Reid: What Greg said.
And the text doesn't use the article "the" first city, so maybe
something is going on: it isn't the first city of Macedonia they came
to (Neapolis is that), and "a leading city" looks like a correction
of the accepted idiom for a capital. (D 05 uses kephale, like
capital.) The Arndt-Gingrich-Danker lexicon under the word meris
gives more, and this is the Bauer reference Metzger and Aland mean in
their objection to the decision. (The lexicon is heavy on secular
Greek background, light on Hellenistic Jewish usage.)
With so many possibilities, one is that prwths was written as
alpha+ending: Aths--and thus became "prwth ths." If the prwth
meant "former"--now a Roman colony--the "estin" is hard to explain,
and formerly (prwton) would have been expected.
But none of these occur in the MSS. The Catholics in Nova Vulgata try
to follow UBS where possible, and couldn't do so here.
It's the only case of outright conjecture in NA27 I know of (and here
there are 3 agreeing Vulgate MSS. that are probably doing the same
conjecture; they aren't even mentioned in Stuttgart Vulg.).
But there are ways of hiding a conjecture. For instance, at Luke
24:50, none of the cited MSS give "exw ews pros," but they split the
apparatus between exw and pros.
And whenever they come out with the smooth Byzantine reading on a
phrase that conflates two earlier readings, they split the apparatus
to make it look Alexandrian. For example, in John 16:18 they have two
early readings: ti estin touto to "mikron"/ ti estin touto o legei
mikron/ (with a variant order of touto ti estin). It looks like
the "to recitativum" caused the variants and versions, while
Byzantine is conflate. NA uses the Byzantine, but hides it by
treating "to" and "o legei" separately.
In these cases, they need to split the apparatus because the versions
are good witness for part, and useless for the other part--but not
for the whole--of a phrase. Be circumspect.
There are three or four places where they could have used a
conjecture but don't mention one, and one where they could have had
better conjectures to work with. Not all conjectures are out of the
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org
, "Greg Crawford" <gc@...>
> As I understand it, the conjecture involves the addition of the
> Without it the text would be saying that Philippi was the chief or
> of Macedonia. The problem is... it wasn't.
> There is discussion on this in Metzger and BDAG.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: email@example.com
> On Behalf Of Reid Lindner
> Sent: Tuesday, 23 October 2007 8:50 PM
> To: textualcriticism textualcriticism
> Subject: [textualcriticism] Ac 16.12 (textual conjecture)
> Can anyone confirm if Ac 16.12 is the only place in the NT where a
> conjecture is admitted as the text reading? Is it really
> here? What are good reasons for accepting or rejecting the text
> conjecture) here?
> Reid Lindner
> Yahoo! Groups Links