From: l. j. swain (x99swain@wmich.edu)
Date: Mon Mar 20 2000 - 23:34:17 EST
Carlton Winbery wrote:
>
> Harold has suggested the shorter reading argument might have influenced the
> editors of UBS3. I would also suggest the omission of a divine name was
> rare. Except for an accident, it is difficult to explain the omission of
> the name of God in any text.
I think there has been some misunderstanding of Dr. Mann's question. At
I Cor. 2.14 the text reads: PSUKIKOS DE ANTHRWPOS OU DEXETAI TA TOU
PNEUMATOS TOU THEOU after TOU THEOU is a 4, signalling the reader to
look at the apparatus. In the apparatus, there is a "C", the reading
TOU THEOU is given followed by an impressive list of manuscript
witnesses, an AGIOU with one witness, and //omit with a small number of
good witnesses. The question as I understood it was why with all that
long list of good witnesses to TOU THEOU is the reading a mere
C-somewhat doubtful? The answer to the question is that the choices in
UBS3 are that A is given to readings in which any variants are not
sound. Take for example I COR 6.20 where the variants seem to be
expansions on the text, ("your body", to "your body and in your spirit"
to "your body and in your spirit which is of God" if you'll pardon my
bad translations)and so are less likely to be "original"-that's an A
rating. The C rating here connotes that the reading PNEUMATOS TOU THEOU
is doubtful in light of the only REAL alternative: PNEUMATOS, which
seems more Pauline (i. e. Paul doesn't use "SPIRIT OF GOD" nearly as
much as he does "THE SPIRIT") and is attested early. So the "more
important" texts, if you will, have the TOU THEOU but some early texts
do not have it, and the lack of it seems more in line with Pauline
practice. Therefore, there is reasonable doubt and it earned a C.
Apparently the editors of UBS4 saw it differently and didn't question
the reading at all. As Harold suggests, so Metzger goes--or something
like that. Metzger comments on this passage that the weight of the
authorities, even though some of those authorities also had the shorter
version, compelled the committee to include the longer version, with the
caveat that it may have been naturally added by copyists. So that's the
long answer, and probably unnecessary, but hey, I'm avoiding dealing
with the Old English Bede, so perhaps you'll forgive me!!!!
> The short introduction also by Greenlee is easy to understand and I think
> very helpful in the beginning of the study of the text.
>
This isn't directed at Carlton, but it saddens me to note that so much
Greek textual criticism is aimed specifically at the New Testement, and
not to the greater issues of TC and like issues. I feel as if I'm
missing something.
Larry Swain
--- 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 - 15:41:02 EDT