Subject: Re: tc-list Phi 3.16

From: "Roderic L. Mullen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 21:22:36 -0500

With regard to your Manuscript groupings, 614 is often considered to be a
secondary Western witness in Acts, but I have no idea what it's character
would be in the Pauline epistles.  I don't think there's any evidence for
anything  that could be called a distinctive Caesarean text-type in the
Pauline epistles, so I'm not sure tht the armenian version is a useful
witness at this point.
--Rod Mullen

At 02:23 PM 11/21/98 -0700, you wrote:
>In Phi 3.16 the Critical Text omits KANONI TO AUTO FRONEIN and acc. to
>Metzger this is so because "The earliest form of the text appears to be that
>preserved in p16, p46, Aleph (1st hand), A, B,  I (vid) 33, 424(corr), 1739
>cop (sa,bo) eth(ro) etc. Because of the conciseness of style, copyists added
>various explanatory words and phrases; e.g. the TR reads TW AUTW STOIXEIN
>KANONI TO AUTO FRONEIN with Aleph (corr), K, P, Psi, 88, 614, syr (p,h),
>eth(pp), etc, where KANONI serves to identify the otherwise enigmatic TW
>AUTW and TO AUTO FRONEIN is a gloss explaining TW AUTW STOIXEIN (cf. 2.2 and
>Gal 6.16); other witnesses insert KANONI before STOIXEIN (69, 1908), and
>still others insert TO AUTO FRONEIN before TW AUTW with or without KANONI
>(D, G, 81, 330, 1241, it, vg, goth, arm, Euthalius). The variety and lack of
>homogeneity of the longer readings make it difficult to suppose that the
>shorter reading TW AUTW STOIXEIN arose because of homoeoteleuton."
>
>So that acc. to Metzger we have the following:
>(1) TW AUTW STOIXEIN p16, p46, Aleph (1st hand), A, B,  I (vid) 33,
>424(corr), 1739, cop (sa,bo) eth(ro)
>(2) TW AUTW STOIXEIN KANONI TO AUTO FRONEIN with Aleph (corr), K, P, Psi,
>88, 614, syr (p,h), eth(pp)
>(3) TW AUTW KANONI STOIXEIN TO AUTO FRONEIN 69,1908
>(4) TO AUTO FRONEIN TW AUTW STOIXEIN (KANONI) D, G, 81, 330, 1241, it, vg,
>goth, arm, Euthalius
>
>(A) I suppose we may dismiss reading (3) because of its minimal witnesses,
>and perhaps a simple accidental metathesis.
>(B) I do not know if we can also call reading (4) a case of metathesis
>(coupled to error in hearing, reading or memory lapse?). Its witnesses are
>Byz (goth) West (D, G, it, vg) Alex (81) Caesa (arm) (I do not know where to
>put 330, 1241 & Euth). Apparently this reading has ample geographical
>distribution.
>(C) The reading (2) has Byz (K, P, Syr) Alex (Aleph (corr)?, Psi) West (88)
>(where do 614 & eth(pp) go?). This reading has fairly good geographical
>distribution. Acc. to Hodges & Farstad this is the MT (I do not know about
>M. Robinson since I do not own a copy of his edition of the MT), and would
>then have the bulk of the witnesses.
>(D) The reading (1) is apparently Alexandrian (but where do we put p16 &
>eth(ro) ?). This reading is apparently a localized (geograohically) reading.
>It enjoys the early witness of p46.
>
>Now, to Metzger's explanation:
>(1) How convincing is that KANONI was added to identify the otherwise
>enigmatic TW AUTW, and that TO AUTO FRONEIN is a gloss explaining TW AUTW
>STOIXEIN? In this explanation TW AUTW is being asked to serve two times: to
>explain KANONI and to partly explain TO AUTO FRONEIN.
>(2) How the references cited (Phi 2.2 and Gal 6.16) serve to support that TO
>AUTO FRONEIN is a gloss explaining TW AUTW STOIXEIN ? Did the scribes of
>reading (2) gloss from 2.2 & Gal 6.16 in order to think that TO AUTO FRONEIN
>might be a good explanation of TW AUTW STOIXEIN ?
>
>And, some last questions:
>(1) Unto what did the corrector of Aleph corrected it? Was it the same
>first-scribe who corrected himself? Is Aleph(corr) still then Alexandrian?
>(2) Could it be that Phi 2.2 & Gal 6.16 and Phil. 1:7; 2:2, 5; 3:15, 19;
>4:2, 10 (where some form of FRONEW appears) rather be confirmatory of the
>originality of reading (2)?
>(3) Reading (1) is the shortest reading, but also a localized reading. Is
>there really no chance that this reading arose due to homoeoteleuton or some
>other accident?
>
>Thanks,
>Francisco Orozco
>TC Lurker
>
>

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 07:56:30 -0600

>Pauline epistles, so I'm not sure tht the armenian version is a useful

I don't have a collation of 614 in Paul, but the data in UBS3
makes it clear that 614 and 2412 are sisters there, or nearly
(as they are in the Acts and Catholics). And Clark published
a collation of 2412.

On this basis we can say:

- 614 and 2412 are *not* members of Family 1611 (1611, 1505, 2495,
hark; possibly 2005; also 1022 in the Pastorals)

- 614 and 2412 are almost purely, if not purely, Byzantine

As for the Armenian: It is a useful witness, although it has not
been classified. Based on the data in UBS3, it is largely non-Byzantine --
but does not appear to go with Origen, or with Family 1739. So it
is an open question whether arm is "Caesarean" or not, even if one
accepts the existence of that text-type.

I hope to have more to say on this thread later; too much to do
right now....
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

                        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)