[B-Greek] Did Munnich omit and why?
Albert Pietersma
albert.pietersma at sympatico.ca
Wed Dec 12 14:11:53 EST 2007
Two questions are raised here: (1) Did Munnich omit KAI EKALESE —
hORASIN in Dan 8:16; (2) Was he correct in doing what he did? The
short answer to the first question is No, Munnich did not omit anything.
First of all, the item in question is in fact part of his lemma,
albeit in square brackets. Thus Munnich questions its originality but
nevertheless includes it in his lemma rather than placing it in the
critical apparatus. Secondly, even if he had put the item in the
apparatus rather than in his lemma, he could not have been said to
have omitted it.
To understand why that is so, one needs to know how a text-critic
works, when s/he establishes a critical text. The theoretical process
is one of selecting readings from available witnesses for inclusion
in the lemma of the critical text. Those not selected are put in the
apparatus. The process is therefore one of inclusion rather than
exclusion. Granted, in a very loose sort of way non-inclusion might
be referred to as exclusion vis-a-vis a prior critical edition, but
that is an incorrect use of "exclusion" when a critical text is
established.
Interestingly, Ziegler and Munnich came to the same conclusion on the
item in question. Hence both bracket it. Are they correct in doing
so? It does seem as though all three witnesses to the OG text have
the item in question (except that 967 omits KAI). Though that is
clearly of interest, it does not prove that the item is ORIGINAL. It
is pertinent to note that all three witnesses to OG, 88-Syh and 967
are said to contain corrections to the Hebrew. Is KAI — hORASIN in
8:16 one of them? Suspiciously, the identical wording is found in
the Theodotionc text. It may thus have come from that source. Without
further study, I would not be prepared to say. Perhaps Montgomery
gives some argumentation. Of interest is that Tim McLay (NETS) goes
on step beyond both Ziegler and Munnich by dropping the item
altogether (though translating it in a footnote). Note that the text
without it makes good sense.
Al
On Dec 12, 2007, at 11:39 AM, Litteral John wrote:
> I realize that this is not a textual criticism forum, but I am
> unable to
> get onto a good textual criticism list due to my filter. Hopefully I
> can draw a little interest to this question. In the Old Greek version
> of Daniel, I think Munnich has omitted a portion of Daniel 8:16 KAI
> EKALESE KAI EIPE GABRIHL SUNETISON EKEINON THN ORASIN. Or I think
> he at
> least put them into brackets. I have Zieglers edition of the
> Gottingen
> so I am unsure about Munnich. All MS evidence supports it, but I do
> know that J.A. Montgomery claims that it was added in by a later
> scribe
> to comply with the Hebrew. I don't understand why, other than a few
> just have a gut feeling about. Does anyone have any idea why this is
> thought?
>
> Thank you!
>
> John Litteral
>
> john.litteral at ashland.kyschools.us
> ---
> B-Greek home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek
> B-Greek mailing list
> B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list