Re: A Little More TC Help Needed

From: Steven Craig Miller (
Date: Tue Mar 21 2000 - 09:21:28 EST

<x-flowed>To: Theodore H Mann,

<< 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 determination? >>

You're asking all the right questions!

P46 is dated to ca. 200 (!) and one might think that should settle the
issue. Unfortunately it is possible that P46 here represents an early
corruption, and the later MSS which omit TOU QEOU could reflect the
original text, being copies of copies going back to the original MS.

-Steven Craig Miller
Alton, Illinois (USA)
FWIW: I'm neither a clergy-person, nor an academic (and I have no post-grad

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