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

Mark 4:11

Expand Messages
  • James Snapp, Jr.
    Dear Ted B.: Excellent question about Mark 4:11. I hope we can give it the attention it deserves. (Sorry for not posting sooner; I m on vacation.) TB: My
    Message 1 of 12 , Aug 1, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear Ted B.:

      Excellent question about Mark 4:11. I hope we can give it the
      attention it deserves. (Sorry for not posting sooner; I'm on
      vacation.)

      TB: "My surprise was with GNWNAI because I had never seen (or at
      least recalled) a Greek text with GNWNAI in it. I checked my UBS3 and
      it didn't show any variants for 4:11."

      I recommend disregarding UBS-4 and NA-27 entirely when looking for
      variant-units; begin with Swanson.

      TB: "I then checked Swanson and there are actually quite a few
      manuscripts that attest to GNWNAI (G f1 1424, delta, 33, 28, 1346, C,
      D, M, U, theta, f13, 2 157, 565, 579, 700, 1071, the majority text).
      It is also found in the editions by Tishendorf, Scrivener, and
      Stephanus."

      That GNWNAI is in the editions by Scrivener and Stephanus is no
      surprise, since they echo the Byz. Text. But you might want to
      double-check your data about Tischendorf. In the notes in my
      "Englishman's Greek New Testament," the non-inclusion of GNWNAI is
      cited as a reading adopted by Lachmann, Tregelles, Tischendorf, and
      Alford; instead of DEDOTAI GNWNAI TO MUSTHRION, Tischendorf,
      Tregelles, and Alford adopt the Alexandrian reading "TO MUSTHRION
      DEDOTAI."

      That, at least, was what Tischendorf printed in his eighth edition,
      according to the notes. Very possibly he had something else in
      editions 1-7. But it's Tischendorf's eighth edition that is usually
      regarded as representative of his most fully developed judgment.

      TB: "Why is it that this variant does not show up on anybody's radar
      except for Swanson? After all it seems to me that it is a fairly
      significant variant; perhaps not original (I haven't spent any time
      thinking through the evidence) but significant nonetheless not least
      because there is a minor agreement at this point between Matthew and
      Luke against Mark."

      It is a significant variant, and it is not to the credit of NA-27 or
      UBS-4 that it has gone unnoted, while many trivial readings have been
      chosen for notation instead. Probably the non-mention of this
      variant in NA-25 (1963) had a lot to do with its non-mention in NA-
      27, and the non-mention of this variant in UBS-2 (1958) had a lot to
      do with its non-mention in UBS-4.

      The Hodges-Farstad "The Greek NT According to the Majority Text" and
      the 2005 "The NT in the Original Greek - Byzantine Textform" by
      Robinson & Pierpont both note the difference between the Byzantine
      reading and the W-H text. As for other references in commentaries, I
      am away from most of my books but I vaguely recall a comment about
      this in ... I dunno ... Hurtado's commentary on Mark, maybe? Also,
      Streeter briefly mentioned this in ch. 11 (p. 313) of "The Four
      Gospels," noting that MUSTHRION is read *in Mt* by some Old Latin
      witnesses (k, c, a, ff2), Sinaitic Syriac, Curetonian Syriac,
      Clement, and Irenaeus.

      I'm working on a compilation of the Greek text of Mark, and in the
      initial draft (part of which is online; just look for "Kata Markon"
      at the Curtisville Christian Church website) I adopted the Byzantine
      Text (supported by the Vulgate) here in Mark 4:11, because it is
      capable of explaining all the other readings. Consider these five
      steps:

      (1) Original text of Mark 4:11 = ... UMIN DEDOTAI GNWNAI TA
      MUSTHRION THS BASILEIAS ...

      (2) Matthew (13:11) and Luke (8:10) preserve the statement as
      originally presented by Mark.

      (3) In the early Alexandrian text-stream, GNWNAI is accidentally
      omitted via ocular error, as a copyist skipped from the -AI at the
      end of DEDOTAI to the -AI at the end of GNWNAI, thus producing the
      reading UMIN DEDOTAI TA MUSTHRION THS BASILEIAS (which is attested by
      A K W Pi).

      (4) An Alexandrian editor rearranges the words, producing UMIN TO
      MUSTHRION DEDOTAI THS BASILEIAS.

      (5) The reading of G fam-1 1424 -- UMIN DEDOTAI GNWNAI TA MUSTHRIA --
      is created by harmonizing the Byzantine Markan text to the parallels
      in Matthew and Luke. (If this were the original reading, there would
      be no impetus for a copyist to diverge from it.)

