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

1 Pet 4:16 TWi MEREI TOUTWi

Expand Messages
  • kanakawatut
    The NA28 reads with BYZ here, TWi MEREI TOUTWi. I find this to be amazing, since there is not one single witness to this reading that is earlier than the 9th
    Message 1 of 8 , Jun 14, 2014
    • 0 Attachment
      The NA28 reads with BYZ here, TWi MEREI TOUTWi.  I find this to be amazing, since there is not one single witness to this reading that is earlier than the 9th century that I know of.  Not one version.  Not one early church writer.

      Does anyone know the rationale of the NA28 / ECM2 for choosing this reading for their text?  Thanks.

      David Robert Palmer
      http://bibletranslation.ws/palmer-translation/

       

    • Jonathan C. Borland
      Dear David, J. R. Michaels, 1 Peter (Word Biblical Commentary 49; Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1988), 269-70, probably offers the most easily accessible reason
      Message 2 of 8 , Jun 15, 2014
      • 0 Attachment
        Dear David,

        J. R. Michaels, 1 Peter (Word Biblical Commentary 49; Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1988), 269-70, probably offers the most easily accessible reason why the reading MEROS was chosen in the new Nestle at 1 Pet 4:16 (i.e., it was chosen on internal more than external grounds, with more weight given to the mass of Byzantine mss than in the past):

        "Kelly has advanced the discussion by addressing a problem that in most commentaries is simply ignored, yet it is doubtful that so much subtlety can be assigned to later copyists. It is hard to believe that they would sacrifice the theological richness of the “name” in favor of such a colorless word as μερος [MEROS], “matter” or “capacity,” merely to clarify the meaning for their readers. Examples of such a sophisticated procedure could be cited among ancient translators (just as the principle of “dynamic equivalence” is recognized among modern translators), but there is no evidence that this variant originated in the translation process (eg, from Greek to Latin). These were not translators but mere scribes or copyists. The more plausible explanation, therefore, is that the prosaic μερει [MEREI] is what Peter originally wrote, and that the scribal change went in the opposite direction, either accidentally or deliberately, under the influence of the significant phrase, “in the name of Christ,” in v 14a.
        "Although μερος [MEROS] occurs nowhere else in 1 Peter, the phrase, “in this matter,” forms a kind of sequel to 2:12 and 3:16, where a similarly colorless εν ω [EN hW] served as the author’s way of introducing a “case” approach to the prospect of slander and interrogation (see Comment on 2:12). In those passages the pronoun ω had no antecedent, no actual word for “case” or “situation” in the context, but if it had, μερος would have been an appropriate word. The vague expression εν τω μερει τουτω [EN TW MEREI TOUTW], therefore, functions here in much the same way as the εν ω of 2:12 and 3:16 (it was easier to see this connection in an earlier generation when μερει was still widely accepted as the correct reading: see, eg, Fronmueller, 82)."

        ======

        Sincerely,

        Jonathan C. Borland



        On Jun 14, 2014, at 5:52 PM, kanakawatut@... [textualcriticism] <textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

        The NA28 reads with BYZ here, TWi MEREI TOUTWi.  I find this to be amazing, since there is not one single witness to this reading that is earlier than the 9th century that I know of.  Not one version.  Not one early church writer.

        Does anyone know the rationale of the NA28 / ECM2 for choosing this reading for their text?  Thanks.

        David Robert Palmer
        http://bibletranslation.ws/palmer-translation/

         


      • Mr. Buck
        On Jun 14, 2014, at 5:52 PM, kanakawatut@yahoo.com mailto:kanakawatut@yahoo.com [textualcriticism]
        Message 3 of 8 , Jun 16, 2014
        • 0 Attachment

          On Jun 14, 2014, at 5:52 PM, kanakawatut@... [textualcriticism] <textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

          It shouldn't be so incredible that a reading inextant in any Gk mss earlier than the 9th century would be accepted. Most readings in any printed edition of the Old Testament are inextant in any Hebrew or Aramaic mss earlier than the 9th century, and no one gets alarmed.

