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

Re: [textualcriticism] Jude 5

Expand Messages
  • Tommy Wasserman
    Dear Leo The text below is an extract from my dissertation, The Epistle of Jude: Its Text and Transmission, 262-266 (without footnotes). The whole thing is
    Message 1 of 25 , Jan 3, 1970
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear Leo

      The text below is an extract from my dissertation, The Epistle of Jude:
      Its Text and Transmission, 262-266 (without footnotes). The whole thing
      is available from Eisenbrauns. I don't know how all the fonts come out
      in the e-mail, but I hope it is ok.

      Good luck!

      Tommy Wasserman

      4) The subject of ἀπώλεσεν in the ὅτι-clause {e=i} (ECM •ιησους•/•[o]
      κυριος)

      This is arguably the most difficult point of variation in the passage,
      mainly because of the presence of the difficult reading Ἰησοῦς,
      regarded by many commentators as virtually impossible.
      The external evidence is distributed as follows:

      κυριος 01 044 1875 al
      ο κυριος 18 35 307 326 424* 431 436 453 630 808 1505 1611 1836 1837
      2138 2200 2495 𝔐 PsOec
      (ο) κυριος S:H
      ιησους 02 03 33C 81 323 424C 665 1739 pc K:S
      ο ιησους 88 915
      (ο) ιησους L:V
      κυριος ιησους 1735
      ο κυριος ιησους L241 L591 L1178
      ο θεος 04C2V 442 621 623 1845 pc L:TVmss S:Ph
      θεος χριστος P72

      The reading (ὁ) Ἰησοῦς has strongest support, but (ὁ) κύριος and ὁ θεός
      are attested in important witnesses, showing that the text suffered
      corruption early on. The singular reading of 𝔓72, θεὸς Χριστός, is
      interesting, but definitely not original.

      If the better attested reading, Ἰησοῦς, is original, one has to account
      for the idea that Jesus saved the people out of Egypt. The author
      possibly could have made a typology between Joshua and Jesus (both
      Ἰησοῦς in LXX) seeing both persons in one. This typology occurs already
      in the Epistle of Barnabas (12:8-10) and became quite common among
      subsequent patristic authors. Black objects to this interpretation,
      since it would ascribe to Joshua the destruction of Israel in the
      wilderness, as well as the keeping of the rebellious angels until the
      judgment (Jude 5b-6). Bauckham is of the same opinion, but he points
      out that the potential typology “could have attracted a scribe (who
      could miss its pitfalls).”

      On the other hand, Osburn supplies an example from 1 En. 69:26-29,
      where the Son of Man sits in judgment upon the imprisoned angels, and
      he points out that, regardless of the presence of a Joshua-Jesus
      typology, the author could still have Ἰησοῦς in mind, referring to the
      preexistent activity of Christ in OT history (cf. John 12:41; 1 Cor
      10:4-5; 9; Heb 11:26). Further, Osburn suggests that Ἰησοῦς could have
      been altered to κύριος or θεός because of the heated Christological
      controversies during the third and fourth centuries. He goes far to
      explain the variation between Χριστόν, κύριον and θεόν in 1 Cor 10:9
      along these lines. Evidently, the passage in 1 Cor 10:9 gave rise to
      controversy and may have led to modifications of the text. However, the
      opposite motivation seems to have given rise to the reading ὁ κύριος
      Ἰησοῦς attested here in Jude by some Byzantine witnesses (L241 L591
      L1178; cf. 1735), which is certainly a development of ὁ κύριος (𝔐).
      Nevertheless, the main question is whether 1 Cor 10:9 can really offer
      an analogy to Jude 5, since the simple Ἰησοῦς is not attested in the
      former passage, and the simple Χριστός is lacking in the latter.
      Nowhere in the NT is the personal name Jesus applied to the
      pre-existent Christ.

      Jarl E. Fossum suggests that the reading Ἰησοῦς refers to “an
      intermediary figure whose basic constituent is the Angel of the Lord,”
      but, at the same time, he admits that the reference could equally apply
      to κύριος, especially in light of the Christological confession in v.
      4, (“our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ”). This brings us to the
      next major objection to Ἰησοῦς raised on intrinsic grounds: Wachtel
      points out that Ἰησοῦς stands in stark contrast to the full formula, ὁ
      κύριος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, used with regularity by the author
      throughout the epistle (vv. 4, 17, 21, 25 v.l.). I would like to adduce
      another argument: among all witnesses to the text of 1 En. 1:9, the
      author of Jude alone added the subject κύριος to the clause in the
      citation in vv. 14-15. Undoubtedly, the text in Jude, written for
      Christians, refers to the Parousia; the same expectation of the “Son of
      Man” coming with his holy myriads for judgment is reflected in Matt
      25:31. Thus, we have another instance where the author consciously uses
      the simple κύριος in reference to Jesus Christ, in a judgment-context.

      The reading ὁ θεός has weaker attestation but was defended as original
      by Friedrich Spitta who thought that an indistinct Θ̅C̅ could have given
      rise to Ι̅C̅ and Κ̅C̅. Spitta, who thought that 2 Peter was prior to Jude,
      referred to the parallel in 2 Pet 2:4 (where God is said to keep the
      rebellious angels until their judgment) in support of ὁ θεός in Jude.
      However, in my view Jude is clearly prior, and the author of 2 Peter,
      like many scribes, changed an original κύριος in Jude to the more
      natural subject, ὁ θεός.

      The singular reading of 𝔓72, θεὸς Χριστός (Θ̅C̅ X̅P̅C̅), is not a
      conflation, since no witnesses read Χριστός. The members of the UBS
      Committee regarded it as a scribal blunder and speculated whether the
      scribe intended to write θεοῦ Χριστός. Another possible scribal error
      could have involved the confusion of Κ̅C̅ and X̅C̅. Admittedly, the scribe
      of 𝔓72 used another form considered to be older (X̅P̅C̅) but both forms
      were in use during this time (ca. 300 C.E.) and Κ̅C̅ could have been
      present in the exemplar (read as X̅C̅)—evidently the scribe used
      alternative forms of nomina sacra elsewhere. More significantly, the
      committee did not consider similar theological or Christological
      modifications elswhere in 𝔓72. For example, in the passage in 1 Pet
      2:3, the scribe explicitly emphasizes the belief that Christ is Lord
      and God, εἰ ἐγεύσασθε ἐπιστεύσατε ὅτι Χριστός ὁ κύριος. The replacement
      of χρηστός with Χριστός is shared by other Greek witnesses (018 019 049
      33 al) as well as the earliest witness to 1 Peter, the Coptic Codex
      Schøyen, and is in line with a common wordplay in early Christianity,
      i.e., the referring of LXX quotations in which God is called χρηστός to
      Christ. 𝔓72 further inserts ἐπιστεύσατε, which specifies the ‘tasting’
      as believing in Christ. In this way the scriptural allusion is now
      turned into a confessional formula, “Christ is Lord,” that is to be
      believed. Thus, in Jude 5, I think the scribe read the ambiguous κύριος
      in his exemplar, and associated it to Χριστός (as in 1 Pet 2:3) and
      θεός in line with such identifications elsewhere (1 Pet 5.1; 2 Pet
      1.2); a single Ἰησοῦς in the exemplar is less likely.

      In sum, the external evidence is divided and corruption occured early
      on. The reading Ἰησοῦς has the best manuscript support and is indeed a
      difficult reading to the point of impossibility. I find it very
      unlikely that this early Christian author would write the simple Ἰησοῦς
      if he had the pre-existent Christ in mind, especially in light of his
      style, and of the whole context of vv. 5-7. The ambiguous (ὁ) κύριος,
      on the other hand, could explain all other readings, which may
      represent conscious alterations or else copying mistakes involving
      nomina sacra. Moreover, the typology Jesus-Joshua which became popular
      in the patristic era could have led a scribe to supply Ἰησοῦς. I prefer
      the anarthrous form, κύριος, as original because of the weighty
      attestation of Ἰησοῦς without the article.

