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

Re: [textualcriticism] Mark 1:41 - Defending "Filled with Compassion"

Expand Messages
  • Daniel B. Wallace
    If I may weigh in here: I think Bart makes some excellent points about Mark 1.41. I don t recall if he cited the doctoral dissertationn done at Baylor,
    Message 1 of 14 , Jan 7, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      If I may weigh in here:

      I think Bart makes some excellent points about Mark 1.41. I don't recall if he cited the doctoral dissertationn done at Baylor, defending the same reading (by Proctor, I believe). But one has to wonder why the Western text would create such a reading: there is no unintentional reason that one can muster for it, and D is not prone to speak of Jesus' anger elsewhere in singular readings (see Yoder's concordance). As the textual critic for the NET NT, I'm almost ready to adopt this reading. I appreciate some of the points that were made in defense of the compassionate reading, too. And I don't agree with Bart about the significance of this reading (in terms of almost giving us a different Jesus than we had before). One of my students just wrote a term paper on the passage. I will be posting it on csntm.org in the next couple of weeks (along with hundreds of images, new collations, etc.). I hope to hear from more of you on this text!

      Respectfully,

      Daniel B. Wallace
      Executive Director,
      Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts
      www.csntm.org

      ----- Start Original Message -----
      From: Bart Ehrman <behrman@...>
      To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Mark 1:41 - Defending "Filled with Compassion"

      > I think you make a good point. But on what grounds can we decide
      > that D is a bad manuscript, if not the internal evaluation of its readings
      > (in comparsion with the internal evaluation of the readings of other
      > manuscripts)? I don't think we can dispense with internal criteria and
      > simply count Alexandrian noses.
      >
      > Moreover, in most instances D does *not* stand alone. It represents a
      > *type* of text -- unless you think that the Latin witnesses in this
      > instance (and others like it) are directly dependent on D.
      >
      > I think Hort had a much better approach to D. It represented a faulty
      > but very early stream of the tradition, which in some (unusual and rare)
      > instances may be a closer approximation of the original than B.
      >
      > -- Bart Ehrman
      >
      >
      >
      > On Sat, 7 Jan 2006, Michael Marlowe wrote:
      >
      > > Jim Snapp wrote:
      > >
      > >> ... it seems a lot more probable than the competing
      > >> proposal that "orgistheis" was thoroughly replaced
      > >> (not just omitted so as to harmonize with Matthew 8:2 and
      > >> and Luke 5:12, except in the case of Old Latin b and
      > >> four Byz. mss) by "splagchnistheis" in all channels
      > >> of transmission, leaving that shining example of pristine,
      > >> disciplined copyist-work, the text of D, as its sole
      > >> Greek (or, more precisely, Greek-Latin, rather) support.
      > >
      > > I have never understood why such odd readings from manuscripts like D and k
      > > are adopted by some critics, when so many of the other readings in these
      > > western witnesses can only be attributed to the "noise" introduced by the
      > > sheer incompetence of the scribes or translators. The idea that we would
      > > should prefer a singular reading in D if we can't come up with a really
      > > convincing explanation of how it arose seems .. well, it's a very
      > > questionable way to proceed, to say the least. Think of the results it would
      > > yield if this were made into a principle and applied consistently. We need
      > > to keep away from this kind of unreasoned eclecticism, and we need to
      > > remember that D is simply a bad manuscript.
      > >
      > > Michael
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > Yahoo! Groups Links
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >

      ----- End Original Message -----
    • K. Martin Heide
      Bart Ehrman wrote: I think you make a good point. But on what grounds can we decide that D is a bad manuscript, if not the internal evaluation of its readings
      Message 2 of 14 , Jan 7, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Bart Ehrman wrote:
            I think you make a good point.  But on what grounds can we decide
        that D is a bad manuscript, if not the internal evaluation of its readings 
        (in comparsion with the internal evaluation of the readings of other 
        manuscripts)?  I don't think we can dispense with internal criteria and 
        simply count Alexandrian noses.
        
            Moreover, in most instances D does *not* stand alone.  It represents a 
        *type* of text -- unless you think that the Latin witnesses in this 
        instance (and others like it) are directly dependent on D.
        
            I think Hort had a much better approach to D.  It represented a faulty 
        but very early stream of the tradition, which in some (unusual and rare) 
        instances may be a closer approximation of the original than B.
        
