From: clayton stirling bartholomew (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed Sep 30 1998 - 02:16:43 EDT
In Acts 15:2 the subject of ETAXAN is not exactly obvious. I read and reread
and read again Acts15:1-5 and the subject of ETAXAN was still not obvious. It
almost looked like the subject was the TINES from 15:1 but I ruled that out as
illogical. H.A.W. Meyer says the subject is ADELFOUS from 15:1, but I don't
find that compelling either.
Codex Bezae has a long expansion just before ETAXAN where the subject is
provided very explicitly but I am not convinced that the Bezae reading is original.
Can anyone give me an argument supporting Meyer's reading? Meyer provides no
argument, just announces it like it is self evident. Do all German NT scholars
do this or only the ones in my library? BTW, I appreciate Meyer a lot. Like
him so well I bought two complete sets of his Handbook and gave one of them
away to an old friend.
-- Clayton Stirling Bartholomew Three Tree Point P.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062
--- B-Greek home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [email@example.com] To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-329W@franklin.oit.unc.edu To subscribe, send a message to firstname.lastname@example.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:40:02 EDT