Most witnesses along with Soden and Vogels begin Matt 7:10 with just και (including E G L N O U V W X Δ Θ Σ Φ 047 0211 [Byz] f35 1424), but others (followed by Bover, Greeven, Lachmann, Merk, Tischendorf [7th, 8th]) add the conjunction η either before και (ℵ B C K M S Π Ω 0281 f1.13 33. 565. 1500. 2224 pc) or in place of it (892 lat). The addition of η probably arose either from a desire to create symmetry with the preceding question that begins with η (7:9) or from harmonization to Luke 11:12 (so Soden, 2:18) or 11:11 (so Griesbach, Commentarius, 1:76; Meyer, 161), since the conjunction η is present in almost all the manuscripts of Luke 11:11 (ℵ A C D E G H K L M Ρ R S U W Χ Y Γ Δ Θ Λ Π Ψ Ω 0211 [Byz ca. 1650 mss] f1.13.35 33. 565. 892. 1424) and missing in only a few witnesses that also omit the five preceding words there (P45.75 B pc), perhaps from parablepsis error.
Soden's decision (1:1424) is based on his judgment that the omission of η against the Lukan parallel in the Byzantine (K) text is harder to believe than the double influence from the parallel, namely the adoption of αιτησει and the omission of εαν by the Egyptian (H) and various Palestinian (Hr J Ir?) types from the Egyptian text of Luke 11:12.
Showing posts with label A-STYLE. Show all posts
Showing posts with label A-STYLE. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 12, 2014
Thursday, June 7, 2012
Matt 6:1 προσεχετε
Some manuscripts (including ℵ L Z Θ f1 33 892 1241 1424 al g1 sy-p.h bo) reflect either scribal error or dissatisfaction with the absence of a transitional conjunction, adding δε after προσεχετε. But most witnesses from a wide variety of traditions (i.e., Alexandrian, Western, Byzantine, Old Latin, Old Syriac, Middle Egyptian) refrain from the addition (B D E K M S U W Δ Π Σ Ω 047 0250 f13.35 565 lat sy-c mae-1 bo-mss goth).
Had only some witnesses with less diversity omitted the conjunction, one might suspect omission by homoeoteleuton error (ε...ε). Perhaps the addition was facilitated by the initial reduplication of -τε (cf., e.g., ℵ in Mark 11:25; D Θ in Matt 13:48; p37vid in Matt 26:38) followed by the correction of τε to δε, or, especially due to the scribal propensity to err due to the circumstances of continuous script, the initial mistaking or "correction" of -τε to δε, which occurs elsewhere in the NT (e.g., Acts 2:43 [ℵ B 81]; 2:46 [p74]; 4:13 [p74 D Ψ 0165*]; 5:19 [B Ψ 0189]; 8:28 [B C]). Cf. also 1 Cor 6:9–10, where D/06 and E/07 alter 8 occurrences of ουτε into ουδε.
Had only some witnesses with less diversity omitted the conjunction, one might suspect omission by homoeoteleuton error (ε...ε). Perhaps the addition was facilitated by the initial reduplication of -τε (cf., e.g., ℵ in Mark 11:25; D Θ in Matt 13:48; p37vid in Matt 26:38) followed by the correction of τε to δε, or, especially due to the scribal propensity to err due to the circumstances of continuous script, the initial mistaking or "correction" of -τε to δε, which occurs elsewhere in the NT (e.g., Acts 2:43 [ℵ B 81]; 2:46 [p74]; 4:13 [p74 D Ψ 0165*]; 5:19 [B Ψ 0189]; 8:28 [B C]). Cf. also 1 Cor 6:9–10, where D/06 and E/07 alter 8 occurrences of ουτε into ουδε.
