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

James 4:6 omitted

Expand Messages
  • kanakawatut
    There is a variant in James http://bibletranslation.ws/trans/jameswgrk.pdf 4:6, where L P 81 180 431 459 1842 2774 omit the whole verse, which is a quotation
    Message 1 of 7 , May 9, 2014
    • 0 Attachment
      There is a variant in James 4:6, where L P 81 180 431 459 1842 2774 omit the whole verse, which is a quotation of the LXX Prov. 3:34, "Accordingly it says, 'God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble.'"

      (Except the LXX has KURIOS not QEOS)
      Does anyone have, or has anyone seen, a TC explanation for this omission?  I find no commentary anywhere.  On the other hand, it is easy to explain how this text might have been added: it is often the case that a comment in the margin becomes incorporated into the text.
      In 056 0142 5, QEOS in the quotation is conformed to the KURIOS of the LXX.
      In the Epistle of James, the uncial P is a fairly good text in my opinion.

      David Robert Palmer
      http://bibletranslation.ws/trans/jameswgrk.pdf
    • Jonathan C. Borland
      Dear David, Why not simple homoeoteleuton error (DE DIDWSIN CARIN ... DE DIDWSIN CARIN)? Sincerely, Jonathan C. Borland Sent from my iPhone
      Message 2 of 7 , May 10, 2014
      • 0 Attachment
        Dear David,

        Why not simple homoeoteleuton error (DE DIDWSIN CARIN ... DE DIDWSIN CARIN)?

        Sincerely,

        Jonathan C. Borland


        Sent from my iPhone

        On May 9, 2014, at 6:36 PM, "kanakawatut@... [textualcriticism]" <textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

         

        There is a variant in James 4:6, where L P 81 180 431 459 1842 2774 omit the whole verse, which is a quotation of the LXX Prov. 3:34, "Accordingly it says, 'God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble.'"

        (Except the LXX has KURIOS not QEOS)
        Does anyone have, or has anyone seen, a TC explanation for this omission?  I find no commentary anywhere.  On the other hand, it is easy to explain how this text might have been added: it is often the case that a comment in the margin becomes incorporated into the text.
        In 056 0142 5, QEOS in the quotation is conformed to the KURIOS of the LXX.
        In the Epistle of James, the uncial P is a fairly good text in my opinion.

        David Robert Palmer
        http://bibletranslation.ws/trans/jameswgrk.pdf

      • David Palmer
        Oh, duh, that is clearly what happened.    David Robert Palmer http://bibletranslation.ws/palmer-translation/ On Saturday, May 10, 2014 1:18 PM, Jonathan
        Message 3 of 7 , May 11, 2014
        • 0 Attachment
          Oh, duh, that is clearly what happened. 
           
          David Robert Palmer
          http://bibletranslation.ws/palmer-translation/
          On Saturday, May 10, 2014 1:18 PM, "'Jonathan C. Borland' nihao@... [textualcriticism]" <textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
           
          Dear David,

          Why not simple homoeoteleuton error (DE DIDWSIN CARIN ... DE DIDWSIN CARIN)?

          Sincerely,

          Jonathan C. Borland


          Sent from my iPhone

          On May 9, 2014, at 6:36 PM, "kanakawatut@... [textualcriticism]" <textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

           
          There is a variant in James 4:6, where L P 81 180 431 459 1842 2774 omit the whole verse, which is a quotation of the LXX Prov. 3:34, "Accordingly it says, 'God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble.'"

          (Except the LXX has KURIOS not QEOS)
          Does anyone have, or has anyone seen, a TC explanation for this omission?  I find no commentary anywhere.  On the other hand, it is easy to explain how this text might have been added: it is often the case that a comment in the margin becomes incorporated into the text.
          In 056 0142 5, QEOS in the quotation is conformed to the KURIOS of the LXX.
          In the Epistle of James, the uncial P is a fairly good text in my opinion.

          David Robert Palmer
          http://bibletranslation.ws/trans/jameswgrk.pdf


        • David Palmer
          Thanks Jonathan for your participation.  Now I wonder if the minuscule 81 scribe made the HT error by himself or did he get the error from his exemplar.  I
          Message 4 of 7 , May 11, 2014
          • 0 Attachment
            Thanks Jonathan for your participation.  Now I wonder if the minuscule 81 scribe made the HT error by himself or did he get the error from his exemplar.  I don't know that 81 is all that related to L or P right?
             
            David Robert Palmer
            http://bibletranslation.ws/palmer-translation/
            On , David Palmer <kanakawatut@...> wrote:
            Oh, duh, that is clearly what happened. 
             
            David Robert Palmer
            http://bibletranslation.ws/palmer-translation/
            On Saturday, May 10, 2014 1:18 PM, "'Jonathan C. Borland' nihao@... [textualcriticism]" <textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
             
            Dear David,

            Why not simple homoeoteleuton error (DE DIDWSIN CARIN ... DE DIDWSIN CARIN)?

            Sincerely,

            Jonathan C. Borland


            Sent from my iPhone

            On May 9, 2014, at 6:36 PM, "kanakawatut@... [textualcriticism]" <textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

             
            There is a variant in James 4:6, where L P 81 180 431 459 1842 2774 omit the whole verse, which is a quotation of the LXX Prov. 3:34, "Accordingly it says, 'God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble.'"

