Subject: Re: I Thess. 1:1

From: [email-masked] (Robert B. Waltz)
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 96 18:56 CDT

On Sun, 28 Apr 1996, [email-masked] (Carlton L. Winbery) wrote:

>I would like to ask tc-list participants to comment on the variation at I
>Thess. 1:1.  In the face of the byz tradition plus Aleph, A, 33, and the
>Bohairic, internal evidence (harmonizing with every other Pauline letter)
>convinces me that the text of UBS & N-A27 is correct (omitting APO QEOU
>PATROS hHMWN KAI KURIOU IHSOU XRISTOU).
>
>This appears to me to be one place where a byz scribe probably would have
>gone with the longer reading even if he knew of mss that had the omission.
>Also as the minor variations in other sources show, this is likely a
>harmonization that would have been made by several scribes in different
>places independent of each other.

Since people have been asking about my textual tehory, here is a chance
to give an example.

In favour of the longer variant (including APO QEOU PATROS HMWN KAI KURIOU
IHSOU XRISTOU we have:

The Alexandrian text -- both early (Aleph-A-33-bo) and late
   (81-436-1175-f2127) texts
PLUS D-(d)-m of the "Western" text
PLUS P (0150)
PLUS the Syriac group 1611-1505-2495-syh in **
PLUS family 451 (330-451-2492)
PLUS Byzantine witnesses including K L 049 056 0142 223 1960 pm

Against this reading we have

The p46-B group: B-sa
The larger part of the "Western" text: F-G-a-b-f-r-vg-629
Family 1739: 1739-1881
PLUS a handful of assorted manuscripts, Psi 075 0278 1908 arm

Since three text-types oppose the longer reading, and since there is
no COMPELLING internal reason for its omission, I omit the text.

That's my opinion, anyway.

Bob Waltz
[email-masked]