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

RE: [textualcriticism] Re: Romans 3:

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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.