[B-Greek] Robinson/Pierpont 2005 Readers-Edition
ps2866 at bingo-ev.de
Wed Aug 11 04:39:03 EDT 2010
Dear Mr. Conrad,
As for the critical text (NA27/UBS4) of Mark 2:22:
This passage represents a clearly complex variant situation *not* exactly
typical of the general contrast between N27/UBS and Byz; but that by the
n27 KAI OUDEIS BALLEI OINON NEON EIS ASKOUS PALAIOUS EI DE MH,
byz KAI OUDEIS BALLEI OINON NEON EIS ASKOUS PALAIOUS EI DE MH
No problem in that line, so no discussion.
n27 hRHXEI hO OINOS TOUS ASKOUS
byz hRHSSEI hO OINOS hO NEOS TOUS ASKOUS
N27 has FAI where Byz has PAI. I see the PAI as more dramatic and the FAI as
a deliberate smoothing to show clearly an expected sequence of occurrence
(one first must BALLEI and then as a future result expect RHSSEI).
The absence of hO NEOS in N27 could easily be the result of homoioteleuton
(-OS^-OS) in the Alexandrian archetype or something occurring independently
in a smaller number of non-Alexandrian MSS.
n27 KAI hO OINOS APOLLUTAI KAI hOI ASKOI
byz KAI hO OINOS EKCEITAI KAI hOI ASKOI APOLOUNTAI
Here there is clear stylistic revision evidenced in the N27 text, intended
to shorten and eliminate what seemed to be overly redundant.
n27 ALLA OINON NEON EIS ASKOUS KAINOUS.
byz ALLA OINON NEON EIS ASKOUS KAINOUS BLHTEON.]
The removal of the verbal adjective BLHTEON (from BALLW) may involve scribal
difficulty in Mark with a "dead" verbal adjective form (cf. Bl-D 65.3), even
though the same scribes retain the term in Lk 5:38, for whatever reason.
One of course could suggest Byzantine "harmonization" to a parallel passage,
but if so, then why were *none* of the following harmonized in that *same*
context: MH/MHGE, RHXEI/RHSSEI (where in fact N27 is truly harmonized with
RHSSEI appearing in *both* parallels, while Byz differs!), O OINOS O NEOS/O
NEOS OINOS, O OINOS/AUTOS, EKCEITAI/ECKUQHSETAI or (in Mark) the final Lukan
phrase added (KAI AMFOTEROI SUNTHROUNTAI)?
In reality, there is far less of an issue than certain eclectics might make
out of the internal evidence. If other places can be found -- and they
can! -- where it is the NA/UBS text that is less difficult (and therefore in
such places "leaves less to the imagination of the reader"), what then? The
principle cuts both ways, even if not followed by the N27/UBS editors.
But the Byzantine-priority position does not depend on internal evidence
justification, any more than did the externally based W-H text. The internal
criteria remain secondary at best; the overriding principle for me is the
matter of transmissional theory and external data.
BTW: For more information on the Byzantine priority thesis, please note:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Carl Conrad" <cwconrad2 at mac.com>
To: "Oun Kwon" <kwonbbl at gmail.com>
Cc: <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2010 9:35 PM
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Robinson/Pierpont 2005 Readers-Edition
> On Aug 10, 2010, at 3:00 PM, Oun Kwon wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 12:05 PM, Mark Lightman <lightmanmark at yahoo.com>
>>> Sure, I understand that argument. Textual criticism per se is an
>>> topic, but without getting in to that, all I am saying is the fact that
>>> Robinson's text is easier to read than NA27/UBS 4 may be a good
>>> reason why those learning Greek should read it.
>>> If I was starting all over again, I would use his text to learn the
>>> Greek NT.
>>> It's a better piece of literature, if nothing else.
>>> Mark L
>> Hi Mark,
>> I would appreciate if you would give a few examples of the text which
>> got 'smoothing out'.
> Here's one instance of what I think people mean by "smoothing out."
> First let's look at the critical text (NA27/UBS4) of Mark 2:22:
> 22 καὶ οὐδεὶς βάλλει οἶνον νέον εἰς ἀσκοὺς παλαιούς· εἰ δὲ μή, ῥήξει ὁ
> οἶνος τοὺς ἀσκοὺς καὶ ὁ οἶνος ἀπόλλυται καὶ οἱ ἀσκοί· ἀλλὰ οἶνον νέον εἰς
> ἀσκοὺς καινούς. [22 KAI OUDEIS BALLEI OINON NEON EIS ASKOUS PALAIOUS· EI
> DE MH, hRHXEI hO OINOS TOUS ASKOUS KAI hO OINOS APOLLUTAI KAI hOI ASKOI·
> ALLA OINON NEON EIS ASKOUS KAINOUS.]
> Then look at the Majority Text:
> 22 και ουδεις βαλλει οινον νεον εις ασκους παλαιους ει δε μη ρησσει ο
> οινος ο νεος τους ασκους και ο οινος εκχειται και οι ασκοι απολουνται αλλα
> οινον νεον εις ασκους καινους βλητεον. [22 KAI OUDEIS BALLEI OINON NEON
> EIS ASKOUS PALAIOUS EI DE MH hRHSSEI hO OINOS hO NEOS TOUS ASKOUS KAI hO
> OINOS EKCEITAI KAI hOI ASKOI APOLOUNTAI ALLA OINON NEON EIS ASKOUS KAINOUS
> Where NA27 has ῥήξει ὁ οἶνος τοὺς ἀσκοὺς καὶ ὁ οἶνος ἀπόλλυται καὶ οἱ
> ἀσκοί [hRHXEI hO OINOS TOUS ASKOUS], MT has ρησσει ο οινος ο νεος τους
> ασκους [hRHSSEI O OINOS O NEOS TOUS ASKOUS]. The future-tense verb of the
> critical text has been changed to present-tense in the MT so that the
> tense of the verbs BALLEI and hRHSSEI are coordinated in the MT; also hO
> OINOS of the critical text becomes hO OINOS hO NEOS in NT, making clear
> that it's the NEW wine that bursts the wineskins.
> Where NA27 has ὁ οἶνος ἀπόλλυται καὶ οἱ ἀσκοί [hO OINOS APOLLUTAI KAI hOI
> ASKOI] "the wine is wasted and (so are) the wineskins", MT has the clearer
> formulation ο οινος εκχειται και οι ασκοι απολουντα [ hO OINOS EKCEITAI
> KAI hOI ASKOI APOLOUNTAI] "the wine spills out and the wineskins will be
> Finally, NA27 in the final clause of verse 22 requires the reader to
> supply a verb: ἀλλὰ οἶνον νέον εἰς ἀσκοὺς καινούς [ALLA OINON NEON EIS
> ASKOUS KAINOUS] "(people/one/they should put) new wine into new
> wineskins." The MT, however, supplies that verb with βλητέον [BLHTEON]
> "one must/should put."
> It's not that NA27/UBS4 is really hard to read, and it could hardly be
> said that the real sense of Mark 2:22 is at all different in the two
> text-forms -- but it's hard to deny that the text of MT leaves less to the
> imagination of the reader.
> Carl W. Conrad
> Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
> B-Greek home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek
> B-Greek mailing list
> B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
More information about the B-Greek