7737Re: p73--Byzantine, or just original?
- Mar 20, 2013Just curious... why would assigning P73 to Category V be an indication that Byz was "original"? The Alands date P73 to the VII century. They date some Cat V uncials earlier than that (026, 061, 022, 023, 024, 027, 042, 043, 064, 065, 0246, 0253, 0265?)... but none before the V century.
--- In email@example.com, Daniel Buck <bucksburg@...> wrote:
> The wikipedia article for p73 states, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_73
> "The Greek text of this codex is a representative of the Byzantine text-type, but text is too brief for certainty. Aland placed it in Category V."
> The Greek text of p73 in fact consists of about ten clearly identifiable letters and another seven that appear to match what would be expected in the adjacent text of Matthew 25:43-44 and 26:2-3.
> Although there are textual variants just on either side of these excerpts (there's an h.t. later in v. 3 that would show up if we had even one more line fragment of identifiable text), there are none in the running text that could be determined even by letter-count. So there is absolutely no evidence of any distinctly Byzantine reading in this seventh-century papyrus.
> By assigning it to Category V, Aland was virtually admitting that the Byzantine text was original.
> Daniel Buck
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>