Subject: tc-list Mark 7:31

From: Joseph Crea <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 01 Aug 1999 18:38:21 -0500

Hello everyone!

    The following was forwarded to me for comment -- which I have already
done from the limited resources at my disposal (a copy of UBS/GNT^4 is on
order but hasn't arrived yet, so I'm stuck with just NA^27 along with
Metzger's  __The Text of the New Testament__ and Aland & Aland's  __The
Text of the New Testament__).  The name of the writer is omitted in order
to protect the quilty.  Hope you find it as interesting as I did!

With Mettaa,

Joseph Crea
<[email-masked]>

============================== 

The textual history of Mark 7:24, and the judgment of the Nestle-Aland 
editorial board, is pretty easy to follow in the textual apparatus of either 
the 27th edition of the Nestle-Aland or in the 4th edition of the UBS text.

1.  According to the textual apparatus, the following manuscripts LACK "kai 
Sidonos" ("and Sidon"):

D -- Codex "Bezae Cantabrigiensis" is dated to the late 5th century, and is a 
Greek-Latin diglot, with the Greek text on the opposite side from the Latin, 
written in sense lines for use in worship.  It is classified as a category IV 
manuscript, meaning that it doesn't reflect any particular family of 
manuscripts, but is sometimes thought of as being of the "Western" Family 
("Western" being a misnomer, since it was produced in Egypt).  Our
difficulty in identifying its family is due to the fact that its readings are 
frequently very unusual and/or unique to it alone, and while it does contain 
some interesting early readings, it is not generally considered to be a 
manuscript of a quality approaching that of the "Great" Uncials (Sinaiticus 
and Vaticanus).

L -- Codex "Regius" is dated to the mid 8th century, is of the late 
"Egyptian" family of manuscripts, but is generally classified as a Category 
II manuscript (hence, important readings can be found in it).  Its lateness 
in the textual history, however, limits its strength as a textual exemplar.

W -- Codex "Freerianus" is dated to the late 5th or the very early 6th 
century, is located in the Freer Gallery of Art in Washington, DC (hence 
"W"), and is specially noted by its highly irregular textual readings.  It is 
a Category III manuscript, and hence rather poor even though it is from the 
late 5th century.  The irregularity of its text makes it hard to identify its 
family, however the majority of its readings appear to have an affinity
with the "Egyptian Family."

Delta -- Codex "Sangallensis" is dated to the early 9th century, is another 
example of a Latin - Greek diglot, with the Latin interlinear with the Greek. 
 It is a Category III manuscript, and in its Greek text is reflective, yet 
again, of the late Alexandrian Text type, often called the "Egyptian Family."

Theta -- Codex "Coridethianus" is dated to the mid 9th century, has a 
severely uneven textual quality, is written in an very awkward hand by a 
scribe who evidently didn't know Greek.  This doesn't speak well for the 
quality of the scribes copying, and its many severe errors can be seen in its 
VERY HIGH unique variant count -- 95.  By comparison, most manuscripts of 
this size will only have about 10 - 25 unique readings.

28 -- this is an 11th century minuscule of category III text ... family 
unknown.

565 -- this is a 9th century minuscule of category III text .... again, 
family unknown.

some Italian (later Latin) manuscripts ... mostly dated to the 4th - 7th 
centuries

some Syriac manuscripts ... mostly dated 5th - 7th centuries.

2.  According to the textual apparatus, the following manuscripts INCLUDE 
"kai Sidonos" ("and Sidon"):

Aleph -- Codex "Sinaiticus" is dated to the early 4th century, is one of the 
best copies of the entire New Testament available to us today, reflects a 
very regular though sometimes imprecise copy of the Alexandrian Family.

B -- Codex "Vaticanus" is dated to the early 4th century, is THE BEST copy of 
most of the New Testament available to us today, and reflects a VERY regular 
and VERY strict copy of the proto-Alexandrian family.

A -- Codex "Alexandranus" is dated to the early 5th century and, in its 
Gospels, reflects a very early version of the Byzantine Family.

K -- Codex "Cyprius" is dated to the 9th century and reflects the Byzantine 
Family.

X -- Codex "Monacensis" is dated to the mid 10th century and reflects the 
Byzantine Family.

Pi -- Codex "Petropolitanus" is dated to the 9th century and reflects the 
Byzantine Family.

Family 1 Minuscles and Family 13 Minuscules, both of which are excellent 
examples of Category III (heavily Caesarian) text.  There are 16 manuscripts 
in these two collections.

33 -- is a minuscule from the 9th century of a Category II, Alexandrian Family

700 -- is a minuscule from the 11th century of a Category III, mixed Family

892 -- is a minuscule from the 9th century of a Category II, Alexandrian 
Family

The MAJORITY TEXT (i.e., the VAST majority of the Byzantine Text Type 
exemplars (about a thousand manuscripts) all contain "kai Sidonos" ("and 
Sidon").

The Byzantine Lectionary
Some Old Latin/Italian manuscripts, some of which date to the 3rd century
The Latin Vulgate
The majority of the Syriac version
The Coptic version
The Gothic version
The Armenian version
The Ethiopian version
The Gregorian version
Tatian's Diatessaron -- which is a "Gospel Harmony" that dates from PRIOR to 
the 3rd century.

3.  Analysis.

The textual evidence is quite overwhelming in support of the inclusion of the 
words "kai Sidonos" ("and Sidon") at Mark 7:24.  Not only do we have the 
earliest and the best manuscripts in support of its inclusion (Sinaiticus and 
Vaticanus), but we also have a BROAD range of Geographical (Africa, 
Palestine, Byzantium, and Rome) and Text Type (Alexandrian, Caesarian, 
Byzantine, and Western versions)  support for its inclusion.  The very fact 
that
Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, Alexandranus, and the Majority Text all support the 
inclusion of "kai Sidonos" is a STRONG indicator in and of itself that the 
words should be considered as original.

The reason for its being left out of body-text of the Nestle-Aland is curious 
indeed, and may well be based upon a hypothetical reasoning processes which 
runs something like this:

1.  A few manuscripts leave out "kai Sidonos"
2.  We cannot figure out any reason why "kai Sidonos" would have been left 
out of these manuscripts
3.  We CAN posit a guess as to how "kai Sidonos" got added to the earliest 
and best manuscripts AND the majority text
4.  Therefore, even though textual support is VERY strong for the inclusion 
of "kai Sidonos," we prefer to leave the words out.

Their guess as to how "kai Sidonos" got added to the text of Mark 7:24 is 
that the scribes who were making copies of the Gospels added the words based 
upon their memory of having written the words in the previous book (Matthew 
15:21).

This theory works well to help determine the proper reading in cases where 
the textual evidence is poor or inconclusive.  In this case, however, this 
theory is VERY WEAK INDEED when compared with the strength of the textual 
witness of Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, Alexandranus, and the Majority Text.

It is made even MORE problematic when one considers the relatively weak 
character of the manuscripts which leave out "kai Sidonos."  They are: (1) of 
one basic textual family, (2) mostly late, (3) mostly from the same 
geographical region, and (4) all manuscripts with irregular or "sloppy" 
scribal characteristics.  Any of these 4 reasons, and especially the 4th 
reason, provide sufficient grounds for asserting why they left out "kai 
Sidonos" contrary
to its presence in earlier, superior, manuscripts.

I had never noticed this before ... it is an interesting example of where the 
editors of the Nestle-Aland and the UBS text have allowed their methodology 
to get in the way of the actual physical textual exemplars, and what those 
exemplars demonstrate.  For example, in almost any other place in the Greek 
New Testament you would care to indicate, when and where we find Sinaiticus 
and Vaticanus BOTH agreeing together, and ESPECIALLY when they not only
agree together, but agree with the Majority Text, in such places they almost 
ALWAYS are followed.  And, they should be followed here, too.  This is my 
professional opinion as a ThM and PhD (second concentration) in Textual 
Criticism.

