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

Matt 1:6 (+/- O BASILEUS)

Expand Messages
  • Jonathan C. Borland
    Dear List, NA27 lists the following support for omitting O BASILEUS in Matt 1:6: p1 Aleph B Gamma f1.13 579. 700 pc g1 k vgmss sys.c.p co. Metzger
    Message 1 of 5 , Jan 5, 2010
      Dear List,

      NA27 lists the following support for omitting O BASILEUS in Matt 1:6:
      p1 Aleph B Gamma f1.13 579. 700 pc g1 k vgmss sys.c.p co.

      Metzger unfortunately does not comment on this variation. The words
      are not without early external support (C W Latin), and internal
      factors, as many notable commentators have observed, weigh heavily in
      favor of retaining the words:

      "The appellation O BASILEUS (the King), has been omitted by some early
      editors, but wrongly. The kingship of David is twice mentioned here,
      as is the Babylonian captivity afterwards. The same title is
      understood, though not expressed, after the names of Solomon and his
      successors, as far as ver. 11. David is, however, called especially
      the King, not only because he is the first king mentioned in this
      pedigree, but also because his throne is promised to the
      Messiah“ (Johann Albrecht Bengel, Gnomon of the New Testament [5
      vols.; notes on Matthew trans. James Bandinel; rev. and ed. Andrew R.
      Fausset; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1857-8], 1:84).

      "Scribes, so as to make this place like those in the preceding verses,
      after DE they immediately picked up EGENNHSEN” (Johann Albrecht
      Bengel, Apparatus criticus ad Novum Testamentum [ed. Philipp David
      Burk; 2d ed.; Tubingae: sumtibus Io. Georgii Cottae, 1763], 91).

      “In J. Mill's judgment (Prolegomena § 1245, 1471), [O BASILEUS] crept
      in from the preceding words. In our opinion, however, Matthew wrote
      both with a certain plan to honor Jesus by making a repeated mention
      of the dignity of his ancestors, among whom David in particular is
      numbered. Compare 1 Kings 1:1, 13, 28, 31, 32, 37, 38, 43, 47, where
      it is clear that this kind of repetition is not uncustomary for the
      sacred writers” (Johann Jakob Wettstein, Novum Testamentum graecum [2
      vols.; Amstelaedami: Ex officina Dommeriana, 1751-2], 1:228).

      “O BASILEUS is omitted in some, because in all the other members of
      this genealogy EGENNHSEN follows immediately after the man’s name and
      the particle DE. Hence a scribe, accustomed as it were to the rhythm,
      after DABID DE hurried at once to the EGENNHSEN. Mill thought it crept
      in from the preceding occurrence. I would concur, had DABID O BASILEUS
      (in the nominative case) come earlier” (Johann Jacob Griesbach,
      Commentarius criticus in textum graecum Novi Testamenti [2 vol.; J. C.
      G. Goepferdt, 1798, 1811], 1:10).

      “O BASILEUS is missing in many witnesses. But yet, whoever has
      investigated it will think that, since Matthew had just called David
      TON BASILEA, what appeared to be unnecessary was more quickly rashly
      omitted than added” (Karl Friedrich August Fritzsche, Evangelium
      Matthaei [Lipsiae: Sumtibus Frederici Fleischeri, 1826], 16).

      “O BASILEUS . . . has the preponderance of voices in its favor; its
      emphasis being overlooked on account of what precedes, it was regarded
      as superfluous, and was easily passed over” (Heinrich August Wilhelm
      Meyer, Critical and Exegetical Hand-book to the Gospel of Matthew
      [trans. from the 6th German ed. Peter Christie; rev. and ed. Frederick
      Crombie and William Stewart; New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1890], 34).

      Any comments?

      Jonathan C. Borland
    • David Robert Palmer
      This is not a criticism of your post, Jonathan, but of the sigla f1 and f13 The NA27 lists both of them in support of omission. But in fact, they are split, as
      Message 2 of 5 , Jan 6, 2010
        This is not a criticism of your post, Jonathan, but of the sigla f1 and f13

        The NA27 lists both of them in support of omission.

        But in fact, they are split, as is often the case.

        Family 1 is comprised of minuscules 1 118 131 209 565 1582 (2193)

        But in this variant, 118, 565, & 1582c include O BASILEUS.


        Family 13 is comprised of minuscules 13 69 124 346 788 (174 230 543 826 828
        983 1689 1709)

        But in this variant, 124 & 346 include O BASILEUS. And 69 is hiant.

        Apparently, f1 and f13 are listed in support of a variant, as long as the
        majority of such does. As for me, I am still in the process cleaning up my
        TC footnotes to show the actual support where these loose families are
        divided and the actual readings are available to me.

