[b-greek] NT texts

From: Randall Buth (ButhFam@compuserve.com)
Date: Wed Feb 06 2002 - 12:43:10 EST


A minor/major point may need some clarification
from a response on another thread:

>the term major NT manuscripts from the 2nd century
>might mislead some. There aren't many of these ... although
>the scraps (and they are just scraps) of information we get
>from them are certainly important.
>However, the inescapable fact is that the later, more complete
>manuscripts (which form the backbone of the NT texts we use)
>as well as many of the earlier fragments, tend to use more
>conventional spelling. That is why our NT texts are the way
>they are.

Huh? Are you referring to our major uncials like Vaticanus,
Alef, Alexandrinus and Beza? No offence intended, but
this doesn't sound like you've read them. Or do you approve
of GEINESQAI for GINESQAI (both good Koine spellings)
and their kin, all over,
which you will find in such pillars as
B, D, alef, A.
Later texts like Qeta, 579 are particularly itacistic.

How about
PEILATOS (for latin pilatus)
in our "pillar" uncials?
[It is the majority text that started to clean our texts up, as
I remember. I haven't actually looked at that many texts post

I used FROM 2nd century to imply AND FOLLOWING,
because our best texts whether papyri fragments or relatively
long codices all show strong itacistic spelling changes.

Randall Buth

B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [jwrobie@mindspring.com]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu
To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:17 EDT