tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post7409275401759858734..comments2024-03-29T07:11:17.775+00:00Comments on Evangelical Textual Criticism: ‘And the Lord said’ – A Variant in Luke 22:31P.J. Williamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04388225485348300613noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-13978514352945814272018-03-23T01:37:46.425+00:002018-03-23T01:37:46.425+00:00I'm glad to recognize that. To round out the p...I'm glad to recognize that. To round out the picture a bit, ειπεν ο κυριος is also in Matthew 22:44 as well as Luke 20:42 and Acts 2:34. ειπεν δε αυτω ο κυριος is in Acts 7:33. ο δε κυριος ειπεν is in Acts 9:5.Daniel Buckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02600146498880358592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-55609008716848704672018-03-11T04:39:56.000+00:002018-03-11T04:39:56.000+00:00Kephalaia? Lections, rather.
If D echoes a featu...Kephalaia? Lections, rather.<br /><br />If D echoes a feature from a second-century form of the Western text in Lk 16:19 ("And He spoke another parable”) and Jn 14:1 ("And He said to His disciples,” I don't see why the possibility should be mechanically ruled out that this reading, too, if it did not originate as an early incipit in some early local lection-cycle, survived because it was used as one -- and this by the mid-300s. <br /><br />James Snapp Jrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09493891380752272603noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-79987042335793241422018-03-10T07:57:19.086+00:002018-03-10T07:57:19.086+00:00It seems the omission fits under the category of a...It seems the omission fits under the category of a variant with the "appearance of improvement with the absence of its reality" (WH 1:27) since the phrase appears unecessary but actually serves the function of chunking the discourse and slowing the reader down before the significance comment to Peter.<br /><br />Isn't it true to say that the author would know this but likely a scribe wouldn't?Benjaminhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02909188430840299000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-87232095228848243832018-03-09T20:15:58.788+00:002018-03-09T20:15:58.788+00:00Or the long reading could be the harder reading, i...Or the long reading could be the harder reading, inasmuch as Jesus is already speaking.<br /><br />In any case the strong external support for the long reading, the habits of Vaticanus elsewhere, and the Lukan character of the long reading all make the case for the long reading strong in my view.Stephen Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07183031389623563984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-55767111025065605882018-03-09T19:21:53.581+00:002018-03-09T19:21:53.581+00:00Dirk: "expansions such as ‘and the Lord said’...Dirk: "expansions such as ‘and the Lord said’ occur frequently at these breaks, especially at the start of a lectionary."<br /><br />Except in this case, the lectionary readings involving this phrase place that verse in the <i>middle</i> and <i>not</i> at the beginning of a lection (either Lk 22:1-39 or Lk 18.19, 29-40; 22.7-39). Also, in both lections the text still includes ειπε δε ο κυριος at this verse.<br /><br />In addition, one should consider the need not only to shift the discourse from <i>general</i> to <i>personal</i>, but that the direct statement to Peter (ειπεν δε ο κυριος) is further balanced by Peter's follow-up response (22.33,ο δε ειπεν αυτω), then by Jesus' reply (22.34, ο δε ειπεν), and only after this interechange does the discourse move from <i>individual</i> back to <i>general</i> in 22.35 (και ειπεν αυτοις). That alone seems sufficient reason for the inclusion of the phrase at 22.31. <br /><br />In addition, it should be recognized that ειπεν δε ο κυριος is <i>exclusively</i> Lukan (Lk 11.39; 12.42 Byz; 17.6; 18.6; 20.13; Ac 18.9), with the only (non-exact) near-parallel being ειπεν ο κυριος in the NA text of Mk 12.36 (where Byz reads λεγει ο κυριος).Maurice A. Robinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05685965674144539571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-7076572735207529972018-03-09T17:08:42.564+00:002018-03-09T17:08:42.564+00:00Willker's commentary notes a similar variant i...Willker's commentary notes a similar variant in Luke 7:31, but in that case, the words are interrupted by narrative, so it isn't exactly another instance of the same scenario. No other variants of this type are noted in his commentary.<br /><br />A quick search for ειπεν δε ο κυριος yielded several results where this phrase is used as part of the narrative in Luke. I only found one other case where the phrase occurs while Jesus is already speaking: Luke 18:6. Unfortunately, no variants on this phrase are noted in NA28.<br /><br />I checked in Acts, as well, but I did not see any occurrences of the phrase in a similar context.Joey McCollumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17352192479713307345noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-34808092750872194082018-03-09T15:53:47.395+00:002018-03-09T15:53:47.395+00:00Are there any other minor variants for this verse,...Are there any other minor variants for this verse, where it only says "ειπεν δε" or "ειπεν και ο κυριος?" As I look at the NA it does not mention those, but know that not every variant is mentioned, only those that look like good possibilities for the original. Jesus goes from speaking to the 12 to speaking to Peter, which is a change which a narrator might want to signal by introducing that direct speech with "ειπεν δε ο κυριος." I do second Mr. Brown's question of whether or not there are other examples where Luke writes does this. <br /><br />I do see this best described as a scribal insertion though. The kephalia argument makes good sense, but it does need historical verification that there were recognized kephalia prior to 4th CE. Would it be accurate to say that the omission of "ειπεν δε ο κυριος" is a lectio difficilior due to the change in recipient of the speech (the 12 to being Peter)?Benjamin Murrayhttps://deeplygrateful.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-35964494536479710952018-03-09T12:47:00.005+00:002018-03-09T12:47:00.005+00:00Interesting discussion! I don't know much abou...Interesting discussion! I don't know much about the kephalia. Are there other examples in Luke-Acts of a similar formula where the speaker had not changed. I vaguely recall a discussion of that phenomenon somewhere in print... Runge's Discourse Grammar of the NT maybe?<br /> Stephen Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07183031389623563984noreply@blogger.com