[bible passage=”John 6:39″]
I was surprised that the apparatus in UBS 3rd ed doesn’t show that there is indeed a difference in “ANASTASW AUTO” between its reading and the majority text. The majority text has “AUTON” but I would not have known this except that I was reading a book that rendered the verse AUTO in one instance and AUTON in another. I then consulted my majority text which showed the different reading.
This makes me wonder how many other cases are omitted in UBS.
The only reason I bring this up is that AUTO reads awkwardly here but AUTON is perfectly understandable.
Ren
— home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/ mailing list @lists.ibiblio.org http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/
χαιρε,
The UBS apparatus is designed to highlight differences that would affect translation, so on the one hand it is not surprising that it is not mentioned there or in Metzger. But I agree that this is an oversight, and thanks for pointing this out. There is a reference to AUTON in NA 27.
Actually, AUTO occurs in the Textus Receptus and most majority texts, including Robinson-Pierpont, which has AUTON as a variant off to the side. Hodges/Farstad has the inverse, AUTON in the text with AUTO as a note.
The neuter for a human collective is not rare in Greek, but that is another question.
It is true that if you rely on UBS or NA you will not see all the Majority readings. Both apparati routinely leave out MT readings which are shorter and more difficult. Holmes’ new SBL GNT addresses the issue, but the real solution is to use several editions.
ερρωσο
Mark L Φωσφορος
FWSFOROS MARKOS
LJ: Didn’t you notice PAN hO at the beginning of the purpose clause?
hINA PAN hO DEDWKEN MOI MH APOLESW EX AUTOU, ALLA ANASTHSW AUTO [EN] THi ESCATHi hHMERAi
AUTO agrees grammatically with PAN hO, which, according to ATR, is an “abstract collective.” AUTON would require the purpose clause to begin with PAS hON ….
The neuter form PAN hO also occurs in v. 37: PAN hO DIDWSIN MOI hO PATHR PROS EME hHXEI.
Another noteworthy feature about John 6:39 is that EX AUTOU results in an anacoluthon with PAN being left as a nominativus pendens.
Leonard Jayawardena
More quantitatively, in Galatians, there are about 70 places where the NA/UBS text differs from the Majority text. The NA27 apparatus lists about 50 of them, while the UBS4 apparatus lists only about 15 of them.
Neither the UBS4 nor even the NA27 give the full range of differences. The UBS4 is especially selective.
Stephen Carlson — Stephen C. Carlson Graduate Program in Religion Duke University
χαιρε,
The UBS apparatus is designed to highlight differences that would affect translation, so on the one hand it is not surprising that it is not mentioned there or in Metzger. But I agree that this is an oversight, and thanks for pointing this out. There is a reference to AUTON in NA 27.
Actually, AUTO occurs in the Textus Receptus and most majority texts, including Robinson-Pierpont, which has AUTON as a variant off to the side. Hodges/Farstad has the inverse, AUTON in the text with AUTO as a note.
The neuter for a human collective is not rare in Greek, but that is another question.
It is true that if you rely on UBS or NA you will not see all the Majority readings. Both apparati routinely leave out MT readings which are shorter and more difficult. Holmes’ new SBL GNT addresses the issue, but the real solution is to use several editions.
ερρωσο
Mark L Φωσφορος
FWSFOROS MARKOS
LJ: Didn’t you notice PAN hO at the beginning of the purpose clause?
hINA PAN hO DEDWKEN MOI MH APOLESW EX AUTOU, ALLA ANASTHSW AUTO [EN] THi ESCATHi hHMERAi
AUTO agrees grammatically with PAN hO, which, according to ATR, is an “abstract collective.” AUTON would require the purpose clause to begin with PAS hON ….
The neuter form PAN hO also occurs in v. 37: PAN hO DIDWSIN MOI hO PATHR PROS EME hHXEI.
Another noteworthy feature about John 6:39 is that EX AUTOU results in an anacoluthon with PAN being left as a nominativus pendens.
Leonard Jayawardena
More quantitatively, in Galatians, there are about 70 places where the NA/UBS text differs from the Majority text. The NA27 apparatus lists about 50 of them, while the UBS4 apparatus lists only about 15 of them.
Neither the UBS4 nor even the NA27 give the full range of differences. The UBS4 is especially selective.
Stephen Carlson — Stephen C. Carlson Graduate Program in Religion Duke University