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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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.