        -- Bart Ehrman
        
        
        
        On Sat, 7 Jan 2006, Michael Marlowe wrote:
        
          
        Jim Snapp wrote:
        
            
        ... it seems a lot more probable than the competing
        proposal that "orgistheis" was thoroughly replaced
        (not just omitted so as to harmonize with Matthew 8:2 and
        and Luke 5:12, except in the case of Old Latin b and
        four Byz. mss) by "splagchnistheis" in all channels
        of transmission, leaving that shining example of pristine,
        disciplined copyist-work, the text of D, as its sole
        Greek (or, more precisely, Greek-Latin, rather) support.
              
        I have never understood why such odd readings from manuscripts like D and k
        are adopted by some critics, when so many of the other readings in these
        western witnesses can only be attributed to the "noise" introduced by the
        sheer incompetence of the scribes or translators. The idea that we would
        should prefer a singular reading in D if we can't come up with a really
        convincing explanation of how it arose seems .. well, it's a very
        questionable way to proceed, to say the least. Think of the results it would
        yield if this were made into a principle and applied consistently. We need
        to keep away from this kind of unreasoned eclecticism, and we need to
        remember that D is simply a bad manuscript.
        
        Michael
        
        
        
            
          
        So you think that e.g. the so-called western non-interpolations maybe or are valid and that the papyri add nothing to our knowledge
        regarding these variants? (see e.g. Kurt Aland in ANTT 2,
        "Die Bedeutung des P75 für den Text des Neuen Testaments - Ein Beitrag zur Frage der 'western non-interpolations'")

        (By the way, you never do textual criticism without counting noses. Even you in your Orthodox Corruption tell us explicitly,
        in case you prefer D, where D is backed up by additional witnesses etc. such as Old Latin)


        Martin

      • Bart Ehrman
        Thanks for this. The question is always, which noses to count and how to count them. I have an excursus on the Western non-interpolations in Orthodox
        Message 3 of 14 , Jan 8, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          Thanks for this. The question is always, which noses to count and how
          to count them.

          I have an excursus on the Western non-interpolations in Orthodox
          Corruption. I think Hort was right on the money and Aland is absolutely
          wrong (and that he misconstrued Hort), for reasons I lay out in detail
          there. I've sometimes thought that excursus was about the best thing I
          ever wrote....

          -- Bart Ehrman



          On Sun, 8 Jan 2006, K. Martin Heide wrote:

          > Bart Ehrman wrote:
          >
          > I think you make a good point. But on what grounds can we decide
          > that D is a bad manuscript, if not the internal evaluation of its readings
          > (in comparsion with the internal evaluation of the readings of other
          > manuscripts)? I don't think we can dispense with internal criteria and
          > simply count Alexandrian noses.
          >
          > Moreover, in most instances D does *not* stand alone. It represents a
          > *type* of text -- unless you think that the Latin witnesses in this
          > instance (and others like it) are directly dependent on D.
          >
          > I think Hort had a much better approach to D. It represented a faulty
          > but very early stream of the tradition, which in some (unusual and rare)
          > instances may be a closer approximation of the original than B.
          >
          > -- Bart Ehrman
          >
          >
          >
          > On Sat, 7 Jan 2006, Michael Marlowe wrote:
          >
          >
          >
          > Jim Snapp wrote:
          >
          >
          >
          > ... it seems a lot more probable than the competing
          > proposal that "orgistheis" was thoroughly replaced
          > (not just omitted so as to harmonize with Matthew 8:2 and
          > and Luke 5:12, except in the case of Old Latin b and
          > four Byz. mss) by "splagchnistheis" in all channels
          > of transmission, leaving that shining example of pristine,
          > disciplined copyist-work, the text of D, as its sole
          > Greek (or, more precisely, Greek-Latin, rather) support.
          >
          >
          > I have never understood why such odd readings from manuscripts like D and k
          > are adopted by some critics, when so many of the other readings in these
          > western witnesses can only be attributed to the "noise" introduced by the
          > sheer incompetence of the scribes or translators. The idea that we would
          > should prefer a singular reading in D if we can't come up with a really
          > convincing explanation of how it arose seems .. well, it's a very
          > questionable way to proceed, to say the least. Think of the results it would
          > yield if this were made into a principle and applied consistently. We need
          > to keep away from this kind of unreasoned eclecticism, and we need to
          > remember that D is simply a bad manuscript.
          >
          > Michael
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > So you think that e.g. the so-called western non-interpolations maybe
          > or are valid and that the papyri add nothing to our knowledge regarding
          > these variants? (see e.g. Kurt Aland in ANTT 2, "Die Bedeutung des P75
          > fuer den Text des Neuen Testaments - Ein Beitrag zur Frage der 'western
          > non-interpolations'")
          >
          > (By the way, you never do textual criticism without counting noses. Even
          > you in your Orthodox Corruption tell us explicitly,
          > in case you prefer D, where D is backed up by additional witnesses etc.
          > such as Old Latin)
          >
          >
          > Martin
          >
          >
          > ________________________________________________________________________________
          > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
          >
          > * Visit your group "textualcriticism" on the web.
          >
          > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          > textualcriticism-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
          >
          > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
          >
          > ________________________________________________________________________________
          >
          >
        • Bart Ehrman
          Dan, I m glad for the (almost) support. But in my view, if an angry Jesus is the *same* as a compassionate Jesus, there s little reason to do text criticism
          Message 4 of 14 , Jan 8, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            Dan,

