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

[textualcriticism] Mark 12.32 - TR and Sahidic Coptic?

Expand Messages
  • schmuel
    Hi Folks, Good question Brian. Mark 12:32 And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other
    Message 1 of 9 , Aug 18, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Folks,

      Good question Brian.

      Mark 12:32
      And the scribe said unto him,
      Well, Master, thou hast said the truth:
      for there is one God;
      and there is none other but he:

      The apparatus from George, and also the one on the net from Laparola, seem to be only partially helpful.

      There could well be a significant minority in the Greek cursives, the English from the Latin of Wycliffe and Rheims both have God, the Vulgate is not well explained anywhere, the Old Latin is generally not given and you mention that the Sahidic Coptic mss agree with the Received Text.  

      John Gill
      The Syriac, Persic, and Ethiopic versions, leave out the word "God"; but it is in the Greek copies, and rightly retained in other versions: for the sense is, that there is one God, and but one; and which is perfectly agreeable to the Christian doctrine ...

      It is possible that Gill is only talking about "Greek copies" being the Received Text, however he could also be considering manuscript evidence.  The fact that he does not mention the Vulgate would indicate that it supports God.

      Please note that in a split reading the paradigms and expertise of the Reformation Bible scholars were generally far more sympathetic to the concept that a word or phrase could drop out of one line than you see in the modernist thought of the textual criticism theorists, where concepts of additional text added is normative.

      Shalom,
      Steven Avery
      Queens, NY

      Can anyone help me determine where the TR gets its rendering of Theos in Mark 12.32? As far as I can tell, the TR stands alone: the R-P majority text doesn't contain Theos, neither do any of the major majuscules, and the NA27 doesn't even list it as a variant. Even more, it is the only place in the NT where the Sahidic Coptic MSS follow the TR against the NA27 regarding occurrences of Theos. Any help/clarification would be greatly appreciated, as I'm not going to be around a good theological library for a while. .. Brian
    • sarban
      The late form of the Latin Vulgate has Deus in Mark 12:32. This may be the source of the TR reading although Theos is found in several (mostly late) Greek
      Message 2 of 9 , Aug 18, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        The late form of the Latin Vulgate has Deus in Mark 12:32. This may be the source of the TR reading although Theos is found in several (mostly late) Greek manuscripts.
         
        Andrew Criddle
         
        ----- Original Message -----
        Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 2:47 PM
        Subject: [textualcriticism] Mark 12.32 - TR and Sahidic Coptic?

         

        Can anyone help me determine where the TR gets its rendering of Theos in Mark 12.32?

        As far as I can tell, the TR stands alone: the R-P majority text doesn't contain Theos, neither do any of the major majuscules, and the NA27 doesn't even list it as a variant. Even more, it is the only place in the NT where the Sahidic Coptic MSS follow the TR against the NA27 regarding occurrences of Theos.

        Any help/clarification would be greatly appreciated, as I'm not going to be around a good theological library for a while.

        Brian

      • schmuel
        Hi Folks, Thanks, Andrew Andrew The late form of the Latin Vulgate has Deus in Mark 12:32. Helpful, but leaves us a bit up in the air, as somebody reading this
        Message 3 of 9 , Aug 18, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi Folks,

          Thanks, Andrew

          Andrew
          The late form of the Latin Vulgate has Deus in Mark 12:32.

          Helpful, but leaves us a bit up in the air, as somebody reading this may infer that the Old Latin and the early Latin Vulgates did not have Deus. 

          Does anyone have an apparatus that would indicate the status of say the two dozen manuscripts in those lines that could be considered most early ?  Or even one dozen ?   The dozen or more Old Latin mss with the verse would be especially helpful, Fuldensis and Amiatinus would be good to know, and a few more Vulgate manuscripts.

          The lack of individual early Vulgate manuscripts is a big lack in the standard apparatus, imo.  And why a variant like this does not show the individual Old Latin manuscripts is a puzzle as well, as it does on a verse like Acts 8:37 or the heavenly witnesses.

          Andrew
          > This may be the source of the TR reading although Theos is found in several (mostly late) Greek manuscripts.

          And Deus well have been well repesented in the cursive manuscripts.  A total idea of Greek % manuscripts with Theos would be helpful, as in a verse like this several could be 5 out of 1000 or 500 or more with Theos.

          Shalom,
          Steven Avery
          Queens, NY

          Can anyone help me determine where the TR gets its rendering of Theos in Mark 12.32? As far as I can tell, the TR stands alone: the R-P majority text doesn't contain Theos, neither do any of the major majuscules, and the NA27 doesn't even list it as a variant. Even more, it is the only place in the NT where the Sahidic Coptic MSS follow the TR against the NA27 regarding occurrences of Theos. Any help/clarification would be greatly appreciated, as I'm not going to be around a good theological library for a while.
          Brian
        • Jovial
          Beza has o theos included, which may be one of the earlier ones. Old Syriac Sinaiticus includes it. Looks like this variant was early, which ever direction
          Message 4 of 9 , Aug 18, 2010
          • 0 Attachment
            Beza has "o theos" included, which may be one of the earlier ones.  Old Syriac Sinaiticus includes it.  Looks like this variant was early, which ever direction it went.   When you examine the whole verse, is it possible that proximity to a similar word in a line above could have created scribal confusion?  Here's more of this verse.....
             
                                 kai eipen autw o
            grammateuV kalwV didaskale
            ep alhqeiaV eipaV oti eiV
            estin qeoV kai ouk estin
            alloV plhn autou
             
             
            Joe
             
             
            ----- Original Message -----
            From: sarban
            Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 2:21 PM
            Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Mark 12.32 - TR and Sahidic Coptic?

             

            The late form of the Latin Vulgate has Deus in Mark 12:32. This may be the source of the TR reading although Theos is found in several (mostly late) Greek manuscripts.
             
            Andrew Criddle
             
            ----- Original Message -----
            Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 2:47 PM
            Subject: [textualcriticism] Mark 12.32 - TR and Sahidic Coptic?

             

            Can anyone help me determine where the TR gets its rendering of Theos in Mark 12.32?

            As far as I can tell, the TR stands alone: the R-P majority text doesn't contain Theos, neither do any of the major majuscules, and the NA27 doesn't even list it as a variant. Even more, it is the only place in the NT where the Sahidic Coptic MSS follow the TR against the NA27 regarding occurrences of Theos.

            Any help/clarification would be greatly appreciated, as I'm not going to be around a good theological library for a while.

            Brian

          • dlwheels
            Brian, Here is what I have from the CNTTS apparatus: εις εστιν θεος only in latin a 4th c., Latin, Gospel ms., located at the Vercelli Bibl.
            Message 5 of 9 , Aug 19, 2010
            • 0 Attachment
              Brian,

              Here is what I have from the CNTTS apparatus:
              εις εστιν θεος only in latin
              a 4th c., Latin, Gospel ms., located at the Vercelli Bibl. Capitolare, Western in text affinities
              b 5th c., Latin, Gospel ms., located at the Vercelli Bibl. Capitolare, Western in text affinities
              c 12/13th c., Latin, Gospel ms., located at the Paris National Library, Western in text affinities
              ff2 5th c., Latin, Gospel ms., located at the Paris National Library, Western in text affinities
              i 5th c., Latin, fragmentary Mark and Luke ms., located at the National Library at Napoli, Italy, Western in text affinities
              k 4/5th c., Latin, fragmentary Matthew and Mark ms., located at Torino National Library, Western in text affinities
              q 6/7th c., Latin, Gospel ms., located at Bayer. Staatsbibl., Western in text affinities

              All the other witnesses use Nomina Sacra (θς)
              E07 F09 H013 2 1071 2358 D05 G011 œ038 13 28 69 124 346 565 700 788 1582c Ï13 W032 579

              I've not posted before so I'm not sure how this formatting will turn out.



              --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "sahidiccoptic" <wrightoptions@...> wrote:
              >
              > Can anyone help me determine where the TR gets its rendering of Theos in Mark 12.32?
              >
              > As far as I can tell, the TR stands alone: the R-P majority text doesn't contain Theos, neither do any of the major majuscules, and the NA27 doesn't even list it as a variant. Even more, it is the only place in the NT where the Sahidic Coptic MSS follow the TR against the NA27 regarding occurrences of Theos.
              >
              > Any help/clarification would be greatly appreciated, as I'm not going to be around a good theological library for a while.
              >
              > Brian
              >
            • sarban
              ... From: schmuel To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 12:52 AM Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Mark 12.32 - TR and Sahidic
              Message 6 of 9 , Aug 20, 2010
              • 0 Attachment
                 
                ----- Original Message -----
                From: schmuel
                Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 12:52 AM
                Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Mark 12.32 - TR and Sahidic Coptic?

                 

                Hi Folks,

                Thanks, Andrew

                Andrew

                The late form of the Latin Vulgate has Deus in Mark 12:32.

                Helpful, but leaves us a bit up in the air, as somebody reading this may infer that the Old Latin and the early Latin Vulgates did not have Deus. 

                Does anyone have an apparatus that would indicate the status of say the two dozen manuscripts in those lines that could be considered most early ?  Or even one dozen ?   The dozen or more Old Latin mss with the verse would be especially helpful, Fuldensis and Amiatinus would be good to know, and a few more Vulgate manuscripts.

                The lack of individual early Vulgate manuscripts is a big lack in the standard apparatus, imo.  And why a variant like this does not show the individual Old Latin manuscripts is a puzzle as well, as it does on a verse
                 
                 
                Hi Steven
                 
                According to the Merk apparatus Deus is found in most the Old Latin (but not in k/bobiensis) but not in the early Vulgate (neither in Fuldensis nor in Amiatinus).
                 
                Andrew Criddle
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.