On Tue, 12 Sep 2000 12:01:23 -0400 "Rodney J. Decker" writes: > At 10:34 AM 9/12/00 -0700, you wrote: > > > 1:7.... " What is meant by "secondary witnesses," and to what > documents > >is he > > > referring? Are any of these witnesses Greek manuscripts? > > > >Oh, probably nothing more than what he considers are not the > >primary witnesses, the primary witnesses being the reading > >of the oldest and/or shortest and/or those which best explain > >the readings of the others, especially when supported by > >differing textual families. > > Prob. better to note that the only witnesses that support the interpolation > from Eph. 1:7 (DIA TOU hAIMATOS AUTOU) are a few late minuscules, > some lectionaries, and some versional and patristic evidence. (Versions and > patristic evidence are always secondary; lectionaries might also be > considered such even though they are in Greek.) > > The minuscules that include this interpolation are 424, 614, 630, 1505, > 1912, 2200, 2464. A half dozen out of about 5,000 would, I think, be > considered secondary regardless of one's textual position--except > for the fact that it shows up in the TR! (I.e., both critical text and > majority text scholars would call it secondary.) > > I don't know when or from where this entered the TR tradition; none > of the MSS listed above are among the 7 that Erasmus used for his first > edition, though I have no immediate access to one of his editions to know if > it was added later. It is *NOT* in the Complutensian Polyglot (I just > checked my copy of that edition). But I don't have time to run across campus to > check other editions from the "TR tradition." I have a comment and a question. Comment: The statement: >A half dozen out of about 5,000 would, I think, be > considered secondary regardless of one's textual position--except > for the fact that it shows up in the TR! (I.e., both critical text and > majority text scholars would call it secondary.) is interesting. From BibleWorks it appears that Robinson and Pierpont DO include it in their majority text so they must have thought it had sufficient support. Also from BW it appears that Stephanus' text of 1550 had it. I checked my hard copy of Hodges and Farstad and they omit it. Question: My copy of "A Textual Commentary on the Greek NT" (3rd edition) does not address it. If it was not considered important then, why does an apparently more recent edition address it? It seems that the text over the years has moved more toward the enclusion of majority readings that were at one time ignored or completely rejected. Rob Matlack 620 E. 5th St., Minneapolis, KS 67467 RMatlack@juno.com Hm: 785-392-2865 Church: 785-392-2089 "...that we may present every man mature in Christ Jesus." ________________________________________________________________ YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET! Juno now offers FREE Internet Access! Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj. --- 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