Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

New ENTTC articles

Expand Messages
  • Robert B. Waltz
    What follows is blatant slef-promotion. If this list weren t so quiet, I wouldn t do it, but we re hardly overburdening your mailboxes. :-) I doubt the
    Message 1 of 14 , Mar 3, 1997
    • 0 Attachment
      What follows is blatant slef-promotion. If this list weren't so quiet,
      I wouldn't do it, but we're hardly overburdening your mailboxes. :-)

      I doubt the experienced textual critics on this list will care, but
      I've updated my articles at the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism
      site. Specifically, I have now included detailed descriptions of all
      the minuscules "cited constantly" in NA26 and NA27 for the Pauline
      and Catholic Epistles. In the case of many of these manuscripts
      (630, 1505, 1506, 1881, 2464, 2495, etc.), this is the only
      serious assessment of these available other than the Alands' very
      basic "Category" ratings.

      The articles aren't all that I had hoped; I often was not able to
      compile a decent bibliography, and in many cases I had only the
      information provided in the Nestle citations to work with. But
      I have spent years working over those collations; I thought less
      experienced people might like the benefit of that experience.

      I also tried to make the results reasonably unbiased -- e.g. I
      would describe a manuscript as "more Alexandrian" or "more
      Byzantine" rather than "better" or "worse."

      Also, I included some additional links which I hope will make
      things easier to use.

      I remind people that Rich Elliott (REElliott@...) is the
      editor of the ENTTC, and that questions should be addressed to
      him. (I should also note that he has *not* vetted these articles. :-)

      But if anyone wants to post an article to the online site, feel
      free to contact me. Maybe it will force me to change my sarcastic
      signature. :-)

      The URL is given below.

      -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

      Robert B. Waltz
      waltzmn@...

      Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism?
      Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn
      (A very rough draft of part of the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism)
    • REElliott@aol.com
      To all TCer s (and Bob W too) I do appreciate the work that Bob (and others) has (have) done in conjunction with the ENTTC. I take this opportunity to remind
      Message 2 of 14 , Mar 3, 1997
      • 0 Attachment
        To all TCer's (and Bob W too)

        I do appreciate the work that Bob (and others) has (have) done in conjunction
        with the ENTTC. I take this opportunity to remind everyone that while the
        project is moving quite slowly now, (better than not at all) I am continuing
        to "keep the dream alive", thanks in part to the continued support that I
        receive from this list. Please continue to pray for the progress of this
        work.
        Again, thanks to all for your support and comments. I will keep you posted!

        Rich Elliott
      • Ronald L. Minton
        I was recently reading Archer and Ch. on the OT text and the New. Some of the remarks were unclear though over all the book is extremely helpful. I also read
        Message 3 of 14 , Mar 3, 1997
        • 0 Attachment
          I was recently reading Archer and Ch. on the OT text and the New. Some
          of the remarks were unclear though over all the book is extremely
          helpful. I also read a paper on the 19 passages where the NT quotes the
          OT and there is a variant in the New (March 96 SBL in St Louis).
          However, I still have questions on the percentage of times the NT quotes
          or refers to the Heb, LXX, Both, Neither. Can someone help me on this?
          Thanks in advance.


          --
          Prof. Ron Minton: rminton@... W (417)268-6053 H 833-9581
          Baptist Bible Graduate School 628 E. Kearney St. Springfield, MO 65803
        • Matthew Johnson
          On Mon, 3 Mar 1997, Ronald L. Minton wrote: [snip] ... To which I reply: Ron- Very good question. However, this is a little harder to answer than one might
          Message 4 of 14 , Mar 3, 1997
          • 0 Attachment
            On Mon, 3 Mar 1997, Ronald L. Minton wrote:

            [snip]
            > However, I still have questions on the percentage of times the NT quotes
            > or refers to the Heb, LXX, Both, Neither. Can someone help me on this?
            > Thanks in advance.
            >
            To which I reply:

            Ron-

            Very good question. However, this is a little harder to answer than one
            might hope, because over the centuries copyists have tended to harmonize
            the OT citations to the LXX. So to answer it properly, one would have to
            resort to a procedure something like the following:

            1) Look up all NT citations of OT in Nestle-Alans's 26th edition
            2) Look at all the variants listed in the critical apparatus for
            these citations.
            3) Try to guess from the style of the rest of the book in which
            the citation occurs, which, if any, of the variants is likely
            to be the NT author's own translation from the Hebrew.
            4) Submit your gesses to this newsgroup and see which ones still
            stand after we have all had a chance to throw rocks at it.

            Good luck finding an snswer.


            Matthew Johnson
            Waiting for the blessed hope and the appearance of the glory of our
            great God and Saviour Jesus Christ (Ti 2:13).

            >
            > --
            > Prof. Ron Minton: rminton@... W (417)268-6053 H 833-9581
            > Baptist Bible Graduate School 628 E. Kearney St. Springfield, MO 65803
            >
            >
          • Robert B. Waltz
            ... Personally I found A&C rather irritating. They tried to make everything match the MT, and paid no attention to the variants in LXX. I would also observe
            Message 5 of 14 , Mar 4, 1997
            • 0 Attachment
              On Mon, 3 Mar 1997, "Ronald L. Minton" <rminton@...> wrote:

              >I was recently reading Archer and Ch. on the OT text and the New. Some
              >of the remarks were unclear though over all the book is extremely
              >helpful. I also read a paper on the 19 passages where the NT quotes the
              >OT and there is a variant in the New (March 96 SBL in St Louis).
              >However, I still have questions on the percentage of times the NT quotes
              >or refers to the Heb, LXX, Both, Neither. Can someone help me on this?
              >Thanks in advance.

              Personally I found A&C rather irritating. They tried to make everything
              match the MT, and paid no attention to the variants in LXX.

              I would also observe that the Nestle apparatus isn't much help. It
              will sometimes label a citation as being from LXX -- but only where
              the LXX is distinctly different from MT. It would be helpful if it
              noted where the citation matches LXX, not where it differs from MT.

              In my ignorance, I don't know of any particular studies on this
              subject. In my own work, I find that Paul tends to follow LXX.
              I believe this is true with most NT authors (Luke in particular).
              The one major exception is Matthew, who will usually translate
              the OT himself unless the LXX has some particular reading he
              liked (e.g. the citation about the "virgin" bearing a son).

              -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

              Robert B. Waltz
              waltzmn@...

              Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism?
              Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn
              (A very rough draft of part of the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism)
            • Nichael Lynn Cramer
              ... Although no doubt dated in some of the details, surely a good place to start exploring this question is Swete s _Intro to the OT in Greek_; in particular,
              Message 6 of 14 , Mar 4, 1997
              • 0 Attachment
                At 7:04 PM -0600 3/3/97, Ronald L. Minton wrote:
                >I was recently reading Archer and Ch. on the OT text and the New. Some
                >of the remarks were unclear though over all the book is extremely
                >helpful. I also read a paper on the 19 passages where the NT quotes the
                >OT and there is a variant in the New (March 96 SBL in St Louis).
                >However, I still have questions on the percentage of times the NT quotes
                >or refers to the Heb, LXX, Both, Neither. Can someone help me on this?
                >Thanks in advance.

                Although no doubt dated in some of the details, surely a good place to
                start exploring this question is Swete's _Intro to the OT in Greek_; in
                particular, Chap II of Part 3 titled "Quotations from the LXX in the NT".

                One should turn to Swete for the details but, in short, he argues that
                "...the LXX is the principal source from which the writers of the N.T.
                derive their O.T. quotations." [p392], ranging from Acts where O.T.
                quotations "are taken from the LXX exclusively" [p398] to the Pauline
                corpus in which "more than half" [p400] come from the LXX.

