Jump To ECM Entry     Online Commentary Introduction

NA26 and GNT3 print ὡς in brackets, and accordingly Metzger (275), followed by Pervo (112), leaves open the decision about the presence of a qualifying particle. Barrett (221f) prefers c because the addition of a qualifying particle in two forms could be explained on this basis.

GC: The core of A-related witnesses for c would certainly allow for Barrett’s preference, but GC clearly speaks against c. The TFD shows that c probably arose several times independently from a. Moreover, incoherencies in the b attestation point to a, not c, which suggests taking the attestations of a and b together in favour of the presence of a qualifying particle. The Syriac versions, most old Latin witnesses, and most Sahidic witnesses also support a or b against c.

TP: Luke prefers ὡσεί (14 out of 20 NT instances), but frequently also employs ὡς with the meaning “about”. It appears possible that a scribe put in the form favored by Luke (TP for a<b). GC, however, shows perfect coherence for a, while the range of A-related witnesses is small for b and incoherencies point to multiple emergence from a.