tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post4743541969593053888..comments2024-03-28T15:48:18.205+00:00Comments on Evangelical Textual Criticism: A Different Spin on 1 Cor 14:34–5P.J. Williamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04388225485348300613noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-70114459694009685352019-03-05T12:55:47.437+00:002019-03-05T12:55:47.437+00:00That's a bad mistake to have in the abstract o...That's a bad mistake to have in the abstract of an NTS article. I believe it is D, E, F, G, 88*, and 4th century Ambrosiaster that have 34-35 after 40.Andrew Chapmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11682602818338988947noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-23646332150305896162017-08-10T00:02:42.557+01:002017-08-10T00:02:42.557+01:00"In these manuscripts, where vv. 34–5 are fou..."In these manuscripts, where vv. 34–5 are found after v. 40," should probably read, "In those manuscripts where vv. 34–5 are found after v. 40," as the first listed mss have them in the usual order. This misversification was a huge blunder by NA editors over the years, and also included an errant comma. Daniel Buckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02600146498880358592noreply@blogger.com