Steven Avery
Administrator
Robert Kraft
Despite its antiquity, Barn\S*/ has a tendency to unique readings, many of which results in a shorter text. Thus Barn\Cl.A/ shows a much closer affinity with Barn\H/, and even [[39]] where these two diverge, the variants are usually less significant than the differences between Barn\Cl.A/ and Barn\S/. Barn\G/ also stands closer to Barn\Cl.A/ than does Barn\S/, although not as close as Barn\H/. Occasionally Barn\Cl.A/ indicates that readings supported only by Barn\L/ cannot be ignored. In short, if the quotations in the only extant MS of Strom are accepted as representing the oldest known witness to the text of Barn and are used as a control by which to evaluate the other witnesses, Barn\H/ has some claim to be considered (in general) as the 'best' text (so Hilgenfeld), and Barn\S/ must be used with special caution in its unique readings (especially {@@RAK addition: where a shorter text results} @@from 'omissions'). Furthermore, the large number of unique readings in Barn\Cl.A/ may indicate that there was even greater textual variation in minutiae among ancient MSS of Barn than our present witnesses betray. {@@RAK: 1. Is "from" your addition? es} 2. Do you want single quotation marks in the above paragraph? es} In their general examinations of the textual situation throughout the entire Epistle, both Gebhardt and Heer find that S and H are often in agreement against G and L. This relationship is not so close, however, as to entirely overshadow the less frequent agreements of HG, SG, etc.\15/ Although he tends to favor S, Gebhardt remarks that "in all [[40]] the codices, Sinaiticus not excepted, the genuine is mixed with the false" (p.XXXVI). This means that each variant reading in Barn ultimately must be judged on its own merits rather an simply on the general evaluation of the MS in which it is found. ---
Roger Pearse
H and S have the same text throughout. G has the same text as the 7th century corrector of S. L tends to stde with G but is sometimes idiosyncratic or hopelessly corrupt The papyrus frequently supports the majority of witnesses against a unique reading in one of them. It is perhaps closest to G or L, but has some unique readings of its own
Despite its antiquity, Barn\S*/ has a tendency to unique readings, many of which results in a shorter text. Thus Barn\Cl.A/ shows a much closer affinity with Barn\H/, and even [[39]] where these two diverge, the variants are usually less significant than the differences between Barn\Cl.A/ and Barn\S/. Barn\G/ also stands closer to Barn\Cl.A/ than does Barn\S/, although not as close as Barn\H/. Occasionally Barn\Cl.A/ indicates that readings supported only by Barn\L/ cannot be ignored. In short, if the quotations in the only extant MS of Strom are accepted as representing the oldest known witness to the text of Barn and are used as a control by which to evaluate the other witnesses, Barn\H/ has some claim to be considered (in general) as the 'best' text (so Hilgenfeld), and Barn\S/ must be used with special caution in its unique readings (especially {@@RAK addition: where a shorter text results} @@from 'omissions'). Furthermore, the large number of unique readings in Barn\Cl.A/ may indicate that there was even greater textual variation in minutiae among ancient MSS of Barn than our present witnesses betray. {@@RAK: 1. Is "from" your addition? es} 2. Do you want single quotation marks in the above paragraph? es} In their general examinations of the textual situation throughout the entire Epistle, both Gebhardt and Heer find that S and H are often in agreement against G and L. This relationship is not so close, however, as to entirely overshadow the less frequent agreements of HG, SG, etc.\15/ Although he tends to favor S, Gebhardt remarks that "in all [[40]] the codices, Sinaiticus not excepted, the genuine is mixed with the false" (p.XXXVI). This means that each variant reading in Barn ultimately must be judged on its own merits rather an simply on the general evaluation of the MS in which it is found. ---
Roger Pearse
H and S have the same text throughout. G has the same text as the 7th century corrector of S. L tends to stde with G but is sometimes idiosyncratic or hopelessly corrupt The papyrus frequently supports the majority of witnesses against a unique reading in one of them. It is perhaps closest to G or L, but has some unique readings of its own
Last edited: