« »
主后 2016/12/7学海无涯

【NT 101】新约导论 I:Textual Criticism Project

课程:【NT 101】Introduction to the New Testament I 新约导论 I
教授:Dr. Brandon Crowe
学期:2016 Fall
成绩:86% (B)
评语:老师的意思就是说我做这篇作业各种偷懒。我的意思是,你给我的范本也根本是精简版,我就照着你给我的东西做的,我从前哪做过这玩意儿。

ESTABLISHING THE TEXT:

Text Criticism Project: Gospels

Passage:  John 10:8 (second variant unit)

VARIANT
WITNESS DATE REGION TEXT TYPE/ETC.
πάντες

  ΠΑΝΤΕΣ

“all”

omitted

D

b

5/6

5

Egypt? Western
2 (1) ηλθον

   ΗΛΘΟΝ

“they came”

45vid.75

*.2b

Γ

Δ

892s

1424

permulti

latin

syriacsinaiticus.peshitta

sahidic

lycopolitanic

proto-Bohairic

Augustine

3?

c.175-225

7

9/10

9

9/10

9/10

4.

2?

430

Egypt

Egypt

Egypt

Found by Tischendorf in an eastern monastery

Kosinitza

Hippo

Mixed?

Alexandrian

Alexandrian

Byzantine

Byzantine

Alexandrian

Caesarean?

(2) προ εμου ηλθον

  ΠΡΟΕΜΟΥΗΛΘΟΝ

“before me they came”

Θ

family 1

565

lectionary 2211

9

12-14

9/10

995/996

Sts. Kerykos

Julitta

Caesarea

Caesarean
(3) ηλθον προ εμου

  ΗΛΘΟΝΠΡΟΕΜΟΥ

“they came before me”

textus

66

2a

A

B

D

K

L

W

ψ

family 13

33

579

700

1241

permulti

syriacHarklensis**

Lucifer

2/3

9/10

5?

4

5/6

9/10

8

4/5

8/9

13

9

13

11

12

370

Egypt

Egypt

Egypt?Cyprus

Egypt

Egypt

Sinai

Cagliari

Alexandrian. Western(Mixed)

Alexandrian

Alexandrian

Alexandrian

Western

Byzantine

Alexandrian?

Mixed

Mixed

Mostly Alex.

Alexandrian

Caesarean

Alex. and Byza.

7. Sources Used List here all sources you used to gather the information you listed in the chart above. Be thorough.

Aland, Kurt, Barbara Aland, Johannes Karavidopoulos, Carlo M. Martini, and Bruce M. Metzger ed. Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece. 28th ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelge sellschaft, 2012.

Aland, Kurt and Barbara Aland. The Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism. Translated by Er roll F. Rhodes. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995. 

Aland, Kurt, M. Welte, B. Köster, and K. Junack. Kurzgefasste Liste der griechischen Hand schriften des Neues Testaments. Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1994.

Brock, Sebastian. The Bible in the Syriac Tradition. Kerala: St. Ephrem Ecumenical Research Institute, 1988. 

Metzger, Bruce M. and Bart D. Ehrman. The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.

2. EXTERNAL EVIDENCE

2.1  DATE: Does any variant have the majority of the early witnesses? Do any variants have no known early support? (focus here on the early witnesses from the 4th century or before)

(1) has 45 and 75 from 3rd (?) century and c. 175-225. These are the earliest dates, but these are the only two very early witnesses to this reading, and (1) also has the Syriac readings, which are from the 4th century and the 2nd (?) century. Then, (3) has 66 from the 2nd or 3rd century, B from the 4th century, and W from the 4th or 5th century. (2) does not appear close to the 4th century. It’s difficult to make any definitive decisions based on this information, because there is not an overwhelming majority either way. However, (1) does have slightly more early support.

2.2 REGION: Does any variant have more widespread geographical support than others?

It is difficult to make an assessment here.  Variant (3) has a greater diversity of witnesses in terms of text type (see below, §2.3), but this is not the same thing as concluding that the manuscripts come from a diversity of regions. The evidence is inconclusive. Furthermore, the geographical support for variant (1) is equal to that of variant (3).

