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

Re: [textualcriticism] ... and he answered saying to him

Expand Messages
  • malcolm robertson
    Greetings Wieland,   In brief the former is more in line with Hebrew syntax and the later, perhaps, the Greek (maybe). This is where the knowledge of the
    Message 1 of 7 , Nov 11, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      Greetings Wieland,
       
      In brief the former is more in line with Hebrew syntax and the later, perhaps, the Greek (maybe). This is where the knowledge of the author's style comes into play.  In saying this I don't mean to imply a Hebrew Vorlage, rather the psychological thought processes of the author.
       
      In Christ,
       
      Malcolm
       
      --- On Thu, 11/11/10, Wieland Willker <wie@...> wrote:

      From: Wieland Willker <wie@...>
      Subject: [textualcriticism] ... and he answered saying to him
      To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
      Date: Thursday, November 11, 2010, 11:02 AM

       
      What do you think about the variants where one form of the
      text, normally the Byzantine, is "and he answered saying to
      him", and the other has the simple "and he said to him" or
      something like that? Which one is more probably original?

      Compare for example: Mt 26:63, Mk 5:9, Mk 7:6, Mk 8:28, Mk
      9:12,38, Mk 10:5,20,29, Mk 12:17,24, Mk 13:2,5, Mk 14:20, Lk
      14:5, Lk 20:24,34.

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


    • bucksburg
      ... Compare for example: Mt 26:63, Mk 5:9, Mk 7:6, Mk 8:28, Mk 9:12,38, Mk 10:5,20,29, Mk 12:17,24, Mk 13:2,5, Mk 14:20, Lk 14:5, Lk 20:24,34.
      Message 2 of 7 , Nov 12, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, Wieland Willker wrote:

        >> What do you think about the variants where one form of the text, normally the Byzantine, is "and he answered saying to him", and the other has the simple "and he said to him" or something like that? Which one is more probably original?
        Compare for example: Mt 26:63, Mk 5:9, Mk 7:6, Mk 8:28, Mk
        9:12,38, Mk 10:5,20,29, Mk 12:17,24, Mk 13:2,5, Mk 14:20, Lk
        14:5, Lk 20:24,34.<<

        Some observations on Arabic readings, from Hikmat Kachouh's thesis:

        In John 18:23, Codex Berlin DO 162 (Arabic ms #n1) has the singular reading "Jesus answered him and said." Cop(b) has "Jesus answered, he said to him." Syr(p) has "Jesus answered and said to him." But the Greek and even Latin are pretty secure in just having "Jesus answered him." So in this case, I would vote for the shorter reading.

        In Matthew 12:11, Arabic Family e reads "then he answered and said to him," without any Greek support. In Matthew 3:15, family k reads "Jesus answered and said to him," with full textual support.

        In John 1:49, Sinai N.F. Ar Pap 61 (family k) reads "answered and said to him," following A Theta f1 f13 Byz against p66 p75 B L W 33 579 1241 pc.

        In Matthew 26:63, there's no clear evidence of an Afro-Asiatic tendency toward expansion. Coptic and Ethiopic don't have it, and Syrian and Diatessaron are split.

        It doesn't appear that one can say across the board that the shorter reading is always original, and the longer one is always an expansion--or vice versa.

        Daniel Buck
      • TeunisV
        It is interesting to compare the concordances of Bruder, 2nd ed 1853, (based on the Textus Receptus) and Moulton/Geden, 4th ed. 1963, (based on WH, Tisch.,
        Message 3 of 7 , Nov 14, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          It is interesting to compare the concordances of Bruder, 2nd ed 1853, (based on the Textus Receptus) and Moulton/Geden, 4th ed. 1963, (based on WH, Tisch., English revisors), on apokrinomai.
          The number of occurences in both concordances is comparable in Mt, Lk and Jn. But Bruder counted in Mk 44 and Moulton 30. The reason for the great difference: WH en Tisch. preferred in several instances *saying* in Mk above the "Byzantine" *answering/saying*. In Mt, Lk, Jn is less textual variation.
          Tischendorf indicated that especially in Mark assimilations occur. (Gregory, Prolegomena to Tisch. 8, III, 60-62.) According this view in the "original" texts of Mt, Lk, Jn is preferred the hebraizing *answering/saying*, at least more then Mk.
          It is a complicated matter. In the case of *answering/saying* we have to deal with the synoptic problem (and different hyptheses) and the problem of assimilating readings. For an overview on the latter see W.F. Wisselink's thesis, Assimilation as a criterion for establisment of the text, Kampen 1989, 52-61.

