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

1 Cor 15:51 - "not?"

Expand Messages
  • billrossfamily
    I came across this comment on a blog: But, John, we have Augustine and Jerome making the same sorts of comments about the manuscripts available to them. (In
    Message 1 of 5 , Dec 17, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      I came across this comment on a blog:

      "But, John, we have Augustine and Jerome making the same sorts of
      comments about the manuscripts available to them. (In fact, to show
      these were not minor differences, Jerome had two readings of 1
      Corinthians 15:51, one ending 'but we shall all be changed,' the
      other 'but we shall NOT all be changed.' Unlike modern translations,
      Jerome preferred the 'not' version.)"

      Does anyone have a list of the variants on this passage? The "not"
      really seems to make more sense of the passage to me.

      Thanks,

      Bill Ross
      http://bibleshockers.blogspot.com
    • Chris Weimer
      Here s the UBS app crit: οὐ κοιμηθησόμεθα, πάντες δὲ ἀλλαγησόμεθα B D2 Ψ 048 075 0150 0243c 6 81 104 256 263 365 424
      Message 2 of 5 , Dec 17, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        Here's the UBS app crit:

        οὐ κοιμηθησόμεθα, πάντες δὲ
        ἀλλαγησόμεθα

        B D2 Ψ 048 075 0150 0243c 6 81 104 256 263 365 424 436 459 1175 1319
        1573 1852 1881 1912 1962 2127 2200 2464 Byz [K L P] Lect syrp,h copsa,bo
        eth geo2 slav (Origen 1/2) (Adamantius) (Titus-Bostra) (mss acc to
        Didymus) Chrysostom (Cyril 1/2) Theodoret Theodore-Heraclea
        Acacius-Caesarea Greek mss acc. to Jerome Ps-Jerome mss acc. to Rufinus

        οὐ κοιμηθησόμεθα, οὐ πάντες
        δὲ ἀλλαγησόμεθα

        P46, Ac, Adamantius

        κοιμηθησόμεθα, οὐ πάντες δὲ
        ἀλλαγησόμεθα

        א (A* οἱ for οὐ) C F G *0243 33 1241 1739 itfmg,g arm
        geo1 origengr1/2, lat Didymus Cyril1/2; Acacius-Caesarea acc. to Jerome
        mss acc. to Jerome and Augustine

        αναστησόμεθα, οὐ πάντες δὲ
        ἀλλαγησόμεθα

        D* itar,b,d,ftxt,(o) vg Marcion acc. to Adamantiuslat; Tertullian
        Ambrosiaster Hilary Gregory-Elvira Ambrose Rufinus Pelagius Augustine
        Quodvultdeus Speculum

        κοιμηθησόμεθα, πάντες δὲ
        ἀλλαγησόμεθα

        1443

        Hope this helps,

        Chris Weimer

        --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "billrossfamily" <BillRoss@...>
        wrote:
        >
        > I came across this comment on a blog:
        >
        > "But, John, we have Augustine and Jerome making the same sorts of
        > comments about the manuscripts available to them. (In fact, to show
        > these were not minor differences, Jerome had two readings of 1
        > Corinthians 15:51, one ending 'but we shall all be changed,' the
        > other 'but we shall NOT all be changed.' Unlike modern translations,
        > Jerome preferred the 'not' version.)"
        >
        > Does anyone have a list of the variants on this passage? The "not"
        > really seems to make more sense of the passage to me.
        >
        > Thanks,
        >
        > Bill Ross
        > http://bibleshockers.blogspot.com
        >
      • ron minton
        Paul s explanation after this verse and his use of we seem to have the context favoring we shall all be changed. The negative has early support, but both
        Message 3 of 5 , Dec 18, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          Paul's explanation after this verse and his use of we seem to have the context favoring we shall all be changed.  The negative has early support, but both reading have this.  I think the context, the doctrine, the Maj. text, the best of the Cr. text, etc. favor the reading in the printed Greek NTs (B rating in UBS).
          The Greek NT notes have adequate information in this case.
          Ron Minton

          On Dec 17, 2007 8:51 PM, billrossfamily <BillRoss@...> wrote:
          I came across this comment on a blog:

          "But, John, we have Augustine and Jerome making the same sorts of
          comments about the manuscripts available to them. (In fact, to show
          these were not minor differences, Jerome had two readings of 1
          Corinthians 15:51, one ending 'but we shall all be changed,' the
          other 'but we shall NOT all be changed.' Unlike modern translations,
          Jerome preferred the 'not' version.)"

