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

Re: [textualcriticism] Mark 12.32 - TR and Sahidic Coptic?

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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.