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

Georg Luck: Conjectural Emendation

Expand Messages
  • Wieland Willker
    Recently an article was mentioned on the ETC blog: Georg Luck Conjectural Emendation in the Greek New Testament in M. Sanz Morales, M. Librán Moreno (ed.),
    Message 1 of 14 , Jul 29, 2010
      Recently an article was mentioned on the ETC blog:

      Georg Luck
      "Conjectural Emendation in the Greek New Testament"
      in
      M. Sanz Morales, M. Librán Moreno (ed.), Verae Lectiones: estudios de
      crítica textual y edición de textos griegos. Exemplaria classica: Vol. Anejo
      1. Huelva: Universidad de Huelvá, 2009, pp. 169-202

      Since the article is a bit difficult to obtain I asked Georg for a copy and
      he send one to me, which I scanned. With his approval I distribute it here
      to the list members:

      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/textualcriticism/files/

      Georg is interested in comments.


      Best wishes
      Wieland
      <><
      --------------------------
      Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
      http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie
      Textcritical commentary:
      http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/
    • David Robert Palmer
      That is a very interesting collection of conjectures. Thank-you for the exercise. Apocalypse 7:16, Swete s conjecture, PAIW for PIPTW. In the Septuagint
      Message 2 of 14 , Jul 29, 2010
        That is a very interesting collection of conjectures.  Thank-you for the exercise.
         
        Apocalypse 7:16, Swete's conjecture, PAIW for PIPTW.  In the Septuagint PIPTW often means "strike militarily" or "attack" as in "the Philistines fell on them."  I translated PIPTW in Rev. 7:16 as "attack," not because of Swete's idea, but because I was accustomed to PIPTW meaning "attack" from earlier parts of the Bible.
         
        Matt 8:30, the distance of the pigs does not matter to demons who fly without air friction.  "Some distance away" is a fine translation anyway.
         
        Mark 9:23, TO EI DUNHi - BDF Sec 267: (1) The article TO is used as in classical before quoted words, sentences and sentence fragments: ... (2) Even indirect questions are occasionally substantivized by TO (already in classical), but seldom outside the Lucan corpus."  So the translation here would be "If I can"?!  The person is idiomatically for us reversed to "I" from "you."
         
        Mark 12:4-5, the PHAL confusion with LAPH seems plausible.  Yes, especially in some scripts.  I would also hope that dyslexia would disqualify a person as a scribe.
         
        John 1:18, MONOGENHS QEOS originally being MONOGENHS QEOU, the OS being an assimilation to the preceding nominative, I had not heard that before.  Hmm.  It really is surprising the amount of assimilation that does take place in language and phonology.  Could be.
         
        John 7:52, Investigate and see, that no prophet arises out of Galilee.  Perhaps, seeing that one prophet DID arise out of Galilee (Jonah), some scribe felt obliged to add the definite article so that it is a truer statement to him, "the prophet does not arise out of Galilee."  If he says "No prophet has arisen out of Galilee," as in the Byzantine text, that would be an even worse contradiction to 2 Kings 14:25, which says that Jonah was from Gath Hepher in Galilee, in the territory of the tribe of Zebulun (Joshua 19:13), only one hill over from Nazareth, if not the same hill.
         
        John 19:29, I like the hyssop stem being a paleographical error.  The hyssop stem had bothered me; I hadn't heard about Camerarius' conjecture.
         
        Thanks again.  I'll read more of them later.
         
        David Robert Palmer
      • George F Somsel
        I am personally very hesitant to indulge in conjectural emendations though I do have one passage in mind which troubles me and which I still hesitate to
        Message 3 of 14 , Jul 29, 2010
          I am personally very hesitant to indulge in conjectural emendations though I do have one passage in mind which troubles me and which I still hesitate to emend.  That is Re 15.15 ἰδού which seems to be simply thrown into the passage without any particular regard for how it is to be reconciled with the context though there is no manuscript evidence that it was ever missing at this point.  Not only does it seem totally out of place, but it also most conveniently (i.e., TOO CONVENIENTLY) completes the number seven for the makarisms of the Apocalypse.  The solution would seem to be to simply excise.  Re 15.3, however, with the generally accepted text of ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν ἐθνῶν does not seem particularly problematic in view of the context in which the Jewish representatives of the Church are celebrating their triumphant martyrdom and handing over their task to the gentile Church.  I would retain ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν ἐθνῶν here.
           