            (Except the LXX has KURIOS not QEOS)
            Does anyone have, or has anyone seen, a TC explanation for this omission?  I find no commentary anywhere.  On the other hand, it is easy to explain how this text might have been added: it is often the case that a comment in the margin becomes incorporated into the text.
            In 056 0142 5, QEOS in the quotation is conformed to the KURIOS of the LXX.
            In the Epistle of James, the uncial P is a fairly good text in my opinion.

            David Robert Palmer
            http://bibletranslation.ws/trans/jameswgrk.pdf




          • tvanlopik
            Do always have Tischendorf in your system: L P al5 om, transilientes quippe ab charin ad charin.
            Message 5 of 7 , May 20, 2014
            • 0 Attachment

              Do always have Tischendorf in your system:

              L P al5 om, transilientes quippe ab charin ad charin.

              https://archive.org/stream/novumtestamentum02tisc#page/264/mode/2up

              Teunis van Lopik

            • tvanlopik
              Do always have Tischendorf in your system: L P al5 om, transilientes quippe ab charin ad charin.
              Message 6 of 7 , May 20, 2014
              • 0 Attachment

                Do always have Tischendorf in your system:

                L P al5 om, transilientes quippe ab charin ad charin.

                https://archive.org/stream/novumtestamentum02tisc#page/264/mode/2up


                And I will add: read about the textcritical labour before Tischendorf.


                In the recent Amsterdam edition of Erasmus' NT, as text is given:

                .ν žμ/ν; με­ζονα δ. δ­δωσι χ.ριν. .ποτ.γητε οEν

                Erasmus' translation:

                in nobis? Maiorem autem dat gratiam. Subditi

                Brown's annotation:

                6 gratiam χ.ριν (.gratiam. Propter quod dicit,

                Deus superbis resistit, humilibus autem dat

                gratiam. Vg.). The Vulgate reflects the addition

                of δι. λ.γει, (Ο θε.j .περηφ.νοιj .ντιτ.σ-

                σεται, ταπεινο/j δ. δ­δωσι χ.ριν, attested by

                P74vid À A B and most later mss., including

                codd. 1, 2816 (in cod. 2816*, the spelling of

                the second verb is .ντιτ.σεται). Erasmus fol-

                lows cod. 2815, with support from only a few

                other late mss. In 1519 Annot., he speculates

                that the additional words were not originally

                part of the text, but that they were first placed

                in the margin (based on the similar words at

                1 Petr. 5,5) and later imported into the text

                itself by an ignorant copyist. In 1516 Annot.,

                he refers to the textual variation in a confusing

                way, seeming to imply that some Greek mss.

                had με­ζω in place of ταπεινο/j: what he

                should have said was that those mss. omitted

                the whole sentence δι. ... χ.ριν, but that they

                agreed with most other mss. in retaining the

                previous sentence, με­ζονα δ. δ­δωσι χ.ριν.

                His reference to με­ζω (rather than με­ζονα)

                continued through all five editions of Annot.

                In 1519 Annot., Erasmus added to the confusion

                by mistakenly suggesting that some Greek mss.

                added δι. ... χ.ριν before με­ζω, whereas he

                should have said that these words were added

                after μειζονα δ. δ­δωσι χ.ριν. A further

                distortion arises in 1519 Annot. from Eras-

                mus. new insistence that the shorter reading

                (i.e. omitting δι. ... χ.ριν) was attested by

                "most". of the Greek mss. (.plerisque.), after

                his 1516 edition had mentioned only .some.

                mss. (.nonnullis.). Whether he was actually

                aware of any mss. other than cod. 2815, as

                favouring this omission, is open to question.

                Then in 1522 Annot., without correcting the

                previous misstatements, he cited the 1518 Aldine

                Bible as adding δι. ... χ.ριν after με­ζω δ.

                δ­δωσι χ.ριν, a word order which differed

                from that which he reported (or misreported)

                from Greek mss.: this gave the misleading im-

                pression that the witnesses for the longer reading

                disagreed with one another as to the position

                where δι. ... χ.ριν should be placed in the

                text. A better explanation of the textual dis-

                crepancy at this passage could be that a few late

                scribes omitted δι. ... χ.ριν by a simple error

                of homoeoteleuton, jumping from the first

                χ.ριν to the second, and hence omitting all

                the words that lay in between. It remains to be

                mentioned that, in the additional clause, the

                Aldine edition and also the mss. cited by Eras-

                mus have κAριοj (omitting .), with support from

                cod. 3 and some other late mss., while

                codd. 1, 2816 and most other mss. read . θε»j.

                Manetti.s translation of this whole verse was

                Maiorem autem gratiam largitur, propter quod

                dicit, Deus superbis resistit, humilibus vero gratiam

                prebet.


                Read also Mill's textcritical comment ad loc. (referring to Grotius and stating Oecomenius did not translate the string.


                Teunis van Lopik

              • David Palmer
                Looking up those resources is good advice Teunis.  Thank-you.  David Robert Palmer See how a small flame sets ablaze such a large forest. The tongue also is
                Message 7 of 7 , May 22, 2014
                • 0 Attachment
                  Looking up those resources is good advice Teunis.  Thank-you.
                   
                  David Robert Palmer
                  "See how a small flame sets ablaze such a large forest.
                  The tongue also is a flame, a world of damage."  James 3:6
                   


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