Heb 1:3 & the SBLGNT text

[Kirk Lowery]

I was reading Hebrews 1 this morning in the SBLGNT, and ran across this:

φέρων τε τὰ πάντα τῷ ῥήματι τῆς δυνάμεως

whereas all the other Greek texts are universally:

φέρων τε τὰ πάντα τῷ ῥήματι τῆς δυνάμεως αὐτοῦ

So the SBLGNT omits the possessive pronoun. Given the way SBLGNT was constructed, is this an artifact of the editor's method, or is there a minority textual variant here?

[James Spinti]

According to Tischendorf, there is a variant: https://archive.org/stream/novumtestame ... 1/mode/1up
M 67 ** om αυτου
No you just have to figure out what those refer to : )

James

[MAubrey]

According to Tischendorf, there is a variant: https://archive.org/stream/novumtestame ... 1/mode/1up
M 67 ** om αυτου
No you just have to figure out what those refer to : )

James

Logos' edition Tischendorf's prolegomena includes the equivalent Gregory-Aland #

M is 0121(a) and is a uncial of Paul's letters.
67 is 424, looks like it a lectionary minuscule.

[S Walch]

According to the NA27 apparatus, the following MS omit αὐτοῦ:

P46 (Papyrus 46, 2nd-3rd Cent)
0243 (Aka Uncial 0121(b), 10th Cent)
6 (Minuscule 6, 13th Cent)
1739 (Minuscule 1739, 10th Cent)
1881* (Minuscule 1881 original reading, 14th Cent)
pc (some other witnesses)

I have confirmed that P46 does indeed omit αὐτοῦ (see http://ntvmr.uni-muenster.de/community/ ... 240/10/206 line 9 after the Hebrew title), and whoever wants to go searching should be able to confirm it in Minuscule 1881 @ http://csntm.org/Manuscript/View/GA_1881

[Kirk Lowery]

Thanks for the quick responses, on Christmas Day, no less.

So NA27 seems to be the best single source of variant readings?

And where would I find a discussion of the cause of such a variant?

TIA!

Merry Christmas!

Kirk

[S Walch]

So NA27 seems to be the best single source of variant readings?

More than likely NA28 contains the same list. Unfortunately not at home to check on that.

I would hazard a guess that the ECM of the Epistles will be the best (future) source, however if you go to http://ntvmr.uni-muenster.de/nt-transcripts and put in a verse (eg, Heb 1:3), then click on "Unedited Real-time Collation" (URTC), you'll get a list of manuscripts and their variant readings from the main text used.

It's not perfect (seems to get confused as to whether a manuscript has a word in it or not; according to the above, P46 both omits, and then includes, καθαρισμον. The fault lies with the omission of αὐτοῦ and inclusion of διʼ αὐτοῦ which the URTC doesn't correctly note), so you have to use some deductive reasoning. It's good nonetheless

And where would I find a discussion of the cause of such a variant?

Ah geez, about a bagillion books on Textual Criticism!

Personally, I'd start with the UBS' A Textual Commentary On The Greek New Testament, which explains the editorial committee's decisions regarding variant readings etc. This usually has a discussion on certain "Scribal habits" that feature in the decision-making.

You should also definitely have on your bookshelf a copy of James R. Royse's Scribal Habits in Early Greek New Testament Papyri - https://www.amazon.co.uk/Scribal-Habits ... 1589835220, which discusses the scribal habits of several early NT manuscripts (including P46 mentioned above). A hugely dense book (mainly due to Royse's abundant footnotes!), but worth its weight in gold (it's also literally heavy).

I'm sure other's here will have more than a few other recommendations

Merry Christmas!

And to thee.

[Stephen Carlson]

So the SBLGNT omits the possessive pronoun. Given the way SBLGNT was constructed, is this an artifact of the editor's method, or is there a minority textual variant here?

Both. The editor of the SBLGNT has a noticeable tendency to prefer the shorter reading when it is attested in early witnesses.

[Jonathan Robie]

I have confirmed that P46 does indeed omit αὐτοῦ (see http://ntvmr.uni-muenster.de/community/ ... 240/10/206 line 9 after the Hebrew title), and whoever wants to go searching should be able to confirm it in Minuscule 1881 @ http://csntm.org/Manuscript/View/GA_1881

Or perhaps P46 adds a word, making it δι᾽ αὑτοῦ, and placing it in the next clause:

φερων τε τα παντα τω ρηματι της δυναμεως δι αυτου καθαρισμον των αμαρτιων ποιησαμενος εκαθισεν εν δεξια της μεγαλωσυνης εν υψηλοις

SBLGNT seems to mirror the reading of P46 here:

φέρων τε τὰ πάντα τῷ ῥήματι τῆς δυνάμεως, δι᾽ αὑτοῦ καθαρισμὸν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ποιησάμενος ἐκάθισεν ἐν δεξιᾷ τῆς μεγαλωσύνης ἐν ὑψηλοῖς,

[S Walch]

Or perhaps P46 adds a word, making it δι᾽ αὑτοῦ, and placing it in the next clause:

Oh yes, absolutely an option.

I was basing my comment on how the NA27 apparatus indicated the variant, which puts it down as an omission of the possessive, rather than addition of the preposition.

This is mainly due to the fact that the majority text reads διʼ ἑαυτοῦ. So in this case, we could have two variants (rather than just one) in P46: omission of the first possessive, followed by change of the reflexive to personal possessive (though personal possessive could also be used to be reflexive in nature).

The reading of P46 is supported by Bezae's original reading, and a few minuscules (236 263 2005 2127) according to the NA apparatus.

In A textual Commentary, B. Metzger says the committee "thought it more likely that διʼ αὐτοῦ or διʼ ἑαυτοῦ (Dc K L M 614 1739 Byz Lect al) was added in order to enhance the force of the middle voice of ποιησάμενος, than that the phrase was present originally and then omitted in good representatives of the Alexandrian text (א A B 33 81) as well as in Western witnesses (it81 vg)."

Bezae actually has the reading ῷ ῥήματι τῆς δυνάμεως αὐτοῦ, διʼ αὐτοῦ καθαρισμὸν (again, per B. Metzger), which I would argue is actually the more likelier to be the original.

The shorter readings can easily be put down to either omission of a deemed "unnecessary" personal pronoun (αὐτοῦ), and a feature of P46 (see Royse), or with those omitting διʼ (ε)αυτου, a case of homoeoteleuton (αὐτοῦ ... αὐτοῦ).

I don't think Metzger's comment that the apparent "conflation" in Bezae therefore makes the δι αυτου reading "considerably weakened" is justified. Too much Lectio brevior application for my liking!

SBLGNT seems to mirror the reading of P46 here:

φέρων τε τὰ πάντα τῷ ῥήματι τῆς δυνάμεως, δι᾽ αὑτοῦ καθαρισμὸν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ποιησάμενος ἐκάθισεν ἐν δεξιᾷ τῆς μεγαλωσύνης ἐν ὑψηλοῖς,

More than likely due to the added witnesses seen above

I'd love to discuss more TC here, but am afraid we may've talked a bit too much about it under the forum rules...