      9 maj 2008 kl. 17.50 skrev Percer, Leo R.:

      > Hello all:
      >
      >  
      >
      > I recently received a question from a student regarding alternative
      > readings in Jude 5, and I do not have the necessary tools here to
      > search the answer properly.  So I thought I’d ask you all!
      >
      > As many of you may know, Jude 5 contains an alternative reading in the
      > section that reads (in English) “. . . that the Lord saved a people
      > out of the land of Egypt, . . . “  (emphasis added).  The question is
      > this—several newer English translations (ESV, NLT, NET) read “Jesus”
      > where “Lord” is in the verse.  As I looked at the few texts I have
      > handy, I noticed that the witnesses for “Jesus” are texts like A B 33
      > 81 1241 1739 1881, etc., while the texts for “Lord” (kurios) include
      > Aleph, B, K,  as witnesses.  The one that intrigues me is the witness
      > p72 has “God Christ” (theos Christos) as a reading.  The question I
      > have is this—which of these witnesses do you think is the most
      > authoritative and why?   I mean, it appears to me that the earliest
      > reading is “God Christ,” but it is not offered as the reading of
      > choice in any edition of the Greek NT that I can find.  I guess I’m
      > looking for help here until I can get home to my textual critical
      > materials, but I’d appreciate hearing the opinions of this list. 
      > Which reading would you think as the best and why?  Thanks!
      >
      > Leo Percer
      >
      >  
      >
      >  
      >
      >
      >
    • Tommy Wasserman
      George F. Somsel wrote: The unique collocation θεὸς Χριστός read by P (did the scribe intend to write θεοῦ χριστός, “God’s
      Message 2 of 25 , Jan 6, 1970
      • 0 Attachment
        George F. Somsel wrote:

        " The unique collocation θεὸς Χριστός read by P (did the scribe intend
        to write θεοῦ χριστός, “God’s anointed one”?) is probably a scribal
        blunder; otherwise one would expect that Χριστός would be represented
        also in other witnesses." (cited from Metzger's Textual Commentary)

        Unfortunately, the Committee did not take into account the pattern of
        similar readings in P72, when they suggested "a scribal blunder" here.
        See further my article "Papyrus 72 and the Bodmer Miscellaneous Codex,"
        NTS 51 (2005): 137-54; and Barbara Aland, "Welche Rolle spielen
        Textkritik und Textgeschichte für das Verständnis des Neuen Testaments?
        Frühe Leserperspektiven," NTS 52 (2006): 303-318.

        Tommy Wasserman
      • Daniel B. Wallace
        No, these images were not done by CSNTM staff or our cameras. But we have the rights to them. Still, the pictures are readable, though certainly leaving much
        Message 3 of 25 , May 9, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          No, these images were not done by CSNTM staff or our cameras. But we have the rights to them. Still, the pictures are readable, though certainly leaving much room for improvement.

          Dan Wallace

          ----- Start Original Message -----
          Sent: Fri, 9 May 2008 14:27:50 +0200
          From: "Wieland Willker" <wie@...>
          To: <textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com>
          Subject: [textualcriticism] CSNTM: New lectionary MS

          >
          > Something to study over the weekend:

          10th CE
          Images can be found here:

          http://www.csntm.org/Manuscripts/UncataloguedLectFragment/

          Unfortunately the focus is not exact in some of the images.
          It is not clear to me from the accompanying PDF if these images are done
          by the CSNTM or someone else.

          I would recommend to review the images immediately after the shooting so
          that one can redo them if necessary.

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




          ----- End Original Message -----
        • Tim Ricchuiti
          Philipp F. Bartholomae took up that very topic in a Novum Testamentum article: Philipp F. Bartholomae, Did Jesus Save the People out of Egypt? A
          Message 4 of 25 , May 9, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            Philipp F. Bartholomae took up that very topic in a Novum Testamentum article:

            Philipp F. Bartholomae, "Did Jesus Save the People out of Egypt? A Re-examination of a Textual Problem in Jude 5," NovT 50 (2008): 143–58

            On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 10:50 AM, Percer, Leo R. <lpercer@...> wrote:

            Hello all:

             

            I recently received a question from a student regarding alternative readings in Jude 5, and I do not have the necessary tools here to search the answer properly.  So I thought I'd ask you all!

            As many of you may know, Jude 5 contains an alternative reading in the section that reads (in English) ". . . that the Lord saved a people out of the land of Egypt, . . . "  (emphasis added).  The question is this—several newer English translations (ESV, NLT, NET) read "Jesus" where "Lord" is in the verse.  As I looked at the few texts I have handy, I noticed that the witnesses for "Jesus" are texts like A B 33 81 1241 1739 1881, etc., while the texts for "Lord" (kurios) include Aleph, B, K,  as witnesses.  The one that intrigues me is the witness p72 has "God Christ" (theos Christos) as a reading.  The question I have is this—which of these witnesses do you think is the most authoritative and why?   I mean, it appears to me that the earliest reading is "God Christ," but it is not offered as the reading of choice in any edition of the Greek NT that I can find.  I guess I'm looking for help here until I can get home to my textual critical materials, but I'd appreciate hearing the opinions of this list.  Which reading would you think as the best and why?  Thanks!

            Leo Percer

             

             


          • mydogregae01
            ... (they were done by others!!!) ... ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Dr. Willker, Do you have copies of the CSNTM DVD s?? Especially those of their
            Message 5 of 25 , May 9, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "Wieland Willker" <wie@...>
              wrote:
              >

              >
              > Unfortunately the focus is not exact in some of the images.
              > It is not clear to me from the accompanying PDF if these images are
              > done by the CSNTM or someone else.

              (they were done by others!!!)

              >
              > I would recommend to review the images immediately after the
              > shooting so that one can redo them if necessary.
              >
              >
              > Best wishes
              > Wieland
              ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
              Dr. Willker,

              Do you have copies of the CSNTM DVD's?? Especially those of their
              methods and techniques? Dr. Wallace and I discussed this issue years
              ago -- about double-checking the quality -- he and his staff preview
              in real time, each image, then save it. They again postprocess them to
              tiff and jpg formats. They usually do this while on-site. Thus they
              have a very good system for insuring the best of quality for each and
              every image. Their current work (since the days of their 11 MP
              cameras), is nearly flawless! They spend much time doing this quality
              check, thousands of images each day! Inspected one by one!

              With 21 MP cameras, we can expect incredible images. With 21 MP
              cameras, they probably are at the peak of their quality/size curve,
              more megapixels seem to be overkill. I feel a great sense of
              obligation to the CSNTM. Even their digital reproductions of facsimile
              copies (032 for example) are superior to the available film copies,
              and are very very useful.

              Total costs for EACH image is about $6.00. Multiply that by thousands
              of images each day! and you can see that they NEED our (your)
              financial support. Pray also for safe and successful journeys for each
              of the photographic teams. Pray that they also have unrestricted
              access! I have only donated about $500.00 so far, but soon I hope to
              improve upon that. Again we all benefit from this great endeavor! And
              we NOW each have an opportunity to assist. [This was written
              independently of the knowledge of any of the staff of the CSNTM].

              sincerely,
              Mr. Gary S. Dykes
            • Daniel B. Wallace
              There s a recent article in Novum Testament by Philipp Bartholomäe, Did Jesus Save the People out of Egypt? A Re-examination of a Textual Problem in Jude 5,
              Message 6 of 25 , May 9, 2008
              • 0 Attachment
                There's a recent article in Novum Testament by Philipp Bartholomäe, "Did Jesus Save the People out of Egypt? A Re-examination of a Textual Problem in Jude 5," Novum Testamentum 50 (2008) 143-158. This is an excellent treatment of the problem, a revision of a term paper by Philipp in the master's course on NT textual criticism at Dallas Seminary.

                Dan Wallace

                ----- Start Original Message -----
                Sent: Fri, 9 May 2008 11:50:46 -0400
                From: "Percer, Leo R." <lpercer@...>
                To: <textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com>
                Subject: RE: [textualcriticism] Jude 5

                >
                > Hello all:

                I recently received a question from a student regarding alternative
                readings in Jude 5, and I do not have the necessary tools here to search
                the answer properly. So I thought I’d ask you all!