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 1 Aug 1999 20:28:57 -0500

>to protect the quilty.  Hope you find it as interesting as I did!

I found this message more than a little disturbing (e.g. in its use
of the Aland "Manuscript Categories," which it treats as if they
were measures of manuscripts' actual *values,* when in fact they
are simply descriptions of how Byzantine the manuscripts are). That
being the case, I've decided simply to analyse the variant myself
and ignore the rest.

It is interesting to see that this is a reading where the UBS committee
actually *raised* the level of uncertainty in UBS4 (from A to B). But
let's start at the beginning.

As usual, we start with the evidence:

TUROU: D L W Delta Theta
  28 565
  a b d ff2 i n r1 sin (hiat cur) pal
  Origen Ambrosiaster

TUROU KAI SIDONOS: Aleph A B E F G H K N X Pi Sigma
  f1 f13 33 157 579 700 892 1010 1071 1079 1241 1243 1342 1424
    1505 1506 1579 2427 Byz
  aur c f l q vg pesh hark sa bo arm eth geo goth slav

The next step is to break these up by text-types:

                  TUROU                 TUROU KAI SIDONOS

Alexandrian       L Delta               Aleph B 33 579 892 sa ba
                                        and all other witnesses

Byzantine         -                     All witnesses

"Caesarean"       W Theta 28 565        f1 f13 700 arm geo
                  pal Origen

"Western"         D a b d ff2 i n r1    aur c f l q
                  sin Ambrosiaster

Thus TUROU KAI SIDONOS is Byzantine and Alexandrian; TUROU has some
late Alexandrian support, plus the "Western" text, and on the face of
it is also "Caesarean" (as defined by Streeter, at least, before the
fights start :-).

Majority of text-types says that TUROU is the better reading, but it's
very close.

Internal evidence, however, is entirely clear. The parallel in Matt.
15:21 reads TUROU KAI SIDONOS without variant. TYROU KAI SIDONOS is
the more familiar reading. There is no basis for scribal error here.
The internal evidence overwhelmingly supports the shorter reading.

Given that the internal evidence overwhelming supports the variant weakly
supported by the external evidence, the reading TUROU is clearly superior.
I think the UBS4 committee was right; there is some slight doubt. But
TUROU is clearly the better reading. 

Bob Waltz
[email-masked]

"The one thing we learn from history --
   is that no one ever learns from history."

---

From: Joseph Crea <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 01 Aug 1999 23:47:17 -0500

Hello Robert!

>  aur c f l q vg pesh hark sa bo arm eth geo goth slav

CREA
    Now I'm REALLY confused, since my copy of NA^27 adduces the following
witnesses in favor of <tyrou Elthen dia sidOnos> (as opposed to <tyrou kai
sidOnos>):

  "txt  Aleph  B  D  L  Delta  Theta  33.  535.  700.  892.  2427.  lat  
 
   sa^mss  bo"

CREA
   Now it looks to me like the witnesses you cite in support of  <tyrou kai
sidOnos> are identical with  a number of those cited by  NA^27 in favor of
<tyrou Elthen dia sidOnos> -- specifically  Aleph  B  33.  700.  892.
2427. and bo.   Which set of witnesses should be followed,  those presented
in  NA^27 or those you list?   Is my reading/understanding of the apparatus
in NA^27 faulty or is the apparatus wrong?

