ROMANS 15:7 u`ma/j {A} The reading u`ma/j, which has superior and more diversified support than the reading h`ma/j, is in harmony with the other instances of the second person plural in the context (verses Romans 15:5-7).... [ Continue Reading ]
ROMANS 15:15 u`mi/n The Textus Receptus, following î46 ac D F G L P most minuscules itd, g vg syrp, h, pal copsamss arm, adds avdelfoi, after u`mi/n (in mss. 3 and 209 the word is added after avpo. me,rouj). Whereas there is no reason why the word, if original, should have been dropped, its insert... [ Continue Reading ]
ROMANS 15:19 pneu,matoj @qeou/# {C} On the one hand, it can be argued that the presence of a`gi,ou in some witnesses and qeou/ in others is suspicious because each can be explained as a scribal addition to complete what in B and Vigilius seems to be an unfinished expression. (The reading pneu,matoj... [ Continue Reading ]
ROMANS 15:24 Spani,an {A} In order to fill out the thought, scribes of later manuscripts added evleu,somai pro.j u`ma/j. The shorter reading is strongly supported by î46 a* A B C D F G P Y 81 _al_.... [ Continue Reading ]
ROMANS 15:29 Cristou/ {A} The shorter reading euvlogi,aj Cristou/, decisively supported by early and good testimony (î46 a* A B C D G P 81 1739 Old Latin copsa, bo arm Clement Origenlat), was expanded in later witnesses (ac Y 33 88 614 _Byz_) by the insertion of tou/ euvaggeli,ou tou/.... [ Continue Reading ]
ROMANS 15:31 diakoni,a {A} In order to avoid the harshness of diakoni,a eivj VIerousalh,m, several witnesses, chiefly Western (B D* Ggr Ambrosiaster Ephraem), replace diakoni,a with dwrofori,a (“the bringing of a gift”), a word that occurs nowhere else in the New Testament and is an obvious gloss... [ Continue Reading ]
ROMANS 15:32 evn cara|/ evlqw.n pro.j u`ma/j dia. qelh,matoj qeou/ sunanapau,swmai u`mi/n {C} This verse involves a nest of variant readings, the easiest of which to evaluate are those that involve the word or words that qualify qelh,matoj. Paul nowhere else speaks of qelh,matoj VIhsou/ Cristou/ (a... [ Continue Reading ]
ROMANS 15:33 avmh,n {A} On the reading of î46, see the comment on 14.23. [It is difficult to account for the absence of avmh,n from A G 330 436 451 630 1739 1881 itg _al_ (its omission from î46 is doubtless connected with the presence here of the doxology, concluding with avmh,n, in that witness).... [ Continue Reading ]