Andrew wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
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?.
>>>>>>>>
Andrew
On the issue of the reading, G does contain Romans with a
few lacunae in the first chapter or two. See the chart in K. &
B. Aland's text of NT.
Metzger and the Committee only give their reading a C
rating. This indicates they aren't very confident about it.
Metzger's argument that B is weak in Romans when it
agrees with the western text does not sound to me like a
compelling argument. Fee has probably made the better
choice here.
As to the exegetical significance of the variant I'll let
some one else handle that.
It is the 4th of July. It is my patriotic duty to go out and
blow something up.
Clay Bartholomew
Three Tree Point