Skeptic Neglects to Respond
by Rev. Dr. Greg Neal
The following exchange between Rev Neal and hyper-skeptic Joseph Crea is
actually a continuation of the Mark's Geography -
Mark 7:24-31 debate
between Dr. Gary Butner and Kornform. Dr. Butner observed the manuscript evidence for
Mark 7:24 varied from many translations, and so he asked for Rev. Neal's analysis of the passage,
since Rev. Neal has had extensive training in the science of textual
criticism. Joseph Crea made the mistake of coming to Kornform's aid. At
the end of the text you will find two links to the Nestle-Aland Mark
7:24 and Mark 7:31 plates.
Subject: Re: Jesus took the best route.
Date: Fri, 23 July 1999 08:17 PM EDT
From: Kornform
Gary<< Sorry Kornform, but the best and earliest
manuscripts list both Tyre and Sidon. I need to check with Rev Neal on this, but
if I recall correctly Sidon is only missing in some texts after the 5th
Century.>>
Kornform: Unevidenced assertion.
Subject: Re: Jesus took the best route.
Date: Fri, 23 July 1999 08:19 PM EDT
From: Kornform
Mark 7:24 Jesus left that place and went to the
vicinity of Tyre. He entered a house and did not want anyone to know it; yet he
could not keep his presence secret. (NIV)
Mark 7:24 And from there He arose and went away to the
region of Tyre....(NAS)
Kornform: Will the "real" word of God stand
up? Either the word "Sidon" is in the Greek manuscripts in this verse
or it isn't. Apparently the expert translators of the NAS and the NIV thought it
wasn't.
DrGary<<Both Tyre and Sidon are in all the early and major
manuscripts....>>
Kornform: Unevidenced assertion.
You have not posted proof of your expertise in reading
early and major manuscripts, not have you posted evidence that you have actually
read them.
Subject: Re: Jesus took the best route.
Date: Fri, 23 July 1999 11:54 PM EDT
From: Dr Gary777
Gary<< No Kornform, neither the NASB or the NASB
95 Update state Jesus went to Tyre. Read the verse carefully, it states he went
to the REGION of Tyre. Neither does the NASB state Jesus left Tyre, rather it
states he left the VICINITY of Tyre.>>
Kornform<< Region of Tyre, or Tyre, Sidon was
left out. Some translations include the region of Tyre and others say the region
or Tyre and Sidon.
BTW, how did they know it was the region of Tyre when
Tyre was supposed to have been wiped off the surface of the earth centuries
before, never to be found again, according to Ezekiel? LOL>>
The Bible also says it shall be a place for the
spreading of fishermen's nets, which clearly implies fishermen will be in the
area. This has certainly come true. As to the city of Tyre, the old mainland
city has never been rebuilt, and the island city is nothing more than a fishing
village. Certainly Tyre has never regained her former glory.
Kornform<<Something is fishy. Either Mark
(NO-Last-Name) wrote the word Tyre alone or he wrote the words Tyre and Sidon.
Which was it?>>
The earliest and best manuscripts clearly show Mark
used the words Tyre and Sidon, which agrees with Matthew. BTW, this clearly
throws a monkey wrench into G. A. Wells' thesis.
Dr. Gary
Subj: Posting on the Textual issues of Mark 7:24
Date: 7/25/99 7:48:52 PM Central Daylight Time
From: Rev Neal
To: Dr Gary777
Gary<<I need to check with Rev Neal on this, but
if I recall correctly Sidon is only missing in some texts after the 5th
Century.>>
Dear Gary,
The textual history of Mark 7:24, and the judgment of
the Nestle-Aland editorial board, is pretty easy to follow in the textual
apparatus of either the 27th edition of the Nestle-Aland or in the 4th edition
of the UBS text.
1. According to the textual apparatus, the following
manuscripts LACK "kai Sidonos" ("and Sidon"):
D -- Codex "Bezae Cantabrigiensis" is dated
to the late 5th century, and is a Greek-Latin diglot, with the Greek text on the
opposite side from the Latin, written in sense lines for use in worship. It is
classified as a category IV manuscript, meaning that it doesn't reflect any
particular family of manuscripts, but is sometimes thought of as being of the
"Western" Family ("Western" being a misnomer, since it was
produced in Egypt). Our difficulty in identifying its family is due to the fact
that its readings are frequently very unusual and/or unique to it alone, and
while it does contain some interesting early readings, it is not generally
considered to be a manuscript of a quality approaching that of the
"Great" Uncials (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus).
L -- Codex "Regius" is dated to the mid 8th
century, is of the late "Egyptian" family of manuscripts, but is
generally classified as a Category II manuscript (hence, important readings can
be found in it). Its lateness in the textual history, however, limits its
strength as a textual exemplar.
W -- Codex "Freerianus" is dated to the late
5th or the very early 6th century, is located in the Freer Gallery of Art in
Washington, DC (hence "W"), and is specially noted by its highly
irregular textual readings. It is a Category III manuscript, and hence rather
poor even though it is from the late 5th century. The irregularity of its text
makes it hard to identify its family, however the majority of its readings
appear to have an affinity with the "Egyptian Family."
Delta -- Codex "Sangallensis" is dated to the
early 9th century, is another example of a Latin - Greek diglot, with the Latin
interlinear with the Greek. It is a Category III manuscript, and in its Greek
text is reflective, yet again, of the late Alexandrian Text type, often called
the "Egyptian Family."
Theta -- Codex "Coridethianus" is dated to
the mid 9th century, has a severely uneven textual quality, is written in an
very awkward hand by a scribe who evidently didn't know Greek. This doesn't
speak well for the quality of the scribes copying, and its many severe errors
can be seen in its VERY HIGH unique variant count -- 95. By comparison, most
manuscripts of this size will only have about 10 - 25 unique readings.
28 -- this is an 11th century minuscule of category III
text ... family unknown.
565 -- this is a 9th century minuscule of category III
text .... again, family unknown.
some Italian (later Latin) manuscripts ... mostly dated
to the 4th - 7th centuries
some Syriac manuscripts ... mostly dated 5th - 7th
centuries.
2. According to the textual apparatus, the following
manuscripts INCLUDE "kai Sidonos" ("and Sidon"):
Aleph -- Codex "Sinaiticus" is dated to the
early 4th century, is one of the best copies of the entire New Testament
available to us today, reflects a very regular though sometimes imprecise copy
of the Alexandrian Family.
B -- Codex "Vaticanus" is dated to the early
4th century, is THE BEST copy of most of the New Testament available to us
today, and reflects a VERY regular and VERY strict copy of the proto-Alexandrian
family.
A -- Codex "Alexandranus" is dated to the
early 5th century and, in its Gospels, reflects a very early version of the
Byzantine Family.
K -- Codex "Cyprius" is dated to the 9th
century and reflects the Byzantine Family.
X -- Codex "Monacensis" is dated to the mid
10th century and reflects the Byzantine Family.
Pi -- Codex "Petropolitanus" is dated to the
9th century and reflects the Byzantine Family.
Family 1 Minuscles and Family 13 Minuscules, both of
which are excellent examples of Category III (heavily Caesarian) text. There are
16 manuscripts in these two collections.
33 -- is a minuscule from the 9th century of a Category
II, Alexandrian Family
700 -- is a minuscule from the 11th century of a
Category III, mixed Family
892 -- is a minuscule from the 9th century of a
Category II, Alexandrian Family
The MAJORITY TEXT (i.e., the VAST majority of the
Byzantine Text Type exemplars (about a thousand manuscripts) all contain "kai
Sidonos" ("and Sidon").
The Byzantine Lectionary
Some Old Latin/Italian manuscripts, some of which date
to the 3rd century
The Latin Vulgate
The majority of the Syriac version
The Coptic version
The Gothic version
The Armenian version
The Ethiopian version
The Gregorian version
Tatian's Diatessaron -- which is a "Gospel
Harmony" that dates from PRIOR to the 3rd century.
3. Analysis.
The textual evidence is quite overwhelming in support
of the inclusion of the words "kai Sidonos" ("and Sidon") at
Mark 7:24. Not only do we have the earliest and the best manuscripts in support
of its inclusion (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus), but we also have a BROAD range of
Geographical (Africa, Palestine, Byzantium, and Rome) and Text Type
(Alexandrian, Caesarian, Byzantine, and Western versions) support for its
inclusion. The very fact that Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, Alexandranus, and the
Majority Text all support the inclusion of "kai Sidonos" is a STRONG
indicator in and of itself that the words should be considered as original.
The reason for its being left out of body-text of the
Nestle-Aland is curious indeed, and may well be based upon a hypothetical
reasoning processes which runs something like this:
1. A few manuscripts leave out "kai Sidonos"
2. We cannot figure out any reason why "kai
Sidonos" would have been left out of these manuscripts
3. We CAN posit a guess as to how "kai Sidonos"
got added to the earliest and best manuscripts AND the majority text
4. Therefore, even though textual support is VERY
strong for the inclusion of "kai Sidonos," we prefer to leave the
words out.
Their guess as to how "kai Sidonos" got added
to the text of Mark 7:24 is that the scribes who were making copies of the
Gospels added the words based upon their memory of having written the words in
the previous book (Matthew 15:21).
This theory works well to help determine the proper
reading in cases where the textual evidence is poor or inconclusive. In this
case, however, this theory is VERY WEAK INDEED when compared with the strength
of the textual witness of Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, Alexandranus, and the Majority
Text.
It is made even MORE problematic when one considers the
relatively weak character of the manuscripts which leave out "kai Sidonos."
They are: (1) of one basic textual family, (2) mostly late, (3) mostly from the
same geographical region, and (4) all manuscripts with irregular or
"sloppy" scribal characteristics. Any of these 4 reasons, and
especially the 4th reason, provide sufficient grounds for asserting why they
left out "kai Sidonos" contrary to its presence in earlier, superior,
manuscripts.
I had never noticed this before ... it is an
interesting example of where the editors of the Nestle-Aland and the UBS text
have allowed their methodology to get in the way of the actual physical textual
exemplars, and what those exemplars demonstrate. For example, in almost any
other place in the Greek New Testament you would care to indicate, when and
where we find Sinaiticus and Vaticanus BOTH agreeing together, and ESPECIALLY
when they not only agree together, but agree with the Majority Text, in such
places they almost ALWAYS are followed. And, they should be followed here, too.
This is my professional opinion as a ThM and PhD (second concentration) in
Textual Criticism.
Grace and Peace,
Rev. Dr. Gregory Neal+
Subj: Metzger's Commentary on Mark 7:24
Date: 7/27/99 8:16:45 PM Central Daylight Time
From: Rev Neal
To: Dr Gary777
Dear Gary,
I thought you might like to see what Dr. Bruce
Metzger's commentary on the UBS text has to say about Mark 7:24. The Greek words
"kai Sidonos" is in OLB Greek font.
<<The words kai idwnov seem to be an assimilation
to Mt 15:21 and Mk 7:31. If they had been present originally, there is no reason
why they should have been deleted. The witnesses in support of the shorter text
include representatives of the Western and the Caesarean types of text.>>
(p. 95)
And that's it. I'm, frankly, shocked at the weakness of
this argument. Usually, Metzger is far better than this. I can respond to the
above easily:
1. <<If they had been present originally, there
is no reason why they should have been deleted.>>
The reason(s) for the exclusion of the words may not be
within our ability to establish -- i.e., it's not the product of any of the
standard textual error producers as established by textual criticism -- but, on
the other hand, this observation doesn't mean that their exclusion must,
therefore, be reflective of the original reading ... and CERTAINLY NOT to the
strength of an "A" rating. Indeed, given the sparcity, lateness, and
the narrow textual families of the textual witnesses which lack the words, it
seems quite likely that the words may well have been accidentally left out by
the scribes of each of the manuscripts through unrelated, unknown errors in
either the copying process. Indeed, in the case of one of the manuscripts
(Theta), the reason for the exclusion may well be obvious: according to Dr.
