tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post4421892602189977425..comments2024-03-28T15:48:18.205+00:00Comments on Evangelical Textual Criticism: A shorter Byzantine reading in the parable of the Prodigal SonP.J. Williamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04388225485348300613noreply@blogger.comBlogger33125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-87135291338388325352019-09-24T15:22:33.878+01:002019-09-24T15:22:33.878+01:00I like the idea of cataloging shorter readings tha...I like the idea of cataloging shorter readings that NA28 and other critical text editions adopt that could be easily explained by parablepsis.<br /><br />A blog post here dedicated to that, with comments continually being added and the list periodically updated, would be one way to do that. It wouldn't be the most efficient. But it would have the advantage of being at an existing website that already has an active audience made up of people who would helpfully contribute to the catalog.Eric Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13379106188046530722noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-60181157606520476622019-09-15T23:39:59.202+01:002019-09-15T23:39:59.202+01:00Well, considering it's half way (15:21) throug...Well, considering it's half way (15:21) through Luke. Maybe they hadn't collated that passage yet and (apparently) never happened to touched on it in their later corrected editions. As you stated above, "A mystery to be sure".Matthew M. Rosehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16314585538959945496noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-50383368666563346922019-09-15T23:16:51.895+01:002019-09-15T23:16:51.895+01:00That may be, but data compilation for TuT had comm...That may be, but data compilation for TuT had commenced long before the time of its publication and would have been available to the NA27 editors. Also, NA27 remained in print after 1994 in various corrected editions until NA28 appeared in 2012, as I recall.Maurice A. Robinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05685965674144539571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-8769785936446264442019-09-15T22:18:25.661+01:002019-09-15T22:18:25.661+01:00MAR, my only guess would be the date. NA27 is ©199...MAR, my only guess would be the date. NA27 is ©1994. Isn't Txt.u.Textwert Lukan. ©1999?Matthew M. Rosehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16314585538959945496noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-59381934502800540142019-09-15T21:53:46.032+01:002019-09-15T21:53:46.032+01:00Finally able to check TuT, and indeed Willker was ...Finally able to check TuT, and indeed Willker was correct: TuT reports 207 MSS reading the longer addition, and one MS having the longer edition but omitting με (in contrast, 1444 MSS have the shorter reading, and 5 MSS omit more than that phrase due to homoioteleuton).<br /><br />The mystery to me is why NA27 claimed the 207 MSS to be only <i>pc</i> rather than what properly should have been <i>al</i>.Maurice A. Robinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05685965674144539571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-77938139950478305812019-09-13T03:49:16.828+01:002019-09-13T03:49:16.828+01:00A mystery to be sure (and my copy of TuT is 900 mi...A mystery to be sure (and my copy of TuT is 900 miles away at this point).Maurice A. Robinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05685965674144539571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-20974111775917977942019-09-13T00:14:18.137+01:002019-09-13T00:14:18.137+01:00MAR, I think your right. I checked IGNTP today and...MAR, I think your right. I checked IGNTP today and can verify the same apparatus as Teunis has below along with; Lvt(d gat) Lvg(3 mss.) Sh Et Chyrs prodig etc..Thank you(!) to Teunis Van Topik for providing the timely reference. Unfortunately the Txt.u.Textwert {Luke vols} have been missing (for some time now) from the Library I frequent so I couldn't check. <br /><br />MAR writes "(NA28 no longer cites pc)"<br /><br />I noticed that Dr. Gurry didn't list "pc" in the initial post as well. Wasn't sure if he just trimmed the apparatus a bit or if NA28 actually omitted the citation (I opted for ubs5 instead). <br /><br />I suppose someone might email Wie and ask him? I would volunteer but I've never corresponded with him, although I'm sure he'd like to know if it is indeed a typo.