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

Re: [textualcriticism] 1 Cor 15:51 - "not?"

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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.