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

Re: [textualcriticism] Digest Number 1370

Expand Messages
  • Emilio Farfan
      Dear Sirs,   I am wonder if you could give me information, or info me where I could get it, that supports that the New Testament was originally wrote in
    Message 1 of 2 , Jul 16, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
       
      Dear Sirs,
       
      I am wonder if you could give me information, or info me where I could get it, that supports that the New Testament was originally wrote in greek.  Evidence.
       
      Thanks in advance.
       
      Best Regards from Sudamerica,
       
      Emilio
       


      --- El mié 15-jul-09, textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com <textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com> escribió:

      De: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com <textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com>
      Asunto: [textualcriticism] Digest Number 1370
      Para: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
      Fecha: miércoles, 15 de julio de 2009, 11:00 am

      There are 2 messages in this issue.

      Topics in this digest:

      1.1. Re: Exploring How the Gospel of Mark was Made   
          From: James Snapp, Jr.

      2.1. Middle Ages / Re: Exploring How the Gospel of Mark was Made   
          From: tvanlopik


      Messages
      ________________________________________________________________________
      1.1. Re: Exploring How the Gospel of Mark was Made
          Posted by: "James Snapp, Jr." voxverax@... voxverax
          Date: Tue Jul 14, 2009 9:13 am ((PDT))

      Jay Rogers,

      Yes; you can download a somewhat up-to-date copy of my essay "The Origin of Mark 16:9-20," in the form that it had at the beginning of 2009, at

      http://www.textexcavation.com/jimsnapp.html

      Just scroll to near the bottom of the page, and select "The Origin of Mark 16:9-20, eMail Edition."  This edition doesn't have the pretty pictures that the full essay has, but it does have links to online presentations of most of the absent pictures.

      In the course of that essay I include the relevant information about the Old Latin MSS.

      JR:  "It's a frequent error among popular critics to say that the Longer Ending (and the Pericope Adulterae and 1 John 5:7) were added in the Middle Ages -- when there is plenty of evidence that they were known earlier."

      Yes; this is a common error, at least where Mk. 16:9-20 is concerned.  (Over at TC-Alternate, in the Files, I have a collection of such inaccurate statements in commentaries, NT-Introductions, Bible-footnotes, etc.; my comments range from nit-picks about imbalance and ambiguous wording, to protests against some ridiculously false distortions.)   

      Btw, for more info about the Old Latin version(s), you can visit the Vetus Latina website.  There is also some interesting data in Williams' essay on the Appendices to Mark's Gospel in the 1914 (?) "Transactions of the Connecticutt Academy of Arts and Science," or some such journal -- a Google Books search for "Williams Appendices Mark Connecticutt" should cause it to float to the surface.  The essay is at the rear of the journal.

      Yours in Christ,

      James Snapp, Jr.







      Messages in this topic (63)
      ________________________________________________________________________
      ________________________________________________________________________
      2.1. Middle Ages / Re: Exploring How the Gospel of Mark was Made
          Posted by: "tvanlopik" tvanlopik@... tvanlopik
          Date: Wed Jul 15, 2009 7:26 am ((PDT))

      But before you can be sure that it is an error that some critics say that texts (e.g. 1J.5:7) are added to the Greek NT in the Middle Ages, you must define the terminus of the MA!

