Sincerity and Chastity For Christ A Textual Problem

l m Ζ Novum
* '« »* * Testamentum
BRILL Novum Testamentum 49 (2007) 54-84 www.briU.nl/nt
Sincerity and Chastity for Christ

A Textual Problem in 2 Cor. 11:3 Reconsidered*
D o m i n i k a A . Kurek-Chomycz
Leuven
Abstract
2 Cor. 11:3 atfirstsight presents us with a simple image, yet the verse can be subject to different
interpretations. Most of the textual variants attested in it are of a stylistic nature, but there is
one which may be of some importance for our understanding of Pauline imagery and its
implications. In ΝΑ 2 7 και της άγνότητος is enclosed within square brackets. Re-examination
of the evidence concerning 2 Cor. 11:3, however, leads to the conclusion that it is much more
plausible that the phrase was a part of the text that Paul wrote. It is therefore not necessary to
enclose it within square brackets or even less so to relegate it to the critical apparatus, as has
been done in some other critical editions of the New Testament.
Since patristic times the imagery employed in 2 Cor. 11:2 has been under
stood in terms of a formal betrothal, with Paul as a father of the bride or, as
some exegetes argue, the grooms best man, who has betrothed the Corin
thian community to Christ and is now charged with guarding the virgins
chastity. In the following verse Paul would be then expressing his fear that,
like Eve was deceived by the serpent, the Corinthians might be misled,
becoming in this way unfaithful, and losing, to keep in line with the meta
phor, their virginity^w to the celebration of the wedding, which is suppos
edly to take place at the end of times. The metaphor occurs at the beginning
of the so-called "Fools Speech," in which Paul is accusing the Corinthian
community of having attempted to turn away from him who had preached
the true Jesus and true Gospel, and following instead the false aposdes.
+)
Thefirstversion of this article was presented at the Third Birmingham Colloquium on the
Text Critical Study of the New Testament in April 2003.1 would like to express my gratitude
to all those who have commented on earlier drafts of my paper.
© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2007 DOI: 10.1163/004810007X163118

D. A. Kurek-Chomycz/Novum Testamentum 49 (2007) 54-84 55
The imagery of 2 Cor. 11:2-3, including the biblical reference, is not as

simple as it could seem atfirstsight and the verse may be subject to different
interpretations. What is more, textual witnesses are far from unanimous con
cerning the exact wording. Although most of the variants are of a stylistic
nature and do not have any significant bearing on the meaning of the verse,
there is one in verse 3 that may be of some importance for our understanding
of Pauline imagery and its implications. Variation among Greek witnesses is
remarkable, but there are two readings which are commonly regarded as
most plausible: the longer one, από της άπλότητος καί της άγνότητος,
attested by, among others, Çp46 Κ* Β F G 33, and the shorter reading, άπο της
άπλότητος, found in the majority of the manuscripts, including Κ2 Η Κ L Μ Ρ
Ψ 0121. 1739. 1881 3ft. Versional evidence is likewise divided, and interest
ingly, in some diglots, like Codex Augiensis, the Latin text differs from the
Greek one.
Among critical editions of the New Testament, all the editions of Nesde-
Aland Novum Testamentum Graece to date have consistendy placed και της
άγνότητος in the text, yet always enclosing it within square brackets. Brooke
Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort in their The New Testament in
the Original Greek present it in a similar way.1 Constantinus Tischendorf in
his Editto Octava Critica Maior relegated it to the critical apparatus. Most of
the modern editions, however, opt for the longer reading, without enclosing
the second substantive in square brackets.2
The lack of consensus is reflected in various translations of the Bible. To
mention only the English ones, KJV, JB and NEB adopt the shorter reading,
rendering άπο της άπλότητος της εις τον Χριστόν, as "from the simplicity
that is in Christ" (NKJV), or "simple devotion," yet the majority opt for the
longer reading. This includes RSV ("from a sincere and pure devotion to
Christ"), NIV ("from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ"), NAB,
NASB ("from the simplicity and purity [of devotion] to Christ"), ASV
("from the simplicity and the purity that is toward Christ"), and finally
l>>
Incidentally, one might wonder what square brackets imply for a text which is supposedly
"original."
2)
This includes, to name the major ones of the last two centuries in a roughly chronological
order: Karl Lachmann Novum Testamentum Graece et Latine, Hermann Freiherr von Soden
Griechisches Neues Testament, Alexander Souter Novum Testamentum Graece, Heinrich Joseph
Vogels Novum Testamentum Graece et Latine, Augustin Merk Novum Testamentum Graece et
Latine, and José Maria Bover iNfow Testamenti Biblia Graeca et Latina. The Greek and Latin
editions in the Latin text have only a simplicitate.
56 D. A. Kurek-Chomycz /Novum Testamentum 49 (2007) 54-84
NRSV ("from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ"), although in a foot-

note it is mentioned that "Other ancient authorities lack [and pure]."
The commentators are also divided, and many of them, including Plum-
mer, Martin, Furnish, simply mention the two possibilities, leaving the
question unresolved. Overall, older commentaries, including Bachmann,
Windisch, Héring, Barrett (albeit with some hesitation) and others, tended
rather to accept the shorter reading, but a few, such as Alio, Hughes, favoured
the longer one. Margaret Thrall states that "If pressed for a decision... we
should opt for the originality of the longer text."3 In the most recent exten-
sive commentary Murray J. Harris also says that this reading "is to be pre-
ferred."4 Many exegetes, however, remain fairly hesitant, due mainly to the
indecisiveness of the most influential textual critics such as Bruce Metzger
whose Textual Commentary5 is frequendy referred to by the scholars.
In the present article I shall argue that in view of both external and inter-
nal evidence, the text that Paul wrote most likely included και της άγνότητος,
hence there is no need to enclose it within square brackets. Furthermore, I
shall suggest that άπλότης and άγνότης are not real synonyms, as a number
of authors maintain, that the addition of the second one is consistent with
Pauls style, andfinally,that it enriches the imagery employed in 2 Cor. 11:3.
I. External Evidence
We begin with the inventory of readings, on which I wish to spend some
time, for an attempt to make a basic inventory in itself is not without prob
lems. Fortunately the reading under discussion has been selected as one of
the Teststellen for 2 Corinthians in the Institut für Neutestamentliche Text-
forschung in Münster, so that much detailed information concerning its tex-
tual attestation can be gathered from the relevant volume of Text und
Textwert) hereafter referred to as TuT.6 The list in TuT mentions 24 witnesses
3)
M.E. Thrall, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians
(ICC; 2 vols.; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994-2000) 2.663.
4)
M.J. Harris, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text
(NIGTC; Grand Rapids MI—Milton Keynes: Eerdmans—Paternoster, 2005) 731.
5)
B.M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament: A Companion Volume
to the United Bible Societies'Greek New Testament (Fourth Revised Edition) (2nd ed.; Stuttgart:
Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994).
6)
K. Aland (ed.), Text und Textwert der Griechischen Handschriften des Neuen Testaments II:
D. A. Kurek-Chomycz /Novum Testamentum 49 (2007) 54-84 57
as supporting the reading άπο της άπλότητος και της άγνότητος, includ
46
ing $p , Vaticanus (Β), prima manus of Sinaiticus, codices Augiensis (F),
Boernerianus (G), 0150, and a number of later minuscules, among them the
7
"queen," 33. In addition, three minuscules (88, 915, and 1942) have both
nouns, but without the article before άγνότητος, which in the first two of
those minuscules is spelled with an ω instead of o. It is significant, however,
that in four out of the 24 manuscripts, namely in K, 81,1398,1509, the lon
ger reading apparendy failed to find the approval of later correctors. In 1398
and 1509 there are signs of erasure. In 81 this is also most likely the case.8 In
Sinaiticus there are obeli indicating that the second substantive should be
omitted, by NA attributed to K2 (in Tischendorf C and Kc), the ca. 7th c. cor
rector.9 It may be briefly observed at this point that other corrections in the
four manuscripts in question, at least in the text of the Corinthian corre
spondence, likewise appear to conform the text to Byzantine tradition.
2Cor. 11:6 is agood example: both Κ and 1398 read initially φανερώσαντες,
as in Β F G 33, but it was changed by later correctors into φανερώθεντες. On
the whole, all the 11 corrections attributed by TuT to K2 in 2 Corinthians
change the text which originally was the same (or nearly the same) as in other
Die Paulinischen Briefe, Band 2: Der 1. und der 2. Korintherbnef(ANT¥ 17; Berlin—New
York: de Gruyter, 1991) 687-690. In spite of some critical remarks I might have, this work has
proven of invaluable help to me when compiling the inventory. For the most important wit
nesses, whenever possible, I also tried to check the manuscripts or at least their photographic
reproductions. In addition, I have used C. Tischendorf (ed.), Novum Testamentum Graece
(Editio octava critica maior; 3 vols.; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1869-1894) and Metzger, Textual
Commentary. As for the textual symbols and abbreviations, which appear in the present paper,
they mosdy come from NA 27 .
7
> Others are: 81*, 104,206,330,429,451,459,1398*, 1509*, 1719,1735,1962,2110,2400,
2492,2799,2805.
8)
The microfilm I have checked is slighdy blurred and I have not been able to consult the
original.
9)
The corrector in question is the one classified by C. Tischendorf (ed.), Novum Testamen
tum Sinaiticum sive Novum Testamentum cum epistula Barnabae etfragmentis pastoribus ex
Codice Sinaitico (Leipzig: Brockhaus, 1863) XXIV, as Ca. The first of the intermediate correc
tors of Codex Sinaiticus, he was also the only one to have corrected Pauline episdes after the
codex had left the original scriptorium. Cf. the remark of Tischendorf: "In Novo Testamento
postquam evangelia utrumque nacta sunt correctorem, epistulae Paulinae, acta apostolorum,
epistulae catholicae, apocalypsis, Pastoris liber non habuerunt nisi C a (simplici C in commen
tario notatum), qui quidem unam Barnabae epistulam praeteriit" (ibid.). On the C a correc
tions see also H.J.M. Milne, T.C. Skeat and D. Cockerell, Scribes and Correctors of the Codex
Sinaiticus (London: British Museum, 1938) 46.
Alexandrian witnesses, so that it agrees with the readings attested by Byzan