Aland's guide to manuscripts, Codex Theta was copied by a scribe who didn't know
Greek, and the text of which is very irregular and, as Aland says,
"awkward." This does NOT speak well of the originality of the
exclusion of these words.
2. <<The witnesses in support of the shorter text
include representatives of the Western and the Caesarean types of text.>>
This statement is totally misleading, and I am utterly
disappointed that he says the above but doesn't go on to present the data in
support of the words (as he normally does in other, similar, examples). Firstly,
contrary to Metzger, Aland argues persuasively that all of the so-called
"Western" Texts are, actually, late "Egyptian" in character
.... and, also according to Aland, the Caesarean text is strongly ALSO Egyptian
in character. Hence, they reflect ONE textual family, not two.
Secondly, note what Metzger doesn't, but should, say:
that the witnesses in support of the longer text include primer representatives of the Alexandrian, Ceasarean, and Byzantine Families, INCLUDING Vaticanus,
Sinaiticus, and Alexandranus in the Uncial collection and the significantly
important Families 1 and 2 of in the Minuscule collection. All of these
manuscripts are considered to be "the earliest and the best" of the
extant textualcopia, and normally would have been considered substantially
determinative on such matters. Hence, textually speaking, their argument is far
WEAKER than they state.
Grace and peace,
Greg+
Subject: Mark's Bad Geography
Date: Mon, 02 August 1999 09:14 PM EDT
From: Kornform
K: I submitted Rev Neal's defense concerning Mark's bad
geography to the errancy@infidels.org E-mail debating list for comment. One of
the knowledgeable members of the list, Jospeh Crea, responded as follows, below.
Please note that the comments have been slightly censored
by me (ellipses...or [word substitution]) to eliminate anything that could be
offensive to any participant of the Inerrancy board. I invite Rev Neal to answer
to the comments either here, or, better, on the errancy list, moderated by
Farrell Till. Perhaps Rev Neal and Crea could have a sparkling dialogue as to
the "earliest and best" manuscripts.
=====
Joseph CREA
Hello Kornform!
At 02:50 PM 7/30/99 EDT, DDD wrote:
><<DDD
>Yah, If I understand you, you're saying they pulled this "earliest and
>best manuscript" defense ...., and now you're trying to find
>information corroborating it? Are these "earliest and best
manuscripts"
>named, or are they imaginary? Don't let yourself get pulled in any
>further until you get the specific names and dates of these manuscripts,
>otherwise you will be debating against imaginary allegations.>>
>
>
>KORNFORM
>Here is what Rev Neal wrote on Mark:
>
>
>Subject: Mark 7:24 and the Greek Text
>Date: Sun, 25 July 1999 08:52 PM EDT
>From: Rev Neal
>
>Gary<<I need to check with Rev Neal on this, but
if I recall correctly Sidon is only missing in some texts after the 5th
Century.>>
>REV. NEAL
>Dear Gary,
>The textual history of Mark 7:24, and the judgment
of the Nestle-Aland
>editorial board, is pretty easy to follow in the textual apparatus of either
>the 27th edition of the Nestle-Aland or in the 4th edition of the UBS text.
Editor's note, it is important to observe Rev Neal clearly was referring to Mark 7:24.
JOSEPH CREA<<OK, If
it's "pretty easy to follow", then why do your comments reveal such an appalling lacking of
understanding/comprehension (as will be shortly demonstrated) of the appraratus criticus of NA^27? And why are you
singling out the editorial board of Nestle-Aland for special condemnation, since a brief trot over to NA^27's Appendix III
(Editionum Differentiae) shows that the reading adopted by NA^27 concurs with that of EVERY OTHER
ACADEMICALLY RECOGNIZED MODERN CRITICAL EDITION OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT --
Tischdorff, Westcott/Hort, von Soden, Vogels, Merk, Nolli, and Bover. In point of fact, this reading is even supported by such notable texts of
yesteryear as Lachmann, Tregelles, and Alford. The only editions that I am aware of which support the "Tyre and Sidon" reading are the TR
(Elzevir), Griesbach, Wordsworth and Farstad/Hodges.
>REV. NEAL
>1. According to the textual apparatus, the
following manuscripts LACK
>"kai Sidonos" ("and Sidon"):
>
>D -- Codex "Bezae Cantabrigiensis" is dated to the late 5th
century, and
is a
>Greek-Latin diglot, with the Greek text on the opposite side from the Latin,
>written in sense lines for use in worship. It is classified as a category
IV
>manuscript, meaning that it doesn't reflect any particular family of
>manuscripts, but is sometimes thought of as being of the "Western"
Family
>("Western" being a misnomer, since it was produced in Egypt). Our
>difficulty in identifying its family is due to the fact that its readings
are
>frequently very unusual and/or unique to it alone, and while it does contain
>some interesting early readings, it is not generally considered to be a
>manuscript of a quality approaching that of the "Great" Uncials (Sinaiticus
>and Vaticanus).
JOSEPH CREA<<I'm glad you admit the quality of
such manuscripts as Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, but I'm afraid you're going to come to regret having made that
concession -- as will be made clearer on my comments on Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.
>REV. NEAL
>L -- Codex "Regius" is dated to the mid
8th century, is of the late
>"Egyptian" family of manuscripts, but is generally classified as a
Category
>II manuscript (hence, important readings can be found in it). Its lateness
>in the textual history, however, limits its strength as a textual exemplar.