      Teunis van Lopik


      --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "Jay Rogers" <jrogers@...> wrote:
      >
      > Yes, it does answer my questions by providing a good short description of the early Latin manuscripts that contain the so-called Longer Ending of Mark.
      >
      > It's VERY helpful and I wish that a version of this was made widely known. Do you have this information in an article at your website?
      >
      > It's a frequent error among popular critics to say that the Longer Ending (and the Pericope Adulterae and 1 John 5:7) were added in the Middle Ages -- when there is plenty of evidence that they were known earlier.
      >
      > We may never solve the question with certainty. However, I think that the correct  thing to do in modern Bible editions is to retain the tradition of the Received Text and make note of which manuscripts support the tradition in question and which ones do not. Too often the evidence in favor of the Received Text is just ignored, leaving the average layman with the impression that it is a settled fact that our Bibles are "misquoting Jesus," when in fact the need for such significant revisions can never be absolutely certain.
      >
      > Just IMHO as a layman.
      >
      >
      >
      > --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "James Snapp, Jr." <voxverax@> wrote:
      > >
      > > Jay Rogers,
      > >
      > > The reason why Mark would write for Italians in Greek is that the Italians, then and there, were speaking and reading and writing in Greek.       
      > >
      > > If you would like to see demonstrations of the extensive verbal affinities (in Greek) between Mark, Matthew, and Luke, consult John Hawkins' "Horae Synopticae," which can be downloaded for free from Google Books or Archive.org.   
      > > JR:  "Just how would (theoretically) a Latin copy be involved in the loss of the longer ending?"
      > > Theoretically -- *very* theoretically, since I don't grant the idea at all - - if Mark had written the Gospel of Mark in Latin, someone could have translated an early draft of it into Greek, and published it prematurely (somewhat like what Tertullian says happened to a treatise of his), in an unfinished form.  Where this Greek "bootleg" text became entrenched, it could pose an obstacle for the acceptance of the official, fuller Latin text. 
      > >
      > > JR:  "I am not sure I follow what you mean here."
      > >
      > > When I wrote that Codex Bobbiensis is particularly suspect because of its wild interpolation in Mk. 16:3-4, I meant that Codex Bobbiensis cannot be considered a normal representative of the OL at this point in the text, because its text has obviously undergone unique editing.  The text of the Sinaitic Syriac seems to have shared in the same editing, inasmuch as Bobbiensis and the Sinaitic Syriac alone share the reading "And he shall speak the word openly" in Mark 8:32.
      > >
      > > JR:  "How valuable are the OL texts in determining the reliability of the LE?"
      > >
      > > Pretty valuable, inasmuch as they add to the diversity of its early attestation among non-Byzantine, non-Vulgate witnesses.  Unfortunately several OL MSS of Mark are damaged. 
      > >
      > > It may be worthwhile to share some details about the OL MSS.  Commentator James Edwards wrote that Vaticanus and Sinaiticus "omit 16:9-20, as do several early translations or versions, including the Old Latin."  Regarding the testimony of the Old Latin MSS, the evidence tells a different story. 
      > >
      > > When I wrote that the evidence regarding Codex Vercellensis is a little complicated, I meant that it is difficult to get a clear verdict from Codex Vercellensis, because its last four pages of Mark have been cut out, and the replacement contains the LE, but in a Vulgate text.  C.H. Turner calculated that the original final pages (if they began where the text begins in the replacement-pages) would not have had enough space for the LE.  On the other hand, it seems possible that the final pages in Codex Vercellensis were not custom-made expressly for the purpose of replacing pages in Codex Vercellensis, but were cannibalized, so to speak, from another MS.  It also seems possible that the copyist of Codex Vercellensis miscalculated the number of pages he would need, and that more pages have been unnoticeably lost.
      > >
      > > The Old Latin Codex Corbiensis (ff-2), supports the LE.  In Codex Vercellensis, according to Fredericus Pustet, "At the end of Matth. XXVII, 66, after the word << Custodibus >> and before the first verse of the following chapter stand the figures LXXIIII."  This indicates that the Old Latin text was divided into small chapters, the 74th of which began at the start of Matthew 27.  Codex Corbiensis has this same number in the same place.   
      > >
      > > The OL MS Veronensis also supports the inclusion of Mk. 16:9-20.
      > >
      > > Codex Aureus (aur), copied in the 600's (or perhaps 700's), contains Mk. 16:9-20.
      > >
      > > Codex Colbertinus (c), though a relatively young MS made c. 1200, contains a Gospels-text derived from an Old Latin copy.  It contains Mk. 16:9-20.
      > >
      > > Codex Rhedigerianus (l), copied in the 600's, contains Mk. 16:9-20.
      > >
      > > Codex Sangallensis (n), was copied c. 400 and has not been well-preserved.  Its extant text of Mark ends with 16:13, which sufficiently shows that the MS originally included the entire contents of 16:9-20.  Frederic Kenyon claimed that the text of Codex Sangallensis is "closely akin" to that of Codex Vercellensis.  Codex Sangellensis is supplemented by Old Latin MS o, a fragment which, it seems, was written (perhaps in the 600's) to replace a damaged page.  It has Mk. 16:14-20.  The text of Mk. 16:18 displayed in MS o looks a lot like the basis for a statement by Tertullian in Scorpiace ch. 15.
      > >
      > > Codex Monacensis (q) was made c. 600.  It has Mk. 16:9-20, followed by a subscription denoting the end of Mark in Latin and in Greek. The non-Vulgate character of its text may be clearly demonstrated by considering some differences in 16:19-20 ?
      > > VULGATE..........MONACENSIS
      > > assumptus........receptus
      > > dextris..........dexteram
      > > cooperante.......diuuante
      > > sermonem.........uerbum
      > > sequentibus......prosequentibus
      > >
      > > Not all of the younger OL MSS are pure OL; some of them have been contaminated, so to speak, with readings from the Vulgate.  But where the LE is concerned a quick comparison can show whether or not the text of the LE in an OL MS is derived from the Vulgate.
      > >
      > > Does that answer your questions?
      > >
      > > Yours in Christ,
      > >
      > > James Snapp, Jr.
      > >
      >







