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

Re: tc-list Rom 3:28

Expand Messages
  • Robert B. Waltz
    ... Are you sure you re talking about the same variant as in the major critical apparati? The variant in Romans 3:28 is not add/omit GAR; it is substitute
    Message 1 of 2 , Oct 10, 1997
      On Fri, 10 Oct 1997, Jim West <jwest@...> wrote:
      >Colleagues,
      >
      >Rom 3:28 says:
      >LOGIZOMEQA GAR DIKAIOUSQAI PISTEI ANQRWPON XWRIS ERGWN NOMOU
      >
      >The inclusion of gar in manuscripts like Aleph, A, D* Athos Laurae, 81, 1739
      >and some of the versions is only barely superior to the absence of the word
      >in B, C, D, K, P, 33, 614 and the Byzantine family. Since the external
      >evidence is so divided, internal criteria must be evoked. It seems to me
      >that v.28 explains v.27 and therefore an explanatory particle is needed.
      >Yet it is this grammatical necessity which suggests that gar was added by a
      >secondary scribe to smooth the grammar.
      >
      >
      >Does anyone have some other suggestion?

      Are you sure you're talking about the same variant as in the major
      critical apparati? The variant in Romans 3:28 is not add/omit GAR;
      it is substitute GAR/OUN. As best I can tell, there is no Greek
      evidence for omitting the word.

      The evidence for GAR includes Aleph A D* F G 81 326 436 1506
      family 1319 (=256 263 365 1319 2127 etc.) family 1739 (=1739 630 1881)
      a b d f vg al

      The evidence for OUN is B C D** 6 33 614 1175 2464 Byz m

      Note, however, that in Romans 33 1175 2464 are *all Byzantine*.
      (Yes, that's what I said. Outside Romans, they are valuable --
      but not here.)

      So the evidence for GAR includes
      - The Alexandrian text (Aleph A 1506; 81 family 1319; etc.)
      - The "Western" text (D* F G a b d f vg)
      - family 1739 (classify it how you like, this is its reading)

      The evidence for OUN includes
      - B
      - The Byzantine text

      Barring overwhelming internal evidence (which I don't see here),
      GAR is obviously the preferable reading.

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

      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)
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.