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

Lk 23:27 hAI KAI

Expand Messages
  • Wieland Willker
    Luke 23:27 HKOLOUQEI DE AUTW POLU PLHQOS TOU LAOU KAI GUNAIKWN ** hAI ** EKOPTONTO KAI EQRHNOUN AUTON. In Lk 23:27 the Byzantine text reads hAI KAI against
    Message 1 of 3 , Sep 12, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Luke 23:27 HKOLOUQEI DE AUTW POLU PLHQOS TOU LAOU KAI GUNAIKWN ** hAI ** EKOPTONTO KAI EQRHNOUN AUTON.

      In Lk 23:27 the Byzantine text reads hAI KAI against very strong external evidence (that it is not even recorded in NA), which has hAI only.
      I am wondering, what could be the reason to add a KAI after hAI?
      I can think of reasons for an omission, e.g. that hAI KAI is the more difficult reading, why "also"? Or KAI could have been omitted due to parablepsis. But why add a KAI?


      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
    • William Warren
      Here are some thoughts as well as some of the evidence. Evidence: 1. hAI EKOPTONTO KAI EQRHNOUN AUTON = P75, A, B, C*, N, 044, 33, 700*, 1424 2. hAI
      Message 2 of 3 , Sep 12, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Here are some thoughts as well as some of the evidence.  
        Evidence: 
        1.  hAI EKOPTONTO KAI EQRHNOUN AUTON = P75, A, B, C*, N, 044, 33, 700*, 1424
        2.  hAI EKOPTONTO AUTON KAI EQRHNOUN = D
        3.  EKOPTONTO KAI EQRHNOUN AUTON = 01
        4.  AIKOPTONTO KAI EQRHNOUN AUTON = L
        5.  KAI EKOPTONTO KAI EQRHNOUN AUTON = 69, 579
        6.  hAI KAI EKOPTONTO KAI EQRHNOUN AUTON = Cc, E, F, G, H, K, M, S, U, W, 034, 038, 039, 041, 045, 1, 2, 13, 13 118 124 157 209 346 565 700c 788 1071 1346 1582 2358 f1 f13 TR
        7.  hAI KAI EQRHNOUN AUTON = 28


        Reading #6, the Byz. reading, could be read as "who were both lamenting and mourning him." Clarity is added that the women (professional or customary social mourners?) were the ones doing both acts of lamenting him and singing/wailing a funeral dirge for him (and not the large multitude of the people, although such an understanding would be awkward anyway).  Some like constructions of "KAI participle KAI participle" are found in Mt. 4:24; Mk. 1:40, 5:38; Acts 3:8, 13:3, 22:20; 1 Thes. 2:12; and Heb. 11:13, so adding the first KAI is not unusual or laden with difficulty.  

        With #4, the confusion of the sounds of AI and E that became more common in NT MSS in the later Byzantine period is highlighted, which could be behind the variant itself to some extent since the difference is really the K in the three sounds of hAI, KAI, and E(KOPTONTO).  

        Reading #5 shows where at least a couple of scribes in a later period went with only KAI and not the relative pronoun, which causes me to wonder if the rough breathing sound wasn't somehow confused with the K sound along the way, but I don't have and am not aware of any data to back up this type of confusion.  


        Since "hAI" is in most of the texts, this pronoun is not the major question (as Wieland noted), but rather the addition of the KAI is the real difficulty.  The repetition of hAI and then KAI would seem to have been hard to miss in so many different witnesses with the variety that they represent in the textual streams.  Instead of parablepsis, I would think that the omission of KAI would likely have to be credited to the elimination of an unneeded word, a grammatical correction in other words.  But the Western witnesses (D and several Old Latin mss) speak against this option.  On the other hand, KAI could have been added for both clarity and as a fairly common way to unite the two participles with a common subject.  Due to the strong and early external evidence for hAI and especially against KAI (adding 01 and L to the evidence against KAI), I would think that the addition of KAI would be most likely.  


        Another hypothetical explanation (since I don't know of any data for confusing hAI with KAI) would be that the confusion of hAI with KAI would explain the shift to KAI, which would then occasion the shift to hAI KAI due to conflation.  




        paz, 


        Bill Warren

        Director of the Center for New Testament Textual Studies

        Landrum P. Leavell, II, Professor of New Testament and Greek

        New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary




        On Sep 12, 2006, at 10:53 AM, Wieland Willker wrote:

        Luke 23:27 HKOLOUQEI DE AUTW POLU PLHQOS TOU LAOU KAI GUNAIKWN ** hAI ** EKOPTONTO KAI EQRHNOUN AUTON.

        In Lk 23:27 the Byzantine text reads hAI KAI against very strong external evidence (that it is not even recorded in NA), which has hAI only.
        I am wondering, what could be the reason to add a KAI after hAI?
        I can think of reasons for an omission, e.g. that hAI KAI is the more difficult reading, why "also"? Or KAI could have been omitted due to parablepsis. But why add a KAI?

        Best wishes
        Wieland
        <><
        ------------------------------------------------
        Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
        mailto:willker@chemie.uni-bremen.de
        http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie
        Textcritical commentary:
        http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/index.html


        =
      • Wieland Willker
        ... I didn t thought about this KAI ... KAI ( both ... and ) possibility. Very good suggestion. Thanks! It is possible that KAI has been added for this reason.
        Message 3 of 3 , Sep 13, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          Bill Warren wrote:
          > Reading #6, the Byz. reading, could be read as
          > "who were
          > both lamenting and mourning him." Clarity is added ...


          I didn't thought about this KAI ... KAI ("both ... and")
          possibility. Very good suggestion. Thanks!
          It is possible that KAI has been added for this reason. On the
          other hand hAI KAI could have been the original reading with
          this meaning already.


          > With #4, the confusion of the sounds of AI and E that
          > became more common in NT MSS in the later
          > Byzantine period is highlighted, which could be behind
          > the variant itself to some extent since the difference is
          > really the K in the three sounds of hAI, KAI, and
          > E(KOPTONTO).


          I noticed this reading, too, and thought the same.

          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.