Secondary Witnesses?

Mark Wilson emory2oo2 at hotmail.com
Tue Sep 12 14:31:31 EDT 2000




Dr. Decker:

You said:

Eph. 1:7 (DIA TOU hAIMATOS AUTOU)

>The minuscules that include this interpolation are 424, 614, 630, 
>1505,1912, 2200, 2464. A half dozen out of about 5,000 would, I think, >be 
>considered secondary regardless of one's textual position--except for the 
>fact that it shows up in the TR!


A clarification and a question come to mind after reading this:

1. Clarification

It seems to me that you have switched meanings in your answer from the 
original question. But I could very well be mistaken, hence this 
clarification.

I thought "secondary" referred to "sources" not "whether a word or phrase 
best reflects the unseen "originials." In other words, a source is secondary 
by definition by virtue of the fact that it is not a MSS. The implication I 
am getting from you is that secondary refers to whether a particular word or 
phrase was "added" without apparent justification.  Could you clarify this 
for me?

2. Question

You seem to reject DIA TOU hAIMATOS AUTOU on the basis that only 6 
minuscules attest to it. Can you think of any word or phrase with LESS 
ATTESTATION that you personally consider ORIGINAL?

I personally am not aware of any myself, but I was under the impression that 
there is a place or two in the GNT that has very little support, but most 
consider it ORIGINAL.


I realize much of this topic is way over my head, but I really do enjoy 
learning about this.

Thank you,

Mark Wilson




_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at 
http://profiles.msn.com.




More information about the B-Greek mailing list