From: Stephen Carlson (scc@ropes.reston.icl.com)
Date: Mon Dec 04 1995 - 16:43:10 EST
Kenneth Litwak wrote:
> Isn't it circular to argue that since Mark doesn't use nai, Mark didn't use
> nai?
Sure, it's fallacious as a deductive argument, but that's not the
argument being made. More precisely, it is part of an inductive
argument which goes "since there is no *other* use of NAI in Mark, it
is somewhat unlikely that Mark would use it here." Like all other
inductive arguments, it does not give us certainty, only probability.
But when it is combined with other probabilities, such as lectio brevior
and/or assimilation to Matthew, we can be assured of a reading (no NAI)
to a degree of certainty beyond that of any one argument. I'm satisfied
with NA/UBS's reading for Mk7:28, considering the internal evidence and
that it has early papyrus support.
On the other hand, the case for omitting KAI SIDWNOS is considerably
weaker. Not only is the external evidence less compelling (D W Theta),
but the shorter reading could well be explained by a scribe skipping
from one KAI to the next: ... TYROYKAICIDWNOCKAIEICELQWN ...
^^^ ^^^
Stephen Carlson
-- Stephen Carlson : Poetry speaks of aspirations, : ICL, Inc. scc@reston.icl.com : and songs chant the words. : 11490 Commerce Park Dr. (703) 648-3330 : Shujing 2:35 : Reston, VA 22091 USA
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:33 EDT