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

Luke 9:50

Expand Messages
  • Wieland Willker
    Reading through Royse, I came across an interesting variant, which is difficult to explain. I have prepared a little file with the evidence. Have a look here:
    Message 1 of 6 , Jun 3, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Reading through Royse, I came across an interesting variant, which is difficult to explain.

      I have prepared a little file with the evidence.
      Have a look here:
      http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/Lk-9_50.pdf

      What do you make of it?

      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
    • Jim Darlack
      Hello all, Could anyone explain why von Soden s apparatus is divided into three parts? I could not find any clear explanation in Aland & Aland s Text of the
      Message 2 of 6 , Jun 3, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
      • Wieland Willker
        ... It is explained here: http://tinyurl.com/3u6ce3 Best wishes Wieland
        Message 3 of 6 , Jun 3, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          > Could anyone explain why von Soden's apparatus is
          > divided into three parts?


          It is explained here:

          http://tinyurl.com/3u6ce3


          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
        • sarban
          ... From: Wieland Willker To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 12:09 PM Subject: [textualcriticism] Luke 9:50 Reading through
          Message 4 of 6 , Jun 3, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            
             
            ----- Original Message -----
            Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 12:09 PM
            Subject: [textualcriticism] Luke 9:50

            Reading through Royse, I came across an interesting variant, which is difficult to explain.

            I have prepared a little file with the evidence.
            Have a look here:
            http://www-user. uni-bremen. de/~wie/Lk- 9_50.pdf

            What do you make of it?

            Hi Wieland

             

            A number of the listed minuscules for the expanded reading ie  7, 267, 349, 659, 1194, 1391, 1402 and 1606 belong to Von Soden's Phi group renamed family 1424 by Streeter.

            This family seems to be a witness to a late form of the Caesarean text.

            (60 is listed as a witness but this seems to be a manuscript of Revelation. Did you mean 160 which is a member of family 1424 ?)

             

            Andrew Criddle

            .

          • hevermann
            ... Well, P45 is strange indeed. But P45 is quite a bit older than the other extant manuscripts. Once P45 had happened, one could easily imagine that someone
            Message 5 of 6 , Jun 3, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              > What do you make of it?
              Well, P45 is strange indeed. But P45 is quite a bit older than the
              other extant manuscripts. Once P45 had happened, one could easily
              imagine that someone sat behind his desk some centuries later,
              comparing manuscripts and finding the reading of P45 and txt. Maybe
              he pondered about these two different texts and finally he came up
              with the "clever" idea to use both.

              Would that qualify as a possible reason for a secondary origin of
              the longer reading?

              This still leaves the question about the origin of P45. Maybe the
              writer was confused by Lk 9:50 vs. Lk 11:23 ("He that is not with me
              is against me") and took that idea into 9:50 stating that someone
              who "did not follow us" (9:49) is neither against you (9:50 txt) nor
              for you (11:23).

              Heiko Evermann
              Hamburg, Germany
            • Wieland Willker
              ... Yes, I recognized that, too. But I am not sure if one would really call this a group today. 7, 267, 659, 1391, 1402 and 1606 belong to von Soden s I-Phi-b
              Message 6 of 6 , Jun 3, 2008
              • 0 Attachment
                > A number of the listed minuscules...belong to Von
                > Soden's Phi group

                Yes, I recognized that, too.
                But I am not sure if one would really call this a group today.
                7, 267, 659, 1391, 1402 and 1606 belong to von Soden's I-Phi-b group (acc. to the Kurzgefasste Liste).



                > 60 is listed as a witness but this seems to be a
                > manuscript of Revelation.

                No. 60 is a Gospel MS.
                Acc. to von Soden it is Kx.
                But there is a 60-r = Gregory-Aland 2821.


                Perhaps there is some lectionary usage involved?


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