From: Paul S. Dixon (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed Oct 29 1997 - 00:39:27 EST
On Tue, 28 Oct 1997 18:31:09 +0100 "Martin Arhelger"
>Paul S. Dixon wrote:
>> In Jn 1:49 Nathaniel says to Christ,
>> hRABBI, SU EI hO hUIOS TOU QEOU,
>> then either SU BASILEUS EI TOU ISRAHL
>> (P75, A, B, L, W, Psi, f), or SU EI hO
>> BASILEUS TOU ISRAHL
>> (P66, Aleph, theta, majority text).
>> Metzger does not address this in his
>> "Textual Commentary on the Greek New
>> Testament." Which construction
>> should we prefer and why?
>1) Look at BDF, paragraph 273, for both constructions
> with regard to grammar. Especially look at the
> footnote with the remarks of ECColwell).
>2) In John 9:28 P75 has "SU MAQHTHS EI EKEINOU".
> But P66 only has "SU EI EKEINOU".
>3) In Mat 27:11; Mark 15:2, Luke 23:3; 23:37 and
> Joh 18:33 it is "SU EI hO BASILEUS TWN IOUDAIWN"
> (question). (Compare also Mark 3:11; Luke 4:41;
> Joh 3:10; 6:69.) Perhaps P66, Aleph etc. brought their
> text of Joh 1:49 into line with the similar
> constructions of the synoptics.
Yes, I am very familiar with Colwell's rule (my Th.M. thesis was
motivated by an abuse of his rule [http://users.aol.com/dixonps]). This
is one of the reasons I brought this up. His rule tell us that definite
predicate nominatives preceding the copula tend to be anarthrous. Thus,
if BASILEUS is definite (likely because of the parallel with the
preceding articular hO hUIOUS TOU QEOU), then either reading is equally
Your argument makes good sense, but one has to weigh it with the
likelihood that scribes wanted to bring the construction in line with
previously stated precopulative anarthrous predicate nominatives (e.g.,
1:1c, 1:14; albeit neither of which are definite).
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:35 EDT