          Does anyone have a list of the variants on this passage? The "not"
          really seems to make more sense of the passage to me.

          Thanks,

          Bill Ross
        • brian boland
          Swanson seems to show that all texts have the ou. BUT it is not always in the same place. Listing too numerous to post here ! Brianj billrossfamily
          Message 4 of 5 , Dec 18, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            Swanson seems to show that all texts have the ou. BUT it is not always in the same place. Listing too numerous to post here !  Brianj

            billrossfamily <BillRoss@...> wrote:
            I came across this comment on a blog:

            "But, John, we have Augustine and Jerome making the same sorts of
            comments about the manuscripts available to them. (In fact, to show
            these were not minor differences, Jerome had two readings of 1
            Corinthians 15:51, one ending 'but we shall all be changed,' the
            other 'but we shall NOT all be changed.' Unlike modern translations,
            Jerome preferred the 'not' version.)"

            Does anyone have a list of the variants on this passage? The "not"
            really seems to make more sense of the passage to me.

            Thanks,

            Bill Ross
            http://bibleshocker s.blogspot. com



            Support the World Aids Awareness campaign this month with Yahoo! for Good

          • mydogregae01
            ... ____________________________________________ Here is some of the data to support the Greek reading having NOT referring to a changing. i.e. Jerome s
            Message 5 of 5 , Dec 18, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              > billrossfamily <BillRoss@...> wrote: I
              came across this comment on a blog:
              >
              > "But, John, we have Augustine and Jerome making the same sorts of
              > comments about the manuscripts available to them. (In fact, to show
              > these were not minor differences, Jerome had two readings of 1
              > Corinthians 15:51, one ending 'but we shall all be changed,' the
              > other 'but we shall NOT all be changed.' Unlike modern translations,
              > Jerome preferred the 'not' version.)"
              >
              > Does anyone have a list of the variants on this passage? The "not"
              > really seems to make more sense of the passage to me.
              >
              ____________________________________________

              Here is some of the data to support the Greek reading having "NOT"
              referring to a changing. i.e. Jerome's preference:

              codex 01
              codex 02
              codex 04
              codex 06
              codex 010
              codex 012
              codex 0243
              MS 33
              MS 1241
              MS 1739

              The above show the readings in the original hands, some have changes
              via correctors.

              Papyrus P46, has "ou" in both places and is possibly a conflation.
              Codex 0243 has a comment on the side of the main text, which may have
              more information (I see a part on my hard copy, if you want me to view
              the full comment, I would have to get my film out, but would gladly do
              so).

              Contextually: The Byzantine MSS seem to be correct with the "not"
              before "sleep". As the passage is discussing a mysterious "rapture".
              Some of us will be alive when this occurs; thus some will not be
              "asleep". But "we all shall be changed" refers to all elect of this
              present age. None of the sleeping or living elect will miss this. Had
              Paul been addressing Israelites, or some other group, then Jerome
              would be safe, but Paul is the apostle to the NATIONS (plural), even
              of the elect out of all of the nations. Hence, IMHO I would reject
              Jerome's preference. I suspect a corruption stemming from Egypt, and
              affecting some Latin MSS.

              I have not yet examined the passage in all the early versions, which
              may add more light. However, the Latin d, f and g, support their
              interlined Greek texts. Yet 012 and g do not agree with f and d, as
              012 and g read "sleep" not "resurrect". 012 also has an "ouv" where
              P46 has an "ou", which is fine translation in g and probably has
              nothing to do with P46's "ou". Only the Greek 06 and MS 628 read
              "resurrect" for the proper "sleep".

              The Bohairic and Gothic support the Byzantine text.

              "f" reads:
              "Omnes quidem resurgemus sed NON omnes immutabimur" - per f* yet f
              corrects the "resurrected" to "dormiemus" (sleep) in the Greek portion
              of text. Codex 06 and d agree with this same error in f.

              It will be interesting to examine other Old Latin texts which may
              contain this passage. The basic Peshitta agrees with the great mass of
              Greek manuscripts here. Much more data exists from the Latin fathers
              as well as in the Greek scholia. But the basic typical Greek text
              seems secure, again IMHO.

              Gary
              www.Biblical-data.org
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.