            I'm glad for the (almost) support. But in my view, if an angry Jesus
            is the *same* as a compassionate Jesus, there's little reason to do text
            criticism on the verse!

            Best,

            -- Bart



            On Sat, 7 Jan 2006, Daniel B. Wallace wrote:

            > If I may weigh in here:
            >
            > I think Bart makes some excellent points about Mark 1.41. I don't recall if he cited the doctoral dissertationn done at Baylor, defending the same reading (by Proctor, I believe). But one has to wonder why the Western text would create such a reading: there is no unintentional reason that one can muster for it, and D is not prone to speak of Jesus' anger elsewhere in singular readings (see Yoder's concordance). As the textual critic for the NET NT, I'm almost ready to adopt this reading. I appreciate some of the points that were made in defense of the compassionate reading, too. And I don't agree with Bart about the significance of this reading (in terms of almost giving us a different Jesus than we had before). One of my students just wrote a term paper on the passage. I will be posting it on csntm.org in the next couple of weeks (along with hundreds of images, new collations, etc.). I hope to hear from more of you on this text!
            >
            > Respectfully,
            >
            > Daniel B. Wallace
            > Executive Director,
            > Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts
            > www.csntm.org
            >
            > ----- Start Original Message -----
            > From: Bart Ehrman <behrman@...>
            > To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
            > Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Mark 1:41 - Defending "Filled with Compassion"
            >
            >> I think you make a good point. But on what grounds can we decide
            >> that D is a bad manuscript, if not the internal evaluation of its readings
            >> (in comparsion with the internal evaluation of the readings of other
            >> manuscripts)? I don't think we can dispense with internal criteria and
            >> simply count Alexandrian noses.
            >>
            >> Moreover, in most instances D does *not* stand alone. It represents a
            >> *type* of text -- unless you think that the Latin witnesses in this
            >> instance (and others like it) are directly dependent on D.
            >>
            >> I think Hort had a much better approach to D. It represented a faulty
            >> but very early stream of the tradition, which in some (unusual and rare)
            >> instances may be a closer approximation of the original than B.
            >>
            >> -- Bart Ehrman
            >>
            >>
            >>
            >> On Sat, 7 Jan 2006, Michael Marlowe wrote:
            >>
            >>> Jim Snapp wrote:
            >>>
            >>>> ... it seems a lot more probable than the competing
            >>>> proposal that "orgistheis" was thoroughly replaced
            >>>> (not just omitted so as to harmonize with Matthew 8:2 and
            >>>> and Luke 5:12, except in the case of Old Latin b and
            >>>> four Byz. mss) by "splagchnistheis" in all channels
            >>>> of transmission, leaving that shining example of pristine,
            >>>> disciplined copyist-work, the text of D, as its sole
            >>>> Greek (or, more precisely, Greek-Latin, rather) support.
            >>>
            >>> I have never understood why such odd readings from manuscripts like D and k
            >>> are adopted by some critics, when so many of the other readings in these
            >>> western witnesses can only be attributed to the "noise" introduced by the
            >>> sheer incompetence of the scribes or translators. The idea that we would
            >>> should prefer a singular reading in D if we can't come up with a really
            >>> convincing explanation of how it arose seems .. well, it's a very
            >>> questionable way to proceed, to say the least. Think of the results it would
            >>> yield if this were made into a principle and applied consistently. We need
            >>> to keep away from this kind of unreasoned eclecticism, and we need to
            >>> remember that D is simply a bad manuscript.
            >>>
            >>> Michael
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>
            >>> Yahoo! Groups Links
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>
            >>
            >>
            >>
            >>
            >>
            >>
            >> Yahoo! Groups Links
            >>
            >>
            >>
            >>
            >>
            >>
            >>
            >
            > ----- End Original Message -----
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > Yahoo! Groups Links
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
          • sarban
            ... From: Daniel B. Wallace To: Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2006 9:56 PM Subject: Re:
            Message 5 of 14 , Jan 8, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              ----- Original Message -----
              From: "Daniel B. Wallace" <csntm@...>
              To: <textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com>
              Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2006 9:56 PM
              Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Mark 1:41 - Defending "Filled with
              Compassion"


