Wed Aug 21 16:08:55 1996

From owner-tc-list  Wed Aug 21 16:08:55 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id QAA26773; Wed, 21 Aug 1996 16:07:55 -0400
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 16:04:26 -0400 (EDT)
From: Maurice Robinson 
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Re: Manuscripts
In-Reply-To: 
Message-ID: 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 3129



On Tue, 20 Aug 1996, Robert B. Waltz wrote:

> twice as many readings -- and a *good* determination of which readings
> are the true majority readings. (I once made a very big fool of myself
> because NA26/27 list the wrong reading as the majority text in 2 Cor. 2:17).

Seems the onus of foolship rests on those who wrongly determined one or
the other reading in that variant unit was "the" Byzantine.

This variant is an interesting case, since according to the Text und
Textwert data, there is _no_ dominant Byzantine/Majority reading here. 

The "loipoi" reading has 315 MSS in support, plus 8 others which would
obviously also support that reading, while "polloi" has 280 MSS in
support, plus 1 other which would support that same reading.  The small
numerical difference between 323 MSS vs 281 MSS (53% vs 47%) is not
sufficiently significant (e.g. Colwell's 70%) to establish either reading
as "Byz" in this case.

The UBS and Nestle editions _are_ in error in claiming either "Byz" or "M" 
support for only the "polloi" reading (which also happens to be that of
the TR).  Von Soden, on the other hand, is just as much in error by
claiming "loipoi" is "the" bold-faced K (Byzantine) reading while
asserting that "polloi" is "the"  bold-faced H (Alexandrian) reading. 

Although the wrong variant (whichever it may have been) certainly arose
accidentally from metathesis ("loipoi" is a phonetic anagram of "polloi"),
there simply is _no_ clear Byzantine reading here.  

"Loipoi" was chosen in my edition on the basis of internal grounds (it is
the "more difficult" reading, not generally being used in the Pauline
epistles in the masculine nominative, but more normally in the phrase "to
loipon"). 

Metzger of course defends "polloi", but primarily, I suspect, on external
grounds of favored MS support (Aleph A B C K P Psi 88 1739) rather than
real internal evidence, since his claim that "loipoi" is "too offensive
for Paul to have used" doesn't seem to cut it in light of other Pauline
strong language (e.g. Gal.1.8-9, 1 Cor 3, 5, etc.) where he has few
scruples concerning whom he might offend. 

It is of significant passing interest that only _one_ MS out of the entire
divided "Byzantine/Majority" group actually follows the alleged "typical" 
Byzantine practice of "conflation" and combines both readings into "loipoi
polloi."  Seems that under current eclectic theory well over 80% of those
MSS should have conflated in this place, since Metzger clearly stated
that, when confronted with more than one variant reading, both of which
made sense, "MOST SCRIBES" [sic, with emphasis added] would choose to
combine both opposing readings into a single unit.  Here in a requisite
case, they chose not to do so.  Should anyone be surprised that neither
would the same Byzantine scribes elsewhere go and do likewise. 

_________________________________________________________________________
Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D.           Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary     Wake Forest, North Carolina
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Back