With Mettaa,

Joseph Crea

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1999 08:08:35 -0500

>witnesses in favor of <tyrou Elthen dia sidOnos> (as opposed to <tyrou kai

Ack! My fault. For some reason, I analysed Mark 7:24 instead of 7:31. Wrong
variant. :-) (No doubt the reference to "Tyre and Sidon" helped. You just saw
scribal error in action. :-)

I'll try again later, with the *right* variant. :-) No time 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)

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1999 09:57:44 -0500

Well, now that I see the variant I'm supposed to be studying, I'm not
sure what the big deal is (I though Mark 7:24 was a lot more fun :-).
But here's the story.

THE MANUSCRIPT EVIDENCE:

TUROU HLQEN DIA SIDWNOS
   Aleph B D L Delta Theta
   33 565 700 892 1342 2427
   a (aur) b c d (hiat e) f ff2 i (hiat k) l n r1 vg pal sa-pt bo eth

TUROU KAI SIDWNOS HLQEN
   P45 A E F G H K N W X Pi Sigma 0131
   f1 f13 28 157 579 1010 1071 1079 1241 1243 1424 1505 1506 1546 Byz
   q sin (hiat cur) pesh hark sa-pt (arm) geo goth slav

Once again organizing by text-types

               TUROU HLQEN DIA SIDWNOS       TUROU KAI SIDWNOS HLQEN

Alexandrian    Aleph B L Delta 33 892 2427   579 sa-pt
               sa-pt bo

Byzantine      --                            All

"Caesarean"    Theta 565 700                 W f1 f13 28 arm geo

"Western"      D all lat but q               q sin

Thus the Alexandrian and "Western" texts support TUROU HLQEN DIA SIDWNOS,
as do enough "Caesarean" witnesses to imply this is the reading of the
type. Looking at this, I personally don't even have to look at internal
evidence; TUROU HLQEN DIA SIDWNOS is the better reading. :-)

If one insists upon using internal evidence, whether one needs to or
not, I would note that TUROU KAI SIDWNOS HLQEN sounds much better and
more familiar. I'd call this one of those garden-variety scribal accidents
which was preserved because the accidental reading sounded more normal
(and makes more geographic sense).

                        Robert B. Waltz
                     [email-masked]

---

From: Jim Deardorff <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1999 10:05:25 -0700 (PDT)

On Sun, 1 Aug 1999, Robert B. Waltz wrote:
> ....
 
> TUROU is clearly the better reading. 

Robert,

This case interested me because it is a good example of where an incorrect
decision could easily be made on the basis of a faulty hypothesis -- that
of Markan priority over Matthew.  Most of those who see Matthew as
having come before Mark would prefer the longer reading. This would
include neo-Griesbachians as well as supporters of the Augustinian
hypothesis (AH) and the external traditions of Matthean priority. It also
includes the modified Augustinian hyothesis I support, which includes
Matthew having been in its Semitic form when utilized by the writers of
Mark and Luke, with the later translator of Matthew into Greek having Mark
and Luke before him during his translation. With the AH, it would not have
been inconsistent for the writer of Mark to have abbreviated the two
cities to one, considering how much other abbreviation he carried out,
on this hypothesis.

Now I must agree with the sentiment within certain statements you
included in an earlier post (yesterday), namely:

"If majority rule meant anything, the world would be flat and we'd all be
pantheists."

"The tendency is to decide this matter politically..."

I see these views as applying to the present consensus of Markan priority
also, for which it is "politically" incorrect to support an opposing
minority position. 

Does anyone have an estimate of what fraction of TC preferences within NA
were based upon Markan priority as a deciding factor? Would it be as large
as 1%?

Jim Deardorff
http://www.proaxis.com/~deardorj

---

From: Jim Deardorff <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1999 10:20:44 -0700 (PDT)

> > being the case, I've decided simply to analyse the variant myself
Etc. 

My eye also went straight to Mk 7:24 in N-A 27, rather than to Mk 7:31.
But I hope that the 7:24 case is interesting enough to merit some comment.

Jim Deardorff

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1999 12:29:54 -0500

On 8/2/99, Jim Deardorff wrote, in part:

>of Markan priority over Matthew