10
tine witnesses.
As for other witnesses, there are two minuscules, namely 326 and 1837,
which can in some way be regarded as supporting the longer reading (cf.
27
NA ). They do not have της άγνότητος, but instead repeat the first noun,
άπο της άπλότητος, a good reminder of how confusing the passage was for
the scribes.
Concerning versional evidence, the άπο της άπλότητος και της άγνότητος
reading is indicated with an asterisk in the Syriac Harclensis. The reading can
also be found in both Coptic versions (Sahidic and Bohairic) as well as in
Ethiopie, Gothic, Old Latin codices such as Fragmenta Frisingensia, and in
some Vulgate manuscripts. Curiously, in the Greek-Latin diglot Codex
Augiensis (F) the Greek side has the longer reading,11 the Latin one, probably
due to the influence of the Vulgate on this essentially Old Latin text, has only
A SIMPLICITATE. Above the Greek ΑΓΝΟΤΗΤΟΣ, however, CASTI-
TATE was added, which can be explained as due to the fact that this Greek-
Latin diglot was probably intended for Western readers who may not have
known Greek very well. Closely related to Augiensis (as far as the Greek text
is concerned) Codex Boernerianus has the longer text in both versions, but
this is more understandable taking into account the fact that it is interlinear
and that overall its Latin text seems to have been less influenced by the
Vulgate.
Statistically, the majority of Greek manuscripts support the shorter read
ing, άπο της άπλότητος. It is consistently attested by the Byzantine text, but
it is present in some non-Byzantine witnesses, too. The earliest Greek manu
script that bears witness to this reading is the sixth century codex Coislinia-
nus (H); most of the other Greek witnesses are from the ninth and tenth
centuries. It is, however, present in earlier versional evidence as well as in
most of the Greek Church Fathers. As regards the former, the Vulgate, the
Latin side of Augiensis and the Syriac Peshitta should be named.
10
> The verses in question, next to 11:3 and 11:6, are: 1:8.12; 2:17; 9:4; 11:23; 12:7.12.19.21.
There are of course more corrections in 2 Corinthians in Codex Sinaiticus, but TuT names
only those which appear among its "Teststellen." Since those "test passages" have been care
fully chosen to be representative for a given manuscript, they should suffice also for our pur
pose. Notably, for 26 "Teststellen" in 2 Corinthians, 11 corrections is quite a significant
number. As for minuscules 81 and 1509, they have too few corrections, at least in the "test
passages," to allow us to draw more general conclusions.
"> Final Σ in ΑΓΝΟΤΗΤΟΣ was added later.
D. A. Kurek-Chomycz/Novum Testamentum 49 (2007) 54-84 59
To return to the Greek manuscripts, next to H as well as the correctors of

Sinaiticus, 81, 1398 and 1509, among the Greek witnesses with the short
reading the more important ones are: Porphyrianus (P), Athous Lavrensis
(Ψ), 0121a, 0243, 614, 1739, 1881. Being a variant clearly favoured by the
Byzantine textual tradition, it is found in nearly all the minuscules, and with
Erasmus* edition it made its way into the Textus Receptus and later into some
modern translations.
The reading attested by one more significant witness, the earliest Greek-
Latin diglot containing Pauline Epistles (of the sixth or even fifth century),12
namely Codex Claromontanus (D 06), poses a special challenge for the inter
preter. In particular, it is not at all clear what was written by the first hand,
and what was the intention of the corrector (s). Tischendorf in his edition of
the codex transcribed the word preceding ΚΑΙ ΤΗΣ ΑΠΛΟΤΗΤΟΣ in the fol
lowing way: Α..ΟΤΗΤΟΣ. In his explanatory comments in the appendix to
the book he begins by observing that "locus est impeditissimus'' and then
goes on to explain that what we can now see in the codex is that the first and
last letters, A and Σ, are marked with obeli, and Ν is written upon erasure. He
then suggests two possibilities as to how to interpret the evidence. According
to the him possibly by thefirsthand thefirstword was ΑΠΛΟΤΗΤΟΣ but the
ninth century corrector, designated by him as D***,13 apparendy did not like
this, and he subsequently indicated his view by marking A and Σ, thefirstand
the last letter of the word, with obeli. However, while doing that, he realized
that by changing ΠΛ into ΓΝ it would be easy to get as an outcome the word
he wished to see there, so he just added the breathings and accents, but due
to carelessness did not remove the signs of disapproval. That would imply
that originally in the codex της άπλότητος was repeated and της άγνότητος
12)
Cf. HJ. Frede, Altlateinische Paulushandschnfien (AGLB 4; Freiburg: Herder, 1964) 22,
who is followed by A. Tuilier, "La valeur du Claromontanus (Paris, gr. 107) pour le texte du
Corpus Paulinien," in E.A. Livingstone (ed.), Studia Evangelica 6 (= TUGAL 112; Berlin:
Akademie-Verlag, 1973) 541-555, p. 541. Both authors contend that Claromontanus is to be
dated to the fifth century.
13)
Claromontanus is notorious for its correctors; cf. the remark of C. Tischendorf (ed.),
Codex Claromontanus sive Epistulae Pauli omnes Graece et Latine ex codice parisiensi celebér-
rimo nomine Claromontani plerumque dicto sexti ut videtur post Christum saeculi (Leipzig:
Brockhaus, 1852) XIX: "Codex Claromontanus per longam tot saeculorum seriem tot cor-
rectores expertus est ut aeque grave ac difficile sit quae horum cuique debeantur recte dis-
tinguere." He does nevertheless attempt to classify the correctors of D, and D*** he depicts as
"Graecus noni fere saeculi ineuntis." This corrector did a good job: "Textum graecum per
omnes codicis partes diligenter recensuit" (ibid., XXV).
was completely absent from it, for the second word very clearly is της
άπλότητος and there are no signs of erasure or correction. The alternative
solution proposed by Tischendorf is that thefirsthand wrote ΑΓΝΟΤΗΤΟΣ,
which, as Tischendorf notes, corresponds with the Latin reading CASTI-
TATE, then by inattention a corrector began to change it into ΑΠΛΟΤΗΤΟΣ,
14
yet then immediately it was changed back into ΑΓΝΟΤΗΤΟΣ.
When in his Editto Octava Maior Tischendorf presented the evidence of
Claromontanus, he seems to have opted for yet another solution. In his tex
tual apparatus he suggested that originally in the codex there was the longer
reading, but in the reversed order, that is άπο της άγνότητος και της
άπλότητος, yet it was corrected into άπο της άπλότητος only. The subse
quent editions of Nestle-Aland make the issue even more confusing. Up till
NA 25 Codex Claromontanus was mentioned as supporting the longer read
ing, albeit in a reversed order, hence *D in parentheses. In NA 2 6 a certain
change took place, for this time it was indicated that seemingly this reversed
longer reading was originally there in the codex, hence sD*vld in brackets in
the textual apparatus, whereas the shorter reading, following Tischendorf,
was ascribed to the 9th century corrector (D 2 ). In NA 2 7 there was yet another
change.15 This time D is referred to among the witnesses to the longer read
ing, and in Appendix II it is specified that D 2 attests the reversed longer read
ing, namely άπο της άγνότητος και της άπλότητος. In TuT, like in NA26, the
shorter reading is attributed to the corrector of Codex Claromontanus, 06C,
while the longer reversed one to the original scribe, D*. It is not added which
14)
Cf. Tischendorf (ed.), Claromontanus, 566: " Videtur a prima manu fuisse ΑΠΛΟΤΗΤΟΣ.
Id D*** improbaturus erat, sed inter corrigendum intellexit facili negotio inde restituì posse,
id quod volebat vel certe ferendum iudicabat, ΑΓΝΟΤΗΤΟΣ. Tum ei voci etiam accentum
imposuit, signa vero improbandi per incuriam non abstulit. Quae si cui minus placent, ab ipsa
prima manu fuisse ΑΓΝΟΤΗΤΟΣ (quod omnino respondet latinae lectioni CASTITATE),
turn per incuriam ΑΠΛΟΤΗΤΟΣ corrigi coeptum sed statim rursus in ΑΓΝΟΤΗΤΟΣ mutatum
esse, pro ea quae nunc est loci ratione statuere debebit."
15)
I have contacted the Institut fur Neutestamendiche Textforschung in Münster in order to
find out more about this curious change in the textual apparatus from NA 26 to NA 27 . The only
answer I got from the Münster Institut was that the person responsible for the change in ques-
tion was not quite sure what the reason for it was. I was told that in the end perhaps it was
better the way NA 26 handled the matter and that the textual apparatus of NA 27 should be
changed. In private e-mail correspondence I was informed that "All notes / all changes in the
critical apparatuses are wrong and nobody will be able to explain you the errors!... Thus we
have to correct the critical apparatus of NA27: txt (D) and to note the original reading on
p. 743: hab. apo tes agnotetos kai tes aplotetos D."
corrector it was, a situation that we otherwise come across in TuT, as far as

2 Corinthians is concerned, only in 10:12/13. If the symbols for correctors
in TuT are to be understood in the same way as the ones used in NA, then C
would be a corrector of unknown date, but later than the other ones.
In the 4th edition of The Greek New Testament the situation is still
different, for there nothing seems to be clear. Interestingly, also between
3 4
GNT and GNT there was a change in the critical apparatus. In the first,
second, and third editions of GNT D* was mentioned as a witness to the
reversed longer reading,16 while the corrector of D (it was not specified
which one) to the shorter one, άπο της άπλότητος. In GNT 4 the prima
manus (apparendy) and nit first corrector of the codex, hence D* v l d l , are
listed as witnesses to the longer reversed reading, whereas the second correc
tor, D 2 v i d appears to have changed it into the shorter reading.
Based on the glance at the original codex, it seems to me most likely that
Tischendorf s description was quite accurate. The obeli are there, and they
could be ascribed to TiscD***. Ν is no doubt written in place of a letter that
was erased, and it cannot be excluded that where we now see ΓΝ, originally
there was ΠΛ. In fact it does seem that the second letter was A, and the first
"stick" of Ν could have initially belonged to Π. The problem is that Γ is so
characteristic, that it is difficult to establish if there could have been Π origi
nally. Yet it cannot be absolutely excluded that the initial reading was indeed
ΑΠΟ ΤΗΣ ΑΠΛΟΤΗΤΟΣ ΚΑΙ ΤΗΣ ΑΠΛΟΤΗΤΟΣ. Another possibility is that
it was ΑΠΟ ΤΗΣ ΑΓΝΟΤΗΤΟΣ ΚΑΙ ΤΗΣ ΑΠΛΟΤΗΤΟΣ, which was by mis
take changed and then corrected back. It seems slightly more plausible that
indeed from the beginning there was the reversed longer reading, but that
originally there was yet another letter under N. Perhaps a more thorough
examination of the manuscript could help us to determine this with more
certainty.
Furthermore, it is unlikely that the corrector responsible for writing Ν in
place of the erased letter was the same one as the one who added the obeli. It
would not make much sense to correct a word one was going to discard any
way. If I understand it correcdy, this is also what the critical apparatus of
GNT 4 implies. It could indeed be an earlier corrector (* following *vld) who
scribbled letter N, and a later one who added the obeli. Finally, it should be
remarked that in the ninth century copy of the codex in question, which we
16)
In the corrected version of GNT 3 " w " was added to D*, indicating that it only seems that
the prima manus attested the reversed longer reading.
absl
are lucky enough to possess, namely Codex Sangermanensis (D ), we find:
ΑΠΟ ΤΗΣ ΓΝΟΤΙΤΟ ΚΑΙ ΤΗΣ ΑΠΛΟΤΗΤΟΣ. This, however, could be based
on an already pardy corrected text of D (but before the obeli were added?).
The Latin side of Sangermanensis is the same as that of Claromontanus.
In consequence, for the moment it is hard to ascertain whether originally
Claromontanus attested the longer variant, but in a reversed order, perhaps
erroneously spelled (the undecipherable letter under N), or whether άπο της
άπλότητος was repeated, as in 326 and 1837. Both for the correctors and the
prima manus reading adding "Vld" in the apparatus of any critical edition of the
New Testament seems in any case indispensable.
To sum up, the short reading has a considerable attestation. Next to Byz
antine witnesses, it is supported also by several Alexandrian ones. The latter,
albeit rather late, sometimes, as in case of 1739, attest a text much earlier
than their date would indicate. The reading in question is also attested by
one minuscule commonly considered to represent the "Western" text (614),
and finally by some important versional evidence, such as the Vulgate and the
Syriac Peshitta. The longer reading, however, is at least qualitatively much
stronger attested. It is supported by all the earliest Alexandrian witnesses, up
to the sixth century, and all the " Western" majuscules, including Claromon
tanus, where the apparent reversal of the phrase in question may be due either
to the carelessness of the copyist or, possibly, was influenced by the Latin side
ofthe codex. As for the Alexandrian manuscripts, it is ofparticular significance
that the longer reading is found in 5p46, not just because it is the earliest wit
ness (and the only papyrus) containing our verse, but more importandy
because, scribal peculiarities of 5p46 notwithstanding, the quality of the text
it attests is undeniable.17
The corrections in several manuscripts, aimed at changing the longer
reading into the short one, can be safely disregarded, since they are evidently
intended to conform the text of a particular codex to the one a given correc
tor deemed more trustworthy, or simply the one current in his (or her?) time
and/or environment, which happened to be the Byzantine one.18
I now turn to the thorny question of patristic evidence. A quick glance at
the textual apparatus of GNT could suggest that nearly all the Greek Fathers
17)
Cf. G. Zuntz, The Text of the Epistles: A Disquisition upon the Corpus Paulinum (Schweich
Lectures 1946; London: Oxford University Press, 1953) 212.
18)
It is thus a complete misunderstanding to refer to K2 and D 2 as "good ancient witnesses," as
V.P. Furnish, // Corinthians (AB 32A; Garden City: Doubleday, 1984) 487, does.
19
knew the άπο της άπλότητος version, whereas the vast majority of the Latin
ones were familiar with the variant which is not attested in any of the extant
manuscripts, that is άπο της άγνότητος only, since they quote solely a casti-
tate. Yet to state this would be an oversimplification. Both among Greek and
Latin Fathers there is a wide (not to say "wild") variety and on the whole,
extant evidence is rather fragmentary and uncertain, and not always easy to
interpret. For example Epiphanius of Salamis in his Panarion quotes the
phrase under consideration twice. In one of those instances he has: άπο της
άγνότητος και της άπλότητος της εις τον Χριστόν.20 Consequently, Epipha
nius has been traditionally listed (cf., e.g., GNT 4 ; in NA 2 7 he is not men
tioned at all) as a witness to the longer reversed reading. There is no
immediate indication in the text why he placed άγνότητος first but there
might have been a reason for that. In any case, it is noteworthy that in another
instance the text is somehow different: άπο της άπλότητος και άγνείας
Χρίστου και δικαιοσύνης.21 Not only is άγνεία used instead of άγνότης, and
further qualified as that "of Christ," but also yet another, third substantive is
added to the list.22 The order, however, of the first two nouns is the same as
in nearly all the manuscripts attesting the longer reading—and different
from the other quotation by Epiphanius. It is therefore misleading to argue
that Epiphanius was familiar with the reading until now attested only by
Claromontanus and its copy. Rather, we can assume that the reading in his
exemplar of Pauline episdes was άπο της άπλότητος και της άγνότητος, but it
was "quoted" by him (note the presence of clear introductory formulas sig
nalling citations in both instances) with litde attention to precise wording.23
Άγνεία in the second quotation is significant, for this was a much more com
mon word than άγνότης. Consequendy, assuming a scribe had wanted to add
a άγν- word as a gloss, he or she would have been much more likely to use
άγνεία rather than άγνότης.
19)
To use the term "all Latin Fathers,* as R.P. Martin, 2 Corinthians (WBC 40; Waco: Word
Books, 1986) 328, does, is simply erroneous.
20
> Pan 66.54.3.
21)
Pan 37.8.10. This reading is mentioned in Tischendorf (ed.), Editto octava but not in GNT.
22)
The addition of δικαιοσύνη is interesting, for as a second century inscription from Argos
attests (IG IV 588), association of άγνότης with δικαιοσύνη was not unknown earlier in
Greek. Cf. also my comments on the meaning of άγνότης in the subsequent section of this
paper.
23)
There are two other passages where Epiphanius appears to be alluding to 2 Cor. 11:3 with
out, however, quoting the relevant phrase (in Pan 37.6.5 and 40.6.8).
As for other patristic writers, among those who appear to support the
shorter reading, Clement of Alexandria is probably the most important
24 25
one. The phrase under discussion is cited in his works at least twice.
Origen alludes to 2 Cor. 11:3 several times but there are few citations. Of
the ones that are of interest to us, three are extant only in Rufinus' transla
26 27
tion, and yet another is found in a fragmentary and dubious work. As for
the Latin translations, in all the three places there is only a simplicitate, and
interestingly, in two instances simplicitas is further qualified as that "of faith,"
fidei.2S This addition could be due to Origens attempt to interpret the
ambiguous word άπλότης. Whether it was άπο της άπλότητος only, without
της άγνότητος, however, cannot be ascertained. The Latin text we possess
might suggest that this was the variant known to and approved by Rufinus.
But, on the other hand, in view of the fact that the text of 1739 is congruent
with the text of the Pauline epistles which Origen used in his commentaries
or homilies, it is telling that also this minuscule attests the short reading.
Among later authors, Eusebius of Caesarea and then Theodoret of Cyr-
rhus also seem to have known the άπο της άπλότητος variant.29 Each of them
quotes it only once and unfortunately there are no reliable critical editions of
pertinent works.30 The latter is also true for the homilies on the Pauline epis
tles by John Chrysostom. Next to his homilies on 2 Corinthians,31 he quotes
24)
Clement of Alexandria is considered to be one of the best witnesses to the "proto-Alexan-
drian" text. Cf. Zuntz, Text of the Epistles, 242: "Like P 4 6 , 1739, and B, he [Clement] is pre
ponderantly in accord with the bulk of the 'Alexandrian' family and, again like them, he shows
the characteristic traits of the early stage of this very tradition."
25)
Both references are found in Book 3 o£Stromata, in 11.74.3 and 14.94.1. The second ref
erence occurs in a section in which Clement cites De continentia by Julius Cassian.
26)
Horn. Leviticum 12.5 (SC 287); Horn, in Numeros 20.2.1 (SC 461); Com. in Romanos 2.5.
27)
Fragmenta e catenis in Proverbia 1.4.
28)
To be more precise, in the Homily on Leviticus in the explicit quotation there is just a
simplicitate quae in Christo est, but later on the author refers to simplicitasfidei quae in Christo
est as "ipsius Pauli sentential In the Commentary on Romans jfofez appears already in the
explicit quotation.
29)
Eusebius in his Commentarli in Psalmos: Infinem Psalmus David LXIII (PG 23.620) and
Theodoret in Interpretatio in XlVepistulas sancii Pauli (PG 82.440).
30)
It is therefore doubtful whether it is advisable to include Eusebius among the witnesses to
the shorter reading in the textual apparatus, as G N T 4 does. Theodoret, who was still there in
GNT 3 , does not appear anymore in GNT 4 .
31)
In epistulam Had Corinthios horn. 23 (PG 61.554-555).
the passage several times in other works.32 No two of those "quotations" are
identical, but της άγνότητος is consistently absent. It is of course possible that
later copyists "corrected" quotations of 2 Cor. 11:3 in the texts of this popu
lar author. On the other hand, however, the fact that while commenting on
2 Corinthians 11, Chrysostom makes some remarks concerning άπλότης,
but does not mention άγνότης, is telling (he briefly comments on the latter
only in his commentary on 2 Cor. 6:6).
Didymus the Blind refers to the passage in question twice. In the first
instance it is introduced as a citation, but άπλότητος is in fact added by the
editor in the critical edition, since in the papyrus there is just empty space.33
The second instance, the problems with using catenae in text criticism not
withstanding, is in fact only a paraphrase of the passage, not a citation.34
Thus the addition of "Vld", if one chooses to cite Didymus as a witness to the
άπο της άπλότητος reading, is certainly appropriate (cf. GNT 4 ). However, it
could be questioned whether it is justified to mention Didymus at all in the
apparatus of a pocket New Testament critical edition.
The question of Pseudo-Macarius is even more problematic, της άγνότητος
is absent from the only passage known to us where verse 3 is quoted in its
entirety.35 It needs to be kept in mind, however, that the textual transmission
of Pseudo-Macarius' works is extremely complicated and there exist four (or
evenfive,if we include the collection extant only in Arabic) collections of his
sermons, in which more or less the same material has been transmitted in
varying order and length, so that one should rather talk about different recen
sions.36 Collection I, from which the aforementioned passage comes, is
believed to be the most recent recension, yet the biblical text it attests is con
sidered fairly ancient and reliable.37 Consequendy, while the passage in ques
tion may have been corrected by Byzantine editors, it could be that Macarius
was familiar with the shorter variant. This is far from certain, however. In a
passage from another homily, which comes from the more ancient and less
32)
Deprofectu evangelii 3 (PG 51.313); De sacerdotio 3.7 (SC 272); In Matthaeum horn.
6 (PG 57.70); In epistulam adEphesios horn. 22 (PG 62.161).
33)
Com. in Genesim 96 (SC 233).
M)
Fragmenta e catenis in epistulam secundam ad Corinthios 38.
35
> Horn. 'SAI (GCS 50,2).
36)
For a brief explanation and some bibliographical references see the introduction to the
edition of the homilies proper to Collection III by V. Desprez (SC 275).
37)
Cf. the remarks of H. Berthold in the introduction to his edition of the codex comprising
Collection I of Macarius' homilies (GCS 50,1, p. XLIX).
38
heavily edited Collection III, Macarius describes what it means to be a "vir
gin" to Christ. Even though he does not quote the entire verse (his quotation
of 2 Cor. 11:3 ends at τα νοήματα υμών), yet immediately preceding the
quotation he explains that the soul which desires to present itself purely to
the Lord, lives in chastity of heart, έν άγνότητι καρδίας. He then adds: καθώς
φησιν ό νυμφαγαχγός, followed by the quotation of 2 Cor. 11:2 and a part of
verse 3. As a consequence, also concerning Macarius, one needs to be cau
tious with mentioning him as support for one or the other reading in the
critical apparatus.
Gregory of Nyssa, is never mentioned as a witness to any of the readings,
and righdy so, for in his treatise De virginitate there is only an allusion to our
verse, albeit a rather striking one. While discussing the "gifts" of spiritual
marriage, he points to the example of Paul, according to Gregory the
νυμφοστόλος/ΜΤ excellence* and then quotes one phrase from 2 Cor. 6:6: και
έν άγνότητι.39 Even though there is no explicit quotation of our passage,
Gregory s vocabulary and the manner in which he formulates his arguments
concerning spiritual marriage make it evident that he had 2 Cor. 11:2-3 in
mind while writing. While this can scarcely be used as evidence for text criti
cal purposes, it is plausible that the text of verse 3 he was acquainted with did
actually contain the longer variant, hence Gregory s reference to 2 Cor. 6:6.
There are some patristic authors who seem to offer an explicit quotation
of the longer reading, although due to some problems with the textual trans
mission of relevant writings one must be very careful when dealing with
them. A good example is Hegemonius* Acta Archelai, unfortunately extant
only in the fourth century Latin translation, where we do find a simplicitate
et castitate.40 Even though this translation appears to be rather faithful,
we cannot claim for certain that Hegemonius was familiar with the longer
reading.
38
> Horn. 28.3.5.
39)
De virginitate 20.4 (SC 119). It is understandable that Gregory should quote from
2 Cor. 6:6 in this context rather than from 2 Cor. 11:3, since he wants to stress the unambigu
ously positive example of the Apostle himself, while the latter passage has a rather negative
connotation, as it refers to the danger that awaited Corinthians. In 2 Cor. 6:6 άγνότης is one
of Pauls praiseworthy qualities by which he is commending himself, but in 2 Cor. 11:3 itis the
virtue that the Corinthians are encouraged to take better care of lest they lose it. Thus the
context is more ambivalent.
*» 38.13 (GCS 16).
Lastly, strikingly enough, the longer reading seems to be also attested

