Jump to content


Photo

Textual Interpolations


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
8 replies to this topic

#1 Evangelion

Evangelion

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • 24,344 posts
  • LocationAdelaide, South Australia

Posted 29 December 2002 - 05:53 AM

John 1:18


The reading "only begotten God" is spurious. The correct gloss ("only begotten son") is supported by the following witnesses:
  • Uncials: A (5th century), E, F, G, H, Delta, Theta, Psi (these last 7 codices from the 8th and 9th centuries.)

  • Minuscules: family 1, family 13, 28, 157, 180, 205, and numerous others.

  • Lectionaries: majority.

  • Ancient versions: several Old Latin mss. (including "a," 4th century), the Vulgate, the Curetonian version of the Old Syriac (3rd-4th century), the Harclean and Palestinian Syriac, the Armenian and Ethiopic versions, the earlier of two Georgian versions (9th century), and the Old Church Slavonic version;

  • Church fathers: Irenaeus Hippolytus (d. 235), Letter of Hymenaeus (about 268), Athanasius, Ambrose, Augustine, Alexander, Eustathius, Chrysostom, Theodore, Tertullian, Jerome, and countless others.
Textual critics conclude:
  • The Old Latin manuscripts of John 1:18 read:

    deum nemo uidit umquam. unigenitus filius. qui est in sinu patris. ipse narrauit.

    The word unigenitus means, only begotten, only; of the same parentage.
    Traupman, Dr. John C. (1995), Latin Dictionary.


  • Virtually every other representative of every other textual grouping - Western, Caesarean, Byzantine - attests 'the only begotten son'. And the reading even occurs in several of the secondary Alexandrian witnesses (e.g., C3, Y, 892, 1241, Ath Alex).

    This is not simply a case of one reading supported by the earliest and best manuscripts, and another supported by late and inferior ones, but of one reading [only begotten God] found almost exclusively in the Alexandrian tradition, and another [only begotten son found sporadically there, and virtually everywhere else.

    Thus both readings are ancient; one [only begotten God] is fairly localized, the other [only begotten son] is almost ubiquitous.
    Ehrman, B. D (1993), The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture.
Trinitarians frequently forget that Arius was perfectly happy with the reading "only begotten God", using it to support his Christology during the debates of the 4th Century AD. Indeed, it is far more suited to Arian Christology than it is to Trinitarianism.

Edited by Evangelion, 07 September 2005 - 03:35 PM.

'Abba Antony said, "A time is coming when men will go mad, and when they see someone who is not mad, they will attack him saying, 'You are mad, you are not like us.'"'

Ward, Benedicta. The Sayings of the Desert Fathers (2006), Antony 25, p. 5.

Credo.

#2 Evangelion

Evangelion

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • 24,344 posts
  • LocationAdelaide, South Australia

Posted 19 March 2003 - 08:16 AM

Acts 20:28


The reading "purchased with His own blood" is spurious.

According to the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece, edition 27, the correct gloss of Acts 20:28 is "The blood of His own [son]", with the word "son" implied by the context.

Writing in his Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (1994), Bruce Metzger (one of the editors of the NA27, and a notable authority on textual criticism), quotes The Beginnings of Christianity to emphasise his own argument for the corrected gloss:tou aimatos tou idiou was changed to tou idiou aimatos (influenced by Hebrews 9:12?), which is neater, but perverts the sense...
The New English Translation (which follows the textual amendment) has an explanatory footnote:Or 'with his own blood'; Grk 'with the blood of his own.' The genitive construction could be taken in two ways: (1) as an attributive genitive (second attributive position) meaning his own blood'; or (2) as a possessive genitive, 'with the blood of his own.' In this case the referent is the Son, and the referent has been specified in the translation for clarity. See further C. F. DeVine, The Blood of God, CBQ 9 (1947): 381-408.
Moreover, the corrected gloss is supported by the best manuscripts, papyri and fragmenta, including:
  • Papyri P41 and P74 (witnesses of the first order.)

  • The great uncial MSS Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, and Bezae (witnesses of the first order.)

  • The principle miniscules 33, 36, 945, 1175, 1739, 1891 and others (witnesses of the first and second order.)

  • Patristic witness (Cyril of Alexandria.)
A secular scholar concludes:
For this final phrase [bought with the blood of his own] has been changed in a number of witnesses precisely along the 'exchange of predicates' mentioned earlier, making the text appeart not to discourage a Patripassianist misconstrual so much as to encourage an orthodox interpretation that Christ, as God, obtained the church by shedding his blood.

Thus, in the majority of Greek witnesses, the 'blood of His own (Son)' (tou aimatos tou idiou), has been changed to read 'His own blood' (tou idiou aimatos).

Now the text states that God has obtained the church through the shedding 'of His own blood'.

The text is nonetheless secondary; it survives in none of the early witnesses to the text and serves a clear theological function.
Ehrman, Bart (1996), The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture.

Edited by Evangelion, 07 September 2005 - 03:36 PM.

'Abba Antony said, "A time is coming when men will go mad, and when they see someone who is not mad, they will attack him saying, 'You are mad, you are not like us.'"'

Ward, Benedicta. The Sayings of the Desert Fathers (2006), Antony 25, p. 5.

Credo.

#3 Evangelion

Evangelion

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • 24,344 posts
  • LocationAdelaide, South Australia

Posted 19 March 2003 - 08:17 AM

Ephesians 3:9


The reading "who created all things by Jesus Christ" is spurious. Adam Clarke argues strongly against it in his Commentary, believing that it results in an unorthodox minoration of the Son:Who created all things by Jesus Christ - Some very judicious critics are of opinion that this does not refer to the material creation; and that we should understand the whole as referring to the formation of all God’s dispensations of grace, mercy, and truth, which have been planned, managed, and executed by Christ, from the foundation of the world to the present time.

But the words "by Jesus Christ", are wanting in ABCD*FG, and several others; also in the Syriac, Arabic of Erpen, Coptic, Ethiopic, Vulgate, and Itala; as also in several of the fathers. Griesbach has thrown the words out of the text; and Professor White says, “certissime delenda,” they are indisputably spurious. The text, therefore, should be read:

which from the beginning of the world had been hidden in God who created all things.

No inferiority of Christ can be argued from a clause of whose spuriousness there is the strongest evidence.
Not only that, but:
  • The world "mystery" is not original, being absent from all of the uncials and early fathers.

  • 99% of the miniscules read "administration" rather than "mystery."

  • The only manuscripts to read "mystery" are miniscule 31, and a handful of other very late manuscripts.
And of course, as Clarke has correctly observed, the last three words, "by Jesus Christ," are absent from all the earliest codices and papyri (P46, Aleph, A, B, C, D, F, G, P, 33, 1319, 1611, 2127, etc.), most versions, and the earliest patristic quotations.

Modern translations correct the error by omitting the interpolated material.

Thus:

  • NET Bible
    And to enlighten everyone about God's secret plan — a secret that has been hidden for ages in God who has created all things.

  • Revised Version
    and to make all men see what is the dispensation of the mystery which from all ages hath been hid in God who created all things;

  • American Standard Version
    and to make all men see what is the dispensation of the mystery which for ages hath been hid in God who created all things;

  • English Standard Version
    and to bring to light for everyone what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things,

  • International Standard Version
    and help everyone see how this secret, which was hidden for ages in God who created all things, has been at work.

  • Bible in Basic English
    And make all men see what is the ordering of the secret which from the first has been kept in God who made all things;

  • Contemporary English Version
    God, who created everything, wanted me to help everyone understand the mysterious plan that had always been hidden in his mind.

  • Good News Bible
    and of making all people see how God's secret plan is to be put into effect. God, who is the Creator of all things, kept his secret hidden through all the past ages,

  • "God's Word" Bible
    He allowed me to explain the way this mystery works. God, who created all things, kept it hidden in the past.

  • "The Message"
    My task is to bring out in the open and make plain what God, who created all this in the first place, has been doing in secret and behind the scenes all along.

The KJV rendition is manifestly insupportable.
'Abba Antony said, "A time is coming when men will go mad, and when they see someone who is not mad, they will attack him saying, 'You are mad, you are not like us.'"'

