onewithhim wrote: ↑Sun Mar 17, 2024 6:55 pmIt IS implied by the text.
Only if you imagine it there. Adding "son" is nothing more than an attempt to harmonize a theologically difficult reading. Though the NWT notes don't include it, the quotation from Moulton actually goes on to mention that this pattern "in the papyri" is limitied to a single phrase in a single papyrus:
Mt 27:24, according to the text of ℵL and the later authorities, will supply a parallel for the grammatical ambiguity: there as here we have to decide whether the second genitive is an adjective qualifying the first or a noun dependent on it. The ΜGr use of ὁ ἴδιος, as substitute for the old ὁ αὐτός, has nothing foreshadowing it in the NT; but in the papyrus of Eudoxus (ii/B.C.) we find a passage where τῆι ἰδίαι is followed by τῆι αὐτῆι in the same sense, so that if seems inevitable to trace, with Blass, an anticipation of MGr here. Perhaps the use was locally restricted.
This continuation, omitted by the Watchtower article, makes it clear just how speculative it is, again reinforcing that the offered solution is theological rather based on any weight of textual evidence.
Another properly academic source,
The Anchor Bible volume on Acts by Fitzmyer, says this:
The obvious meaning of the phrase creates a difficulty with the antecedent of the preferred reading, "God." Hence some commentators (e.g., Bruce, Knapp, Pesch, Weiser) have preferred to understand this phrase to mean, "with the blood of his Own," i.e., his own Son. Such an absolute use of ho idios is found in Greek papyri as a term of endearment for relatives. Perhaps, then, it might be used here for Jesus, somewhat like Rom 8:32 or 1 Tim 5:8. That, however, is a last-ditch solution for this text-critical problem.
Again, the author notes the speculative nature of this rendering, further noting that it is a "last-ditch solution." It's no wonder that Witnesses can find the theology they want in the Bible when their translators are willing to insert it there for them in the first place.
I will admit, however, that compared to scare quotes around "Samuel," this solution might be considered positively elegant.