Date: Wed Apr 30 1997 - 11:28:09 EDT
I checked our facsimile of D and the original reading was KAIAPONOUNTES, with
the cross bar on the I being an addition with a different style than that
found on the other T's. I would surmise an original reading inserting the
word divisions of KAI APONOUMENOI , but this doesn't make sense as far as the
vocabulary I've checked (LSJ). I'll be interested in what others say.
As to the citation in N/A, perhaps N/A dismissed the original reading as a
nonsense reading, but their citation of D without any note of a corrector
would seem unusual, unless thereby they are seeking not to give the
impression of a reading in D* that agrees with the text (since they don't
list the text's witnesses).
Professor of New Testament and Greek
New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:14 EDT