Sinouhe wrote: ↑Mon May 23, 2022 7:49 am
mlinssen wrote: ↑Mon May 23, 2022 6:18 am
2) As you can see in
viewtopic.php?p=137976#p137976 Bezae has (κράβαττον) in Luke...
Klinghardt formed the working assumption at some point that was NA in fact has done at points is to establish the earliest gospel - which is *Ev in his very well reasoned opinion
1) Likewise for Luke 4:16, look at the tons of MSS that have something else but Nazara:
3) only Epiphanius attests to this in Marcion, none of the others do (Klinghardt page 1154-5)
Personally, I prefer to rely on the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus codex which are older than the Bezae.
I referred to Bezae for 2), yet to "tons of MSS that have something else but Nazara" for 1)...
But of course, if we look, thanks to the harmonization of the scribes that has been done on certain gospels, we will find manuscripts that will agree with the other gospels. I don't think that our purpose and our interest should be to look in manuscripts if we find harmonizations of certain terms that are lacking in the older manuscripts.
Bezae has been created / produced in relatively splendid isolation. As the dating of these 3 MSS is purely palaeographical, it is wise to look at the content itself:
The following nomina sacra are written in an abbreviated form: ΙΗΣ (Ιησους, Iēsous), ΧΡΣ (Χριστος, Christos), ΠΑΡ (πατηρ, patēr), ΣΤΗ (σταυρωθη, staurōthē). Other words which usually feature among the nomina sacra are written out in full: μητερ, υιος, σωτηρ, ανθρωπος, ουρανος, δαυιδ, Ισραηλ, Ιηρουσαλημ (mēter, huios, sōter, anthrōpos, ouranos, David, Israēl, Iērousalēm)
Hardly any NS, and IhS contains the eta
Issues of conformity have dogged the usage of the codex in biblical scholarship. "In general the Greek text is treated as an unreliable witness," but it is "an important corroborating witness wherever it agrees with other early manuscripts."
LOL
4) the whole feeding of the 5 thousand is hardly attested. Yet there no comment at all about the plural crowds. 9:12 in NA is divided into plural and singular, and again Bezae is among those who have singular crowds
5) the whole feeding of the 5 thousand is hardly attested.
What do you mean by that ? I find the feeding of the thousand in Marcion here :
http://gnosis.org/library/marcion/Tert5.html#AM213
No, what you find there is a tiny phrase mentioning feeding of crowds, followed by a complete absence of any description of any of it
First one then: it is clear that Mark sees the missing word in Marcion and goes through a lot of cringing trouble to insert the house:
Matthew reads Marcion, the mess that Mark made, and decides to get rid of it all just as he cuts short the blame game of the resurrection story. Naturally he finishes Luke who says nothing but the people carrying the paralytic upon a house across the tiles
It could be. Why not. But it still don't explain this :
Capture d’écran 2022-05-23 à 08.40.08.png
Goodacre
It might be added, as further evidence from the same pericope, thatLuke MARCION has the scribes and the Pharisees debating not, as in Mark, 'in their hearts' (en taiV kardiaiV autwn, Mark 2.6) but, apparently, aloud (dialogizesqai . . . legonteV, Luke MARCION 5.21). This is in spite of the fact that Jesus goes on to question them, in both Luke MARCION and Mark, why they have been debating 'in' their 'hearts' (en taiV kardiaiV umwn, Mark 2.8 // Luke MARCION 5.22). (19) The latter phrase has simply come in, by fatigue, from Mark. (20)
and other examples provided by Goodacre, which I think he got from Goulder and another one I have forgotten.
Roth:
Luke 5:20–21 4.10.1—. . . qui dicturi erant: Quis dimittet peccata nisi solus deus? | 4.10.13— Nam cum Iudaei, solummodo hominem eius intuentes, . . . merito retractarent non posse hominem delicta dimittere, sed deum solum, . . . | 4.10.14—[the Son of Man] consecutum iudicandi potestatem, ac per eam utique et dimittendi delicta—qui enim iudicat, et absoluit—, ut scandalo isto discusso per scriptu-rae recordationem facilius eum agnoscerent ipsum esse filium hominis ex ipsa peccatorum remissione. Denique nusquam adhuc professus est se filium hominis quam in isto loco primum in quo primum peccata dimisit, id est in quo primum iudicavit, dum absolvit. | Bapt. 10.3—Sed neque peccata dimittit neque spiritum indulget nisi solus deus. | Bapt. 12.8—. . . remittuntur tibi peccata . . . | Pud. 21.2— Quis enim dimittit delicta, ni solus Deus?
Tertullian’s comments in 4.10.13, 14 seem to require Jesus’ words in v. 20, though no reading can be reconstructed. The brief reference in Bapt. 12.8 that appears to refer to Luke 5:20//Matt 9:2//Mark 2:5 also provides no real point of comparison for Marcion’s text. Tertullian’s testimony to the final element in Luke 5:21 occurs twice in 4.10. It is worth noting that in the citation in 4.10.1 there is no reference to the ability (δύναται) to forgive sins; however, in 4.10.13 this element is attested.53 Its absence in the former citation should not be used to posit an omission in Marcion’s text as neither the citation of Luke 5:21//Mark 2:7 in Pud. 21.2, nor the apparent allusion to this verse in Bapt. 10.3 contains a direct reference to the ability or power to forgive sins. In addition, the use of the future dimittet in 4.10.1 could be due to Tertullian’s citation habit, in spite of his writing dimittit in Pud. 21.2 and Bapt. 10.3. Thus, Harnack is probably generally correct in reconstructing δύναται ἀφεῖναι ἁμαρτίας εἰ μὴ μόνος ὁ θεός.54 It should be noted, though, that the reading ἀφεῖναι ἁμαρτίας is elsewhere unat-tested. B, D, and Ξ read ἁμαρτίας ἀφεῖναι and all other witnesses read ἀφιέναι ἁμαρτίας, as in Mark 2:7. Tertullian also varies the word order in his citations, and thus no firm decision can be made on whether Marcion read an aorist or present infinitive or on the order of the elements in his text.
Klinghardt:
- 20220523_193806_1.jpg (931.74 KiB) Viewed 2000 times
The "in their hearts" is a variant in Bezae and another handful MSS, and omitted in yet another handful
Where does Goodacre get his idea what Marcion contained here?
Both Roth and Klinghardt come up with nothing in this particular regard:
5:20 [4.4.4]—[Attested but no insight into wording can be gained] 5:21 [4.4.4]— . . . τίς [δύναται likely present] {ἀφεῖναι ἁμαρτίας} εἰ μὴ μόνος ὁ θεός.
What does Goodacre cite in order to verify his bold claim here?
