tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post113222817539214662..comments2024-03-17T17:46:24.354+00:00Comments on Evangelical Textual Criticism: Luke 22.19b-20P.J. Williamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04388225485348300613noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-1132311647519047812005-11-18T11:00:00.000+00:002005-11-18T11:00:00.000+00:00Yes, I agree there have been intentional changes h...Yes, I agree there have been intentional changes here. But the fact that related witnesses have a confusion of readings on the same patch suggests that there might have been a problem in a witness ancestral to ALL of these witnesses. <BR/><BR/>In my opinion, such an ancestral difficult/nonsense reading is probably not the original NT reading, but rather an early corruption in an ancestor of these witnesses. Attempts to clean up this reading (hence, the reading in D) may have preceded further attempts at harmonization, particularly in It(b,e) and Syr(s,c). The Peshitta reading (omission of vs17-18) might possibly be an unrelated HT error.<BR/><BR/>Of course, how to identify such a speculative and hypothetical ancestral reading is a difficult business, but I don't think we can wield Occam's Razor here and just say the reading in D must therefore be original.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-1132243178926435182005-11-17T15:59:00.000+00:002005-11-17T15:59:00.000+00:00Andrew, I'm generally inclined to favour unintenti...Andrew, I'm generally inclined to favour unintentional change over intentional, but in this case it does seem that the case for intentional changes is strong. After all, even if your double mistake to explain the Greek reading were accepted, you would need further explanations for the differing readings of the Old Latin mss b e, for the Curetonian Syriac, for the Siniatic Syriac and for the Peshitta, each of which does substantially different things with this section. The matter cannot be put down to translation technique. Clearly scribes have entered intentional (even if well-meaning) changes on several occasions.P.J. Williamshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04388225485348300613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-1132240931325535042005-11-17T15:22:00.000+00:002005-11-17T15:22:00.000+00:00There being no obvious mechanical solution, I will...There being no obvious mechanical solution, I will suggest a slightly more complex mechanical one. The omission is perhaps the result of two scribal actions. <BR/><BR/>The first is an unintentional homoeoteleuton (most long omissions are HTs), jumping from the MOU TO UPER UMWN in v19 to the same words in v20. <BR/><BR/>The result of this would have been the ridiculous reading: my body which has been poured out for you.<BR/><BR/>This prompted a second deliberate attempt at cleaning up the text by omitting the four Greek words after 'my'. In view of the fact that a cup had already been mentioned previous to v19, this might have appeared the best solution to a corrector.<BR/><BR/>There are possibly other two-stage mechanical explanations, but what must not be ruled out is the possibility of a lengthy unintentional inexplicable omission - these are less common than HT but still occur every now and then in the MSS.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com