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

Re: Did B really drop eremos due to harmonization?

Expand Messages
  • feeite_christian
    Thanks for the examples of B s harmonizations to Luke. You ve made the case that the shorter reading is more difficult. This is a bit different from most
    Message 1 of 33 , Dec 2, 2005
      Thanks for the examples of B's harmonizations to Luke.

      You've made the case that the shorter reading is more difficult.
      This is a bit different from most people's analysis. Metzger, for
      example, says that B dropped eremos for stylistic improvement.

      No expert in Greek style, I would have thought that the shorter
      reading was complete in and of itself: Your house is abandoned to
      you, or, Your house is forsaken to you. With eremos, there is at
      least some awkwardness: Your house is forsaken to you, desolate
      (with desolate modifying the noun house, and not the verb forsaken).

      A more perfect reading is reflected in Jer 22:5. If the scribe or
      Matthew had been more fully influenced by this text, the passage
      would read, Your house is forsaken to you unto desolation (eis
      erwmosin).

      Thanks,
      Jim Leonard
      USA


      --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "Wieland Willker"
      <willker@c...> wrote:
      >
      > 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@c...
      > 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
        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.