                As many of you may know, Jude 5 contains an alternative reading in the
                section that reads (in English) “. . . that the Lord saved a people out
                of the land of Egypt, . . . “ (emphasis added). The question is
                this—several newer English translations (ESV, NLT, NET) read
                “Jesus” where “Lord” is in the verse. As I looked at the few
                texts I have handy, I noticed that the witnesses for “Jesus” are
                texts like A B 33 81 1241 1739 1881, etc., while the texts for “Lord”
                (kurios) include Aleph, B, K, as witnesses. The one that intrigues me
                is the witness p72 has “God Christ” (theos Christos) as a reading.
                The question I have is this—which of these witnesses do you think is
                the most authoritative and why? I mean, it appears to me that the
                earliest reading is “God Christ,” but it is not offered as the
                reading of choice in any edition of the Greek NT that I can find. I
                guess I’m looking for help here until I can get home to my textual
                critical materials, but I’d appreciate hearing the opinions of this
                list. Which reading would you think as the best and why? Thanks!

                Leo Percer






                ----- End Original Message -----
              • George F Somsel
                  ver. 5     πάντα ὅτι [ὁ] κύριος ἅπαξ{D} Despite the weighty attestation supporting
                Message 7 of 25 , May 10, 2008
                • 0 Attachment
                   
                  ver. 5     πάντα ὅτι [ὁ] κύριος ἅπαξ {D}
                  Despite the weighty attestation supporting Ἰησοῦς (A B 33 81 322 323 424 665 1241 1739 1881 2298 2344 vg cop, eth Origen Cyril Jerome Bede; ὁ Ἰησοῦς 88 915), a majority of the Committee was of the opinion that the reading was difficult to the point of impossibility, and explained its origin in terms of transcriptional oversight (ΚΧ being taken for ΙΧ). It was also observed that nowhere else does the author employ Ἰησοῦς alone, but always Ἰησοῦς Χριστός. The unique collocation θεὸς Χριστός read by P (did the scribe intend to write θεοῦ χριστός, “God’s anointed one”?) is probably a scribal blunder; otherwise one would expect that Χριστός would be represented also in other witnesses.
                  The great majority of witnesses read before κύριος, but on the strength of its absence from א Ψ and the tendency of scribes to add the article, it was thought best to enclose within square brackets.
                  [Critical principles seem to require the adoption of Ἰησοῦς, which admittedly is the best attested reading among Greek and versional witnesses (see above). Struck by the strange and unparalleled mention of Jesus in a statement about the redemption out of Egypt (yet compare Paul’s reference to Χριστός in 1 Cor 10.4), copyists would have substituted (ὁ) κύριος or ὁ θεός. It is possible, however, that (as Hort conjectured) “the original text had only , and that οτιο was read as οτιΙΧ and perhaps as οτιΚΧ” (“Notes on Select Readings,” ad loc.).
                  The origin of the variations in the position of ἅπαξ is best explained by assuming that it originally stood after εἰδότας (as in P A B C L 049 33 81 104 181 326 330 436 451 629 945 1877 2127 al); because, however, the word did not seem to suit εἰδότας, and because the following τὸ δεύτερον appeared to call for a word like πρῶτον, ἅπαξ was moved within the ὅτι-clause so as to qualify σώσας. B.M.M. and A.W.]
                   
                  Metzger, B. M., & United Bible Societies. (1994). A textual commentary on the Greek New Testament, second edition a companion volume to the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament (4th rev. ed.) (657). London; New York: United Bible Societies.
                   
                  I think one of the stonger arguments for the reading being only κύριος rather than Ιησοῦς is the fact noted in ¶ #1 above that Ιησοῦς always appears with Χριστός and never alone in Jude (though it must also be noted that there are only 5 instances).
                   
                  george
                  gfsomsel


                  … search for truth, hear truth,
                  learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
                  defend the truth till death.


                  - Jan Hus
                  _________


                  ----- Original Message ----
                  From: "Percer, Leo R." <lpercer@...>
                  To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
                  Sent: Friday, May 9, 2008 11:50:46 AM
                  Subject: RE: [textualcriticism] Jude 5

                  Hello all:

                   

                  I recently received a question from a student regarding alternative readings in Jude 5, and I do not have the necessary tools here to search the answer properly.  So I thought I’d ask you all!

                  As many of you may know, Jude 5 contains an alternative reading in the section that reads (in English) “. . . that the Lord saved a people out of the land of Egypt, . . . “  (emphasis added).  The question is this—several newer English translations (ESV, NLT, NET) read “Jesus” where “Lord” is in the verse.  As I looked at the few texts I have handy, I noticed that the witnesses for “Jesus” are texts like A B 33 81 1241 1739 1881, etc., while the texts for “Lord” (kurios) include Aleph, B, K,  as witnesses.  The one that intrigues me is the witness p72 has “God Christ” (theos Christos) as a reading.  The question I have is this—which of these witnesses do you think is the most authoritative and why?   I mean, it appears to me that the earliest reading is “God Christ,” but it is not offered as the reading of choice in any edition of the Greek NT that I can find.  I guess I’m looking for help here until I can get home to my textual critical materials, but I’d appreciate hearing the opinions of this list.  Which reading would you think as the best and why?  Thanks!

                  Leo Percer

                  .



                  Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
                • James Snapp, Jr.
                  Wieland ~ I haven t had much time to study the images this weekend (it s Mother s Day over here in the USA) but from what I was able to see, it looks like a
                  Message 8 of 25 , May 10, 2008
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Wieland ~

                    I haven't had much time to study the images this weekend (it's
                    Mother's Day over here in the USA) but from what I was able to see,
                    it looks like a nice, neat Byzantine lectionary-portion for the
                    second Sunday after Easter (KURIAKE G, i.e., Sunday #3).

                    Yours in Christ,

                    James Snapp, Jr.
                    Minister, Curtisville Christian Church
                    Tipton, Indiana (USA)
                    www.curtisvillechristian.org/MarkOne.html

                    P.S. Over at TC-Alternate, I've added a bootleg English translation
                    of K. Aland's 1969 essay "Comments on the End of Mark" to the Files.
                    Since I don't read German, this is probably a mess in some places;
                    nevertheless it may at least give non-German-readers some insight
                    into Dr. Aland's approach to the subject. (And if anyone fluent in
                    German offers corrections, I might incorporate then into a later
                    revision of the translation.)
                  • mjriii2003
                    Dear Tommy, I guess I m on the other hand. To me the anarthrous IC, whether with or without hAPAX, is solely more intelligable in light of the early
                    Message 9 of 25 , May 12, 2008
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Dear Tommy,

                      I guess I'm "on the other hand." To me the anarthrous IC, whether
                      with or without hAPAX, is solely more intelligable in light of the
                      early patristic exegesis that without qualm made this identification.

                      The scribal alteration to KC - while not nullifying such an
                      identification - does however limit the 'expressiveness' of St Jude
                      somewhat.

                      Doubtless, as the textual evidence shows, the transmission history is
                      plagued by alterations. The question of the location of hAPAX is
                      more interesting - next to this one.

                      Cheers!