41
much later by John of Damascus, whose commentaries are largely based on
the ones of Chrysostom and in whose times the shorter reading seems to
have prevailed. Regrettably, however, there is no critical edition of the work
42
in question.
In short, even though the evidence we possess might suggest that the
majority of the Greek Fathers knew the shorter reading, it is too scanty and
there are not enough critical editions to make any conclusive judgments.
What can be said with a litde more certainty, is that the version of 2 Cor. 11:3
where της άγνότητος is left out was specifically "Eastern," both in origin and
geographic distribution. It is notable that the Vulgate attests the shorter
"Eastern" reading, so untypical of Latin authors, whereas the Old Latin text
of 2 Corinthians has the longer one. Whether or not one associates Jerome
with the aforementioned revision, he remains the sole Latin author who con
sistendo quotes the a simplicitate variant.43
The longer reading is supported by Pelagius and pardy by Augustine
(cf. infra), but the Latin Fathers seem to have developed their own version of
the shorter reading. Except Jerome and Rufinus they all quote castitas, which
corresponds to Greek άγνότης, but a number of them fail to include sim
plicitas. This includes Lucifer of Cagliari,44 whose extensive biblical citations
are considered to be ofparticular value for the establishment of the Old Latin
text ofthe Bible, but also Ambrose ofMilan,45 Ambrosiaster,46 and Gaudentius
41)
Com. in epistulas sancii Pauli: In epistulam ad Corinthios II, Cap. XI (PG 95.760).
42)
One would expect, however, that were the copyists to "correct" Johns biblical quotations,
they would do it in such a way that it would agree with the text pievalent in theit own day, not
the other way round.
43)
See Com. in Amos 3.8; Commentant in EzechieUm 10.32; Adversus lovinianum 2.3; Trac-
tatus depsalmo XV.
441
De nonparcendo in deum delinquentibus 27.
45)
Despirìtusancto2.S.74.
*® Com. in epistulas Paulinas: Ad Connthios secunda 11,3. Since we would normally expect
that in a commentary the Bible be quoted with particular precision, it may come as a surprise
that Ambrosiaster seems to be dealing rather freely with the Pauline text, as is exemplified by
his additional qualification of castitas as that "of God," dei, reminiscent of Epiphanius' "of
Christ," both almost certainly secondary. This suggests that we must not make much of the
fact that Ambrosiaster does not mention simplicitas, at least as far as the implications for the
New Testament text he used are concerned. Taking into account the esteem and popularity his
writings enjoyed throughout the ages, however, his influence on later authors must not be
disregarded.
of Brescia.47 May we thus talk about a specific "Western" shorter reading,

