Re: A Little More TC Help Needed

From: Theodore H Mann (
Date: Tue Mar 21 2000 - 07:43:56 EST

Kevin Woodruff sent the following quote to me from Metzger's textual
commentary, regarding the inclusion of TOU QEOU in 1 Cor. 2:14 (in UBS3):

"The omission [of TOU QEOU] is supported by several Greek miniscules and
the Syriac Peshitta and a variety of patristic writers. Although the
Committee seriously considerd the possibility that the shorter reading
might be the original text, in view of the weight, age and diversity of
external evidence supporting TOU QEOU, it felt compelled to include
these words in the text despite the possibility that they may have been
a natural addtion introduced by copyists."

Here's what I don't understand: (1) TOU QEOU appears in p46. The
witnesses listed by Metzger are, I believe, of later vintage. Now, if a
variant appears in a really early witness, what difference does it make
if it is not included in later witnesses? Doesn't the fact that it
appears so early prove its early existence, and diminish the importance
of its absence in later documents? In the case of 1 Cor. 2:14, I gather
that (unlike UBS3), UBS4 and NA27 include TOU QEOU without comment, but
what about other similar situations? (2) With reference to 1 Cor. 2:14,
Metzger indicates that the UBS3 committee considered the possibility that
TOU QEOU might have been added by copyists. But are there any witnesses
earlier than p46 that exclude it? If not, how can one make such a

I hope this issue is appropriate for B-Greek, and that my comments and
questions are not too dumb.



Dr. Theodore "Ted" H. Mann /
Fax and Voice Mail: 1-562-750-5242

Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit:

B-Greek home page:
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: []
To unsubscribe, forward this message to
To subscribe, send a message to

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:41:02 EDT