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

Re: [textualcriticism] Alexandrian Editing and the Gospel of Matthew

Expand Messages
  • Jonathan C. Borland
    Dear List, I notice J. J. Griesbach has a classic comment on Matt 2:13 (Commentarius Criticus in Textum Graecum Novi Testamenti [2 vols.; Jena: J. C. G.
    Message 1 of 9 , May 16, 2009
      Dear List,

      I notice J. J. Griesbach has a classic comment on Matt 2:13
      (Commentarius Criticus in Textum Graecum Novi Testamenti [2 vols.;
      Jena: J. C. G. Goepferdt, 1798], 1:21-2):

      "Several codices with the inverse order read KAT ONAR FAINETAI or
      EFANH. Wettstein supposed that the series of words were deliberately
      altered to harmonize our passage more precisely with 2:19 and 1:20.
      Truly some of the codices which have KAT ONAR FAINETAI at this place
      (of course B and 157) also at 2:19 retreat from the common order and
      have FAINETAI KAT ONAR. And so we assert that this variant came about
      not by design but by accident."

      And so Griesbach rejected on internal grounds what is now rather
      strong Alexandrian support of Matt 2:19 in favor of the Byzantine word
      order (KAT ONAR FAINETAI). Interesting? I'll say!

      Jonathan C. Borland


      ---------------- Latin text below -----------------

      Plures codices inverso ordine legunt KAT ONAR FAINETAI seu EFANH.
      Wetstenius vocabulorum seriem consulto mutatam fuisse suspicatus est,
      ut locus noster exactius consentiret cum comm. 19. et cap. 1, 20.
      Verum nonnulli e codicibus, qui h. l. KAT ONAR FAINETAI exhibent,
      (scil. B et 157) etiam comm. 19. ab ordine vulgari recedunt et
      FAINETAI KAT ONAR habent. Itaque non consilio sed casu enatam fuisse
      autumamus hanc lectionis varietatem.


      --------------------------------------------------------


      On May 13, 2009, at 8:23 PM, James Snapp, Jr. wrote:

      > 2:13
      > B (with Sah): KAT ONAR EFANH (cf. 1:20)
      > (versus FAINETAI KAT' ONAR)
    • yennifmit
      Dear Jay, It is interesting to note that very few papyri of Mark have been recovered from Egypt. Best, Tim Finney
      Message 2 of 9 , May 18, 2009
        Dear Jay,

        It is interesting to note that very few papyri of Mark have been recovered from Egypt.

        Best,

        Tim Finney

        --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "Jay Rogers" <jrogers@...> wrote:

        >
        > His view in a nutshell is that Mark was written in Latin and then in
        > Greek, the Latin copy circulated in Italy and Latin west Africa. The
        > Greek copy was circulated in the rest of the world. Then as the Latin
        > copy made its way east to Alexandria, it was translated into Greek.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.