      However, while I continue to self-debate about this variant, at the
      moment I favor the reading UMIN DEDOTAI TA MUSTERION THS BASILEIAS
      (attested by A K W Pi). I think that Matthew and Luke used forms of
      Proto-Mark which included this statement with GNWNAI and MUSTHRIA.
      But before the Gospel of Mark itself was disseminated, this passage
      was altered: GNWNAI was omitted, and MUSTERIA was changed to
      MUSTERION. (This did not necessarily imply a theological problem
      with the term 'GNWNAI.')

      Figuring that a reading shared by A-K-Pi represents the earliest
      stratum of the Byzantine Text, it is easy to see how a harmonizer
      could and would insert GNWNAI from the parallels in Matthew and
      Luke. But it would be a bit of a stretch, I think, to posit that an
      ocular error (causing the omission of GNWNAI) occurred not only in an
      ancestor of A-K-Pi but also somewhere in the Alexandrian text-stream,
      early enough to affect both the main Egyptian text-stream and the
      text-stream represented (in Mark) by W.

      Now let's turn to Codex Bezae, which agrees with the Byzantine Text.
      If one adheres to the theory of a Lucianic Recension, then the
      Byzantine/Majority Text reading echoes the adoption of a Western
      reading which was produced as a harmonization to the Mt-and-Lk
      parallels. That is probably exactly what Hort thought happened
      here. But W (which Hort and everyone else in the 1800's didn't know
      about) makes that difficult to maintain.

      A Western copyist who encountered DEDOTAI TO MUSTHRION in Mark 4:11,
      and who was familiar with Matthew 13:11, would be very tempted to
      insert GNWNAI after DEDOTAI. Meanwhile, an early Alexandrian
      editor/copyist concerned about aesthetics might be tempted to
      transpose the words, producing the (unique local) Alexandrian word-
      order. With those assumptions in play, it looks like the reading
      which best accounts for the others is the one attested by A-K-Pi-W.

      On the other hand, it would not be *impossible* for the same simple
      ocular error to occur independently in two text-streams. If one
      assumes that W displays the effect of a simple ocular error, then
      W+A+K+Pi can be considered support for the Byz. Text (along with
      D+Theta+565). And if W displays an Egyptian reading that is
      posterior to the Byzantine reading, then the Alex. reading can be
      considered posterior to the Byzantine reading as well -- that is, it
      is possible to view TO MUSTHRION DEDOTAI as a local transposition
      (made to conform to Sahidic word-order??) of DEDOTAI TO MUSTHRION,
      which = DEDOTAI GNWNAI TO MUSTHRION damaged by ocular error.

      Does anyone have more data about this variant? What is attested by
      the Syriac, Old Latin, Gothic, and Coptic versions? Is there
      anything pertinent at all in patristic evidence?

      Yours in Christ,

      James Snapp, Jr.
      Curtisville Christian Church
      Indiana (USA)
      www.curtisvillechristian.org/BasicTC.html
    • Stephen C. Carlson
      ... If the earliest Byzantine form omits GNWMAI here, then I don t see any role for the Lucianic recension hypothesis (even if it took place and did give rise
      Message 2 of 12 , Aug 1, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        At 06:38 PM 8/1/2006 +0000, James Snapp, Jr. wrote:
        >Figuring that a reading shared by A-K-Pi represents the earliest
        >stratum of the Byzantine Text, it is easy to see how a harmonizer
        >could and would insert GNWNAI from the parallels in Matthew and
        >Luke. * * *
        >
        >Now let's turn to Codex Bezae, which agrees with the Byzantine Text.
        >If one adheres to the theory of a Lucianic Recension, then the
        >Byzantine/Majority Text reading echoes the adoption of a Western
        >reading which was produced as a harmonization to the Mt-and-Lk
        >parallels.

        If the earliest Byzantine form omits GNWMAI here, then I don't
        see any role for the Lucianic recension hypothesis (even if
        it took place and did give rise to the Byzantine text-type)
        for the later insertion of GNWMAI.

        Stephen Carlson
        --
        Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
        Weblog: http://www.hypotyposeis.org/weblog/
        Author of: The Gospel Hoax, http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1932792481
      • James Snapp, Jr.
        Stephen C., SCC: If the earliest Byzantine form omits GNWMAI here, then I don t see any role for the Lucianic recension hypothesis (even if it took place and
        Message 3 of 12 , Aug 1, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          Stephen C.,

          SCC: "If the earliest Byzantine form omits GNWMAI here, then I don't
          see any role for the Lucianic recension hypothesis (even if it took
          place and did give rise to the Byzantine text-type) for the later
          insertion of GNWMAI."

