Re: tc-list Rom 3:28
- On Fri, 10 Oct 1997, Jim West <jwest@...> wrote:
>Colleagues,Are you sure you're talking about the same variant as in the major
>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?
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
- The Byzantine text
Barring overwhelming internal evidence (which I don't see here),
GAR is obviously the preferable reading.
Robert B. Waltz
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)