<br /><br />On another note, anyone know the reason for the different acronym; TNTIG as opposed to IGNTP?Matthew M. Rosehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16314585538959945496noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-51167223228700545112019-09-12T20:06:21.528+01:002019-09-12T20:06:21.528+01:00Hello Dr. Cate , yes it is very helpfull! My inten...Hello Dr. Cate , yes it is very helpfull! My intentions weren't to nitpick, I honestly just wanted to make sure I wasn't seeing things.Matthew M. Rosehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16314585538959945496noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-20785545504199138422019-09-12T19:56:24.893+01:002019-09-12T19:56:24.893+01:00This comment has been removed by the author.Matthew M. Rosehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16314585538959945496noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-2811255132934278202019-09-12T19:53:12.496+01:002019-09-12T19:53:12.496+01:00Before I mentioned the alleged 200 mss, I looked e...Before I mentioned the alleged 200 mss, I looked elsewhere in Wilker's comm to see if I was misunderstanding his abbreviation. I didn't find that he ever defined it... but I did see other examples throughout which seemed to indicate "al200" = 200 other Greek mss. Other examples mention "al350" (Lk 6:26), "al240" (Lk 9:55-56), "al129" (Lk 23:17) or "al118" (Lk 4:4)... and at Lk 2:25, he mentions "al12," and then spells out below precisely which 12 mss these are. Same with "al20" at Lk 15:16. Years ago, I corresponded with Wieland about a different variant asking where he got his data and he mentioned TuT. So if someone has access to the Lukasevangelium vol of TuT, this could clarify if there were 200 other mss with the longer reading. Hope this is helpful.Jeff Catenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-74006717723517986132019-09-12T19:17:42.378+01:002019-09-12T19:17:42.378+01:00Perhaps Willker has a typo that should have read &...Perhaps Willker has a typo that should have read "al20"?<br /><br />Teunis' TNTIG citation shows 20 continuous text MSS and 6 lectionaries -- the latter which perhaps Willker did not count? This would be far more in keeping with the <i>pc</i> designation if so. <br /><br />NA27 13*: "<i>pc</i> ... a few manuscripts, other than those explicitly mentioned for a given reading, which differ from the Majority Text"<br /><br />(NA28 no longer cites <i>pc</i>)<br /><br />Maurice A. Robinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05685965674144539571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-54500533957708595802019-09-12T08:48:11.824+01:002019-09-12T08:48:11.824+01:00The TNTIG, 1987, has: S B D U X 33 213 348 349 443...The TNTIG, 1987, has: S B D U X 33 213 348 349 443 577 700 983 1194 1195 1215 1216 1241 1630 2643 L80 L253 L890 L950 L1663 L1761.<br /><br />Griesbach-Schulz, 1827: B D 73 89 234 235 al. 8 Mt v [=GA V]<br /><br />Mills-Kuster, 1710: Cant. [= D] Laud. 2 [=51] Seld. 2 [54] Vien [76]Teunis van Lopikhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04688392583243276804noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-86238474038668476512019-09-12T07:03:01.380+01:002019-09-12T07:03:01.380+01:00I don't have the Text und Textwert Lukasevange...I don't have the Text und Textwert Lukasevangelium volume handy to check (and I'm not sure if that's one of the Teststellen but wouldn't be surprised if it is)... but Wieland Willker's online textual commentary cites 11 specific Greek mss having the longer reading in v. 21 (01, B, D, U, X, 983, 1689(=f13), 33, 700, 1241, 2680)... and "al200" (200 being in superscript)... and correct me if I'm wrong, but I think "al200" means 200 others... and I think he bases that on data from Text und Textwert... but like I said, I don't have the TuT vol handy to double check...Jeff Catenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-28331761888715830212019-09-12T06:35:10.946+01:002019-09-12T06:35:10.946+01:00I can't speak to the pc = ca. 200 mss issue, s...I can't speak to the <i>pc</i> = ca. 200 mss issue, since I don't have IGNTP Lk or TuT at hand (can someone check?)<br /><br />However, it has been my experience that <i>pc</i> indicates a very small number of MSS in most instances, usually no more than 20-30. A number as large as 200 normally would warrant an <i>al</i>.Maurice A. Robinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05685965674144539571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-6786605722434728962019-09-12T02:10:21.163+01:002019-09-12T02:10:21.163+01:00I see. Personally I consider 01 03 05 to be manusc...I see. Personally I consider 01 03 05 to be manuscripts of "bad" quality due to there many obvious scribal errors. Obviously Hort would disagree. Is there more to your reasoning?<br /><br />If not, what would/could change your mind concerning these specific mss.?<br /><br />Also, do you not consider codex D a manuscript of "bad" quality?Matthew M. Rosehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16314585538959945496noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-18504984647229027432019-09-12T02:00:13.403+01:002019-09-12T02:00:13.403+01:00Scope of influence doesn’t tell me anything direct...Scope of influence doesn’t tell me anything directly about the quality of a manuscript’s text. All manuscripts have mistakes but when 01 and 03 agree that is significant. When they agree with 05 that is more significant still. 33 is like icing on the cake. Or maybe 700. 1241. ℓ 844 vgmss syh are the icing.Peter Gurryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10396444437216746412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-46613012090931486722019-09-12T01:27:53.881+01:002019-09-12T01:27:53.881+01:00Dr. Peter Gurry, May I ask why?
