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

4302Re: [textualcriticism] Re: 2 John

Expand Messages
  • David Robert Palmer
    Dec 8, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      I am inclined to think that the editions have it right, that MENOUSAN came first, and ENOIKOUSAN later.
       
      Some points to think about:
       
      1, with the preposition EN following as it does in all MSS, ENOIKOUSAN is redundant
      2. Perhaps scribes and readers of John are so used to hearing John use the word MENW as meaning "indwelling," or abiding IN something, so that some uncounsciously replaced MENOUSAN with ENOIKOUSAN.
      3, The Coptic has OUSAN.  It would be interesting to look for how the Coptic translates the Greek word MENW in all other instances of it.
      4.  Could the variants MENOUSAN and ENOIKOUSAN both be secondary clarifications of an original OUSAN?
      5. With OUSAN in the continuous aspect, the meaning is really close to the same as the MENOUSAN- continuing to be in us. staying in us, abiding in us.
       
      David Robert Palmer
       
       
      ----- Original Message -----
      Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 5:34 AM
      Subject: [textualcriticism] Re: 2 John

      Mr. Palmer,

      Thank you for making your notes on 2 John available.

      For the alternate readings of MENOUSAN in 2 John 2
      (i.e., ENOIKOUSAN, OUSAN, or [omit]), what is the
      likely order of their introduction into the manuscript
      tradition, or were they (or some of them) introduced
      independently of one another in your opinion?

      Thank you.

      Reid
    • Show all 3 messages in this topic