Ward, Benedicta. The Sayings of the Desert Fathers (2006), Antony 25, p. 5.

Credo.

#4 Evangelion

Evangelion

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • 24,344 posts
  • LocationAdelaide, South Australia

Posted 19 March 2003 - 08:17 AM

I Timothy 3:16


The reading "God was seen in the flesh, etc..." is spurious.

Modern translations provide the corrected gloss:
  • New American Standard Bible.
    By common confession, great is the mystery of godliness: He who was revealed in the flesh, was vindicated in the Spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory.

  • New American Bible.
    Undeniably great is the mystery of devotion, Who was manifested in the flesh, vindicated in the spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed to the Gentiles, believed in throughout the world, taken up in glory.

  • New English Translation.
    And we all agree, our religion contains amazing revelation:
    He was revealed in the flesh,
    vindicated by the Spirit,
    seen by angels,
    proclaimed among Gentiles,
    believed on in the world,
    taken up in glory.
The NAB defends its gloss in a footnote:Who: the reference is to Christ, who is himself "the mystery of our devotion."

Some predominantly Western manuscripts read "which," harmonizing the gender of the pronoun with that of the Greek word for mystery; many later (eighth/ninth century on), predominantly Byzantine manuscripts read "God," possibly for theological reasons.
Likewise the New English Translation:What is significant in this reading is (1) since virtually all the Western witnesses have either the masculine or neuter relative pronoun, the theos reading was apparently unknown to them in the 2nd century (when the “Western” text seems to have originated, though its place of origination was most likely in the east); they thus supply strong indirect evidence of hos ["who"] outside of Egypt in the 2nd century; (2) even 2nd century scribes were liable to misunderstand the genre, feeling compelled to alter the masculine relative pronoun because it appeared to them to be too harsh.

The evidence, therefore, for hos is quite compelling, both externally and internally. As TCGNT 574 notes, “no uncial (in the first hand) earlier than the eighth or ninth century (Y) supports theos; all ancient versions presuppose hos or ho; and no patristic writer prior to the last third of the fourth century testifies to the reading theos.” Thus, the cries of certain groups that theos has to be original must be seen as special pleading in this case.

To argue that heretics tampered with the text here is self-defeating, for most of the Western fathers who quoted the verse with the relative pronoun were quite orthodox, strongly affirming the deity of Christ. They would have dearly loved such a reading as theos. Further, had heretics introduced a variant to theos, a far more natural choice would have been Christos (“Christ”) or kurious (“Lord”), since the text is self-evidently about Christ, but it is not self-evidently a proclamation of his deity.
Bruce Metzger (the notable textual critic of our time) says that the translation "he who" is......supported by the earliest and best uncials... no uncial (in the first hand) earlier than the eighth or ninth century supports "theos," all ancient versions presuppose "hos" or "ho" ["he who" or "he"] and no patristic writer prior to the last third of the fourth century testifies to the reading "theos."

The reading 'theos' arose either (a) accidentally, or (B) deliberately, either to supply a substantive for the following six verbs [the six verbs that follow in the verse], or, with less probability, to provide greater dogmatic precision. [i.e., to provide a verse which more clearly supports the Trinitarian position.]

Metzger, Bruce (1975), A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament.
By replacing the word "God" (a spurious interpolation) with the words "he who" (or even "who"), the new translations present us with a clear and irrefutable reference to Christ, the representative of God.

Was Christ revealed in the flesh? Yes. Was Christ vindicated in the Spirit? Yes. Was Christ seen by angels (messengers)? Yes. Was Christ proclaimed among the nations? Yes. Was Christ believed on in the world? Yes. Was Christ taken up in glory? Yes.

But is Christ God? No. And the apostle Paul here gives us no reason to believe that he is.

Edited by Evangelion, 05 January 2006 - 03:46 AM.

'Abba Antony said, "A time is coming when men will go mad, and when they see someone who is not mad, they will attack him saying, 'You are mad, you are not like us.'"'

Ward, Benedicta. The Sayings of the Desert Fathers (2006), Antony 25, p. 5.

