Subject: Jn 3.17 in codex Koridethi

From: Jean VALENTIN <[email-masked]>
Date: Dim, 1 Jun 97 22:10:41 +0200

While working on my arabic versions, I notice something about Jn 3.17. 
There are three different texts:

1/ ou gar apesteilen o theos ton uion eis ton kosmon etc... P66 P75 Aleph 
B L fam1 565 etc...
2/ ou gar apesteilen o theos ton uion _autou_ eis ton kosmon etc... P63 A 
fam13 33 Maj
3/ ou gar apesteilen o theos ton uion _auton_ eis ton kosmon etc... Theta

Two questions about the third text, that of Theta:
1/ Does it make sense?
2/ If not, there's perhaps a graphical reason for it. The scribe took the 
upsilon for a nu... but it works only if the exemplar he is using is a 
minuscule ms. Has anybody heard of other instances of such mistakes that 
would point to the archetype of Theta being a minuscule?

Generally speaking, any general information about this codex would be 
welcome to me, as it seems important for the study of the arabic versions.

Thank you,

Jean V.

_________________________________________________
Jean Valentin - Bruxelles - Belgique
_________________________________________________
"Ce qui est trop simple est faux, ce qui est trop complexe est 
inutilisable"
"What's too simple is wrong, what's too complex is unusable"
_________________________________________________

---

From: "Dave Washburn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 01 Jun 97 15:44:27 MDT

> Two questions about the third text, that of Theta:

Not really...

> would point to the archetype of Theta being a minuscule?

That's not necessarily the only explanation.  Surrounded as it is by -on
endings, it could be a simple unconscious assimilation to the words around
it, i.e. a simple scribal error.  I don't know much of anything about
Theta, but this looks like a mental error to me.

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 18:31:04 -0500 (CDT)

>Theta, but this looks like a mental error to me.

I won't lie and claim that I know anything about Theta, either, but
one thing I recall reading is that the scribe knew little if any
Greek. To my mind, this makes a misreading perhaps slightly more
likely than an assimilation.

Hardly proof, of course.

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

                        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)

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 1 Jun 1997 21:26:48 -0400 (EDT)

> Two questions about the third text, that of Theta:

Short answer, no.

> would point to the archetype of Theta being a minuscule?

Simplest answer is that this is an accidental harmonization to the
immediate context, and thus an accidental accomodation to the accusative
case of the two words immediately preceding.  There is no need to suppose
a more farfetched hypothesis of a minuscule exemplar and resultant
confusion of letters in such a case.

_________________________________________________________________________
Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D.           Professor of Greek and New Testament
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary     Wake Forest, North Carolina
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

---

From: "Mr. Helge Evensen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Jun 1997 17:58:57 -0700

> Two questions about the third text, that of Theta:

Maybe. I do not really know, but is it not a possibility that the 
sentence is to be understood in this way: "For God did not send the Son
_himself_ into the world...." (with the "auton" used as a reflexive)??
This is probably less likely, though. But there are some cases in the NT
in which pronouns are (most probably) used in the reflexive sense.

-- 
- Mr. Helge Evensen

---

From: Matthew Johnson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 10:39:06 -0700 (PDT)

> would point to the archetype of Theta being a minuscule?

Jean-

Your question reminds me of how much easier I find reading uncials than
reading minuscules.  But I did look at a reproduction of Codex 048 to see
how plausible (at least in that scribes hand) your conjecture is. 

At first, I thought it highly improbable, but I then noticed that his
final "ou" in masculine genitives does look like "on" in one of the three
instances. 

But I also noticed that the accent mark preserves the correct interpretation
even when the "ou" looks like a "on".  All the minuscules I have seen have
the accent marks, "ou" takes the circumflex, "on" takes the grave; in 048
they are quite distinct in appearance.

Thus for this misreading in the minuscule, we require two scribal errors:
a sloppy final upsilon and a sloppy circumflex (or a simple failure to
read the accent correctly). 

On the other hand, if we assume the exemplar is an slanted-uncial, then
since there are no accents, we only require an unreadable initial stroke
in the N. 

Matthew Johnson
Waiting for the blessed hope and the appearance of the glory of our 
great God and Saviour Jesus Christ (Ti 2:13).

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 07 Jun 97 15:01:06 +0100

>since there are no accents, we only require an unreadable initial stroke

In my view, this is an excellent discussion of the relevant data. However, a 
small correction needs to be added: 048 is not Codex Koridethi; Codex Koridethi 
is 038.

Ulrich Schmid, Muenster

---

From: Matthew Johnson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Jun 1997 19:26:07 -0700 (PDT)

> >how plausible (at least in that scribes hand) your conjecture is.
[snipped]
> small correction needs to be added: 048 is not Codex Koridethi; Codex 

TO which I reply:

OK, I admit, I did not look up Codex Koridethi.  The local Jesuit University's
library (mentioned in the previous post) does not HAVE an edition of
Codex Koridethi. I picked Codex 048 only because it is a minuscule I
_could_ find in that local library.

Unfortunately, minuscule hands vary even more greatly than uncial hands.  But
given that caveat, 048 is fairly typical for a minuscule.

So I hope the members of the list will accept my apologies for phrasing my
post with the unintentional result that it sounded like I had looked at
Codex Koridethi.

Matthew Johnson

---

From: "GLENN WOODEN" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 12:53:37 AST4ADT

David,

Have you consulted:

     Clines, David J. A. 
     I, he, we and they : a literary approach to Isaiah 53
     Sheffield : Journal for the Study of the Old Testament,
     1983,c1976. 
     (Journal for the study of the Old Testament. Supplement
     series; 1) 
     Reprint. Originally published : Sheffield, Eng. : JSOT Press,
     1976. 

This may deal with the issues you raise.

Glenn Wooden
Acadia Divinity College
Wolfville N.S.
Canada

[email-masked]

---

From: "Dave Washburn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 97 11:10:02 MDT

----------
>      Reprint. Originally published : Sheffield, Eng. : JSOT Press,

Can't say I have, can't say I can at the moment.  One of the bad things
about living in rural Wyoming is the lack of a decent library.  And right
now I'm in the middle of moving to central Arizona and won't be able to
consult much of anything for a while.  Could you give me a quick synopsis?

Dave Washburn
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur/
[email-masked]

---

From: "GLENN WOODEN" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 14:36:52 AST4ADT

Dave,

Sorry, but I can't. I just know that the book deals with the issue of 
the pronouns in Is. 53.

Glenn

> Priority:      Normal
> To:            "tc-list" <[email-masked]>
> From:          "Dave Washburn" <[email-masked]>
> Subject:       Re: sing/plural in Isa 53:8 & 9
> Date:          Thu, 12 Jun 97 11:10:02 MDT
> Reply-to:      [email-masked]

Glenn Wooden
Acadia Divinity College
Wolfville N.S.
Canada

[email-masked]

---

From: "Dave Washburn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 97 12:49:41 MDT

Okay, it gives me something to go on once I get moved.  Thanks!

----------