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

Re: [textualcriticism] New Readings in NA28: James, I Peter, II Peter

Expand Messages
  • Jonathan C. Borland
    Dear James, I appreciate your post and comments on the changes in NA28. ... Regarding the OLIGWS vs. ONTWS variation in 2 Pet 2:18, I still don t see why
    Message 1 of 2 , Nov 25, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear James,

      I appreciate your post and comments on the changes in NA28.

      2:18 from OLIGWS to ONTWS. (yielding "those who indeed escaped" instead of "those who barely escaped.") Remarkable! In UBS4, OLIGWS was ranked as an A-level reading, indicating that the editors considered the text certain. And now the editors of NA28 present us with a reversal of that. Again the Byz reading has been adopted, which means that the testimony of P72 and B and the Vulgate, combined, has been overruled.

      Sloppy handwriting accounts for ONTWS: write OLIGWS in uncials, with the final leg of the L sliding into the following I. Then write the G so as to begin the horizontal bar slightly to the left of the vertical stroke. Voila; you thus produce ONTWS. But it is much less likely that anyone writing ONTWS would separate the strokes of N so as to form L and I.


      Regarding the OLIGWS vs. ONTWS variation in 2 Pet 2:18, I still don't see why scribal alteration due to similarity of lettering could not have gone in both directions. If the majuscule lettering of ONTWS is similar to OLIGWS, then the lettering of OLIGWS is similar to ONTWS. Thus if either one was written sloppily or the ink beginning to fade, it could have been confused for the other.

      Sincerely,

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