          All things considered, I would state that the article is provocative toward a reconsideration of conjectural emendation though I would continue to emphasize that great care must be exercised in any such emendation.

           
          george
          gfsomsel


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


          - Jan Hus
          _________



          From: Wieland Willker <wie@...>
          To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Thu, July 29, 2010 1:08:21 AM
          Subject: [textualcriticism] Georg Luck: Conjectural Emendation

           

          Recently an article was mentioned on the ETC blog:

          Georg Luck
          "Conjectural Emendation in the Greek New Testament"
          in
          M. Sanz Morales, M. Librán Moreno (ed.), Verae Lectiones: estudios de
          crítica textual y edición de textos griegos. Exemplaria classica: Vol. Anejo
          1. Huelva: Universidad de Huelvá, 2009, pp. 169-202

          Since the article is a bit difficult to obtain I asked Georg for a copy and
          he send one to me, which I scanned. With his approval I distribute it here
          to the list members:

          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/textualcriticism/files/

          Georg is interested in comments.

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


        • schmuel
          Hi Folks, John 7:52 (KJB) They answered and said unto him, Art thou also of Galilee ? Search, and look: for out of Galilee ariseth no prophet. DRP John 7:52,
          Message 4 of 14 , Jul 29, 2010
            Hi Folks,

            John 7:52 (KJB)
            They answered and said unto him,
            Art thou also of Galilee ?
            Search, and look:
            for out of Galilee ariseth no prophet.

            DRP
            John 7:52, Investigate and see, that no prophet arises out of Galilee.  Perhaps, seeing that one prophet DID arise out of Galilee (Jonah), some scribe felt obliged to add the definite article so that it is a truer statement to him, "the prophet does not arise out of Galilee."  If he says "No prophet has arisen out of Galilee," as in the Byzantine text, that would be an even worse contradiction to 2 Kings 14:25, which says that Jonah was from Gath Hepher in Galilee, in the territory of the tribe of Zebulun (Joshua 19:13), only one hill over from Nazareth, if not the same hill.

            No contradiction, the New Testament reports dubious statements by the opponents of Jesus as written.  It is clear that there was a condescending attitude towards Galille, and even more about Nazareth.  Even Nathanael, a man without guile, said:

            John 1:46
            And Nathanael said unto him,
            Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth?
            Philip saith unto him,
            Come and see.

            John Gill
            The whole country of Galilee was had in contempt with the Jews;
            but Nazareth was so mean a place,
            that it seems it was even despised by its neighbours,
            by the Galilaeans themselves;

            John Gill references a similar situation when Herod was given the prophecy in Matthew :

            he Evangelist is not giving a version of his own, but of the chief priests and scribes; and therefore was it ever so faulty, they, and not he, must be chargeable with it; for he has acted the part of a faithful historian in giving it in the words in which they cited it 

            It would be interesting to look for additional situations that are of this nature.  Directly about scripture, dubious, yet spoken by Pharisee or another whose words are being reported, reflecting their accuracy or inaccuracy.

            Now granted, a scribe could conceivably perceive a difficulty, I would call that a conjectural mental finding .. in the Reagan mode. The real evidences (manuscripts, church writers) are the bulwark, not are mental convolutions about what someone might have thought 1800 years ago in circumstances where we have minimal insight and lots of potential for mischief.

            Shalom,
            Steven Avery
            Queens, NY
          • David Robert Palmer
            George, I am interested in your comments on Re 15:15, except that there is no such verse as Revelation 15:15. Was this a typo? There is an IDOU in Rev.
            Message 5 of 14 , Jul 29, 2010
              George, I am interested in your comments on "Re 15:15," except that there is no such verse as Revelation 15:15.  Was this a typo?  There is an IDOU in Rev. 15:5 that is found in the TR, but in no Greek manuscripts.

              << That is Re 15.15 ἰδού which seems to be simply thrown into the passage ...>>
            • David Robert Palmer
              Steven, I can see that regarding John 7:52, I did not make it clear that I do not see a need for a conjectural emendation there; I was saying it appears the
              Message 6 of 14 , Jul 29, 2010
                Steven, I can see that regarding John 7:52, I did not make it clear that I do not see a need for a conjectural emendation there; I was saying it appears the scribe of Papyrus 66 did.  The reading in the UBS text and in the TR is good the way it is.  Alt
                 
                And you are correct to say that the Torah scholars and Pharisees were incorrect in their assertion that no prophet arises out of Galilee.
                 
