# Out of Egypt I have called my Son.



## One Little Nail (Apr 30, 2014)

I found this pearl of a quote on another forum, which basically proves the Egyptian origin of the
Wescott & Hort text base;

Prof. Kirsopp Lake in his monumental edition of the Codex Sinaiticus Petropolitanus (Oxford, 1911) has pointed out (p. xi.) that in eight of the nine places where Ἰσραηλείτης [Israelite] occurs in the NT the Cod. Sinaiticus spells it ΙCΔΡΑΗΛΕΙΤΗC [Isdraelite], while in the Cod. Vaticanus it appears in the form ΙCΤΡΑΗΛΕΙΤΗC [Istraelite]. WH have used this fact to support their theory of a Western provenance for one or both of these MSS., but, as Lake goes on to show, their argument has lost its force through the discovery of the same spelling in Egypt. He cites by way of example for Ἰστραήλ the great magical P Par 574, and for Ἰστραήλ a Jewish inscr. published in Bull. Soc. Alex. xi. (1909), p. 326 (= Preisigke 617 Ἰσ]drαήλ): add P Lond 46111 (iv/A.D.) (= I. p. 68) Ἰστραήλ. [James Hope Moulton and George Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1930), p. 307.]


----------



## One Little Nail (May 16, 2014)

Theodore Letis in his article, The Christian Research Network and King James’ Bible, found here http://www.holywordcafe.com/bible/resources/crn.pdf, notes on pg 3 that the words of
Richard N. Soulen and R. Kendal Soulen in description of the “critical text” in their 3rd edition of Handbook of Biblical Criticism (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001), pp. 41-42: 

A critical text is a conjectural reconstruction of a document of which only divergent RECENSIONS are extant; it is therefore a hypothetical text usually based on the one or two best MSS available.

so basically we have a conjectural reconstruction, which was pieced together by hypothesis from two Alexandrian or Egyptian manuscripts.


----------