          Perhaps instead of referring to the "earliest stratum of the
          Byzantine text," I should have referred to the "Proto-Byzantine core
          of what later became (upon its integration with representatives of
          the Alexandrian and Western Texts) the Byzantine Text." Anyway, the
          idea I was trying to express is that if the reading of A-K-Pi-W
          (without GNWNAI) precedes the Majority Text reading (with GNWNAI),
          then the Majority Text's reading can be explained as the result of
          the adoption of a Western harmonization in which GNWNAI was added
          from the parallels (or else the result of an independent
          harmonization that happened to be identical to what is attested by
          D+Theta+565). (Which would only mean that the Western reading was
          Western before it was Byzantine, not that it is unoriginal.)

          Yours in Christ,

          James Snapp, Jr.
          www.curtisvillechristian.org/BasicTC.html
        • Bai Jiansheng
          Tischendorf s 8th ed. says syr-p has the Byz reading but with TA MUSTHRIA, and that syr- utr supports the Byz along with most of the OL. Does Tischendorf s
          Message 4 of 12 , Aug 2, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            Tischendorf's 8th ed. says syr-p has the Byz reading but with TA MUSTHRIA, and that syr-
            utr supports the Byz along with most of the OL. Does Tischendorf's syr-utr here mean sy-
            s?
          • George F Somsel
            Regarding the Syriac versions Tisch says Si verba Eusebii de Hegesippo incerta neglegimus, primum refertur de versione Novi Testamenti Syriaca apud
            Message 5 of 12 , Aug 2, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              Regarding the Syriac versions Tisch says
               
              Si verba Eusebii de Hegesippo incerta neglegimus, primum refertur de versione Novi Testamenti Syriaca apud Ephraemum Edessenum (mort. a. 373 vel 378), qui testis est versionem illam iam dudum exstitisse. Hoc testimonium saeculi quarti medii versionis originem ad saeculum saltem tertium revocare videtur. Attamen plerique arbitrantur versionem iam saeculo secundo exstitisse, atque Edessae factam esse cuius regionis ecclesia ea supersedere non posset, quae opinio certis rationibus refutari non potest. Tregellesius arbitratus est alios interpretes alios N. T. libros vertisse. Huic versioni antiquitus prorsus deerant quinque illi libri 2 Petri 2 et 3 Iohannis Iudae epistulae, apocalypsis, quos Graece scriptos Syros in canonem non recepisse notum est, neque Syriace versi esse videntur ante saeculum fortasse sextum; Cosmas Indicopleustes ante saeculum sextum medium hoc diserte adseverat et codices silentio rem firmant. Versionis igitur antiquitas ex hac omissione vix demonstratur.
              Exstant versiones Syriacae, quod sciamus, fere quattuor, vel potius exstat versio una quae post originem plus semel recensita est; forma vero quarta omnino a prioribus differt. Quattuor sunt: a. versio quae textum prorsus veterem exhibet, quae latere videtur in fragmentis Curetonianis; — b. versio quam exhibent lectionarium Hierosolymitanum quod dicunt et codex Petropolitanus palimpsestus; — c. versio quae Peshitta dicitur; — d. versio posterior Philoxeniana Heracleensis.
               
              Tischendorf, C. v., Gregory, C. R., & Abbot, E. (1894; 2003). Novum Testamentum Graece: Prolegomena (3:807-809). Libronix.

              My guess is that syr-utr refers to "d. versio posterior Philoxeniana Heracleensis."
               
              _____________
               

              Bai Jiansheng <baijiansheng@...> wrote:
              Tischendorf' s 8th ed. says syr-p has the Byz reading but with TA MUSTHRIA, and that syr-
              utr supports the Byz along with most of the OL. Does Tischendorf' s syr-utr here mean sy-
              s?._,_.___
              .




              george
              gfsomsel
              _________


              Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting at 1¢/min.

            • Stephen C. Carlson
              ... My understanding is that T. s syr-utr (cf. Latin utra, either of two ) indicates support from both syr-p (Harklensis) and syr-sch (Peshitta). At Mark
              Message 6 of 12 , Aug 2, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                At 12:56 PM 8/2/2006 +0000, Bai Jiansheng wrote:
                >Tischendorf's 8th ed. says syr-p has the Byz reading but with TA MUSTHRIA,
                >and that syr-utr supports the Byz along with most of the OL. Does
                >Tischendorf's syr-utr here mean sy-s?

                My understanding is that T.'s syr-utr (cf. Latin utra, "either of two")
                indicates support from both syr-p (Harklensis) and syr-sch (Peshitta).
                At Mark 4:11, T.'s apparatus indicates that both support the inclusion
                of GNWMAI, but syr-p supports the subvariant with TA MUSTHRIA.

                Stephen Carlson
                --
                Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
                Weblog: http://www.hypotyposeis.org/weblog/
                Author of: The Gospel Hoax, http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1932792481
              • Stephen C. Carlson
                ... Now, I m more confused. Are you saying that A-K-Pi have texts that predate a supposed recension by Lucian of Antioch (d. 312)? ... Once we re within the
                Message 7 of 12 , Aug 2, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  At 02:54 AM 8/2/2006 +0000, James Snapp, Jr. wrote:
                  >SCC: "If the earliest Byzantine form omits GNWMAI here, then I don't
                  >see any role for the Lucianic recension hypothesis (even if it took
                  >place and did give rise to the Byzantine text-type) for the later
                  >insertion of GNWMAI."
                  >
                  >Perhaps instead of referring to the "earliest stratum of the
                  >Byzantine text," I should have referred to the "Proto-Byzantine core
                  >of what later became (upon its integration with representatives of
                  >the Alexandrian and Western Texts) the Byzantine Text."

                  Now, I'm more confused. Are you saying that A-K-Pi have texts that
                  predate a supposed recension by Lucian of Antioch (d. 312)?

                  >Anyway, the
                  >idea I was trying to express is that if the reading of A-K-Pi-W
                  >(without GNWNAI) precedes the Majority Text reading (with GNWNAI),
                  >then the Majority Text's reading can be explained as the result of
                  >the adoption of a Western harmonization in which GNWNAI was added
                  >from the parallels (or else the result of an independent
                  >harmonization that happened to be identical to what is attested by
                  >D+Theta+565). (Which would only mean that the Western reading was
                  >Western before it was Byzantine, not that it is unoriginal.)

                  Once we're within the Byzantine text-type, my preference would
                  be for harmonization with Byzantine synoptic parallels, not
                  contamination from a "Western" exemplar.

                  Stephen Carlson
                  --
                  Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
                  Weblog: http://www.hypotyposeis.org/weblog/
                  Author of: The Gospel Hoax, http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1932792481
                • James Snapp, Jr.
                  Dear Stephen: SCC: Now, I m more confused. Are you saying that A-K-Pi have texts that predate a supposed recension by Lucian of Antioch (d. 312)? Not
                  Message 8 of 12 , Aug 2, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Dear Stephen:

                    SCC: "Now, I'm more confused. Are you saying that A-K-Pi have texts
                    that predate a supposed recension by Lucian of Antioch (d. 312)?"

                    Not exactly. I'm saying that the Byzantine/Majority Text of the
                    Gospels is the result of a recension which combined readings drawn
                    from Alexandrian, Western, and Proto-Byzantine MSS, and that where a
                    reading of A-K-Pi disagrees with the Alexandrian and Western Texts
                    (especially when it has early support from outside the main Byz. text-
                    stream), that particular reading is likely to be an echo of the Proto-
                    Byzantine Text. The Lucianic Recension shattered the Proto-
                    Byzantine Text (so that there are no continuous witnesses to it), but
                    shards of the Proto-Byzantine Text (identifiable by their non-
                    Alexandrianess and non-Westerness)were embedded not only in the main
                    Byzantine Text but also in copies such as A and Pi whose texts may be
                    considered the result of mixture among early representatives of the
                    Proto-Byzantine and Byzantine Texts. (There's more to the idea of
                    the Proto-Byzantine Text than this, btw; I'm just summarizing what's
                    pertinent to this particular variant.)

                    SCC: "Once we're within the Byzantine text-type, my preference would
                    be for harmonization with Byzantine synoptic parallels, not
                    contamination from a "Western" exemplar."