>
>W -- Codex "Freerianus" is dated to the late 5th or the very early
6th
>century, is located in the Freer Gallery of Art in Washington, DC (hence
>"W"), and is specially noted by its highly irregular textual
readings. It is
>a Category III manuscript, and hence rather poor even though it is from the
>late 5th century. The irregularity of its text makes it hard to identify its
>family, however the majority of its readings appear to have an affinity
>with the "Egyptian Family."
JOSEPH CREA<<Strange, according to the apparatus
in my copy of NA^27, W (Codex Freerianus) is cited as a witness IN SUPPORT OF <Kai
Sidonos>, not its omission, so why...are you including it here? Besides, according to
Metzger's __Text of the New Testament__ (1992, 3rd enlarged edition, page
57), for Mark V:31 through XVI:20, the readings are Caesarean, not Egyptian.
In addition we'll remember that you judge it's evidential value as being
"poor".
>REV. NEAL
>Delta -- Codex "Sangallensis" is dated to
the early 9th century, is another
>example of a Latin - Greek diglot, with the Latin interlinear with the
Greek.
> It is a Category III manuscript, and in its Greek text is reflective, yet
>again, of the late Alexandrian Text type, often called the "Egyptian
Family."
>
>Theta -- Codex "Coridethianus" is dated to the mid 9th century,
has a
>severely uneven textual quality, is written in an very awkward hand by a
>scribe who evidently didn't know Greek. This doesn't speak well for the
>quality of the scribes copying, and its many severe errors can be seen in
its
>VERY HIGH unique variant count -- 95. By comparison, most manuscripts of
>this size will only have about 10 - 25 unique readings.
JOSEPH CREA
Yep, Theta (Codex "Coridethianus") is so
riddled with severe errors
that the editorial staff of NA^27 decided that it belonged to category II
and the introduction to NA^27 places it among its list of
"...consistently cited witnesses of the first order...".
>REV. NEAL
>28 -- this is an 11th century minuscule of category
III text ... family
>unknown.
>
>565 -- this is a 9th century minuscule of category III text .... again,
>family unknown.
JOSEPH CREA
And the editorial committee of NA^27 thought so little
of 565 that they
included it in their group of "...consistently cited witnesses of the
second order...". Strange that you seem unaware of its status other than
being just a witness.
>REV. NEAL
>some Italian (later Latin) manuscripts ... mostly
dated to the 4th - 7th
>centuries
JOSEPH CREA
NOT!! The abbreviation in the apparatus "it"
DOES NOT MEAN later
Latin, it means OLD LATIN,...-- see the detailed explanation in
NA^27, page 65*. And I'm curious as to why you failed to mention that
those Old Latin manuscripts are also supported by the MOST IMPORTANT
VULGATE WITNESSES, as can be seen from the citation of <lat> in the
apparatus (again, see NA^27, page 65* for an explanation of the apparatus).
>REV. NEAL
>some Syriac manuscripts ... mostly dated 5th - 7th
centuries.
JOSEPH CREA
In point of fact, the apparatus of NA^27 maintains that
ALL the Syriac
manuscripts extant support the TR reading rather than the omission of <kai
Sidonos>. Can't you even interpret something this simple in the apparatus?
========================
>Rev. Neal
>
>2. According to the textual apparatus, the following manuscripts INCLUDE
>"kai Sidonos" ("and Sidon"):
>
>Aleph -- Codex "Sinaiticus" is dated to the early 4th century, is
one of the
>best copies of the entire New Testament available to us today, reflects a
>very regular though sometimes imprecise copy of the Alexandrian Family.
>
>B -- Codex "Vaticanus" is dated to the early 4th century, is THE
BEST copy
of
>most of the New Testament available to us today, and reflects a VERY regular
>and VERY strict copy of the proto-Alexandrian family.
JOSEPH CREA
ARE YOU ENTIRELY BLIND or is it just a matter of your
willfully
distorting the content of the apparatus? According to NA^27 the entire
citation in the apparatus in favor of OMITTING <kai Sidonos> reads as
follows (NA^27, page 113):
"txt Aleph B D L Delta Theta 033. 565. 700. 892. 2427. lat sa^mss bo"
JOSEPH CREA
Look very, very closely at the above. Do you see the
"Aleph" and "B"?
If they INCLUDE the <kai Sidonos> as you assert, WHAT...ARE THEY
DOING AMONG THE WITNESSES FOR THE OPPOSING READING??
>REV. NEAL
>A -- Codex "Alexandranus" is dated to the
early 5th century and, in its
>Gospels, reflects a very early version of the Byzantine Family.
>
>K -- Codex "Cyprius" is dated to the 9th century and reflects the
Byzantine
>Family.
JOSEPH CREA
Is it just me, or does anyone else notice that when
Rev. Neal arrives
at the witnesses for his preferred reading, he quietly stops using the
grading scheme of CATEGORIES? Just to be fair], let's point out that K^e,
Codex "Cyprianus", is classified by the Alands as being Category V,
though
I will point out that Codex Alexandrinus is a Category
I witness.
>Rev. Neal
>X -- Codex "Monacensis" is dated to the
mid 10th century and reflects the
>Byzantine Family.
JOSEPH CREA
And again, this is a category V manuscript.
>
>Pi -- Codex "Petropolitanus" is dated to the
9th century and reflects the
>Byzantine Family.
JOSEPH CREA
Again, a category V manuscript.
>Rev. Neal
>Family 1 Minuscles and Family 13 Minuscules, both
of which are excellent
>examples of Category III (heavily Caesarian) text. There are 16 manuscripts
>in these two collections.
JOSEPH CREA
By the way, you really should read the standard works
in the field.
