Sat Nov 23 07:31:04 1996

From owner-tc-list  Sat Nov 23 07:31:04 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id HAA28292; Sat, 23 Nov 1996 07:29:25 -0500
Message-Id: <199611231225.NAA79608@mail.uni-muenster.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 96 14:35:11 +0100
From: schmiul@uni-muenster.de (Ulrich Schmid)
Subject: Re: Two variants of Sinai Arabic 71
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
In-Reply-To: 
X-Mailer: SPRY Mail Version: 04.00.06.17
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 2763

On Sat, 23 Nov 1996, Jean Valentin wrote:

>While typing the text of my manuscript (Sinai arabic 71), I fall again on
>one of these large omissions of this Arabic version.

>The whole verse of Mk 7.34 is omitted. Well, I've look in the Greek
>editions (NA, Soden, Tischendorf, Legg etc) and found not one ms where it
>happens. Neither in the versions or in the Harmonies. I failed to find this
>verse in Ephrem's quotations though, but it doesn't prove anything as there
>are many other verses that aren't cited by Ephrem...

>So, I wouldn't make much about it, but here's why I nevertheless write a
>little note: the text reads very well without that verse! 

As far as I can see, the most likely explanation for the omission of Mk 7,34 is 
Homoioteleuton in the Greek Vorlage: KAIHNOIGHSAN...; MS 1424 
omitted KAILEGEI AUTW...
Within the paratactic (KAI...KAI...KAI...) parts of Mark this type of 
homoioteleuton is not uncommon, cf. MS W at Mk 1,42f; 2,16; MS 1424 at Mk 2,14; 
MS 579 at Mk 2,18. These (and some others) can be easily found in Swansons 
edition *New Testament Manuscripts. Variant readings arranged in horizontal 
lines against Codex Vaticanus: Mark, Sheffield, Passadena 1995*. And there are 
many more of them in a couple of MSS not yet examined in great detail (cf. the 
forthcoming *Text und Textwert* volumes for the Gospel of Mark, 1997?).
This type of omission usually misses one or more isolated features within a 
narrative. And missing them often makes sense.
  
>And this makes me
>think to another passage where the same happens, and it's Mt 23.26.

>The picture is a little different in Mt 23.26. It's also missing in Sinai
>arabic 71. But here there is more: 
>(1) In this verse, Jesus speaks to the Pharisees in the singular (Farisaie
>tyfle), while in the whole chapter he uses the plural. So this verse is
>kind of a break in the style of the passage.
>(2) Some textual witnesses were aware of this anomaly, and corrected to the
>plural - if my understanding of the correction is right. They are: the two
>old syriac mss, the georgian Adysh ms (geo.c), the georgian pre-vulgate
>(geo.abde), the diatessaron in Arabic and the Persian harmony. And, in the
>West, there's the old latin manuscipt c.
(snip)
>Any thoughts?

Changes from singular to plural (and vice versa) are also not uncommon in 
versions, especially when a Greek neutrum is involved, though in this peculiar 
case it is not a neutrum. However, as Jean pointed out, the context is very much 
in favour of this "correction". Therefore, even if Greek witnesses to the plural 
existed, I would not consider this type of evidence genealogically significant. 
It may well have happened by mere chance.

Ulrich Schmid, Muenster

Back