1 CORINTHIANS 2:1 musth,rion {B} From an exegetical point of view the reading martu,rion tou/ qeou/, though well supported (ac B D G P Y 33 81 614 1739 _Byz_ itd, g vg syrh copsa arm eth Origen _al_), is inferior to musth,rion, which has more limited but early support in î46vid? a* A C 88 436 itr,... [ Continue Reading ]
1 CORINTHIANS 2:4 peiqoi/@j# sofi,aj @lo,goij# {C} Of the eleven different variant readings in this passage, those that read avnqrwpi,nhj before or after sofi,aj (ac A C P Y 81 614 1962 2495 _Byz_ ito syrh copbo _al_) are obviously secondary. If the word were original, there is no good reason why i... [ Continue Reading ]
1 CORINTHIANS 2:10 de, {B} The loose use of the connective de, (a A C D G P Y 33 81 614 _Byz al_) is entirely in Paul’s manner, whereas ga,r, though strongly supported by î46 B 1739 Clement _al,_ has the appearance of being an improvement introduced by copyists.... [ Continue Reading ]
1 CORINTHIANS 2:12 ko,smou Influenced by a similar expression in ver. 1 Corinthians 2:6 (tou/ aivw/noj tou,tou) copyists added the demonstrative, producing tou/ ko,smou tou,tou (D E F G itd, g, r copsamss). The shorter text is decisively supported by î46 a A B C L P all minusculesvid vg syrp, h _a... [ Continue Reading ]
1 CORINTHIANS 2:15 @ta.# pa,nta {C} Of the two textual problems involved in this passage, the presence (aa B Db P Y 33 614 1739 _al_) or absence (î46 A C D* G _al_) of me,n is the easier to resolve. Although it is possible that copyists may have omitted the word because it seemed to be inappropriat... [ Continue Reading ]
1 CORINTHIANS 2:16 Cristou/ {B} The original text appears to be Cristou/ (strongly supported by î46 a A C Y 048 _al_), which was assimilated in other witnesses to the preceding kuri,ou.... [ Continue Reading ]