                Nichael
                nichael@... "Did I forget, forget to mention Memphis,
                http://www.sover.net/~nichael/ Home of Elvis and the ancient Greeks..."
              • Mitchell Gray
                Hello, I don t know if this is an appropriate question for the TC list if not, please tell me. Someone once told me that they believe that the writers of the
                Message 7 of 14 , Dec 27, 1999
                • 0 Attachment
                  Hello,

                  I don't know if this is an appropriate question for the TC list if not,
                  please tell me. Someone once told me that they believe that the writers of
                  the NT probably used the LXX very little. When I asked him why he said
                  that copies of the LXX were expensive and were less accessible than those
                  of the Hebrew MSS. He also said that the reason it is difficult to find
                  any quote in the NT that resembles that of the LXX is because it is
                  possible that the NT writers took their Heb. MSS and made their own
                  translation.

                  I know very little about the LXX and its relationship to the NT but is this
                  a plausible theory? Would it have any support or has it been proven that
                  the NT authors used the LXX when writing their letters?

                  Any information would be great. Thanks in advance.

                  Mitchell

                  ---
                  You are currently subscribed to tc-list as: listsaver-of-tc-list@...
                  To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-tc-list-525M@...-certr.org
                • Robert B. Waltz
                  ... This is one of those cases where one is tempted to say, What was your acquaintance smoking at the time ? :-) The majority of NT quotations appear to be
                  Message 8 of 14 , Dec 27, 1999
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On 12/27/99, Mitchell Gray wrote:

                    >Hello,
                    >
                    >I don't know if this is an appropriate question for the TC list if not,
                    >please tell me. Someone once told me that they believe that the writers of
                    >the NT probably used the LXX very little. When I asked him why he said
                    >that copies of the LXX were expensive and were less accessible than those
                    >of the Hebrew MSS. He also said that the reason it is difficult to find
                    >any quote in the NT that resembles that of the LXX is because it is
                    >possible that the NT writers took their Heb. MSS and made their own
                    >translation.
                    >
                    >I know very little about the LXX and its relationship to the NT but is this
                    >a plausible theory? Would it have any support or has it been proven that
                    >the NT authors used the LXX when writing their letters?

                    This is one of those cases where one is tempted to say, "What was your
                    acquaintance smoking at the time"? :-)

                    The majority of NT quotations appear to be from the LXX. Some, such
                    as Matt. 1:23, *have* to be from LXX, because the MT doesn't mean
                    the same thing as the LXX.

                    Admittedly this reading from Matthew is an exception; Matthew usually
                    translates on his own. But he was unusual in this; almost all of
                    Paul's quotations, for instance, match one or another of the LXX textual
                    strands. (For some reason, NT quotations don't seem to be used much
                    in LXX textual criticism. Somebody should do something about that. :-)
                    Though admittedly it's a complicated problem. :-)

                    The argument about the expense of the manuscripts is, at the least,
                    strange. I would guess that, in Palestine, a manuscript of the Hebrew
                    would be cheaper; lots of people there capable of making one. Or you
                    could get a used one.

                    But elsewhere, the reverse would be true. Oh, an LXX manuscript might
                    take more material (not sure about this; I haven't seen any comparisons.
                    But LXX has vowels :-). But a Greek could copy an LXX manuscript. And
                    a Greek could *read* an LXX manuscript. In other words, logic says
                    that LXX manuscripts would be more common than Hebrew manuscripts,
                    and hence probably cheaper, outside Palestine. And most of the NT,
                    it is thought, was written outside Palestine. Therefore, if we trust
                    logic at all, LXX manuscripts would have been more accessible.

                    So both the evidence of the NT and the (much weaker) evidence of logic
                    say that most of the OT quotations in the NT are from the LXX. The
                    fact is, they *are*. For whatever reason. (It may be just that the
                    authors felt they had to quote LXX, as that version would be familiar
                    to their readers. It doesn't really matter....)

                    -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

                    Robert B. Waltz
                    waltzmn@...