                      Malcolm
                      _______________




                      --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, Tommy Wasserman <tomwas@...>
                      wrote:
                      >
                      > Dear Leo
                      >
                      > The text below is an extract from my dissertation, The Epistle of
                      Jude:
                      > Its Text and Transmission, 262-266 (without footnotes). The whole
                      thing
                      > is available from Eisenbrauns. I don't know how all the fonts come
                      out
                      > in the e-mail, but I hope it is ok.
                      >
                      > Good luck!
                      >
                      > Tommy Wasserman
                      >
                      > 4) The subject of ἀπώλεσεν in the ὅτι-clause {e=i}
                      (ECM •ιησους•/•[o]
                      > κυριος)
                      >
                      > This is arguably the most difficult point of variation in the
                      passage,
                      > mainly because of the presence of the difficult reading
                      Ἰησοῦς,
                      > regarded by many commentators as virtually impossible.
                      > The external evidence is distributed as follows:
                      >
                      > κυριος 01 044 1875 al
                      > ο κυριος 18 35 307 326 424* 431 436 453 630 808 1505 1611
                      1836 1837
                      > 2138 2200 2495 ð" PsOec
                      > (ο) κυριος S:H
                      > ιησους 02 03 33C 81 323 424C 665 1739 pc K:S
                      > ο ιησους 88 915
                      > (ο) ιησους L:V
                      > κυριος ιησους 1735
                      > ο κυριος ιησους L241 L591 L1178
                      > ο θεος 04C2V 442 621 623 1845 pc L:TVmss S:Ph
                      > θεος χριστος P72
                      >
                      > The reading (ὁ) Ἰησοῦς has strongest support, but (ὁ)
                      κύριος and ὁ θεός
                      > are attested in important witnesses, showing that the text suffered
                      > corruption early on. The singular reading of ð""72, θεὸς
                      Χριστός, is
                      > interesting, but definitely not original.
                      >
                      > If the better attested reading, Ἰησοῦς, is original, one
                      has to account
                      > for the idea that Jesus saved the people out of Egypt. The author
                      > possibly could have made a typology between Joshua and Jesus (both
                      > Ἰησοῦς in LXX) seeing both persons in one. This typology
                      occurs already
                      > in the Epistle of Barnabas (12:8-10) and became quite common among
                      > subsequent patristic authors. Black objects to this interpretation,
                      > since it would ascribe to Joshua the destruction of Israel in the
                      > wilderness, as well as the keeping of the rebellious angels until
                      the
                      > judgment (Jude 5b-6). Bauckham is of the same opinion, but he
                      points
                      > out that the potential typology “could have attracted a scribe
                      (who
                      > could miss its pitfalls).”
                      >
                      > On the other hand, Osburn supplies an example from 1 En. 69:26-29,
                      > where the Son of Man sits in judgment upon the imprisoned angels,
                      and
                      > he points out that, regardless of the presence of a Joshua-Jesus
                      > typology, the author could still have Ἰησοῦς in mind,
                      referring to the
                      > preexistent activity of Christ in OT history (cf. John 12:41; 1 Cor
                      > 10:4-5; 9; Heb 11:26). Further, Osburn suggests that Ἰησοῦς
                      could have
                      > been altered to κύριος or θεός because of the heated
                      Christological
                      > controversies during the third and fourth centuries. He goes far to
                      > explain the variation between Χριστόν, κύριον and
                      θεόν in 1 Cor 10:9
                      > along these lines. Evidently, the passage in 1 Cor 10:9 gave rise
                      to
                      > controversy and may have led to modifications of the text. However,
                      the
                      > opposite motivation seems to have given rise to the reading ὁ
                      κύριος
                      > Ἰησοῦς attested here in Jude by some Byzantine witnesses
                      (L241 L591
                      > L1178; cf. 1735), which is certainly a development of ὁ
                      κύριος (ð").
                      > Nevertheless, the main question is whether 1 Cor 10:9 can really
                      offer
                      > an analogy to Jude 5, since the simple Ἰησοῦς is not
                      attested in the
                      > former passage, and the simple Χριστός is lacking in the
                      latter.
                      > Nowhere in the NT is the personal name Jesus applied to the
                      > pre-existent Christ.
                      >
                      > Jarl E. Fossum suggests that the reading Ἰησοῦς refers to
                      “an
                      > intermediary figure whose basic constituent is the Angel of the
                      Lord,”
                      > but, at the same time, he admits that the reference could equally
                      apply
                      > to κύριος, especially in light of the Christological
                      confession in v.
                      > 4, (“our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ”). This brings us
                      to the
                      > next major objection to Ἰησοῦς raised on intrinsic grounds:
                      Wachtel
                      > points out that Ἰησοῦς stands in stark contrast to the full
                      formula, ὁ
                      > κύριος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, used with
                      regularity by the author
                      > throughout the epistle (vv. 4, 17, 21, 25 v.l.). I would like to
                      adduce
                      > another argument: among all witnesses to the text of 1 En. 1:9, the
                      > author of Jude alone added the subject κύριος to the clause
                      in the
                      > citation in vv. 14-15. Undoubtedly, the text in Jude, written for
                      > Christians, refers to the Parousia; the same expectation of the
                      “Son of
                      > Man” coming with his holy myriads for judgment is reflected in
                      Matt
                      > 25:31. Thus, we have another instance where the author consciously
                      uses
                      > the simple κύριος in reference to Jesus Christ, in a
                      judgment-context.
                      >
                      > The reading ὁ θεός has weaker attestation but was defended
                      as original
                      > by Friedrich Spitta who thought that an indistinct Θ̅C̅ could
                      have given
                      > rise to Ι̅C̅ and Κ̅C̅. Spitta, who thought that 2 Peter was
                      prior to Jude,
                      > referred to the parallel in 2 Pet 2:4 (where God is said to keep
                      the
                      > rebellious angels until their judgment) in support of ὁ θεός
                      in Jude.
                      > However, in my view Jude is clearly prior, and the author of 2
                      Peter,
                      > like many scribes, changed an original κύριος in Jude to the
                      more
                      > natural subject, ὁ θεός.
                      >
                      > The singular reading of ð""72, θεὸς Χριστός (Θ̅C̅
                      X̅P̅C̅), is not a
                      > conflation, since no witnesses read Χριστός. The members of
                      the UBS
                      > Committee regarded it as a scribal blunder and speculated whether
                      the
                      > scribe intended to write θεοῦ Χριστός. Another
                      possible scribal error
                      > could have involved the confusion of Κ̅C̅ and X̅C̅.
                      Admittedly, the scribe
                      > of ð""72 used another form considered to be older (X̅P̅C̅) but
                      both forms
                      > were in use during this time (ca. 300 C.E.) and Κ̅C̅ could have
                      been
                      > present in the exemplar (read as X̅C̅)â€"evidently the scribe
                      used
                      > alternative forms of nomina sacra elsewhere. More significantly,
                      the
                      > committee did not consider similar theological or Christological
                      > modifications elswhere in ð""72. For example, in the passage in 1
                      Pet
                      > 2:3, the scribe explicitly emphasizes the belief that Christ is
                      Lord
                      > and God, εἰ ἐγεύσασθε ἐπιστεύσατε ὅ
                      τι Χριστός ὁ κύριος. The replacement
                      > of χρηστός with Χριστός is shared by other Greek
                      witnesses (018 019 049
                      > 33 al) as well as the earliest witness to 1 Peter, the Coptic Codex
                      > Schøyen, and is in line with a common wordplay in early
                      Christianity,
                      > i.e., the referring of LXX quotations in which God is called
                      χρηστός to
                      > Christ. ð""72 further inserts ἐπιστεύσατε, which
                      specifies the ‘tasting’
                      > as believing in Christ. In this way the scriptural allusion is now
                      > turned into a confessional formula, “Christ is Lord,” that is
                      to be
                      > believed. Thus, in Jude 5, I think the scribe read the ambiguous
                      κύριος
                      > in his exemplar, and associated it to Χριστός (as in 1 Pet
                      2:3) and
                      > θεός in line with such identifications elsewhere (1 Pet 5.1; 2
                      Pet
                      > 1.2); a single Ἰησοῦς in the exemplar is less likely.
                      >
                      > In sum, the external evidence is divided and corruption occured
                      early
                      > on. The reading Ἰησοῦς has the best manuscript support and
                      is indeed a
                      > difficult reading to the point of impossibility. I find it very
                      > unlikely that this early Christian author would write the simple
                      Ἰησοῦς
                      > if he had the pre-existent Christ in mind, especially in light of
                      his
                      > style, and of the whole context of vv. 5-7. The ambiguous (ὁ)
                      κύριος,
                      > on the other hand, could explain all other readings, which may
                      > represent conscious alterations or else copying mistakes involving
                      > nomina sacra. Moreover, the typology Jesus-Joshua which became
                      popular
                      > in the patristic era could have led a scribe to supply
                      Ἰησοῦς. I prefer
                      > the anarthrous form, κύριος, as original because of the
                      weighty
                      > attestation of Ἰησοῦς without the article.
                      >
                      > 9 maj 2008 kl. 17.50 skrev Percer, Leo R.:
                      >
                      > > Hello all:
                      > >
                      > >  
                      > >
                      > > I recently received a question from a student regarding
                      alternative
                      > > readings in Jude 5, and I do not have the necessary tools here to
                      > > search the answer properly.  So I thought I’d ask you all!
                      > >
                      > > As many of you may know, Jude 5 contains an alternative reading
                      in the
                      > > section that reads (in English) “. . . that the Lord saved a
                      people
                      > > out of the land of Egypt, . . . “  (emphasis added).  The
                      question is
                      > > thisâ€"several newer English translations (ESV, NLT, NET) read
                      “Jesus”
                      > > where “Lord” is in the verse.  As I looked at the few texts
                      I have
                      > > handy, I noticed that the witnesses for “Jesus” are texts
                      like A B 33
                      > > 81 1241 1739 1881, etc., while the texts for “Lord” (kurios)
                      include
                      > > Aleph, B, K,  as witnesses.  The one that intrigues me is the
                      witness
                      > > p72 has “God Christ” (theos Christos) as a reading.  The
                      question I
                      > > have is thisâ€"which of these witnesses do you think is the most
                      > > authoritative and why?   I mean, it appears to me that the
                      earliest
                      > > reading is “God Christ,” but it is not offered as the reading
                      of
                      > > choice in any edition of the Greek NT that I can find.  I guess
                      I’m
                      > > looking for help here until I can get home to my textual critical
                      > > materials, but I’d appreciate hearing the opinions of this
                      list. 
                      > > Which reading would you think as the best and why?  Thanks!
                      > >
                      > > Leo Percer
                      > >
                      > >  
                      > >
                      > >  
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      >
                    • mjriii2003
                      One of the more interesting significant features of this lectionary is the fact that it ends with Mk 16:8. This evidence will doubtless appear (or at least
                      Message 10 of 25 , May 12, 2008
                      • 0 Attachment
                        One of the more interesting significant features of this lectionary
                        is the fact that it ends with Mk 16:8. This evidence will doubtless
                        appear (or at least should appear) in the apparatus of NA28 to
                        further support the early MSS reading that St Mark ended at vs 8.