The manuscripts of F^1.13 are now known to comprise at least 20 documents
(Family 1 = 1. 118. 131. 209. 884. 1582. 2542. et. al. || Family 13 = 13.
69. 124. 174. 230. 346. 543. 788. 826. 828. 983. 1689. 1709 et. al.)
according to NA^27, Metzger's __The Text of the New Testament__ and Aland
& Aland's __The Text of the New Testament__.
>REV. NEAL
>33 -- is a minuscule from the 9th century of a
Category II, Alexandrian
Family
>
>700 -- is a minuscule from the 11th century of a Category III, mixed Family
>
>892 -- is a minuscule from the 9th century of a Category II, Alexandrian
>Family
>The MAJORITY TEXT (i.e., the VAST majority of the Byzantine Text Type
>exemplars (about a thousand manuscripts) all contain "kai Sidonos"
("and
>Sidon").
>The Byzantine Lectionary
>Some Old Latin/Italian manuscripts, some of which date to the 3rd century
JOSEPH CREA
Gee, just a few lines earlier you were calling those
Old Latin texts
"Late Latin", and get this... -- there is NO SUCH
THING AS AN >>ITALIAN<< MANUSCRIPT of the New Testament!! The
Italian
language didn't emerge from Latin until sometime around the first millenium
and the putative originals of the Old Latin manuscripts are presumed to
antedate Jerome's Vulgate of circa 382 CE. The use of "it" as an
abbreviation for Old Latin is derived from long-standing usage. The
Alands' comment on the use of "it" as an abbreviation in the apparatus
criticus as follows (__The Text of the New Testament__, page 190):
"As to terminology, we should note that
Julicher's designation of
the Old Latin tradition as Itala follows a tradition that goes
back to Augustine. But what Augustine intended by the term Itala
is still uncertain and a matter of debate, so that Old Latin
(Vetus Latina) is a better term for the early Latin tradition, in
parallel to Old Syriac (Vetus Syra) for the earliest Syriac
tradition. The use of "it" in Nestle-Aland^26 is continued partly
in deference to tradition, but also for practical reasons. For
the same reasons the use of lowercase letters has been retained to
designate individual manuscripts: vl for vetus latina would be
easily confused with v(e)l (for "or") and with v.l. (varia lectio
for "variant reading")..."
>REV. NEAL
>The Latin Vulgate
JOSEPH CREA
As noted above, the Vulgate reads in favor of the text
of NA^27, not the TR.
>Rev. Neal
>The majority of the Syriac version
>The Coptic version
JOSEPH CREA
The apparatus of NA^27 indicates that there are Coptic/Sahadic
manuscripts supporting the TR (notated sa^mss) but there are also Coptic
Sahadic manuscripts supporting the text of NA^27. Moreover, the
Coptic/Bohairic family of manuscripts are cited as unformily supporting
NA^27. Try again, your aim needs correcting here.
>REV. NEAL
>The Gothic version
>The Armenian version
>The Ethiopian version
>The Gregorian version
>Tatian's Diatessaron -- which is a "Gospel Harmony" that dates
from PRIOR to
>the 3rd century.
JOSEPH CREA
I'm frankly surprised that you haven't played your
strongest card and
am beginning to wonder if you actually read the apparatus of either
UBS/GNT^4 or NA^27 for yourself rather than [repeating] somebody else's
material. After all, if you HAD read the apparatus, you would have
IMMEDIATELY seen that the FIRST citation in your favor in NA^27 is that of
P45, a papyrus dated to the 3rd century CE, and placed in category I.
=================
>REV. NEAL
>3. Analysis.
>
>The textual evidence is quite overwhelming in support of the inclusion of
the
>words "kai Sidonos" ("and Sidon") at Mark 7:24. Not only
do we have the
>earliest and the best manuscripts in support of its inclusion (Sinaiticus
and
>Vaticanus), but we also have a BROAD range of Geographical (Africa,
>Palestine, Byzantium, and Rome) and Text Type (Alexandrian, Caesarian,
>Byzantine, and Western versions) support for its inclusion. The very fact
>that
>Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, Alexandranus, and the Majority Text all support the
>inclusion of "kai Sidonos" is a STRONG indicator in and of itself
that the
>words should be considered as original.
JOSEPH CREA
Your analysis is fatally flawed due to shoddy research
and the
resultant misrepresentation of the content of important witnesses like your
"earliest and best manuscripts" Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, which DO NOT
READ IN FAVOR OF <kai Sidonos>. In addition the entirety of the Vulgate
mss. and a sizeable proportion of the Old Latin mss. (in fact the only Old
Latin mss. cited in your favor in NA^27 is q), the Coptic/Bohairic mss as
well as significant representation among the Coptic/Sahidic come down
solidly in favor of the NA^27 reading rather than the TR.
I also find it interesting that you would claim support
from the
"Western versions" since the foremost exemplar of this is D or "Bezae
Cantabrigiensis" which -- surprise, surprise! -- does not support the TR's
reading of <kai Sidonos> BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION! While the Old Latin mss.
are typically classified as "Western", it is also noteworthy that
NA^27
cites but a single example (q) as supporting your reading of <kai Sidonos>,
whereas they cite substantial Old Latin support (along with the entirety of
the Vulgate mss) for its omission.
As for the support of Text Types, admittedly, the
Byzantine Text Type
by and large includes <kai Sidonos>, although there are exceptions such as
033. There is support among the Alexandrian Text Type (as represented by
Vaticanus and Vaticanus) for the ommission of <kai Sidonos>. And as
previously noted the relevant portions of W are Caesarean, as are Theta,
565 and 700 -- and they all support the NA^27 reading.
Enough for now.
With Mettaa,
Joseph Crea
Joseph.Crea@worldnet.att.net
Subject: Re: Mark's Bad Geography
Date: Tue, 03 August 1999 02:04 AM EDT
From: Rev Neal
Dear Kornform,
I'll respond to your source's message ... you may
forward it to him if you wish. Frankly, I'm very disappointed. The factual
errors in his message are quite unfortunate, and his tone of address only serves
to make his errors even more unfortunate.
Joseph Crea<<OK, If it's "pretty easy to follow",
then why do your comments reveal such an appalling lacking of
understanding/comprehension (as will be shortly demonstrated) of the appraratus
criticus of NA^27?>>
This commentator, as my following remarks will
demonstrate, really is in no place to be arrogant, condescending, or otherwise
sarcastic. His reading of the apparatus is utterly flawed. Indeed, I suspect he
has either misread the apparatus, or has read the textual apparatus for a
subsequent verse in Mark 7.
Joseph Crea<<the reading adopted by NA^27 concurs with that
of EVERY OTHER ACADEMICALLY RECOGNIZED MODERN CRITICAL EDITION OF THE GREEK NEW
TESTAMENT -- Tischdorff, Westcott/Hort, von Soden, Vogels, Merk, Nolli, and Bover.>>
Please ask this commentator to recheck his sources. My
copy of the Westcott/Hort text has the words "kai Sidonos" in brackets
within the body text.
Joseph Crea<<I'm glad you admit the quality of such
manuscripts as Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, but I'm afraid you're going to come to
regret having made that concession -- as will be made clearer on my comments on
Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.>>
Oh, PLEASE. I'm a liberal, not a Majority-Text Or KJV
ONLY supporter. The person whom Kornform queried is just showing his shallow
arrogance and condescension. Most unfortunate ... and quite unfortunate for him,
given the number of mistakes he makes in his own analysis. In short, his
attitude makes him look very bad, indeed.
Joseph Crea<<Strange, according to the apparatus in my copy
of NA^27, W (Codex Freerianus) is cited as a witness IN SUPPORT OF <Kai Sidonos>, not its omission, so why...are you including it here?>>
Huh? Kornform, ask your commentator to review his
source. I just checked the textual apparatus of my copy of the NA 27th edition,
and W is VERY CLEARLY listed among those manuscripts that support the body-text
reading of the Nestle-Aland 27th edition. If you like, I'll scan as a .gif this
page with the apparatus on it and email it to you. Your Commentator may be
reading the wrong line. Again, W is clearly listed as supporting the textual
reading selected by the Nestle-Aland editorial board, and does NOT include
"kai Sidonos."
Joseph Crea<<Besides, according to Metzger's __Text of the
New Testament__ (1992, 3rd enlarged edition, page 57), for Mark V:31 through
XVI:20, the readings are Caesarean, not Egyptian. In addition we'll remember that
you judge it's evidential value as being "poor".>>
Have your source review the Kurt and Barbara Aland book
of the same title: "Text of the New Testament." Kurt Aland didn't
agree that the Caesarean text existed independently, but that it was just a
later edition of the Egyptian Family transplanted to Caesarea. I tend to follow
Aland more than Metzger on such issues.
Joseph Crea<<Yep, Theta (Codex "Coridethianus") is
so riddled with severe errors that the editorial staff of NA^27 decided that it
belonged to category II and the introduction to NA^27 places it among its list
of "...consistently cited witnesses of the first order...". >>
May I suggest reading Aland's catalog of New Testament
Mss, found in Kurt and Barbara Aland's "The Text of the New
Testament." This analysis was his opinion. In it, Aland gives a break-down
of variant readings, including the large percentage of variants that are unique
to it, and it alone. On pg. 49* of the Introduction to my copy of the Nestle-Aland
it states: "Among the uncials B has a position of undisputed precedence in
the Gospels, while W and Theta are frequently characterized by independent
readings." It is this independence that makes Theta's readings of special
note. That doesn't mean that the variants in Theta ... or in W ... are
subsequently superior to B. Quite the contrary.
Joseph Crea<<And the editorial committee of NA^27 thought so
little of 565 that they included it in their group of "...consistently
cited witnesses of the second order...". Strange that you seem unaware of
its status other than being just a witness.>>
Strange that your source says this when 565 is one of
the minuscules that supports the textual reading of the Nestle-Aland. I am aware
of how it is viewed ... it is a Minuscule, after all. It is sited only when and
where it doesn't agree with the Majority Text reading ... as is the case here.
Joseph Crea<<NOT!! The abbreviation in the apparatus
"it" DOES NOT MEAN later Latin, it means OLD LATIN,...-- see the
detailed explanation in NA^27, page 65*.>>
Correct ... in part. I plead poor eyes. I really need
to use my larger-print edition. Does your source wish to plead the same when it
comes to W being among the manuscripts supporting the textual reading? Perhaps
he should consider this when it comes to Sinaiticus and Vaticanus????
Also, the dates that I gave for these Latin manuscripts
... as shall be seen below ... are correct ... they are 4th - 7th century.
Joseph Crea<<And I'm curious as to why you failed to mention
that those Old Latin manuscripts are also supported by the MOST IMPORTANT VULGATE WITNESSES, as can be seen from the citation of <lat> in the
apparatus (again, see NA^27, page 65* for an explanation of the
apparatus).>>
According to the Apparatus in the UBS, the following
Latin "it" manuscripts support the reading of the Nestle-Aland:
a, "Vercellensis," 4th century
b, "Veronensis," 5th century
d, "Bezae Cantabrigiensis," 5th century
ff(2), "Corbeiensis II," 5th century
i, "Vindobonensis," 5th century
n, "Sangallensis," 5th century
r(1), "Usserianus I," 7th century
The following Latin "it" manuscripts support
the reading of the variant "and Sidon"
aur, "Aureus," 7th century
c, "Colbertinus," 12th/13th centuries
f, "Brixianus," 6th century
l, "Rehdigeranus," 7th/8th century
q, "Monacensis," 7th century
Also, according to the UBS, the Clementine and the
Wordsworth-White editions of the Vulgate are in agreement in support of the
"and Sidon" reading. As best I can tell, NO Vulgate editions agree
with the exclusion of "and Sidon" ... though I could be mistaken.
Joseph Crea<<In point of fact, the apparatus of NA^27
maintains that ALL the Syriac manuscripts extant
support the TR reading rather than the omission of <kai Sidonos>.
Can't you even interpret something this simple in the apparatus?>>
Your source does not have any cause to be
condescending. According to the apparatus of the Nestle-Aland 27th edition, the
following Syriac Manuscript does NOT support the inclusion of "kai Sidonos"
s, the Sinaitic manuscript
Additionally, according to the UBS the pal, or the
Palestinian manuscript, also supports leaving "and Sidon" OUT.
Those that support the inclusion of "and
Sidon" are:
p, the Peshitta
h, the Harclean
Joseph Crea<<ARE YOU ENTIRELY BLIND or is it just a matter
of your willfully distorting the content of the apparatus? According to NA^27
the entire citation in the apparatus in favor of OMITTING <kai Sidonos>
reads as follows (NA^27, page 113): "txt Aleph B D L Delta Theta 033. 565.
700. 892. 2427. lat sa^mss bo">>
Kornform, your source is the one who is either blind or
is reading the wrong line ... perhaps the one right above or one or two below?
The apparatus does NOT say what he says. Rather, it says:
txt D, L, W, Delta, Theta, .... etc.
Please have your source cross-reference with the UBS
4th edition apparatus, which lists the supports for just the "Tyre"
reading as being "D, L, W, Delta, Theta," et al, and lists the variant
supports for "Tyre and Sidon" as being "Sinaiticus, Alexandranus,
Vaticanus ... etc.," just as I said in my original posting. Kornform,
knowing you (and the likelihood that, given the nature of your source, you're
going to be biased in favor of him), I see I'm going to have to scan in the page
of the Nestle-Aland containing the apparatus and email it to you as a .gif. Your
source is either (1) reading the wrong line, (2) purposefully misleading you. I
shall be generous and assume that he has mistakenly read the wrong line.
Joseph Crea<<Look very, very closely at the above. Do you
see the "Aleph" and "B"? If they INCLUDE the <kai Sidonos>
as you assert, WHAT...ARE THEY DOING AMONG THE WITNESSES FOR THE OPPOSING
READING??>>
Wrong. Again, have your source reexamine the textual
apparatus of his Nestle-Aland. He is mistaken as to what it reads.
Joseph Crea<<Is it just me, or does anyone else notice that
when Rev. Neal arrives at the witnesses for his preferred reading, he quietly
stops using the grading scheme of CATEGORIES? Just to be fair], let's point out
that K^e, Codex "Cyprianus", is classified by the Alands as being
Category V, though I will point out that Codex Alexandrinus is a Category I
witness.>>
Correct. Codex Alexandranus is a Category I witness due
to its antiquity, even though it is an exemplar of the earliest generation of
the Byzantine Type.
Joseph Crea<<And again, this is a category V
manuscript.>>
It's a Byzantine Manuscript ... generally, manuscripts
that are predominately Byzantine are Category V.
I said: <<Family 1 Minuscles and Family 13
Minuscules, both of which are excellent examples of Category III (heavily
Caesarian) text. There are 16 manuscripts in these two collections.>>
Your source, condescendingly, responded with:
Joseph Crea<<By the way, you really should read the standard
works in the field. The manuscripts of F^1.13 are now known to comprise at least
20 documents (Family 1 = 1. 118. 131. 209. 884. 1582. 2542. et. al. || Family 13
= 13. 69. 124. 174. 230. 346. 543. 788. 826. 828. 983. 1689. 1709 et. al.)
according to NA^27, Metzger's __The Text of the New Testament__ and Aland &
Aland's __The Text of the New Testament__.>>
Minuscules 174 and 230 are not considered as being part
of Family 13 when it comes to the Gospel of Mark, and hence should not be
referenced in this context.
Joseph Crea<<As noted above, the Vulgate reads in favor of
the text of NA^27, not the TR.>>
As I demonstrated above, this is incorrect. Kornform,
your source REALLY needs to read his references more carefully. His errors make
his condescending, arrogant tone quite ... well ... amusing.
Joseph Crea<<The apparatus of NA^27 indicates that there are
Coptic/Sahadic manuscripts supporting the TR (notated sa^mss) but there are also
Coptic Sahadic manuscripts supporting the text of NA^27. Moreover, the Coptic/Bohairic
family of manuscripts are cited as unformily supporting NA^27. Try again, your
aim needs correcting here.>>
Your source's reading needs correcting here. The Nestle
Aland does NOT indicate that the Coptic/Bohairic family supports the text. His
error here goes back to his mistaken reading of the apparatus. Again, I'll be
scanning into a .gif format the apparatus and emailing it to you tomorrow.
Anyone else who would like to see it, I'll be happy to provide it.
Joseph Crea<<I'm frankly surprised that you haven't played
your strongest card and am beginning to wonder if you actually read the
apparatus of either UBS/GNT^4 or NA^27 for yourself rather than [repeating]
somebody else's material. After all, if you HAD read the apparatus, you would
have IMMEDIATELY seen that the FIRST citation in your favor in NA^27 is that of
P45, a papyrus dated to the 3rd century CE, and placed in category I.>>
? Uh, I beg your pardon, but P45 doesn't contain Mark
7:24. Please have your source check the Appendix in the back of his Nestle-Aland
... Papyrus 45 contains the following portions of Mark's Gospel: 4:36-40;
5:15-26; 5:38--6:3,16-25, 36-50; 7:3-15; 7:25--8:1, 10-26; 8:34--9:9, 18-31;
11:27--12:1, 4-8, 13-19, 24-28. As you can see, Mark 7:24 isn't even in P45.