                Yes, I agree that there is no contradiction in the teaching of the Bible there in John.  I was speculating as to why the scribe of Papyrus 66 might have done what he did. 

                 
                From: schmuel
              • David Robert Palmer
                Acts 5:17 Perhaps so, but this verb ANISTHMI also means he rose to the occasion.
                Message 7 of 14 , Jul 29, 2010
                  Acts 5:17  << "Standing up" is irrelevant in this context and makes no sense; >>  Perhaps so, but this verb ANISTHMI also means he "rose to the occasion."  That is, he is putting himself forward to lead the way in doing something about this.  The same verb also can mean "to initiate an action."  No conjectural emendation necessary, just change of translation.
                   
                  Acts 16:12, reputedly the only existing conjectural emendation printed in the actual text of the UBS New Testament.  I want to examine this one much further before answering it.
                   
                  Acts 20:28 - No emendation needed here.  I think "Son" can be implied from TOU IDIOU, without being a conjectural emendation but only a translational issue.  But if that troubles some people too much, but they still think the corrrect reading is TOU hAIMATOS TOU IDIOU, then translate it as Jervell would, "through the blood of his own."
                   
                  But I must ask the question, Why is this impossible: "That God shed his own blood cannot possibly be the meaning of the Greek, because TOU IDIOU is postponed, >>  The post position is a common position for an attributive adjective in Greek.  The repetition of the article is also regular.  The word IDIOS is and adjective, and it is attributive.  Am I missing something?  The UBS variant can be, and probably should be, translated as "his own blood."
                   
                  By the way, the argument that such and such a word is never used in such and such a way in Acts, has never convinced me.  How does anyone really know this?  It WAS used that way if it WAS.  In other words, it was never used that way only if someone who is not the writer thereof (and does not really know), says it was not?  This never made any sense.  Why in the world could not Luke have occasionally used a Greek word the way it was used in the LXX, but not any other instance of that word in Acts?  In the real world, we use the same English word with many different meanings in many different contexts all the time, even in the same document.  Never a convincing argument.
                   
                  At any rate, no conjectural emendation necessary.
                   
                  That is enough for now.
                   
                  Some typographical errors: p. 188, "arte" is spelled instead of "are."  On the last page, "flees" is spelled instead of "fleas."
                   
                  David Robert Palmer
                • George F Somsel
                  Yes, it was a typo.  That should have been Re 16.15.  Unfortunately I have had trouble copying and pasting text into my email lately with the result that
                  Message 8 of 14 , Jul 31, 2010
                    Yes, it was a typo.  That should have been Re 16.15.  Unfortunately I have had trouble copying and pasting text into my email lately with the result that sometimes it gets truncated while at other times text somehow gets stuffed in the middle of it.  I'll try again but will type the text this time.
                     
                    Ἰδοὺ ἔρχομαι ὡς κλέπτης. μακάριος ὁ γρηγορῶν καὶ τηρῶν τὰ ἱμάτια αὐτοῦ, ἵνα μὴ γυμνὸς περιπατῇ καὶ βλέπωσιν τὴν ἀσμοσύνην αὐτοῦ.
                     

                     
                    george
                    gfsomsel


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


                    - Jan Hus
                    _________



                    From: David Robert Palmer <davekanaka@...>
                    To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
                    Sent: Thu, July 29, 2010 6:37:21 PM
                    Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Georg Luck: Conjectural Emendation

                     

                    George, I am interested in your comments on "Re 15:15," except that there is no such verse as Revelation 15:15.  Was this a typo?  There is an IDOU in Rev. 15:5 that is found in the TR, but in no Greek manuscripts.

                    << That is Re 15.15 ἰδού which seems to be simply thrown into the passage ...>>

                  • George F Somsel
                    Ἀναστας δὲ ὁ ἀρχιερεὺς καὶ πάντες οἱ σὺν αὐτῷ, ἡ οὖσα αἵρεσις τῶν
                    Message 9 of 14 , Jul 31, 2010
                      Ἀναστας δὲ ὁ ἀρχιερεὺς καὶ πάντες οἱ σὺν αὐτῷ, ἡ οὖσα αἵρεσις τῶν Σαδδουκαίων, ἐπλήσθησαν ζήλου.
                       
