ROMANS 3:7 de, {B} A majority of the Committee, feeling that Paul’s argument requires a parallel between verses Romans 3:5 and Romans 3:7, preferred the reading eiv de, and regarded eiv ga,r as a rather inept scribal substitution, perhaps of Western origin.... [ Continue Reading ]
ROMANS 3:12 @ouvk e;stin# (2) {C} The second instance of ouvk e;stin is absent from several witnesses (B 1739 syrp Origen), which in this respect differ from the Septuagint text of Psalms 13:3. Although the non-Septuagintal reading is generally to be preferred when it appears that the other reading... [ Continue Reading ]
ROMANS 3:22 eivj pa,ntaj {B} In place of eivj pa,ntaj (î40 a* B C P Y 81 1739 _al_) a few witnesses read evpi. pa,ntaj (vg Pelagius John-Damascus). The Textus Receptus, following ac D G K 33 _al_, combines the two readings, producing an essentially redundant and tautological expression.... [ Continue Reading ]
ROMANS 3:25 dia. @th/j# pi,stewj {C} On the one hand, the article may have been added by copyists who wished to point back to dia. pi,stewj VIhsou/ Cristou/ in ver. Romans 3:22. On the other hand, later in the chapter when Paul uses pi,stij absolutely (i.e. without a modifier), dia, is followed by... [ Continue Reading ]
ROMANS 3:26 VIhsou/ The expansion of VIhsou/ (a A B C K P 81 1739 _Byz al_) by the addition of Cristou/ (629 it(d*), 61 copbo _al_) is a natural scribal accretion. The reading of syrp (kuri,ou h`mw/n VIhsou/ Cristou/) corresponds to Syriac ecclesiastical idiom. The omission of VIhsou/ by F G 336 it... [ Continue Reading ]
ROMANS 3:28 ga,r {B} On the whole, the external evidence supporting ga,r (a A D* Y 81 1739 Old Latin vg syrpal copsa, bo arm _al_) is slightly superior to that supporting ou=n (B C Dc K P 33 614 _Byz_ syrp, h _al_). The context, moreover, favors ga,r, for ver. Romans 3:28 gives a reason for the arg... [ Continue Reading ]