Subject: acc. vs gen reading

From: Andrew Kulikovsky <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 04 Jul 1997 10:04:42 +0930

Filloi, (Aussie translation: G'day mates!)

I was reading Fee's exegesis of Rom 8:11 in his book God's Empowering
Presence
where he accepted a variant reading over the UBS4 reading. The UBS4
reading has:
DIA TOU ENOIKOUNTOS

and the variant:
DIA TO ENOIKOUN

Metzger, in his textual commentary states that the variant should be
discounted because even though it is supported by B it is also supported
by D and G, which weakens the authority of B. Now I checked Metzger's
Text of the NT where he describes D as western witness containing the
Gospels and Acts and G as a Byzantine witness containing the gospels -
no mention of Romans anywhere!

So firstly, are the citations of D and G in UBS4 correct and if so then
what about Metzger's descriptions?

Secondly, Fee's acceptance of the variant means DIA must be taken with
the accustive and therefore is causal making the translation "because
of" instead of the genative "through". This argument fits the context
very well and seems very convincing to me - I'm just a bit worried about
the manuscript confusion...

So what do the rest of you 'oll think?

cheers,
Andrew S. Kulikovsky B.App.Sc(Hons) MACS
Software Engineer
CelsiusTech Australia
Module 6 Endeavor House
Technology Park
Adelaide Australia 5095
Ph: +618 8343 3837
Fax: +618 8343 3777
email: [email-masked]

Some people are so narrow-minded,
    they can see through a key hole with both eyes
Others are so open-minded
    their brain has fallen out.

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 1997 20:51:14 -0500 (CDT)

On Fri, 04 Jul 1997, Andrew Kulikovsky <[email-masked]> wrote:

>I was reading Fee's exegesis of Rom 8:11 [ ... ]
> The UBS4 reading has:
>DIA TOU ENOIKOUNTOS
>
>and the variant:
>DIA TO ENOIKOUN
>

You were reading the Gospels list. In Paul, D is Codex Claromontanus, not
Bezae, and G is also a different manuscript.

Both are Western -- *in Paul.*

Not that Metzger's manuscript lists are worth much. (IMHO.)

>what about Metzger's descriptions?

Let's give the raw evidence, then classify. (I maintain this is how
*all* variants should be analysed -- though of course others use
different approaches.)

TOU ENOIKOUNTOS
Aleph A C P**
81 88 104 206 223 256 263 326 436 623 1319 1505 1506 1611 1799 1852
1962 2127 2495
f m hark sa bo arm eth geo slav
Clement

TO ENOIKOUN
B D F G K L P* Psi
6 33 181 330 424 451 (614) 629 630 1022 1175 1241 1739 1881 (1912) 2200
2412 2464 2492 Byz
a b d vg pesh (pal)
Ir-lat Origen Ambrosiaster

********

Analysing by text-types, we find

TOU ENOIKOUNTOS:
p46-B: sa
Alexandrian: Aleph A C 81 104 1506
   family 2127 (=256 263 [hiat 365] 1319 2127 etc.) bo eth
"Western:" f m
family 1739: (none)
Byzantine: slav pc
Misc:
  family 1611: 1505 1611 2495 hark
  family 330: (none)
  arm geo Clement

TO ENOIKOUN:
p46-B: B
Alexandrian (none -- 33 1175 1241 are Byzantine in Romans)
"Western": D F G a b d vg Ir-lat Ambrosiaster
family 1739: 6 630-2200 1739 1881 Origen (no correction in 424)
Byzantine: K L Psi 33 (614)-2412 1022 1175 1241 pm Byz
Misc:
  family 1611: (none)
  family 330: 330 451 2492
  pal

In other words, TOU ENOIKOUNTOS is the reading of the Alexandrian
text, supported only by family 1611 and some scattered witnesses.
TO ENOIKOUN has the support of B, the "Western" text, and family
1739. It is also supported by family 330, but this might be
Byzantine influence. Even so, since three text-types support
TO ENOIKOUN, it should be adopted barring extremely strong
internal evidence -- which I don't see here.

In other words, I agree with Fee against UBS.

It's worth remembering that the UBS committee almost always adopted
the Alexandrian reading, whatever the other evidence says....

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

                        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: kdlitwak <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Jul 1997 19:44:38 -0700

I gound Robert Waltx's analysis quite helpful but now I have a
question.  I can't say that I remember ever reading the classification
of miniscule MSS like 33,81, and 1739, etc., but it seems to me that
usually, these three MSS agree with major Alexandrian MSS like A and B.
This seems so much the case that I'd assumed these miniscules were
Alexandrian.  I thought I'd seen them classified that way long ago.
Robert Waltz has treated them, if I've read his analysis correctly, as
either Western, or not belonging to a "text type."  Would someone please
clear this up for me?  Thanks.