          Teunis van Lopik

          --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, malcolm robertson <mjriii2003@...> wrote:
          >
          > Greetings Wieland,
          >  
          > In brief the former is more in line with Hebrew syntax and the later, perhaps, the Greek (maybe). This is where the knowledge of the author's style comes into play.  In saying this I don't mean to imply a Hebrew Vorlage, rather the psychological thought processes of the author.
          >  
          > In Christ,
          >  
          > Malcolm
          >  
          > --- On Thu, 11/11/10, Wieland Willker <wie@...> wrote:
          >
          >
          > From: Wieland Willker <wie@...>
          > Subject: [textualcriticism] ... and he answered saying to him
          > To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
          > Date: Thursday, November 11, 2010, 11:02 AM
          >
          >
          >  
          >
          >
          >
          > What do you think about the variants where one form of the
          > text, normally the Byzantine, is "and he answered saying to
          > him", and the other has the simple "and he said to him" or
          > something like that? Which one is more probably original?
          >
          > Compare for example: Mt 26:63, Mk 5:9, Mk 7:6, Mk 8:28, Mk
          > 9:12,38, Mk 10:5,20,29, Mk 12:17,24, Mk 13:2,5, Mk 14:20, Lk
          > 14:5, Lk 20:24,34.
          >
          > Best wishes
          > Wieland
          > <><
          > --------------------------
          > Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
          > http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie
          > Textcritical commentary:
          > http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/
          >
        • Jovial
          There s a passage in the Talmud that I don t have a reference handy for at the moment, but it states that when a statement is in the form of AMR .. L AMR ,
          Message 4 of 7 , Nov 15, 2010
          • 0 Attachment
            
            There's a passage in the Talmud that I don't have a reference handy for at the moment, but it states that when a statement is in the form of "AMR ..  L'AMR", then it indicates the exactness of what is said - what we would put in quotes in English.  And if there is but one "AMR", then it's not an exact quote.  I don't remember WHERE in the Talmud this is or exactly how it was worded, but I do remember reading it.
             
            This is in line with the general Hebrew way of doubling verbs to indicate the certainty that the action will be completed.  In this case, when a story is being told about something in the past tense, it indicates the exactness of the wording.
             
            Joe Vίёl
             
            ----- Original Message -----
            From: TeunisV
            Sent: Sunday, November 14, 2010 8:41 AM
            Subject: [textualcriticism] Re: ... and he answered saying to him

             

            It is interesting to compare the concordances of Bruder, 2nd ed 1853, (based on the Textus Receptus) and Moulton/Geden, 4th ed. 1963, (based on WH, Tisch., English revisors), on apokrinomai.
            The number of occurences in both concordances is comparable in Mt, Lk and Jn. But Bruder counted in Mk 44 and Moulton 30. The reason for the great difference: WH en Tisch. preferred in several instances *saying* in Mk above the "Byzantine" *answering/saying*. In Mt, Lk, Jn is less textual variation.
            Tischendorf indicated that especially in Mark assimilations occur. (Gregory, Prolegomena to Tisch. 8, III, 60-62.) According this view in the "original" texts of Mt, Lk, Jn is preferred the hebraizing *answering/saying*, at least more then Mk.
            It is a complicated matter. In the case of *answering/saying* we have to deal with the synoptic problem (and different hyptheses) and the problem of assimilating readings. For an overview on the latter see W.F. Wisselink's thesis, Assimilation as a criterion for establisment of the text, Kampen 1989, 52-61.

