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

Re: Facebook fragment and NA27

Expand Messages
  • Daniel Buck
    Jeff and Bob, I stand corrected--I was in fact going off v. 18. Inasmuch as I didn t consider the Facebook Fragment to be genuine, I didn t bother doing a
    Message 1 of 1 , Feb 23, 2012
      Jeff and Bob,
      I stand corrected--I was in fact going off v. 18. Inasmuch as I didn't consider the Facebook Fragment to be genuine, I didn't bother doing a line-by-line analysis to determine variants by letter-count (instead I went by line length in my own GNT). So far so good in determining that 01 read PARAKALIN, but then in checking the apparatus I parableptically skipped to PAREKALEI (as per NA18) in v. 18.

      So, I'll hold back on further comment until I've seen a line-by-line reconstruction of the whole section. But it's already clear that It could indeed have been taken directly from the UBS text, which happens to line up with 01* for the extant portion of the Facebook Fragment.
       
      Daniel Buck

      From: jjcate <jjcate@...>
      Subject: Mark fragment and NA27

      Daniel,
       I don't see what you're talking about. I'm looking at the NA27 text of Mark 5:17 and it has PARAKALEIN, not PAREKALEIN like you seem to be saying. And the fragment in the photo looks like it has ARAKA. So I don't understand why you are saying that the text of the fragment in the photo doesn't match the NA27. I see that Codex Bezae has PAREKALOUN and Codex Sinaiticus has PARAKALIN (like I mentioned in my post).

      Just curious what you meant. Thanks in advance,
      --Jeff Cate

      So my copy of NA27 (as well as SBL GNT) definately says και ηρξαντο παρακαλειν αυτον απελθειν in Mark 5:17, which is clearly the context here. Mark 5:18 has παρεκαλει αυτον ο δαιμονισθεις, but that's lower in the fragment and only ]αυ[τον is present.
      --Bob Relyea

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