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

Re: [textualcriticism] Mt 19:9b and Codex Z(035)

Expand Messages
  • Jonathan C. Borland
    Dear Ken, I cannot presently verify the reading of Z/035. I can say that H. F. von Soden accepted the addition on the grounds that the minority reflected an
    Message 1 of 5 , Nov 5, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear Ken,

      I cannot presently verify the reading of Z/035.

      I can say that H. F. von Soden accepted the addition on the grounds
      that the minority reflected an omission by homoioteleuton (skipping
      from MOICATAI to MOICATAI), a judgment with which I concur, especially
      since support for the apparent omission contains a heavy Western
      element, where a uniform error may have occurred in the early and
      highly influential Old Latin tradition (h.t., from MOECHATUR to
      MOECHATUR).

      Tischendorf, Metzger, and others reject the addition on the grounds
      that scribes would have desired to add the words from the parallel
      passages, especially 5:32. Yet the overwhelming manuscript testimony
      that includes the words is completely at odds with the precise wording
      of 5:32, save for B/03 and a few others that betray a distinct
      harmonistic preference for that passage. The same negative observation
      might be said in regard to the dissimilar wording of Mark 10:12.

      The omission of KAI O APOLELUMENHN GAMHSAS MOICATAI in Matt 19:9,
      then, appears to be an early corruption caused by transcriptional
      error not bound by the confines of local texts. The early Western
      text, which generally is no bastion of purity in this respect, helped
      substantiate the omission for a time. Most importantly, though, is the
      fact that the error could have happened repeatedly in isolated
      locations, and thus the evidence for omission, as slim as it is, is
      therefore and furthermore highly diminished.

      Jonathan C. Borland



      On Nov 5, 2009, at 5:44 AM, knrice79 wrote:

      > I have been studying the variants here and noticed the UBS4 and NA27
      > are at odds over Codex Z(035). UBS4 cites Z with no addition at the
      > end of the verse while NA27 shows it support Vaticanus' addition.
      > Can anyone verify first, that I'm reading the apparatus correctly
      > and second, what does Z actually read (can it be viewed online?).
      >
      > I am also wondering on what grounds was the addition omitted by UBS4
      > and NA27.
    • Ken Rice
      Thanks for the reply.  I hadn t thought to look at von Soden and Tischendorf.    I came to the same conclusion of von Soden.  I found it interesting that
      Message 2 of 5 , Nov 5, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        Thanks for the reply.  I hadn't thought to look at von Soden and Tischendorf. 
         
        I came to the same conclusion of von Soden.  I found it interesting that only 5 of the 39 mss who read MH EPI PORNEIA KAI GAMHSH ALLHN MOICATAI (as referenced by NA27 and UBS4) had the omission.  Equaly interesting is that none of the Greek mss (referenced by NA27 and UBS4) who read POIEI AUTHN MOICEUTHUNAI had the ommission. 
         
        This is where Z(035) became important.  If NA27 is correct, it is the only "first order" witness who reads the entire phase MH EPI PORNEIA KAI GAMHSH ALLHN MOICATAI KAI O APOLELUMENHN GAMHSAS MOICATAI.
         
        I just haven't been doing this long enough to confidently disagree with Metzger and the Aland's and was wondering what I've missed.


        --- On Thu, 11/5/09, Jonathan C. Borland <nihao@...> wrote:

        From: Jonathan C. Borland <nihao@...>
        Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Mt 19:9b and Codex Z(035)
        To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
        Date: Thursday, November 5, 2009, 6:28 AM

         
        Dear Ken,

        I cannot presently verify the reading of Z/035.

        I can say that H. F. von Soden accepted the addition on the grounds
        that the minority reflected an omission by homoioteleuton (skipping
        from MOICATAI to MOICATAI), a judgment with which I concur, especially
        since support for the apparent omission contains a heavy Western
        element, where a uniform error may have occurred in the early and
        highly influential Old Latin tradition (h.t., from MOECHATUR to
        MOECHATUR).

        Tischendorf, Metzger, and others reject the addition on the grounds
        that scribes would have desired to add the words from the parallel
        passages, especially 5:32. Yet the overwhelming manuscript testimony
        that includes the words is completely at odds with the precise wording
        of 5:32, save for B/03 and a few others that betray a distinct
        harmonistic preference for that passage. The same negative observation
        might be said in regard to the dissimilar wording of Mark 10:12.

        The omission of KAI O APOLELUMENHN GAMHSAS MOICATAI in Matt 19:9,
        then, appears to be an early corruption caused by transcriptional
        error not bound by the confines of local texts. The early Western
        text, which generally is no bastion of purity in this respect, helped
        substantiate the omission for a time. Most importantly, though, is the
        fact that the error could have happened repeatedly in isolated
        locations, and thus the evidence for omission, as slim as it is, is
        therefore and furthermore highly diminished.

