tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post114986456410084835..comments2024-03-28T00:45:18.442+00:00Comments on Evangelical Textual Criticism: 'P46 as the Earliest "Commentary" on Romans?'P.J. Williamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04388225485348300613noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-1149874999473724622006-06-09T18:43:00.000+01:002006-06-09T18:43:00.000+01:00MH: . . . non-original textual variants now preser...MH: . . . non-original textual variants now preserved in P46 and/or B and/or 1739. . .<BR/><BR/>The textual critic is sometimes at a loss to explain a variant that does not look anything like the primary reading. Obviously this was a deliberate change, but why? <BR/>Mike's theory shows that the change was still accidental; what was deliberate was the making of a source ms into what I would refer to as a "Study Bible" rather than a commentary. Critical apparati present a rather sanitized view that conceals the fact that many mss contain extraneous material--in other words, were the ancient version of "Study Bibles."<BR/><BR/>Robert Waltz (online ENTTC):<BR/>"instead of its corrections moving the manuscript toward the Byzantine text, the changes in 424 move it away from the Byzantine text and toward the text of Family 1739 (especially toward 6)"<BR/><BR/>--thus showing an intermediate stage in the process in injecting marginal study notes into the text itself.<BR/><BR/>I'll also mention while I'm on the topic of 424**/6 that in Romans 6:11 (according to Swanson), 424 already lined up with 6 (TW KURIW HMWN) against P46, B, and 1739 (-). Perhaps there's nothing unusual about this, as it is the Byzantine reading.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com