Re: Facebook fragment and NA27
- 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
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,
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.