                    Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism?
                    Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn
                    (A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism)

                    ---
                    You are currently subscribed to tc-list as: listsaver-of-tc-list@...
                    To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-tc-list-525M@...-certr.org
                  • Steve Puluka
                    ... I would love to see the historical documentation to support this theory! ;-) Joel Kalvesmaki has posted a lot of resources for Septuagint studies on his
                    Message 9 of 14 , Dec 28, 1999
                    • 0 Attachment
                      >From: "Mitchell Gray" <kingmnky@...>

                      >Someone once told me that they believe that the writers of
                      >the NT probably used the LXX very little. When I asked him why he said
                      >that copies of the LXX were expensive and were less accessible
                      >than those of the Hebrew MSS. He also said that the reason it is difficult
                      >to find any quote in the NT that resembles that of the LXX is because it is
                      >possible that the NT writers took their Heb. MSS and made their own
                      >translation.

                      I would love to see the historical documentation to support this theory! ;-)

                      Joel Kalvesmaki has posted a lot of resources for Septuagint studies on his
                      web site. The link below is a chart listing the quotations of scripture in
                      the New Testament with the Septuagint and MT translations of each. You can
                      see for yourself and judge for yourself the authors source. His main web
                      page also links out to an extensive bibliography of books and periodicals
                      where you can read what scholars have to say on this issue.

                      http://arts-sciences.cua.edu/ecs/jdk/LXX/NTChart.htm

                      Steve Puluka
                      Adult Education Instructor
                      Byzantine Catholic Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
                      http://arrive.at/byzantinecatholic

                      ______________________________________________________
                      Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com


                      ---
                      You are currently subscribed to tc-list as: listsaver-of-tc-list@...
                      To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-tc-list-525M@...-certr.org
                    • Gregory J. Woodhouse
                      Very interesting. Wht can be said about similarities between NT mss. (which?) and LXX mss. here? ... Gregory Woodhouse gjw@wnetc.com /
                      Message 10 of 14 , Dec 28, 1999
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Very interesting. Wht can be said about similarities between NT
                        mss. (which?) and LXX mss. here?

                        ---
                        Gregory Woodhouse
                        gjw@... / http://www.wnetc.com/home.html
                        "An atheist staring from his attic window is often nearer to God than the
                        believer caught up in his own false image of God."
                        --Martin Buber


                        ---
                        You are currently subscribed to tc-list as: listsaver-of-tc-list@...
                        To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-tc-list-525M@...-certr.org
                      • Robert B. Waltz
                        ... It s very hard, based on what I ve seen, to correlate NT text-types with LXX readings. However, I ve read -- and what I ve seen in Paul seems to support
                        Message 11 of 14 , Dec 28, 1999
                        • 0 Attachment
                          On 12/28/99, Gregory J. Woodhouse wrote:

                          >Very interesting. Wht can be said about similarities between NT
                          >mss. (which?) and LXX mss. here?

                          It's very hard, based on what I've seen, to correlate NT text-types
                          with LXX readings.

                          However, I've read -- and what I've seen in Paul seems to support
                          this -- that the NT more often quotes the readings of the A text
                          of LXX than the B text. (This is based just on Rahlfs, I'm afraid.)
                          That is, the LXX text circulating in NT times seems not to be the
                          "Old Greek" as originally translated, but rather the somewhat
                          revised later versions.

                          Come to think of it, this *might* have been what the original
                          poster's source's original source said. Not that the NT quotes
                          the Hebrew, but that the NT quotes the LXX texts which have been
                          revised based on the Hebrew.

                          -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

                          Robert B. Waltz
                          waltzmn@...

                          Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism?
                          Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn
                          (A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism)

                          ---
                          You are currently subscribed to tc-list as: listsaver-of-tc-list@...
                          To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-tc-list-525M@...-certr.org
                        • rlmullen@netpath.net
                          For the Pauline Epistles, see Christopher D. Stanley, PAUL AND THE LANGUAGE OF SCRIPTURE, SNTS Mongraph Series 74, (Cambridge, 1992). --Rod Mullen ...
                          Message 12 of 14 , Dec 28, 1999
                          • 0 Attachment
                            For the Pauline Epistles, see Christopher D. Stanley, PAUL AND THE LANGUAGE
                            OF SCRIPTURE, SNTS Mongraph Series 74, (Cambridge, 1992).

                            --Rod Mullen

                            At 03:51 PM 12/28/99 -0600, you wrote:
                            >On 12/28/99, Gregory J. Woodhouse wrote:
                            >
                            >>Very interesting. Wht can be said about similarities between NT
                            >>mss. (which?) and LXX mss. here?
                            >
                            >It's very hard, based on what I've seen, to correlate NT text-types
                            >with LXX readings.
                            >
                            >However, I've read -- and what I've seen in Paul seems to support
                            >this -- that the NT more often quotes the readings of the A text
                            >of LXX than the B text. (This is based just on Rahlfs, I'm afraid.)
                            >That is, the LXX text circulating in NT times seems not to be the
                            >"Old Greek" as originally translated, but rather the somewhat
                            >revised later versions.
                            >
                            >Come to think of it, this *might* have been what the original
                            >poster's source's original source said. Not that the NT quotes
                            >the Hebrew, but that the NT quotes the LXX texts which have been
                            >revised based on the Hebrew.
                            >
                            >-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
                            >
                            > Robert B. Waltz
                            > waltzmn@...
                            >
                            >Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism?
                            >Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn
                            >(A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism)
                            >
                            >---
                            >You are currently subscribed to tc-list as: rlmullen@...
                            >To unsubscribe send a blank email to
                            leave-tc-list-525M@...-certr.org
                            >


                            ---
                            You are currently subscribed to tc-list as: listsaver-of-tc-list@...
                            To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-tc-list-525M@...-certr.org
                          • U.B.Schmid
                            ... D.-A. Koch, Die Schrift als Zeuge des Evangeliums. Untersuchungen zur Verwendung und zum Verstaendnis der Schrift bei Paulus (BHTh 69), 1986 makes the
                            Message 13 of 14 , Dec 29, 1999
                            • 0 Attachment
                              rlmullen@... wrote:
                              > For the Pauline Epistles, see Christopher D. Stanley, PAUL AND THE LANGUAGE
                              > OF SCRIPTURE, SNTS Mongraph Series 74, (Cambridge, 1992).

                              D.-A. Koch, Die Schrift als Zeuge des Evangeliums. Untersuchungen zur Verwendung
                              und zum Verstaendnis der Schrift bei Paulus (BHTh 69), 1986 makes the point that
                              Pauline texts occasionally give pre-hexaplaric *Textforms*.

                              ------------------------------------------
                              Dr. Ulrich Schmid
                              U.B.Schmid@...


                              ---
                              You are currently subscribed to tc-list as: listsaver-of-tc-list@...
                              To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-tc-list-525M@...-certr.org
                            • Ron Minton
                              Date sent: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 10:07:53 -0800 (PST) From: Gregory J. Woodhouse To: TC-List
                              Message 14 of 14 , Jan 4, 2000
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Date sent: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 10:07:53 -0800 (PST)
                                From: "Gregory J. Woodhouse" <news1!gjw@...>
                                To: "TC-List" <tc-list@...-certr.org>
                                Subject: [tc-list] Re: LXX
                                Very interesting. What can be said about similarities between NT
                                mss. (which?) and LXX mss. here? Gregory Woodhouse
                                gjw@... / http://www.wnetc.com/home.html
                                -------------------------------------
                                A few years ago, I read a paper on this at an SBL Regional
                                meeting in St. Louis (March 23, 1996). There are only 19 places in
                                the UBSGNT/NA/Maj texts where the NT has both an OT quotation
                                and a textual variant in the quoted part. These are a small number,
                                but the Maj. Text tends to quote from Hebrew more and the Cr.
                                Text tends to quote from the LXX more. The Maj. Text deviates
                                from both the Heb and LXX 26%. The Cr. Text does so 74%. I did
                                not feel that there was solid evidence that either had been modified
                                by scribes for the purpose of conforming to a certain OT text. For
                                details, see my SBL paper. The chart below is simplified from the
                                paper; it did not survive the transmission well, but is still useful.
                                Below the Scripture references is found the Maj. then the Cr. For
                                example, in the first entry, the Maj. follows the LXX and the Cr.
                                follows the Hebrew. My comments then follow.