        David Robert Palmer

        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "Jonathan C. Borland"
        NA27 lists the following support for omitting O BASILEUS in Matt 1:6:
        p1 Aleph B Gamma f1.13 579. 700 pc g1 k vgmss sys.c.p co.
      • Daniel Buck
        Jonathan Borland wrote:
        Message 3 of 5 , Jan 6, 2010
          Jonathan Borland wrote:

          <<NA27 lists the following support for omitting O BASILEUS in Matt 1:6: p1 Aleph B Gamma f1.13 579. 700 pc g1 k vgmss sys.c.p co. [arm]

          Metzger unfortunately does not comment on this variation. The words are not without early external support (C W Latin), and internal 
          factors, as many notable commentators have observed, weigh heavily in favor of retaining the words>>
          There are several factors to consider when looking at this variant in its context.
           
          1) The variety of the manuscript evidence.
          There are a lot more variants in this verse than just this one. David, for example, is spelled a variety of ways, with or without NS. Solomon likewise, although NS are not used. And finally, Uriah is spelled and/or corrected variously. And that all just in the oldest three manuscripts!
           
          2) The character of the manuscript evidence.
          The reason for the variety of readings--and of corrections--appears to have been intentional or unintentional changes to the text on the part of scribes. And this tendency goes back to the earliest available evidence. p1vid, for example, through the deletion of an article, has David begetting Solomon by Uriah! 03 was orginally written with EGENNHSEN in both places, which was subsequently corrected by the deletion of the final N's. So from the beginning of the evidence before us, changes were being made to the text which had nothing to do with any overall recension.
           
          3) The philosophical factors in play.
          One approach to the manuscript evidence is to assume a recension to the text that began around the turn of the fourth century and was mainly completed by the ninth century. Under this scheme, manuscripts were corrected toward a new standard, then copied as corrected. Many manuscripts were imperfectly, partially, or incompletely corrected, thus leading to a varied level of "Byzantine corruption" in any given manuscript from the 4th century on. A major aspect of this recension was the addition of superfluous, explanatory, or legendary material. This philosophy, then, will drive interpretation of all evidence to bring it into support of the underlying assumption. For example, the discovery of "Byzantine corruptions" in mss of the third century did nothing to shake the underlying assumption, but did require a tweaking of what was considered to be the original text.
           
          Another approach is to look at all the manuscript evidence, compile a list of the most likely scribal habits, and then look for places where a common scribal change is most likely to account for the evidence. Under this scheme, scribes are often found to have omitted material that was thought to be superfluous, explanatory, or legendary. Since scribes varied in their application of this practice, mss are found with varying levels of deletion, and cannot be expected to perfectly agree with each other on what is to be retained or not retained across the width of the corpus. Furthermore, attempts by later scribes to restore what had been deleted can be expected to be sporadic as well, with deleted materials often restored to a different location than the original.
           
          To conclude, there appear to be two opposing explanations for this variant, each of which will naturally find a home amongst those who find it most in keeping with their own philosophy.
           
          1) A highly influential scribe around the turn of the 4th century decided that it would look better to have David called The King in both mentions of him in v. 6. Since some mss have it in two places and virtually all the rest all have it in the first location, the original reading just had TON BASILEA. This new reading became wildly popular, to the extent that it took over the original reading in Jerome's Latin translation, displaced the original reading in the Armenian by the time it was translated into Georgian, and was one of the top priorities for the corrector of 33's exemplar toward a Byzantine standard. Eventually, O BASILEUS was being included in all new Greek and Latin mss.
           
          2) Omission being one of the most common scribal tendencies, material that can easily be skipped over by the eye, or done without by the brain, is most likely to be dropped in the copying process. O BASILEUS being one of the latter, it was left out by scribes who were in a hurry to get on to the next line. This tendency expressed itself several times, even to the point in some mss that both mentions of The King were deleted as superfluous. But wherever O BASILEUS was removed in the copying process, it would of course be absent from all descendants, unless an alert new user of the defective codex noticed something missing and attempted to bring it back into the manuscript stream. But because the defective manuscripts (at least in Greek and Latin) were so riddled with such shortcuts, they fell out of use and were no longer being copied by the time the vast majority of mss extant today made their appearance.
           
          Daniel Buck

        • Robert Relyea
          ... I don t see how the internal factors argue any more in favor of ο βασιλευς being original as much as it explains it s existance as a variant. From
          Message 4 of 5 , Jan 6, 2010
            On 01/05/2010 07:48 AM, Jonathan C. Borland wrote:
            > Dear List,
            >
            > NA27 lists the following support for omitting O BASILEUS in Matt 1:6:
            > p1 Aleph B Gamma f1.13 579. 700 pc g1 k vgmss sys.c.p co.
            >
            > Metzger unfortunately does not comment on this variation. The words
            > are not without early external support (C W Latin), and internal
            > factors, as many notable commentators have observed, weigh heavily in
            > favor of retaining the words:
            >
            I don't see how the internal factors argue any more in favor of ο
            βασιλευς being original as much as it explains it's existance as a
            variant. From a purely exegisis point of view, the first mention (τον
            βασιλεα) is sufficient to create the point of connecting 'the messiah'
            to 'the king'. It would be perfectly understandable for Matthew to
            assume the reader understands which David he is talking about in verse 6.