Thursday, November 17, 2011
Matt 5:39 την δεξιαν σιαγονα
The Greek manuscript tradition is significantly divided between two readings:
(1) την δεξιαν σιαγονα (ℵ W Σ f1 33 892 1241 pm a f [h])
(2) την δεξιαν σου σιαγονα (E G K L M S U V Δ Π Θ f13 565 579 700 1424 pm c g1)
Reading one (1) is printed in the text of Robinson-Pierpont (2005) and Wilbur Pickering; reading two (2) is printed in Hodges-Farstad (1985), the bracketed text of Robinson-Pierpont (1991), and the margin of Robinson-Pierpont (2005). A third reading (3), την δεξιαν σιαγονα σου, preferred by the editors of NA27/UBS4, is only minimally supported (B; Eus), and may reflect a scribal attempt to place the possessive pronoun in its default position. A fourth reading (4), την σιαγονα σου (without δεξιαν), no doubt reflects versional and patristic influence (D k sy-s.c). Transcriptional considerations between readings one (1) and (2) are divided. On the one hand, as Rinck (250) notes, "It appears that σου arose from the following syllable σιαγ. being read twice and therefore it should be rejected. For it is absent from eastern witnesses (and 1. 33), and in western witnesses traces survive where it was either written above the line or in the margin. For a reason later emerged that δεξιαν should be omitted in some Latin documents and that the σου should be transposed to follow σιαγονα.” Maurice Robinson (in private correspondence) also notes that σου could have arisen due to its presence in Matt 5:30, yet likeness of construction could also indicate likeness of authorship, i.e., Matthew for both (cf. η δεξια σου χειρ in 5:30 with την δεξιαν σου σιαγονα in 5:39). Arguing for reading two (2), Bengel (Apparatus, 99) states that σου "easily disappeared before σιαγονα, since it was left out by Luke [6:29]," or "because it could be left out due to the preceding σε" (so Wettstein, 1:309), or, as Griesbach (1:55–6) adds, "especially because the sense remains unharmed without it." Assuming, then, the priority of reading two (2) over readings three (3) and four (4), Griesbach continues, "But those who transposed σου to follow σιαγονα either wished to avoid cacophony or [simply] did it carelessly.” As scribes tended to omit words, especially short ones, Robinson fairly admits the possibility of the σου dropping out by homoeoarchton error (a scribe skipping from the first letter of σου to the first letter of σιαγονα). Matthäi (76–7), perhaps rightly, argues that the omission of δεξιαν in reading four (4) is related to a perceived difficulty in the phrase and quotes Origen's observation of the improbability of the right cheek being struck first, since most people, being right-handed and thus swinging with their right hand, would not strike the right cheek first but rather the left. And so the omission of δεξιαν removed the apparent difficulty. In the end, either reading one (1), την δεξιαν σιαγονα, or reading two (2), την δεξιαν σου σιαγονα, is to be preferred.
(1) την δεξιαν σιαγονα (ℵ W Σ f1 33 892 1241 pm a f [h])
(2) την δεξιαν σου σιαγονα (E G K L M S U V Δ Π Θ f13 565 579 700 1424 pm c g1)
Reading one (1) is printed in the text of Robinson-Pierpont (2005) and Wilbur Pickering; reading two (2) is printed in Hodges-Farstad (1985), the bracketed text of Robinson-Pierpont (1991), and the margin of Robinson-Pierpont (2005). A third reading (3), την δεξιαν σιαγονα σου, preferred by the editors of NA27/UBS4, is only minimally supported (B; Eus), and may reflect a scribal attempt to place the possessive pronoun in its default position. A fourth reading (4), την σιαγονα σου (without δεξιαν), no doubt reflects versional and patristic influence (D k sy-s.c). Transcriptional considerations between readings one (1) and (2) are divided. On the one hand, as Rinck (250) notes, "It appears that σου arose from the following syllable σιαγ. being read twice and therefore it should be rejected. For it is absent from eastern witnesses (and 1. 33), and in western witnesses traces survive where it was either written above the line or in the margin. For a reason later emerged that δεξιαν should be omitted in some Latin documents and that the σου should be transposed to follow σιαγονα.” Maurice Robinson (in private correspondence) also notes that σου could have arisen due to its presence in Matt 5:30, yet likeness of construction could also indicate likeness of authorship, i.e., Matthew for both (cf. η δεξια σου χειρ in 5:30 with την δεξιαν σου σιαγονα in 5:39). Arguing for reading two (2), Bengel (Apparatus, 99) states that σου "easily disappeared before σιαγονα, since it was left out by Luke [6:29]," or "because it could be left out due to the preceding σε" (so Wettstein, 1:309), or, as Griesbach (1:55–6) adds, "especially because the sense remains unharmed without it." Assuming, then, the priority of reading two (2) over readings three (3) and four (4), Griesbach continues, "But those who transposed σου to follow σιαγονα either wished to avoid cacophony or [simply] did it carelessly.” As scribes tended to omit words, especially short ones, Robinson fairly admits the possibility of the σου dropping out by homoeoarchton error (a scribe skipping from the first letter of σου to the first letter of σιαγονα). Matthäi (76–7), perhaps rightly, argues that the omission of δεξιαν in reading four (4) is related to a perceived difficulty in the phrase and quotes Origen's observation of the improbability of the right cheek being struck first, since most people, being right-handed and thus swinging with their right hand, would not strike the right cheek first but rather the left. And so the omission of δεξιαν removed the apparent difficulty. In the end, either reading one (1), την δεξιαν σιαγονα, or reading two (2), την δεξιαν σου σιαγονα, is to be preferred.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)