              > If I may weigh in here:
              >
              > I think Bart makes some excellent points about Mark 1.41. I don't recall
              > if he cited the doctoral dissertationn done at Baylor, defending the same
              > reading (by Proctor, I believe). But one has to wonder why the Western
              > text would create such a reading: there is no unintentional reason that
              > one can muster for it, and D is not prone to speak of Jesus' anger
              > elsewhere in singular readings (see Yoder's concordance). As the textual
              > critic for the NET NT, I'm almost ready to adopt this reading.

              IMHO the reading 'angry' is probably original.

              However there is a possible unintentional origin given by Metzger
              in his textual commentary.

              Ephraem Syrus knows this reading which is presumably that of
              Tatian's Diatessaron. It would be possible to argue that the other
              witnesses for 'angry' (D and the Old Latin) are dependent directly
              or indirectly on a reading in Syriac/Aramaic. (Either Tatianic or
              pre-Tatianic.)

              If so Ethra(ch)am 'he had pity' could have been unintentionally confused
              with Ethra'em 'he was enraged'.

              Andrew Criddle
            • Michael Marlowe
              ... It seems to me that your approach to D is far more eclectic than Hort s approach to it. Michael
              Message 6 of 14 , Jan 8, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                Bart Ehrman wrote:

                > I think Hort had a much better approach to D.

                It seems to me that your approach to D is far more eclectic than Hort's
                approach to it.

                Michael
              • Michael Marlowe
                ... This is what I was complaining about earlier, the idea that we must have a clear and probable explanation for readings in D before they can be set aside. I
                Message 7 of 14 , Jan 8, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  Daniel Wallace wrote:

                  > But one has to wonder why the Western text
                  > would create such a reading: there is no
                  > unintentional reason that one can muster for it ..

                  This is what I was complaining about earlier, the idea that we must have a
                  clear and probable explanation for readings in D before they can be set
                  aside. I think that's unreasonable in view of the obvious inferiority of D
                  as a witness to the original text. In this MS we have the accumulated
                  results of several generations of "western" incompetence, and who can really
                  give an adequate explanation for all of its problems now? It does not
                  deserve such weight that we should demand to know the cause of all its
                  divergent readings before discounting them. As Hort said, "knowledge of
                  documents should precede final judgment upon readings." In other words, our
                  opinion of a manuscript's readings ought to be colored by our knowledge
                  about its general character. I think the independent value of D is
                  comparatively low. Its value is chiefly in confirming from a distance the
                  readings attested in other early streams of transmission. This is true even
                  if it be taken as a representative of a whole stream of "western" MSS,
                  because the "western" witnesses are not to be trusted when they stand alone.
                  As a group they are not equal to the "Alexandrian" witnesses. Some of them
                  have evidently come through the hands of people who had little interest in
                  preserving the original form of the text, either in Greek or in Latin. In
                  view of this treatment of the text in the West, it seems unreasonable to put
                  forth some reading in D/d (with perhaps a smattering of other Latin MSS) as
                  the original reading, against all the other witnesses, simply because one
                  cannot readily account for the D reading by some habitual tendency of
                  scribes.

