Matthew 6:12

Kevin Smith kgs at iafrica.com
Tue Sep 21 06:01:46 EDT 1999


Dear Jim,

You wrote, "...there really is no likelyhood at all that the variants can claim superior attestation- so there really is no need to list them." What do you make of Metzger's comment that only "... a majority of the Committee preferred AFHKAMEN"? (1994:13)

Though a rank amateur when it comes to textual criticism, I agree with you that AFHKAMEN seems an obvious choice. Nevertheless, from what I can make out, Metzger only refers to "a majority of the Committee" when they are divided. Presumably all the committee members are expert textual critics from a similar "school" of textual criticism. Why do you think they would not have been unanimous here?

Regards,
Kevin Smith
South Africa
kgs at iafrica.com


-----Original Message-----
From: Jim West <jwest at highland.net>
To: Kevin Smith <kgs at iafrica.com>
Cc: b-greek at franklin.oit.unc.edu <b-greek at franklin.oit.unc.edu>
Date: 21 September 1999 00:11
Subject: Re: Matthew 6:12


>At 10:57 PM 9/20/99 +0200, you wrote:
>>Dear friends,
>>
>>In UBS4 Matthew 6:12 reads,
>>KAI AFES hHMIN TA OFEILHMATA hHMWN, hWS KAI hHMEIS **AFHKAMEN** TOIS
>OFEILETAIS hHMWN
>>
>>I am mystified as to why UBS4 does not even list the variant readings for
>AFHKAMEN, namely, AFIEMEN and AFIOMEN. In his Textual Commentary, Metzger
>(1994:13) says, "... a majority of the Committee preferred AFHKAMEN,"
>thereby implying that the editors of UBS4 themselves were not unanimous.
>>
>>I certainly agree that AFHKAMEN is the more likely reading, but I would
>have thought the variants should at least by cited, especially if the
>editors were divided.
>
>afiomen- D, L, W, Delta, Theta, 565
>afiemen- Aleph (1st corrector), Fam 13, Byz maj.
>afhkamen- Aleph (original), B, Z, Fam 1, some vulgate and syriac mss.
>
>The weight of the latter reading is such that it is most likely the closest
>to "the original".
>
>I dont think that the editors of UBS should be faulted for not listing the
>variants- for a couple of reasons.  First, the UBS texts are designed for
>students and not scholars of the text.  Second, there really is no
>likelyhood at all that the variants can claim superior attestation- so
there
>really is no need to list them.
>
>best,
>
>Jim
>
>+++++++++++++++++++++++++
>Jim West, ThD
>email- jwest at highland.net
>web page-  http://web.infoave.net/~jwest
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-greek/attachments/19990921/0797b76a/attachment.html 


More information about the B-Greek mailing list