From: Carlton Winbery (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed Nov 29 1995 - 13:03:22 EST
Ken Litwak wrote;
> I'm wondering about a couple of textual problems I'm looking at in
>Mark 7. The presence of "Sidon" in 7:24 and nai in 7:28 in many
>important, Alexandrian-type witnesses, leads me to really wonder about the
>rejection of these words in NA27. While Metzger has a point that these
>could be due to harmonization with Matt 15, I wonder if that's reasonable
>given the substantial evidence for their presence in both verses. In
>7:28, the only major witnesses that omit nai are P45 W and Theta.
>While P45 is important, I don't think we want to take it as superior to
>Aleph, A, B, 33 etc without other reasons. Furthermore, I can't see how
>the Alexandrian reading in v.28 could have arisen from the version in
>P45. So in both of these instances, I am inclined to go against the
>NA27, even though the issue in v.24 might be influenced by the dictum of
>taking the shorter text. I would like to know what others think.
I would add to your major witnesses that omit NAI D and the old Latin. Also
the absense of NAI in vs. 28 and SIDWNOS in 24 is the best reading in that
they adequately account for the other readings, they originate by
harmonization. As Metzger pointed out the use of NAI is common in Matt.
but not in Mark. That seems weighty enough to me to prefer the shorter
Calton L. Winbery
LA College, Pineville, La
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:33 EDT