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

Re: Mark 4:11

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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.