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.
Posts
Comments
8 Comments:
It looks like they all have variants where this papyrus (or these papyri) read απιστ- where other mss read απειθ-.
1) Heb 3:18. This image has απιστ-? where UBS4 has απειθησασιν.
2) Heb 4:6. This image has δι απιστιαν. UBS4 has δι απειθειαν.
3) Heb 4:11. This image has της απιστι-?. UBS4 has της απειθειας.
There are other variants. But I failed to find anything else in common in all 3 images.
The images are taken from P46. The transcripts in the NT.VMR are always reading απιστ-
The scribe was furioso?
Maybe :) The external evidence in NA reads:
Heb 3:18 απιστ- P46 lat
Heb 4:6 απιστ- P46 Alef lat
Heb 4:11 απιστ- P46 104 pc lat syh
What do we make of this? Ideas?
Well, if you're going to read Hebrews as a Pauline letter (as P46 or its exemplar must have), it would make sense to adjust it sound more like Paul by adding more 'pistis' type words.
Brent, I don't think the scribe of P46 was necessarily in the habit of making the text more Pauline (unless this goes back to some hyperarchetype), because the Latin tradition supports P46 and Heb 4:11 includes part of the Syriac tradition as well. If this is a case of scribal emendation towards Pauline vocabulary, it must have taken place much earlier or several scribes had the same idea.
according to comfort, p13 has:
απιθησασε[ιν for verse 3:18,
απιθι]αν for verse 4:6, and
απι[στι]ας for verse 4:11 (against the ed. pr. of απιθ[ι]ας)
I have the image from the BL that has all three verses on it. The first is in column and the other two are on column 49.
I can confirm the first reading, the second is clearly a conjecture, it's not clear whether comfort has the text here because that is the majority reading, or because space won't allow απιστιαν.
The third is even harder, the part of the papyrus that contains the word in question appears clear of any letters. I think one needs to look at the original, maybe under UV light to read it.
In any case if comfort's reading is correct it's interesting the p13 doesn't use the verb consistently.
bob
Post a Comment