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

Re: [textualcriticism] Acts 2:14 TOTE

Expand Messages
  • Peter Williams
    I have written on the precarious nature of Syriac support for Greek TOTE in my _Early Syriac Translation Technique and the Textual Criticism of the Greek
    Message 1 of 2 , Oct 19, 2006
      I have written on the precarious nature of Syriac support for Greek TOTE in
      my _Early Syriac Translation Technique and the Textual Criticism of the
      Greek Gospels_ (Gorgias Press, 2004), pp. 170-73.

      Best wishes,

      P.J. Williams

      At 10:10 19/10/2006 +0100, you wrote:

      >Dear Listmembers,
      >
      >The beginning of Acts 2, 14 according to the Codex Bezae reads:
      >TOTE STAQEIS DE O PETROS
      >
      >According to the NA27, TOTE figures also in the Peshitta and the Coptic
      >(mae). Boismard, in his reconstruction of the Western text (“Le Texte
      >Occidental des Actes des Apôtres”, 2000) mentions the same witnesses, while
      >Ropes (“The Text of Acts” BC I, Vol III, 1926), writing before the discovery
      >/ publishing of the Coptic codex G67, mentions only the Peshitta.
      >Tischendorf seems only to admit a certain resemblance between the reading of
      >D and the reading of the Peshitta: “Similiter TOTE adponit Syrsch”. Clark,
      >on the other hand, renders the reading of the Peshitta with KAI META TAUTA
      >STAQEIS.
      >
      >So, should I follow the “majority” and place the Peshitta with the Codex
      >Bezae? But of course, we don’t count witnesses but “weight” them. From a
      >qualitative point of view, one cannot easily ignore the editors of the NA27
      >or Ropes. On the other hand, since Clark put TOTE in his text, the support
      >of the Peshitta would have been useful for him. So, why is his reading of
      >the Peshitta is different from the others? Perhaps both the “majority” and
      >Clark rely on Tischendorf, representing each a different understanding of
      >“similiter TOTE adponit” (speculation: my Latin is not good enough :-)). In
      >the case of the “majority”, they would stress the similarity between the
      >readings of D and the Peshitta, to the point of identity, while Clark would
      >attach himself to the difference.
      >
      >Briefly put, what is the reading of the Peshitta, and how should I
      >understand Tischendorf?
      >
      >(rainy) greetings from the Algarve, Portugal
      >Philip Maertens
      >
      >
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.