From: clayton stirling bartholomew (c.s.bartholomew@worldnet.att.net)
Date: Sat Sep 23 2000 - 01:48:02 EDT
I was musing over the use of SWMA in Col. 2:17 (which is worth some
discussion itself, but that is not what my question is about) when I decided
to read Colossians chapter 2 in P46 using Comfort/Barrett.
I noticed a small discrepancy in Col. 2:17b
NA27 (corrected, 2000 ed.) reads:
TO DE SWMA TOU CRISTOU
but P46 according to the Comfort/Barrett transcription reads:
TO DE SWMA CRU
Now the issue here is not CRU which is a Nomina Sacra, the issue is the
missing TOU.
B. & K. Aland list P46 as a "consistently cited witness of the first order"
for Colossians. Perhaps I am misunderstanding what the Alands mean by a
"consistently cited witness of the first order." I was assuming that it
meant they would always cite the readings of P46 when the differed from the
text of NA27. If that isn't what they mean then I am clueless (again).
Anyway, there is no indication in NA27 (corrected, 2000 ed.) that TOU is
missing in P46. So, what is the story here? Did Comfort/Barrett goof or is
this an oversight in NA27 or is it just a misunderstanding on my part of
what the Aland's mean by "a consistently cited witness of the first order?"
--
Clayton Stirling Bartholomew
Three Tree Point
P.O. Box 255 Seahurst WA 98062
---
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [jwrobie@mindspring.com]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu
To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu
From ???@??? Mon Oct 02 11:41:57 2000
X-NAV-TimeoutProtection0: X
X-NAV-TimeoutProtection1: X
X-NAV-TimeoutProtection2: X
X-NAV-TimeoutProtection3: X
X-NAV-TimeoutProtection4: X
X-NAV-TimeoutProtection5: X
X-NAV-TimeoutProtection6: X
Return-Path: <bounce-b-greek-327@franklin.oit.unc.edu>
Received: from franklin.oit.unc.edu ([152.2.22.59])
by osgood.mail.mindspring.net (Mindspring Mail Service) with SMTP id sspdct.l89.30ahi43
for <jwrobie@mindspring.com>; Sat, 23 Sep 2000 09:52:25 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from hotmail.com ([64.4.15.44]) by franklin.oit.unc.edu with SMTP (Lyris List Manager SOLARIS/SPARC version 4.0); Sat, 23 Sep 2000 09:51:34 -0400
Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC;
Sat, 23 Sep 2000 06:51:51 -0700
Received: from 216.175.71.190 by lw10fd.law10.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sat, 23 Sep 2000 13:51:51 GMT
X-Originating-IP: [216.175.71.190]
From: "Mark Wilson" <emory2oo2@hotmail.com>
To: Biblical Greek <b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu>
Subject: [b-greek] Re: Eph 1:4/5 "in love"
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 13:51:51 GMT
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Message-ID: <LYRIS-327-80816-2000.09.23-09.51.37--jwrobie#mindspring.com@franklin.oit.unc.edu>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Sep 2000 13:51:51.0734 (UTC) FILETIME=[6D04F560:01C02565]
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu>
Reply-To: "Mark Wilson" <emory2oo2@hotmail.com>
<x-flowed>
Wayne wrote in response to my response:
>Subject: [b-greek] Re: Eph 1:4/5 "in love"
-----
There appear to be very few cases of intended ambiguity in scripture. This
is not surprising because ambiguity in serious literary would be confusing
to a writer's audience, and few biblical writers likely wanted to confuse.
There are *no* certainties in any of my claims in this message, but, rather,
a strong tilt of the odds from what we know about language usage around the
world.
----
Something, and I am not sure exactly what, just doesn't settle well with me
concerning this comment. I am seeking help.
First, Wayne has introduced an element that I had not considered:
intentional ambiguity.
I will have to put my "position" on hold
with this new development :o )
But my initial thought was: that is irrelevent. The issue is not "WHY" it is
ambiguous, but "THAT" it is ambiguous.
However, the final paragraph above causes me concern. And maybe it
shouldn't.
To me, translating, which I certainly will not even remotely attempt to
match Wayne's scholarship here, is not about "probabilities" or "strong
tilt" or "gut feeling" as far as I am concerned (for the time being).
I have no idea if what I am suggesting is humanly impossible, but if we are
not sure of a particular translation, should not our translations indicate
those areas somehow?
Now this is not to suggest that we make some kind of disclaimer every time
we decide on a particular Gentitive usage. Why? Because choosing one kind of
Gentitive as opposed to another is a grammatical, or lower-level, issue,
where personal preference is what distinguishes one translator from another.
However, choosing one ambiguous construction over another is a theological,
or higher-level, issue.
Sorry, but that is best way I can describe it.
Can anyone help me understand what I am saying? :o )
OFFLIST responses are always welcome.
Thank you,
Mark Wilson
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.
---
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [jwrobie@mindspring.com]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu
To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu
</x-flowed>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:36:37 EDT