                        The fact that this 10th cent. lectionary minuscule witnesses to this
                        reading/ending is quite remarkable.

                        On another note the introductory lectionary reading ...BASILIKOS hOU
                        hO IC HSQENEI as well as ERGAZESQAI MN THN BRWSIN THN MENOUSIN EIS
                        THN ZWHN AIWNION...are glaring scribal blunders that the corrector
                        himself overlooked.

                        Praise God for CSNTM!

                        Malcolm

                        _____________________


                        --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "James Snapp, Jr."
                        <voxverax@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > Wieland ~
                        >
                        > I haven't had much time to study the images this weekend (it's
                        > Mother's Day over here in the USA) but from what I was able to see,
                        > it looks like a nice, neat Byzantine lectionary-portion for the
                        > second Sunday after Easter (KURIAKE G, i.e., Sunday #3).
                        >
                        > Yours in Christ,
                        >
                        > James Snapp, Jr.
                        > Minister, Curtisville Christian Church
                        > Tipton, Indiana (USA)
                        > www.curtisvillechristian.org/MarkOne.html
                        >
                        > P.S. Over at TC-Alternate, I've added a bootleg English
                        translation
                        > of K. Aland's 1969 essay "Comments on the End of Mark" to the
                        Files.
                        > Since I don't read German, this is probably a mess in some places;
                        > nevertheless it may at least give non-German-readers some insight
                        > into Dr. Aland's approach to the subject. (And if anyone fluent in
                        > German offers corrections, I might incorporate then into a later
                        > revision of the translation.)
                        >
                      • James Snapp, Jr.
                        Dear Malcolm, Since this lectionary-fragment contains, as is stated in the upper margin of its first column, the readings for the second week after Easter, it
                        Message 11 of 25 , May 12, 2008
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Dear Malcolm,

                          Since this lectionary-fragment contains, as is stated in the upper
                          margin of its first column, the readings for the second week after
                          Easter, it is Not Remarkable or surprising at all that its first
                          reading-unit ends with Mark 16:8. That is where that reading-section
                          is supposed to end in the normal Byzantine lectionary.

                          At R. Waltz's Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism, in the entry
                          for "Lectionaries," you can read a thorough list of Byzantine
                          lectionary reading-units. The fragment's contents align perfectly
                          with the list for the second week after Easter (because that's where
                          it's taken from!).

                          Yours in Christ,

                          James Snapp, Jr.
                          Minister, Curtisville Christian Church
                          Tipton, Indiana (USA)
                          www/curtisvillechristian.org/MarkOne.html

                          "James Snapp, Jr." wrote:
                          > >
                          > > Wieland ~
                          > >
                          > > I haven't had much time to study the images this weekend (it's
                          > > Mother's Day over here in the USA) but from what I was able to
                          see,
                          > > it looks like a nice, neat Byzantine lectionary-portion for the
                          > > second Sunday after Easter (KURIAKE G, i.e., Sunday #3).
                          > >
                          > > Yours in Christ,
                          > >
                          > > James Snapp, Jr.
                          > > Minister, Curtisville Christian Church
                          > > Tipton, Indiana (USA)
                          > > www.curtisvillechristian.org/MarkOne.html
                          > >
                          > > P.S. Over at TC-Alternate, I've added a bootleg English
                          > translation
                          > > of K. Aland's 1969 essay "Comments on the End of Mark" to the
                          > Files.
                          > > Since I don't read German, this is probably a mess in some
                          places;
                          > > nevertheless it may at least give non-German-readers some insight
                          > > into Dr. Aland's approach to the subject. (And if anyone fluent
                          in
                          > > German offers corrections, I might incorporate then into a later
                          > > revision of the translation.)
                          > >
                        • malcolm robertson
                          James, The significance that St Mk 15:43-16:8 is read AFTER Easter in the Synaxarion illustrates adequately not only the original ending of this Gospel at
                          Message 12 of 25 , May 13, 2008
                          • 0 Attachment
                            James,
                             
                            The significance that St Mk 15:43-16:8 is read AFTER Easter in the Synaxarion illustrates adequately not only the original ending of this Gospel at verse 8, but also reproduces the effect that the author himself wanted to produce in his readers by so concluding his narration.
                             
                            To reiterate, as far as text-critical issues are concerned, this MS should find its way into the apparatus of NA28.
                             
                            Malcolm
                            _________________


                          • James Snapp, Jr.
                            Dear Malcolm: Mark 16:9-20 s place in the lectionary on Ascension Day rather than at some point closer to Easter does not suggest that the Gospel of Mark
                            Message 13 of 25 , May 13, 2008
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Dear Malcolm:

                              Mark 16:9-20's place in the lectionary on Ascension Day rather than at
                              some point closer to Easter does not suggest that the Gospel of Mark
                              originally ended at 16:8. Luke 24:36-53 is likewise located in the
                              lectionary on Ascension Day. Yet we do not deduce from this that the
                              Gospel of Luke originally ended at 24:35.

                              If you need further evidence that the Byzantine lectionary offers no
                              support for the view that the Gospel of Mark originally ended at 16:8,
                              I refer you to the 11 readings specially reserved for a group of early
                              morning services, the eothina: the first one consists of Matthew
                              28:16-20; the second one = Mk. 16:1-8; the third one = Mk. 16:9-20; the
                              fourth one = Lk. 24:1-12. (If you happen to have Metzger's "Text of
                              the NT" handy, you can see abbreviated notes about the end of the
                              second Eothina and the beginning og the third Eothina in Plate XI, the
                              picture of a page of MS 274.) It should be obvious to everyone that
                              attempts to make evidence such as this say that Mark ended at 16:8 when
                              the lectionary was made are completely illusory.

                              To reiterate: there is Nothing Remarkable about the fact that this
                              lectionary-fragment concludes the lection for the second Sunday after
                              Easter at the same place where all other Byzantine lectionaries
                              conclude the lection for the second Sunday after Easter! The actual
                              implication here is that when the lectionary-MS of which this fragment
                              is a portion was intact, it contained Mark 16:9-20 as a lection for
                              Ascension-Day. So there is no reason to add this witness to the
                              apparatus as if it says anything that the already-accounted-for
                              lectionary evidence does not say.

