Mon Apr 8 19:19:59 1996

From majordom  Mon Apr  8 19:19:59 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
	id AA13626; Mon, 8 Apr 1996 19:19:59 +0500
Message-Id: <31693077.6B42@ucr.campus.mci.net>
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 1996 15:27:51 +0000
From: Don Wilkins 
Organization: UC Riverside
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Macintosh; I; 68K)
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Re: Synoptic source criticism
References: <9604081359.AA01366@osf1.gmu.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 860
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu

Stephen C Carlson wrote:
> 
> Richard K. Moore wrote:
> >Let us not forget, however, that by their own admission, one of the
> >principles guiding the editors of the NA26/NA27 text in the decisions they
> >took for the Gospels was a commitment to Marcan priority.
> 
> I'm curious to know whether Markan priority affected the determination any
> particular reading.  Does anyone have an example?

I did a quick-and-dirty browse of Metzger's commentary and came 
up with POLLA in Matt 9.14, which is absent from the Markan 
parallel (2.18). The question was whether POLLA was added by 
Matthew or by subsequent copyists, and the committee preferred 
the first option, while granting that POLLA does not occur  in Aleph 
(original hand) or B. Without the assumption of Markan priority, it 
would appear that the committee would have selected the second 
option.

Back