      Messages in this topic (63)





      ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Yahoo! Groups Links

      <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/textualcriticism/

      <*> Your email settings:
          Digest Email  | Traditional

      <*> To change settings online go to:
          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/textualcriticism/join
          (Yahoo! ID required)

      <*> To change settings via email:
          mailto:textualcriticism-normal@yahoogroups.com
          mailto:textualcriticism-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

      <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          textualcriticism-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

      <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
          http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

      ------------------------------------------------------------------------


      __________________________________________________
      Correo Yahoo!
      Espacio para todos tus mensajes, antivirus y antispam ¡gratis!
      ¡Abrí tu cuenta ya! - http://correo.yahoo.com.ar
    • rodrigoarthurdsmelo
      Dear Emílio Reading apoligists authors you will found answers to this question. Here, the group is dedicated to study manuscripts. The apologists are the
      Message 2 of 2 , Jul 18, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        Dear Emílio


        Reading apoligists authors you will found answers to this question. Here, the group is dedicated to study manuscripts. The apologists are the schollars who study your question. But you can read some words about it from a textual critic

        A good free information:
        http://www.ntgreek.org/answers/nt_written_in_greek.htm

        God bless you

        Rodrigo Arthur D. S. Melo

        --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, Emilio Farfan <emillion_x_77@...> wrote:
        >
        >  
        > Dear Sirs,
        >  
        > I am wonder if you could give me information, or info me where I could get it, that supports that the New Testament was originally wrote in greek.  Evidence.
        >  
        > Thanks in advance.
        >  
        > Best Regards from Sudamerica,
        >  
        > Emilio
        >  
        >
        >
        > --- El mié 15-jul-09, textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com <textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com> escribió:
        >
        >
        > De: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com <textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com>
        > Asunto: [textualcriticism] Digest Number 1370
        > Para: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
        > Fecha: miércoles, 15 de julio de 2009, 11:00 am
        >
        >
        > There are 2 messages in this issue.
        >
        > Topics in this digest:
        >
        > 1.1. Re: Exploring How the Gospel of Mark was Made   
        >     From: James Snapp, Jr.
        >
        > 2.1. Middle Ages / Re: Exploring How the Gospel of Mark was Made   
        >     From: tvanlopik
        >
        >
        > Messages
        > ________________________________________________________________________
        > 1.1. Re: Exploring How the Gospel of Mark was Made
        >     Posted by: "James Snapp, Jr." voxverax@... voxverax
        >     Date: Tue Jul 14, 2009 9:13 am ((PDT))
        >
        > Jay Rogers,
        >
        > Yes; you can download a somewhat up-to-date copy of my essay "The Origin of Mark 16:9-20," in the form that it had at the beginning of 2009, at
        >
        > http://www.textexcavation.com/jimsnapp.html
        >
        > Just scroll to near the bottom of the page, and select "The Origin of Mark 16:9-20, eMail Edition."  This edition doesn't have the pretty pictures that the full essay has, but it does have links to online presentations of most of the absent pictures.
        >
        > In the course of that essay I include the relevant information about the Old Latin MSS.
        >
        > JR:  "It's a frequent error among popular critics to say that the Longer Ending (and the Pericope Adulterae and 1 John 5:7) were added in the Middle Ages -- when there is plenty of evidence that they were known earlier."
        >
