Subject: Re: Rev 12:18

From: "Jean Valentin" <[email-masked]>
Date: 27 Mar 97 22:28:52 +0100

<SMALLER>On Jeu 27 Mars 1997 18:24, </SMALLER>

<SMALLER> wrote:

</SMALLER><SMALLER><FIXED><FONTFAMILY><PARAM>Monaco</PARAM>> Jim, 

> It would be very difficult for me to vote against A when it is in
agreement

> with Aleph, P47, and C in Revelation, especially when the context
supports

> the reading.  I think John intends to contrast the Dragon standing
on the

> sand with the Lamb standing on Mt. Zion (14:1).  It wouldn't make
sense for

</FONTFAMILY></FIXED></SMALLER><SMALLER>>
</SMALLER><SMALLER><FIXED><FONTFAMILY><PARAM>Monaco</PARAM>the
narrator to simply state, " I am standing on the sand."

</FONTFAMILY></FIXED></SMALLER><SMALLER>> 

I ask myself if it is good method to make decisions about textual
variants from the point of view of what the text should be saying.
Exegesis should come after the text has been decided... However, we
all know that such a sharp distinction between TC and interpretation
is sometimes quite theoretical. But I stay with the idea (specially
with puzzling texts like the Apoc.) that we should speak about what
makes or doesn't make sense only after we have established the text.
(I hope this doesn't sound offensive, I would probably put better
nuances in French!).

For what concerns the versions now. Here's at least what happens in
Syriac - the NA27 apparatus is correct.

(1) The Apocalypse printed at the end of the UBS syriac NT (which is
not the peshitto Apocalypse as there is no such thing, but a later
version supposed to be the Philoxenian - it's the Crawford-Gwynn text)
has 1st person singular. And, it's numbered... 13:1.

(2) The "harqlean" ms edited photographically by Voobus (CSCO 400) has
3rd person masc. singular.

So as you see, both readings exist in Syriac as well. And, the
chronological movement goes from 1st person to 3rd person.

Shayno!

___________________________________________________

Jean Valentin - 58/7 rue Van Kalck - 1080 Bruxelles (Belgique)

___________________________________________________

Ce qui est trop simple est faux, ce qui est trop compliqué est
inutilisable.

Wat te eenvoudig is, is verkeerd; wat te ingewikkeld is, is
onbruikbaar.

What's too simple is wrong, what's too complicated is
unusable.</SMALLER>

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 1997 08:50:13 -0700

Regarding Maurice Robinson's defence of the Byzantine text in the
Apocalypse....

Everyone knows that I rarely agree with Robinson. But I have to
agree with him, at least in part, on this. Not on which variant
is correct in this instance; I haven't really worried about it
much. Rather, I agree with him that the Byzantine text in the
Apocalypse deserves more attention than it gets.

I am not an expert on text-types in the Apocalypse. But I know
the basic results of Schmid's work. There are four text-types
in the Apocalypse:

1. p47 and Aleph
2. "Alexandrian," headed by A C; also certain minuscules such as
   2053, plus -- I believe -- the vulgate
3. Koine
4. Andreas

Now let's look at this. The first type has only two witnesses,
and one of them incomplete. The second is stronger, but even
it relies strongly on incomplete witnesses (C, 2344). Only
the third and fourth are well-attested.

This contrasts very unfavorably with, say, Paul, where there
are four non-Byzantine text-types and a wide variety of
interesting families.

This means that the Byzantine text is much more important in
the Apocalypse. It may itself be secondary, but it probably
contains older elements not found in Aleph or A.

I would not conclude from this, as Robinson does, that the
Byzantine text should be followed in all instances. It is
simply one text-type -- and an unusually suspect one at
that. But it must be consulted.

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

                            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: "George Kiraz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 1997 10:26:36 -0500

In Mt 27:46 almost all the popular English translations have "sabachthani". I
have a question regarding the 'h' after [t].

Am I right in assuming that in the Aramaic the [t] should be plosive since it
is post consonantal? If that is the case, why is there an 'h' after [t] which
indicates fricativeness?

Or does the 'h' indicate that the [t] is aspirated? Brain Joseph (in Comries's
*The World's Major Languages*, Oxford 1990) claims that theta was aspirated in
ancient Greek.

Any comments would be appreciated.

George A. Kiraz

-- 
           _        _
            \\\||///                             George Anton Kiraz
  ___________\||||/___________           Language Modeling Research
  \___\___\___/  \___/___/___/                    Bell Laboratories
   \___\___\_ ARAM _/___/___/                           Room 2D-513
    \___\___\_\__/_/___/___/                       700 Mountain Ave
     \___\___\_||_/___/___/                   Murray Hill, NJ 07974
              ||||                
              ||||                             Tel. +1 908 582 4074
           |\_//\\_/|                          Fax. +1 908 582 3306
            \_/  \_/           Email: [email-masked]

---

From: Frederick Knobloch <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 1997 11:05:51 -0500 (EST)

> *The World's Major Languages*, Oxford 1990) claims that theta was aspirated in

I am not an expert in NT or Aramaic, but have worked on Greek
transcriptions of Hebrew, so I will put in my 2 cents.  Greek theta was in
the process of changing from aspirated plosive to fricative during the
first centuries C.E. (this according to W. S. Allen, Vox Graeca, 3rd ed.,
23ff.), so I imagine that the symbol theta could represent either
pronunciation.  But I think you are right -- since theta is representing
post-consonantal Aramaic tav it is best understood to be an aspirated
plosive. 

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
    Frederick W. Knobloch 
    Meyerhoff Center for Jewish Studies
    0113 Woods Hall
    University of Maryland              Phone: (301) 405-4980
    College Park, MD 20742-7415         E-mail: [email-masked]
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::