Re: [textualcriticism] Re: Mark 4:11
- 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?
----- Original Message -----
From: "James Snapp, Jr." <voxverax@...>
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
> Yahoo! Groups Links
- 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 textsMy impression is that the Lucianic recension is currently in doubt
>that predate a supposed recension by Lucian of Antioch (d. 312)?"
>What interests me is that the Lucian recension is questioned.
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 C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
Author of: The Gospel Hoax, http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1932792481
- I have prepared a preliminary draft for the online commentary regarding Mk 4:11:
Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany