A Little More TC Help Needed

Steven Craig Miller scmiller at www.plantnet.com
Tue Mar 21 09:21:28 EST 2000


To: Theodore H Mann,

<< Here's what I don't understand: (1) TOU QEOU appears in p46. The 
witnesses listed by Metzger are, I believe, of later vintage. Now, if a 
variant appears in a really early witness, what difference does it make if 
it is not included in later witnesses? Doesn't the fact that it appears so 
early prove its early existence, and diminish the importance of its absence 
in later documents? In the case of 1 Cor. 2:14, I gather that (unlike 
UBS3), UBS4 and NA27 include TOU QEOU without comment, but what about other 
similar situations? (2) With reference to 1 Cor. 2:14, Metzger indicates 
that the UBS3 committee considered the possibility that TOU QEOU might have 
been added by copyists. But are there any witnesses earlier than p46 that 
exclude it? If not, how can one make such a determination? >>

You're asking all the right questions!

P46 is dated to ca. 200 (!) and one might think that should settle the 
issue. Unfortunately it is possible that P46 here represents an early 
corruption, and the later MSS which omit TOU QEOU could reflect the 
original text, being copies of copies going back to the original MS.

-Steven Craig Miller
Alton, Illinois (USA)
scmiller at www.plantnet.com
FWIW: I'm neither a clergy-person, nor an academic (and I have no post-grad 
degrees).




More information about the B-Greek mailing list