Wed Dec 18 10:11:14 1996

From owner-tc-list  Wed Dec 18 10:11:14 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id KAA01740; Wed, 18 Dec 1996 10:10:36 -0500
X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com
Message-Id: 
In-Reply-To: <9612180755.AA25348@iris.arcadis.be>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1996 08:41:59 -0700
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
From: "Robert B. Waltz" 
Subject: Re: have salt with each other ??
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 1454

On Wed, 18 Dec 96, Jean VALENTIN  wrote:

>Hello tc-ers.
>
>I'm back with a strange translation I found in the Arabic version of ms 
>Sinai Arabic 71 (Xth century, one of the earliest mss on which I'm 
>working).
>
>In NA27, Mk 9.50 (second part) is translated:
>"Have salt in yourselves, and be in peace with each other".
>
>In Sin. Arb. 71, this sentence is translated:
>"Have salt in yourselves (litt. in your souls, usual in Arabic), and have 
>_salt_ with each other".
>
>I ask myself several questions about this passage. Could it be just 
>another carelessness of the translator or the scribe, or is it possible 
>that we have here a correct interpretation of this enigmatic sentence of 
>Jesus? I mean by this, could it be that, in the milieu that produced the 
>Gospel texts, "salt" was a metaphor for "peace"? 

While I have heard of salt being used as a peace offering, I don't
think that is what is involved here.

As I recall, the most common scribal error, after haplography, is
parallelism. And parallelism usually involves conforming to the
most familiar parallel. Which is usually the nearer parallel.
(See Colwell's article on the subject.) In other words, I think
the translator used "salt" in the second phrase because it occurred
in the first. It's just an error.

Robert B. Waltz
waltzmn@skypoint.com

Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism?
Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/waltzmn

Back