                              Yours in Christ,

                              James Snapp, Jr.
                              Minister, Curtisville Christian Church
                              Tipton, Indiana (USA)
                              www.curtisvillechristian.org/BasicTC.html

                              ----- malcolm robertson wrote:
                              James,

                              The significance that St Mk 15:43-16:8 is read AFTER Easter in the
                              Synaxarion illustrates adequately not only the original ending of this
                              Gospel at verse 8, but also reproduces the effect that the author
                              himself wanted to produce in his readers by so concluding his narration.

                              To reiterate, as far as text-critical issues are concerned, this MS
                              should find its way into the apparatus of NA28.

                              Malcolm
                            • Kevin P. Edgecomb
                              ... I write: Malcolm, the second Sunday after Easter is the Sunday of the Myrophoroi in Greek Orthodox usage, commemorating the Myrrh-bearing women who came to
                              Message 14 of 25 , May 13, 2008
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Quoting malcolm robertson <mjriii2003@...>:
                                > The significance that St Mk 15:43-16:8 is read AFTER Easter in the
                                > Synaxarion illustrates adequately not only the original ending of
                                > this Gospel at verse 8, but also reproduces the effect that the
                                > author himself wanted to produce in his readers by so concluding his
                                > narration.

                                I write:
                                Malcolm, the second Sunday after Easter is the Sunday of the
                                Myrophoroi in Greek Orthodox usage, commemorating the Myrrh-bearing
                                women who came to Jesus' tomb, and found it empty. It's perfectly
                                fitting for the reading to end at Mark 16.8, as the focus is on them
                                as a group precisely to that point. The lectionary reading ending
                                there can thus only be viewed as equivocal.

                                Regards,
                                Kevin P. Edgecomb
                                Berkeley, California
                              • malcolm robertson
                                James, As usual we strongly disagree. According to information presented at the site The Encyclopedia of New Testament Textual Criticism by Robert B. Waltz
                                Message 15 of 25 , May 13, 2008
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  James,
                                   
                                  As usual we strongly disagree.  According to information presented at the site The Encyclopedia of New Testament Textual Criticism by Robert B. Waltz the verses 9-20 allegedly from St Mark's Gospel, are not to be found in the quite stable text of the Byzantine lectionary.
                                   
                                   
                                  As I see it, and since the Church early on, developed such a lectionary, I see no reason to think that this stable environment does not reflect the early and true disposition of the composition of St Mark.
                                   
                                  This perspective is, of course, different from the situation and circumstances that the biblical MSS texts were subjected - evidenced by their own subjection to corruption from alien and even inimical quarters.  Remember I think vss 9-20 are of docetic/heretical origin?
                                   
                                  Besides, this inference as represented by the evidence is most reasonable. Yes, a most remarkable indicator indeed!
                                   
                                  Malcolm
                                   
                                  _____________________  


                                  "James Snapp, Jr." <voxverax@...> wrote:
                                  Dear Malcolm:

                                  Mark 16:9-20's place in the lectionary on Ascension Day rather than at
                                  some point closer to Easter does not suggest that the Gospel of Mark
                                  originally ended at 16:8. Luke 24:36-53 is likewise located in the
                                  lectionary on Ascension Day. Yet we do not deduce from this that the
                                  Gospel of Luke originally ended at 24:35.

                                  If you need further evidence that the Byzantine lectionary offers no
                                  support for the view that the Gospel of Mark originally ended at 16:8,
                                  I refer you to the 11 readings specially reserved for a group of early
                                  morning services, the eothina: the first one consists of Matthew
                                  28:16-20; the second one = Mk. 16:1-8; the third one = Mk. 16:9-20; the
                                  fourth one = Lk. 24:1-12. (If you happen to have Metzger's "Text of
                                  the NT" handy, you can see abbreviated notes about the end of the
                                  second Eothina and the beginning og the third Eothina in Plate XI, the
                                  picture of a page of MS 274.) It should be obvious to everyone that
                                  attempts to make evidence such as this say that Mark ended at 16:8 when
                                  the lectionary was made are completely illusory.

                                  To reiterate: there is Nothing Remarkable about the fact that this
                                  lectionary-fragment concludes the lection for the second Sunday after
                                  Easter at the same place where all other Byzantine lectionaries
                                  conclude the lection for the second Sunday after Easter! The actual
                                  implication here is that when the lectionary-MS of which this fragment
                                  is a portion was intact, it contained Mark 16:9-20 as a lection for
                                  Ascension-Day. So there is no reason to add this witness to the
                                  apparatus as if it says anything that the already-accounted- for
                                  lectionary evidence does not say.

                                  Yours in Christ,

                                  James Snapp, Jr.
                                  Minister, Curtisville Christian Church
                                  Tipton, Indiana (USA)
                                  www.curtisvillechri stian.org/ BasicTC.html

                                  ----- malcolm robertson wrote:
                                  James,

                                  The significance that St Mk 15:43-16:8 is read AFTER Easter in the
                                  Synaxarion illustrates adequately not only the original ending of this
                                  Gospel at verse 8, but also reproduces the effect that the author
                                  himself wanted to produce in his readers by so concluding his narration.

                                  To reiterate, as far as text-critical issues are concerned, this MS
                                  should find its way into the apparatus of NA28.

                                  Malcolm




                                • Steve Puluka
                                  ... I m not able to find the reference on this page to comment on it directly. But as a cantor in a parish that uses the Byzantine lectionary I can assure you
                                  Message 16 of 25 , May 14, 2008
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    On May 13, 2008, at 5:15 PM, malcolm robertson wrote:

                                    > As usual we strongly disagree. According to information presented
                                    > at the site The Encyclopedia of New Testament Textual Criticism by
                                    > Robert B. Waltz the verses 9-20 allegedly from St Mark's Gospel,
                                    > are not to be found in the quite stable text of the Byzantine
                                    > lectionary.
                                    >
                                    > http://www.skypoint.com/members/waltzmn/Lectionary.html#Text
                                    >
                                    > As I see it, and since the Church early on, developed such a
                                    > lectionary, I see no reason to think that this stable environment
                                    > does not reflect the early and true disposition of the composition
                                    > of St Mark.


                                    I'm not able to find the reference on this page to comment on it
                                    directly. But as a cantor in a parish that uses the Byzantine
                                    lectionary I can assure you that Jim's comments are correct.

                                    This pericope from Mark is assigned to two places in the lectionary
                                    cycle

                                    One of the eleven rotating Matins gospels used between Pentecost and
                                    Easter
                                    The Matins Gospel assigned to Ascension Thursday

                                    The lectionary development does span many centuries and most
                                    liturgists will say the final form we have now was not finalized till
                                    sometime between the 7th and 9th century. So the value of the
                                    evidence is really only on the inclusion side not the exclusion. We
                                    really don't know how fast and where our reading cycle was
                                    developed. In other words the presence of this pericope in early
                                    Gospel books would be telling but the absence is not conclusive.

                                    In any case Jim's point is without a lectionary section for Ascension
                                    Thursday or the eleven matins Gospels one would not expect to even
                                    see this pericope in a lectionary. And in most Gospel books this
                                    would only appear in a single one of these places with a cross
                                    reference from the other.

                                    This site gives the general lectionary but does not include the
                                    eleven matins gospels

                                    http://www.archeparchy.ca/liturgy/lectionary.htm

                                    Also note that the Byzantine lectionary is only one of several in
                                    use. The Copts in Egypt, the Syrian Church and the Latin tradition
                                    all have a different cycle (to name only the ones I know).

                                    Steve Puluka
                                    MA, Theology Duquesne University
                                    Cantor Holy Ghost Church
                                    Carpatho-Rusyn tradition
                                    Mckees Rocks, PA
                                    http://puluka.com
                                  • William Warren
                                    Mark 16:9-20 in the Synaxarion lectionary cycle, one of the oldest that we can trace in the Greek tradition, is read as a full unit on Thursday of the fifth
                                    Message 17 of 25 , May 14, 2008
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Mark 16:9-20 in the Synaxarion lectionary cycle, one of the oldest that we can trace in the Greek tradition, is read as a full unit on Thursday of the fifth week after Easter.  Here is a common entry for it (sorry if the Greek, SPIonic, doesn't transfer for some).

                                      Mark 16:9-20                        th e8 thj analhyewj eij ton orqron            Thursday of the fifth week after Easter


                                      paz, 


                                      Bill Warren, Ph.D.

                                      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 May 14, 2008, at 5:43 AM, Steve Puluka wrote:

                                      On May 13, 2008, at 5:15 PM, malcolm robertson wrote:

                                      > As usual we strongly disagree. According to information presented 
                                      > at the site The Encyclopedia of New Testament Textual Criticism by 
                                      > Robert B. Waltz the verses 9-20 allegedly from St Mark's Gospel, 
                                      > are not to be found in the quite stable text of the Byzantine 
                                      > lectionary.
                                      .  .  .


                                      I'm not able to find the reference on this page to comment on it 
                                      directly. But as a cantor in a parish that uses the Byzantine 
                                      lectionary I can assure you that Jim's comments are correct.

                                      This pericope from Mark is assigned to two places in the lectionary 
                                      cycle

                                      One of the eleven rotating Matins gospels used between Pentecost and 
                                      Easter
                                      The Matins Gospel assigned to Ascension Thursday

                                      .  .  .

                                      Also note that the Byzantine lectionary is only one of several in 
                                      use. The Copts in Egypt, the Syrian Church and the Latin tradition 
                                      all have a different cycle (to name only the ones I know).

                                      Steve Puluka
                                      MA, Theology Duquesne University
                                      Cantor Holy Ghost Church
                                      Carpatho-Rusyn tradition
                                      Mckees Rocks, PA
                                      http://puluka. com


                                      =
                                    • Michael Marlowe
                                      ... The lectionary of the Western (Latin) tradition also includes Mark 16:14-20, as a reading for Ascension Day. The readings are listed here:
                                      Message 18 of 25 , May 14, 2008
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Steve Puluka wrote:
                                        > This site gives the general lectionary but does not
                                        > include the eleven matins gospels
                                        >
                                        > http://www.archeparchy.ca/liturgy/lectionary.htm
                                        >
                                        > Also note that the Byzantine lectionary is only one
                                        > of several in use. The Copts in Egypt, the Syrian
                                        > Church and the Latin tradition all have a different
                                        > cycle (to name only the ones I know).

                                        The lectionary of the Western (Latin) tradition also includes Mark
                                        16:14-20, as a reading for Ascension Day. The readings are listed here:

                                        http://www.bible-researcher.com/lectionary1.html

                                        Michael Marlowe
                                      • James Snapp, Jr.
                                        Malcolm, And as usual, you are completely mistaken! Look more closely at the page about lectionaries at R. Waltz s ENTTC: in the Synaxarion- chart, the
                                        Message 19 of 25 , May 14, 2008
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Malcolm,

                                          And as usual, you are completely mistaken! Look more closely at the
                                          page about lectionaries at R. Waltz's ENTTC: in the Synaxarion-
                                          chart, the Gospel-reading for Ascension Day (in the week that is
                                          begun by the fifth Sunday after Easter) consists of Mark 16:9-20 and
                                          Luke 24:36-53. Further down the same page, just before
                                          the "Menologion" heading, the 11 Eothina are listed. The third one
                                          is Mark 16:9-20.

                                          (At least you can take heart that you're not alone, Malcolm: Dr.
                                          James A. Brooks, on p. 272 of his 1991 commentary on Mark in the The
                                          New American Commentary series, misinformed his readers that the text
                                          of Mark ends at 16:8 "in most Greek lectionaries (apparently because
                                          the lectionaries reflect older texts).")

                                          MR3: "Remember I think vss 9-20 are of docetic/heretical origin?"

                                          Yes, (sigh) I remember. Those sneaky docetists sure pulled a fast
                                          one on Justin and Irenaeus, eh.

                                          MR3: "Yes, a most remarkable indicator indeed!"

                                          Look, a fragment is a fragment. Attempting to use this lectionary-
                                          fragment as evidence that its text of Mark ended at 16:8 would be
                                          like attempting to use P52 as evidence that its text ended at John
                                          20:31. I again mention the heading at the top of the first
                                          column: "th _B_ ths _G_ ebdo," which means, "The second reading for
                                          the third week." And that is the unit which begins in that column --
                                          just as we should expect in a Byzantine lectionary which, when
                                          intact, included Mark 16:9-20 for Ascension-Day and as the third
                                          Eothinon.

                                          Say, while the lectionary specialists are assembled here: does
                                          anyone know what is the earliest MS to include, or make reference to,
                                          the eleven eothina?

                                          Yours in Christ,

                                          James Snapp, Jr.
                                          Minister, Curtisville Christian Church
                                          Tipton, Indiana (USA)
                                          www.curtisvillechristian.org/CodexOne.html
                                        • malcolm robertson
                                          Thanks Steve and Kevin and William and James for your remarks, but what I was referring to was the oldest form of the lectionary and not the later
                                          Message 20 of 25 , May 14, 2008
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            Thanks Steve and Kevin and William and James for your remarks, but what I was referring to was the "oldest form" of the lectionary and not the later development of it - either in the typikon or within the Greek Orthodox Church.
                                             
                                            Further, although I am not a liturgical scholar, it seems that the further development would have arose within and with the rise of monasticism - at least by the 5th cent.
                                             
                                            The fact that "the Lord's day" readings would have been employed first as the lectionary calendar developed, would tend to lend itself to the strong presumption that this reading is in fact early.
                                             
                                            Again, its location in the lectionary cycle 'AFTER Easter' also affords another significant example of the purpose the biblical author had in mind and his motive for ending his Gospel narrative with verse 8.
                                             
                                            Kevin, yes the tribute and celebration of the women is celebrated on this day in the present day lectionary (GOC), but this celebration is a later additional nuance isn't it?
                                             
                                            Malcolm
                                             
                                            _______________ 

                                            Steve Puluka <steve@...> wrote:
                                            On May 13, 2008, at 5:15 PM, malcolm robertson wrote:

                                            > As usual we strongly disagree. According to information presented
                                            > at the site The Encyclopedia of New Testament Textual Criticism by
                                            > Robert B. Waltz the verses 9-20 allegedly from St Mark's Gospel,
                                            > are not to be found in the quite stable text of the Byzantine
                                            > lectionary.
                                            >
                                            > http://www.skypoint .com/members/ waltzmn/Lectiona ry.html#Text
                                            >
                                            > As I see it, and since the Church early on, developed such a
                                            > lectionary, I see no reason to think that this stable environment
                                            > does not reflect the early and true disposition of the composition
                                            > of St Mark.

                                            I'm not able to find the reference on this page to comment on it
                                            directly. But as a cantor in a parish that uses the Byzantine
                                            lectionary I can assure you that Jim's comments are correct.

                                            This pericope from Mark is assigned to two places in the lectionary
                                            cycle

                                            One of the eleven rotating Matins gospels used between Pentecost and
                                            Easter
                                            The Matins Gospel assigned to Ascension Thursday

                                            The lectionary development does span many centuries and most
                                            liturgists will say the final form we have now was not finalized till
                                            sometime between the 7th and 9th century. So the value of the
                                            evidence is really only on the inclusion side not the exclusion. We
                                            really don't know how fast and where our reading cycle was
                                            developed. In other words the presence of this pericope in early
                                            Gospel books would be telling but the absence is not conclusive.

                                            In any case Jim's point is without a lectionary section for Ascension
                                            Thursday or the eleven matins Gospels one would not expect to even
                                            see this pericope in a lectionary. And in most Gospel books this
                                            would only appear in a single one of these places with a cross
                                            reference from the other.

                                            This site gives the general lectionary but does not include the
                                            eleven matins gospels

                                            http://www.archepar chy.ca/liturgy/ lectionary. htm

                                            Also note that the Byzantine lectionary is only one of several in
                                            use. The Copts in Egypt, the Syrian Church and the Latin tradition
                                            all have a different cycle (to name only the ones I know).

