Severus mentioned that Chrysostom notes the spearing, too.

I looked this up, it is in Chrysostom's Homiliae in Matthaeum 88, (PG
58.775):
"But mark herein also their wantonness, and intemperance, and folly. They
thought (it is said) that it was Elias whom He called [Mt 27:49], and
straightway they gave Him vinegar to drink. [Mt 27:48] But another came unto
Him, and pierced His side with a spear. [Mt 27:49] What could be more
lawless, what more brutal, than these men; who carried their madness to so
great a length, offering insult at last even to a dead body? But mark thou,
I pray you, how He made use of their wickednesses for our salvation. For
after the blow the fountains of our salvation gushed forth from thence. And
Jesus, when He had cried with a loud voice, yielded up the Ghost. [Mt
27:50]"

The sentence in question reads in Greek:
hETEROS DE PROSELQWN LOGCH AUTOU THN PLEURAN ENUXEN

It is not completely clear, which evangelist Chrysostom is quoting here,
since the wording is slightly different from both.  But he is discussing
Matthean material in its normal succession: Mt 27:48-50. It appears probable
that Chrysostom read the addition in his copy of Mt. Note especially the
hETEROS DE, which resembles the ALLOS DE from Matthew. Hort notes Chrysostom
as a witness, too.

Severus' discussion of the evidence is not clear. First he is saying that
John Chrysostom "did not test this question, and allowed the two passages to
stand in the two evangelists" and after that he is suggesting, that
Chrysostom is quoting from John (only) here. But Severus is probably wrong
in suggesting this, because there would be no reason for Chrysostom to do so
at this point.


Best wishes
     Wieland
     <><
--------------------------
Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
mailto:wie@...
http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie
Textcritical commentary:
http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/

Thanks Jim for noting this interesting reference.
I did not study this but it is probable that the
"magnificently written" and "large letters" led Hort to
assume it to be "doubtless of quite recent origin".
Well, we cannot know.
Whatever the truth is, the variant is certainly much older
than Severus.
But Severus should definitely be cited for this variant and
I will do so in the next edition of the commentary.


Best wishes
    Wieland
       <><
------------------------------------------------
Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
mailto:wie@...
http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie
Textcritical Commentary:
http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/index.html

I am currently reading
Eberhard Nestle "Marginalien und Materialien", 1893.

There is a paper on the history of the Latin Bible for the
general audience. In it he is relating the following:

Ernst Ranke in Stuttgart secured readings from the wooden
binding of a book by photographing the offprints of letters
on the wood. The parchment was already lost, only the black
ink was still there, in mirror writing.

Nestle writes that the photo was donated to the university
anniversary of Bologna in 1887 as "einige jόngst in
Stuttgart entdeckte Bruchstόcke der δltesten lateinischen
Bibelόbersetzung" (= some recently in Stuttgart discovered
fragments of the oldest Latin Bible translation). Quotation
marks by Nestle, so perhaps a title? Perhaps in a
Festschrift?

Does anybody know to what Nestle is referring here?



Best wishes
    Wieland
       <><
------------------------------------------------
Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
mailto:wie@...
http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie
Textcritical Commentary:
http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/index.html

Hort, commenting on Mt. 27:49 (Notes on Select Readings, pp. 21-22), mentions "a
letter partially preserved in Syriac" written by Severus of Antioch (465-542?). 
In this letter, Severus states that the variant about the piercing in Matthew
was vigorously debated at Constantinople in connexion with the patriarch
Macedonius, "when the magnificently written copy of St Matthew's Gospel said to
have been discovered in Cyprus with the body of St Barnabas in the reign of Zeno
(? 477) was consulted and found not to contain the sentence in question."

Hort proceeds to wave away this statement from Severus:  "The `magnificent' copy
of St Matthew, though said to have been written by Barnabas himself (Alex.mon.
Laud. In Ap. Barn. 30 in Migne lxxxvii p. 4103), was doubtless of quite recent
origin, the discovery having been opportunely made by Anthemius bishop of
Salamis when he was vindicating the independence of Cyprus against the patriarch
of Antioch, Peter the Fuller."

Um . . . excuse me??  I doubt that "doubtless."

What sort of elaborate fraud is Hort accusing Anthemius of perpetrating?  The
"Eulogy of St. Barnabas" written by Alexander the Monk, in PG 87, to which Hort
alludes, was written in the early 500's.  Its author claims that Anthemius found
Barnabas' coffin and tomb after Barnabas repeatedly appeared to him in visions
and revealed the location of his tomb.  (So far I've seen the date of this given
as 448, 478, and 488.)  Convenient visions, doubtlessly.  But the account says
that Barnabas' tomb was found along with Barnabas' *corpse,* and with the copy
of the Gospel of Matthew which St. Mark had placed there at Barnabas' funeral. 
Is Anthemius supposed to have exhumed a recently-made copy of the Gospel of
Matthew, which he claimed to be very ancient, and a recently-deceased corpse,
which he claimed to be Barnabas?  Are we supposed to picture Anthemius plotting
a grand deception, and thinking, "Hmm; it won't be enough merely to `discover'
the tomb of Barnabas; I had better find a copy of the Gospel of Matthew along
with the corpse of Barnabas"??

Over at the Cyprian Project website there are links to several volumes of
Patrologia Orientalis, including Volume 14, in which Severus of Antioch's letter
CVIII, written to Thomas of Germanicea, is presented, in a more complete form,
it seems, than what was available to Hort.  (Vol. 14 begins with a large
collection of letters by Severus, with the Syriac text and an English
translation by E. W. Brooks on each page.)  Turning to page 266 I found the
following statements which pertain to Mt. 27:49 –

"But that our Lord Jesus Christ our God was pierced in the side with a lance by
that soldier after he gave up the ghost, and blood and water came forth from it
in a miraculous manner, the divine John the Evangelist recorded, and no one else
wrote about this.  But certain persons have clearly falsified the Gospel of
Matthew and inserted this same passage, when the contrary is the fact, in order
to show that it was while he was alive that the soldier pierced his side with
the spear, and afterwards he gave up the ghost.  This question was examined with
great carefulness when my meanness [by "my meanness" Severus means himself,
i.e., "my humble self"] was in the royal city [by "the royal city" Severus means
Constantinople], at the time when the affair of Macedonius was being examined,
who became archbishop of that city, and there was produced the Gospel of
Matthew, which was written in large letters, and was preserved with great honour
in the royal palace, which was said to have been found in the days of Zeno of
honourable memory in a city of the island of Cyprus buried with the holy
Barnabas, who went about with Paul and spread the divine preaching; and, when
the Gospel of Matthew was opened, it was found to be free from the falsification
contained in this addition, of the story of the soldier and the spear."

Severus goes on about this on pages 277-278, and although he drifts from his
main subject I think the material is worth presenting:

"I do not know how and for what reason the holy John who became bishop of the
same royal city and the admirable Cyril, bishop of Alexandria, did not test this
question, and allowed the two passages to stand, in the two evangelists,
neglecting the evidence to the contrary; but perhaps in order that this also
might be known, that, while they speak and write everything under the operation
of the Holy Spirit, and while these men are higher than we (for we are men who
creep along the earth), as the heaven is higher than the earth, and that they
themselves also might be known to be men, and to leave omniscience to God only,
and that there is something in affairs which cannot be expressed, the complete
revelation of which is not made known."

He continues:
"Thus Samuel also, who as one may say saw with the eye of prophecy everything
that was about to happen, did not know Saul when he was present and standing
among all Israel, because God by means of these things was instructing his
bondmen, and teaching them to pay regard to humility.  Wherefore also the divine
Scripture is written thus: << And Samuel asked in the Lord and said, `Cometh
that man hither?' And the Lord said, `Lo!  he is hidden among the vessels'.  And
he ran and took him thence >>.  And at the time when the Shilumite woman's son
died, and she had come to Elisha in great distress, as a mother who had been
deprived of her beloved son, and, when she had just fallen at the feet of the
prophet of God, and Gehazi tried to prevent her, the bondman of God, being moved
by love and sorrow, said to Gehazi, << Let her alone, because her soul is bitter
in her, and the Lord hid it from me and showed it not to me >> ."

He proceeds:
"Accordingly, you should know that Eusebius of Caesarea also who is called
`Pamphili', who wrote the canons of the gospel, and imitated those who wrote on
this subject before him, and had more complete knowledge of this question than
the others, in the 10th canon, in which he recorded the places peculiar to one
of the evangelists, inserted this passage also about the soldier and the lance,
saying that John alone recorded it.  And we also agree with this careful
accuracy, not that we contend against our fathers (far be it!), but that we
place the evangelists at a greater height than them, and assign to the
evangelists only the intention which properly belongs to them, in order that in
everything Jesus, who is God, who spoke in the evangelists, may be glorified,
`in whom are all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge hidden,' according to the
saying of Paul.

Severus then cites John Chrysostom's commentary on Matthew:
"But for the rest we find that the holy John himself also, the bishop of
Constantinople, in the commentary on the same Matthew the Evangelist with regard
to this same addition which we are now discussing, himself also said things that
fit the truth, for he expressed himself thus:  << But another came up and
perforated his side with a lance'.  And what could be more wicked than these
men?  And who could be lawless like them?  And who could be more savage than
these same men, who showed their madness to such an extent, that they attacked a
dead body.  But do you mark how their madness was brought about for our
salvation.  For after the wound the fountain of life welled forth for us >>. 
But these are the words of a man who follows the footsteps of the narrative of
John the Evangelist and nothing else; for he called the body `dead'; because it
was after he gave up the ghost that the soldier pierced him, and gave occasion
for the fountain of our salvation to well forth thence, as the doctor John the
bishop said."

Severus keeps on going:
"But this addition to the narrative of Matthew the Evangelist has never been
inserted by any of the earlier commentators who wrote, not by Origen, who
examined such questions minutely, though he sinned in matters that are necessary
for the truth of the faith of the church, nor by Didymus, nor by any other man
who has written on this subject."

Next, Severus refers to /Ad Marinum/:
"But Eusebius of Caesarea, who is called `Pamphili', whom we mentioned a little
above, when writing to a man called Marinus about questions concerning the
passions of our Saviour and about his Resurrection, showed us nothing whatever
about the said addition, as being unknown and having no place in the books of
the gospel.  But in the same letters to Marinus, who had asked him for an
interpretation on the subject of our Saviour's passions and his Resurrection, he
inserted the following exposition also in his letters, that the divine Mark the
Evangelist said that it was the 3rd hour at the time when Christ who is God and
our Saviour was crucified, but the divine John (he said) wrote that it was at
the 6th hour that Pilate sat upon his judgment-seat at the place called `the
pavement', and judged Christ.  And therefore Eusebius said that this is an error
of a scribe, who was inattentive when writing the Gospel.  For it is the letter
/gamal/ that denotes 3 hours, while the letter which is called in Greek
/episemon/ denotes the number of 6 hours, and these letters are like one another
in Greek, and the scribe wishing to write `3' quickly, and having turned the
letter a little backwards, it was thereby found to be `6', because, since the
letter had been turned backwards, it was supposed to be the letter that denotes
`6'.  Since therefore the three other evangelists Matthew, Mark, and Luke stated
alike as with one mouth that from the 6th hour to the 9th there was darkness
over all the land, it is plain that our Lord and God Jesus Christ was crucified
before the 6th hour, at which the darkness took place, that is from the 3rd
hour, as the blessed John himself wrote.  Similarly we say that it is the 3rd
hour, because those who wrote before, as we have said, changed the letter."

