Here is a picture of Alexandrinus (02) for this verse:

This is a forum for people with knowledge of the Bible in its original languages to discuss its manuscripts and textual history from the perspective of historic evangelical theology.

The membership of this blog is made up of evangelicals involved in academic study of textual criticism. Those with appropriate expertise and theological convictions who wish to be considered for membership should contact Peter Head or Tommy Wasserman. Those applying for membership must indicate that they have read either the OT or the NT in its original language(s), should be actively involved in text-critical research, and should be already contributing to the blog through comments. They should give e-mail details of an academic and a pastoral referee, a summary of their academic and/or ministry involvement, a statement of their doctrinal commitment (which may be by reference to various classic evangelical statements of faith, e.g. 39 Articles, Westminster Confession), and an indication of their area of interest within textual criticism. Non-members who wish to comment are not expected to be evangelical, but they are requested to respect the blog's ethos.
3 Comments:
I understand the textual issue. But on the exegetical one, surely the intention is that "through Jesus Christ our Lord" is the answer to the question in v.24. But in many translations it looks as if this phrase is intended to modify "thanks". I wonder how clear this is in the Greek text? Perhaps it was changed, one way or the other, to clarify this point.
"but the EGW continues to speak throughout (indeed perhaps until 8.2)."
And (though this section of text is not well served with papyri) there may be more support from antiquity for segmenting the text at 8:3 than for the modern chapter division at 8:1.
Peter Kirk:
I am sure you are right to observe this factor. If the verb is read (EUXARISTW) then it would seem most obvious to take the DIA clause as relating to the verb-action (as e.g. in Rom 1.8; Col 3.17). If the verb is not read, then it seems possible to take the DIA clause as (in part at least) answering the question of v24.
PJW:
Yes, although it is tricky to get info on the manuscript support for the 'segment' numbers in the inner margin of the NA, I would reckon that it is pretty much the mss which maintain the EGW and read ME in 8.2 which then note the change of person in 8.3 as indicative of a major division. The various text-critical decisions are therefore linked and not easily separable.
Post a Comment