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

Re: Romans 3:

Expand Messages
  • Bill Ross
    Is it possible that the phrase there is none righteous, no not one in verse 10 is a copyist error? Ie: that it is not original? Romans 3: 10 As it is
    Message 1 of 6 , Oct 10, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Is it possible that the phrase "there is none righteous, no not one" in
      verse 10 is a copyist error? Ie: that it is not original?

      Romans 3:
      10 As it is written, ***There is none righteous, no, not one:***
      11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
      12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable;
      there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

      Thanks,

      Bill Ross
      http://bibleshockers.com
    • Chris Weimer
      While anything is *possible*, you haven t given any evidence that it is so. Why do you think so? Chris Weimer U. Memphis ... after God. ... unprofitable;
      Message 2 of 6 , Oct 11, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        While anything is *possible*, you haven't given any evidence that it
        is so. Why do you think so?

        Chris Weimer
        U. Memphis

        --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Ross" <BillRoss@...> wrote:
        >
        > Is it possible that the phrase "there is none righteous, no not one" in
        > verse 10 is a copyist error? Ie: that it is not original?
        >
        > Romans 3:
        > 10 As it is written, ***There is none righteous, no, not one:***
        > 11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh
        after God.
        > 12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become
        unprofitable;
        > there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
        >
        > Thanks,
        >
        > Bill Ross
        > http://bibleshockers.com
        >
      • Peter M. Head
        Many things are possible. Is there any evidence? Peter ... Peter M. Head, PhD Sir Kirby Laing Senior Lecturer in New Testament Tyndale House 36 Selwyn Gardens
        Message 3 of 6 , Oct 11, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          Many things are possible. Is there any evidence?

          Peter

          At 14:46 10/10/2007, you wrote:
          >Is it possible that the phrase "there is none righteous, no not one" in
          >verse 10 is a copyist error? Ie: that it is not original?
          >
          >Romans 3:
          >10 As it is written, ***There is none righteous, no, not one:***
          >11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
          >12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable;
          >there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
          >
          >Thanks,
          >
          >Bill Ross
          >http://bibleshockers.com
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >Yahoo! Groups Links
          >
          >
          >

          Peter M. Head, PhD
          Sir Kirby Laing Senior Lecturer in New Testament
          Tyndale House
          36 Selwyn Gardens
          Cambridge CB3 9BA
          01223 566601
        • Bill Ross
          That was my question. Bill Ross http://bibleshockers.com Bible Shockers! A collection of disturbing observations of and about the Bible. ... From: Peter M.
          Message 4 of 6 , Oct 11, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            That was my question.

            Bill Ross
            http://bibleshockers.com
            Bible Shockers! A collection of disturbing observations of and about the
            Bible.


            ----- Original Message -----
            From: "Peter M. Head" <pmh15@...>
            To: <textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com>
            Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 7:09 AM
            Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Re: Romans 3:

            > Many things are possible. Is there any evidence?
            >
            > Peter
            >
            > At 14:46 10/10/2007, you wrote:
            >>Is it possible that the phrase "there is none righteous, no not one" in
            >>verse 10 is a copyist error? Ie: that it is not original?
            >>
            >>Romans 3:
            >>10 As it is written, ***There is none righteous, no, not one:***
            >>11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after
            >>God.
            >>12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become
            >>unprofitable;
            >>there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
            >>
            >>Thanks,
            >>
            >>Bill Ross
            >>http://bibleshockers.com
            >>
            >>
            >>
            >>
            >>
            >>
            >>Yahoo! Groups Links
            >>
            >>
            >>
            >
            > Peter M. Head, PhD
            > Sir Kirby Laing Senior Lecturer in New Testament
            > Tyndale House
            > 36 Selwyn Gardens
            > Cambridge CB3 9BA
            > 01223 566601
            >
            >
          • James Spinti
            Nope; nothing in the NA 27 apparatus. It is a more or less direct quote from Psalm 14:1 (LXX 13:1), Ps. 53:1 (LXX 52:2, Hebrew 53:2), less directly
            Message 5 of 6 , Oct 12, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              Nope; nothing in the NA 27 apparatus. It is a more or less direct quote
              from Psalm 14:1 (LXX 13:1), Ps. 53:1 (LXX 52:2, Hebrew 53:2), less
              directly Ecclesiastes 7:20, so the idea wasn't foreign to the audience
              or scribes.

              It would probably be nice if you quoted the Greek instead of the
              English:

              KAQWS GEGRAPTAI hOTI OUK ESTIN DIKAIOS OUDE hEIS

              which highlights the fact that it is a quote for the HB/LXX/OT.

              James

              ________________________________
              James Spinti
              Marketing Director, Book Sales Division
              Eisenbrauns, Good books for more than 30 years
              Specializing in Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical Studies
              jspinti at eisenbrauns dot com
              Web: http://www.eisenbrauns.com
              Phone: 574-269-2011 ext 226
              Fax: 574-269-6788



              > -----Original Message-----
              > From: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
              > [mailto:textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Bill Ross
              > Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 9:00 PM
              > To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
              > Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Re: Romans 3:
              >
              >
              > That was my question.
              >
              > Bill Ross
              > http://bibleshockers.com
              > Bible Shockers! A collection of disturbing observations of
              > and about the
              > Bible.
              >
              >
              > ----- Original Message -----
              > From: "Peter M. Head" <pmh15@...>
              > To: <textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com>
              > Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 7:09 AM
              > Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Re: Romans 3:
              >
              > > Many things are possible. Is there any evidence?
              > >
              > > Peter
              > >
              > > At 14:46 10/10/2007, you wrote:
              > >>Is it possible that the phrase "there is none righteous, no
              > not one" in
              > >>verse 10 is a copyist error? Ie: that it is not original?
              > >>
              > >>Romans 3:
              > >>10 As it is written, ***There is none righteous, no, not one:***
              > >>11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that
              > seeketh after
              > >>God.
              > >>12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become
              > >>unprofitable;
              > >>there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
              > >>
              > >>Thanks,
              > >>
              > >>Bill Ross
              > >>http://bibleshockers.com
              > >>
              > >>
              > >>
              > >>
              > >>
              > >>
              > >>Yahoo! Groups Links
              > >>
              > >>
              > >>
              > >
              > > Peter M. Head, PhD
              > > Sir Kirby Laing Senior Lecturer in New Testament
              > > Tyndale House
              > > 36 Selwyn Gardens
              > > Cambridge CB3 9BA
              > > 01223 566601
              > >
              > >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > Yahoo! Groups Links
              >
              >
              >
              >
            • brian boland
              Swanson has extensive listings on verse 9. Also on verse 10 gives wide approval for dropping hOTI and for OUK ESTIN DIKAIOS OUDE OUK ESTIN DIKAIOS
              Message 6 of 6 , Oct 13, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                Swanson has extensive listings on verse 9. Also on verse 10 gives wide approval for dropping "hOTI "
                 and  for OUK ESTIN DIKAIOS OUDE

                OUK ESTIN DIKAIOS            1241
                OUK ESTIN DIKAIOS OU       D*
                OUK ESTIN DIKAIOS OUDAI  many
                OUK OUK ESTI DIKAIOS OUDE
                OUK         ESTI  DIKAIOS OUDE

                Whilst Robinson/Pierpont went for

                KAQWS GEGRAPTAI [hOTI ] OUK ESTIN DIKAIOS OUDE hEIS

                Where does the Pershitta stand on these differences ?
                Brian j


                J
                __


                Yahoo! Answers - Get better answers from someone who knows. Try it now.

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