Jim West jwest at
Mon Oct 8 14:21:48 EDT 2001

At 08:07 PM 10/8/01 +0200, you wrote:

>When a variant reading is supported by only one MS, there would need to be
>strong internal support for the variant. This is not the case here as far as
>I can see.

this is of course not the only criteria, for as you know- witnesses are
weighed, not counted.  

>It is most likely that the extra word PRWTON crept in by way of habit,

or was dropped by an error of sight.

>because it occurred in the similar construction IOUDAI.. PRWTON TE KAI
>hELLHN.. in Rom 1:16, 2:9 and 2:10.

following this logic the phrase will only be genuine in one passage and
every other occurance is a harmonization by the scribes.
a dubious approach at best.

 In these contexts, the word PRWTON fits
>well, because the Gospel was first preached to the Jews before it reached
>the Greek, and similarly the judgment started with the Jews. These contexts
>suggest a chronological order that is absent from the context of 3:9. Both
>internal and external evidence favour the text without PRWTON in 3:9.

or- from another perspective- internal and external evidence here supports
the reading of the text as A has it.  A is an excellent text.  It does not
show a tendency to harmonization, and it is Alexandrian.  The fact that Paul
would use the same phrase several times is just as legitimate- and maybe
more legitimate- than saying he only used the phrase once or twice.

we differ on the value of Alexandrinus i think, and on the way the evidence
should be viewed.



>Iver Larsen

Jim West, ThD

Adjunct Professor of Biblical Studies, 
Roane State Community College

Adjunct Professor of Biblical Studies,
Quartz Hill School of Theology

Home Page:
Biblical Studies Resources

More information about the B-Greek mailing list