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

Re: Mt 28:19

Expand Messages
  • malcolm robertson
    Greetings all, In addition to the insightful posts of Joe (Jovial) and Martin (Heide) the fact that Eusebius was an Arian may in some way and to some extent
    Message 1 of 12 , Apr 12, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Greetings all,
       
      In addition to the insightful posts of Joe (Jovial) and Martin (Heide) the fact that Eusebius was an Arian may in some way and to some extent account both for the number and for his apparent preference for his loose "in my name" in his own writings. However, as far as the textual transmission goes his conscience forbade him to corrupt the original source.
       
      Countach is doubtless correct in making one drawn a demarcation between Eusebius and the NT textual tradition.
       
      Cordially in Christ,
       
      Malcolm



      Do you Yahoo!?
      Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
    • Countach
      ... People are right to be wary of conjectures. On the other hand, many of the great scholars seemed to entertain a few. Erasmus had his, and Calvin had his
      Message 2 of 12 , Apr 12, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        mjriii2003 wrote:

        >
        >
        > Peter observed:
        >
        > "Presumably Wieland you mean NA txt contains/follows ONE conjecture
        > (Acts 16.12 I guess); but it does contain notes to many others
        > (although I gather these may well be dropped from NA28)"
        >
        > Let's hope so; they all defy external textual evidence.


        People are right to be wary of conjectures. On the other hand, many of
        the great scholars seemed to entertain a few. Erasmus had his, and
        Calvin had his and Beza had his.

        For me, I cannot help but think that the conjecture of "purothhsatai"
        (sp?) (or "burned up") at 2Pe 3:10 is compelling. The reading in NA27 of
        eurethsatai doesn't make sense despite valiant efforts. The word
        "purothsatai" is so obviously the correct meaning in the context that
        scribes replaced eurethhsatai with katakahsatai. Purothasatai and
        eurethasatai sound the same same to the ear with resulted in the
        original error, and furthermore, the root of purothasatai is used only
        two verses later, proving that the word is on the author's mind.







        --
        James
      • sarban
        ... From: malcolm robertson To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 8:04 PM Subject: [textualcriticism] Re: Mt 28:19 Greetings all,
        Message 3 of 12 , Apr 12, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
           
          ----- Original Message -----
          Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 8:04 PM
          Subject: [textualcriticism] Re: Mt 28:19

          Greetings all,
           
          In addition to the insightful posts of Joe (Jovial) and Martin (Heide) the fact that Eusebius was an Arian may in some way and to some extent account both for the number and for his apparent preference for his loose "in my name" in his own writings. However, as far as the textual transmission goes his conscience forbade him to corrupt the original source.
           
           
          I'm not sure the Arian controversy is actually all that relevant.
           
          IIUC various definitely Arian statements eg the 'Blasphemy of
          Sirmium' AKA the second creed of Sirmium 357 are happy to
          quote Matthew 28:19 in the Trinitarian form.
           
          Andrew Criddle
        • Daniel Buck
          ... People are right to be wary of conjectures. On the other hand, many of the great scholars seemed to entertain a few. Erasmus had his, and Calvin had his
          Message 4 of 12 , Apr 18, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            mjriii2003 wrote:
            >> Peter observed:

            > "Presumably Wieland you mean NA txt contains/follows ONE conjecture
            > (Acts 16.12 I guess); but it does contain notes to many others
            > (although I gather these may well be dropped from NA28)"
            >
            > Let's hope so; they all defy external textual evidence.


            People are right to be wary of conjectures. On the other hand, many
            of the great scholars seemed to entertain a few. Erasmus had his, and
            Calvin had his and Beza had his.

            For me, I cannot help but think that the conjecture of "purothhsatai"
            (sp?) (or "burned up") at 2Pe 3:10 is compelling. The reading in
            NA27 of eurethsatai doesn't make sense despite valiant efforts. The
            word "purothsatai" is so obviously the correct meaning in the
            context that scribes replaced eurethhsatai with katakahsatai.
            Purothasatai and eurethasatai sound the same same to the ear with
            resulted in the original error, and furthermore, the root of
            purothasatai is used only two verses later, proving that the word is
            on the author's mind.>>

            Daniel Buck asks:
            I've been following this discussion of conjectures for a long time,
            and I still can't figure out what exactly is being changed by NA27
            in Acts 16:12, and why (my ignorance is showing again, so somebody
            please help me out).

            While we are at it, can anyone explain how the version MS evidence
            supports the conjecture (ie how do the two alternates translate in
            the version)?

            Finally, I'm intrested in the history of conjectures over the past 6
            centuries of textual criticism. Has any conjecture ever turned out
            to be supported by a subsequently discovered singular reading in a
            Gk MS?
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.