A forum for people with knowledge of the Bible in its original languages to discuss its manuscripts and textual history from the perspective of historic evangelical theology.
- Contributors
- Peter M. Head (ed)
- Tommy Wasserman (ed)
- P. J. Williams, and others
What's with that line jump in 15:2, you may ask? Our pal Royce, interacting with Zuntz, says the following:
ReplyDelete-----
Zuntz analyzes this last correction [1 Cor 15:2] at length as showing that the “parent manuscript, or indeed some more distant predecessor, was furnished with variant readings."
"The decisive passage to be quoted in proof of this assertion is 1Cor. xv. 2. At this place the scribe of p46 jibbed at what he found in his copy. After ευηγγελισαμην υμιν it gave οφειλετε κατεχειν, followed by ει κατεχετε. The first of these four words was marked in a way which puzzled our scribe, hence he left the corresponding space empty, as he did elsewhere; obviously with the idea, ‘let the corrector settle that’. In fact, οφειλετε in the copy was marked as spurious and p46 ought to have omitted it. Our scribe ought likewise to have omitted the following κατεχειν, but this was not clearly indicated; hence he retained it and joined to it the two following words which really ought to have taken the place of οφειλετε κατεχειν. It is a case of two variant readings conflated. On the assumption here proposed, the conflation was already in the parent manuscript."
Zuntz’s scenario is certainly tempting. However, that p46’s Vorlage contained οφειλετε κατεχειν ει κατεχετε, with οφειλετε κατεχειν marked for deletion, seems to me less likely than that the Vorlage contained either ει κατεχετε or οφειλετε κατεχειν in the text and the other reading in the margin. In any case, though, Zuntz seems clearly correct in holding that p46* was attempting to write a combination of the two readings, but decided, because of some marking or illegibility in the Vorlage, to leave a blank space where οφειλετε might go. As Zuntz concludes, we have “two variant readings conflated.” Or, more exactly, the reading of p46* is an example of a partially effected conflation.
-----
Happy Easter
From Scribal Habits p230-1
Delete