Col. 2:17b P46 NA27 vs. Comfort/Barrett

clayton stirling bartholomew c.s.bartholomew at worldnet.att.net
Sat Sep 23 01:48:02 EDT 2000


I was musing over the use of SWMA in Col. 2:17 (which is worth some
discussion itself, but that is not what my question is about) when I decided
to read  Colossians chapter 2 in P46 using Comfort/Barrett.

I noticed a small discrepancy in Col. 2:17b

NA27 (corrected, 2000 ed.) reads:

TO DE SWMA TOU CRISTOU

but P46 according to the Comfort/Barrett transcription reads:

TO DE SWMA CRU

Now the issue here is not CRU which is a Nomina Sacra, the issue is the
missing TOU. 

B. & K.  Aland list P46 as a "consistently cited witness of the first order"
for Colossians. Perhaps I am misunderstanding what the Alands mean by a
"consistently cited witness of the first order." I was assuming that it
meant they would always cite the readings of P46 when the differed from the
text of NA27. If that isn't what they mean then I am clueless (again).

Anyway, there is no indication in NA27 (corrected, 2000 ed.) that TOU is
missing in P46. So, what is the story here? Did  Comfort/Barrett goof or  is
this an oversight in NA27 or is it just a misunderstanding on my part of
what the Aland's mean by "a consistently cited witness of the first order?"


--  
Clayton Stirling Bartholomew
Three Tree Point
P.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062





More information about the B-Greek mailing list