                                            Steve Puluka
                                            MA, Theology Duquesne University
                                            Cantor Holy Ghost Church
                                            Carpatho-Rusyn tradition
                                            Mckees Rocks, PA
                                            http://puluka. com



                                          • Kevin P. Edgecomb
                                            Malcolm Robertson wrote: Kevin, yes the tribute and celebration of the women is celebrated on this day in the present day lectionary (GOC), but this
                                            Message 21 of 25 , May 14, 2008
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              Malcolm Robertson wrote:
                                              Kevin, yes the tribute and celebration of the women is celebrated on this
                                              day in the present day lectionary (GOC), but this celebration is a later
                                              additional nuance isn't it?

                                              I write:
                                              Unfortunately the present state of liturgical studies is unable to do more
                                              than suggest, as do the ascriptions to various of the hymns composed for the
                                              liturgies of Myrrhbearers' Sunday/Week, that the commemoration was
                                              established at its present liturgical date, the third Sunday of Pascha, by
                                              the mid-fifth century. So, not too early, but not quite late, either. It
                                              very like antedated this time, however. The second Sunday of Pascha is
                                              commemorated as St Thomas Sunday, following the chronology of the NT itself
                                              in John 20. The commemorations of the following Sunday then return to other
                                              characters of the Pascha, based on and reading the appropriate texts,
                                              including the re-use of some of the hymnography of Holy Week. It would not
                                              have been the case that at this point any part of Mark 16.9-20 would have
                                              been utilized. As Mk 16.9-20 would is material more appropriate for
                                              Ascension, it is no surprise to find it used there instead.

                                              The origins of the Byzantine lectionary are unknown. The contenders are the
                                              Mar Saba Monastery and the Studion Monastery, with the former favored by a
                                              certain margin, last I read on it at any length. This may have changed.
                                              "Late seventh/early eighth" is probably the best guess for date of origin,
                                              an intriguing date as this was also the period of residence of St John
                                              Damascene at Mar Saba. It's important to note that of the books of the NT
                                              only the Apocalypse is lacking readings in this lectionary. As it was only
                                              about 1000 AD that this text came into general acceptance as truly and fully
                                              canonical in Greek-speaking regions, we would have to consider the
                                              lectionary to have antedated its full and undisputed canonization. Even
                                              these conclusions are only tentative, being based on the paleography of the
                                              surviving oldest lectionary fragments and on dating the hands which have
                                              added lesson indication markings to continuous manuscripts, neither of which
                                              yield precise dates.


                                              Regards,
                                              Kevin P. Edgecomb
                                              Berkeley, California
                                            • Jovial
                                              The absence of Mark 16:9-20 from any lectionary dated at 10th century hardly proves that it is a late addition when it is in manuscripts from much earlier
                                              Message 22 of 25 , May 14, 2008
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                The absence of Mark 16:9-20 from any lectionary dated at 10th century hardly 'proves' that it is a late addition when it is in manuscripts from much earlier time period than that.  No lectionary has every passage and hardly trumps the presence/absence of an actual manuscript.  There's a wide multitude of reasons various groups may have chosen to leave a passage out of a lectionary.  They may not have considered it important enough to include.  They may have discovered that reading it caused some people to think they needed to pick up snakes, so they quit reading it due to confusion.    They may have simply felt like it didn't fit the theme of any portion or that there were just too many other more important passages and this one was more for those who wanted to read it all.  There's a whole lot of various reasons, and I guess a few argumentative people will take issue with the specific reasons I've cited here and thereby miss the point.  There's just a logical fallacy in trying to argue that a 10th century omission from a document not expected to be exhaustive (like a lectionary) somehow is more important than an 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th century inclusion in a document that is expected to be exhaustive (like a manuscript) and it is really kind of straining to try and hear an argument made from that kind of logical fallacy.
                                                 
                                                Joe
                                                 
                                                 
                                                 
                                                ----- Original Message -----
                                                Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 4:15 PM
                                                Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Re: Lectionary Fragment at CSNTM

                                                James,
                                                 
                                                As usual we strongly disagree.  According to information presented at the site The Encyclopedia of New Testament Textual Criticism by Robert B. Waltz the verses 9-20 allegedly from St Mark's Gospel, are not to be found in the quite stable text of the Byzantine lectionary.
                                                 
                                                 
                                                As I see it, and since the Church early on, developed such a lectionary, I see no reason to think that this stable environment does not reflect the early and true disposition of the composition of St Mark.
                                                 
                                                This perspective is, of course, different from the situation and circumstances that the biblical MSS texts were subjected - evidenced by their own subjection to corruption from alien and even inimical quarters.  Remember I think vss 9-20 are of docetic/heretical origin?
                                                 
                                                Besides, this inference as represented by the evidence is most reasonable. Yes, a most remarkable indicator indeed!
                                                 
                                                Malcolm
                                                 
                                                ____________ _________  


                                                "James Snapp, Jr." <voxverax@yahoo. com> wrote:
                                                Dear Malcolm:

                                                Mark 16:9-20's place in the lectionary on Ascension Day rather than at
                                                some point closer to Easter does not suggest that the Gospel of Mark
                                                originally ended at 16:8. Luke 24:36-53 is likewise located in the
                                                lectionary on Ascension Day. Yet we do not deduce from this that the
                                                Gospel of Luke originally ended at 24:35.

                                                If you need further evidence that the Byzantine lectionary offers no
                                                support for the view that the Gospel of Mark originally ended at 16:8,
                                                I refer you to the 11 readings specially reserved for a group of early
                                                morning services, the eothina: the first one consists of Matthew
                                                28:16-20; the second one = Mk. 16:1-8; the third one = Mk. 16:9-20; the
                                                fourth one = Lk. 24:1-12. (If you happen to have Metzger's "Text of
                                                the NT" handy, you can see abbreviated notes about the end of the
                                                second Eothina and the beginning og the third Eothina in Plate XI, the
                                                picture of a page of MS 274.) It should be obvious to everyone that
                                                attempts to make evidence such as this say that Mark ended at 16:8 when
                                                the lectionary was made are completely illusory.

                                                To reiterate: there is Nothing Remarkable about the fact that this
                                                lectionary-fragment concludes the lection for the second Sunday after
                                                Easter at the same place where all other Byzantine lectionaries
                                                conclude the lection for the second Sunday after Easter! The actual
                                                implication here is that when the lectionary-MS of which this fragment
                                                is a portion was intact, it contained Mark 16:9-20 as a lection for
                                                Ascension-Day. So there is no reason to add this witness to the
                                                apparatus as if it says anything that the already-accounted- for
                                                lectionary evidence does not say.

                                                Yours in Christ,

                                                James Snapp, Jr.
                                                Minister, Curtisville Christian Church
                                                Tipton, Indiana (USA)
                                                www.curtisvillechri stian.org/ BasicTC.html

                                                ----- malcolm robertson wrote:
                                                James,

                                                The significance that St Mk 15:43-16:8 is read AFTER Easter in the
                                                Synaxarion illustrates adequately not only the original ending of this
                                                Gospel at verse 8, but also reproduces the effect that the author
                                                himself wanted to produce in his readers by so concluding his narration.

                                                To reiterate, as far as text-critical issues are concerned, this MS
                                                should find its way into the apparatus of NA28.

                                                Malcolm




                                              • crj560
                                                Kevin wrote: The origins of the Byzantine lectionary are unknown. The contenders are the Mar Saba Monastery and the Studion Monastery, with the former favored
                                                Message 23 of 25 , May 15, 2008
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  Kevin wrote:

                                                  "The origins of the Byzantine lectionary are unknown. The contenders are the
                                                  Mar Saba Monastery and the Studion Monastery, with the former favored by a
                                                  certain margin, last I read on it at any length. This may have changed.
                                                  "Late seventh/early eighth" is probably the best guess for date of origin,
                                                  an intriguing date as this was also the period of residence of St John
                                                  Damascene at Mar Saba."


                                                  I am keen to know what books or articles you read when researching the origins of the
                                                  Byzantine lectionary in particular where you read about the place of origin and the possible
                                                  date?


                                                  Chris
                                                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.