                      The construction is a bit awkward here compared to what usually appears, but I think we have a Hebrew idiom reproduced in the Greek.  Note Lk 15.18
                       

                      ἀναστὰς πορεύσομαι πρὸς τὸν πατέρα μου καὶ ἐρῶ αὐτῷ·  πάτερ, ἡμαρτον ...

                       
                      Are we to suppose that the Prodigal was sitting or even lying down when he said this?  I think not.  It is an inceptive which serves to indicate that one begins an action.  See 1 Kg 1.50
                       
                      וַאֲדֹנִיָּהוּ יָרֵא מִפְּנֵי שְׁלֹמֹה וַיָּקָם וַיֵּלֶךְ וַיַּחֲזֵק בְּקַרְנוֹת הַמִּזְבֵּחַ׃
                       
                      Or, for the benefit of anyone who does not read Hebrew
                       

                      Adonijah, fearing Solomon, got up and went to grasp the horns of the altar.

                       

                      This is only one of a considerable number of instances where someone "got up and ..." performed some other act.  It simply indicates that the action commenced.

                       

                       
                      george
                      gfsomsel


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


                      - Jan Hus
                      _________



                      From: David Robert Palmer <davekanaka@...>
                      To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
                      Sent: Thu, July 29, 2010 9:35:26 PM
                      Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Georg Luck: Conjectural Emendation

                       

                      Acts 5:17  << "Standing up" is irrelevant in this context and makes no sense; >>  Perhaps so, but this verb ANISTHMI also means he "rose to the occasion."  That is, he is putting himself forward to lead the way in doing something about this.  The same verb also can mean "to initiate an action."  No conjectural emendation necessary, just change of translation.
                       
                      Acts 16:12, reputedly the only existing conjectural emendation printed in the actual text of the UBS New Testament.  I want to examine this one much further before answering it.
                       
                      Acts 20:28 - No emendation needed here.  I think "Son" can be implied from TOU IDIOU, without being a conjectural emendation but only a translational issue.  But if that troubles some people too much, but they still think the corrrect reading is TOU hAIMATOS TOU IDIOU, then translate it as Jervell would, "through the blood of his own."
                       
                      But I must ask the question, Why is this impossible: "That God shed his own blood cannot possibly be the meaning of the Greek, because TOU IDIOU is postponed, >>  The post position is a common position for an attributive adjective in Greek.  The repetition of the article is also regular.  The word IDIOS is and adjective, and it is attributive.  Am I missing something?  The UBS variant can be, and probably should be, translated as "his own blood."
                       
                      By the way, the argument that such and such a word is never used in such and such a way in Acts, has never convinced me.  How does anyone really know this?  It WAS used that way if it WAS.  In other words, it was never used that way only if someone who is not the writer thereof (and does not really know), says it was not?  This never made any sense.  Why in the world could not Luke have occasionally used a Greek word the way it was used in the LXX, but not any other instance of that word in Acts?  In the real world, we use the same English word with many different meanings in many different contexts all the time, even in the same document.  Never a convincing argument.
                       
                      At any rate, no conjectural emendation necessary.
                       
                      That is enough for now.
                       
                      Some typographical errors: p. 188, "arte" is spelled instead of "are."  On the last page, "flees" is spelled instead of "fleas."
                       
                      David Robert Palmer

                    • David Robert Palmer
                      Hi George, Regarding the IDOU in Rev. 16:15 I would think neither I nor anyone else would even contemplate a conjectural emendation that would eliminate the
                      Message 10 of 14 , Aug 3, 2010
                        Hi George,

                        Regarding the IDOU in Rev. 16:15 I would think neither I nor anyone else would even contemplate a conjectural emendation that would eliminate the IDOU, since the 300 or so Greek manuscripts are unanimous as to its reading, except for one misspelling that still supports it.

                        David Robert Palmer


                        To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
                        From: gfsomsel@...
                        Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2010 04:56:29 -0700
                        Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Georg Luck: Conjectural Emendation

                         

                        Yes, it was a typo.  That should have been Re 16.15.  Unfortunately I have had trouble copying and pasting text into my email lately with the result that sometimes it gets truncated while at other times text somehow gets stuffed in the middle of it.  I'll try again but will type the text this time.
                         