            Teunis van Lopik

            --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, malcolm robertson <mjriii2003@...> wrote:
            >
            > Greetings Wieland,
            >  
            > In brief the former is more in line with Hebrew syntax and the later, perhaps, the Greek (maybe). This is where the knowledge of the author's style comes into play.  In saying this I don't mean to imply a Hebrew Vorlage, rather the psychological thought processes of the author.
            >  
            > In Christ,
            >  
            > Malcolm
            >  
            > --- On Thu, 11/11/10, Wieland Willker <wie@...> wrote:
            >
            >
            > From: Wieland Willker <wie@...>
            > Subject: [textualcriticism] ... and he answered saying to him
            > To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
            > Date: Thursday, November 11, 2010, 11:02 AM
            >
            >
            >  
            >
            >
            >
            > What do you think about the variants where one form of the
            > text, normally the Byzantine, is "and he answered saying to
            > him", and the other has the simple "and he said to him" or
            > something like that? Which one is more probably original?
            >
            > Compare for example: Mt 26:63, Mk 5:9, Mk 7:6, Mk 8:28, Mk
            > 9:12,38, Mk 10:5,20,29, Mk 12:17,24, Mk 13:2,5, Mk 14:20, Lk
            > 14:5, Lk 20:24,34.
            >
            > Best wishes
            > Wieland
            > <><
            > --------------------------
            > Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
            > http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie
            > Textcritical commentary:
            > http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/
            >

          • Wieland Willker
            ... Right. There are some instances of harmonization. Compare: Mk 7:6 P45, A, D, W, Theta, f1, f13, Maj, Latt, Sy-H Mk 8:28 A, f1, Maj, Sy-H Mk 9:12 A, D, W,
            Message 5 of 7 , Nov 16, 2010
            • 0 Attachment
              > Tischendorf indicated that especially in Mark assimilations
              > occur.

              Right.
              There are some instances of harmonization.
              Compare:

              Mk 7:6 P45, A, D, W, Theta, f1, f13, Maj, Latt, Sy-H
              Mk 8:28 A, f1, Maj, Sy-H
              Mk 9:12 A, D, W, Theta, f1, f13, 33, Maj, Lat, Sy-S, Sy-H
              Mk 9:38 A, C, D, W, f1, f13, 565, 700, Maj, it, Sy-H
              Mk 12:24 A, D, W, Theta, f1, f13, 28, 565, 700, Maj, Lat, Sy-S, Sy-H
              Mk 13:2 A, D, W, Theta, f1, f13, Maj, Lat, Sy-H
              Mk 13:5 A, D, W, Theta, f1, f13, Maj, Lat, Sy-H
              Mk 14:20 A, W, D, f1, f13, 565, 700, Maj, k, Sy-H
              Lk 20:34 A, W, Theta, Psi, f1, f13, 33, Maj, Sy-S, Sy-H


              I was thinking about the position Lk 20:24, where the Byzantine text has
              APOKRIQENTES DE EIPON.

              It appears probable that OI DE EIPAN has been changed here into APOKRIQENTES
              DE EIPON to avoid repetition and to improve style.
              OI DE EIPAN KAISAROS. O DE EIPEN PROS AUTOUS is rather dull. It is very
              improbable that the change went the other way round.

              The second APOKRIQENTES DE, some verses later, is safe. Also the other two
              occurrences of APOKRIQENTES in Lk, 9:19 and 17:37, are safe.

              Best wishes
              Wieland
              <><
              --------------------------
              Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
              http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie
              Textcritical commentary:
              http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/
            • Mike Holmes
              Colleagues, I recently posted on the ETC Blog (http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/) the following entry: SBLGNT: Three Questions and Replies.
              Message 6 of 7 , Nov 18, 2010
              • 0 Attachment

                Colleagues,

                I recently posted on the ETC Blog (http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/) the following entry:  “SBLGNT: Three Questions and Replies.” In it I offer replies to three questions raised about the SBLGNT:  1) why were those four editions selected (long answer); is the NIV text viewed as “more standard” than the NA text (no); and would the outcome have been different if I had started with manuscripts rather than editions (I don’t think so).  Many of you already will have the entry, but if not, you may find the answers of interest.

                thanks,

                Mike

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