RE: [textualcriticism] Nomen Sacrum for Pneuma
RE: [textualcriticism] Nomen Sacrum for Pneuma
I discussed 1 Cor. 12:13 in my thesis and noted the same difficulty with the "letter confusion argument." The argument is also found in Metzger's Text of the New Testament (third ed., p. 187 and fourth ed., p. 252). Paap does not list any examples, and Traube (pp. 93-95) finds only the Greek portion of a Coptic ms. using PMA and D-abschrift writing PMI where Codex Bezae writes PNI.
The confusion can easily arise in minuscule script, where the mu and the nu can be very similar. I found several examples of pna in 1241 and 1243 (the last reads poma at 12:13) that look very much like pma. Furthermore, 056 and 0142 are the only two uncials with the reading but have virtually an identical text. These are late in date (10th cen.) and the lemmata are written in a script that is almost a blend of majuscule and minuscule. Very frequently minuscule combinations intrude (the commentary texts are written in minuscule). It is not impossible that these are copied from a minuscule exemplar.
The alteration must have existed by the seventh century, however, as it is found in the Harklean Syriac. Rather than simple confusion of letters, it is more likely an adaptation to the near context, influenced by the verb epotisqhmen, and possibly also also recalling 1 Cor. 10:4: poma pneumatikon epion. Theological motivations are unlikely. Before the tenth century, only John of Damascus discusses this passage in a Eucharistic context (though he cites 12:13a, skips over this portion of the passage, then continues with 12:14;MPG 95, 669). Theophylact (11th cen) does make a clear Eucharistic reference, however (MPG 124, 716).
Clement is cited in the NA27 apparatus for poma (Paedagogus 1,6,31,1), but this reference is a candidate for deletion. Tischendorf cited his text as eni pomati epiomen, but this is drawn from the edition of Heinsius and Sylburgius as cited in Griesbach's Symbolae Criticae, and no ms. of Clement actually reads this. The editions of Stählin and Treu as well as Marrou and Harl print en poma epotisqhmen, but this is based on a 12th cen. minuscule that actually reads en poma ekotis] (and then breaks off). The most recent edition, by Marcovich, prints en pneuma epotisqhmen, and this is undoubtedly correct given the comments that Clement makes immediately afterward.
Good to see the word "whilst", BTW.
St. Louis, MO USA
From: firstname.lastname@example.org on behalf of Dirk Jongkind
Sent: Thu 2/15/2007 9:47 AM
Subject: [textualcriticism] Nomen Sacrum for Pneuma
Whilst reading Ehrman's 'Whose Word is It' (apparently published
elsewhere as 'Misquoting Jesus') I stumbled over an explanation of 1 Cor
12:13 (page 91). Here the nomen sacrum of PNEUMA is used to explain the
move from PNEUMA EPOTISQHSEN to POMA EPOTISQHSEN. This is the argument:
'The word Spirit (PNEUMA) would have been abbreviated in most
manuscripts as PMA [with overstroke; DJ], which understandably could be
- and was - misread by some scribes as the Greek word for "drink" (POMA)
I certainly agree that it is a short step from PMA to POMA, but I cannot
recollect having seen the nomen sacrum PMA, only PNA (which,
incidentally, would lessen the optical similarity between PNA and POMA).
I would be most grateful if somebody could help me with some examples of
PMA instead of PNA. Any suggestions?
Dirk Jongkind, PhD
Fellow and Tutor, St. Edmund's College
John W. Laing Fellow, Tyndale House
36 Selwyn Gardens
Cambridge, CB3 9BA Phone:(UK) 01223 566603
United Kingdom Fax: (UK) 01223 566608
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
- Dirk Jongkind wrote: 'Whilst reading Ehrman's 'Whose Word is It'...'
Maurice Robinson is informative in the 5th comment on: http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2005/12/review-of-bart-ehrman-misquoting-jesus_31.html
'Ehrman's claim that the nomen sacrum for ?????? was ??? would not be as problematic had not Ehrman made *exactly* the same error in his revision of Metzger's Text of the New Testament! I can only conclude that Ehrman's intention in claiming ??? must be deliberate.
As noted, Ehrman's claim regarding 1Cor 12:13 depends upon this false identification. In fact, the few minuscules that read POMA (630 1510 1881 al) more likely simply confused the *minuscule* continuous text form of ??? with the word ?o?? (compare any minuscule MS to see the point).'
New Members <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/textualcriticism/members;_ylc=X3oDMTJnaTlnbDFtBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEyNTQ0MzA5BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNjExMzkyNgRzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2bWJycwRzdGltZQMxMTcxNTU1Nzky>
Visit Your Group <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/textualcriticism;_ylc=X3oDMTJmMWFocmp2BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEyNTQ0MzA5BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNjExMzkyNgRzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2Z2hwBHN0aW1lAzExNzE1NTU3OTI->
Science News <http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=12iqh36n5/M=493064.9803190.10510181.8674578/D=groups/S=1706113926:NC/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1171562992/A=3848611/R=0/SIG=12t54fmfj/*http://news.yahoo.com/i/753;_ylt=A9FJqYYsvq5E.kwAkwOyFz4D;_ylu=X3oDMTA2NWJlcmlsBHNlYwN0bg-->
Get the latest
Staying in tonight? <http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=12iaupka5/M=493064.9803235.10510228.8674578/D=groups/S=1706113926:NC/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1171562992/A=3848445/R=0/SIG=10t28jksf/*http://tv.yahoo.com/lineup/>
Check listings to
see what is on.
New web site?
Drive traffic now. <http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=12il4er6h/M=493064.9803227.10510220.8674578/D=groups/S=1706113926:NC/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1171562992/A=3848642/R=0/SIG=131eshi2t/*http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/arp/srchv2.php?o=US2004&cmp=Yahoo&ctv=Groups3&s=Y&s2=&s3=&b=50>
Get your business
on Yahoo! search.
Sorry all. It’s a typo. Or rather, a scribal corruption.
Bart D. Ehrman
James A. Gray Professor
Department of Religious Studies
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
From: email@example.com [mailto: firstname.lastname@example.org ] On Behalf Of Peter M. Head
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 12:08 PM
Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Nomen Sacrum for Pneuma
There are no examples of PMA listed in O'Callaghan (1970).
At 15:47 15/02/2007, you wrote:
>Whilst reading Ehrman's 'Whose Word is It' (apparently published(POMA)
>elsewhere as 'Misquoting Jesus') I stumbled over an explanation of 1 Cor
>12:13 (page 91). Here the nomen sacrum of PNEUMA is used to explain the
>move from PNEUMA EPOTISQHSEN to POMA EPOTISQHSEN. This is the argument:
>'The word Spirit (PNEUMA) would have been abbreviated in most
>manuscripts as PMA [with overstroke; DJ], which understandably could be
>- and was - misread by some scribes as the Greek word for "drink"
>I certainly agree that it is a short step from PMA to POMA, but I cannot
>recollect having seen the nomen sacrum PMA, only PNA (which,
>incidentally, would lessen the optical similarity between PNA and POMA).
>I would be most grateful if somebody could help me with some examples of
>PMA instead of PNA. Any suggestions?
>Dirk Jongkind, PhD
>Fellow and Tutor, St. Edmund's College
>John W. Laing Fellow, Tyndale House
> Cambridge , CB3 9BAPhone:( UK ) 01223 566603
> United Kingdom Fax: (w:st="on"> UK ) 01223 566608
>Peter M. Head, PhD
>Yahoo! Groups Links
Sir Kirby Laing Senior Lecturer in New Testament
36 Selwyn Gardens
Cambridge CB3 9BA