LUKE 13:7 e;kkoyon @ou=n# {C} In order to reflect the balance of external evidence for and against the inclusion of ou=n, as well as the absence of any compelling consideration relating to transcriptional and intrinsic probabilities, the Committee felt obliged to retain the word in the text, but t... [ Continue Reading ]
LUKE 13:9 eivj to. me,llon\ eiv de. mh, ge {B} The more difficult reading (attested by î75 a B L _al_), which involves aposiopesis (a sudden breaking off in the middle of a sentence), was ameliorated in most witnesses by transposing so as to read eiv de. mh, ge( eivj to. me,llon.... [ Continue Reading ]
LUKE 13:19 eivj de,ndron {B} Although copyists may have deleted me,ga to harmonize Luke with the prevailing text of Matthew ( Matthew 13:32), it is much more probable that, in the interests of heightening the contrast between a mustard seed and a tree, me,ga was added — as it was added also in a f... [ Continue Reading ]
LUKE 13:27 evrei/ le,gwn u`mi/n {C} The reading adopted by the Committee, though narrowly attested, seems to account best for the origin of the other readings. The awkwardness of the participle le,gwn (which probably represents the construction of the Hebrew infinitive absolute: “he will _indeed_... [ Continue Reading ]
LUKE 13:35 u`mw/n {B} The Committee judged that the presence of e;rhmoj in D N D Q Y ¦13 _al_ is the result of assimilation to the text of Jeremiah 22:5 or to the prevailing text of Matthew 23:38; its absence is strongly supported by î45vid, 75 a A B L W ¦1 _al_.... [ Continue Reading ]