Ken Litwak
Graduate Theological Union
Berkeley, CA

Robert B. Waltz wrote:
[snip]

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Jul 1997 08:22:18 -0500 (CDT)

>clear this up for me?  Thanks.

Remember that I do my own analysis of text-types, using computer
sampling techniques. Thus my results are somewhat different (I
say better, Larry Hurtado would probably say worse) than those
in the standard manuals.

But let's look at what I said.

In the case of 81, I classified it as Alexandrian. No disagreements
there.

In the case of 33, it is of course generally Alexandrian. In fact,
after Aleph, it appears to be the best Alexandrian witness in Paul.
*Except* in Romans. I have read that 33's text of Romans comes from
another hand. Certainly its text is different. In Romans -- and *only*
in Romans -- 33 is a primarily Byzantine witness.

Then there is the truly complicated matter of 1739. When it was
first discovered, it was listed as Alexandrian. That was based on
the fact that it wasn't Byzantine (obviously) and wasn't "Western."

It was Zuntz who first noted that the Alexandrian text wasn't just
a monolithic entity. He split it into two subgroups, "proto-Alexandrian"
and Alexandrian proper. He put 1739, along with p46 and B, in the
former group.

Zuntz's great achievement lay in "breaking the mold"; he didn't assume
existing text-types. Instead, he started from p46 -- the earliest
witness -- and tried to see where that led.

This was a real advance, but even it was an imperfect approach. Zuntz
noted that 1739 came closer to p46 and B than did other Alexandrian
witnesses such as Aleph and A. Therefore Zuntz classified 1739 with
those witnesses.

My approach is different and, I think, more complete. I start *everywhere*
at once. And in that process I found that 1739 is closer to all three
established groups (p46-B, Alexandrian, "Western") than they are to each
other.

This leads to one of two possible conclusions. Either 1739 is a sort of
primitive eclectic text, compiled from proto-Alexandrian, Alexandrian,
and "Western" witnesses, or it represents a text-type in its own
right.

The question then becomes, "Are there any other witnesses of the 1739
type?" The answer is emphatically YES! There are two uncials: 0121 (M)
and 0243. And there are quite a few minuscules, among them (in Paul)
6 424** 630+2200 (in Romans-Galatians) 1881.

One of these -- 0121 -- gives some evidence of being actually descended
from 1739 (with at least one intermediate copy which was partly accomodated
to the Byzantine text). But the others are *not*. 6 and 424** form a
subgroup with some non-Byzantine readings not found in 1739. 1881 (the
best "1739-type" witness other than 1739 itself) also has some independent
readings. 0243 looks like a sister or first cousin of 1739, but it does
not appear to be either parent or child.

Thus we have several "family 1739" witnesses not directly derived from
1739 itself. On this basis I consider it to be a text-type in its own
right. Hence my listing of 1739, and its relatives, apart from the
Alexandrian text.

If you want more details, check the article on "text-types" at the
web site below. Also see the individual articles on 33, 81, 1739, and
any other minuscules that interest you.

I'm working -- slowly -- on a detailed study of family 1739 -- particularly
on the relationship between 1739 and 0243 -- but I can't promise when it
will be complete.

                        Robert B. Waltz
                     [email-masked]

---

From: Jack Kilmon <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 04 Jul 1997 13:03:06 -0500

> TCers:

    I am primarily a lurker and learner on the tc-list.  My own area of
interest is that shadowy period of the original sources of the New
Testament writings, outside of Paul, and what can be devined of the
original Yeshuine Jews (my coinage).  Although TC can cast little light
on this period, it is valuable in showing me how the Greek-folk
transmitted the oral and written sources of the Jewish Jesus-folk.
Obviously, therefore, I have a great interest in the Syriac texts and
how they may preserve the Aramaic idiom of the "vox ipsissima Iesu."  In
this regard, I find the works of Lamsa, Fitzmyer and Jeremias of great
value but am beginning to see some of the pitfalls of "retroversion."

    As a layman, my access to TC has been through the works of Metzger
and the modern scholars as well as the historicals.  I am oftimes a bit
disgruntled that New Testament scholars tend to be, in my opinion,
overly Graecophilic (is that a word?) and discussions on the possible
Aramaic behind the Greek often lead to minor bouts of apoplexy.  I
understand, however, that we can only work with the surviving evidence
we have in hand...which is Greek, so I tend to forgive the flames that
come my way when discussing the possible idiomatic differences between a
Greek rendering and its Aramaic rendering.

    The former being merely background, the primary reason for this post
is to publicly express my appreciation and gratitude to Robert Waltz for
the tremendous gift he has offered to anyone with a PC and a desire to
learn more about the present art of Textual Criticism, namely his
website at:

>  http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn

    The test of a true scholar is not in how much he/she knows, but how
much he/she departs to others.

Jack Kilmon
Houston, Texas
[email-masked]