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

Re: 1 Cor 15:51 - "not?"

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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.