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

Re: [textualcriticism] Re: Mark 4:11

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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.