                        Ἰδοὺ ἔρχομαι ὡς κλέπτης. μακάριος ὁ γρηγορῶν καὶ τηρῶν τὰ ἱμάτια αὐτοῦ, ἵνα μὴ γυμνὸς περιπατῇ καὶ βλέπωσιν τὴν ἀσμοσύνην αὐτοῦ.
                         

                         
                        george
                        gfsomsel


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


                        - Jan Hus
                        _________



                        From: David Robert Palmer <davekanaka@live. com>
                        To: textualcriticism@ yahoogroups. com
                        Sent: Thu, July 29, 2010 6:37:21 PM
                        Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Georg Luck: Conjectural Emendation

                         

                        George, I am interested in your comments on "Re 15:15," except that there is no such verse as Revelation 15:15.  Was this a typo?  There is an IDOU in Rev. 15:5 that is found in the TR, but in no Greek manuscripts.

                        << That is Re 15.15 ἰδού which seems to be simply thrown into the passage ...>>


                      • George F Somsel
                        I am not suggesting the elimination though I find that a tempting solution.  BTW: If I were, it would not be simply the ἰδοὺ but rather the
                        Message 11 of 14 , Aug 4, 2010
                          I am not suggesting the elimination though I find that a tempting solution.  BTW: If I were, it would not be simply the ἰδοὺ but rather the entire clause from ἰδοὺ to ἀσμοσύνη αὐτοῦ.  I am simply expressing a disease with the clause which seems to be dropped into the context completely gratuitously.  How does it relate to its context?  IT DOESN'T !

                           
                          george
                          gfsomsel


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


                          - Jan Hus
                          _________



                          . From: David Robert Palmer <davekanaka@...>
                          To: textualcriticism <textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com>
                          Sent: Tue, August 3, 2010 10:38:17 PM
                          Subject: RE: [textualcriticism] Georg Luck: Conjectural Emendation

                           

                          Hi George,

                          Regarding the IDOU in Rev. 16:15 I would think neither I nor anyone else would even contemplate a conjectural emendation that would eliminate the IDOU, since the 300 or so Greek manuscripts are unanimous as to its reading, except for one misspelling that still supports it.

                          David Robert Palmer


                          To: textualcriticism@ yahoogroups. com
                          From: gfsomsel@yahoo. com
                          Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2010 04:56:29 -0700
                          Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Georg Luck: Conjectural Emendation

                           

                          Yes, it was a typo.  That should have been Re 16.15.  Unfortunately I have had trouble copying and pasting text into my email lately with the result that sometimes it gets truncated while at other times text somehow gets stuffed in the middle of it.  I'll try again but will type the text this time.
                           
                          Ἰδοὺ ἔρχομαι ὡς κλέπτης. μακάριος ὁ γρηγορῶν καὶ τηρῶν τὰ ἱμάτια αὐτοῦ, ἵνα μὴ γυμνὸς περιπατῇ καὶ βλέπωσιν τὴν ἀσμοσύνην αὐτοῦ.
                           

                           
                          george
                          gfsomsel


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


                          - Jan Hus
                          _________



                          From: David Robert Palmer <davekanaka@live. com>
                          To: textualcriticism@ yahoogroups. com
                          Sent: Thu, July 29, 2010 6:37:21 PM
                          Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Georg Luck: Conjectural Emendation

                           

                          George, I am interested in your comments on "Re 15:15," except that there is no such verse as Revelation 15:15.  Was this a typo?  There is an IDOU in Rev. 15:5 that is found in the TR, but in no Greek manuscripts.

                          << That is Re 15.15 ἰδού which seems to be simply thrown into the passage ...>>



                        • Heterodoxus
                          gfsomsel: Truncating your message seems to be a non-issue since a photo image of p47 shows that it, too, is truncated (lacuna) halfway through Rev. 16:14. As
                          Message 12 of 14 , Aug 4, 2010
                            gfsomsel: Truncating your message seems to be a non-issue since a photo image of p47 shows that it, too, is truncated (lacuna) halfway through Rev. 16:14.  As regards Dr. Palmer's statement that "the 300 or so Greek manuscripts are unanimous as to its reading".  U.Muenster indicates that Rev. 16:15 appears in only 3 mss prior to IV CE (p47, 01, and 02, where ου or υ, for whatever reason, is added by other hands into p47 and 02.  I'm not, however, saying the Dr, Palmer is incorrect in his count.

