Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [textualcriticism] Misquoting Jesus - Luke 24:51-52

Expand Messages
  • Eric Gersbacher
    The entire oldest MSS theory does not stand the test of sound reason. Why is it so well intact? Do your well-used Bibles stay well intact over long
    Message 1 of 4 , Jul 10, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      The entire "oldest MSS" theory does not stand the test of sound reason. Why
      is it "so well" intact? Do your "well-used" Bibles stay "well intact" over
      long periods of time? Or do your least used Bibles stay well intact? It is
      clear that those manuscripts were considered fairly "useless" to the people
      who held them, thus never used them; and explains why they were found in a
      waste basket lol.

      Hope that helps

      >From: "Matt" <mattson_uk2000@...>
      >Reply-To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
      >To: <textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com>
      >Subject: [textualcriticism] Misquoting Jesus - Luke 24:51-52
      >Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 22:04:19 +0100
      >
      >Out of lurk mode for a two quick question:
      >
      >On pages 169-170 of Bart Ehrman's book, 'Misquoting Jesus' we read the
      >following:
      >
      >"It is interesting to note, however, that in some of our earliest
      >witnesses-including the Alexandrian manuscript Codex Sinaiticus -there is
      >an
      >addition to the text. 10 After it indicates that "here moved from them," in
      >these manuscripts it states "and he was taken up into heaven." This is a
      >significant addition because it stresses physicality of Jesus's departure
      >at
      >his ascension (rather than the he was removed"). In part, this is an
      >intriguing variant because same author, Luke, in his second volume, the
      >book
      >of Acts, again narrates Jesus's ascension into heaven, but explicitly
      >states
      >that place "forty days" after the resurrection (Acts 1:11)."
      >
      >A powerful appeal is here made to Codex Sinaiticus [as it is one of the
      >'oldest mss' and therefore considered as amongst the most reliable].
      >However, Codex Siniaticus does not contain the addition that Mr. Ehrman
      >here
      >claims?
      >
      >Also, on page 91, the nomina sacra is given as PMA, when it should be PNA.
      >I
      >note Mr Ehrman has acknowledged this but I wonder what then is his actual
      >explanation for the variant - presumably that PNA was misread as POMA?
      >
      >""Similarly, in 1 Cor. 12:13, Paul points out that everyone in Christ has
      >been "baptized into one body" and they have all "drunk of one Spirit." The
      >word Spirit (PNEUMA) would have been abbreviated in most manuscripts as
      >PMA,
      >which understandably could be - and was - misread by some scribes as the
      >Greek word for "drink" (POMA); and so in those witnesses Paul is said to
      >indicate that all have "drunk of one drink."
      >
      >Thanks
      >Matt
      >
      >
      >
      >___________________________________________________________
      >Copy addresses and emails from any email account to Yahoo! Mail - quick,
      >easy and free. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/trueswitch2.html

      _________________________________________________________________
      http://newlivehotmail.com
    • James Snapp, Jr.
      Dear Matt: Maybe, since Lk. 24:51b appears in Sinaiticus as an addition (it appears in the upper margin), the intended meaning was something more like, Even a
      Message 2 of 4 , Jul 10, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        Dear Matt:

        Maybe, since Lk. 24:51b appears in Sinaiticus as an addition (it
        appears in the upper margin), the intended meaning was something more
        like, "Even a good old witness such as Codex Sinaiticus is capable of
        containing additions and here is one example from Luke 24:51."

        Still, the statement unfortunately is bound to give readers the
        impression that the passage occurs in Sinaiticus as part of the text.

        Regarding the PMA/PNA subject, I think that Dr. Ehrman entered a
        comment about this at the Evangelical Textual Criticism site, as did
        Dr. Maurice Robinson (who also noted the same mistake in another work
        edited by Dr. Ehrman). I think the explanation involved the
        similarity of the two words in cursive, as you suspected.

        Yours in Christ,

        James Snapp, Jr.
        Minister, Curtisville Christian Church
        Tipton, Indiana (USA)
        http://www.curtisvillechristian.org/Misquoting.html
      • Matt
        ... Dear Matt: Maybe, since Lk. 24:51b appears in Sinaiticus as an addition (it appears in the upper margin), the intended meaning was something more like,
        Message 3 of 4 , Jul 10, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          >
          Dear Matt:

          Maybe, since Lk. 24:51b appears in Sinaiticus as an addition (it
          appears in the upper margin), the intended meaning was something more
          like, "Even a good old witness such as Codex Sinaiticus is capable of
          containing additions and here is one example from Luke 24:51."

          Still, the statement unfortunately is bound to give readers the
          impression that the passage occurs in Sinaiticus as part of the text.

          Regarding the PMA/PNA subject, I think that Dr. Ehrman entered a
          comment about this at the Evangelical Textual Criticism site, as did
          Dr. Maurice Robinson (who also noted the same mistake in another work
          edited by Dr. Ehrman). I think the explanation involved the
          similarity of the two words in cursive, as you suspected.
          >

          Hi James.

          Thanks for the information. I was not aware that the addition appeared in
          the upper margin of Sinaiticus, so that is something new I have learned. I
          think the explanation is possible, but given the statement 'there is an
          addition to the text' I'd agree it is likely to give the wrong impression
          and cause some raised eyebrows.

          I also read your review and found it very informative and useful. Just a
          shame you could not have covered more of the variants.

          Thanks
          Matt






          ___________________________________________________________
          All new Yahoo! Mail "The new Interface is stunning in its simplicity and ease of use." - PC Magazine
          http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.