From: clayton stirling bartholomew (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu Feb 05 1998 - 12:50:57 EST
Ginger Ferguson wrote:
> Well, my text in Acts has: EN THi TAPEINWSEI [AUTOU] hHKRISIS AUTOU hHRQH
> with the AUTOU in normal, unbolded print.
> (I checked. This edition is from 1975 ;-)
> God Bless,
> Ginger Ferguson
> Univ of the Ozarks
You caught me in a couple of typos. The first clause of Isa 53:8 in the LXX reads:
EN THi TAPEINWSEI hH KRISIS AUTOU hHRQH
The [AUTOU] found in UBS3/4 & NA26/27 is rather poorly attested. It is
omitted by P74 Aleph A B, and included by C E Psi Maj. Metzger says that the
only reason it is included in the text at all is that it is absent from the
LXX. This gives it a higher transcriptional probability of being original. If
this doesn't make sense to you then pack your bags and leave the Ozarks for a
visit to Princeton. Certain things make sense in Princeton and Muenster that
don't make sense in the Ozarks and Three Tree Point.
My original question was about syntax not textual problems. I would welcome
some interaction with that question. I won't quote it here and waste space.
-- Clayton Stirling Bartholomew Three Tree Point P.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062
To be fair to the "Committee" (Gang of Five), I should admit that Metzger's argument in his textual commentary for including [AUTOU] in Acts 8:33 is not totally without merit. He argues that scribes would have a tendency to conform their text to the LXX so a reading that disagrees with the LXX should not be overlooked entirely. However there are a lot of other issues to take into consideration and I am no textual critic so I will simply maintain suspended judgment on this question.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:01 EDT