TE in John
iver_larsen at sil.org
Sun Jan 12 00:16:29 EST 2003
> >And what might "strong connective" possibly mean?
> Perhaps expressing, in two words, what BDF 443.1 takes five to convey: >>
> rather close connection and relationship <<
> ( referring to >> the connection of clauses << )
The five words are better than the two.
> >The second and third TE (4:48 and 6:18) are both discourse
> connectors which
> >function to make a close link to the event(s) in the previous sentence.
OK, sentence or clause. That is not a crucial distinction.
> The punctuation of N/A 27 indicates two clauses, broken by the
> versification, with the crit. app. for the first clause showing several
> variants, a fact possibly connected with two observations about TE
> 1. BDF remarks of TE in Jn. >> only 2:15; 4:32; 6:18; and always
> contestable. It is not surprising that TE was often confused with
> DE in the
> course of transmission; <<
Would a scribe not be extra careful with small words that are so alike?
> 2. Moulton [ A Grammar of N.T Greek vol. 3 p.338 ] >> It is not
> that in textual transmission scribes and editors were unable to resist
> introducing TE, sometimes at the expense of DE <<
These textual variants were not worthy of inclusion in the UBS edition nor
Metzger's commentary. I don't have my copy of N/A with me here. It is most
likely, therefore, that a possible change from TE to DE would be a careless
mistake by the copyist. In 4:42 a DE is conceivable, but I think a TE fits
better. It is also possible that the original text of John had asyndeton,
but a TE was introduced by a scribe. However, this is all speculation, so we
are better off taking the text as the majority of mss have it. A DE would
not fit in 6:18, but a TE works fine.
More information about the B-Greek