tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post6592106869183213763..comments2024-03-28T00:45:18.442+00:00Comments on Evangelical Textual Criticism: Scratching the plural out of prayer - Mt 6:5P.J. Williamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04388225485348300613noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-72978502398269135622015-04-21T14:57:07.991+01:002015-04-21T14:57:07.991+01:00I agree that the left hand side of the O is origin...I agree that the left hand side of the O is original; however, in the scenario I present, the entire O could have been original, but was erased and then re-written. I doubt the first hand did set out to write the majority reading; but if the first corrector corrected it to the majority reading, then the next corrector corrected it back, then that in turn was erased, it would account not only for the letter-spacing, but also for the seemingly excessive erasure.Daniel Buckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02600146498880358592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-4612653612557236432015-04-17T16:04:33.558+01:002015-04-17T16:04:33.558+01:00Daniel, do you disagree that the third letter of t...Daniel, do you disagree that the third letter of the corrected line, which currently reads an - Ο -, was fashioned out of an existing - Ϲ -? The left hand side of the - Ο - is not rewritten, as far as I can see. If this is the case (which I think most likely) than the first hand did not set out to write majority reading. I think the available evidence supports pretty well my thesis that both the first hand and the one who I think was the first hand correcting his own work. I both messed up. I do not assume, however, that the correction was carried out only after the text following this line was written.Dirk Jongkindhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06759927266909478390noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-82665146571433507472015-04-17T15:38:34.029+01:002015-04-17T15:38:34.029+01:00Sorry about the dittography. This field is too sma...Sorry about the dittography. This field is too small to see more than a few lines of text at a time, and the scroll function is set on hyperdrive!Daniel Buckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02600146498880358592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-76378635799644301792015-04-17T15:36:59.182+01:002015-04-17T15:36:59.182+01:00I see several things here that haven't been br...I see several things here that haven't been brought out. First of all, the context of Matthew 6:2-6 is all in the second person singular. Verse five being brought into conformation with the surrounding verses sounds like what is often thought of as a typical scribal emendation. But what scribe would only do half the job?<br />Secondly, why isn't anyone else seeing that that erasure ends before the end of the line? Zooming the above image up to full magnification, I can see that the erasure ends with the diminutive lunate sigma. I see several things here that haven't been brought out. First of all, the context of Matthew 6:2-6 is all in the second person singular. Verse five being brought into conformation with the surrounding verses sounds like what is often thought of as a typical scribal emendation. But what scribe would only do half the job?<br />Secondly, why isn't anyone else seeing that that erasure ends before the end of the line? Zooming the above image up to full magnification, I can see that the erasure damage ends with the diminutive lunate sigma. This would mean that OI was either original, or squeezed in after the erasure, theoretically allowing for a full Byzantine reading, and the possibility that Tischendorf and Dirk are wrong about C>O.<br />Thus I would offer the following reconstruction:<br />א* : προσευχη[ ~11 letters]οι (only possibilities are Byz reading or singular reading)<br />אa : προσευχηουκεσεσθεωσοι (first verb singular, second plural; singular reading)<br />אca: προσευχησθαιουκεσεσθεωσοι (itacised Alex reading [B has an strange marking line-end])<br />Byz: προσευχηουκεσηωσπεροι <br />Now, on the basis of letter-count, there wasn't room for the Alexandrian reading, even without the itacism. There was room for the Byzantine reading, though. That possibility raises even more questions:<br />Why would the O be erased, then rewritten?<br />If the scribe started to write singular out of habit, then corrected to plural, why not finish the job? Or, if singular was in his text, why erase both verbs, but then rewrite the second as plural?<br />The evidence doesn't fit Kirk's scenario quite as well as it should. I suspect there was another whole layer of correction, with a back-and-forth of erasures and rewrites that nearly wore out the parchment, until the final correction was just left well enough alone, imperfect as it was.Daniel Buckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02600146498880358592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-71238967306186528382015-04-15T11:42:42.268+01:002015-04-15T11:42:42.268+01:00I wouldn't know, Eric. With Sinaiticus most of...I wouldn't know, Eric. With Sinaiticus most of the darker parts are letters that shine through from the other side of the thin parchment.Dirk Jongkindhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06759927266909478390noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-45918779952241429802015-04-15T00:16:59.838+01:002015-04-15T00:16:59.838+01:00Would this erasure be something that might be legi...Would this erasure be something that might be legible through the use of new technologies? I can see alterations in color throughout it, but can't tell if they are from the old letters.Eric Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13379106188046530722noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-71333238875043104122015-04-11T21:49:02.731+01:002015-04-11T21:49:02.731+01:00What if it was first written: `και οταν προσευχησθ...What if it was first written: `και οταν προσευχησθε εσεσθε ως οι υποκριται' ?<br />Then if the first corrector had an exemplar reading the Byzantine way, it could have been tempting to replace προσευχησθε with προσευχη and have space for ουκ. Then perhaps he realized the verbs had different numbers and changed εσεσθε into εση, got bad conscience and changed it back again?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com