Re: acc. vs gen reading
Edgar Krentz (ekrentz@lstc.edu)
Fri, 4 Jul 1997 10:51:39 -0500
>
>To: Andrew Kulikovsky <anku@celsiustech.com.au>
>From: Edgar Krentz <ekrentz@lstc.edu>
>Subject: Re: acc. vs gen reading
>Cc:
>Bcc:
>X-Attachments:
>
>Andrew, You wrote:
>
>>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!
>>
>Note that D in Paul is not the MS you describe above! It is 06 in von
>Soden's numeration, not o5. It is a VI century MS in the Bibliotheque
>Nationale in Paris. That means you should check out one of the following:
>
>Aland's TEXT OF THE NT; Metzger's TEXT; or one of the older volumes.
>
>I am writing this in my office and all of my t extual cfriticism volumes
>are at home. So, . . . .
>
>
>
*******************************************
* Edgar Krentz, Prof. of New Testament *
* Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago *
* 1100 EAST 55TH STREET *
* CHICAGO, IL 60615 *
* Tel: [773] 256-0752; (H) [773] 947-8105 *
* *
* Reply to: ekrentz@lstc.edu (office) *
* or emkrentz@mcs.com (home) *
*******************************************