Severus then cites Eusebius:
"We must insert also in this our letter upon this matter a part of what Eusebius
himself stated at length; and his words are as follows:  << We agree not with
any chance man, but with the evangelist who gave this testimony, Mark.  For it
happened that there was an error on the part of the scribe so that he changed
the letter by adding length to it, and it was thought that the letter which
represents `3' was `6,' on account of the likeness of the two letters of that
which denotes `3' and that which denotes `6'.  If the refore it is stated by
John that it was the preparation of the day of unlevened bread, and it was about
the 6th hour, and Pilate said to the Jews << Behold!  Your king >> and so on,
let there be read instead of `6th' `3rd', since the beginning of his trial took
place at that time, and in the middle of the hour or after it had been completed
they crucified him, so that the result is that they judged and crucified him at
the same hour >> .  If you look for and find the volume addressed to Marinus
about the interpretation of these things, you will find the accuracy of the
writer as regards these matters.  For our part we do not wish to write much on
these subjects in this our letter."

Obviously Severus' Letter CVIII to Thomas of Germanicea contains plenty to
discuss!

(Also of interest:  elsewhere in Patrologia Orientalis Vol. 14 -- page 32 --
Severus quotes Mark 15:28.  This is not mentioned in UBS-2 or NA27.)

Getting back to the question about Matthew 27:49 – are we supposed to imagine
that everyone who saw the copy of Matthew that Severus describes was fooled by a
copy that was actually of quite recent origin?  Wouldn't the folks from Antioch
have insisted that Anthemius' convenient discovery should be evaluated
carefully?  Istm that Hort dismisses this rather cavalierly.

I'm not saying that we can discern what Anthemius found, how he found it, and
exactly how old it was.  But an alternative to Hort's theory seems just as
plausible:  Anthemius wants to defend the autonomy of the Cypriot church.  He
knows that if he could find Barnabas' tomb, which was supposed to be somewhere
on the island, that would greatly enhance a case for the autonomy of the Cypriot
church.  Anthemius is aware of a place that the locals regard as a "place of
healing," and he naturally assumes that such a place must be a top contender for
the location of Barnabas' tomb.  He prays for guidance.  Then he goes exploring
the area around the "place of healing," and discovers an old Christian tomb,
containing an old Christian's corpse, and an old Christian's copy of Matthew. 
And the rest is attributable to Anthemius' salesmanship.

(Alexander's story about Anthemius is summarized in Smith-Cheetham's Dictionary
of Christian Antiquities, under the entry for Barnabas.  It is noted there (Vol.
I, p. 179) that the copy of Matthew discovered by Anthemius was taken to
Constantinople, and Zeno, "as soon as it arrived had it adorned with gold and
placed in the imperial palace."  (It occurs to me that inasmuch as this was not
done in secret, it would probably be downright impossible for copyists in
Constantinople to resist the temptation to use that copy of Matthew as an
exemplar.)

In any event, Anthemius' copy of Matthew should be in the apparatus as a witness
against the Alexandrian reading of Mt. 27:49.

Yours in Christ,

James Snapp, Jr.

Wordsworth, White
Novum Testamentum Latine

Full title:
Novum Testamentum Domini Nostri Iesu Christi Latine : Secundum Editionem
Sancti Hieronymi
Oxford


Gospels: 1889-1895
<http://www.archive.org/details/nouumtestamentu00whitgoog>


Acts: 1905
<http://www.archive.org/details/nouumtestamentu01whitgoog>


I haven't found the other volumes.


Best wishes
     Wieland
     <><
--------------------------
Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
mailto:wie@...
http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie
Textcritical commentary:
http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/

Dear List,

The "quite slim" support for the text reading (so Willker) would
usually indicate a secondary origin in my opinion. In this case there
is a chance that KAI HLQEN originated from pious theological
considerations to clarify the text with regard to the connection of
EPI TA UDATA: is the phrase to go with PERIEPATHSEN or with ELQEIN
(assuming the priority of ELQEIN for the moment)? If with ELQEIN, then
some might consider that Peter never actually _walked_ on the water,
but merely "having exited the boat Peter went about (intending) to go
on the water toward Jesus." The possibility of this misunderstanding
disappears with the introduction of KAI HLQEN. For this particular
interpretive problem, see Karl Friedrich August Fritzsche, Evangelium
Matthaei (Lipsiae: Sumtibus Frederici Fleischeri, 1826), 503-4.
Fritzsche mentions that Heinrich Paulus actually used such an argument
to explain away the miracle.

Jonathan C. Borland




On Nov 19, 2009, at 6:07 PM, Wieland Willker wrote:

> It appears that ELQEIN is a correction of KAI HLQEN because Peter
> did not
> reach Jesus because he was beginning to sink. Weiss thinks that
> ELQEIN is a
> conformation to the previous verse 28.
> On the other hand it could be argued that ELQEIN has been changed to
> KAI
> HLQEN, because in verse 31 Peter is so close to Jesus that Jesus
> could catch
> him.
>
> The reading of 01* is strange. It is possible that the reading as it
> stands
> is the result of a misinterpreted correction. Perhaps in the
> exemplar HLQEN
> OUN was meant as a replacement for ELQEIN or vice versa.
>
> The support for the txt reading is quite slim.
>
> So much for the variant in verse 14:29.
>
> But you were originally asking:
> > I am researching about arguments for and against the idea
> > of the four verses Matthew 14.28-31
> > - where the apostle Peter walks on water -
> > were inserted by another scribe and why.
>
> There is no evidence for this.
> The episode is unique to Mt, but that does not mean that it is not
> original.
> No manuscript whatsoever omits the verses.
>
> Best wishes
> Wieland

I have a problem but I hope you can help me.
When I look in my Greek New Testament 4th Rev. Ed.Β at John 7.8 I find that John
Chrysostom and the Diatessaron have a citation of the reading οὐκ, but when
I go and look in "Schaff, P. (1997). The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Vol.
XIV. Chrysostom: Homilies on the Gospel of Saint John and Epistle to the
Hebrews" or in "The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers - Volume 9 - The
Diatessaron of Tatian" I only find a citation of the reading οὔπω.
I am sure that UBS4 is correct but I want to know the correct references so I
can read the citation by myself.
I also want to know from where can I get the citations of (Porphyry acc. to
Jerome), Epiphanius and Cyril.
I am very sorry that I'm wasting your time in such small things but you are the
professionals.

Best regards, Abo-Almontasir

It appears that ELQEIN is a correction of KAI HLQEN because Peter did not
reach Jesus because he was beginning to sink. Weiss thinks that ELQEIN is a
conformation to the previous verse 28.
On the other hand it could be argued that ELQEIN has been changed to KAI
HLQEN, because in verse 31 Peter is so close to Jesus that Jesus could catch
him.

The reading of 01* is strange. It is possible that the reading as it stands
is the result of a misinterpreted correction. Perhaps in the exemplar HLQEN
OUN was meant as a replacement for ELQEIN or vice versa.

The support for the txt reading is quite slim.

So much for the variant in verse 14:29.


But you were originally asking:
> I am researching about arguments for and against the idea
> of the four verses Matthew 14.28-31
> - where the apostle Peter walks on water -
> were inserted by another scribe and why.

There is no evidence for this.
The episode is unique to Mt, but that does not mean that it is not original.
No manuscript whatsoever omits the verses.


Best wishes
     Wieland
     <><
--------------------------
Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
mailto:wie@...
http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie
Textcritical commentary:
http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/

Wieland,

It would appear to be his comment on Mt 14.29

14:29καὢ ἦλθΡνBκαὢ ἦλθΡν ("Peter walked upon the water and
came to Jesus") seemed to say too much, and therefore was altered to
ἐλθΡῖν ("Peter walked upon the water to come to Jesus"). Although the
reading of א* has the appearance of being a conflation, it may be merely an
exegetical expansion introduced by the scribe. The reading of ethro is a
translational error.
Β 

george
gfsomsel


… search for truth, hear truth,
learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
defend the truth till death.


- Jan Hus
_________




________________________________
From: marcodorantes <mdorante@...>
To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, November 18, 2009 10:28:51 PM
Subject: [textualcriticism] Re: Apostle Peter walking on water

Β 

[Note by moderator: Could you please tell us about which variant exactly you are
talking? Which words? ---Wieland]

Thank you very much.
Yes, I found Metzger's comments about it. He said that in a given manuscript:
"...Although. ..the reading has the appearance of being a conflation, it may be
merely an exegetical expansion introduced by the scribe". I understand the
explanation* of a conflation, but now I am looking for what "an exegetical
expansion" could possibly mean.

Could you please point to an example of such?

*The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration
(4th Edition)

Also, Did you have in mind the following page for Bruce Terry's comments on
variants?
http://ovc.edu/terry/tc/index.htm

Best regards.

--- In textualcriticism@ yahoogroups. com, Parson Pat <heterodoxus@ ...> wrote:
>
> Metzger discusses Matthew 14:29-30 in TCNT 2nd ed. (1994). So does Bruce Terry
in his comments on variants.
>
> If you don't have those references, let me know and I'll share them with you.
>
> Pat
>
>
>
>
> ____________ _________ _________ __
> From: marcodorantes <marco_dorantes@ ...>
> To: textualcriticism@ yahoogroups. com
> Sent: Mon, November 16, 2009 1:02:43 PM
> Subject: [textualcriticism] Apostle Peter walking on water
>
>
> Hi, I am researching about arguments for and against the idea of the four
verses Matthew 14.28-31 Ò€"where the apostle Peter walks on waterÒ€" were
inserted by another scribe and why.
>
> Do you know of any discussion about it?
>
> Thank you very much in advance for any hint
>

[Note by moderator: Could you please tell us about which variant exactly you are
talking? Which words? ---Wieland]


Thank you very much.
Yes, I found Metzger's comments about it. He said that in a given manuscript:
"...Although...the reading has the appearance of being a conflation, it may be
merely an exegetical expansion introduced by the scribe". I understand the
explanation* of a conflation, but now I am looking for what "an exegetical
expansion" could possibly mean.

Could you please point to an example of such?

*The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration
(4th Edition)

Also, Did you have in mind the following page for Bruce Terry's comments on
variants?
http://ovc.edu/terry/tc/index.htm

Best regards.

--- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, Parson Pat <heterodoxus@...> wrote:
>
> Metzger discusses Matthew 14:29-30 in TCNT 2nd ed. (1994).  So does Bruce
Terry in his comments on variants.
>
> If you don't have those references, let me know and I'll share them with you.
>
> Pat
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: marcodorantes <marco_dorantes@...>
> To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Mon, November 16, 2009 1:02:43 PM
> Subject: [textualcriticism] Apostle Peter walking on water
>
>
> Hi, I am researching about arguments for and against the idea of the four
verses Matthew 14.28-31 β€"where the apostle Peter walks on waterβ€" were
inserted by another scribe and why.
>
> Do you know of any discussion about it?
>
> Thank you very much in advance for any hint
>

Perhaps members are aware of this lexicon already, but in case not:

E.A. Sophocles, Greek lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine periods (from B.C. 146
to A.D. 1100)
is available as a free download in PDF from the Digital Library of Modern Greek
Studies,
at the University of Crete. Here's the URL: 
http://anemi.lib.uoc.gr/metadata/f/5/3/metadata-01-0001130.tkl
(the cursor doesn't change over "download book" but it works)

It's 1203 pages, my copy has a few scrambled pages.

