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

[textualcriticism] Mark 7:19 - Greek manuscript evidence

Expand Messages
  • Schmuel
    Hi Folks, One correction on the previous post. Origen does in fact have the exact word, making moot my wondering about whether his interpretation is caused by
    Message 1 of 1 , Feb 15, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Folks,

      One correction on the previous post.  Origen does in fact have the exact word,
      making moot my wondering about whether his interpretation is caused by the
      exact text word.

      ================

      Here are a few thoughts or questions on the Greek manuscript evidence on Mark 7:19.
      And I am just working with this as logically as feasible, without technical background.

      UBS (bottom of page 1, Tim Hegg article)
      http://www.torahresource.com/English%20Articles/Mark7.19ShortNote.pdf

      Wieland Willker
      (p.211)
      http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/TC--Mark.pdf

      =================================================
      CURSIVES

      UBS and Wieland has both readings as "Byz-part"
      http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/TC--Mark.p

      Yet Dean Burgon has
      "the cursives which with a large majority witness to the received reading."

      Does this mean that if the manuscripts line up as 500-50 or 200-40 that it is simply
      put as "Bzy-part".  How would one find out what is an accurate breakdown ?

      Also, do we generally consider all cursives as "Byzantine", as a given  ?

      ========================================
      UNCIALS

      Dean Burgon
      "eight  .. (PhSKMUVGP)"   
      (KAQARIZON)  (TR)
      "eleven ..(ABEFGHLSXD)"   (KAQARIZWN) (W-H)

      Wieland
      K, pi, 33, 157, 700, 1582C, 2542,
      01, A, B, L, W, X, delta, theta, 0274, f1, f13, 28, 565, 579, 892, 1071, 1342, 1424, 2427

      Quite a difference, after subtracting the cursives.
      Also Wieland has made changes to the UBS, and is probably more accurate ?

      We expect the current apparatus should be more up-to-date,
      and the abbreviation system can vary. 

      However can we pin down the reasons for the differences ?
      Perhaps someone would like :

      a) agree or disagree with Burgon on the 19 manuscripts he specifies ?
      b) help by adding whatever he is missing ?
      c) give a solid current uncial count

      =========================================

      LECTIONARIES

      UBS lists six lectionaries, specifically for the N-A reading and "Lect" for the
      TR reading.  "Lect" could mean an unspecified couple or dozens, how does
      one determine this
      ?  Why list numbers on one side and "Lect" on the other,
      is it because there are too many to list ?  (For these purposes I am assuming
      the lectionaries are Greek, however that breakdown would interest me as well.)

      And those are my thoughts and questions on the Greek manuscripts :-)
      I would like to do a bit more, on the non-Greek manuscript evidence,
      after this is digested some.

      Thanks :-)


      Shalom,
      Steven Avery
      Queens, NY
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.