I was reading Fee's exegesis of Rom 8:11 in his book God's Empowering
Presence
where he accepted a variant reading over the UBS4 reading. The UBS4
reading has:
DIA TOU ENOIKOUNTOS
and the variant:
DIA TO ENOIKOUN
Metzger, in his textual commentary states that the variant should be
discounted because even though it is supported by B it is also supported
by D and G, which weakens the authority of B. Now I checked Metzger's
Text of the NT where he describes D as western witness containing the
Gospels and Acts and G as a Byzantine witness containing the gospels -
no mention of Romans anywhere!
So firstly, are the citations of D and G in UBS4 correct and if so then
what about Metzger's descriptions?
Secondly, Fee's acceptance of the variant means DIA must be taken with
the accustive and therefore is causal making the translation "because
of" instead of the genative "through". This argument fits the context
very well and seems very convincing to me - I'm just a bit worried about
the manuscript confusion...
So what do the rest of you 'oll think?
cheers,
Andrew S. Kulikovsky B.App.Sc(Hons) MACS
Software Engineer
CelsiusTech Australia
Module 6 Endeavor House
Technology Park
Adelaide Australia 5095
Ph: +618 8343 3837
Fax: +618 8343 3777
email: anku@celsiustech.com.au
Some people are so narrow-minded,
they can see through a key hole with both eyes
Others are so open-minded
their brain has fallen out.