namely a castitate only? Since neither Latin nor Greek New Testament man-
uscripts known to us attest such a variant,48 it would be farfetched to main-
tain that this was actually the reading familiar to some authors from their
Bibles. One can only speculate as to why they omit a simplicitate. Mutual
influences notwithstanding, there may have been other reasons. As will be
demonstrated based on the example of Augustine, however, the reference to
"chastity" exclusively tells us very litde about the author s New Testament
text, especially when there is only one instance of an explicit quotation of
2 Cor. 11:3 in a particular author s writings.
Augustine presents us with somewhat confused evidence, since he refers
to our verse relatively frequendy, and in a number of those passages he has the
a castitate variant.49 In other passages, however, the a simplicitate et castitate
reading appears.50 The fact that both readings are attested by Augustine sug-
gests that he was acquainted with the longer one. It is possible that the reason
for the occurrence of the shorter reading (a castitate) in some of his works,
along with the longer one, is the influence of other Latin authors, rather than
dependence on a particular Bible copy. More importantly, the context need
not be neglected. The fact that both readings are more or less equally spread
over time, since they occur in works dated very early as well as late, does not
allow one to conclude that Augustine used various copies of the Bible at
different stages of his life. Remarkably, sometimes both variants are attested
in the same work. Most telling in this regard is Contra Faustum, dated to the
year 400, where we encounter both readings nearly next to each other.51 In
this specific case the context suggests a reasonable explanation. In Book 15
47)
Tractatus nonus: DeEvangelii lectione 2.2 (CSEL 68).
48)
This needs to be emphasized, for the confused manuscript evidence has led some authors
to assertions which in view of the extant data are incorrect; cf. for example the statement of
J. Lambrecht, Second Corìnthians (SP 8; Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1999) 173 that aIn the
manuscripts there are two long readings... and two short ones ('sincerity' and 'purity')."
49)
For example in Confessiones 13.13; Contra Faustum 15.3 & 22.49; Contra Iulianum haere-
sis Pelagianae defensorem 2.37; De baptismo 7.13; De civitateDei 14.7; Enarrationes in Psalmos:
in Ps. 18 en. 2.2; in Ps. 39.1; in Ps. 90 s. 2.9; in Ps. 126.3; Ep. 188.2; In Johannis Evangelium
Tractatus 13.12; Sermo 72A.8; 93.4; 105.6; 213.7; 260C.7; 299.12.
50)
Contra Faustum 15.9 & 21.9; Contra Iulianum 6.68; De Genesi contra manicheos Ί.\9\
Enarrationes in Psalmos: in Ps. 118 s. 28.2; In Johannis Evangelium Tractatus 8.4.
51)
For the text of Contra Faustum see CSEL 25, 249-797. As for other works attesting both
variants, see supra, nn. 49-50.
Augustine accuses Manicheans, whom Faustus represents, of adulterous rela

tionships with various "elements and demons," and of considering themselves
at the same time to be a casta sponsa Christi. The whole book is replete with
marital and sexual imagery, thus it is not surprising that Augustine places
more emphasis on castitas, and when in 15.3 he quotes 2 Cor. 11:2-3, he does
not mention simplicitas. In the next sentence the notion of chastity, castitas
will be associated with Augustine and his orthodox contemporaries and fur
ther qualified as the one quam Christo servamus. In the same book but in
another paragraph Augustine again refers to the passage under discussion,
this time, like later in book 21, quoting the longer version, a simplicitate et
castitate. It is noteworthy, however, that even though in all the three places
the verse is unmistakably introduced as a citation,52 in no two occurrences is
the wording exactly the same.53 It is thus most probable that Augustine
quoted from memory, without paying much attention to precise vocabulary,
and emphasizing the elements that were of special importance to him.
In sum, among the Latin Fathers there is evidendy much more variation
than one would suspect at first sight. Jerome is the only one who can quite
safely be referred to as a witness to the shorter "Eastern" reading, but others
were possibly familiar with the longer one, even though when quoting the
passage under discussion, they tended to shorten it.
To conclude, the results of our investigation of external evidence point in
favour of the longer reading, άπο της άπλότητος και της άγνότητος, since it
is consistendy attested by both Alexandrian and " Western" witnesses since
ca. 200 AD, whereas άπο της άπλότητος only in Greek manuscripts appears
as late as the 6th century. If we admit the testimony of versional evidence as
well as the Fathers, however, it might be necessary to move the origin of the
52)
Cf. "tales apostolica illa admonitio" in 15.3; Paulus, "qui veram ecclesiam volens virginem
castam exhibere Christo,..., inquit* in 15.9; and: "haec omnia legimus in scripturis Sanctis.
Nam et ilium dictum est de seductione extrinsecus veniente" in 21.9. In yet another chapter in
the same work, 22.49, Augustine also refers to 2 Cor. 11:3, but it is an adaptation rather than
a citation. Interestingly, in this instance he mentions only castitas, and it is characterized as
that "of Christ," Chrìsti. Notably, in ContraJulianum, the passage 2.37 where the shorter read-
ing appears, the biblical reference is also an adaptation, whereas in 6.68, where we come upon
the longer variant, it clearly is a citation. Admittedly, however, in other works the shorter vari-
ant is also often introduced as a citation.
53)
This is best illustrated by the way the phrase about the serpent is quoted: "serpens Evam
fefellit astutia sua" in 15.3; "serpens Evam fefellit in versutia sua" in 15.9; and "serpens Evam
seduxit in versutia sua" in 21.9.
"Eastern" shorter reading to a much earlier date, possibly to the 2nd century,
if this is indeed the variant that Clement of Alexandria was acquainted with.
This is quite plausible and what is more, it is in fact consistent with the
broadly accepted reconstruction of the history of the text of the Pauline
episdes. The second century is acknowledged to have been the time when
the text of the New Testament underwent most considerable interventions
and it is now recognized that a number of secondary readings, previously
believed to have been of a much later origin, can be in fact traced back to the
very early stage in the transmission of the text. To omit a whole phrase,
whether intentional or not, fits much better the "wild" second century, than
the more "stabilized" later period. That indeed in 2 Cor. 11:3 we have to do
with an omission rather than an addition will be further argued in the subse
quent part of the present article.
II. Internal Evidence
1. Transcriptional Probability
How intricate the issue of transcriptional probability for our passage is, is
well illustrated by the discussion in Metzger s commentary on GNT 4 , where
he sums up what he considers the two possible interpretations of what could
have happened in the textual transmission of 2 Cor. 11:3. 54 He argues that
the two short readings (άπο της άπλότητος and a castitate) can be accounted
for as due to homoioteleuton (-ότητος and -ότητος).55 In Metzger s view,
however, this, albeit highly plausible, does not yet give a reason for the origin
of the reversed longer reading, unless we assume a "mere inattention on the
part of copyists," the explanation which somehow does not seem to satisfy
him. Alternatively, Metzger suggests that της άγνότητος could have been a
gloss written in the margin in order to "explain άπλότητος in terms of the
marriage symbolism of verse 2," and later inserted into the text, supposedly
"in different places." However, the evidence for the reversed longer reading is
54)
Metzger, Textual Commentary, 514-515.
55)
While Metzger does not discuss the opposite, namely dittography, this solution has also
been suggested: cf. H. Windisch, Der zweiteKorintherbrìef (KEK 6; 9th ed.; Göttingen: Van-
denhoeck & Ruprecht, 1924) 325. Most commentators, however, do not even mention such
a possibility. An alleged dittography assumes a rather complex process that would need to
have taken place before the end of the second century.
very scarce, and the fact that both Codex Claromontanus and Epiphanius
have it is, as I have argued, very likely accidental. If this is the case, the very
reason for the second explanation needs to be questioned. Thus to talk about
"the variable position of 'purityΓ which supposedly "confirms its inauthen-
56
ticity," is misleading.
While the suggestion of an alleged "gloss" recurs in nearly all the commen
taries, the principle underlying this hypothesis (and the dissatisfaction
expressed by scholars concerning the simple explanation by haplography),
albeit rarely spelled out, is undoubtedly the traditional rule of lectio brevior.
It is telling that in a more recent commentary Ralph Martin, when referring
to Barretts "variable position" as a consequence of a "later expansion of the
text," adds in brackets what is not explicitly stated by Barrett, that the gloss is
suggested "on the principle lectio brevior potior."57
Taking into account the diversity of "scribal tendencies" observed by vari
ous textual critics, one needs to be cautious with drawing any conclusions,
especially since those tendencies as discussed by authors appear often contra
dictory. While traditionally critics have tended to stress the lectio brevior
potior principle, it has been demonstrated that in the earliest manuscripts
there was in fact a tendency to omit, rather than to enlarge the text, as is per-
fecdy illustrated by Sp46. This has been acknowledged for quite some time,
and a detailed study ofJames Ronald Royse made it even more patent.58
In his meticulous analysis of the six earliest extensive New Testament
papyri (45,46,47,66,72,75) Royse observed that each of the scribes of those
papyri "demonstrate [s] a tendency to omit, and thus a more reliable princi
ple—at least for the period of the papyri—would seem to be: lectio longior
potior?™ In a chapter devoted to the consideration of lectio brevior principle
he qualifies this statement by emphasizing:
as long as the competing readings are all early, the preference must lie with the longer
reading. Naturally, such a statement must always be subject to the usual ceteris paribus
clause, and so an un-critical application of the principle lectio longiorpotior would hardly
56)
C.K. Barrett, A Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Connthians (BNTC; London:
Adam and Charles Black, 1973) 270.
57)
Martin, 2 Connthians, 328.
58)
See J.R. Royse, Scribal Habits in Early Greek New Testament Papyri (PhD dissertation,
Graduate Theological Union, 1981).
59)
Royse, Scribal Habits, 3; this observation from the introduction is further elaborated in
Chapter 8 on "The Shorter Reading?," 593-615.
be justified. Rather, what does seem to follow from this analysis is that the burden of
proof should be shifted from the proponents of the longer text to the defenders of the
shorter text. There does not need—at least within the earliest centuries of transmis
sion—to be a "reason" given for an omission; rather, omission is the "natural" error for
these early scribes.60
$p46 is indeed a particularly good example for, as Royse notes, of the total
number of 471 significant singular readings ("significant" means for Royse
excluding orthographic singulars and nonsense readings; altogether he
counts ca. 668 singular readings) found in this papyrus, there are only 55
additions and 167 omissions.61 The latter constitute 35,5% of significant sin
gulars.62 Even though the number of omissions far outnumbers the number
of additions, the latter are also present there. Characteristically, however,
only two, as Royse notes, are of more than one word: in Rom. 8:34 and
Heb. 5: IO.63 The other additions of one word consist mainly of conjunc
tions, particles, articles and pronouns. Of the omissions, on the other hand,
38 are of two or more words, "26 of which result from homoeoteleuton."64
Already Zuntz had noted that "the omission of whole clauses owing to
homoioteleuton is an outstanding characteristic of P46."65
Nine of those 38 longer omissions occur in 2 Corinthians, including the
omission of record length comprising 23 words at 8:19-20 and its "rival"
comprising 18 words at l:6-7.66 Of the nine longer omissions in 2 Corinthi
ans three, in 4:7, 11:6, and 12:19b, are most likely due to "simple careless
ness."67 It is noteworthy that the text consisting of 8 words in 2 Cor. 11:6
ω)
Royse, ScribalHabits, 607.
61)
Royse, Scribal Habits, 602; cf. Chapter 3 ("The Scribe of P 46 "), 182-330, esp. pp. 185-234,
where the singular readings are listed.
62)
Royse, Scribal Habits, 254.
63)
Royse, Scribal Habits, 251.
M)
65)
Zuntz, Text of the Epistles, 19.
^ Note that in the present state of φ 4 6 there are 14 folios comprising 2 Corinthians; cf. 4
omissions of more than one word in Romans, which in the extant papyrus consists of 11 and
a half folios; over 16 and a half folios of Hebrews with 6 omissions; merely 6 omissions in 23
folios of 1 Corinthians; 4 omissions in 6 folios of Ephesians; also 4 in 5 and a half folios of
Galatians; 3 in 4 folios of Philippians; and 2 in 3 and a half more or less complete folios and
some fragments of Colossians. Thus with 2 Corinthians the tendency to omit more seems to
begin.
67)
should have been "omitted for no apparent reason"68 for, as Royse remarks,
normally the omissions of 5-23 words arise by homoioteleuton.69 The
remaining four omissions in 2 Corinthians are in 8:19a; 10:12a; 11:12;
11:25a (so two more in chapter 11 !). Overall, based on the data collected by
Royse, of 75 significant singulars in 2 Corinthians, 29 are omissions (nearly
40%), 5 of which are in chapter 11.
It would be unsound to draw far-reaching conclusions based on statistics.
It is, however, undeniable, that Çp46 is a papyrus beset with omissions, 2 Cor-
inthians, and chapter 11 in particular, being a primary illustration ofthat.70 If
this is the case, one would need a very good reason to argue that there are
likewise significant additions, like the one presumed in 2 Cor. 11:3, espe-
cially since the longer reading is so strongly supported by other weighty wit-
nesses. In this respect one of the principles adhered to by the practitioners of
thoroughgoing criticism, namely that that the longer reading is usually more
likely original, appears to be correct. To quote J. Keith Elliott, "The accidental
shortening of a text, especially if one can demonstrate homoeoteleuton or
the like, is a commonplace. The thoroughgoing critic is inclined to the maxim
that the longer reading is likely to be the original, other things being equal.
To shorten a text is frequendy accidental and a fault to which a careless or
tired scribe may be prone. To add to a text demands conscious mental effort."71
Obviously, to add something meaningful requires such an effort, thus all
the additions need to be examined on their own terms. On the whole there
is no reason to presume that shorter variants are as a rule more likely to be
original.
In his cautious critique of the lectio brevior potior rule, Royse mentions
some exceptions to his general preference for longer readings in the earliest
manuscripts. The first case in his list, namely when the "longer reading,
appears, on genealogical grounds, to be late,"72 does not apply in our case.
Another possibility that Royse mentions, namely that the longer reading
68
> Royse, Scribal Habits, 257.
69)
Cf. Royse, ScribalHabits, 257.
70)
The only other chapter that has more omissions among significant singulars is chapter 1
(6 omissions).
71)
J.K. Elliott, "Thoroughgoing Eclecticism in the New Testament Textual Criticism," in
B.D. Ehrman and M.W. Holmes (eds.), The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary
Research: Essays on the Status Quaestionis (SD 46; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995) 321-335,
p. 327.
72
> Royse, ScribalHabits, 608.
may have "arisen from harmonization to the immediate context, to parallels

