From: clayton stirling bartholomew (c.s.bartholomew@worldnet.att.net)
Date: Sat Sep 23 2000 - 01:48:02 EDT
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
--- B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [jwrobie@mindspring.com] To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Feb 11 2002 - 18:40:02 EST