Subject: tc-list 1 Cor. 14.34-35 and the Western Tradition

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 20:39:03 EDT

TCers:

I am trying to understand 1 Cor. 14:34-35. In particular I am looking at
the Western witnesses which put vv. 34-35 after v. 40. I am trying to
reconcile different presentations of the information:

UBS 4 says: D, F, G, Italic ar b d f g, vg ms, Ambrosiaster,
Sedulius-Scotus.

UBS 3 (Corrected) says: D F G 88*, Italic ar d e f g, Ambrosiaster,
Sedulius-Scotus.

Fee, 1 Cor., NICNT, says: D F G 88* a b d f g, Ambrosiaster,
Sedulius-Scotus.

Fee, _God's Empowering Presence_, pg. 273 lists: F/f; G/g; 88*; e; ar;
Ambrosiaster, Sedulius Scotus. 

I am particularly stuck on Old Latin a and b. It seems to me that Fee
lists it in the NICNT but not in his later book. Am I misreading the
presentation of the evidence? Any suggestions would be helpful. For that
matter, why does UBS 4 include b, while UBS 3 leave it out?

Secondly, does anybody know if any of the above Western witness included
any marginal notes or signs along with the placement of vv. 34-35 after
v. 40? I am aware that Old Latin Armachanus "omits vv. 36-39, so that its
text reads vv.33, 40, 34-35 in this order" (quoting Fee, Presence, p.
273). I'm just curious if there were any other interesting surprises.

I am working on an article; any input would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you.

Mike Kennedy, M.A., future doctoral candidate?
Vacaville, CA 

_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 20:51:40 -0500

>matter, why does UBS 4 include b, while UBS 3 leave it out?

UBS3 does not cite b at all. The manuscript is a relatively recent
discovery; I don't think it was properly edited when UBS3 was
first published. So the lack of citation in UBS3 means nothing.

For what it's worth.

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

                        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: "DC PARKER" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 12:48:27 GMT

Old Latin b of Paul is edited by H.J. Frede, Ein Neue Paulustext und 
Kommentar (Aus der Geschichte der Lateinischen Bibel 7-8), 1973-4.

DR DC PARKER
READER IN NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL CRITICISM AND PALAEOGRAPHY
DEPT OF THEOLOGY
UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM
TEL. 0121-414 3613
FAX  0121-414 6866
E-MAIL [email-masked]

---

From: "D.R. Edwards" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 09:33:40 -0400

Has the textual family of Polycarp's NT citations been established? Thanks
in advance.

D. Edwards
University of Kentucky
Lexington, KY, USA