Subject: Re: 1739 text (Was: Re: Ro 1:16)

From: Jim West <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Oct 1997 22:18:44 -0400 (EDT)

At 05:23 PM 10/1/97 -0500, you wrote:
>
>I could cite many individual instances of the striking agreements of
>1739, 6, 424**, and 1881 (plus 0121 0243) with the Alexandrians --
>but I think the above is probably enough evidence. :-)

And very well done!

>
>The question is not "is 1739 'Western'?" It is not. The question
>is, "Is Zuntz right (in placing 1739 with P46 B) or am I
>(in placing 1739 in its own text-type)?"
>

This merits further attention, I think.

>
>Agreed. All I am saying is that the "Western" type, in Paul,
>deserves a fair hearing. Where it stands alone -- as it
>frequently does -- it is almost certainly secondary. But
>where it has support from any other major group (P46/B, 1739,
>Aleph/A/C/33), it deserves strong consideration.
>

Indeed it does.

>I'm curious -- what evidence led you to believe 1739 is "Western"?
>

Material I read many years ago now; in a source forgotten.  I have requested
1739 from Claremont and will do my own collation.  Where did you find your
figuers; or was the info. you provided your own examination?
"Almost thou persuadest me to" believe in the Alexandrian leanings of 1739;
but I will have to check for myself.  Thanks for your input.

>[ ... ]

Jim

+++++++++++++++++++++++
Jim West

Adjunct Professor of Bible,
Quartz Hill School of Theology

[email-masked]

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 08:33:58 -0500 (CDT)

On Wed, 01 Oct 1997, Jim West <[email-masked]> wrote, in part:

[ ... ]

>This merits further attention, I think.

I'm working on it. :-)

It comes down to the question of "What is a text-type?" I'm sure
that one could "cook" the definition to make the matter come out
either way. To me, though, it appears that 1739 stands alone -- because,
in fact, it has certain unique readings, plus special agreements
with all three other text-types.

[ ... ]
>figuers; or was the info. you provided your own examination?

The data comes from various sources (miscellaneous collations, the
data in UBS and NA, etc.) I put it together myself, and wrote the
relevant code. I hope to make both data and software available soon.

BTW -- Lake & New published a collation of 1739 in _Six_New_
_Testament_Manuscripts_. If it's good enough for Zuntz, it's
good enough for me. :-)

For that matter, if you just want to check the readings of 1739, the
data in Nestle should prove more than adequate to prove its
affinities.

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

                        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)