![]() The evidence is mainly Byzantine including the uncials N W Σ of the fifth and sixth centuries. The support for the omission is not as impressive but it does have some merit. Thus, there is good and early manuscript support for the inclusion οὐδὲ ὁ υἱός. The Western text also points to a second century archetype with the alignment of D, the early itala, and the witness of Irenaeus. 12 In terms of genealogical solidarity, the witness of א and B suggests that the reading goes back to an early second century archetype. 11 Geographic distribution, therefore, includes all four texttypes, but only in the Alexandrian and Western texttypes is the distribution definitive before the fifth century. Patristic evidence includes Irenaeus (Latin), 2 Origen (Latin), 3 Epiphanius, 4 Dydimus, 5 Cyril of Alexandria, 6 Chrysostom, 7 Hilary, 8 Ambrose, 9 Augustine, 10 and Latin manuscripts according to Jerome. In addition to the Greek manuscripts and the itala, there is versional evidence in the Latin Vulgate, Ethiopic, Armenian, Georgian versions. ![]() The Byzantine text is represented by Θ from the ninth century and 1505 from the eleventh century. The Caeserean text is represented by minuscules of f 13 and 28, but no manuscript is earlier than the eleventh century. The Western text is represented by the fifth century uncial D as well as several manuscripts of the itala, some of which are as early as the fourth century. Favoring the reading of οὐδὲ ὁ υἱός is א and B the two fourth century primary uncials of the Alexandrian textttype. These three factors need to be taken into consideration in order to evaluate adequately the internal evidence of this textual problem.īefore we take a look at the internal arguments, a brief examination of external evidence is in order. First, could the anti-Arian discussions among the church fathers of the fourth and fifth centuries CE have affected the transmission of Matt 24:36? Second, do the scribes of א, B, D tend to harmonize toward Matthew or toward Mark? Third, how would scribes have interpreted εἰ μὴ ὁ πατήρ in Mark 13:32? Could the ancient scribes interpreted εἰ μὴ ὁ πατήρ in Mark 13:32 as simply preeminently true as opposed to exclusively true? If so, they could omit the phrase in Matthew, but not necessarily in Mark. Is it possible that certain scribes could have harmonized the text of Matt 24:36 to that of Mark 13:32? Several factors need to be considered in this problem besides external evidence and the theological motivations of certain scribes. However, why would the scribes omit the phrase in Matt 24:36 and not in Mark 13:32? Only Codex X, the Latin Vulgate, and a few other Greek manuscripts omit it. ![]() Perhaps the omission was a theologically motivated change in order to preserve Jesus’ omniscience. Many manuscripts ( א 1 L W f 1 33 Ï), however, omit οὐδὲ ὁ υἱός. A curious textual problem occurs in Matt 24:36. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |