No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
An Examination of the Text and Apparatus of Three Recent Greek Synopses
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 February 2009
Extract
Serious study of the synoptic problem can be undertaken only with the aid of a Greek synopsis. At the present time three such synopses are readily available: Aland's Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum now in its 12th edition, the 13th edition of Huck extensively revised by H. Greeven and the recently published text by B. Orchard. In this article these synopses are referred to as follows: Aland as Syn when all 12 editions are intended, otherwise as SynA=1–8 or SynB=9–12 to differentiate between the two major editions of the text, the earlier of which has a text comparable with the twenty-fifth edition of Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece (= N–A25) and the later a text comparable with N-A26; Greeven's revision as H-G; and Orchard's text as Orchard.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1986
References
Notes
[1] R. J. Swanson's Horizontal Line Synopsis of the Gospels the Greek edition of which at present covers only Matthew and its parallels has been discounted from this article, so too has Farmer's, W. R.Synopticon dismissed by H. F. D. Sparks in his review in JTS 1971Google Scholar as of use only in conjunction with a conventional synopsis. Farmer's exercise cannot be considered a new synopsis in its own right.
[2] A full discussion of the text found in SynB is to be found in my reviews of UBS3 and N–A26 in NovT 20 (1978) 242–77Google Scholar and JTS 32 (1981) 19–49.Google Scholar
[3] The disputed verse is numbered 23. 13 in Orchard.
[4] Included without brackets but headed ‘Der unechte Markusschluss’. (The English translation is neutral.)
[5] Sometimes known as 36a if 37 appears as 36b.
[6] H-G also omits the longer texts at Luke 24. 36, 51, 52, all Western non-interpolations (but cf. Luke 24. 6 where the longer text is included by H-G and the v.I. ignored in the apparatus).
[7] Only the first half of the verse is in dispute despite Orchard's comment (p. 339) that implies that the whole verse is disputed.
[8] See my ‘The Use of Brackets in the Text of a Greek New Testament’, Biblica 60 (1979) 575–7.Google Scholar
[9] Neirynck, F. and Van, F.Segbroeck, , ‘Greeven's Text of the Synoptic Gospels’, ETL 58 (1982) 123–34.Google Scholar
[10] This form agrees with UBS1,2 (and Vogels): N-A26 brackets the prefix. N-A25 reads the compound form without brackets.
[11] See my ‘Κηфας: Σίμων Π έτρος: ό Πέτρος:An Examination of New Testament Usage’, Novum Testamentum 14 (1972) 241–56.Google Scholar
[12] See my ‘Mathētēs with a Possessive in the New Testament’, Theologische Zeitschrift (1979) 300–4Google Scholar; p. 300 is not correct in saying there is no variant here, although the general principle holds true that there is only one firm instance of μαθητής without a possessive (Mark 4. 34) and that exception proves the rule.
[13] Here H-G accents αὺτούς with N-A25 but cf. Luke 12. 21 where H-G prints έαντῷω with N-A26 against αύτῷ of N-A25 and also cf. Luke 24. 12 where H-G has έαντόν with N-A26 against αύτόν of N-A25.
[14] Cf. my ‘Textual Criticism, Assimilation and the Synoptic Gospels’, NTS 26 (1980) 231–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar especially p. 233.
[15] At Matt 19. 24 I have bracketed the dagger after εισελθείν as this verb agrees with the Lukan parallel. v. l. διελθείν agrees with the Markan parallel (cf. Mark 12. 9 where v.l. + ούν = Luke and v.l. - ούν = Matt).
[16] See my ‘Textual Criticism Assimilation and the Synoptic Gospels’ op. cit.
[17] ήδυνάμην…διά τοὺ η διά δε τοὺ ε “Ελληνες in ed. Bekker, I., Harpocration et Moeris (Berlin, 1883) 198.Google Scholar See my ‘Textual Variation Involving the Augment in the Greek New Testament’, ZNW 69 (1978) 247–52.Google Scholar
[18] Cf. my ‘Temporal Augment in Verbs with Initial Diphthong in the Greek New Testament’, Novum Testamentum 22 (1980) 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[19] See Phrynichus §124 in Fischer, E., Die Ecloge des Phrynichos (Berlin, 1974CrossRefGoogle Scholar) = Sammlung griechischer and lateinischer Grammatiker I.
[20] Neirynck op. cit. fn 3.
[21] Blass-Debrunner §68 prefers έο- in the New Testament.
[22] For the purpose of this check a bracketed word is taken as part of the text.
[23] Ignored by Neirynck op. cit. 127, but corrected in Neirynck, F. and Van Segbroeck, F., New Testament Vocabulary (Leuven, 1984) 452Google Scholar (= BEIL XLV).
[24] SynB reads [κατα]καίεταı.
[25] SynB reads άνοιγ[ήσ]εται.
[26] Here author's usage would favour the originality of the possessive (cf. ‘Mathētēs with a Posessive’ op. cit.) as at Matt 27. 64 (against SynA) although H-G ignores this H-G = SynA: (There SynB brackets the possessive). Cf. also Mark 8. 33 above(p.561).
[27] For other orthographical changes we p. 570 and Neirynck op. cit. footnote 3.
[28] In general Orchard prints μαθητής with a possessive cf. Matt 19. 10; 27. 64 and Luke 20. 45.
[29] A greater degree of consistency in the use or non-use of the definite article with proper names would be helpful. At Matt 14. 10 Orchard omits the article before John's name (with SynA) but not at Mark 9. 2; Luke 9. 49 (against H-G), cf. v.ll. concerning other proper names at Luke 11. 30 (against H-G); Mark 16. 1; Matt 1. 24 (against H-G); Mark 14. 43; Luke 7. 4; 8. 41; 9.50; 23. 28 (against H-G).
[30] If one looks outside the 470+ references given prominence by the changes in SynB from SynA the same vend is seen.
[31] Often SynB brackets the longer text. An asterisk in the list following indicates that Orchard disagrees with H-G.
[32] This number can be increased if one adds those places where Orchard adds uniquely, e.g. Matt 26. 8 + αύτοū (against Syn and H-G); Mark 14. 8 + αύτή;14. 9 + τοūτο.
[33] See my ‘Nouns with Diminutive Endings in the New Testament’, NovT 12 (1970) 391–8.Google Scholar
[34] Orchard is inconsistent here in respect of the form of this word. At Matt 24. 26 ταμείοις is read (cf. Luke 12. 3, 24).
[35] At Mt 11. 9 Orchard's idiosyncratic punctuation έζήλθατε; ιδείν προϕήτην; agrees with neither Syn nor H. In Orchard this text agrees with the Lucan parallel where again Orchard has the same idiosyncratic text.
[36] See for instance the change at Mark 8. 34 where Orchard's text (unlike H-G or SynB) makes the parallels agree more closely.
[37] The Münster, Bericht (1979–81)Google Scholar tells us that future editions of the diglot Synopsis will have the same apparatus as N-A.
[38] As I have tried to demonstrate in ‘The Citation of Manuscripts in Recent Printed Editions of the Greek New Testament’, NovT 25 (1983) 97–132.Google Scholar
[39] 272, 399, 945, 998, 1229, 1604 occur in the main list as well as in the list of mss. subsumed under the symbol K. I have counted these mss. in both lists.
[40] 0153 (ostraca) and 0249.
[41] 2ap, 58, 175, 257, 301, 569, 1325.
[42] Including 0153 and 084, 0112, 0113, 0119, 0124, 0125, 0180, 0190, 0202 as separate mss. Add p37 p39 0124 to my list in RevBib 92 (1985) 555.Google Scholar
[43] There are in addition to gospel mss. a few non-gospel texts used in the apparatus to 1 Cor 11 for example. Full details of these, and other, statistics may be seen in my ‘The Citation of Manuscripts’ op. cit. Table III in that article is incorrect in respect of Syn10: uncials 0167 0184 0215 and cursives 29 38 47 are in the apparatus. The statistics and discussion therefore need emendation. I am grateful to J. I. Miller for drawing my attention to this.
[44] I have discounted p (cited at Matt 13. 55 §38) and v (cited at Luke 8. 52 §117) as these are Johannine mss. and are clearly incorrect.
[45] Jülicher, A., Itala four vols. (Berlin, New York). (New editions of the Synoptic Gospels by Matzkow, W. and Aland, K..)Google Scholar
[46] Cf. ZNW 48 (1957) 169.
[47] The use of 0187 for 0149 was specified over sixty years no by von Dobschütz (ZNW 23 (1924) 252).
[48] 1579 at Mark 9. 41 §128 should be 1 579. 505 at Mark 4. 16 §103 §147 is more likely to be 565 (cf. N-A26 ad loc.). 2047 at Matt 22. 23 §301 cannot be correct: this is a cursive of Revelation. C and P cannot be cited at Luke 8. 26: neither is extant for this verse.
[49] Has Orchard confused fam 1 with Old Latin f here? Brixianus is normally cited as L f.
[50] L15 may also be added to the v.ll. given at Luke 9. 1, 54; 11. 37 (om. δε); 11. 44 (om.); 12. 11 (add η τι).
[51] The apparatus in H-G is similarly deficient here.
[52] Or in the case of Matt 19. 16, 17 by sic. At Matt 19. 21 the evidence of D Θ is set out twice, once preceded by hab, once not!
[53] As too does Orchard.