>
>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.
The most significant difference between the two has to do with the
inclusion of the article (present in Aleph, B, 33, L, Delta and some
others), the inclusion of which the editors of N27 considered questionable.
With it, the printed text of the N27/UBS4 is calling John "the baptizer" or
"the Baptist." It appears to me that it would not fit to put the article
before BAPTIZWN in the variant, but I would need to do a search to be
certain of that. As the variant stands, it is using the participle BAPTIZWN
in a verbal, rather than substantive sense. It says something like, "John
appeared in the wilderness baptizing and preaching..." Even *without* the
article in the N27 text, as the word order there stands, we could interpret,
"John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness preaching...;" but the
participle would be ambivalent and open to different interpretations
depending on whether one unerstood it as verbal or substantival. With the
article, there is no question that it should be interpreted as substantival.
>
>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
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
David L. Moore Director
Miami, Florida, USA Department of Education
dvdmoore@ix.netcom.com Southeastern Spanish District
http://members.aol.com/dvdmoore of the Assemblies of God