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

Re: Corrections at Mark 1:41 in 738

Expand Messages
  • bucksburg
    ... Thanks so much, Jeff. Comparing the two mss images really shows the benefits of digital photographs vs microfilm! But I don t think your assessment of 738
    Message 1 of 3 , Jul 19, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "Jeff Cate" wrote:

      >> (2) The data for minuscule 783 in TUT is misleading. 783* omits an entire *line* (SPLAGXNISQEIS EK TEINAS THN XEIRA AUTOU), not simply the participle... and the line is then added in the marginby what seems to be the original hand. So 783* really isn't evidence for the omission of the participle as TUT indicates. Here's a link to an image of 783 from the National Library of Greece (http://tinyurl.com/6zf66vn). <<

      Thanks so much, Jeff. Comparing the two mss images really shows the benefits of digital photographs vs microfilm! But I don't think your assessment of 738 is quite accurate. I don't know if it was your reliance on the UBS text to compare Byz manuscripts or not, but this is what actually happened:

      738 has a rather unusual text. It reads EIPON for LEGEI; actually a rather common substitution in the NT mss, but without any support from the main Alexandrians here. It may have been influenced by the Byz reading EIPONTOS in the next verse. At any rate, this mss otherwise reads as Byz/02 in vv. 40-42. So we should use the text of 02 to reconstruct the missing line, which is:
      SPLAGXNISQEIS EK TEINAS THN XEIRA HYATO AUTOU KAI

      Notice that the very next word is the ?singular? reading EIPON. Furthermore, with the extra two missing words, there are too many characters to fit on a line. Forty-two characters is a little shy of two lines (the 5 lines in context have a range of 24-30 and an average of 27). So something strange is definitely going on here.

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