                    Yes, but shouldn't it give us pause to wonder where we are, in terms
                    of transmission-history, when we see A, K, Pi, and W /not/ harmonized
                    in Mark 4:11 with the parallels in Matthew and Luke, at the same
                    place where the (main) Byzantine Text agrees completely with D? It's
                    possible that all four descend from an ancestor in which GNWNAI was
                    accidentally skipped (and it's less probable, but still possible,
                    that the same error was independently repeated), in which case they
                    all should be considered secondary support for the Byzantine reading
                    (with GNWNAI). In that case, this reading provides no impetus for
                    the notion that these MSS echo a Proto-Byzantine Text; the lack of
                    GNWNAI is simply a shared error elicited by h.t. But the alternative
                    -- that A-K-Pi echo a Proto-Byzantine Text in which GNWNAI was
                    absent, and that W echoes another text-stream in which GNWNAI was
                    absent, and that the main Byz. Text contains a Western harmonization
                    here -- also seems possible.

                    However, it's starting to look like the versional support for GNWNAI
                    in Mark 4:11 is pretty good. The Vulgate supports it. The Peshitta
                    supports it. Apprently, the Harklean Syriac supports it. It would
                    be interesting to find out what the Coptic, Gothic, and Old Latin
                    witnesses say.

                    Yours in Christ,

                    James Snapp, Jr.
                    Curtisville Christian Church
                    www.curtisvillechristian.org/BasicTC.html
                  • Dave Smith (REL110, 211,212)
                    I m not sure of the group s transliteration scheme for Syriac, but Gwilliam s Peshitta (BFBS, 1905) reads LKUWN YIHIYB LMEDAc (YDc) IRONO (the mystery)
                    Message 9 of 12 , Aug 2, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                      I'm not sure of the group's transliteration scheme for Syriac, but
                      Gwilliam's Peshitta (BFBS, 1905) reads LKUWN YIHIYB LMEDAc (YDc) 'IRONO'
                      (the mystery) DMALKUWTEH DA'LOHO'. It is also prefaced with "And Jesus said
                      to them" instead of "And he said to them."

                      Did someone remark that Tischendorf said that Ephraem Syrus witnessed the
                      Byzantine reading? If this is so, has it not been determined that Ephraem
                      only used some form of the Diatessaron for the Gospels? If indeed this is
                      the case, wouldn't the vorlage for Titian be an early to mid-second century
                      Western type Greek text?

                      Dave Smith
                      Hudson, NC

                      ----- Original Message -----
                      From: "Bai Jiansheng" <baijiansheng@...>
                      To: <textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com>
                      Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2006 08:56
                      Subject: [textualcriticism] Re: Mark 4:11


                      > Tischendorf's 8th ed. says syr-p has the Byz reading but with TA MUSTHRIA,
                      and that syr-
                      > utr supports the Byz along with most of the OL. Does Tischendorf's
                      syr-utr here mean sy-
                      > s?
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Yahoo! Groups Links
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                    • Dave Smith (REL110, 211,212)
                      James or Stephen, S. Carlson wrote: Are you saying that A-K-Pi have texts that predate a supposed recension by Lucian of Antioch (d. 312)? What interests me
                      Message 10 of 12 , Aug 2, 2006
                      • 0 Attachment
                        James or Stephen,

                        S. Carlson wrote: "Are you saying that A-K-Pi have texts
                        that predate a supposed recension by Lucian of Antioch (d. 312)?"

                        What interests me is that the Lucian recension is questioned. I doubt if
                        many would argue Lucian's LXX recension, but P. Schaff only mentions that
                        "it is likely" (Schaff, II, 815) and it looks like Carlson questions Hort's
                        hypothesis concerning Lucian's NT recension. Even Hort merely said, "Of
                        known names his [Lucian's] has a better claim than any other to be
                        associated with the early Syrian revision," which seems to be based on a
                        comment by Jerome in a preface to the Gospels (Intro.NTinG, p. 138/paragraph
                        190). Now, Hort admits that Jerome liked neither Lucian (or Hesychius), his
                        work, nor Antiochian Theology. So, I take Jerome as a hostal witness. Is
                        there any historical evidence that Lucian went beyond his work in the LXX
                        and actually orginated the Byzantine text type other than Jerome's comment?

