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

RE: [textualcriticism] Re: Mark 4:11 -- What's going on with GNWNAI? Diagression

Expand Messages
  • Kevin P. Edgecomb
    ... I write: Wrong. This set of statements shows a complete lack of understanding of lectionaries. There are no lectionaries of the second century anywhere,
    Message 1 of 35 , Jul 27, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      The non-Mr. jenny Eeyore Scrivener wrote:

      > There are essentially two broad streams of transmission,
      > which separated in the 2nd century: The simple Gospel copying
      > process, and the Lectionary stream.
      >
      > All the 'text-types' and other odd-ball texts can be shown to
      > be related in varying degrees to the Lectionary stream, which
      > did not begin as a separate entity, but rather evolved out of
      > the Alexandrian editing practice, under the guidance of the
      > early church fathers.

      I write:
      Wrong. This set of statements shows a complete lack of understanding of
      lectionaries. There are no lectionaries of the second century anywhere,
      mentioned, known, or found. The Byzantine Lectionary system, of which the
      "lectionary" text type is representative, came into being in the 7th
      cnetury, or early 8th at the latest. While there are certainly other
      earlier lectionaries, including 4th and 5th century manuscripts, they are
      not of the Byzantine lectionary tradition.

      Also, the Byzantine Lectionary is, not surprisingly, of a text type very
      close to the Byzantine. It is by no means, and can in no possible way,
      conceivably be called "Alexandrian." Except perhaps if one is joking.

      There was no "Alexandrian editing practice under the guidance of the early
      church fathers." Extemporaneous quotation from memory or quotation from
      testimony collections in the early church fathers, resulting in outlying
      texts which may be taken to resemble the "Alexandrian," cannot be taken as
      representative of copies of continuous text manuscripts. Similarly, in the
      almost complete absence of critical texts of the early church fathers, it is
      extremely hazardous to make any statements at all regarding the text used by
      any of them. One needs to be familiar with the author's style, the context
      of the quotation and point he is trying to make in quoting the passage, and
      so on.

      Regards,
      Kevin P. Edgecomb
      Berkeley, California
    • Daniel Buck
      ... assumptions undergirding your reasoning (forgive me for having to spell this out for you), then what you are saying is that BOTH Vaticanus and Sinaiticus
      Message 35 of 35 , Aug 7, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        George Young <webber_young@...> wrote:
        >> If I correctly understand the
        assumptions undergirding your reasoning (forgive me
        for having to spell this out for you), then what you
        are saying is that BOTH Vaticanus and Sinaiticus
        cannot BOTH be correct. <<

        I have pointed out that even in Hort's understanding, Aleph and B
        could both be wrong when they didn't agree with the Western Text.
        Now I will demonstrate that in the near-unanimous view of all
        textual editors, Aleph/B can be wrong even when they unite with the
        wester text.

        Romans 15:32 the will of Jesus
        01* èåëçìáôïò éçóïõ ÷ñéóôïõ
        B èåëçìáôïò êõñéïõ éçóïõ
        D F G idem

        the will of God
        Virtually all Greek texts & English versions
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.