        > Yes; this is a common error, at least where Mk. 16:9-20 is concerned.  (Over at TC-Alternate, in the Files, I have a collection of such inaccurate statements in commentaries, NT-Introductions, Bible-footnotes, etc.; my comments range from nit-picks about imbalance and ambiguous wording, to protests against some ridiculously false distortions.)   
        >
        > Btw, for more info about the Old Latin version(s), you can visit the Vetus Latina website.  There is also some interesting data in Williams' essay on the Appendices to Mark's Gospel in the 1914 (?) "Transactions of the Connecticutt Academy of Arts and Science," or some such journal -- a Google Books search for "Williams Appendices Mark Connecticutt" should cause it to float to the surface.  The essay is at the rear of the journal.
        >
        > Yours in Christ,
        >
        > James Snapp, Jr.
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > Messages in this topic (63)
        > ________________________________________________________________________
        > ________________________________________________________________________
        > 2.1. Middle Ages / Re: Exploring How the Gospel of Mark was Made
        >     Posted by: "tvanlopik" tvanlopik@... tvanlopik
        >     Date: Wed Jul 15, 2009 7:26 am ((PDT))
        >
        > But before you can be sure that it is an error that some critics say that texts (e.g. 1J.5:7) are added to the Greek NT in the Middle Ages, you must define the terminus of the MA!
        >
        > Teunis van Lopik
        >
        >
        > --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "Jay Rogers" <jrogers@> wrote:
        > >
        > > Yes, it does answer my questions by providing a good short description of the early Latin manuscripts that contain the so-called Longer Ending of Mark.
        > >
        > > It's VERY helpful and I wish that a version of this was made widely known. Do you have this information in an article at your website?
        > >
        > > It's a frequent error among popular critics to say that the Longer Ending (and the Pericope Adulterae and 1 John 5:7) were added in the Middle Ages -- when there is plenty of evidence that they were known earlier.
        > >
        > > We may never solve the question with certainty. However, I think that the correct  thing to do in modern Bible editions is to retain the tradition of the Received Text and make note of which manuscripts support the tradition in question and which ones do not. Too often the evidence in favor of the Received Text is just ignored, leaving the average layman with the impression that it is a settled fact that our Bibles are "misquoting Jesus," when in fact the need for such significant revisions can never be absolutely certain.
        > >
        > > Just IMHO as a layman.
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "James Snapp, Jr." <voxverax@> wrote:
        > > >
        > > > Jay Rogers,
        > > >
        > > > The reason why Mark would write for Italians in Greek is that the Italians, then and there, were speaking and reading and writing in Greek.       
        > > >
        > > > If you would like to see demonstrations of the extensive verbal affinities (in Greek) between Mark, Matthew, and Luke, consult John Hawkins' "Horae Synopticae," which can be downloaded for free from Google Books or Archive.org.   
        > > > JR:  "Just how would (theoretically) a Latin copy be involved in the loss of the longer ending?"
        > > > Theoretically -- *very* theoretically, since I don't grant the idea at all - - if Mark had written the Gospel of Mark in Latin, someone could have translated an early draft of it into Greek, and published it prematurely (somewhat like what Tertullian says happened to a treatise of his), in an unfinished form.  Where this Greek "bootleg" text became entrenched, it could pose an obstacle for the acceptance of the official, fuller Latin text. 
        > > >
        > > > JR:  "I am not sure I follow what you mean here."
        > > >
        > > > When I wrote that Codex Bobbiensis is particularly suspect because of its wild interpolation in Mk. 16:3-4, I meant that Codex Bobbiensis cannot be considered a normal representative of the OL at this point in the text, because its text has obviously undergone unique editing.  The text of the Sinaitic Syriac seems to have shared in the same editing, inasmuch as Bobbiensis and the Sinaitic Syriac alone share the reading "And he shall speak the word openly" in Mark 8:32.
        > > >
