tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post1918163893502075018..comments2024-03-29T07:11:17.775+00:00Comments on Evangelical Textual Criticism: Another Shorter Reading Preserved in the Byzantine TextP.J. Williamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04388225485348300613noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-8299054599764325202022-03-21T11:59:08.686+00:002022-03-21T11:59:08.686+00:00Two facts are noted here:
- The reading found in ...Two facts are noted here: <br />- The reading found in the majority of manuscripts--most of them from the second millennium, and most of them characterized as belonging to the Byzantine family--lacks the parenthetical phrase.<br />- This is a counterexample to the scholarly contention that the Byzantine manuscripts are characterized by expansion and explanation, as opposed to those from Egyptian sources which are not. <br />And, two assumptions are aired:<br /> - Rather than having been added to the text as a parenthetical comment, this section was deleted. <br />- The reason it was deleted was not due to scribal tampering, but scribal error. <br />Daniel Buckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02600146498880358592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-61355636003457569512019-03-08T14:29:17.059+00:002019-03-08T14:29:17.059+00:00No worries.No worries.Peter Gurryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10396444437216746412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-82822982985534371222019-03-08T12:17:46.391+00:002019-03-08T12:17:46.391+00:00Sorry if my comment caused annoyance; that wasn...Sorry if my comment caused annoyance; that wasn't my goal. Just trying to clarify the discussion: While a short Byzantine reading would surprise some, most would not be surprised to think that the Byzantine text is secondary, given the scholarly consensus on that matter.Stephen Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07183031389623563984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-82289334150792562842019-03-08T02:22:11.594+00:002019-03-08T02:22:11.594+00:00OkOkPeter Gurryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10396444437216746412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-64371916996718011162019-03-07T21:05:12.000+00:002019-03-07T21:05:12.000+00:00I think that your opinion is too much subjective D...I think that your opinion is too much subjective David.Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09869565912671283993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-5587506074727473232019-03-07T16:38:20.732+00:002019-03-07T16:38:20.732+00:00Peter, I do not think you should say that this IS ...Peter, I do not think you should say that this IS a case of parablepsis. It is possible that the words are omitted for this reason, but given that it is a parenthetical remark it is possible that the words were an addition. As this is in a letter a possible scenario could be that the author (we assume Paul) added the remark in a copy after he originally dictated it, or possibly that he made the remark to other people and someone in the audience added it. Unless we have the exemplar parablepsis should not be an automatic assumption.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07548804523827407677noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-66764056365979193262019-03-07T15:20:59.059+00:002019-03-07T15:20:59.059+00:00"It’s a case of parablepsis and so another pl..."It’s a case of parablepsis and so another place where the Byzantine text unexpectedly preserves a shorter, secondary reading."<br /><br />Just a suggestion: You might want to turn this into at least two sentences, as two rather different propositions are embedded: (1) The Byzantine text is, contrary to general expectation, shorter (than NA27) here; (2) the Byzantine text is (in accordance with general expectation) secondary here (specifically owing to parablepsis).Stephen Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07183031389623563984noreply@blogger.com