apostolicfathers0201clem - Carmel Apologetics

MANUSCRIPTS AND VERSIONS.
lO o
In Ephes. 15 the only remarkable coincidence is the omission of
the clause oTrep koX . . .
irpoacoTrov Tjfjiwv by both. In Ephes. 20 A agrees
with 83 in omitting Kai after iria-Tu. In Magn. 10 they agree in rendering
aroirov ia-rtv 'It/ctovv Xptcrrov XaXetv kol k.t.A. non '
est decens ubi Jesus
'
Christus narratur, etc.', and in substituting omnis
'
(»»» A-n S„) for
TTcto-a
yXwo-o-a. In Sniyrn. 4, 5, after ' in mortem ' (tw OavuTw) both
add ' et in ignominiam (contumeliam)'; both render ixera^v Orjpioiv
fjL€Ta$v ®eov in the same loose way 'et si sit inter bestias apud Deum
'
est (erit) and both
; strangely enough substitute ' Jesus Christus
Deus (noster)' for tov reXctou dvOpw-rrov. [yci/o/xeVou].
In the two lines quoted from Ifcro i there is no substantial departure
from the Greek in either.
The passages from the Epistle to the Romans here are in great
part the same as in S,. Of the various readings, which S^ presents,
it is
only necessary to observe that Kl»3C^ S3 for rdJ.£. S^ is a departure
from A, as from the original Greek, and that on the other hand S3 preserves
the correct r^Ls-iia (where S„ reads r