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

Re: Did B really drop eremos due to harmonization?

Expand Messages
  • Wieland Willker
    Matthew 23:38 IDOU AFIETAI UMIN O OIKOS UMWN **ERHMOS**. Thanks Jim for a sensible and thoughtful discussion of a very difficult variant. I agree that
    Message 1 of 33 , Dec 2, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Matthew 23:38 IDOU AFIETAI UMIN O OIKOS UMWN **ERHMOS**.

      Thanks Jim for a sensible and thoughtful discussion of a very difficult variant.
      I agree that harmonization by omission is normally not a very convincing argument. On the other hand, the sentence is rather catchy and memorable and perhaps the scribe added it from memory?


      Jim Leonard wrote:
      > I have two questions regarding scribal tendencies in B.
      > Can anyone cite examples of B harmonizing to Luke or to
      > LXX, or of harmonizing by omission.


      A clear case would be:
      Mt 8:9 TASSOMENOS, harmonization to Lk 7:8
      Possible cases:
      Mt 16:20 could be a harmonization to Lk 9:21: EPETIMHSEN
      Mt 19:24 could be a harmonization to Lk 18:25: TRHMATOS
      Mt 19:29 could be a harmonization to Lk 18:30: POLLAPLASIONA
      Mk 1:34 could be a harmonization to Lk 4:41: AUTON CRISTON EINAI

      Mt 24:31 SALPIGGOS FWNHS MEGALHS perhaps LXX usage.

      Another variant that comes to mind is the omission of EISIN in Mt 11:8 in a similar construction, though not a harmonization.

      If the short form would be original in both Gospels, the addition of ERHMOS by so many witnesses is quite difficult to explain.
      The sentence without ERHMOS is not really clear. "your house is left to you" is equivocal and makes no sense in context. Intended is: "your house will be left". Compare also Jer 12:7. The addition of ERHMOS then would be a natural clarification. hUMIN is Dativ incommodi: "your house will be left behind to you (destroyed)".
      The overall meaning of both readings is basically equivalent. But the short reading is more difficult to understand.

      Best wishes
      Wieland
      <><
      ------------------------------------------------
      Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
      mailto:willker@...-bremen.de
      http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie
      Textcritical commentary:
      http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/index.html
    • James M. Leonard
      The editor of mae-2 has concluded that it represents a text from a primitive Hebrew version of Matthew. Interestingly, George Howard makes similar claims
      Message 33 of 33 , Dec 19, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        The editor of mae-2 has concluded that it represents a text from a
        primitive Hebrew version of Matthew. Interestingly, George Howard
        makes similar claims about Shem Tob's 14th century Hebrew Matthew.
        Neither claim seems to be convincing anyone, despite especially
        tenacious efforts by Howard.

        I wonder if Howard is analyzing mae-2 to find any commonality with
        his Shem Tob :)

        But otherwise, mae-2 seems to be an important ms, in that it is
        purported to be the oldest extant ms in any language to much of
        Matthew's gospel.



        Jim Leonard
        Southwestern Pennsylvania




        --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "feeite_christian"
        <jmleonardfamily@m...> wrote:
        >
        > Just read with interest the article herein on the relatively new
        > Coptic ms of Matthew: mae-2.
        >
        > mae-1 supports the inclusion of eremos, and so we would expect, I
        > think, that mae-2 would as well. However, this is one of the
        variants
        > which is not catalogued in the overview article. Would someone
        kindly
        > let me know?
        >
        >
        >
        > Jim Leonard
        > Southwestern Pennsylvania
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.