                  If an explanation for ORGISQEIS in Mark 1:41 is thought to be necessary, I
                  think Metzger is probably on the right track when he guesses that it was
                  "suggested by EMBRIMHSAMENOS of ver. 43" (Textual Commentary, p. 77). The
                  details of how it actually came to replace SPLAGCNISQEIS in D or its
                  ancestors are not terribly hard to imagine. Perhaps someone wrote ORGISQEIS
                  (or its Latin equivalent) in the margin close by EMBRIMHSAMENOS (or by its
                  Latin equivalent) as a homiletic note pointing out that the word in the
                  Greek indicates that Jesus was angry. Then a copyist might have incorporated
                  the note into the text, at the most suitable place for it. Stranger things
                  have happened in D. Perhaps someone boldly introduced the variant on a whim.
                  But however it came about, I would point out that ORGISQEIS also seems to be
                  a *harmonization to the immediate context that relieves a difficulty.*
                  Instead of Jesus being compassionate and then suddenly scolding the man for
                  no apparent reason, he is just annoyed at being pursued or interrupted at
                  the time (the context indicates that the wanted to leave off the healing and
                  get out to do some preaching). Other specific explanations could be found,
                  starting from Metzger's idea; but again, I don't see the need for it. The
                  other early evidence decisively favors SPLAGCNISQEIS, and D cannot outweigh
                  it.

                  Michael
                • voxverax
                  Dr. Wallace & Dr. Ehrman ~ There *is* an unintentional reason that one can muster for the creation of orgistheis -- I mentioned it in post #1502:
                  Message 8 of 14 , Jan 8, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Dr. Wallace & Dr. Ehrman ~

                    There *is* an unintentional reason that one can muster for the
                    creation of "orgistheis" -- I mentioned it in post #1502:
                    miscorrection by a copyist who had first encountered the passage in
                    Latin, and had understood the Latin term (one that could mean "moved
                    with anger" or "moved with pity") to mean "angry."

                    DW: "I don't agree with Bart about the significance of this reading
                    (in terms of almost giving us a different Jesus than we had before)."

                    I don't think the adoption of "orgistheis" would spark a rewrite of
                    Mark's Christology either -- especially since one could say that
                    Jesus was angry with the leper for breaking Mosaic regulations by
                    entering a synagogue (but healed him nevertheless, thus forebearing
                    with the leper's desperate disobedience but tempering this by
                    instructing the leper to keep Moses' commandments about what to do
                    next). But that still doesn't make its claim to originality as
                    strong as the case for "splagchnistheis."

                    BDE: "Moreover, in most instances D does *not* stand alone. It
                    represents a *type* of text -- unless you think that the Latin
                    witnesses in this instance (and others like it) are directly
                    dependent on D."

                    The Old Latin witnesses a (c. 360), d (c. 500?), ff2 (400's), and r1
                    (600's)? No; d seems to have been greatly influenced by D but not
                    the other three. But I would like to know exactly what Latin word is
                    contained in those three witnesses. Is it a term which is capable of
                    a double-meaning? If not, nothing changes. But if so, then I think
                    this would further support the explanation that "orgistheis" is a
                    miscorrection elicited by a misinterpretation of a Latin text.

                    Does anybody have any data to share in this regard? Perhaps within
                    the dissertation or that term-paper which were alluded to, or in some
                    more readily available source, this possibly significant data-nugget
                    can be found.

                    Yours in Christ,

                    James Snapp, Jr.
                    Curtisville Christian Church
                    www.curtisvillechristian.org
                  • K. Martin Heide
                    Michael Marlowe wrote: Daniel Wallace wrote: But one has to wonder why the Western text would create such a reading: there is no unintentional reason that one
                    Message 9 of 14 , Jan 9, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Michael Marlowe wrote:
                      Daniel Wallace wrote:
                      
                        
                      But one has to wonder why the Western text
                      would create such a reading: there is no
                      unintentional reason that one can muster for it ..
                          
