
>but I found this interesting.
variant readings also would be an interesting (if not profitable) study.
Whether such is worth the time and effort expended, however, might be
questionable in light of the lack of translational or lexical
Maurice A. Robinson
Professor of NT and Greek
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary
Wake Forest, North Carolina
Why pay more to get Web access?
Try Juno for FREE -- then it's just $9.95/month if you act NOW!
Get your free software today: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.
You are currently subscribed to tc-list as: ListSaver-of-tc-list@...
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-tc-list-445P@...-certr.org