Now back to Greek. . .
There is significant manuscript variation regarding the constituent order
of a certain section of Mark 1:4. I would like to ask for the judgments of
the more experience readers of Greek on this list regarding the difference
of implication between the reading printed in UBS4 and the one found in D,
Theta, 28. 700 the Latin (at least the Latin texts consulted for the
production of UBS4 and Nestle Aland 27), and SyriacP.
The reading in UBS4/Nestle Aland 27 is supported by Sinaiticus, L, Delta
and a few others:
EGENETO IWANNHS O BAPTIZWN EN THi ERHMWi KAI KHRUSSWN. . .
In the variant which concerns me here, we find the following order:
EGENETO IWANNHS EN THi ERHMWi BAPTIZWN KAI KHRUSSWN. . .
In these manuscripts EN THi ERHMWi is placed before the participle
BAPTIZWN. What impact would this change of order have on your reading of
the text?
Of course, this question is directly related to the Greek Word Order
thread, so those who respond may want to change the subject line so readers
will be able to categorize your responses appropriately.
There are also other variants in this text. They do not concern me here,
but I will list them for those who may be interested.
Vaticanus, 33 and a few others read:
EGENETO IWANNHS O BAPTIZWN EN THi ERHMWi KHRUSSWN. . .
omitting KAI. A, W, families 1 and 13, and the majority text all read
EGENETO IWANNHS BAPTIZWN EN THi ERHMWi KAI KHRUSSWN. . .
omitting the article before the participle, but including KAI.
I would love to read responses discussing any difference in emphasis,
focus, etc. caused by the reading in D, Theta, 28. 700 the latin, and
SyriacP.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Micheal W. Palmer
Religion & Philosophy
Meredith College
mwpalmer@earthlink.net
------------------------------------------------------------------------------