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

Re: 635 and the Comma J.

Expand Messages
  • TeunisV
    Again: Tischendorf copied Scholz s mistake, and TGNT1,2 (and Metzger in his Commentary, ed. 1) copied Tischendorf s. Teunis van Lopik
    Message 1 of 7 , Jan 20, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Again: Tischendorf copied Scholz's mistake, and TGNT1,2 (and Metzger in his Commentary, ed. 1) copied Tischendorf's.
      Teunis van Lopik

      --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, Daniel Buck <bucksburg@...> wrote:
      >
      > Stephen,
      >
      > David Robert Palmer didn't do anything to add to the confusion. The confusion had already been caused by mistakes in the writings of Jones and Metzger; all he did was quote them, then carefully lay out the truth.  Jones said that 636 has the CJ in the text; Palmer said it doesn't (it's in the margin). Metzger said that 635 has the CJ in the margin; Palmer said it doesn't (636 does). IIRC, Palmer based his work on TnT, so if you want to clear up your confusion once and for all, I would head in that direction next.
      >
      > Metzger's errors are famous for taking on a life of their own.
      >  
      > Daniel Buck
      >
      >
      > ________________________________
      >  Wednesday, January 18, 2012 10:30 AM
      >
      >  
      > Thank you, Daniel, for the link to the trans. of 1 Jn. by Palmer.
      >
      > Unfortunately, the resource adds to the confusion.
      >
      > On page 22 of Palmer's paper, he states that 635 omits the CJ.
      >
      > However, on page 25 he quotes the 1975 Corrected Ed. of Metzger's TCGNT which states, "and ms. 635, an eleventh century manuscript which has the passage written in the margin by a seventeenth century hand."
      >
      > Therein lies my confusion.  Some sources will list 635 and 636 as containing the CJ in the margin.  Others will list 635 or 636 but not both.  Some sources say 635 does have the CJ, some say it does not.  Leaves me scratching my head.
      > A typographical error (as one respondent suggested) on Metzger's part that has taken on a life of its own?
      >
      > Anywhere in print or online to view the relevant portion of 635?
      >
      >
      > Respectfully,
      > Stephen Lord
      >
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.