73
or to general usage," could possibly appear pertinent to our present discus
sion. This is indeed what according to some commentators has happened in
2 Cor. 11:3: και της άγνότητος was supposedly added in order to bring closer
the image of the "pure virgin" of v. 2 to the imagery of v. 3,firstperhaps as a
gloss, as Metzger thinks. Even if we had any reasons to suspect a gloss, such
an argument is hardly defensible for the following reasons.
First, άγνότης was a very rare word, as opposed to its synonym, άγνεία,
thus we would rather expect the alleged glossator to add the latter. Since
άγνότης does nevertheless occur once more in 2 Corinthians (6:6), and
nowhere else in the New Testament (or in the LXX), we could speculate that
a given scribe was well acquainted with Pauline vocabulary and that is why he
or she chose a more Pauline synonym άγνότης. This is plausible but it pre
supposes that a number of conditions be fulfilled, for such an addition would
by no means be self-evident. The imagery of v. 3 does not repeat, but continues
the metaphor ofv. 2, whether καί της άγνότητος is there or not. άγνότης does
not refer to the virginity of a betrothed woman before marriage but to marital
chastity, leaving open the question what precisely this comprises. Thus while
και της άγνότητος perfectly fits the context and the rhetorical composition
of the chapter, it would require a rather sophisticated scribe to actually add
this phrase. Such a scenario of course cannot be excluded, but there is barely
a need to construct this sort of sophisticated elucidations, when a very easy
explanation is at hand.
To sum up, as far as transcriptional probability is concerned, haplography
caused by a homoioteleuton is the most obvious explanation for why καί της
άγνότητος in 2 Cor. 11:3 may have been left out. Since we are dealing with
probabilities, it is evident that a "gloss in the margin" is much less probable.
What is more, the longer reading is attested by all the earliest manuscripts
until the sixth century, including $p46, otherwise famous for its tendency to
omit, hence it is very unlikely that the phrase was added at a very early stage.
It is, on the other hand, highly plausible that at this early stage καί της
άγνότητος was omitted as a result of a homoioteleuton (apparendy common
particularly in the oldest papyri). The similarity between άγνότητος and
άπλότητος is so striking that it can easily attract this sort of scribal error. This
could have even happened in several different places and at different times.
The short "Eastern" variant, attested in a small fraction of the Alexandrian
73
> Royse, ScribalHabits, 608.
manuscript tradition as well as some patristic evidence, became part of the

Byzantine tradition, and thus found its way into the majority of the minus
cules, becoming the dominant reading in the second millennium.
2. Intrinsic Probability
1 begin with the significance and occurrence of the two substantives, άπλότης
and άγνότης, both in Pauline literature and outside, in order to determine
the relationship between the two words and ascertain the probability that
Paul used both of them in 2 Cor. 11:3. Afterwards I shall shordy comment
on some issues concerning the author s style, and finally I shall suggest my
own interpretation of the verse, which challenges the opinion of some that
the presence or absence of the second noun does not affect the meaning of
Pauline metaphor.
Most commentators consider the two substantives to be more or less syn
onymous, hence their limited interest in whether the second one is an inter
polation or not. I want to argue that this is not quite the case, άπλότης is well
attested in Greek of various periods. It has been suggested that the word
gained particular popularity and supposedly, certain distinctive meanings, in
Jewish and Christian literature, especially in the first century AD. 74 In the
New Testament it appears at most eight times, exclusively in the Pauline cor
pus. Notably, five of those occurrences are in 2 Corinthians, άπλότης had a
wide variety of meanings in Hellenistic Jewish literature. Sometimes its
denotation was very broad, and in other instances much more specific,
depending on a number of factors, such as the author, the literary genre,
and the environment in which a given writing was accomplished. It could
indicate innocence of a person falsely accused, simplicity of life (as opposed
to enjoying the pleasures of life), overall moral integrity, or simplicity and
integrity of the soul when devoid of passions, but also obedience to the Law
and God s commandments, as contrasted with the possibility of being led
astray from Gods righteous path. It could also refer to the simplicity and
innocence of Adam before the fall, a meaning that would seemingly nicely fit
2 Cor. 11:3, too. The problem is that in spite of this impressive diversity in
the literature outside the Pauline Corpus, Pauls usage is rather limited. Three
times in 2 Corinthians (8:2; 9:11.13) the word occurs in the context of the
74)
See especially the monograph ofJ. Amstutz, ΑΠΛΟΤΗΣ: Eine begriffsgeschichtliche Studie
zumjüdisch-christlichen Griechisch (Theophaneia 19; Bonn: Peter Hanstein, 1968).
collection for the church in Jerusalem, pointing to the generosity, sincere

concern etc., of those who are willing to give liberally. In Rom. 12:8 the con
text suggests a similar meaning of άπλότης.
Besides 2 Corinthians and the single instance in Romans, άπλότης
occurs in Eph. 6:5 and Col. 3:22. In both places it is qualified as that "of
heart," (της) καρδίας, and characterizes the virtue expected of slaves in
relation to their masters, "sincerity of heart." Whether one deems Pauline
authorship of Colossians and/or Ephesians plausible or not, one may observe
that this use of the term is not very far from the attitude the Corinthian com
munity was expected to display toward Christ, entailing sincerity, loyalty,
and readiness to serve.
Slighdy different is 2 Cor. 1:12, which interestingly enough presents us
75
with another complex textual problem. If indeed άπλότης is the original
reading, then Paul would be applying it to himself, to indicate his own hon
esty, sincerity, and perhaps even simplicity as contrasted with earthly wis
dom, mentioned later in that verse.
To sum up, the meaning of άπλότης in general is very broad, and in Paul it
clearly depends on the context. Hence in 2 Cor. 11:3 it is best to interpret it
in line with the imagery of the verse, as stressing the loyalty and sincere devo
tion which should distinguish the attitude of the Corinthian minds toward
Christ. While somehow encompassing it in this specific context as a conse
quence ö/'being paired with άγνότης, it does not explicidy point to sexual
fidelity as a quality expected of a spouse, for the word is devoid of a specific
sexual connotation. Indeed, without άγνότης there is not only no explicit
sexual connotation in 2 Cor. 11:3, but there are no indications to interpret
its imagery in marital terms.
As opposed to άπλότης, άγνότης is a fairly rare word. In the TLG it occurs
around fifty times, often in quotations from 2 Corinthians in patristic litera
ture (about one fourth of all the occurrences). Paul uses the word also in
2 Cor. 6:6, in a list of virtues accompanying a "catalogue of hardships," by
which Paul commends himself to his addressees, it is therefore not an
"un-Pauline" word. Unfortunately it is hard to determine to what precisely
it refers in 2 Cor. 6:6, for the context does not suggest an explanation. In
my view sexual abstinence, or "celibacy" cannot be excluded, but such an
75)
See the article of M.E. Thrall, "2 Corinthians 1:12: άγιότητι or άπλότητι?," in J.K. Elliott
(ed.), Studies in New Testament Language and Text: Essays in Honour of George D. Kilpatrick
on the Occasion of his sixty-fifth Birthday (NovTSup 44; Leiden: Brill, 1976) 366-372.
interpretation is rejected by most commentators, who prefer a less literal ren

