emory2oo2 at hotmail.com
Tue Sep 12 14:31:31 EDT 2000
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:
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
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
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.
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
More information about the B-Greek