Subject: Rev 9:16

From: Jim West <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 1997 22:47:34 -0500 (EST)

NA 27 lists several variants of dismuriades muriadwn.  The question I have
is quite simple (!).  Which reading gave rise to the others?

Thanks,

Jim

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Jim West
Adjunct Professor of Bible
Quartz Hill School of Theology

[email-masked]
or
[email-masked]

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 1997 09:20:19 -0700

>is quite simple (!).  Which reading gave rise to the others?

I would say "dismuriades muriadwn." In a triple reading, prefer the
middle reading. Neither "muriades muriadwn" is not likely to have
given rise to "duo muriades muriadwn"; the reverse could have
happened, but there's no particular reason. Whereas "dismuriades
muriadwn" could have given rise to either.

"Dismuriades muriadwn" also appears to have the best external attestation.

At a casual glance, anyway.

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

                            Robert B. Waltz
                         [email-masked]

Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism?
Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn
(A very rough draft of part of the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism)

---

From: "Huey Bahr" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 97 17:48:07 PST

Robert B. Waltz wrote:
> In a triple reading, prefer the middle reading.

Is this all the time, most of the time, some of the time, or just when we
can't find another reason
for perferring one of the readings.

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 1997 19:03:59 -0700

>for perferring one of the readings.

By my definition of "the middle reading," it's always. But what I call
the "middle reading" may depend on other criteria. (See the fuller
discussion in my "Canons of Criticism" article at the ENTTC site.)

Still, I consider this a very strong rule. If one reading could have
*directly* given rise to all the others, that reading is almost
certain to be original.

It continues to amaze me that this rule (offered by Griesbach)
is not quoted more often. But then, I never have been one to
play by the usual rules. :-)

                            Robert B. Waltz
                         [email-masked]