2 Peter 3:10 (NA28) *οὐχ* εὑρεθήσεται

Forum rules
Please quote the Greek text you are discussing directly in your post if it is reasonably short - do not ask people to look it up. This is not a beginner's forum, competence in Greek is assumed.
Jonathan Robie
Posts: 3744
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

2 Peter 3:10 (NA28) *οὐχ* εὑρεθήσεται

Post by Jonathan Robie » May 15th, 2017, 12:23 pm

This surprised me:
2 Peter 3:10 (NA28) wrote:Ἥξει δὲ ἡμέρα κυρίου ὡς κλέπτης ἐν ᾗ οἱ οὐρανοὶ ῥοιζηδὸν παρελεύσονται, στοιχεῖα δὲ καυσούμενα λυθήσεται, καὶ γῆ καὶ τὰ ἐν αὐτῇ ἔργα οὐχ εὑρεθήσεται.
In my UBS 5th, the text critical note on this says "οὐχ εὑρεθήσεται: Some Syriac and Greek manuscripts", without listing them. Most critical editions don't have οὐχ here. The texts before 400AD don't either.

The online NA28 doesn't have the text-critical apparatus, which is presumably more specific. What manuscripts support οὐχ? What persuaded NA28 to include it?
0 x


ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/

Stephen Carlson
Posts: 3045
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: 2 Peter 3:10 (NA28) *οὐχ* εὑρεθήσεται

Post by Stephen Carlson » May 16th, 2017, 2:03 am

No Greek manuscript supports the reading of NA28, just some Coptic and Syriac ones. It's a conjecture. The editors feel that the text does not make sense without the negation.
0 x
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia

Alan Bunning
Posts: 275
Joined: June 5th, 2011, 7:31 am
Contact:

Re: 2 Peter 3:10 (NA28) *οὐχ* εὑρεθήσεται

Post by Alan Bunning » May 17th, 2017, 7:03 am

This particular variant is mentioned in my CNTR project description http://greekcntr.org/downloads/project.pdf. I thought that there was a rule against discussions on textual criticism, otherwise I would have gone on to explain how ridiculous that is on so many levels, and why people should not blindly follow that type of bogus scholarship based on what people “feel”.
0 x

Stephen Carlson
Posts: 3045
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: 2 Peter 3:10 (NA28) *οὐχ* εὑρεθήσεται

Post by Stephen Carlson » May 17th, 2017, 7:13 am

"Feel" is my word, not theirs. German scholarship is to a fault not about feelings.
0 x
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia

Alan Bunning
Posts: 275
Joined: June 5th, 2011, 7:31 am
Contact:

Re: 2 Peter 3:10 (NA28) *οὐχ* εὑρεθήσεται

Post by Alan Bunning » May 17th, 2017, 7:32 am

Regardless of what word is used, I don’t think that changes the reality of the situation.
0 x

Stephen Carlson
Posts: 3045
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: 2 Peter 3:10 (NA28) *οὐχ* εὑρεθήσεται

Post by Stephen Carlson » May 17th, 2017, 7:45 am

I haven't studied the variant and I do have my disagreements with them from time to time, but the reality is that the editors in Münster are serious scholars and it is inflammatory and derogatory to call their work "bogus scholarship."
0 x
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia

Jonathan Robie
Posts: 3744
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Re: 2 Peter 3:10 (NA28) *οὐχ* εὑρεθήσεται

Post by Jonathan Robie » May 17th, 2017, 7:53 am

We are trying to cautiously expand the kinds of things we can talk about on B-Greek. But cautiously. And one of the standards we are using is our Respectful Discourse Policy:
If discussion of this nature is to succeed, proper respect and courtesy to other list members is important. While scholarly debate, including disagreement, is encouraged as a goal of this conference, attacks upon the character, intelligence, or faith of those participating are not acceptable. Criticism must focus upon the arguments of others; it may not be directed to the individual.
I'd like to extend that not only to list members, but to text critical scholars and others. Let's focus on the facts and how they can reasonably be interpreted.

The reason textual criticism has been off the table is that it is often discussed in a way not consistent with our respectful discourse policy. If we find we can't handle it, we'll take it back off the table.
0 x
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/

Alan Bunning
Posts: 275
Joined: June 5th, 2011, 7:31 am
Contact:

Re: 2 Peter 3:10 (NA28) *οὐχ* εὑρεθήσεται

Post by Alan Bunning » May 17th, 2017, 8:18 am

I did not mean to imply that everything they do is “bogus scholarship” nor do I think I said that, but I do see the insertion of this variant as an example of “bogus scholarship” <or insert alternative appropriate respectful word of disagreement>, and that is based on the evidence which I think speaks for itself. There is no ad-hominem attack here, but a strong criticism of their work in this instance. Attacking work != attacking people.
0 x

Jonathan Robie
Posts: 3744
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Re: 2 Peter 3:10 (NA28) *οὐχ* εὑρεθήσεται

Post by Jonathan Robie » May 17th, 2017, 8:39 am

What justification do they give for including this word? I'd like to understand their justification before rejecting it. There's plenty of time to reject it once I understand it, but I don't need adjectives to evaluate their argument. And adjectives don't tell me what their argument is.
0 x
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/

Stephen Carlson
Posts: 3045
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: 2 Peter 3:10 (NA28) *οὐχ* εὑρεθήσεται

Post by Stephen Carlson » May 17th, 2017, 8:47 am

As I've said, I haven't studied it. I only know what I heard orally Klaus. I believe there's also a skeptical discussion of it on the Evangelical Textual Criticism blog.
0 x
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia

Post Reply

Return to “New Testament”