2.3 TEXT TYPE: Are the witnesses for each variant from the same textual tradition (e.g., Byzantine, Western, etc.), or are they diversified? (Note: if a variant has only one type of support among text types, there’s a good possibility they all come from the same textual family).

It is difficult to make an assessment here.  (1) has strong Alexandrian and Byzantine support, along with much Caesarean support. This is an advantage for reading (1) because these are also early manuscripts. However, (3) also has strong Alexandrian and Byzantine support, along with much Western and Caesarean support. Nevertheless, reading (2) is not as strong as reading (1) because (2) lacks adequate support.

2.4 PLOT TEXT TYPE: Taking the information you gathered in §2.3, plot each of the variants in the appropriate box on the chart for any that qualify. For example, if variant #2 had 2nd c. Egyptian support, and 5th century Caesarean support, place a #2 in each of those boxes. Some boxes will have more than one variant number listed. (see Fee §II.2.3.4)

  Egyptian (Alexandrian, etc.) Western Caesarean Byzantine
2nd c. 1

3

3    
3rd c. 3 3    
4th c.        
5th c.   3    
6th–10th c. 1

3

3

3

  1 1

3

11th–16th c. 3

3

  2

3

3

2.5 QUALITY OF TEXT TYPE: Does the quality of the witnesses favor one variant over another? (see Fee §II.2.3.4) Remember that, in general, Alexandrian witnesses are of better quality, though this is not the case for every reading.

It is difficult to make an assessment here. (3) has strong Alexandrian support, which is generally regarded as the highest quality. P46 is also Alexandrian and supports variant reading (1), and there are also other Alexandrian witnesses available to support (1). However, (2) apparently does not have as much support as (1) and (3) do. 

3. INTERNAL EVIDENCE

3.1  INTRINSIC PROBABILITY: Evaluate each variant on the basis of the author’s style and vocabulary.  But remember that this cuts both ways: one variant may be better because it fits with the author’s normal usage, but a scribe/copyist along the way may have thought the same thing and changed the original wording to correspond to the author’s normal usage. (Fee §II.2.4)

In Johannine style, ἦλθον always precedes prepositions; the structure of ἦλθον + preposition occurs 10 times, such as in John 1:31: ἦλθον ἐγὼ ἐν; also in John 3:26, ἦλθον πρὸς τὸν; and also in John 4:40, ἦλθον πρὸς. However, the word order preposition + ἦλθον is rare in the Gospel of John. In addition, when it comes to the context of chapter 10, if πάντες is omitted by witnesses and the two words πρὸ ἐμοῦ are left out, then it is also not strange and disharmonious within the context.

3.2 TRANSCRIPTIONAL PROBABILITY: (note that not all of these criteria will apply to every variant)

3.2.1 Is one reading more difficult than the others (lectio difficilior)? (But beware of non-sensical readings!)

In this case, reading (1), (2) and (3) are concepts that John discusses elsewhere, and they all make perfect sense in the present context.

3.2.2 Can you explain any of the variants as an intentional change by a scribe that may have been due to omitting apparently superfluous, harsh, or uncustomary language, or that may have been an intentionally “smoothing out” of a text?

A likely intentional change within the variants is reflected in reading (1) because there are apparently two words that were smoothed out of the text.

3.2.3 Can you explain any of the variants as a harmonization on the part of the scribe to another biblical text, either from the same author or another author? Generally, the reading that resists harmonization is to be preferred. (Note that harmonization could have been either intentional or unintentional; unintentional harmonization might also be considered an error of the mind [see next step], but you could also include it here.)

A likely explanation for προ εμου ηλθον would be unintentional harmonization due to an error of the mind. Specifically, because there are so many ἦλθον personal pronoun phrases before verse 8 in this chapter, it would have been very easy for a copyist to alter the word order in this context. Even though ἦλθον occurs three times in chapter 10, the first time it occurs is in verse 8, and the copyist probably presumed that there may have been a pronoun rather than a verb at the beginning of the phrase πρὸ ἐμοῦ ἦλθον. So, it seems most likely that the copyist simply wrote down the words in the wrong word order.

Additionally, a likely explanation for ἦλθον would be intentional harmonization because it would have been impossible for a copyist to overlook the two words πρὸ ἐμοῦ.

