Re: [textualcriticism] Re: [Byz] Re: KAI AI ADELFAI SOU in Mark 3:32
- More logical than supposing that omission of ἀδελφαί might be due to omission by homoioteleuton or by harmonization with the preceding would be to simply accept that only ἀδελφοί was used.
The pl. can also mean brothers and sisters (Eur., El. 536; Andoc. 1, 47ἡ μήτηρ ἡ ἐκείνου κ. ὁ πατὴρ ὁ ἐμὸς ἀδελφοί; Anton. Diog. 3 [Erot. Gr. I 233, 23; 26 Hercher]; POxy 713, 21f [97 a.d.] ἀδελφοῖς μου Διοδώρῳ κ. Θαΐδι; schol. on Nicander, Ther. 11 [p. 5, 9] δύο ἐγένοντο ἀδελφοί, Φάλαγξ μὲν ἄρσην, θήλεια δὲ Ἀράχνη τοὔνομα. The θεοὶ Ἀδελφοί, a married couple consisting of brother and sister on the throne of the Ptolemies: OGI 50, 2 [III b.c.] and pap [Mitt-Wilck. I/1, 99; I/2, 103–7, III b.c.]). In all these cases only one brother and one sister are involved. Yet there are also passages in which ἀδελφοί means brothers and sisters, and in whatever sequence the writer chooses (Polyb. 10, 18, 15 ποιήσεσθαι πρόνοιαν ὡς ἰδίων ἀδελφῶν καὶ τέκνων; Epict. 1, 12, 20 ἀδ. beside γονεῖς, τέκνα, γείτονες; 1, 22, 10; 4, 1, 111; Artem. 3, 31; Ptolem., Apotel. 3, 6; Diog. L. 7, 108; 120; 10, 18. In PMich 214, 12 [296 a.d.] οἱ ἀδελφοί σου seems to be even more general=‘your relatives’). Hence there is no doubt that in Lk 21:16 ἀδελφοί=brothers and sisters, but there is some room for uncertainty in the case of the ἀδελφοί of Jesus in Mt 12:46f; Mk 3:31; J 2:12; 7:3, 5; Ac 1:14.
Arndt, William, Frederick W. Danker and Walter Bauer. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, s.v. ἀδελφός. 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000.
It really wasn't necessary to state separately that the sisters were present since the one word could include both. I am reminded of a statement regarding something similar by a native Spanish speaker to the same effect.
gfsomsel… search for truth, hear truth,
learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
defend the truth till death.- Jan Hus
From: Jonathan Borland <nihao@...>
To: textualcriticism textualcriticism <email@example.com>
Sent: Thu, February 10, 2011 9:57:00 AM
Subject: [textualcriticism] Re: [Byz] Re: KAI AI ADELFAI SOU in Mark 3:32
Dear List,Internal reasons for including KAI AI ADELFAI SOU in Mark 3:32 include:1. Accidental omission by homoeoteleuton error (SOU...SOU).2. Assimilation to 3:31,33,34, where mention of the sisters is absent.3. Harmonization to Matt 12:46, || Luke 8:19,20, where mention is absent.4. No one added the words to the Byzantine addition of Matt 12:47 (possibly omitted by h.t. error), even though KAI ADELFH is present in Matt 12:50 just as in Mark 3:35.The internal criticism of Tony Pope is indecisive since 3:31 is narrative and 3:32 records discourse. Some in the crowd could have called attention to the sisters, just as in 6:3. At least I see its presence as no more clumsy or different than TI POIEITE TOUTO in 11:3 in conjunction with TI POIEITE LUONTES TON PWLON in 11:5. Besides, if critics thought the expression were clumsy, they could have added it to 3:31 (but no one apparently did so) or simply deleted it.Internal reasons explain the omission and merely corroborate the text as preserved in most manuscripts, including a number of comparatively ancient ones (e.g., A D; OL-a,b,d,ff2).Jonathan C. BorlandOn Feb 9, 2011, at 4:42 AM, Michael Martens wrote:I've been following this discussion about Mark 3:32 with interest. It appears that this is an example of a textual problem that is difficult no matter which school of NT textual criticism one holds to, e.g., eclectic, Byzantine Priority, Majority Text).As for the % of manuscripts on each side, Wilbur Pickering, in his "New Majority Text", has a footnote that says the phrase "kai ai adelfai sou" is present in 70.9% of Greek manuscripts, absent in 28.9%, and in 0.1% there are long omissions. He also says of this problem, "A not very difficult case of homoioteleuton"- Michael Martens
- Dear List,Sorry, but I had intended this message for a different list. In response to George, however, a critic more likely would have removed the expression precisely because it was considered superfluous, as you rightly point out. That should become internal reason #5 for the authenticity of the expression, which Tischendorf, von Soden, Merk, Bover, and many older editors also reasoned was original on impressive internal grounds that merely corroborate the reading of most manuscripts.Sincerely,Jonathan C. BorlandOn Feb 11, 2011, at 1:50 AM, George F Somsel wrote: