Sun Apr 28 19:59:51 1996

From majordom  Sun Apr 28 19:59:51 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
	id AA04340; Sun, 28 Apr 1996 19:59:51 +0500
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 96 18:56 CDT
X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
From: waltzmn@skypoint.com (Robert B. Waltz)
Subject: Re: I Thess. 1:1
Content-Length: 1615
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu

On Sun, 28 Apr 1996, winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net (Carlton L. Winbery) wrote:

>I would like to ask tc-list participants to comment on the variation at I
>Thess. 1:1.  In the face of the byz tradition plus Aleph, A, 33, and the
>Bohairic, internal evidence (harmonizing with every other Pauline letter)
>convinces me that the text of UBS & N-A27 is correct (omitting APO QEOU
>PATROS hHMWN KAI KURIOU IHSOU XRISTOU).
>
>This appears to me to be one place where a byz scribe probably would have
>gone with the longer reading even if he knew of mss that had the omission.
>Also as the minor variations in other sources show, this is likely a
>harmonization that would have been made by several scribes in different
>places independent of each other.

Since people have been asking about my textual tehory, here is a chance
to give an example.

In favour of the longer variant (including APO QEOU PATROS HMWN KAI KURIOU
IHSOU XRISTOU we have:

The Alexandrian text -- both early (Aleph-A-33-bo) and late
   (81-436-1175-f2127) texts
PLUS D-(d)-m of the "Western" text
PLUS P (0150)
PLUS the Syriac group 1611-1505-2495-syh in **
PLUS family 451 (330-451-2492)
PLUS Byzantine witnesses including K L 049 056 0142 223 1960 pm

Against this reading we have

The p46-B group: B-sa
The larger part of the "Western" text: F-G-a-b-f-r-vg-629
Family 1739: 1739-1881
PLUS a handful of assorted manuscripts, Psi 075 0278 1908 arm

Since three text-types oppose the longer reading, and since there is
no COMPELLING internal reason for its omission, I omit the text.

That's my opinion, anyway.

Bob Waltz
waltzmn@skypoint.com

Back