          But looking more closely at the evidence, we have three extant Greek mss prior to 1000 that read MEREI, and they represent three different textual traditions (Alexandrian, Byzantine, and f453, according to LaParola).

          Obviously that points to quite a mass of inextant mss lying behind the three survivors.

          Daniel Buck


          On Monday, June 16, 2014 4:24 AM, "'Jonathan C. Borland' nihao@... [textualcriticism]" wrote:


           
          Dear David,

          J. R. Michaels, 1 Peter (Word Biblical Commentary 49; Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1988), 269-70, probably offers the most easily accessible reason why the reading MEROS was chosen in the new Nestle at 1 Pet 4:16 (i.e., it was chosen on internal more than external grounds, with more weight given to the mass of Byzantine mss than in the past):

          "Kelly has advanced the discussion by addressing a problem that in most commentaries is simply ignored, yet it is doubtful that so much subtlety can be assigned to later copyists. It is hard to believe that they would sacrifice the theological richness of the “name” in favor of such a colorless word as μερος [MEROS], “matter” or “capacity,” merely to clarify the meaning for their readers. Examples of such a sophisticated procedure could be cited among ancient translators (just as the principle of “dynamic equivalence” is recognized among modern translators), but there is no evidence that this variant originated in the translation process (eg, from Greek to Latin). These were not translators but mere scribes or copyists. The more plausible explanation, therefore, is that the prosaic μερει [MEREI] is what Peter originally wrote, and that the scribal change went in the opposite direction, either accidentally or deliberately, under the influence of the significant phrase, “in the name of Christ,” in v 14a.
          "Although μερος [MEROS] occurs nowhere else in 1 Peter, the phrase, “in this matter,” forms a kind of sequel to 2:12 and 3:16, where a similarly colorless εν ω [EN hW] served as the author’s way of introducing a “case” approach to the prospect of slander and interrogation (see Comment on 2:12). In those passages the pronoun ω had no antecedent, no actual word for “case” or “situation” in the context, but if it had, μερος would have been an appropriate word. The vague expression εν τω μερει τουτω [EN TW MEREI TOUTW], therefore, functions here in much the same way as the εν ω of 2:12 and 3:16 (it was easier to see this connection in an earlier generation when μερει was still widely accepted as the correct reading: see, eg, Fronmueller, 82)."

          ======

          On Jun 14, 2014, at 5:52 PM, kanakawatut@... [textualcriticism] <textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

          The NA28 reads with BYZ here, TWi MEREI TOUTWi.  I find this to be amazing, since there is not one single witness to this reading that is earlier than the 9th century that I know of.  Not one version.  Not one early church writer.

          Does anyone know the rationale of the NA28 / ECM2 for choosing this reading for their text?  Thanks.

          David Robert Palmer
          http://bibletranslation.ws/palmer-translation/
           




        • Dr. Don Wilkins
          It s possible to get a detailed answer from the source, so to speak, because Gerd Mink discusses the choice both in his online presentation of the CBGM
          Message 4 of 8 , Jun 16, 2014
          • 0 Attachment
            It's possible to get a detailed answer from the source, so to speak, because Gerd Mink discusses the choice both in his online presentation of the CBGM (egora.uni-muenster.de/intf/service/downloads_en.shtml) pp. 205 ff. and in his "Problems of a highly contaminated tradition" article.

            I'm doing an article and book chapter on the CBGM, so I have been learning about it as I'm sure many others have. I think it may be fair to put the method in the "thoroughgoing eclecticism" category although Mink views it as "reasoned" eclecticism, because the date, quality etc. of individual manuscripts are ignored, at least initially. That's why you (David) find the choice "amazing," and I don't think that's an unreasonable reaction. But there is much to be said for the method as well IMO, and I'm old-school. Like most other TC practitioners, I think, I have always found the harder reading preferable and for the most part decisive, and certainly μερει is the harder reading. One of the elements of the CBGM that might strike you as unacceptable is the assumption of a hypothetical "initial" text from which all others descended, a text created by Mink and his colleagues following the standard rules of internal criticism. Basically, Mink assumes that in this case μερει was in the initial text and was changed to ονοματι in very early mss that did not survive. He points out in a number of places that most of the early mss were lost, and common sense would support this conclusion even if the findings did not (which of course they do).

            Probably the reason that Mink considers the CBGM to be "reasoned" eclecticism is that readings are meticulously traced in all extant, useful mss in order to determine genealogical relationships between the texts contained in the mss. The genealogical relationships arguably are better than manuscript-dating etc. to establish the value of texts and ultimately the initial readings. It's worth noting that in the CBGM Vaticanus clearly comes out on top, and Byzantine readings do not rank well, so the choice in this case is not an indication of a Byzantine revival. Standard internal criteria assure these results.

            I could say a great deal more about the method but I don't know how much has already been discussed, and in any case you should probably look at Mink's materials first-hand if you want a full account. The presentation is free, however you may have some trouble tracking down the article.

            Don Wilkins

            On Jun 15, 2014, at 12:40 PM, 'Jonathan C. Borland' nihao@... [textualcriticism] wrote:

             

            Dear David,


            J. R. Michaels, 1 Peter (Word Biblical Commentary 49; Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1988), 269-70, probably offers the most easily accessible reason why the reading MEROS was chosen in the new Nestle at 1 Pet 4:16 (i.e., it was chosen on internal more than external grounds, with more weight given to the mass of Byzantine mss than in the past):

            "Kelly has advanced the discussion by addressing a problem that in most commentaries is simply ignored, yet it is doubtful that so much subtlety can be assigned to later copyists. It is hard to believe that they would sacrifice the theological richness of the “name” in favor of such a colorless word as μερος [MEROS], “matter” or “capacity,” merely to clarify the meaning for their readers. Examples of such a sophisticated procedure could be cited among ancient translators (just as the principle of “dynamic equivalence” is recognized among modern translators), but there is no evidence that this variant originated in the translation process (eg, from Greek to Latin). These were not translators but mere scribes or copyists. The more plausible explanation, therefore, is that the prosaic μερει [MEREI] is what Peter originally wrote, and that the scribal change went in the opposite direction, either accidentally or deliberately, under the influence of the significant phrase, “in the name of Christ,” in v 14a.
            "Although μερος [MEROS] occurs nowhere else in 1 Peter, the phrase, “in this matter,” forms a kind of sequel to 2:12 and 3:16, where a similarly colorless εν ω [EN hW] served as the author’s way of introducing a “case” approach to the prospect of slander and interrogation (see Comment on 2:12). In those passages the pronoun ω had no antecedent, no actual word for “case” or “situation” in the context, but if it had, μερος would have been an appropriate word. The vague expression εν τω μερει τουτω [EN TW MEREI TOUTW], therefore, functions here in much the same way as the εν ω of 2:12 and 3:16 (it was easier to see this connection in an earlier generation when μερει was still widely accepted as the correct reading: see, eg, Fronmueller, 82)."

            ======

            Sincerely,

            Jonathan C. Borland



            On Jun 14, 2014, at 5:52 PM, kanakawatut@... [textualcriticism] <textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

            The NA28 reads with BYZ here, TWi MEREI TOUTWi.  I find this to be amazing, since there is not one single witness to this reading that is earlier than the 9th century that I know of.  Not one version.  Not one early church writer.

            Does anyone know the rationale of the NA28 / ECM2 for choosing this reading for their text?  Thanks.

            David Robert Palmer
            http://bibletranslation.ws/palmer-translation/

             




          • David Palmer
            Daniel Buck wrote:
            Message 5 of 8 , Jun 19, 2014
            • 0 Attachment
              Daniel Buck wrote: <<
              It shouldn't be so incredible that a reading inextant in any Gk mss earlier than the 9th century would be accepted. Most readings in any printed edition of the Old Testament are inextant in any Hebrew or Aramaic mss earlier than the 9th century, and no one gets alarmed. >>

              But we all agree that there was a recension of the Hebrew text do we not?

              I understand the concept of which reading would lead to the others, best explain the others, and the hardest reading etc.  I am not in disagreement with those principles.

              I admit that it is *possible* that a reading of the original NT Greek text disappeared in the manuscript record and re-appeared in the 9th century.  But I think that is very improbable.  I think that any other reasonable person would also call that very improbable.
              But, what would make that far *more* possible, is that a Byzantine recension occurred.  In fact, I would say that I do not accept the NA28 reading of MEREI without believing there was a significant Byzantine recension.

              In the last couple weeks I got tired of reading my own TC critical apparatus footnotes because of the overwhelming amount of numbers and data.  I decided to cut out all witnesses after the 8th century.  Wow, what a clear picture that makes.

              What you then see is that MANY Byz readings do not appear until the 9th century.  Now why is that?  Without a major recension, I don't know of any other explanation.   It just seems impossible that a reading suddenly appears in the 9th century without previously showing up in Old Latin, or Coptic, or Syriac, or any early church writer whatsoever, UNLESS there was a major recension right around the 8th or 9th century.
               
              David Robert Palmer
              http://bibletranslation.ws/palmer-translation/


              On Tuesday, June 17, 2014 1:02 PM, "'Dr. Don Wilkins' drdwilkins@... [textualcriticism]" wrote:


               
              It's possible to get a detailed answer from the source, so to speak, because Gerd Mink discusses the choice both in his online presentation of the CBGM (egora.uni-muenster.de/intf/service/downloads_en.shtml) pp. 205 ff. and in his "Problems of a highly contaminated tradition" article.

              I'm doing an article and book chapter on the CBGM, so I have been learning about it as I'm sure many others have. I think it may be fair to put the method in the "thoroughgoing eclecticism" category although Mink views it as "reasoned" eclecticism, because the date, quality etc. of individual manuscripts are ignored, at least initially. That's why you (David) find the choice "amazing," and I don't think that's an unreasonable reaction. But there is much to be said for the method as well IMO, and I'm old-school. Like most other TC practitioners, I think, I have always found the harder reading preferable and for the most part decisive, and certainly μερει is the harder reading. One of the elements of the CBGM that might strike you as unacceptable is the assumption of a hypothetical "initial" text from which all others descended, a text created by Mink and his colleagues following the standard rules of internal criticism. Basically, Mink assumes that in this case μερει was in the initial text and was changed to ονοματι in very early mss that did not survive. He points out in a number of places that most of the early mss were lost, and common sense would support this conclusion even if the findings did not (which of course they do).

              Probably the reason that Mink considers the CBGM to be "reasoned" eclecticism is that readings are meticulously traced in all extant, useful mss in order to determine genealogical relationships between the texts contained in the mss. The genealogical relationships arguably are better than manuscript-dating etc. to establish the value of texts and ultimately the initial readings. It's worth noting that in the CBGM Vaticanus clearly comes out on top, and Byzantine readings do not rank well, so the choice in this case is not an indication of a Byzantine revival. Standard internal criteria assure these results.

              I could say a great deal more about the method but I don't know how much has already been discussed, and in any case you should probably look at Mink's materials first-hand if you want a full account. The presentation is free, however you may have some trouble tracking down the article.

              Don Wilkins
            • rslocc@yahoo.com
              Hi David, I was wondering if you could please supply us with some examples of the MANY Byzantine readings that do not show up till the 9th century? I know
              Message 6 of 8 , Jun 20, 2014
              • 0 Attachment

                Hi David,


                I was wondering if you could please supply us with some examples of the "MANY" Byzantine readings that do not show up till the 9th century? I know that time is precious but if you know any off the top of your head and/or any other pertinent readings you may have came across that fit this description, it would be greatly appreciated if you could share them with us. In passing, I understand that MANY can have various shades of meaning and interpretation, yet when you capitalize it in the way you have it's obvious that you are under the impression that this is an axiomatic fact (or should be at least). If this truly is the case, I trust that you will enlighten those of us who have not came to the same conclusion. When and if time permits of course.