                                NT TEXTUAL FAMILY VARIANTS
                                OF OT QUOTATIONS

                                NT/OT PASSAGE

                                BYZANTINE (MAJORITY)

                                ALEXANDRIAN (UBS4/NA27)

                                NOTES AND COMMENTS

                                

                                Mt. 2:18
                                Jer. 31:15

                                LXX

                                Hebrew

                                The Maj. mss. add "lamentation" to follow the LXX.
                                
                                Mk. 10:6-7
                                Gen. 2:24

                                LXX/Heb

                                Deviates 

                                UBS4 {D} text is in brackets, but clearly
                                attested in LXX, Heb, Maj.

                                

                                Mk. 12:36
                                Ps. 110:1

                                LXX/Heb

                                Deviates

                                See Mt. 22:44 - same Cr. deviant; UBS4 does not
                                list a variant.

                                
                                Mk. 15:34
                                Ps. 22:1

                                Hebrew

                                Hebrew

                                Minor variant; both Alex. and Byz. evidence divided.

                                

                                Lk. 4:4
                                Dt. 8:3

                                LXX/Heb

                                Deviates

                                Cr. here omits key phrase from OT & the Maj.

                                

                                Lk. 19:38
                                Ps. 118:26

                                Deviates
                                

                                Deviates
                                

                                Both texts add the word "king" not found in OT.
                                Actual variant is minor.

                                

                                Jn. 12:40
                                Is. 6:10

                                Hebrew

                                Hebrew

                                Minor variants in verb forms; little effect on meaning.

                                

                                Jn. 13:18
                                Ps. 41:9

                                Deviates

                                LXX/Heb

                                Maj. has "bread with me" where OT, Cr. have "my bread."

                                

                                Acts 7:32
                                Ex. 3:4-10

                                LXX/Heb

                                Deviates 

                                Cr. shortens quote by omitting phrase "the God of" twice.

                                

                                Rom. 3:12
                                Ps. 14:1-3
                                Ps. 53:1-3

                                LXX/Heb

                                Deviates 

                                UBS4 {C} text is in brackets, but clearly
                                attested reading. Slight deviation from OT.

                                

                                Rom. 9:28
                                Is. 10:22-3
                                Hos. 1:10

                                LXX

                                Deviates

                                Cr. omits LXX phrase "cut it short in righteousness."

                                

                                Rom. 10:15
                                Is. 52:7
                                Na. 1:15 

                                LXX/Heb

                                Deviates

                                Cr. omits OT phrase; Maj. shows some division.

                                

                                1 Cor.15:55
                                Hos. 13:14

                                Deviates

                                Deviates

                                Both texts differ from OT in verb choice; Cr. "death" for "Hades."

                                

                                Eph. 4:8
                                Ps. 68:18

                                Deviates

                                Deviates

                                Variant is minor. Both texts show intentional deviation by Paul.

                                

                                Heb. 1:8
                                Ps. 45:6-7

                                LXX/Heb

                                LXX/Heb

                                Minor variant
                                

                                

                                19Heb. 1:12
                                Ps.102:25-6

                                LXX

                                Deviates

                                Cr. has "as a garment," not found in OT.11 The New Testament
                                only quotes the last portion of thi the first part of the LXX which is
                                not being quoted (or, perhaps, reverts to the Hebrew word order)
                                
                                Heb.
                                2:7 Ps. 8:5-7

                                Deviates

                                Deviates

                                Both texts follow partial quote; part of Maj. has full quote.

                                

                                Heb. 8:11
                                Jer.31:31-4

                                LXX/Heb

                                Deviates

                                Cr. omits "of them" found in OT & Maj.

                                

                                Heb. 10:38
                                Hab. 2:3-4

                                LXX

                                Deviates

                                Cr. adds "my" not found in OT or Maj.; otherwise, LXX
                                

                                one miserable scribbler,
                                Ron Minton

                                ---
                                You are currently subscribed to tc-list as: listsaver-of-tc-list@...
                                To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-tc-list-525M@...-certr.org
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.