- my highest regards,
	 Leroy Latta

As part of Jeremy Norman's "History of Science," the page at

http://www.historyofscience.com/G2I/timeline/index.php?category=Manuscript+Illum\
ination

(watch the wrap)

is about manuscripts and manuscript-copying.  This covers Biblical and
non-Biblical materials.  There is plenty of eye candy (including a photo of a
page from G67 (Coptic Acts); looks like it cleaned up good) and the profiles of
the various subjects are crammed with intriguing details.  Some of the profiles
of non-Biblical MSS have relevance to NT research; one of them mentions a purple
MS in the 200's; another involves a very early display of stichometry.

This is just one of several interesting pages filled with profiles of important
ancient manuscripts and artifacts and why-it's-important-or-at-least-valuable
summaries at the History of Science website.

Yours in Christ,

James Snapp, Jr.

Metzger discusses Matthew 14:29-30 in TCNT 2nd ed. (1994).  So does Bruce Terry
in his comments on variants.

If you don't have those references, let me know and I'll share them with you.

Pat




________________________________
From: marcodorantes <marco_dorantes@...>
To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, November 16, 2009 1:02:43 PM
Subject: [textualcriticism] Apostle Peter walking on water


Hi, I am researching about arguments for and against the idea of the four verses
Matthew 14.28-31 β€”where the apostle Peter walks on waterβ€” were inserted by
another scribe and why.

Do you know of any discussion about it?

Thank you very much in advance for any hint

Hi, I am researching about arguments for and against the idea of the four verses
Matthew 14.28-31 —where the apostle Peter walks on water— were inserted by
another scribe and why.

Do you know of any discussion about it?

Thank you very much in advance for any hint

Thank you for your offerings.

Otherwise, my only concern is that most any of the theologically induced
Variants (corruptions) I am looking for have, very likely, been already
dismissed from within any of these lists, simply because they have already been
determined as of no real value (because of their lack of assigned 'weight') by
most all Textual Critics.

Agape, Alan.

--- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "Rodrigo Arthur D. S.  Melo"
<rodrigoarthur@...> wrote:
>
>
> Manuscript Comparator
>
> http://openscriptures.org/prototypes/manuscript-comparator/
>
> The variant readings can be read off line downloading the list in RTF format
for Word and other word processors, or in in CHM format (with manuscripts in the
usual order, or in the order of the text type) for Windows Help or Bibleworks.
>
> http://www.laparola.net/greco/
>
> Free bibles with critical apparatus and other books
>
> http://www.bibles.org.uk/
>
> Codex Bobbiensis, Tregelles Greek New Testament, Von Soden's Apparatus, A
Critical Textual Commentary on the Gospels, Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Bezae, Codex
Vaticanus, Codex Alexandrinus, Washington Codex
>
> http://bibleworks.oldinthenew.org/
>

Does anybody know what happened to the Kilpatrick GNT text
of the early 60s?
I remember having read that a manuscript exists somewhere,
but that it was never printed, when Aland and Metzger took
over.
Does anybody know? Perhaps the text could be digitized?


Best wishes
    Wieland
       <><
------------------------------------------------
Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
mailto:wie@...
http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie
Textcritical Commentary:
http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/index.html

Hopefully not off topic and of some interest is the following report about
spotting 'ill' manuscripts (I quote):
"In a report published in the American Chemical Society's Analytical Chemistry,
a semi-monthly journal, they describe development of a new test that can measure
the degradation of old books and precious historical documents on the basis of
their aroma. The non-destructive "sniff" test could help libraries and museums
preserve a range of prized paper-based objects, some of which are degrading
rapidly due to advancing age, the scientists say."
For more please see:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091110112446.htm
Hoping this is of some interest,
HenrykG

Manuscript Comparator

http://openscriptures.org/prototypes/manuscript-comparator/

The variant readings can be read off line downloading the list in RTF format for
Word and other word processors, or in in CHM format (with manuscripts in the
usual order, or in the order of the text type) for Windows Help or Bibleworks.

http://www.laparola.net/greco/

Free bibles with critical apparatus and other books

http://www.bibles.org.uk/

Codex Bobbiensis, Tregelles Greek New Testament, Von Soden's Apparatus, A
Critical Textual Commentary on the Gospels, Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Bezae, Codex
Vaticanus, Codex Alexandrinus, Washington Codex

http://bibleworks.oldinthenew.org/

Dear Alan,

there are a few such collections out there.
If you want an English one you could go to Michael Marlowe's
site:
<http://www.bible-researcher.com/guide.html>

or to Bruce Terry's site:
<http://bible.ovc.edu/tc/index.htm>

If you are into Greek, you could check out the online
textual commentary on the Greek Gospels:
<http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/index.html>

There is a list of the top 5, 20 and 50 variants of the
Gospels:
<http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/TOP-Variants.pdf>

An online Bible that shows a lot of important variants is
the New English Translation:
<http://bible.org/netbible/index.htm>

For books I suggest:
- Bruce Metzger "A textual commentary on the Greek New
Testament"
- Roger L. Omanson "A textual guide to the Greek New
Testament"
- Philip Comfort "New Testament Text and Translation
Commentary"


Best wishes
    Wieland
       <><
------------------------------------------------
Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
mailto:wie@...
http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie
Textcritical Commentary:
http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/index.html

Just curious,

Does anyone here know of a collection of most all of the major word and/or
phrase variants (considered valid alternatives or not) for the New Testament?

Of course, I am not speaking of simple spelling differences, but of the
significant ones, those of which - if these had not been filtered out as of no
serious concern (because of their lessor ranking among manuscripts, etc.) -
could have, otherwise, impacted on the New Testament doctrine/teaching of the
identity of Jesus and/or the character/makeup of God.

