Re: acc. vs gen reading
- On Fri 4 Jul 97 (10:04:42 +0930), anku@... wrote:
>�Metzger, in his textual commentary states that the variant should beHullo Andrew,
>�discounted because even though it is supported by B it is also
>�supported by D and G, which weakens the authority of B. Now I checked
>�Metzger's Text of the NT where he describes D as western witness
>�containing the Gospels and Acts and G as a Byzantine witness containing
>�the gospels - no mention of Romans anywhere!
I think you'll find that "D" in the Epistles is Codex Claramontanus (Paris,
sixth century), containing the Pauline epistles; not C Bezae which is Gospels
and Acts only.
"G" is a ninth-century MSS in Dresden (v Dobschuetz 012; v Soden a1028),
containing the Pauline epistles.
FWIW the King James opted for DIA TO ENOIKOUN (Byzantine text). The
Revised Version of 1881 relegated that to the margin, and opted for
TOU ENOIKOUNTOS AUTOU PNEUMATOS. It is well known that Westcott and Hort
frequently preferred the "difficult" reading, on the grounds that that would
be the more likely to have been "improved" by an editor; therefore the
more likely to have been the original. IMHO this is rather a subjective
approach to the problem. I think Fee has got it right.
Charles Hodge, /Romans/, new edition, Edinburgh, 1864, pp 260f has an
interesting comment antedating W&H:
"For the reading DIA TO ENOIKOUN AUTOU PNEUMA, Wetstein quotes the MSS D.E