Tue Nov 12 12:41:17 1996

From owner-tc-list  Tue Nov 12 12:41:17 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id MAA19121; Tue, 12 Nov 1996 12:39:59 -0500
Message-ID: <3288B494.6CB37632@repurk.mw.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 09:32:04 -0800
From: Alan Repurk 
Organization: I do not speak for my organization
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (X11; I; Linux 1.2.8 i586)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: John 1:3 Punctuation
References: 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 1560

The site 
contains a number of manuscripts which detail the various 
punctuations on John 1:3 with respect to whether 'hO GENOMEN' 
should start a new sentence. The punctuation of the text in  
UBS3-4/NA26-27 puts "hO GEGONEN" with the  following verse, 
to yield:  "hO GEGONEN EN AUTWi ZWH HN"
 
I understand that Bruce Metgzer states in his book states
"A majority of the Committee was impressed by the consensus 
of ante-Nicene writers (orthodox and heretical alike) who took
 hO GEGONEN with what follows." The shift to the common punctuation 
of the AV, he says, was a tactic against the Arian attempt to; 
use the passage to argue that the Holy Spirit is to be regarded as 
one of the created things.
 
He also says "It is more consistent with the Johannine repetetive 
style, as well as with Johannine doctrine (c.f. 5:26, 39; 6:53), 
to say nothing concerning the sense of the passage, to punctuate 
with a full stop (i.e. a period) AFTER /HO GEGONEN/."

However the site I list above appears to come to the oposite
conclusion (I think) and prefer the other reading.  Does anyone
know what were the deciding factors for the commitee of the RSV
to determine their position.

I have a zerox copy of the Codex Alexandrinus which appears to
quite clearly put the stop before  'hO GEGONEN', but this
site along with their supplied GIFS do not appear to think that
this stop exists.  Is there some disagreement among scholars
as to whether some faint or small markings are indeed stops ?

Regards,
-lars

Back