        Jonathan C. Borland

        On Nov 5, 2009, at 5:44 AM, knrice79 wrote:

        > I have been studying the variants here and noticed the UBS4 and NA27
        > are at odds over Codex Z(035). UBS4 cites Z with no addition at the
        > end of the verse while NA27 shows it support Vaticanus' addition.
        > Can anyone verify first, that I'm reading the apparatus correctly
        > and second, what does Z actually read (can it be viewed online?).
        >
        > I am also wondering on what grounds was the addition omitted by UBS4
        > and NA27.

      • Wieland Willker
        I checked the reading in Abbott’s editio princeps: Z reads: Matthew 19:9 LEGW D]E UMIN OS AN APO
        Message 3 of 5 , Nov 5, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          I checked the reading in Abbott’s editio princeps:

          < http://www.archive.org/details/parpalimpsestor00abbogoog>

          Z reads:
          Matthew 19:9
          LEGW D]E UMIN OS AN APO
          LUS]H THN GUNAIKA AUTOU
          MH] EPI PORNEIA KAI GAMH
          S]H ALLHN MOICATAI KAI
          O] APOLELUMENHN GAMH
          S]AS MOICATAI

          Thus Z agrees with the Majority reading here.
          Z is thus correctly noted in NA and wrongly in UBS.
          Thanks for bringing this error to our attention!

          For the complex problems of the passages the excellent article by Michael Holmes is recommended:
          "The Matthean Divorce Passages" JBL 109 (1990) 651-664.

          In the online commentary I suggest to add the passage in brackets.

          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
        • Daniel Buck
          Ken Rice wrote:
          Message 4 of 5 , Nov 5, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            Ken Rice wrote:
            <<I have been studying the variants here and noticed the UBS4 and NA27 are at odds
            over Codex Z(035). UBS4 cites Z with no addition at the end of the verse while
            NA27 shows it support Vaticanus' addition. Can anyone verify first, that I'm
            reading the apparatus correctly and second, what does Z actually read (can it be
            viewed online?).

            I am also wondering on what grounds was the addition omitted by UBS4 and NA27.>>
            Daniel Buck's reply:
             
            Apparently, the LaParola apparatus is based on that of UBS4. Going back to UBS2, which didn't cite Z:
             
            MOICATAI] Aleph C3 D L 1241
            MOICATAI KAI O APOLELUMENHN GAMHSAS MOIXATAI] K 28 700 892 1071 1242 1344 1365 1646 2148 2174 Byz
             
             
            LaParola:
            MOICATAI] Aleph C3 D L S Z  2* 69 209* 828 1241 1546
            MOICATAI KAI O APOLELUMENHN GAMHSAS MOICATAI] E F G H K 28 157 180 205 597 700 892 1006 1071 1242 1243 1292 1342 1344 1365 1646 2148 2174 Byz
             
            The "Vaticanus addition":
            KAI O APOLELUMENHN GAMHSAS MOICATAI] B (uniquely harmonised to 5:32)
             
            It's a bit of a puzzlement why this reading is separated from the Byz reading in UBS. The UBS apparatus appears to make 4 readings out of two, the other one being:
             
            KAI O APOLELUMENHN GAMWN MOICATAI] C* f1 1216
            a.k.a.
            MOICATAI KAI O APOLELUMENHN GAMWN MOICATAI] N O W Y Z Delta Theta Pi 078 0233 f13 33 (565) (579) 1009 1010 1079 1195 1230 1253 1424 1505
             
            They are wrong about Z here also. 5:32 is not extant for comparison in Z.
             
            Daniel Buck


            From: Wieland Willker wie@...   Sent: Thu, November 5, 2009 12:35:22 PM
             

            I checked the reading in Abbott's editio princeps:

            < http://www.archive. org/details/ parpalimpsestor0 0abbogoog>

            Z reads:
            Matthew 19:9
            LEGW D]E UMIN OS AN APO
            LUS]H THN GUNAIKA AUTOU
            MH] EPI PORNEIA KAI GAMH
            S]H ALLHN MOICATAI KAI
            O] APOLELUMENHN GAMH
            S]AS MOICATAI

            Thus Z agrees with the Majority reading here.
            Z is thus correctly noted in NA and wrongly in UBS.
            Thanks for bringing this error to our attention!

            For the complex problems of the passages the excellent article by Michael Holmes is recommended:
            "The Matthean Divorce Passages" JBL 109 (1990) 651-664.

            In the online commentary I suggest to add the passage in brackets.

            Best wishes
            Wieland
            <><


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