        > > > JR:  "How valuable are the OL texts in determining the reliability of the LE?"
        > > >
        > > > Pretty valuable, inasmuch as they add to the diversity of its early attestation among non-Byzantine, non-Vulgate witnesses.  Unfortunately several OL MSS of Mark are damaged. 
        > > >
        > > > It may be worthwhile to share some details about the OL MSS.  Commentator James Edwards wrote that Vaticanus and Sinaiticus "omit 16:9-20, as do several early translations or versions, including the Old Latin."  Regarding the testimony of the Old Latin MSS, the evidence tells a different story. 
        > > >
        > > > When I wrote that the evidence regarding Codex Vercellensis is a little complicated, I meant that it is difficult to get a clear verdict from Codex Vercellensis, because its last four pages of Mark have been cut out, and the replacement contains the LE, but in a Vulgate text.  C.H. Turner calculated that the original final pages (if they began where the text begins in the replacement-pages) would not have had enough space for the LE.  On the other hand, it seems possible that the final pages in Codex Vercellensis were not custom-made expressly for the purpose of replacing pages in Codex Vercellensis, but were cannibalized, so to speak, from another MS.  It also seems possible that the copyist of Codex Vercellensis miscalculated the number of pages he would need, and that more pages have been unnoticeably lost.
        > > >
        > > > The Old Latin Codex Corbiensis (ff-2), supports the LE.  In Codex Vercellensis, according to Fredericus Pustet, "At the end of Matth. XXVII, 66, after the word << Custodibus >> and before the first verse of the following chapter stand the figures LXXIIII."  This indicates that the Old Latin text was divided into small chapters, the 74th of which began at the start of Matthew 27.  Codex Corbiensis has this same number in the same place.   
        > > >
        > > > The OL MS Veronensis also supports the inclusion of Mk. 16:9-20.
        > > >
        > > > Codex Aureus (aur), copied in the 600's (or perhaps 700's), contains Mk. 16:9-20.
        > > >
        > > > Codex Colbertinus (c), though a relatively young MS made c. 1200, contains a Gospels-text derived from an Old Latin copy.  It contains Mk. 16:9-20.
        > > >
        > > > Codex Rhedigerianus (l), copied in the 600's, contains Mk. 16:9-20.
        > > >
        > > > Codex Sangallensis (n), was copied c. 400 and has not been well-preserved.  Its extant text of Mark ends with 16:13, which sufficiently shows that the MS originally included the entire contents of 16:9-20.  Frederic Kenyon claimed that the text of Codex Sangallensis is "closely akin" to that of Codex Vercellensis.  Codex Sangellensis is supplemented by Old Latin MS o, a fragment which, it seems, was written (perhaps in the 600's) to replace a damaged page.  It has Mk. 16:14-20.  The text of Mk. 16:18 displayed in MS o looks a lot like the basis for a statement by Tertullian in Scorpiace ch. 15.
        > > >
        > > > Codex Monacensis (q) was made c. 600.  It has Mk. 16:9-20, followed by a subscription denoting the end of Mark in Latin and in Greek. The non-Vulgate character of its text may be clearly demonstrated by considering some differences in 16:19-20 ?
        > > > VULGATE..........MONACENSIS
        > > > assumptus........receptus
        > > > dextris..........dexteram
        > > > cooperante.......diuuante
        > > > sermonem.........uerbum
        > > > sequentibus......prosequentibus
        > > >
        > > > Not all of the younger OL MSS are pure OL; some of them have been contaminated, so to speak, with readings from the Vulgate.  But where the LE is concerned a quick comparison can show whether or not the text of the LE in an OL MS is derived from the Vulgate.
        > > >
        > > > Does that answer your questions?
        > > >
        > > > Yours in Christ,
        > > >
        > > > James Snapp, Jr.
        > > >
        > >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > Messages in this topic (63)
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
        > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
        >
        >
        >
        > __________________________________________________
        > Correo Yahoo!
        > Espacio para todos tus mensajes, antivirus y antispam ¡gratis!
        > ¡Abrí tu cuenta ya! - http://correo.yahoo.com.ar
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.