Thu Aug 15 03:18:53 1996

From owner-tc-list  Thu Aug 15 03:18:53 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id DAA20081; Thu, 15 Aug 1996 03:17:46 -0400
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 1996 00:03:37 -0700 (MST)
Message-Id: <199608150703.AAA09953@trojan.neta.com>
From: Deke Barker 
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Re[2]: Differences in MSS Re: 1 John 5:7
In-Reply-To: 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Becky! ver 1.02
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 1373

>From Bob Waltz:

> The dating for 61 did not change; the fact is, 61 is the manuscript used
> to force Erasmus to include the comma in his text. Therefore it
> dated before Erasmus's 3rd edition. Hence it *must* be early XVI (or
> earlier, but of course the evidence is that it was written just to
> confute Erasmus).

According to the latest (third) edition of Metzger's _The Text
of the New Testament_, there is NO evidence that 61 "was written
just to confute Erasmus".  In a note in the appendix, Metzger
states that his original statement (still in the text) was in
error:  Erasmus specialist H. J. de Jonge found "no explicit
evidence that supports this frequently made assumption".

Of course, that doesn't mean that the assumption is incorrect;
the circumstances surrounding 61 (especially its apparent date)
are at the least interesting.

NOTE: The text of the 3rd edition still supports your statement,
as the text hasn't been changed since the 1st edition.  Both
revisions have merely added an appendix containing the updated
information, with marginal references to the appendix next to
the original text.  I can see the benefit to this approach,
especially for struggling seminarians (it eliminates the cost of
re-typesetting and replating the entire manuscript), but I was
disappointed to see it repeated in the THIRD edition.

Deke Barker
dbarker@andbar.com

Back