tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post1935561754184753253..comments2024-03-28T00:45:18.442+00:00Comments on Evangelical Textual Criticism: The Types of Singular Errors in the Book of JamesP.J. Williamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04388225485348300613noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-47377208230182459632016-01-14T09:04:27.452+00:002016-01-14T09:04:27.452+00:00James, I see your point. Since I’m interested here...James, I see your point. Since I’m interested here in the transmission of James, any such “outliers” should count as much as the “non-outliers.” But it would be nice to know. The place to start, I suppose, is with the MSS mentioned by Mink.<br /><br />Also, note that the 132 singulars mentioned by Mink are those singulars contributed by the additional 41 MSS. Peter Gurryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10396444437216746412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-36041052090103319102016-01-14T00:50:54.019+00:002016-01-14T00:50:54.019+00:00Peter Gurry,
If there were rogues, how could one ...Peter Gurry, <br />If there were rogues, how could one find out?<br />Taking the data from Mink as a sample:<br />Out of 132 singular variants, 53 are in just two MSS, leaving 79 singular variants in the other 32 MSS.<br /><br />My concern is that anomalies concentrated in a small fraction of MSS could be misconstrued statistically as if it is a general tendency.<br /> James Snapp Jrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09493891380752272603noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-40988709020754647382016-01-13T09:48:21.478+00:002016-01-13T09:48:21.478+00:00James, charts make everything better!
But no, no ...James, charts make everything better!<br /><br />But no, no rogues in my data because it didn’t allow for that kind of search. But Gerd Mink says of the 41 additional MSS included for James in the ECM that “Leaving small fragments out of consideration, we are dealing with 34 out of 41 witnesses that contribute 140 variants not attested otherwise. Of these, 132 are singular variants, of which 28 are in minuscule 38 and 25 are in minuscule 631! Most of them are due to forms that are easily confused like the first and second plural of the personal pronoun, the initial vowel of αυτ-/εαυτ- and the like” (“Coherence…,” in Textual History of the Greek NT, p. 147 n. 14).Peter Gurryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10396444437216746412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-46328655245055725282016-01-12T17:25:16.791+00:002016-01-12T17:25:16.791+00:00Peter G,
(A simple list wasn't sufficient; h...Peter G, <br /><br />(A simple list wasn't sufficient; had to use a pie chart, eh.)<br /><br />Did you detect any rogues? I.e., were there any MSS that seemed to have an unusually high number of singular readings? James Snapp Jrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09493891380752272603noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-13398990104190962432016-01-12T13:48:30.148+00:002016-01-12T13:48:30.148+00:00Very interesting, thanks for posting Peter.Very interesting, thanks for posting Peter.ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17310895604715766143noreply@blogger.com