Subject: Re: tc-list Lk 16.19 in D and old syriac ?

From: "Roderic L. Mullen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1998 20:39:40 -0500

Indeed, both Burkitt's edition of the SyrC and Lewis' edition of SyrS
indicate that SyrC is lacunose at from 16:12 to 17:1, but the bibliographic
note on p.66* in NA27 indicates that an article in Biblica 68 (1987): 85-88,
contains the missing page of SyrC.  --Rod Mullen

At 01:15 AM 3/8/98 +0100, you wrote:
>I don't understand what I see in the apparatus of NA27 about this 
>passage. According to NA27, there's a short addition at the beginning of 
>the verse (EIPEN DE KAI ETERAN PARABOLHN) which is supported by D and 
>syc. The curetonian Syriac is put between parentheses, which probably 
>means that there's a small difference with the Greek text cited from D.
>
>Now here's my problem: when I look at Metzger EVNT p. 37 (and at my 
>Syriac editions!), I see that the curetonian manuscript doesn't contain 
>this text, neither do the additional folios discovered later (the one 
>closest to our text stops at 16.12).
>
>My question then is twofold: (1) which is the source for the inclusion of 
>syc in the apparatus of NA, and (2) what is its text?
>
>Origin of the question: I just discovered the same variant in one of my 
>Arabic manuscripts - so this would be one of the rare instances where it 
>has a variant that is distinctively Western.
>
>Any help will be greatly appreciated, as this relates to my thesis!
>
>Thank you,
>
>Jean V.
>
>
>_________________________________________________
>Jean Valentin - Bruxelles - Belgique
>e-mail: [email-masked]
>_________________________________________________
>"Als liefde het antwoord is, kunt U dan misschien de vraag nog een keer 
>stellen?"
>_________________________________________________
>