Re: [textualcriticism] Re: Russian order Gen Epis
On 01/18/2011 02:56 PM, ron minton wrote:
OK. If I understood Tischendorf and the others correctly, we have this:
So the early collections did not typically contain the whole New Testament. In fact the oldest collections we have of the whole new testament where actually full bibles (the great uncials).
Before and after that, the New Testament circulated in the following collections:
I'm not sure what you mean by 'western text'. Usually that term refers to the following Greek codices plus the old Latin and maybe the old Syriac texts:Gospels, Acts, Paul, General Epistles, RevelationWestern Text
Codex Bezea (Dea) - Gospels - General Epistles (only the last of III John extant in Latin) - Acts
Codex Claramontanus (Dp) - Paul
Codex Augiensis (Fp) - Paul
Codex Boernerianus (Gp) -Paul (Note that Codex Sangellenses is clearly meant to be the Gospel version pair to this codex, but the text is not Western).
[Codex Sangermanensis (Dabs1) and Codex Waldeccensis (Dabs2) are both copies of Dp] -Paul
So these Greek "Western" codices can't tell us a full NT order, but the Codex Bezea does have an order that is different from your whole list (In that the General Epistles precede Acts). We don't know what else was between Mark and then of of III John, but there appears to be about 65 sheets are missing, which seems too much for the General Epistles, but not enough for Paul. It's order would be...
Gospels, [unknown], General Epistles, Acts.
Of course the volume has been rebound more than once, but its pretty clear that the General Epistles proceded Acts since the sheet with the end of III John in Latin has the beginning of Acts in Greek on the other side.
You may mean Western translations. That would make since since the TR was the original source of these translations.
Like the western text, the early papyri do not include any codices of the full bible, only of single books or collections. There are only a few undisputed collections in the early papyri:Muratorian Canon, EusebiusLatin VulgateErasmus (1466-1536)Robert Stephanus (1503-1559)Theodore Beza (1519-1605)Bonaventure Elzevir (1583-1652)Abraham Elzevir (1592-1652)..............................Gospels, Paul, Acts, General Epistles, and RevelationSinaiticus.............................Gospels, Acts, General Epistles, Paul, RevelationByzantine TextLaodicean Council (360-363), Athanasius (367),Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, Ephraimi Rescriptus, some early papyri and other manuscripts,
p45 Gospels and Acts (it's unclear if there were anything else. The Catholic letters are possible since they were small and could easily have been lost, but there is not evidence that they were present either).
p46 Paul (including Hebrews, missing the pastorals)
p53 Had Matthew and Acts, unknown what else.
p61 several fragments of Paul (8th century)
p72 Mixed collection of non-biblical with I & II Peter and Jude
p74 Acts and the Catholics. It's not exactly early (7th century)
p75 Only Luke and John are unambiguously present
p84 Mark and John (6th century)
p92 Ephesians and II Thessalonians (don't know what else)
There are a few others that are disputed (p4/p64).
Lachmann (1793-1851), Tischendorf (1815-1874), Tregelles (1813-1875), Westcott (1825-1901) and Hort (1828-1892)Russian Bible...........................And Marcion has only Gospels and Paul.Any comments, corrections, and/or significant additions are welcome.Ron Minton
Note there there is some variance of order within the collection.
Gospels: Matthew Mark Luke John (most Greek manuscripts).
Mathew John Luke Mark (Dea, W, many Latin manuscripts).
Paul: Hebrews bounces around quite a bit. There are a few other orders ignoring the location of Hebrews Dr. Trobisch has cataloged all the orders in Greek manuscripts.
Acts/Catholics: Is Acts first or are the Catholics first?
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 3:00 PM, TeunisV <tvanlopik@...> wrote: