From: Paul S. Dixon (email@example.com)
Date: Wed Mar 11 1998 - 00:52:21 EST
On Tue, 10 Mar 1998 17:31:23 -0500 Phil Hildenbrandt <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>SUNHGMENWN OUN AUTWN EIPEN AUTOIS hO PILATOS, TINA QELETE >APOLUSW
hUMIN, IHSOUN TON BARABBAN H IHSOUN TON >LEGOMENON CRISTON?
>Can anybody shed some light on the ommision of Barabbas given name in
>most of the English translations of Matthew 27:17?
Metzger's Textual Commentary has:
The reading preserved today in several witnesses of the Caesarean text
was known to Origen, who declares in his commentary on the passage, "In
many copies it is not stated that Barabbas was also called Jesus, and
perhaps [the omission] is right." .....
In a tenth century uncial manuscript (S) and in about twenty minuscule
manuscripts a marginal comment states: "In many ancient copies which I
have met with I found Barabbas himself likewise called 'Jesus' .....
In verse 17 the word INSOUN could have been accidentally added or deleted
by transcribers owing to the presence of hUMIN before it... Futhermore,
the reading of B 1010 (TON BARABBAN) appears to presuppose in an ancestor
the presence of IHSOUN.
A majority of the Committe was of the opinion that the original text of
Matthew had the double name in both verses and IHSOUN was deliberately
suppressed in most witnesses for reverential considerations. In view of
the relatively slendor external support for IHSOUN, however, it was
deemed fitting to enclose the wrod within square brackets. Endquote.
What I find especially peculiar is that the NA text has B supporting the
IHSOUN reading, while the UBS critical apparatus says B has only TON
BARABBAN with no IHSOUN.
Which is correct? Does B have IHSOUN BARABBAN or not?
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:10 EDT