Acts 22:16
Maurice A. O'Sullivan
mauros at iol.ie
Thu Jul 13 11:44:46 EDT 2000
At 13:01 13/07/00, Carl W. Conrad wrote:
>I would say that
>EPIKALESAMENOS agrees with the implicit subject of the 2d sg. aorist middle
>imperatives. BAPTISAI and APOLOUSAI and is to be understood as indicating
>coincident rather than prior action, and as showing HOW one is to get
>baptized and have one's sins washed away.
N/A ( and Swanson ) record one source -- P74 -- as reading EPIKALOUMENOS.
So it looks as if one scribe and/or his community back in the 7th, century
had decided
to clear up any ambiguity about this question': or perhaps it had been
raised long before that and was firmly part of their tradtion?
However, Swanson has one variant reading --- in 33 -- of APOLUSE.
Can I take this to be an unaugmented aorist?
And how common was this in mss. of that period, I wonder?
Regards
Maurice
Maurice A. O'Sullivan [ Bray, Ireland ]
mauros at iol.ie
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list