From: WFWarren@aol.com
Date: Thu Nov 12 1998 - 11:42:28 EST
In a message dated 11/11/98 4:38:56 PM, you wrote:
>In Acts 16:14 we read:
>
>SEBOMENH TON QEON (Aleph A C E Psi Maj)
>
>SEBOMENH TON KURION (D*)
>
>Ropes text of BEZAE reads SEBOMENH TON QEON, but both Alford and NA27 have D*
>reading SEBOMENH TON KURION.
>
>I would assume that the reason for this discrepancy is a disagreement over
>what constitutes the original reading of Bezae and what constitutes the
>corrected reading.
Although this question probably belongs more on the TC list, I'll give a brief
answer here. My facsimile of Bezae clearly has QS (abbreviation for QEOS),
but that doesn't mean that the original might not show erasure marks. The
reason for mentioning this possibility is that although the N in the
abbreviation is identical to the other instances of N in the ms., the Q is
slightly different from most of the other thetas in the immediate context.
Also, a slight line is just before the Q, which could be bleed over from the
latin on the other side or perhaps has been noted as an earlier reading in the
ms. In summary, based on my own reading of D, I would go with QS, but a look
at the original ms. might change my opinion due to the possibility of an
erasure. But that erasure is not certain at all in the facsimile.
Paz,
Bill Warren
Landrum P. Leavell, II, Professor of New Testament and Greek
Director of the Center for New Testament Textual Studies
New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary
--- B-Greek home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu] To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-329W@franklin.oit.unc.edu To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:40:07 EDT