Posts Tagged ‘quotation-refutation-device’

May 1st
written by phil

Priscilla Papers 33, No. 2 (Spring 2019) 24-30 has just published my article, “Is 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 a Marginal Comment or a Quotation? A Response to Kirk MacGregor.” It demonstrates that Kirk MacGregor’s claim that 1 Cor 14:33b-38 is a “Quotation-Refutation Device” is false. It argues, instead, that 1 Cor 14:34-35 was originally written in the margin as a reader comment and was inserted into the text, as copyists normally did with text in the margin, either after verse 33 or after verse 40. It provides evidence that 14:34-35 was a marginal gloss from the oldest Bible in Greek, Codex Vaticanus, one of the oldest Latin manuscripts, Codex Fuldensis, transcriptional probability, and internal evidence. It identifies all sixteen instances where Vaticanus’s original scribe left a gap in the text at the exact point at least four words were added. Four-or-more-word additions survive in multiple manuscripts on all seventeen distigme-obelos-marked lines. The two-dot distigme marks the location of a textual variant. The obelos identifies what kind of variant it is, a multi-word addition that was not in the original text.