Subject: tc-list Fwd: Q 12:27

From: "Bruce Prior" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 07 Sep 1999 23:08:48 PDT

>From: "James M. Robinson" <[email-masked]>
>To: [email-masked]
>Subject: Q 12:27
>Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1999 20:31:02 -0700
>
>I have written up, for The Critical Edition of Q, text critical notes,
>where I also include a statement about the "grow" vs. "card" problem. I add
>it here, in case it would be useful to distribute to the discussion group:
>Q 12:27: In Matt 6:28 the reading aujxavnousin is presupposed in RSV, NRSV,
>TOB and BJ. This is also the case in NEB and REV, but with the note: "one
>witness reads Consider the lilies: they neither card, nor spin, nor work."
>Tasker put ouj xaivnousin oujde; nhvqousin oujde; kopiw'sin in a note and
>explained: "a*, it would appear, has the interesting reading ouj xevnousin
>( = xaivnousin) oujde; nhvqousin oujde; kopiw'sin. As OUXENOUSIN, wrongly
>read as AUXANOUSIN, could have given rise to the other variants, and as
>aujxavnousin seemed unnatural in the present context, the translators
>thought that the possibility that the reading of a* is original should be
>left open, but aujxavnousin was retained in the text. The passage should be
>compared with Lk. 12.27." Nestle-Aland25 has a note: "ouj xevnousin ( =
>xaivn-) oujde; nhvqousin oujde; kopiw'sin a*vid. (cf. ZNW 1938, 211-214)."
>Nestle-Aland27 has abbreviated the note: "ouj xaivnousin oujde; nhvqousin
>oujde; kopiw'sin a*vid." GNT has the note: "ouj xevnousin [ = xaivnousin]
>oujde; nhvqousin oujde; kopiw'sin a*vid." Metzger: "The original reading of
>codex Sinaiticus, which was detected when the manuscript was examined under
>an ultra-violet ray lamp, is ouj xevnousin ( = xaivnousin) oujde; nhvqousin
>oujde; kopiw'sin, 'they do not card neither do they spin nor toil.' This
>reading, though regarded as original by some scholars, doubtless arose as a
>scribal idiosyncrasy that was almost immediately corrected. Codex
>Koridethi, supported by the Curetonian Syriac, reverses the order of verbs,
>placing the specific word ('spin') before the general word ('toil')."
>Huck-Greeven reads as does Nestle-Aland27, but refers in the critical
>apparatus to Athanasius, Chrysostom and the Gospel of Thomas.
>Boismard-Lamouille reads as does Nestle-Aland27, but quotes in a note the
>Gospel of Thomas.
>But, on the other hand, in the case of Luke 12:27 Nestle-Aland25 had read
>pw'" ou[te nhvqei ou[te uJfaivnei. BJ reads "comme ils ne filent ni ne
>tissent," and lists in a note as a variant not adopted: "ils ne peinent ni
>ne filent," with reference to Matt 6:28. NEB and REB read "they neither
>spin nor weave." Then Nestle-Aland27, Huck-Greeven and Boismard-Lamouille
>came to read: pw'" aujxavnei: ouj kopia/' oujde; nhvqei. Metzger explains
>the change: "After some hesitation a majority of the Committee rejected the
>reading of D itd syrc.s al, ou[te nhvqei ou[te uJfaivnei ('they neither
>spin nor weave'), as a stylistic refinement introduced by copyists in view
>of the following reference to Solomon's clothing." RSV and NRSV read: "how
>they grow; they neither toil nor spin."
>Thus the gradual recognition of the presence of aujxavn- in both Matthew
>and Luke now leads to the unavoidable conclusion that aujxavn- was already
>in Q: Indeed, aujxan- is a scribal error already in the archetype of Q
>presupposed in Matthew and Luke. Hence an emendation is in place. The
>original text must have read ouj xain-, lilies "do no card," which was
>corrupted to read aujxan-, they "grow":
>The Gospel of Thomas (P Oxy 655) documents a form of the sayings cluster on
>the Ravens and Lilies (Q 12:22b-31) that in some other regards as well
>itself pre-dates Q by presenting an even more archaic form. For it
>contains, in Saying 36, the reading ATI[NAO]UXA[I] / NEIOUDEN[HQ]EI (a{tina
>ouj xaivnei oujde; nhvqei, "which neither card nor spin"), as well as other
>readings in Saying 36 that are more archaic than those found in Q
>12:22b-31.
>With the help of P Oxy 655, T. C. Skeat read at Matt 6:28 in Codex
>Sinaiticus, using ultraviolet light, an erased text below the familiar
>lines TAKRINATOU / AGROUPWSAUXA / NOUSINOUKOPI / WSINOUDENH> / QOUSIN (ta;
>krivna tou' ajgrou' pw''" aujxavnousin: ouj kopiw'sin oujde; nh'qousin,
>"the lilies of the field, how they grow; they neither toil nor spin"). This
>otherwise unattested reading, erased by the first corrector, read:
>TAKRINATOU / AGROUPWSOUXE / NOUSINOUDENH / QOUSINOUDEKOPI / WSIN (ta;
>krivna tou' ajgrou' pw''" ouj xevvnousin [itacism for xaivnousin] oujde;
>nh'qousin oujde; kopiw'sin, "... the lilies of the field: They do not card
>nor spin nor toil").
>These two manuscripts, P Oxy 655 (Gos. Thom. 36) and the original hand of
>Codex Sinaiticus, thus attest the original reading ouj xaivn-, already
>corrupted into aujxan- in Matthew and Luke, and hence presumably in Q, at
>least in the archetype of Q presupposed in Matthew and Luke.
>This scribal error, since already in Q, attests to Q having been a written
>Greek text, copied from a written Greek archetype.
>
>
>

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com