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

Re: [textualcriticism] Mark 4:11

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 12 , Aug 1, 2006
      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 2 of 12 , Aug 1, 2006
        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 3 of 12 , Aug 2, 2006
          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 4 of 12 , Aug 2, 2006
            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 5 of 12 , Aug 2, 2006
              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 6 of 12 , Aug 2, 2006
                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 7 of 12 , Aug 2, 2006
                  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 8 of 12 , Aug 2, 2006
                    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 9 of 12 , Aug 2, 2006
                      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 10 of 12 , Aug 2, 2006
                        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 11 of 12 , Aug 8, 2006
                          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.