Re: Error in UBS4 apparatus for Mark 6:33
Ahh, the old Compuserve forum days (mid 1990's), when everyone identified themselves and carried on civil discussions. I learned quite a bit about astronomy from you as well.
Yes, I saw your follow-up post to Steven Avery, and looked at Tim Finney's web pages, although I'm not yet sure what they signify.
My concern here is that variant #5 below is a compound variant (I may have just invented that phrase). The phrase "kai sunhlqon pros auton" is added to another specific variant "kai prohlqon autous" (#1). The additive words are not paired with the other variants #2 "kai proshlqon autois", #3 "kai sunhlqon autou", #4 "kai hlqon autou", or #6 simply omit any of variants #1-#4. There is nothing to have prevented the additive phrase from appearing without any of the first 4 variants appearing at all, but it does not.
So, my guess would be that minuscule 157 reads variant #5 below, and serves as a witness for both #1 and for the addition of the phrase "kai sunhlqon pros auton" after varient #1 and variant #1 alone.
Nerton Falls, Ohio USA
--- In email@example.com, Richard Mallett <100114.573@...> wrote:
Reply to : David Hndley
Before you do that, take a look at the 6 variants in the order presented in NA27
(I've added minuscule 157 where you indicate the UBS4 apparatus cites it):
1) *kai prohlqon autous* [01 (Sinaiticus IV), 03 (Vaticanus IV), minuscule 157 (XII)]
2) kai proshlqon autois [037 (IX), 038 (IX)]
3) kai sunhlqon autou [05 (Bezae VI)]
4) kai hlqon autou [(family1 XII-XIV), minuscule 565 (IX)]
5) *kai prohlqon autous* >>kai sunhlqon pros auton<< [p84vid (VI), 02
(Alexandrinus V), family13 (XI-XIII), minuscule 157 (XII)]
6) (omit) [032 (Freerer V)]
If you look close, minuscule 157 actually does support *both* of those readings you cited. The shorter reading of Mark 6:33-34 (without >>kai sunhlqon pros auton<< "and they came together to him") is cited as a likely case of haplography occasioned by the tendency of "early amateur copyists" to end lines on KAI (indicating beginning of a new clause). The "scare quotes" are there because this is part of
the rhetoric of "Alexandrian only" proponent "Nazaroo", who cites this variant as an example of the arrogance of modern critics, followed "moronically" by "almost all modern versions [except the KJV]", who stubbornly just don't get the obvious truth. "Nothing is really lost by the adoption of either reading," he says, "except of course the reputation of the Alexandrian scribes, and the
credibility of modern Bible editors."
http://adultera.awardspace.com/SUPLEM/UBSgaffs.html#Mark01 Sigh ...
>>First of all, yes, it's good to talk to you again - we go back a long way :-) And I'm sure you remember what Compuserve thought of people who hide behind pseudonyms :-) If we are talking about why certain readings exist, as opposed to merely recording (as I'm doing) what readings exist, Comfort says, in New Testament Text and Translation Commentary, page 115 :-
The last clause of the verse correctly reads ÏÏÎ¿ÏÎ·Î»Î¸Î¿Î½ Î±Ï ÏÎ¿Ï Ï ("they arrived ahead of them") supported by Aleph B (0187) cop it. But various scribes, finding it difficult to imagine that a crowd running on foot could move more quickly than a boat, changed the verb to ÏÏ Î½Î·Î»Î¸Î¿Î½. Both these verbs indicate that the crowd had arrived there at the same time Jesus and the disciples did. In TR (supported by p84vid A f13 Maj) the reading is conflated; ÏÏÎ¿ÏÎ·Î»ÏÎ¿Î½ Î±Ï ÏÎ¿Ï Ï ÎºÎ±Î¹ ÏÏ Î½Î·Î»Î¸Î¿Î½ ÏÏÎ¿Ï Î±Ï ÏÎ¿Î½ ("they arrived before them and came together to him" - NKJV). Westcott and Hort (1882, 95-99) have a lengthy discussion on how this conflation came into being.
However, my only concern is what the MSS actually say, which I don't know in the case of 157 at Mark 6:33. Does it agree with Aleph B (0187vid) 892 1342 2427 L770 (L950) L1780 it-aur it-l vg (syr-p) (cop-sa, cop-bo) geo-2 slav Augustine ? Or does it agree with p84vid (A) (f13) 180 597 (1006 1010 1243) 1071 1292 (1505) Byz [E F G H (N) (Sigma)] L68 L73 L813 L1223 L-AD it-f (it-q) syr-h eth geo-1 ? For the purposes of the statistical analysis that I described to Steven Avery, I'm only interested in which MSS agree with, and which MSS disagree with, each other.
In general terms, my question is 'in this verse, does 157 agree with Aleph and B, or does it agree with the Byzantine reading ?' It seems more likely that it agrees with the Byzantine reading; but, in either case, it would seem clear to me that UBS4 is in error in citing 157 in support of both readings, since they are clearly significantly different.
I hope that this explains better where I'm coming from :-)> --