From: Carlton Winbery (email@example.com)
Date: Wed Apr 08 1998 - 01:15:00 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?
Maybe the lost ending of Mark included some materials Luke used in Acts?
I never thought to look for "historic" presents in Acts. We probably need
to go back and look in the non-Markan materials in Luke as well.
Carlton L. Winbery
Fogleman Professor of Religion
Pineville, LA 71359
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:22 EDT