Sunday, April 14, 2013

Romans with Douglas Moo's commentary, Introduction (day 3 of 14)

(pp. 6-8)

   The prior difficulty in approaching a discussion of the manuscript differences in the form of Romans 14-16 should be stated explicitly, because the author doesn't mention it explicitly.  The various textual evidence being looked at all has different estimates as to their dates!

   Moreover, the evidence for a different form to the ending of Romans is discussed by combining the evidence of the Latin translations and the original Greek.  It should be made explicit why Latin translations should enter into the discussion.  Latin translations are proper evidence simply because the subject is the form, not the meaning of the words.  A Latin translation is a witness to whether the chapters or passages are there in what it is translating from, nothing more, in this case.


No comments:


Blog Archive