Credo.

#5 Evangelion

Evangelion

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • 24,344 posts
  • LocationAdelaide, South Australia

Posted 19 March 2003 - 08:18 AM

I John 5:7


The reading found in the KJV is spurious. It is is absent from every Greek manuscript except eight, all dating from the sixteenth century or later. These include 61, 88, 221, 429, 636, 918, and 2318. Of these 8 manuscripts, four contain the passage as a variant reading in the margin, added by a later hand.

Erasmus, in the first two editions of the Textus Receptus, did not include the passage, stating that he could not find it in any of the Greek codices available to him. After considerable pressure (and possibly the presentation of a ready-made "ancient copy"), Erasmus included it in his third edition. From here, it made its way into the KJV.

Bruce Metzger comments:The passage is absent from every known Greek manuscript except eight, and these contain the passage in what appears to be a translation from a late rescension of the Latin Vulgate...

The passage is quoted by none of the Greek fathers, who, had they known it, would most certainly have employed it in the Trinitarian controversies (Sabellian and Arian). Its first appearance in Greek is in a Greek version of the (Latin) Acts of the Lutheran Council in 1215.

The passage is absent from the manuscripts of all ancient versions (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Arabic, Slavonic), except the Latin; and it is not found (a) in the Old Latin in its early form (Tertullian, Cyprian, Augustine), or in the Vulgate (B) as issued by Jerome (codex Fuldensis [copied AD 541-46] and codex Amiatinus [copied before AD 716]) or as revised by Alcuin (first hand of codex Vallicellianus 9th centur.)

The earliest instance of the passage being quoted as a part of the actual text of the Epistle is in a fourth century Latin treatise entitled Liber Apologeticus (chapter 4), attributed either to the Spanish heretic Priscillian (died about 385CE) or to his follower Bishop Instantius...

Metzger, Bruce M. (1971), A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament.
Some have sought to prove the validity of this interpolation by an appeal to Cyprian's words in De Catholicae Ecclesiae Unitate, where they claim it is quoted directly:He who breaks the peace and the concord of Christ, does so in opposition to Christ; he who gathereth elsewhere than in the Church, scatters the Church of Christ.

The Lord says, "I and the Father are one;" and again it is written of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, "And these three are one."

And does any one believe that this unity which thus comes from the divine strength and coheres in celestial sacraments, can be divided in the Church, and can be separated by the parting asunder of opposing wills?

He who does not hold this unity does not hold God's law, does not hold the faith of the Father and the Son, does not hold life and salvation.
But the apparent "quote" is no quote at all, as Daniel Wallace has amply demonstrated:A friend recently wrote to me about the KJV reading of 1 John 5:7-8. He noted that I had not mentioned Cyprian in my essay on this text and that some KJV only folks claimed that Cyprian actually quoted the form that appears in the KJV (“For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.”)

The question is, Did Cyprian quote a version of 1 John that had the Trinitarian formula of 1 John 5:7 in it? This would, of course, be significant, for Cyprian lived in the third century; he would effectively be the earliest known writer to quote the Comma Johanneum.

Before we look at Cyprian per se, a little background is needed. The Comma occurs only in about 8 MSS, mostly in the margins, and all of them quite late.

Metzger, in his Textual Commentary (2nd edition), after commenting on the Greek MS testimony, says this (p. 648):

The earliest instance of the passage being quoted as a part of the actual text of the Epistle [italics added] is in a fourth century Latin treatise entitled Liber Apologeticus (chap. 4), attributed either to the Spanish heretic Priscillian (died about 385) or to his follower Bishop Instantius.

Apparently the gloss arose when the original passage was understood to symbolize the Trinity (through the mention of three witnesses: the Spirit, the water, and the blood), an interpretation that may have been written first as a marginal note that afterwards found its way into the text.

Thus, a careful distinction needs to be made between the actual text used by Cyprian and his theological interpretations. As Metzger says, the Old Latin text used by Cyprian shows no evidence of this gloss.

On the other side of the ledger, however, Cyprian does show evidence of putting a theological spin on 1 John 5:7.

