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

Luke 4:16b and 4:22: Omitted in some mss?

Expand Messages
  • David Inglis
    In The First New Testament by Jason D. BeDuhn, he states (p131): Luke 4.16b is omitted in many Greek manuscripts; 4.22 is also missing in the Greek
    Message 1 of 3 , Nov 12, 2013
    • 0 Attachment

      In “The First New Testament” by Jason D. BeDuhn, he states (p131): “Luke 4.16b is omitted in many Greek manuscripts; 4.22 is also missing in the Greek manuscript Family 13.” Ignoring for now that ‘Family 13’ is not a single ms (!), I have so far failed to find any reference to either of these claimed omissions. Assuming I’m just not looking in the right place, can anyone point me at evidence for these claims? Thank you.

      David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA

      https://sites.google.com/site/inglisonmarcion/

    • tvanlopik
      For 4,22, see Scholz, ad loc.: http://books.google.nl/books?id=BKY-AAAAcAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
      Message 2 of 3 , Nov 14, 2013
      • 0 Attachment

         For 4,22, see Scholz, ad loc.:

        http://books.google.nl/books?id=BKY-AAAAcAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

        13 skipped 22b: s) = 13 Marcion kai elegon ....

         

        Please make always use of the (old) editions of Griesbach, Scholz, Tischendorf and Von Soden (they are all on the internet) and you will find answers to most your questions.

         
        Teunis van Lopik

        ---In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, <davidinglis2@...> wrote:

        In “The First New Testament” by Jason D. BeDuhn, he states (p131): “Luke 4.16b is omitted in many Greek manuscripts; 4.22 is also missing in the Greek manuscript Family 13.” Ignoring for now that ‘Family 13’ is not a single ms (!), I have so far failed to find any reference to either of these claimed omissions. Assuming I’m just not looking in the right place, can anyone point me at evidence for these claims? Thank you.

        David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA

        https://sites.google.com/site/inglisonmarcion/

      • tvanlopik
        So: Griesbach, 2nd ed. 1796: = 13 for 4,22b (kai elegon ... Ioosef) and for a variant of 4,22b: BDL 69 Cant. Griesbach, 3rd ed. 1827: = 13 for 4,22b (kai
        Message 3 of 3 , Nov 15, 2013
        • 0 Attachment

          So:

          Griesbach, 2nd ed. 1796: = 13 for 4,22b (kai elegon ... Ioosef) and for a variant of 4,22b: BDL 69 Cant.

           

          Griesbach, 3rd ed. 1827: = 13 for 4,22b (kai elegon ... Ioosef) and for a variant of 4,22b: BDL {13} 69 Cant.

          Strange that Schulz added 13.
           
          Scholz copied grosso modo Griesbach, 1827: 13 for 4,22b (kai elegon ... Ioosef) and for a variant of 4,22b: BDL 13 69 346 Cant.
           
          Tischendorf, major 7, 1859: nothing about the omission of 4,22 in 13. But on the variant(s): BDL 69 346. item {Marcion} om ut vdtr kai elegon usq finem. 
          Tischendorf, major 8, 1869: nothing about an omission in 13, nothing about Marcion
           
          Do have in mind that in the Greek lectionary the lesson for Thursday in the first week of the Lukan period ends with Luke 4,22a ... stomatos autou]. the lesson for the next Friday starts with an incipit and [ethaumatzon ... . (22a) or with incipit and [eipe pros ... (23). For the opening with 4,23 on Friday, see Gregory, Textkritik, p. 353: Evl 292. The above mentioned  [ and ] are taken from Griesbach, who indicated in this way the Byzantine lessons. Griesbach owed Matthaei for the information.
          Ergo: there are lectionaries where 4,22b is missing. If it is right that mss 13 omitted 4,22b, the reason can be the Byzantine liturgy!
           
          Teunis van Lopik
           
           
          I hope this will help.
          Teunis van Lopik
           
          ---In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, <tvanlopik@...> wrote:

           For 4,22, see Scholz, ad loc.:

          http://books.google.nl/books?id=BKY-AAAAcAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

          13 skipped 22b: s) = 13 Marcion kai elegon ....

           

          Please make always use of the (old) editions of Griesbach, Scholz, Tischendorf and Von Soden (they are all on the internet) and you will find answers to most your questions.

           
          Teunis van Lopik

          ---In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, <davidinglis2@...> wrote:

          In “The First New Testament” by Jason D. BeDuhn, he states (p131): “Luke 4.16b is omitted in many Greek manuscripts; 4.22 is also missing in the Greek manuscript Family 13.” Ignoring for now that ‘Family 13’ is not a single ms (!), I have so far failed to find any reference to either of these claimed omissions. Assuming I’m just not looking in the right place, can anyone point me at evidence for these claims? Thank you.

          David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA

          https://sites.google.com/site/inglisonmarcion/

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