76
dering, usually indicating moral integrity, like "purity of intention," "pro
77 78
bity," "sincerity" or more specifically "integrity in financial matters."
Despite this scarce attestation, the meanings of άγνότης range from very
specific to fairly broad. Yet the instances of the general meaning ("moral
79
integrity," "uprightness"), such as the 2nd century inscription from Argos,
are clearly in minority. More specific meanings, such as "chastity" (if other
than marital, implying sexual abstinence), or "purity" (in a religious context)
are much more frequent. As authors like Hermas attest, the term was often
regarded as synonymous with άγνεία.80 The latter word, however, was much
more common and is attested throughout Greek literature since Homer,
whereas άγνότης, to the best of my knowledge, is first attested by Paul, the
only contemporary attestation being the one in Lucius Annaeus Cornutus'
De natura deorum 66, who depicts Apollo as free of suffering because of
άγνότης, referring probably to his holiness, a state of separation from, and
ability to avoid contact with earthly reality: εξω πένθους δια την αγνότητα.
In this instance the notion of ritual purity, typical for the classical use of the
άγν- root, may be also present.
A few decades later the term άγνότης is found twice (cf. seven occurrences
of άγνεία) in Hermas* Pastor. The first occurrence (Vision 3.7), where
άγνότης is qualified with the genitive της αληθείας, "of truth," is rather
obscure, and might point to the need to keep chastity for those who want to
join the Christian Church. The second occurrence (Mandate 4.4) is easier to
interpret as it clearly indicates sexual abstinence after the death of ones first
spouse.
I have not been able to find examples from Greek literature where άπλότης
and άγνότης are placed next to each other (except for the quotations from
Paul in patristic literature), but it is remarkable that Hermas in his Pastor
(Similitude 9.15) mentions, among others Άπλότης and Άγνεία as two of the
76)
Martin, 2 Corinthians* 175.
77)
Furnish, 77 Corinthians, 344.
78)
P. Barnett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1997) 328.
79
> Cf.n.22.
80)
In Hermas the two terms are clearly used interchangeably, but their synonymous character
can be gathered from other works, too. A good example are the Scholia in Sophoclis Oedipum
Tyrannem, where in the commentary άγνότης is used to characterize Jokasta, whereas Sopho
cles in his tragedy employs the classical άγνεία.
names of the young women whom he sees in his vision as standing at the
entrance to the tower, and who take care of him in the Shepherds absence.
Even though in this particular passage Hermas uses the word άγνεία, the two
nouns need not be artificially distinguished since, as I have mentioned,
Hermas employs both as synonyms.
On the whole, the polysémie character and ambiguity were common to all
the άγν- root words, especially in later Greek, when there was a tendency to
move from the literal sphere of cultic purity to a more spiritual understand
81
ing. In the first and at least the beginning of the second centuries, in any
case, the connotation of the words of this root is still very much physical,
encompassing ritual purity, marital chastity and celibacy. Those meanings
are well attested in both pagan, Jewish and Christian (cf. especially Ignatius
of Antioch) literature. In the New Testament άγνότης, as I have said, occurs
only in 2 Corinthians, but in 2 Tim. 4:12 and 5:2 άγνεία is employed and in
both places a general sense of sexual decency seems to be implied.
To conclude our brief overview, άγνότης, albeit infrequendy attested, did
not have a fixed meaning, but it often included a sexual connotation, which
fits well the imagery of 2 Cor. 11:3. The best translation in my view is there
fore "chastity," leaving a shade of ambiguity as to whether it refers to virginity
or marital fidelity, the point I shall further comment on in more detail. First,
however, several other questions in relation to intrinsic probability need to
be considered.
For the "thoroughgoing" critics the fact that a given word or formulation
matches or not the author s style is often decisive for whether to accept or
reject a certain reading. Sheer intuition that the longer reading perfecdy fits
Pauls style is certainly not enough, however. One could perhaps mention the
several "catalogues of hardships" in 2 Corinthians,82 in order to show that to
accumulate nouns was an integral feature of Pauls rhetoric. I would like,
however, to highlight a more specific pattern, to some extent characteristic of
Pauls style, namely that of a phrase consisting of two (sometimes more)
81)
Among patristic authors Clement of Alexandria and Origen are worth mentioning in this
context.
82)
In 4:8-9; 6:3-10; 11:23-29; 12:20 (cf. also 1 Cor. 4:9-13). For more on Peristasenkataloge,
see J.T. Fitzgerald, Cracks in an Earthen Vessel: An Examination of the Catalogues of Hardships
in the Corinthian Correspondence (SBL OS 99; Adanta: Scholars Press, 1988); M. Ebner,
Leidenslisten und Apostelbrief: Untersuchungen zu Form, Motivik und Funktion der Peristasen
kataloge bei Paulus (FzB 66; Wurzburg: Echter, 1991); M. Schiefer Ferrari, Die Sprache des Leids
in den paulinischen Peristasenkatalogen (SBB 23; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1991).
nouns, connected by καί and depending on the same preposition. In fact

within the "catalogues" one might distinguish pairs of substantives related in
this way, e.g. in 2 Cor. 6:8, yet it may be debated to what extent the associa
83
tion of two nouns in such "pairs" is intended, as some commentators imply.
This "pattern" is relatively frequent in 2 Corinthians (as opposed to, for
example, 1 Corinthians). The pertinent verses in 2 Corinthians, next to
2 Cor. 6:8 are the following: 1:6.12; 2:4; 7:(3).15; 9:13; 10:1; 11:27;
12:1.10.21. Assuming that in 2 Cor. 1:12 άπλότης is the original reading, it
would be particularly significant, since here άπλότης is accompanied by
another noun. In most other occurrences it stands alone, except perhaps
2 Cor. 9:13. In the latter verse, as contrasted with most of the other instances
of the aforementioned pattern, the two nouns dependent on one preposition
refer to two different realities and are clearly distinguished by the fact that
each of them is additionally qualified.
If we now consider the question from a conceptual rather than grammati
cal perspective, we notice that a "double" (or sometimes even "triple") char
acterisation of God, Christ, Paul and other missionaries, in relation to the
Corinthians, as well as the other way round, that is the Corinthians' attitude,
is relatively common. To name a few examples, in 2 Cor. 10:1 "gentleness and
kindness" are mentioned as characteristic of Christ; in 2 Cor. 13:11 God is
the God of "love and peace." Of course this is not limited to the Corinthian
correspondence, nor to Paul alone in the New Testament, especially since
some expressions were not invented by him. Yet even then it is significant
that he chose to use such fixed phrases in his letters.
In 1 Cor. 2:3 Paul is said to be standing in front of the Corinthians "in
weakness, fear and trembling," implying that the three-noun "pattern" could
be of help when Paul wanted to affect the listeners in a special way. The mag
nifying effect is obviously best illustrated by the Peristasenkataloge. Note also
2 Cor. 12:21, where the pattern is again triple, this time to magnify the
immorality of some of the Corinthians. On the positive side, in 2 Cor. 8:4
the Corinthians are asked for "kindness and participation" in the ministry
towards "saints" (cf. 9:13 for what awaits them if they decide to help), and in
2 Cor. 7:5 they are praised for receiving Titus with "fear and trembling."
Consequently, it is undeniable that to accumulate nouns was one of Pauls
literary techniques. Hence in the verses leading up to a passage as highly
83)
Cf. Lambrecht, 2 Corinthians, 110.
rhetorical—despite his claims to the contrary—as the "Fools Speech" (even

