7731Re: James 5:8 - The coming of *our* Lord is near
- Mar 18 7:59 PMHi James,
There is a textual complex in the General Letters which includes witnesses such as 206, 429, 522, 614, 630, 1292, 1448, 1490, 1505, 1611, 1799, 1831, 1890, 2138, 2200, 2412, 2495. See e.g. the 8-way partition of witnesses based on INTF data for James located here:
A back translation of the Harclean Syriac (616 AD, Enaton, Egypt) has the same kind of text, as noticed by Barbara Aland and Andreas Juckel. (See B. Aland and A. Juckel, _Das Neue Testament in syrischer Ãberlieferung_, ANTF 7/1, Berlin: De Gruyter, 1986.)
I'm inclined to think that this variety of the text in the General Letters is associated with the Miaphysite branch of Christianity which includes the Coptic, Ethiopian, Syriac,and Armenian Orthodox churches. There is a corresponding variety of the text in the Gospels as well, which text Streeter called "an Eastern type."
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Vox Verax" <james.snapp@...> wrote:
> In James 5:8, MS 2816 has HMWN between KURIOU and HNGIKEN. COnsulting NA27 I see that this reading is also supported by 614 630 1505 1852 al Vg-ms Sy-hark and the Sahidic version. It's also in Etheridge's translation of the Peshitta, and in Murdock's.
> Externally the evidence for HMWN is not nearly as weighty as that for the non-inclusion of HMWN. But it's an interesting combination of witnesses. Did HMWN spontaneously spring up in the Peshitta /and/ in the Sahidic version -- or in the Harklean Syriac /and/ in a transmission-line that influenced some relatively late medieval copies?
> Or was HMWN gobbled up in almost all transmission-lines when it was conformed, repeatedly, to its non-inclusion in the previous verse?
> Do any commentators adopt HMWN here, or even address the question of its genuineness or non-genuineness?
> Yours in Christ,
> James Snapp, Jr.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>