The reason why I ask is because, as most of us know, according to a number of
Biblical scholars, quite a few of such corruptions had occurred as a result of
theological bias. Therefore, I am interested in locating those attempted changes
which, as best can be determined, had come as a direct result of such influence.

As an example of one not to be included would be the commonly known variant in
the wording for 1 Timothy 3:16, including the different reasons offered in
explanation for its occurrence.

But, as an example of one which could be included, this would be the wording
variant for Galatians 2:2, wherein "Son of God" had been later changed to "God
the Son" in MS1985. Or, in Mark 3:11, whereas this would read, "You are the Son
of God," this had been later changed to "You are God, the Son of God" in MS69.

Although I do have a number of other examples, I am in search of more, those of
which are also not so commonly known - those which, to the textual critic, are
obvious in their corruption, and so have been generally dismissed by the
scholarly community, that is, as of no real value (either because of the age of
the manuscript involved and/or the weight/classification given to the manuscript
being dismissed, etc., etc., etc.), and so, therefore, are not usually seen
within the footnotes of Westcott/Hort, Nestle/Aland, & etc.

Because I am a bit new at this, I otherwise hope that I have worded my inquiry
in an understandable way, ...and, if I have not, I thank you in advance for your
patience, and hope that you would feel free to ask for any further clarification
from me.

Again, thanking you in advance,
Agape, Alan.

Full text of:

"The Caesarean Text of the Gospel of Mark"
Kirsopp Lake, Robert P. Blake, Silva New
HTR 21 (1928) 207-404
<http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/1507865.pdf>


"The Caesarean Text of the Gospels"
Bruce M. Metzger
JBL 64 (1945) 457-489
<http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/3262276.pdf>


"The Caesarean Text of Matthew and Luke"
Burnett Hillman Streeter
HTR 28 (1935) 231-235
<http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/1508327.pdf>


"Harmonizations in the Caesarean Text of Mark"
Edward F. Hills
JBL  (1947) 135-152
<http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/3262175.pdf>


"The Inter-Relationship of the Caesarean Manuscripts"
Edward F. Hills
JBL  68 (1949) 141-159
<http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/3261999.pdf>


Best wishes
     Wieland
     <><
--------------------------
Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
mailto:wie@...
http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie
Textcritical commentary:
http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/

Wieland,

Probably "16:9-19" should be replaced by "16:9-20."  I suggest noting that in
Fuldensis and in the Arabic Diatessaron, Mk. 16:14 is presented as occurring in
Galilee, with the result that Jesus and the disciples proceed from Galilee
directly to Bethany.  The chance that two harmonists would independently arrange
the events that way seems low.

You wrote, "Ephrem, in his commentary, has no clear references to the long
ending, but only possible allusions (compare McCarthy)."

In Carmel McCarthy's "Saint Ephrem's Commentary on Tatian's Diatessaron," VIII:1
(page 145), Ephrem's commentary states:

"After they had crucified him, he commanded his disciples, `Go out into the
whole world and proclaim my Gospel to the whole of creation, and baptize all the
Gentiles.'"

The paragraph is absent from the two Armenian copies (both made in 1195), but
they display many abridgements.  Carmel's translation echoes Leloir's
presentation of Chester Beatty Syriac MS 709.

Also, in one of Ephrem's hymns, it says, "Go into all the world and baptize in
the name of the Father, and Son, and Spirit."  At least that is what Roelof van
den Broek seems to have been saying on p. 132 (see the text and the footnote) of
New Testament Studies, Vol. XXI, 1975, in his article "A Latin Diatessaron in
the `Vita Beate Virginis Marie et Salvatoris Rhythmica."

While you're updating the commentary, maybe this would be a good time to add a
few more witnesses, if they have not already been added:

Eznik of Golb (co-translator of Armenian in the mid-400's) – used Mk. 16:17-18
in "De Deo" (also known as "Against the Sects"), 1:25.  The quotation is on p.
85 of "A Treatise on God Written in Armenian by Eznik of Golb," translated by
Monica J. Blanchard and Robin Darling Young, 1998:

"And again, `Here are signs of believers:  they will dislodge demons, and they
will take serpents into their hand, and they will drink a deadly poison and it
will not cause harm.'"

Marius Mercator (c. 390 – c. 450).  He ministered in northern Africa, Rome, and
Thrace.  His writings include a series of sermons against the Nestorians.  I
think there's a reference in Migne's PG (or was it PL?), Vol. 48, Col. 0829, in
"Sermo X," where Marius Mercator quotes 16:20.

Marcus Eremita (early 400's).  In Johannes Kunze's 1895 Greek text of Marcus
Eremita's treatise Against Nestorius., at the end of chapter 6, there is a clear
use of Mark 16:18.

Patrick (c. 390-c. 460).  In "Letter to Coroticus," part 20, and again in
"Confession, part 40, Patrick uses Mark 16:16.

Peter Chrysologus (bishop of Ravenna, 433-450).  Quotes and comments extensively
on Mark 16:14-20, treating it as a lection, in his 83rd Sermon.  He says nothing
that would suggest any awareness that the text was ever absent from any
manuscripts.

Leontius of Jerusalem (Greek writer, 530's).  Used Mark 16:20 in "Against the
Monophysite."  Patrick Gray provides the quotation on p. 158 of "Leontius of
Jerusalem:  Against the Monophysites:  "Testimonies of the Saints" and
"Aporiae,"" 2008.

Leo the Great (June 11, 453).  In a dated letter (#120) to Theodoret of Cyrhus,
Leo quoted Mark 16:16.

Gildas (early 500's, Britain).  Quoted Mark 16:16 in the preface to "De Excidio
et Conquestu Britanniae," in a long section which is absent from some copies of
the work, probably due to some accident or because the section is rather wordy.