In his De catholicae ecclesiae unitate 6, he says, “The Lord says, ‘I and the Father are one’; and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, ‘And these three are one.’”

What is evident is that Cyprian’s interpretation of 1 John 5:7 is that the three witnesses refer to the Trinity. Apparently, he was prompted to read such into the text here because of the heresies he was fighting (a common indulgence of the early patristic writers).

Since John 10:30 triggered the ‘oneness’ motif, and involved Father and Son, it was a natural step for Cyprian to find another text that spoke of the Spirit, using the same kind of language.

It is quite significant, however, that (a) he does not quote ‘of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Spirit’ as part of the text; this is obviously his interpretation of ‘the Spirit, the water, and the blood.’

(b) Further, since the statement about the Trinity in the Comma is quite clear (“the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit”), and since Cyprian does not quote that part of the text, this in the least does not afford proof that he knew of such wording.

One would expect him to quote the exact wording of the text, if its meaning were plain. That he does not do so indicates that a Trinitarian interpretation was superimposed on the text by Cyprian, but he did not changed the words.

It is interesting that Michael Maynard, a TR advocate who has written a fairly thick volume defending the Comma (A History of the Debate over 1 John 5:7-8 [Tempe, AZ: Comma Publications, 1995] 38), not only quotes from this passage but also speaks of the significance of Cyprian’s comment, quoting Kenyon’s Textual Criticism of the New Testament (London: Macmillan, 1912), 212: “Cyprian is regarded as one ‘who quotes copiously and textually’.”

The quotation from Kenyon is true, but quite beside the point, for Cyprian’s quoted material from 1 John 5 is only the clause, “and these three are one”—the wording of which occurs in the Greek text, regardless of how one views the Comma.

Thus, that Cyprian interpreted 1 John 5:7-8 to refer to the Trinity is likely; but that he saw the Trinitarian formula in the text is rather unlikely. Further, one of the great historical problems of regarding the Comma as authentic is how it escaped all Greek witnesses for a millennium and a half.

That it at first shows up in Latin, starting with Priscillian in c. 380 (as even the hard evidence provided by Maynard shows), explains why it is not found in the early or even the majority of Greek witnesses.

All the historical data point in one of two directions:

(1) This reading was a gloss added by Latin patristic writers whose interpretive zeal caused them to insert these words into Holy Writ; or

(2) this interpretation was a gloss, written in the margins of some Latin MSS, probably sometime between 250 and 350, that got incorporated into the text by a scribe who was not sure whether it was a comment on scripture or scripture itself (a phenomenon that was not uncommon with scribes).

Source.
[/list]

Edited by Evangelion, 28 November 2007 - 08:53 PM.

'Abba Antony said, "A time is coming when men will go mad, and when they see someone who is not mad, they will attack him saying, 'You are mad, you are not like us.'"'

Ward, Benedicta. The Sayings of the Desert Fathers (2006), Antony 25, p. 5.

Credo.

#6 Evangelion

Evangelion

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • 24,344 posts
  • LocationAdelaide, South Australia

Posted 19 March 2003 - 08:19 AM

Revelation 1:8


The reading "the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord" is spurious.

Trinitarian scholar Albert Barnes (Notes on the Bible) concedes:As there is, however, a difference of reading in this place in the Greek text, and as it cannot be absolutely certain that the writer meant to refer to the Lord Jesus specifically here, this cannot be adduced with propriety as a proof-text to demonstrate his divinity. Many mss., instead of Lord, (kurios), read God, (Theos), and this reading is adopted by Griesbach, Tittman, and Hahn, and is now regarded as the correct reading.

There is no real incongruity in supposing, also, that the writer here meant to refer to God as such, since the introduction of a reference to him would not be inappropriate to his manifest design.

Besides, a portion of the language used here, which is, and was, and is to come, is what would more naturally suggest a reference to God as such, than to the Lord Jesus Christ. See Revelation 1:4.

