Subject: Re: Studies in the text of Acts

From: "DC PARKER" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 May 1997 14:25:09 GMT

Most of the interest in 1739 is in its text of Paul, where it is 
derived from ancient materials.  Acts is a 
different matter altogether.

DC PARKER
DEPT OF THEOLOGY
UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM
TEL. 0121-414 3613
FAX  0121-414 6866
E-MAIL [email-masked]

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 May 1997 09:08:57 -0700

>different matter altogether.

I know that this is a common conclusion based on the colophons.
But it's not that simple.

There is unquestionably a family of manuscripts of which 1739 is the
best. It is *not*, however, the ancestor of the family (although it
may well be the ancestor of 0121).

It is true that 1739's allies vary a bit from section to section --
e.g. 945 is an ally in Acts and the Catholics, but not in Paul; 630
is an ally in Acts and parts of Paul but not the Catholics.

However, no clear dividing line can be drawn between these sections.
1881, 1739's strongest ally, is an ally in both Paul and the Catholics
(it does not contain Acts).

I concede that 1739 may be somewhat weaker in Acts than in Paul.
But in the Catholics, it heads a family (323, 945, 1241, 2298, etc.) of
high antiquity and great value. It is worth noting that no less a
witness than C is affiliated with 1739 in the Catholics. (See Amphoux,
or compare the collations in NA27.) I don't say they are identical,
but C is closer to 1739 than to Aleph A B.

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

                        Robert B. Waltz
                     [email-masked]

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