Gregentius of Taphar (early 500's, Ethiopia/Sudan).  There's some question about
the authenticity of this witness; I haven't sorted it out yet.  In  "Disputation
with the Jew Herban," written in Greek, Gregentius casually used Mark 16:16,
word-for-word.

Isho'dad of Merv (Syriac, 850-875).  On pp. 143-145 of Margaret Dunlop Gibson's
1911 translation of Isho'dad's commentary on the Gospels, Isho'dad comments
specifically on phrases in 16:9, 16:18, and 16:19.  This is especially
interesting because just a little before this, Isho'dad demonstrates that he has
read "Ad Marinum."

The Story of Barlaam and Josaphath (composed in the 700's by John of Damascus? 
Re-edited by Euthymius of Athos?).  The authorship of this story is disputed; I
haven't seen any strong evidence that John of Damascus did not write it; the
1953 briefly discussed the question of authorship and decided in favor of John
of Damascus.  I haven't investigated the question personally.  Besides
containing a form of the second-century "Apology of Aristides," embedded as a
speech given by one of the characters in the story, it also contains material
from Mark 16:9-20.  16:20 is used in the first chapter; 16:16 is used in ch. 8
and again in ch. 10.  Compared to the others, this is a relatively late witness,
but it's still earlier than most of the routinely cited manuscripts with
margin-notes.

Yours in Christ,

James Snapp, Jr.

> I haven't found anything regarding Aphraates. Anyone?

Please disregard this last sentence. Of course I already have Aphraates in
the commentary.

Best wishes
     Wieland
     <><
--------------------------
Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
mailto:wie@...
http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie
Textcritical commentary:
http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/

I have now rephrased the passage on Tatian's Diatessaron in the file on the
Endings of Mark:

-----------------------------
Most scholars accept the incorporation of the longer ending into the
Diatessaron in some way (e.g. Aland, Zahn). Mk 16:9-19 is woven together
with Mt 28 and Lk 24. It should be noted though that our knowledge of the
contents of the original Diatessaron is limited. The Arabic version includes
the Long Ending and so also does the Codex Fuldensis. They don't do this in
exactly the same way, but the basic outline is the same (e.g. Mk 16:9 is at
different positions and Mk 16:19a isn't in Fuldensis, compare Zahn). Ephrem,
in his commentary, has no clear references to the long ending, but only
possible allusions (compare McCarthy).
-----------------------------

What do you all think?
I haven't found anything regarding Aphraates. Anyone?


Best wishes
     Wieland
     <><
--------------------------
Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
mailto:wie@...
http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie
Textcritical commentary:
http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/

JCR4runner and Peter Head,

JCR4r:  "If we figure in that PANTACHOU is an uncommon word, then Justin 1.45 is
a slam dunk for an early version of Mark 16:20."

PANTACOU is not exactly rare but it's not common either.  I agree that in First
Apology 45 Justin uses Mk. 16:20.  What convinces me is not just the occurrence
of the same three words in such close proximity (though in a different order),
but their occurrence at just the point where Justin is describing Jesus'
ascension and the spread of the word as a fulfillment of Psalm 110:1-2.  Psalm
110's words "sit at My right hand" would naturally bring to mind Mk. 16:19 in
the mind of anyone who had Mk. 16:9-20 in his copy of Mark.  If Psalm 110:1 is
fulfilled in Mark 16:19, where is Psalm 110:2 fulfilled?  In Mark 16:20.  And
that is precisely what Justin alludes to as he makes the case that Jesus
fulfilled Psalm 110.

And it gets better.  It looks very much like Justin, as he wrote "Dialogue with
Trypho" and "First Apology," cited a Synoptics-Harmony.  (Koester and Petersen
both affirm this, and Bellinzoni's research points in the same direction.)  And
it looks very much like Tatian, when he made the Diatessaron, used Justin's
Synoptics-Harmony as a big component-part of the Diatessaron.  So by looking at
the structure of the Diatessaron where John is not involved, we can get some
clue about what Justin's Synoptics-harmony might have looked like.  And when we
look at ch. 55 of the Diatessaron, we see precisely the sort of arrangement that
fits Justin's comments in First Apology 45:  the disciples go forth from
Jerusalem, preaching everywhere.  It's not just /somewhat/ of a fit; it is an
/exact/ fit with what Justin is writing about.


Peter Head,

Still not convinced?  And you've read that obscure Expositor article, and
Petersen's 1990 essay, and Chase's appendix?  Well, what about Justin's repeated
references to Jesus ascending into heaven?  Justin is routinely considered a
user of the "Western" text.  So if he's not getting the phrase from Luke 24,
then where is he getting it from?

Yours in Christ,

James Snapp, Jr.

At the Parchment & Pen blog, Michael C. Patton recently posted about textual
criticism:

http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2009/10/textual-criticism-in-a-nutshell-2/

Here is an extract:

"The two most significant variants are John 8 (which contains the story of the
woman caught in adultery) and the longer ending of Mark 16 (where snake handling
and drinking poison seem to be encouraged). Both of these passages are very late
additions and, in the opinion of most scholars, should not be in the Bible."

Recently a friend mentioned to me that I might appear to be a bit zealous about
making sure commentators get their facts right about Mark 16:9-20.  Well there's
a reason for that:  guys like Michael J. Patton.

I clearly informed the "Parchment and Pen" guys (which include Daniel Wallace,
and Richard "Blog Tyrant" Sugg) about the evidence for Mark 16:9-20, including
Irenaeus' quotation.  I see that Wieland has commented at the Parchment & Pen
blog, attempting to correct Patton's erroneous statements.

Good luck with that, Wieland.  I tried months ago, and when I emphasized my
points to try to Wake These People Up Out Of Their Hubris-Saturated Errors, I
was banned.

Let the Theology Program students beware:  if you think Michael C Patton knows
what he is talking about, you are being scammed.