If Aleph/B and 3...Dr. Peter Gurry, May I ask why? <br /><br />If Aleph/B and 33 are essentially "kin" and D is the primary witness to the so called "western" text, wouldn't this imply a very limited geographical footprint?--And therefore a limited scope of influence throughout Christendom. Not to mention codex Beza is generally considered an unreliable manuscript, Aleph is very prone to singular and rarely attested errors and Vaticanus also has it's fair share of scribal blunders (above average to say the least). My personal take would be to look upon them with suspicion in such a case as this. Matthew M. Rosehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16314585538959945496noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-81223711144130519902019-09-12T01:24:33.556+01:002019-09-12T01:24:33.556+01:00Which indeed it does, otherwise my position regard...Which indeed it does, otherwise my position regarding theory and methodology would be something quite different. Maurice A. Robinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05685965674144539571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-38603765297143874532019-09-12T00:35:30.838+01:002019-09-12T00:35:30.838+01:00That is something I thought about, Jeff. It’s just...That is something I thought about, Jeff. It’s just that not every variant has to have the same transmission history.Peter Gurryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10396444437216746412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-17982648020076484582019-09-12T00:30:09.333+01:002019-09-12T00:30:09.333+01:00Yes, that is a fair observation. But could we not ...Yes, that is a fair observation. But could we not come up with clear omissions that are widely attested? We have two in the first link in the first paragraph above with 1 Jn 2.23; 3.1—unless your view of transmission history keeps you from seeing those as obvious omissions!Peter Gurryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10396444437216746412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-18146189461937750002019-09-12T00:27:32.974+01:002019-09-12T00:27:32.974+01:00Quite a lot depends on what constitutes strongly a...Quite a lot depends on what constitutes strongly attested. I would say ℵ, B, D, 33 is strong.Peter Gurryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10396444437216746412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-11985847657022879912019-09-12T00:11:43.335+01:002019-09-12T00:11:43.335+01:00Perhaps I should have said "as Peter (perhaps...Perhaps I should have said "as Peter (perhaps unconsciously?) <i>illustrated</i> by citing occurrences from the three verses involved"? <br /><br />To repeat the examples stated:<br /><br />"six cases of omission in just these three verses all of which are easily explained by simple parablepsis" -- of which <i>I</i> note that <i>none</i> has significant support from a larger body of MSS:<br /><br /> 71 omits αυτω in 15.18<br /> 903* omits εις τον in 15.18<br /> 1, 118, 205, 209 omit και ... σου in 15.19<br /> R* omits υιος ... κληθηναι from 15.19–21 thus omitting all of v. 20<br /> W, 713 omit ποιησον ... σου in 15.19<br /> ℓ 890 omits και ... σου2 in 15.21<br />Maurice A. Robinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05685965674144539571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-15999847837056949682019-09-11T23:47:44.987+01:002019-09-11T23:47:44.987+01:00Jeff Cate, you state "v. 21 except for about ...Jeff Cate, you state "v. 21 except for about 200 Greek mss." I may be wrong here, but I saw "pc" in NA27. Are there indeed 200 mss. that back the longer reading here? (INGNTP presumably being the source)Matthew M. Rosehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16314585538959945496noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-18730673360253508302019-09-11T23:39:12.954+01:002019-09-11T23:39:12.954+01:00Dr. Peter Gurry writes;
"But there is never ...Dr. Peter Gurry writes;<br /><br />"But there is never a time when internal evidence need not be considered."<br /><br />Agreed! Although extreme caution should be taken if one proposes to follow a reading which is not strongly attested externally. In my view at least.<br />MMRnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-74847944824222064132019-09-11T23:38:35.398+01:002019-09-11T23:38:35.398+01:00Interesting post... but I think the most telling e...Interesting post... but I think the most telling example (among the six) of parablepsis is your fifth example regarding verse 19... it's the exact same phrase: ποιησον με ως ενα των μισθιων σου... and only two mss (W, 713) attest its absence in v. 19. But if your hypothesis is correct, parablepsis caused the phrase to be absent in the entire Greek manuscript tradition at v. 21 except for about 200 Greek mss. If the initial text had the phrase in both v. 19 and v. 21 and the phrase dropped out in either place due only to parablepsis, it seems odd that it ended up omitted so often in v. 21 and so rarely in v. 19. That makes me think other factors must be at play in v. 21... the phrase was simply added to harmonize to v. 19. Just my two cents.Jeff Catenoreply@blogger.com