The object for which this passage referring to the first and the last - to him who was, and is, and is to come, is introduced here evidently is, to show that as he was clothed with omnipotence, and would continue to exist through all ages to come as he had existed in all ages past, there could be no doubt about his ability to execute all which it is said he would execute.
The New English Translation (which uses the corrected gloss) has an explanatory footnote:The reading Omega has superior ms evidence (1 A C 1611 Byz) to the addition of the beginning and the end (ajrchV kaiV tevlo" or hJ ajrchV kaiV toV tevlo", arch kai telo" or Jh arch kai to telo").

There is no good reason why a scribe would have deleted the words, but their clarifying value and the fact that they harmonize with 21:6 indicate that they are a secondary addition to the text.
Other commentators follow suit.

Edited by Evangelion, 07 September 2005 - 03:37 PM.

'Abba Antony said, "A time is coming when men will go mad, and when they see someone who is not mad, they will attack him saying, 'You are mad, you are not like us.'"'

Ward, Benedicta. The Sayings of the Desert Fathers (2006), Antony 25, p. 5.

Credo.

#7 Evangelion

Evangelion

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • 24,344 posts
  • LocationAdelaide, South Australia

Posted 19 March 2003 - 08:20 AM

Revelation 1:11


The reading "I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and" is spurious.

Adam Clarke writes in his Commentary:Rev 1:11 - I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and - This whole clause is wanting in ABC, thirty-one others; some editions; the Syriac, Coptic, Ethiopic, Armenian, Slavonic, Vulgate, Arethas, Andreas, and Primasius. Griesbach has left it out of the text.
Robert Nguyen Cramer provides a veritable tidal wave of evidence against the corrupted reading:Virtually all modern translations do not include in Rev 1:11 the following words that are in the KJV version of that verse:

Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and,

This wording at the beginning of the KJV's version of Rev. 1:11 is not found in virtually any ancient texts, nor is it mentioned, even as a footnote, in any modern translation or in Bruce Metzger's definitive A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Second Edition (New York: United Bible Societies, 1994, phone: 800-322-4253).

(The New King James Version [NKJV] does include this wording; but the NKJV is not a modern translation; it is only a modern-English rewording of the the original KJV, minus the Aprocrypha, since the Aprocrypha was in the original KJV.)

It should be noted that the phrases "Alpha and Omega," "the first and the last," and/or "the beginning and the end" are found in the original texts of Rev. 1:8, 1:17, 2:8, 21:6, and 22:13. (These phrases are allusions to the wording in Isaiah 44:6 and 48:12. )

Of these five verses Rev. 22:13 is closest to the KJV's wording in the beginning of Rev. 1:11, but even in Rev. 22:13 the KJV needs some correction. The errors in both Rev. 1:11 and Rev 22:13 are due to the inaccuracy of the so-called Textus Receptus, the Greek text upon which the KJV's New Testament was based.

(According to Bruce Metzger (in The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, Second Edition, Oxford University Press, 1968), the Textus Receptus was hastily and haphazardly prepared and was based mostly upon unreliable 12th century manuscripts. It was the work of a Dutchman by the name of Desiderius Erasmus and was first published in 1516.

Though what became known as the Textus Receptus was inferior in accuracy to the very first complete Greek New Testament, the so-called Complutensian New Testament that was published only two years earlier in 1514, Erasmus' text was marketed much more effectively and was used as the basis for all the principal Protestant translations in the languages of Europe until 1881, when the English Revised Version [RV] was first published.

For a complete explanation of the basis for the errors in the King James Version and its impact on biblical studies, browse www.bibletexts.com/kjv-tr.htm

Regarding Rev 22:13, the Textus Receptus' rendering of that verse had some of the Greek wording and word order incorrect; thus, in that verse the KJV translation does not exactly represent the original text. Based upon the much more reliable editions of the Greek New Testament that are available today, the New Revised Standard Version [NRSV] does accurately (and quite literally) represent the correct wording and word order of the original Greek text of Rev. 22:13, which reads,

I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.
For the complete text of Cramer's article, see here.

Edited by Evangelion, 03 July 2006 - 01:12 PM.

'Abba Antony said, "A time is coming when men will go mad, and when they see someone who is not mad, they will attack him saying, 'You are mad, you are not like us.'"'

