tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post116464588508692099..comments2024-03-28T19:21:17.654+00:00Comments on Evangelical Textual Criticism: NA27 Sahidic mistake at Matthew 2:21P.J. Williamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04388225485348300613noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-1164722418031441082006-11-28T14:00:00.000+00:002006-11-28T14:00:00.000+00:00'Tis not so hard to find these. You simply have to...'Tis not so hard to find these. You simply have to follow up what looks suspicious. To me the suggestion that one can confident enough to reconstruct επανηλθεν on the basis of a version is inherently suspicious. But there are other wrong notes on the Coptic in the same area.<BR/><BR/>In Matthew 2:15 the Sahidic does not support an aorist rather than a historic present because it regularly translates a historic present with a first perfect. Other problems in Coptic notes include the note on 'and' in 3:10 and the suggestion that the Sahidic supports μαρια in 1:20. A search through Sahidica revealed that the Sahidic never uses μαριαμ.<BR/><BR/>Why not try to find your own suspicious notes?P.J. Williamshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04388225485348300613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-1164720633092554352006-11-28T13:30:00.000+00:002006-11-28T13:30:00.000+00:00Nice sleuthing, Dr. Williams. Any suggested chang...Nice sleuthing, Dr. Williams. Any suggested change in the apparatus would seem to be important.<BR/><BR/>What led you to this discovery, besides your particular interest in the relationship between translational issues and tc? On face value, this sort of discovery would seem to be the fruit of a specific endeavor, rather than an accidental find.<BR/><BR/>Jim Leonard<BR/>Southwestern Pennsylvania USAAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com