                Thanks!   -Matthew M. Rose

              • David Palmer
                Hello Matthew, sorry I did not see your post until now. Yes, I will start keeping a list of Byzantine readings that do not show up until the 9th century. That
                Message 7 of 8 , Jul 13, 2014
                • 0 Attachment
                  Hello Matthew, sorry I did not see your post until now.
                  Yes, I will start keeping a list of Byzantine readings that do not show up until the 9th century. That is a great idea.  Let's start with the epistle of James.  There are 62 Byzantine variants in that epistle.  I will start another thread showing what percentage of those do not show up until the 9th century.

                  What is your theory as to what happened to the exemplars for all those MSS in the 9th century that read TWi MEREI TOUTWi in 1 Peter 4:16?

                  1. Were they destroyed accidentally?
                  2. Were they destroyed deliberately?
                  3. If destroyed accidentally, how?

                  In the meantime, I adopted the NA28 / Byzantine reading for my translation of 1 Peter:
                  http://bibletranslation.ws/1peter.htm
                   
                   


                  On Friday, June 20, 2014 5:44 PM, "rslocc@... rslocc@... [textualcriticism]" <textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com> wrote:


                   
                  Hi David,

                  I was wondering if you could please supply us with some examples of the "MANY" Byzantine readings that do not show up till the 9th century? I know that time is precious but if you know any off the top of your head and/or any other pertinent readings you may have came across that fit this description, it would be greatly appreciated if you could share them with us. In passing, I understand that MANY can have various shades of meaning and interpretation, yet when you capitalize it in the way you have it's obvious that you are under the impression that this is an axiomatic fact (or should be at least). If this truly is the case, I trust that you will enlighten those of us who have not came to the same conclusion. When and if time permits of course.

                  Thanks!   -Matthew M. Rose


                • David Palmer
                  I just flew on Delta Airlines, and there was a message on the screens in English, with Spanish subtitles, saying, On behalf of all Delta employees, we want to
                  Message 8 of 8 , Sep 27, 2014
                  • 0 Attachment
                    I just flew on Delta Airlines, and there was a message on the screens in English, with Spanish subtitles, saying, "On behalf of all Delta employees, we want to thank you for choosing Delta, etc."  It was interesting that the Spanish translation for "on behalf of" was "en nombre" or in the name of.

                    I realized that our two variants actually can mean something very similar to each other: "in this behalf."  For example, a prophet who speaks "in the name of" God, is speaking "in behalf of" God.
                     
                    David Robert Palmer
                    http://bibletranslation.ws/palmer-translation/


                    On Sunday, July 13, 2014 9:51 AM, "David Palmer kanakawatut@... [textualcriticism]" <textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com> wrote:


                     
                    Hello Matthew, sorry I did not see your post until now.
                    Yes, I will start keeping a list of Byzantine readings that do not show up until the 9th century. That is a great idea.  Let's start with the epistle of James.  There are 62 Byzantine variants in that epistle.  I will start another thread showing what percentage of those do not show up until the 9th century.

                    What is your theory as to what happened to the exemplars for all those MSS in the 9th century that read TWi MEREI TOUTWi in 1 Peter 4:16?

                    1. Were they destroyed accidentally?
                    2. Were they destroyed deliberately?
                    3. If destroyed accidentally, how?

                    In the meantime, I adopted the NA28 / Byzantine reading for my translation of 1 Peter:
                    http://bibletranslation.ws/1peter.htm
                     
                     


                    On Friday, June 20, 2014 5:44 PM, "rslocc@... rslocc@... [textualcriticism]" <textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com> wrote:


                     
                    Hi David,

                    I was wondering if you could please supply us with some examples of the "MANY" Byzantine readings that do not show up till the 9th century? I know that time is precious but if you know any off the top of your head and/or any other pertinent readings you may have came across that fit this description, it would be greatly appreciated if you could share them with us. In passing, I understand that MANY can have various shades of meaning and interpretation, yet when you capitalize it in the way you have it's obvious that you are under the impression that this is an axiomatic fact (or should be at least). If this truly is the case, I trust that you will enlighten those of us who have not came to the same conclusion. When and if time permits of course.

                    Thanks!   -Matthew M. Rose




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