                      This is what I was complaining about earlier, the idea that we must have a 
                      clear and probable explanation for readings in D before they can be set 
                      aside. I think that's unreasonable in view of the obvious inferiority of D 
                      as a witness to the original text. In this MS we have the accumulated 
                      results of several generations of "western" incompetence, and who can really 
                      give an adequate explanation for all of its problems now? It does not 
                      deserve such weight that we should demand to know the cause of all its 
                      divergent readings before discounting them. As Hort said, "knowledge of 
                      documents should precede final judgment upon readings." In other words, our 
                      opinion of a manuscript's readings ought to be colored by our knowledge 
                      about its general character. I think the independent value of D is 
                      comparatively low. Its value is chiefly in confirming from a distance the 
                      readings attested in other early streams of transmission. This is true even 
                      if it be taken as a representative of a whole stream of "western" MSS, 
                      because the "western" witnesses are not to be trusted when they stand alone. 
                      As a group they are not equal to the "Alexandrian" witnesses. Some of them 
                      have evidently come through the hands of people who had little interest in 
                      preserving the original form of the text, either in Greek or in Latin. In 
                      view of this treatment of the text in the West, it seems unreasonable to put 
                      forth some reading in D/d  (with perhaps a smattering of other Latin MSS) as 
                      the original reading, against all the other witnesses, simply because one 
                      cannot readily account for the D reading by some habitual tendency of 
                      scribes.
                      
                      If an explanation for ORGISQEIS in Mark 1:41 is thought to be necessary, I 
                      think Metzger is probably on the right track when he guesses that it was 
                      "suggested by EMBRIMHSAMENOS of ver. 43" (Textual Commentary, p. 77). The 
                      details of how it actually came to replace SPLAGCNISQEIS in D or its 
                      ancestors are not terribly hard to imagine. Perhaps someone wrote ORGISQEIS 
                      (or its Latin equivalent) in the margin close by EMBRIMHSAMENOS (or by its 
                      Latin equivalent) as a homiletic note pointing out that the word in the 
                      Greek indicates that Jesus was angry. Then a copyist might have incorporated 
                      the note into the text, at the most suitable place for it. Stranger things 
                      have happened in D. Perhaps someone boldly introduced the variant on a whim. 
                      But however it came about, I would point out that ORGISQEIS also seems to be 
                      a *harmonization to the immediate context that relieves a difficulty.* 
                      Instead of Jesus being compassionate and then suddenly scolding the man for 
                      no apparent reason, he is just annoyed at being pursued or interrupted at 
                      the time (the context indicates that the wanted to leave off the healing and 
                      get out to do some preaching). Other specific explanations could be found, 
                      starting from Metzger's idea; but again, I don't see the need for it. The 
                      other early evidence decisively favors SPLAGCNISQEIS, and D cannot outweigh 
                      it.
                      
                      Michael
                      
                      
                      
                      
                        
                      We should not regard the Text of D alone, but the whole western tradition:
                      As most text-critics correctly assert, we do not have to speak of "the western text" , but of "western texts":
                      there is not a small difference between those manuscripts. Every scribe took, so it seems, the western-text-manuscript
                      he had already, and added/changed what he thought would be appropriate. That's why the P75-B alignment is so important, because
                      it embodies a very "clean" tradition (compared with, let's say, the P48-D alignment in Acts). D is only the endproduct of a scribal tradition,
                      which, in addition, is - at least in actual manuscript support - later than the P75etc.-B tradition.

                      So, you have to have very, very good arguments (intrinsic probability is not enough! and what about the church fathers?), to prefer the western reading in Mk 1:41. Remember that Rius-Camps & Read-Heimerdinger in their new case for the western text in Acts argue a lot with intrinsic probability, too ...

                      All the best,
                      Martin
                    • Peter Head
                      I can t recall that ORGISTHEIS has ever been included in any edition of the Greek NT; but it is practically the majority opinion among commentators on Mark
                      Message 10 of 14 , Jan 10, 2006
                      • 0 Attachment
                        I can't recall that ORGISTHEIS has ever been included in any edition of the
                        Greek NT; but it is practically the majority opinion among commentators on
                        Mark (Taylor, Hooker, Lane, Gnilka, Pesch). Preferring this reading is
                        hardly therefore an Ehrmanian idiosyncrasy.

                        Pete



                        Peter M. Head, PhD
                        Sir Kirby Laing Senior Lecturer in New Testament
                        Tyndale House
                        36 Selwyn Gardens Phone: (UK) 01223
                        566607
                        Cambridge, CB3 9BA Fax: (UK) 01223 566608
                        http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Tyndale/staff/Head/Staff.htm
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.