                        Dave Smith
                        Hudson, NC

                        ----- Original Message -----
                        From: "James Snapp, Jr." <voxverax@...>
                        To: <textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com>
                        Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2006 12:32
                        Subject: [textualcriticism] Re: Mark 4:11


                        > Dear Stephen:
                        >
                        > SCC: "Now, I'm more confused. Are you saying that A-K-Pi have texts
                        > that predate a supposed recension by Lucian of Antioch (d. 312)?"
                        >
                        > Not exactly. I'm saying that the Byzantine/Majority Text of the
                        > Gospels is the result of a recension which combined readings drawn
                        > from Alexandrian, Western, and Proto-Byzantine MSS, and that where a
                        > reading of A-K-Pi disagrees with the Alexandrian and Western Texts
                        > (especially when it has early support from outside the main Byz. text-
                        > stream), that particular reading is likely to be an echo of the Proto-
                        > Byzantine Text. The Lucianic Recension shattered the Proto-
                        > Byzantine Text (so that there are no continuous witnesses to it), but
                        > shards of the Proto-Byzantine Text (identifiable by their non-
                        > Alexandrianess and non-Westerness)were embedded not only in the main
                        > Byzantine Text but also in copies such as A and Pi whose texts may be
                        > considered the result of mixture among early representatives of the
                        > Proto-Byzantine and Byzantine Texts. (There's more to the idea of
                        > the Proto-Byzantine Text than this, btw; I'm just summarizing what's
                        > pertinent to this particular variant.)
                        >
                        > SCC: "Once we're within the Byzantine text-type, my preference would
                        > be for harmonization with Byzantine synoptic parallels, not
                        > contamination from a "Western" exemplar."
                        >
                        > Yes, but shouldn't it give us pause to wonder where we are, in terms
                        > of transmission-history, when we see A, K, Pi, and W /not/ harmonized
                        > in Mark 4:11 with the parallels in Matthew and Luke, at the same
                        > place where the (main) Byzantine Text agrees completely with D? It's
                        > possible that all four descend from an ancestor in which GNWNAI was
                        > accidentally skipped (and it's less probable, but still possible,
                        > that the same error was independently repeated), in which case they
                        > all should be considered secondary support for the Byzantine reading
                        > (with GNWNAI). In that case, this reading provides no impetus for
                        > the notion that these MSS echo a Proto-Byzantine Text; the lack of
                        > GNWNAI is simply a shared error elicited by h.t. But the alternative
                        > -- that A-K-Pi echo a Proto-Byzantine Text in which GNWNAI was
                        > absent, and that W echoes another text-stream in which GNWNAI was
                        > absent, and that the main Byz. Text contains a Western harmonization
                        > here -- also seems possible.
                        >
                        > However, it's starting to look like the versional support for GNWNAI
                        > in Mark 4:11 is pretty good. The Vulgate supports it. The Peshitta
                        > supports it. Apprently, the Harklean Syriac supports it. It would
                        > be interesting to find out what the Coptic, Gothic, and Old Latin
                        > witnesses say.
                        >
                        > Yours in Christ,
                        >
                        > James Snapp, Jr.
                        > Curtisville Christian Church
                        > www.curtisvillechristian.org/BasicTC.html
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > Yahoo! Groups Links
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                      • Stephen C. Carlson
                        ... My impression is that the Lucianic recension is currently in doubt among some critics. See, e.g., Barbara Aland and Klaus Wachtel, The Greek Minuscule
                        Message 11 of 12 , Aug 2, 2006
                        • 0 Attachment
                          At 01:24 PM 8/2/2006 -0400, Dave Smith \(REL110, 211,212\) wrote:
                          >S. Carlson wrote: "Are you saying that A-K-Pi have texts
                          >that predate a supposed recension by Lucian of Antioch (d. 312)?"
                          >
                          >What interests me is that the Lucian recension is questioned.

                          My impression is that the Lucianic recension is currently in doubt
                          among some critics. See, e.g., Barbara Aland and Klaus Wachtel,
                          "The Greek Minuscule Manuscripts of the New Testament" in Ehrman
                          & Holmes, eds. THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT IN CONTEMPORARY
                          RESEARCH (SD 46; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1995), 45, n.6:

                          "We can no longer maintain without reservation the view
                          that was still held by the present author (B. Aland) in
                          THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, 64-66, that the Koine text
                          is to be attributed to a recension produced by Lucian."

                          They go on to cite an article H. C. Brennecke (which I have not
                          read) in support.

                          Stephen Carlson
                          --
                          Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
                          Weblog: http://www.hypotyposeis.org/weblog/
                          Author of: The Gospel Hoax, http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1932792481
                        • Wieland Willker
                          I have prepared a preliminary draft for the online commentary regarding Mk 4:11: http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/Mk-4-11.pdf Comments welcome. Best wishes
                          Message 12 of 12 , Aug 8, 2006
                          • 0 Attachment
                            I have prepared a preliminary draft for the online commentary regarding Mk 4:11:

                            http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/Mk-4-11.pdf

                            Comments welcome.

                            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
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.