though probably also expressing authentic fear), strengthening the appeal to
the Corinthians by employing two words instead of one is only to be expected.
Stylistic features of the passage in question have already been carefully exam
84
ined by other scholars and a detailed analysis would be beyond the scope of
this article. But even a quick glance at the first verses of 2 Corinthians 11
should make one realize how often words of the same root come back in the
text. This would account well for the connection between αγνή and άγνότης.
In addition, the accumulation of words that sound similar, but have different
meanings, or paronomasia, is also immediately noticeable in the verses in
question. Placing της άγνότητος next to της άπλότητος is thus mosdy under
standable. It matches the style of the passage, and indeed the entire letter.
While merely for rhetorical effect it would be perfecdy justifiable to
employ two synonyms as is, incidentally, often done by Paul, in the verse
under consideration the two substantives are not synonyms.85 Adding "chas
tity," as argued above, renders the marital and more specifically, sexual imag
ery explicit, remaining consistent at the same time with the entire concept,
and constituting an interesting link with the image of v. 2. If not for άγνότης,
there would be no reason to interpret v. 3 in terms of marriage symbolism,
since άπλότης is far too broad to suggest such a connection, άγνότης, on the
other hand, at first sight implies that the virgin who has kept her chastity
until marriage is to take care lest she loses it by turning away her attention
84)
See especially J. Zmijewski, Der Stil der paulinischen „Narrenrede". Analyse der Sprachge
staltung in 2 Kor 11,1-12,10 als Beitrag zur Methodik von Stiluntersuchungen neutestamentli-
cher Texte (BBB 52; Cologne-Bonn: Peter Hanstein, 1978).
85)
It is true that when Paul uses two nouns depending on one preposition, they are often
synonyms, but this does not always necessarily need to be the case. According to Harris,
2 Corinthians, 739-740, "If άπλότητος and άγνότητος were virtual synonyms... or formed a
single conceptual unit, we would expect άγνότητος to be anarthrous." It is true that among the
2 Corinthians passages mentioned above, 2 Cor. 11:3 is exceptional in that both substantives
are preceded by the definite article; in other instances either both substantives are anarthrous,
or only the first one is preceded by an article. However, see Thrall, "2 Corinthians 1:12,"
369-370, for some additional instances from other Pauline letters of nouns linked through
dependence on the same proposition. She lists synonyms, nouns with related meaning and the
ones which have no relation to each other. Her example from Rom. 16:25 could suggest that
the fact that both substantives are preceded by an article does not necessarily exclude their
synonymous character (although it can be debated to what extent we have to do with exact
synonyms in this instance).
from her husband. But is the denotation of "chastity" still the same as that of
αγνή in v. 2?
While άπλότης has the more general meaning of "sincerity," "truthful
ness," "honesty" etc., άγνότης adds more tension, strengthens the dramatic
effect in case the Corinthians were to disobey Paul, and makes v. 3 the con
tinuation of the preceding verse. Rather than to exalt human marriage by
comparing it to the union with Christ, however, in v. 3 Paul prefers to empha
size the differences, the most important one being of course the absence of
sexual relations in the latter one.
I suggest that the verse is best explained against the background of Pauls
overall views on marriage and serving the Lord as expressed in 1 Corinthians 7.
Pauls attitude towards conjugal life was rather ambiguous. While he was
careful to make sure that everyone be aware that marriage and sexuality were
not sin, he was nonetheless suspicious towards σαρξ and activities associated
with it. The only ideal union that would overcome the negative δια της
πορνείας was the union with the Lord and married life in Pauls opinion set
a certain obstacle to the full realization of such a union (cf. 1 Cor. 7:32-35).
If one interprets 2 Cor. 11:2-3 in human categories and according to both
Jewish and Greek customs, in v. 3 the "wedding," in keeping with the meta
phor, should have already taken place, and as a result, only in v. 2 can αγνή
characterizing the Corinthian community refer to virginity. In v. 3 άγνότης
should, in line with cultural norms ofthat period be understood as "marital
chastity," a "decent" and commonly accepted form of sexuality, but sexuality
nevertheless. Yet does such a literal imagery, which depicts Christian com
munity as a wife and Christ as her husband, with the duties and characteris
tics proper to earthly conjugal union, suit the reality of our relations with the
Lord? According to the author of Ephesians it presumably did; according to
Paul, scarcely so. The ideal union was supposed to be the spiritual one.86 The
86)
I find a confirmation of my interpretation of 2 Cor. 11:2-3 in the way Gregory of Nyssa
describes spiritual marriage with Christ in the aforementioned fragment of De virginitate,
presenting it as the ideal union, clearly alluding to our passage. Another question is whether
this was expected to be transposed on human relations. While I believe that 1 Cor. 7:36-38
testifies to the existence of "spiritual marriages" among Corinthians, it is unlikely that Paul
would encourage everyone to live in this way, and from Gregorys hostile attitude towards
virgines subintroductae we may judge that he clearly opposed "spiritual marriages" among
women and men, at least in earthly reality. For more on 1 Cor. 7:36-38 and "spiritual marriage,"
see D.A. Kurek, "A Particular Gift from God (for Men): Analysis of Pauls Argumentation in
1 Cor 7,36-38" (MA Research Paper in Theology, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, 2002).
consequences of abandoning the παρθένος of v. 2 and talking only about

νοήματα of the Corinthians in v. 3 are manifold. First of all, too close
resemblance between human conjugal union based on sexuality and one s
union with Christ is denied. No one can now accuse Paul of suggesting an
idolatrous ιερός γάμος. This is made even more evident by the addition of
the comparison between the possible behaviour of the Corinthians with
Eve s deed in paradise. Upon literal interpretation, if Eve s relationship
with God before the Fall is to be compared to the Corinthians' relationship
with Christ, it is obvious that none of the two were supposed to be of a sexual
nature. Neither is there a need to suggest that the serpent s "leading astray"
consisted in seducing Eve sexually, as several late Jewish commentaries on the
Eden story imply, and as some commentators, according to whom Paul may
have been familiar with interpretations of this kind, have argued.87 The Gen
esis story is about the loss of trust in God, about the act of disobedience, and
a subsequent rupture in a unique relationship that used to bind God and
human beings. In 2 Cor. 11:3 Paul expresses his fear lest this relationship, the
restoration of which was made possible thanks to Christ's salvific activity, be
broken by the Corinthians' attraction to those who, according to Paul, are
acting like the serpent of the Eden story.
Having rejected the literal notion of engaging sexuality in this relation
ship, the Aposde puts it bluntly what the ideal union with God is supposed
to be. It is the union of one's νους with Christ (cf. 1 Cor. 1:10 and 2:16, the
latter implying the connection between one's unity in faith with Paul and
being united with the mind of Christ). In this context άγνότης acquires a
new meaning of a specific quasi-marital chastity, safeguarding the wellbeing
of this absolutely unique relationship. It does thereby contribute to the imag
ery of 2 Cor. 11:2-3 in a rather unexpected manner.88
In sum, taking into account Paul's usage and style, as well as the particular
context and imagery of the verse under discussion, we can conclude that
87)
For the summary of various Jewish interpretations, including references to the pertinent
Jewish literature as well as the names of contemporary authors who have argued that some of
those interpretations are presupposed in 2 Cor. 11:3, see Thrall, 2 Corinthians, 2.662.
88)
I have dealt more in detail with the imagery of 2 Cor. 11:2-3 in a paper on "Lest the 'Pure
Virgin' Be Deceived and Led Astray. Some Observations on the Nuptial Imagery in 2 Cor
11,2-3 and Its Wirkungsgeschichte," presented to the Paul and Politics Group at the SBL
2003 Annual Meeting in Adanta. See the abstract in AAR & SBL Annual Meetings Abstracts
2003 (Adanta, GA, November 22-25) 205.
intrinsic probability also points to the longer reading as the more likely
original one.
III. Conclusion
There are a number of weighty arguments in favour of the reading άπο της
άπλότητος και της άγνότητος in 2 Cor. 11:3. The arguments put forward in
support of the shorter reading are much less persuasive. There are no sufficient
grounds to argue that καί της άγνότητος was a gloss. Haplography seems to
be the easiest explanation, άγνότης suits both the immediate context, as well
as Pauls style and concepts, and what is more, it adds a specific, albeit ambig
uous sexual connotation to the imagery, making the marital metaphor
explicit, in the end only to scorn the possible similarity between earthly sexu
ality and one s relationship with God.
Next to a plea to include καί της άγνότητος as a part of the text written by
Paul, my study has been aimed at bringing some more general issues under
discussion. One of them is the question of the criteria for enclosing selected
words or passages in square brackets in editions of the New Testament, espe
cially ones like GNT 4 , supposedly intended for translators. There are per
haps instances where the arguments for and against including certain phrases
in the text are so balanced, that enclosing them in square brackets can be
defended. They can then serve as a good reminder that we have to do with an
eclectic text. Yet to my mind this is not the case with καί της άγνότητος. All
in all, is this easy solution not made use of all too readily, and based on prin
ciples which are not always very clear and/or compelling?89
It is also important to emphasize the need to use the principle lectio brevior
potior with particular caution, for even though very often it is the addition
rather than omission that requires a good explanation, scholars (admittedly,
nowadays mosdy non-specialists in text criticism) are so accustomed to
applying this rule to text critical considerations, that they often do it even in
situations when it is barely warranted.
89)
An excessive use of square brackets in thefirsteditions of the GNT has been broadly criti
cised, cf. e.g. J.K. Elliott, "The United Bible Societies Greek New Testament: An Evaluation,"
NovT15 (1975) 278-300, esp. pp. 289-290. As compared to the earlier editions, GNT4 has a
much more limited number of square brackets, which is commendable, yet the criteria are still
not always evident.
In addition, my scrutiny of both the textual apparatus of NA and that of

GNT has shown that there are some errors or ambiguities in it, which hope-
fully can be corrected in the subsequent editions of those otherwise invalu-
able books.
By discussing patristic evidence, next to its use for the critical apparatus, I
have intended to emphasize the problems we encounter when trying to make
use of the writings of the Fathers in reconstructing the original text of the
New Testament.
^ s
Copyright and Use:
As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.
No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.
This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission
from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal
typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific
work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,
or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).
About ATLAS:
The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously

published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS
collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association
(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.
The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American
Theological Library Association.

Sincerity and Chastity For Christ A Textual Problem

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Sincerity and Chastity For Christ A Textual Problem

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

l m Ζ Novum