From: Edward Hobbs (EHOBBS@wellesley.edu)
Date: Tue Apr 07 1998 - 19:26:30 EDT
Leave it to Clay to force me back into Ropes' edition of Beza in Acts!
Every time he does, I ask myself, "Why didn't I ever notice that before?"
This inquiry by Clay has only one answer that I can think of:
(Assuming B and most MSS. are correct): Luke wanted to make us think that
the Evangelist Mark wrote this sentence; it is precisely in his style.
Now if that doesn't meet your criteria for a plausible answer, I have to
admit that I can't see the foggiest reason. Beza's scribe did the
sensible thing: He wrote an aorist instead of a present, in the style
Oddly, as in previous instances Clay has called to our attention, Nestle
doesn't bother to mention D's variant, though it gives the third/fourth day
variant in vs. 30.
After reading Carl and Carlton's posts on the Aorist this morning I was doing
my morning study in Acts and ran across a present hEURISKEI in Acts 10:27 that
left me scratching my head. I did some research on the problem but all I was
able to discover was that Codex Bezae reads hEUREN instead of hEURISKEI.
Could someone explain to me why hEURISKEI is a present in this context?
-- Clayton Stirling Bartholomew
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:22 EDT