Trust me, not only do I know how to read the apparatus, but it would appear that
I can read it better than your source has. As far as I can tell, it looks like
your source is reading the variant for verse 25 ... not verse 24. I think,
perhaps, an apology is in order for his arrogant condescension?
As for his remarks only my analysis ... obviously, his
errors in reading the apparatus make any response to these remarks unnecessary.
Suffice it to say that Kornform's source has not read the apparatus for this
particular verse ... I think he may have read the wrong line in the apparatus.
Grace and Peace,
Greg+
http://www.gbgm-umc.org/bdumc
Subj: On Mark 7:24
Date: 08/09/1999 10:44:05 PM Central Daylight Time
From: Rev Neal
To: Joseph.Crea@worldnet.att.net
Mr. Crea:
Last week in the "Inerrancy" folder of AOL's
COMB, Kornform posted your caustic and highly errant response to my study on the
textual history of the Mark 7:24 variant. I responded to your post by putting up
several messages in that folder, expecting that Kornform would copy them on to
you and that you would respond back with an acknowledgment of your egregious
error. A week, inclusive of a weekend, has passed, and still there has been no
response from Kornform on the board, nor any direct email from you. Therefore, I
have decided to write you directly concerning this matter.
At lunch last Tuesday, after having read and posted an
initial response to your message, I spent a while trying to figure out how in
the world you could have made such an incredible blunder in reading the textual
apparatus in the Nestle-Aland. As anyone who is honest and able to read the
apparatus will admit, Mark 7:24's textual history doesn't, in any way, look even
remotely like what you claimed in your message. That was a major error on your
part (an error which is quite ironic when considered in the light of what you
accused ME of doing) and I wanted to see if I could figure out how you had made
such a horrible blunder. At the time, and given the sarcastic arrogance of your
message, I was tempted to just accuse you of being intentionally misleading. I
had also given some thought to the possibility that you simply didn't understand
how the apparatus of the Nestle-Aland worked -- again, ironic, since that was
what you accused me of in your remarks. However, neither of these seemed likely
-- any attempt at deception could be easily exposed and, apart from the errors
in your post, you did seem to know how to use a Nestle-Aland -- so, while eating
lunch at Bogart's Deli last Tuesday, I settled down to review the whole of Mark
7 in my Nestle-Aland, with special attention to the textual apparatus. I, of
course, stand by my earlier statements regarding the reading of the variant for
verse 24. I was, and am, correct on the reading of the apparatus for Mark 7:24,
and you were dead wrong. You see, in your remarks you used the textual apparatus
for the wrong verse; you quoted the apparatus for Mark 7:31. Ooops!
Now, I'm going to be generous here ... I shall assume
that this was just a simple, easy-to-make error, and not an intentional
misrepresentation on your part. Lord knows, I've made enough errors in my life
to fill a freight train. However, I am still curious as to HOW a mistake such as
this one could occur. After all, I made it obvious in several locations in my
initial posting on this subject that the variant I was addressing was the one in
7:24. Indeed, the title of my message was <<Mark 7:24 and the Greek
Text>>. In my introduction I asserted that the verse in question was 7:24.
Likewise, in several places throughout my posting I referenced the verse as
being number 24. And, finally, in my conclusion I asserted -- YET AGAIN -- that
the variant I was addressing was one of those found in Mark 7:24. And you quoted
all of these instances -- verbatim -- from my posting. Never did I indicate an
interest in, or disagreement with, the Nestle-Aland reading of Mark 7:31. No, my
posting was entirely in reference to the variant in Mark 7:24.
I do not know why you would use the apparatus for Mark
7:31 when the SUBJECT was the variant in Mark 7:24, but this is apparently what
happened. This became clear to me when I decided to see what the apparatus for
Mark 7:31 said. Sure enough, the variant reading here is "kai Sidonos
elthen" and, in the Nestle-Aland apparatus, is listed as being supported by
Papyrus 45, Codex Alexandranus, Codex W, 0131, Families 1 and 13, the Majority
Text, q, sy, and sa(mss). The text of the Nestle-Aland here reads "elthen
dia Sidonos," and in the apparatus this reading is supported by Sinaiticus,
Vaticanus, D, W, Delta, Theta, 0131, 565, 700, 892, 2427, lat, sa (mss), and bo.
Both of these listings are clearly the textual apparatus that you were quoting.
The only problem is that this is for Mark 7:31, not Mark 7:24. And I was
addressing Mark 7:24. As can be seen, you were quoting the WRONG apparatus. As a
result, your sarcastic and caustic attack on me and upon the veracity of my
understanding of the Nestle-Aland apparatus is resoundingly and conclusively put
down. Again, I'll assume that this was a simple error on your part ... mistakes
are easy to make when reading the apparatus of the Nestle-Aland. I've made my
share. However, I would hope that making such an error will highlight for you
the folly of your caustic approach to me. Your attack on me, combined with the
totally errant nature of your remarks, really made you look like a blithering
idiot. Next time, I suggest that you make sure that the textual apparatus that
you're reading and commenting on is the same one that your debate opponent is
reading, otherwise you'll wind up looking like an ass ... again.
I've scanned and saved, in GIF format, the textual
apparatus for Mark 7:24 and Mark
7:31, in case you're still resisting the fact that you blew it on this one.
I shall forward these to you under two separate emails.
Regards,
Dr. Gregory S. Neal
Rev Neal@aol.com
http://www.gbgm-umc.org/bdumc
Unfortunately, Mr. Crea never responded to Rev. Neal's e-mail and has since
passed-away.
Books by Rev. Neal
| 
