[B-Greek] Bodmer P 72- Late 3rd Century of II Peter

Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sun Nov 23 06:54:50 EST 2003


OFF-LIST: This message really concerns textual criticism, which lies
outside the parameters of B-Greek. The FAQ (at
http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/faq.txt) says:

"--questions about Greek textual variants bearing on the interpretation of a
particular passage may be appropriate (but not general discussion of
textual criticism itself--for which there is a special list of its own; if
you are interested, you can find more information at

<http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/tc-list.html>)."

Moreover, B-Greek protocol requires a full-name signature to be appended to
all messages sent to the list, regardless of indications in the "From"
header.

Please observe the guidelines for list-discussion hereafter.

At 8:33 PM -0800 11/22/03, MSandberg wrote:
>Dear fellow colleagues,
>
>Recently I've been comparing NT passages with other New Testament
>manuscripts using The Text of Early New Testament Greek Manuscripts
>(TENTGM), and some texts apparently have variant readings. One in
>particular I'd like to mention for others to review/comment on is the NT
>II Peter 3:16 passage that reads kai tas loipas graphas (other/remaining
>writings) whereas the Bodmer P72 late third century Greek manuscript reads
>kai tas lupas graphas. Of course error notations are made off to the right
>hand margin concerning this manuscript, but in verse 16 Comfort and
>Barrett (TENTGM) do not reference anything concerning an error in the
>margins between loipas and lupas that I can see. I found this to be odd.
>
>I believe this to be an intentional scribal regiment more than at
>typographical error in the book's edition mainly for the reason that I
>don't see how an omicron and iota uncial be misconstrued as an upsilon.
>I'm open for suggestions/corrections by someone who has another example
>for comparison. What's more the lexical meanings as you all know of loipas
>(rest/remaining) and lupas (pain/grief) are different as night is to day
>(see BDAG). lupas in view of the whole reading of verse 16 would seem
>textually bizarre.
>
>If lupas (lupe) was intentional, what interpretation could one scribe
>ascribe to the whole draft of II Peter 3:16 that would make any sense? Any
>ideas/opinions?
>
>Final consideration, if P 72 tas lupas graphas were to be the right
>reading to II Peter than that of tas loipas graphas as what's in our
>present texts, then the implication and only reference of Paul's letters
>being referenced to as scriptures would no longer exist raising
>theological challenges.
>
>Note:
>
>I deliberately left out the parsing of both Greek readings. As you can see
>following the conjunction in the two examples, the proper form of the
>article, adjective, and noun all agree in gender number and case.
>
>I would be glad to hear from my fellow comrades.
>
>MS
>
>---
>B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
>B-Greek mailing list
>B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
>http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek

-- 

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)
1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243
cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
WWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/



More information about the B-Greek mailing list