                            Pat
                             
                            Archaeologists discover unknown artifacts.
                            Diplomatists discuss known events.
                            Theologists disseminate the unknowable as religious truth.



                            From: David Robert Palmer <davekanaka@...>
                            To: textualcriticism <textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com>
                            Sent: Wed, August 4, 2010 1:38:17 AM
                            Subject: RE: [textualcriticism] Georg Luck: Conjectural Emendation

                             

                            Hi George,

                            Regarding the IDOU in Rev. 16:15 I would think neither I nor anyone else would even contemplate a conjectural emendation that would eliminate the IDOU, since the 300 or so Greek manuscripts are unanimous as to its reading, except for one misspelling that still supports it.

                            David Robert Palmer


                            To: textualcriticism@ yahoogroups. com
                            From: gfsomsel@yahoo. com
                            Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2010 04:56:29 -0700
                            Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Georg Luck: Conjectural Emendation 

                            ... I have had trouble copying and pasting text into my email lately with the result that sometimes it gets truncated while at other times text somehow gets stuffed in the middle of it.  I'll try again but will type the text this time.
                             
                            Ἰδοὺ ἔρχομαι ὡς κλέπτης. μακάριος ὁ γρηγορῶν καὶ τηρῶν τὰ ἱμάτια αὐτοῦ, ἵνα μὴ γυμνὸς περιπατῇ καὶ βλέπωσιν τὴν ἀσμοσύνην αὐτοῦ.

                            george
                            gfsomsel

                          • David Robert Palmer
                            George, I sure do see what you mean. Many translations put the whole verse in parentheses. (Not brackets.) But there are a few other instances of this in
                            Message 13 of 14 , Aug 5, 2010
                              George, I sure do see what you mean.  Many translations put the whole verse in parentheses.  (Not brackets.)  But there are a few other instances of this in the Apocalypse of John.
                               
                              Charles in his edition removed it from 16:15 and put it after 3:3, and that does make a lot of sense, and does fit the context. 
                               
                              George, do you have a TC explanation about how this verse might have gotten misplaced early in the transmission?
                               
                              David Robert Palmer

                              Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2010 5:02 AM
                              Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Georg Luck: Conjectural Emendation

                               

                              I am not suggesting the elimination though I find that a tempting solution.  BTW: If I were, it would not be simply the ἰδοὺ but rather the entire clause from ἰδοὺ to ἀσμοσύνη αὐτοῦ.  I am simply expressing a disease with the clause which seems to be dropped into the context completely gratuitously.  How does it relate to its context?  IT DOESN'T !

                               
                              george
                              gfsomsel
                            • David Robert Palmer
                              Hello Pat. I think you are misunderstanding the Muenster apparatus, which is easy to do. They show those OU and U you speak of, in brackets, because those
                              Message 14 of 14 , Aug 5, 2010
                                Hello Pat.
                                 
                                I think you are misunderstanding the Muenster apparatus, which is easy to do.  They show those "OU" and "U" you speak of, in brackets, because those letters are not present, visible or clear in those manuscripts.  But all of those mss support IDOU.
                                 
                                I said 300 manuscripts only as approximately, not exactly.  But in all of the mss I have collation of (Hoskier), it is unanimous, except for variant spellings.  One ms says DOU.
                                 
                                Pat, thank-you for calling me "Dr. Palmer" but I am not a doctor.  I have formal theological training, and I also did take linguistics in the University of Oregon (via S.I.L.), but I never completed a college degree.
                                 
                                (There are many Dr. Palmers on the Internet, even Dr. David Palmers.)  There are even two other David Robert Palmers out there- one is a stage actor in England.  This is why I spell out all three of my names.
                                 
                                I am not bashfull, however, about my opinions, since I have been studying New Testament Greek since 1978, and been translating it pretty much that long as well.  I feel completely qualified to participate in a discussion about translating New Testament Greek.  Especially about the Apocalypse of John, since I have translated it, and am more familiar than many people about the manuscripts of it.  But I am far far from an expert or authority on textual criticism.  I have no formal training in TC. 
                                 
                                I am very interested in George's explanation as to how a verse could have migrated from Rev. 3:3 to Rev 16:15.  I would also like to hear about this from the bigger names that might be lurking on this list.

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