Re: [textualcriticism] 1 Cor 15:51 - "not?"
- 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.
http://bibleshocker s.blogspot. com
Support the World Aids Awareness campaign this month with Yahoo! for Good
> billrossfamily <BillRoss@...> wrote: Icame 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:
The above show the readings in the original hands, some have changes
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
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.
"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.