Ward, Benedicta. The Sayings of the Desert Fathers (2006), Antony 25, p. 5.

Credo.

#8 Evangelion

Evangelion

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • 24,344 posts
  • LocationAdelaide, South Australia

Posted 19 March 2003 - 08:21 AM

Technical Terms


Lectionaries:
The lectionaries are, of course, the service books of the church, containing the appointed readings ("lections") for each day of the church year. As such, they were extremely important to individual churches (a church would find a continuous-text manuscript for study purposes, but it simply had to have a lectionary for reading during services). The number of lectionaries now known is somewhat less than the number of continuous-text manuscripts (about 2300 lectionaries, as compared to some 3200 continuous-text manuscripts of all types), but this may be due simply to the fact that they were well-used but no longer prized once printed editions became available.

From the online Encyclopaedia of Textual Criticism. The article on lectionaries is located here.
Minuscule:
Minuscule, or lower case, refers to the smaller form of letters: a,b,c. Originally alphabets were written entirely in majuscule (capital) letters which was spaced between well-defined upper and lower bounds. When written quickly with a pen, these tended to rounder and simpler forms, like uncials. It is from these that the first minuscule hands developed, the half-uncials and cursive minuscule, which no longer stay bound between a pair of lines.

These in turn formed the foundations for carolingian minuscule, developed by Alcuin for use in the court of Charlemagne, which quickly spread across Europe. Here for the first time it became common to mix both majuscule and minuscule letters in a single text.

Traditionally more important letters - those beginning sentences or nouns - were made larger; now they were written in a different script, although there was no fixed capitalization system until the early 18th century (and even then all nouns were capitalized, a system still followed in German but not in English).

Similar developments have taken place in other alphabets. The minuscule script for the Greek alphabet has its origins in the seventh century and acquired its quadrilinear form in the eighth century. Over time, uncial letter forms were increasingly mixed into the script. The earliest dated Greek minuscule text is the Uspenski Gospels (MS 461) in the year 835. The modern practice of capitalizing every sentence seems to be imported.

From Wikipedia - the online encyclopaedia. The article on minuscules is located here.
Uncial:
Uncial is a majuscule script commonly used from the 3rd to 8th centuries CE by Latin and Greek scribes. Early forms are characterized by broad single stroke letters using simple round forms taking advantage of the new parchment and vellum surfaces, as opposed to the angular, multiple stroke letters which are more suited for rougher surfaces, such as papyrus. In the oldest examples of uncial, all of the letters are disconnected from one another, and word breaks are typically not used.

As the script evolved over the centuries, the characters became more complex. Specifically, around 600 CE, flourishes and exaggerations of the basic strokes began to appear in more manuscripts. Ascenders and descenders were the first major alterations, followed by twists of the tool in the basic stroke and overlapping. By the time the more compact minuscule scripts awoke circa 800 CE, some of the evolved uncial styles formed the basis for these simplified, smaller scripts. Uncial was still used, particularly for copies of the Bible, tapering off until around the 10th century.

The word, uncial, is also sometimes used to refer to manuscripts that have been scribed in uncial, especially when differentiating from those which have been penned with minuscule. Some of the most noteworthy Greek uncials are:

Codex Sinaiticus
Codex Vaticanus
Codex Alexandrinus
Codex Bezae
Codex Petropolitanus

From Wikipedia. The article on uncials is located here.

'Abba Antony said, "A time is coming when men will go mad, and when they see someone who is not mad, they will attack him saying, 'You are mad, you are not like us.'"'

Ward, Benedicta. The Sayings of the Desert Fathers (2006), Antony 25, p. 5.

Credo.

#9 Guest_Alethia_*

Guest_Alethia_*
  • Guests

Posted 31 March 2004 - 03:35 PM

KJV (AV), NKJV, YLT and Geneva Bible all contain 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. 
NLT contains 1, 2 and 6.
HNV contains 2, 3 and 4.
ESV, NASB, NIV and ASV all contain 1 and 2.
NET, CEV and Rotherams all contain number 1.
RSV and NRSV contain none of the errors.


Very Interesting. I guess that proves we should all dump our KJV's and get RSV's instead!




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users