I can tolerate a lot of negligence.  But Mr. Patton seems determined to be
negligent, and frankly, it makes me sick.

Yours in Christ,

James Snapp, Jr.

Sorry about the garbled Greek. It looked fine in Rich Text Editor. Well, live
and learn. I have redone it here:

Mark 16:20 -- "And they went forth, and preached everywhere, the Lord working
with them, and confirming the word with signs following."

Justin's Apology 1.45:  "His apostles, going forth from Jerusalem, preached
everywhere."

If you were to take the three common words in English, "forth preached
everywhere," and plug them into a Google search, you would find millions of
pages with those three very common words. But the vast majority are direct
quotes or allusions to Mark 16:20 or direct quotes from Justin.

Everytime you write a sentence with more than a few common words, chances are no
one has ever written it before. This is the nature of language. To randomly and
independently come up with the same sentence or phrase is like winning the
lottery or a predicting a crap shoot with a dozen or more dice. When there is an
uncommon word, or an unusual grammatical or syntactical structure, even strings
of three to five words are almost always unique.

If we figure in that PANTACHOU is an uncommon word, then Justin 1.45 is a slam
dunk for an early version of Mark 16:20.

I am sure that someone here has a database of all the extant Greek works ever
collected. It would be easy to demonstrate that that the three common words,
"exelthontes ekhruxan pantachou," appear only in the same sentence in Justin and
Mark.

Although not every Koine Greek work appears on the Internet, you can plug in
only TWO words, either "exelthontes pantachou" or "ekhruxan pantachou," and you
will get the word used in the same sentence supplied by only Mark or Justin in
the results.

I am sure someone has done that before with every Greek work ever written, I am
just unfamiliar with all the literature on this.

But I would put money on it.

Excuse my gambling analogies.

I find the odds overwhelmingly against the chance that the exact phrase
"exelthontes ekhruxan pantachou" would come up in only two places by
coincidence. The word "pantachou" (everywhere) appears in only three places in
the New Testament and I understand it's an unusual word.


--- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "jcr4runner" <jrogers@...> wrote:
>
>
> Mark 16:20
>
> εκεινοι δε εξελθοντες εκηρυξαν πανταχου, του κυριου
> συνεργουντος και τον λογον βεβαιουντος δια των
> επακολουθουντων σημειων.
>
> Justin's Apology 1.45
>
> λογου του ισχυρου ον απο Ιερουσαλημ οι αποστολοι
> αυτου εξελθοντες πανταχου εκηρυξαν.
>
> Mark 16:20 -- "And they went forth, and preached everywhere, the Lord
> working with them, and confirming the word with signs following."
>
> Justin's Apology 1.45:  "His apostles, going forth from Jerusalem,
> preached everywhere."
>
> If you were to take the three common words in English, "forth preached
> everywhere," and plug them into a Google search, you would find millions
> of pages with those three very common words. But the vast majority are
> direct quotes or allusions to Mark 16:20 or direct quotes from Justin.
>
> Everytime you write a sentence with more than a few common words,
> chances are no one has ever written it before. This is the nature of
> language. To randomly and independently come up with the same sentence
> or phrase is like winning the lottery or a predicting a crap shoot with
> a dozen or more dice. When there is an uncommon word, or an unusual
> grammatical or syntactical structure, even strings of three to five
> words are almost always unique.
>
> If we figure in that πανταχου is an uncommon word, then Justin 1.45
> is a slam dunk for an early version of Mark 16:20.
>
> I am sure that someone here has a database of all the extant Greek works
> ever collected. It would be easy to demonstrate that that the three
> common words, εξελθοντες πανταχου εκηρυξαν, appear only in the
> same sentence in Justin and Mark.
>
> Although not every Koine Greek work appears on the Internet, you can
> plug in only TWO words, either εξελθοντες πανταχου or πανταχου
> εκηρυξαν, and you will get the word used in the same sentence
> supplied by only Mark or Justin in the results.
>
> I am sure someone has done that before with every Greek work ever
> written, I am just unfamiliar with all the literature on this.
>
> But I would put money on it.
>
> Excuse my gambling analogies.  [=P~]
>
> I find the odds overwhelmingly against the chance that the exact phrase
> "exelthontes ekhruxan pantachou" would come up in only two places by
> coincidence. The word "pantachou" (everywhere) appears in only three
> places in the New Testament and I understand it's an unusual word.
>
>
> --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "Peter M. Head" <pmh15@>
> wrote:
> >
> > At 01:31 02/11/2009, you wrote:
> > >Still unsure if Justin was familiar with Mark 16:20?
> >
> > Yes
> >
> >
> >
> > Peter M. Head, PhD
> > Sir Kirby Laing Senior Lecturer in New Testament
> > Tyndale House
> > 36 Selwyn Gardens
> > Cambridge CB3 9BA
> > 01223 566601
> >
>

It has been delayed indefinitely. It probably will eventually come out, but my
contacts at Hendrickson tell me that there are a lot of politics involved.

James

________________________________
James Spinti
Marketing Director, Book Sales Division
Eisenbrauns, Good books for more than 30 years
Specializing in Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical Studies
jspinti at eisenbrauns dot com
Web: http://www.eisenbrauns.com
Phone: 574-269-2011 ext 226
Fax: 574-269-6788

-----Original Message-----
From: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com [mailto:textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Wieland Willker
Sent: Saturday, November 07, 2009 3:02 PM
To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [textualcriticism] Codex Sinaiticus book?


Amazon has canceled my order of
D.C. Parker
"Codex Sinaiticus: The Story of the World's Oldest Bible"

Will this book come out eventually?


Best wishes
    Wieland
       <><
------------------------------------------------
Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
mailto:wie@...
http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie
Textcritical Commentary:
http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/index.html





------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

_______________________________________________________________
Jackpottar pε φver 70 miljoner i Betssons Casino!