From: Joseph Brian Tucker (email@example.com)
Date: Fri Aug 20 1999 - 13:55:43 EDT
A. I would like to present some reasons for omiting [ALLA] in Philippians
1. The earliest papyri (p46, 61), early Alexandrian uncials (aleph*, A),
later Alexandrian minuscles (33, 81), and later Western texts omit the
2. Codex Vaticanus (B) and a 6/7th c. correction of codex Sinaiticus as
well as a variety of other texts (D, Psi, Vulgate, Syriac Version, Coptic
Version) include ALLA.
3. However, p46 and 33 which usually agree with B in this case agree with
aleph*. F and G almost always follow codex Claromontanus (D) but in this
reading do not follow it.
B. ALLA may have been added for several reasons.
1. It provides a clearer and smoother text.
2. Dittography because of the presence of another ALLA in verse 8.
3. The earlier Nestle's text and Tischendorf's text also omit the
Please evaluate my arguments and provide suggestions for future textual
criticism. Please point out any illogical or wrong points in this summary
of the textual issues.
Brian Tucker, M.A.
--- B-Greek home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [firstname.lastname@example.org] To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-329W@franklin.oit.unc.edu To subscribe, send a message to email@example.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:40:36 EDT