            It also seems perfectly reasonable that the scribe would add ο βασιλευς
            keeping with the rhythm of the entire section. Changing the case would
            be natural for a Greek speaker, who would not even perceive it as a
            change at all (any more than the change from Ιουδαν in verse 2 to Ιουδας
            in verse 3).

            Add to that the knowledge that Metzger and Nestle-Aland has a high
            regard for the Alexandrian readings, and the pretty much universal
            Alexandrian support (as well as early non-Alexandrian support like the
            vulgate & early syriac), I can see how Metzger felt no need to comment.


            bob
            > "The appellation O BASILEUS (the King), has been omitted by some early
            > editors, but wrongly. The kingship of David is twice mentioned here,
            > as is the Babylonian captivity afterwards. The same title is
            > understood, though not expressed, after the names of Solomon and his
            > successors, as far as ver. 11. David is, however, called especially
            > the King, not only because he is the first king mentioned in this
            > pedigree, but also because his throne is promised to the
            > Messiah“ (Johann Albrecht Bengel, Gnomon of the New Testament [5
            > vols.; notes on Matthew trans. James Bandinel; rev. and ed. Andrew R.
            > Fausset; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1857-8], 1:84).
            >

            > "Scribes, so as to make this place like those in the preceding verses,
            > after DE they immediately picked up EGENNHSEN” (Johann Albrecht
            > Bengel, Apparatus criticus ad Novum Testamentum [ed. Philipp David
            > Burk; 2d ed.; Tubingae: sumtibus Io. Georgii Cottae, 1763], 91).
            >
            > “In J. Mill's judgment (Prolegomena § 1245, 1471), [O BASILEUS] crept
            > in from the preceding words. In our opinion, however, Matthew wrote
            > both with a certain plan to honor Jesus by making a repeated mention
            > of the dignity of his ancestors, among whom David in particular is
            > numbered. Compare 1 Kings 1:1, 13, 28, 31, 32, 37, 38, 43, 47, where
            > it is clear that this kind of repetition is not uncustomary for the
            > sacred writers” (Johann Jakob Wettstein, Novum Testamentum graecum [2
            > vols.; Amstelaedami: Ex officina Dommeriana, 1751-2], 1:228).
            >
            > “O BASILEUS is omitted in some, because in all the other members of
            > this genealogy EGENNHSEN follows immediately after the man’s name and
            > the particle DE. Hence a scribe, accustomed as it were to the rhythm,
            > after DABID DE hurried at once to the EGENNHSEN. Mill thought it crept
            > in from the preceding occurrence. I would concur, had DABID O BASILEUS
            > (in the nominative case) come earlier” (Johann Jacob Griesbach,
            > Commentarius criticus in textum graecum Novi Testamenti [2 vol.; J. C.
            > G. Goepferdt, 1798, 1811], 1:10).
            >
            > “O BASILEUS is missing in many witnesses. But yet, whoever has
            > investigated it will think that, since Matthew had just called David
            > TON BASILEA, what appeared to be unnecessary was more quickly rashly
            > omitted than added” (Karl Friedrich August Fritzsche, Evangelium
            > Matthaei [Lipsiae: Sumtibus Frederici Fleischeri, 1826], 16).
            >
            > “O BASILEUS . . . has the preponderance of voices in its favor; its
            > emphasis being overlooked on account of what precedes, it was regarded
            > as superfluous, and was easily passed over” (Heinrich August Wilhelm
            > Meyer, Critical and Exegetical Hand-book to the Gospel of Matthew
            > [trans. from the 6th German ed. Peter Christie; rev. and ed. Frederick
            > Crombie and William Stewart; New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1890], 34).
            >
            > Any comments?
            >
            > Jonathan C. Borland
            >
            >
            > ------------------------------------
            >
            > Yahoo! Groups Links
            >
            >
            >
          • bucksburg
            ... Forget the vid ; I was led astray by the dotted letters in the online transcription. Looking for myself at the color image magnified several times (thanks
            Message 5 of 5 , Jan 6, 2010
              --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, Daniel Buck wrote:
              >> p1vid, for example, through the deletion of an article, has David begetting Solomon by Uriah! <<

              Forget the 'vid'; I was led astray by the dotted letters in the online transcription. Looking for myself at the color image magnified several times (thanks very much, Mûnster), it's clear that, although the precise spelling of Solomon is still in doubt, the words that follow his name are EK THS OUREIOU, correlating to EK THS RUQ and [EK] THS RACAB farther up the page.

              The scribe has an interesting way of writing EI in which sometimes the iota is independent but dropped below the line, and sometimes extending and descending from the crossbar of the epsilon. This is a case of the former; Ozias of the latter.

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