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

Re: [textualcriticism] Re: Romans 3:

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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.