3.2.4 Can you explain any of the variants as an unintentional error of a scribe? (e.g., error of the eye [such as parablepsis because of homoeoarcton or homoeoteleuton; error of the ear; error of the mind; error of judgment)?

As noted above, the unintentional harmonization could have been an error of the mind.

3.2.5 Does any one variant explain the rise of the other variants?

In my opinion, reading (3), ἦλθον πρὸ ἐμοῦ, explains the rise of reading (2), πρὸ ἐμοῦ ἦλθον. The reason I believe (2) made it into the transmission of the text is described above.

4. CONCLUSION AND DEFENSE/EXPLANATION

4.1 Give your final answer here and a 2–3 sentence summary for why you chose the reading you did.

It is difficult to make an assessment here. Variant reading (1) does have some external support, but variant reading (3) has more external evidence than (1) does, and reading (3) is also supported by internal evidence, because reading (3) reflects a harmonization to Johannine style. Nevertheless, variant reading (2) does not have enough eternal evidence, but it is not so strange in the context since I do not see a striking difference between ἦλθον πρὸ ἐμοῦ and πρὸ ἐμοῦ ἦλθον; i.e., the word order is different.    

4.2 Now that you have done your research, compare your work with Metzger’s Textual Commentary on the Greek NT. How does your research match up with Metzger’s record of the committee’s decision?

The committee’s decision was also based in large part on variant reading (3), ἦλθον πρὸ ἐμοῦ, which the committee said was the least unsatisfactory. In addition, they think it is difficult to make a firm decision on whether reading (1), (2) or (3) is definitely original. Our assessments largely agree. 

4.3  Would you consider your variant to be exegetically significant? Why or why not?

First, the difference between variant (2), πρὸ ἐμοῦ ἦλθον, and variant (3), ἦλθον πρὸ ἐμοῦ, is that variant (2) emphasizes πρὸ ἐμοῦ while variant (3) reflects the normal order. However, in my opinion, this difference between variants (2) and (3) is of minor exegetical significance because there is at least a concept of time showed by the πρὸ which limits ὅσοι to a certain scope.     

Second, even though there are more differences between variant (1) and variants (2) and (3) than there are between variant (2) and variant (3), as I mentioned above, the differences between variant (1) and variants (2) and (3) are also of minor exegetical significance. More specifically, variant (1) indicates that the κλέπται καὶ λῃσταί either precede Jesus or are contemporaries of Jesus. In addition, variant (3) means that the κλέπται καὶ λῃσταί are those who appeared only before Jesus. However, the central point of John 10:1-21 is that Jesus identifies himself as the only good shepherd of the sheep, and theologically speaking, even if the preposition πρὸ were replaced by μέτα, it would not distort the point that only Jesus is the good shepherd of the sheep.

Thus, that is why I indicated that the variant in John 10:8 is of minor exegetical significance.

5. BIBLIOGRAPHY: List here (alphabetically by author’s last name) all sources consulted (including sources listed in step 1.7)

Aland, Kurt, Barbara Aland, Johannes Karavidopoulos, Carlo M. Martini, and Bruce M. Metzger ed. Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece. 28th ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelge sellschaft, 2012.

Aland, Kurt and Barbara Aland. The Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism. Translated by Er roll F. Rhodes. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995. 

Aland, Kurt, M. Welte, B. Köster, and K. Junack. Kurzgefasste Liste der griechischen Hand schriften des Neues Testaments. Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1994.

Brock, Sebastian. The Bible in the Syriac Tradition. Kerala: St. Ephrem Ecumenical Research Institute, 1988. 

Fee, Gordon. New Testament Exegesis. 3rd ed. Kentucky: WJK, 2002

Metzger, Bruce. A Textual Commentary of the Greek New Testament. 3rd ed. London, New York: United Bible Societies, 1971. 

Metzger, Bruce M. and Bart D. Ehrman. The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Cor ruption, and Restoration. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.

Plagiarism Pledge

I understand and have not violated the seminary’s policy on plagiarism, nor have I copied the Complutensian Polyglot.

Signed  YANG WENG (OCEAN) 

|2|1


提示 »

本文于主后2016-12-07 17:24由 Ocean Weng 发表, 您可以在注明源地址及作者的前提下转载,还可通过RSS 2.0订阅此日志的所有评论。

0评论

我要评论 »

直升飞机