Subject: tc-list XRISTW in Phi 4.13

From: "Francisco Orozco" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 15:07:21 -0700

According to Hodges & Farstad MT "XRISTW" is omitted by the original hand of
Aleph, B & A. against its presence in the MT.  UBS3rd (corr) GNT and
Metzger's Comm do not even notice the variant. The Nestle text (I do not
know what edition I have, it does not have a date) in its apparatus says
that XRISTW is present in the Koine text (G) pl [most witnesses] Or.
(1) Silva [Wycliffe comm] states "Although this reading is attested as early
as the fourth century (the second corrector of Codex Sinaiticus belonged to
the original scriptorium), the omission has much wider and stronger
attestation"
(1a) If the Or of Nestle is Origen, then its attestation goes as far back as
254AD
(1b) How come the first hand of Aleph, B & A are "much wider and stronger
attestation"?
(2) Against what "type" was Aleph corrected? If the second corrector was
indeed of the original scriptorium apparently he corrected it to a Koine
(MT) reading!
(3) What is more common?
(3a) Omission or Addition?
(3b) Does Aleph omit more often or add?
(3c) Does the MT omit more often or add?
(note: 3b & 3c would requiere a 3rd standard against which to check Aleph
and MT?!)
(4) How would a single word (perhaps a 2 letter nomen sacro) find its way
into the MT?

Thank you,
Francisco Orozco