No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 February 2009
Page 247 note 1 Wie es also — das gilt es zu beachten — in den ersten drei Bitten um Gottes Namen, Gottes Herrschaft und Gottes Willen geht, so geht es in den letzten drei Bitten um unser Brot, unsere Schulden und (gegen den ϼberlieferten Text: και μί εισενέγκης ήμας είς πειρασμόν) um unsere Versuchung!
Page 247 note 2 Das hätte auch — genau genommen — dem Charakter eines reinen Bittgebetes, wie es das Vater-Unser ist, widersprochen.
Page 247 note 3 Jeremias, J., a. a. O. S. 29Google Scholar.
Page 247 note 4 On the blunders of 
see Zuntz, G., The Text of the Epistles (London, 1953), pp. 18 ffGoogle Scholar.
Page 248 note 1 Zuntz, , op. cit. p. 228 n. I, and pp. 276 f.Google Scholar
Page 248 note 2 Ewald, P., Die Briefe des Paulus an die Epheser, Kolosser und Philemon (Leipzig, 1905), p. 16Google Scholar.
Page 248 note 3 Shearer, W. C., Expository Times, IV, (1892/1893), 129Google Scholar.
Page 248 note 4 Goguel, M., Introduction au NT, IV, 2e partie (1926), 437 fGoogle Scholar. Goguel's reconstruction of the history of the text is most extraordinary. He supposes that his ‘original’ text was expanded by the addition of 
(or 
) to produce the reading of the textus receptus, and that the place-name was then dropped (because known to be unoriginal), Producing the text of N*B*, etc. and leaving the words τοίς οũσιν hanging in the air. Goguel also lists some other proposed emendations, ibid. p. 436 n. 3.