Subject: tc-list TC-List - Phi 3.3

From: "Francisco Orozco" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 15:02:51 -0700

Hello,

In his comments on the variant found at Phi 3.3, Metzger notes that:
(1) The committee gave it a "C" rating.
(2) The translators of the NEB prefer the omission of QEOU and simply read
PNEUMATI (p46).
(3) The committee preferred the longer reading (with ample support from
all quarters).
(4) They explained the reading of p46 as accidental oversight.
(5) They explained the PNEUMATI QEWi of the corrector of Aleph, the
original hand of D, P, Psi, 88, et al) as an apparent "emendation
introduced in order to provide an object for LATREUOVTES (as in Rom 1.9
and 2 Tm 1.3)".

Questions:
(1) With such ample support, why a "C" rating?
(2) Is there any clear rational for the NEB preferred reading? Is it
because p46 is the only papyrus witnessing to this variant, and being the
chronological oldest witness deserves preference?
(3) What error (sight, hearing, etc) could explain p46's reading?
(4) The reading of the corrector of Aleph, the original of D, et al, is
explained as the result of wanting to supply an object to the participle,
the references noted do not seem to be *that* parallel, other than
"worship" and "God". The three participles strung along by Paul in Phi 3.3
(LATREUOVTES... KAUXWMEVOI... PEPOIQOTES) also have dative phrases (though
with the EV preposition). Is there another reason(s) apparent for the
reading QEWi?
(5) The phrase PNEUMATI QEOU also appears in Matt. 12:28; Rom. 8:14; 1 Co.
12:3 & 2 Co. 3:3. (true, PNEUMATI also appears 80+ times).

I would think that, with such strong external evidence, and internal too,
the rating should be an "A" or at least a "B".

Thanks,
Francisco Orozco
[email-masked]

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 16:43:46 -0600

>(1) With such ample support, why a "C" rating?

I'm tempted to say, "How are *we* supposed to know why the UBS committee
made all the strange decisions they did. :-)

But I would note that the reading is a "B" in UBS4.

>chronological oldest witness deserves preference?

The explanation offered by Tasker (for the NEB committee) reads:

"pneumati, the reading of P46, was regarded as original on the
ground that it best explains the existence of the variants
pneumati Qew, cound in Aleph-corr D* P, the Latin versions, and Syr.
pesh. and hkl., and Pneumati Qeou, found in Aleph* A B C Dcorr G,
and Syr. hkl. (margin). Patristic evidence varies between Qew and
Qeou."

>(3) What error (sight, hearing, etc) could explain p46's reading?

There is no obvious explanation -- but there are many instances
of single words being dropped here and there in manuscripts. Many
would regard P46, with its unusual text, as particularly subject
to these sorts of errors.

[ ... ]

>the rating should be an "A" or at least a "B".

I can't regard it as an "A." The reading "QEW" has the support of most
of the "Western" text (D a b d f vg Ambst; QEOU only F G g) and the
bulk of the late Alexandrian witnesses (P 075 1175 family 2127). I
consider QEW inferior, but not strongly inferior.

Of course, that's just me. :-)

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

                        Robert B. Waltz
                     [email-masked]

Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism?
Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn
(A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism)