tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post7258338908856561826..comments2024-03-20T12:35:12.828-04:00Comments on The Text of the Gospels: Lectionary 5 in Matthew 24:20-26James Snapp Jrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09493891380752272603noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-86976060604026595262018-02-02T10:08:01.160-05:002018-02-02T10:08:01.160-05:00You left out a couple of variant readings in Codex...You left out a couple of variant readings in Codex Bezae, so you are going to have to redo all the math. <br />D reads προσευχεσθαι δε ινα μη γενηται η φυγη υμω_ χειμωνοσ μηδε σαββατου in v. 20. σαββάτου is a unique reading (which it shares with Origen's Homily on Matthew in P. Bon. 1).<br />D reads ουκ εγενετο απ αρχησ κοσμου εωσ νυν ουδε μη γενοιτο in v. 21, with οὐ missing.<br />Daniel Buckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02600146498880358592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-4717076493396905992018-01-09T21:26:42.675-05:002018-01-09T21:26:42.675-05:00As I said in my "Case" essay, neither th...As I said in my "Case" essay, neither the shorter nor the longer reading should be preferred as a matter of course. <br /><br />As for lectionary versus continuous-text issues, the legitimate comparison base for Lect 5 would be other lectionaries within the same lection reading (also, such really should consider the entire lection and not only a snippet therefrom). <br /><br />"Evidence should not be ignored merely because it is different from other evidence" -- of course not, but only within its proper placement and within boundaries related to that particular type of evidence.<br /><br />"Lect 5 has the shorter text of Mt. 24:20-26, right?" -- Sure, but as noted, such "shortness" in this case readily falls under the category of minor scribal error, and offers nothing in particular regarding the usual eclectic interpretation regarding the "shorter reading" principle. <br /><br />"This is a witness that readers should be aware of (which has been done where else??)" -- Obviously at least in Scrivener's collations from the 19th century. But then if readers should be aware of Lect 5, so also they should be aware of Lects 6, 7, 8, etc. But are any or all of the lectionaries really going to be probative for establishing the original text of the Gospels or Epistles that otherwise is established from the continuous-text MSS (traveling in quite different transmissional streams)? Obviously not -- and I say this with a full appreciation for the lectionaries and what they are doing, even if not on the same level with continuous-text MSS.Maurice A. Robinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05685965674144539571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-5686286999657081752018-01-09T18:43:00.075-05:002018-01-09T18:43:00.075-05:00Maurice A. Robinson,
(1) Granting that lectionar...Maurice A. Robinson,<br /><br />(1) Granting that lectionaries, by design, skip some passages and add incipit-phrases, and other things, those things can be taken into consideration. Lectionaries are part of the evidence, and evidence should not be ignored merely because it is different from other evidence.<br /><br />(2) Granted, this sample is small. Others are welcome to do more detailed investigations. At least readers here are aware of Lect 5's existence and its online presence. (The link is not yet at CSNTM.)<br /><br />(3) I don't see the validity of the complaint about minor orthographic variants being noted and considered, especially since I also provided a comparison /without/ itacisms in the equation. With or without them, Lect 5 has the shorter text of Mt. 24:20-26, right?<br /><br />(4) "None of these would seem to have any intentional alteration in view" -- but the point here isn't a matter of intuiting the motive of the scribe or the error-inducing mechanism; it is to simply notice -- after seeing this evidence -- that in this particular case, to assume in favor of the shorter reading would guarantee erroneous results.<br /><br />(5) "The present essay really says nothing of significance at this juncture beyond pointing out that the scribe of Lectionary 5 has certain orthographic habits and some inclination toward minor accidental omission of sort words." -- Of course Lectionary 5 is not going to become a first-order witness; nor is a six-verse sample going to become a full collation. But this is a witness that readers should be aware of (which has been done where else??), and while the data-set involved in this essay is small, in confirms that no assumption if favor of shorter readings should be made -- a conclusion with which you agree, do you not? <br /><br />James Snapp Jrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09493891380752272603noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-72241353397685280352018-01-06T20:13:57.539-05:002018-01-06T20:13:57.539-05:00The claims in this essay regarding Lectionary 5 ar...The claims in this essay regarding Lectionary 5 are flawed on several levels:<br /><br />1. Comparison of readings from a lectionary against editions based on continuous-text MSS is questionable, given that lectionary textual transmission moved quite separately from that of continuous-text MSS.<br /><br />2. The single-page passage from within a much longer lection appears more as selective cherry-picking rather than a more complete analysis.<br /><br />3. Minor orthographic peculiarities are neither here nor there (i.e. they really do not count) when dealing with the matter of longer/shorter readings. Eliminate these entries, and the supposedly “substantial” differences are reduced to only three.<br /><br />4. Of the three meaningful differences (all “shorter” in terms of letter count), these primarily reflect typical scribal accident (omission of short words in the cases of τοτε and ου [then necessarily writing ουδ as ουδε], followed by homoioteleuton in regard to omission of μεγαλα). None of these would seem to have any intentional alteration in view (where the longer text would reflect intentional expansion). In fact, many similar errors can be found in most MSS at various points with no suggestion that such “shorter” text implies intentional expansion in other MSS<br /><br />5. In sum, the present essay really says nothing of significance at this juncture beyond pointing out that the scribe of Lectionary 5 has certain orthographic habits and some inclination toward minor accidental omission of sort words.Maurice A. Robinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05685965674144539571noreply@blogger.com