DOCSLIB.ORG

Wstęp Do Nowego Testamentu Νµθωερτψυιοπασδφγηϕκλζξχϖβνµθ Ωερτψυιοπασδφγηϕκλζξχϖβνµθωερ Τψυιοπασδφγηϕκλζξχϖβνµθωερτψυ

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Wstęp Do Nowego Testamentu Νµθωερτψυιοπασδφγηϕκλζξχϖβνµθ Ωερτψυιοπασδφγηϕκλζξχϖβνµθωερ Τψυιοπασδφγηϕκλζξχϖβνµθωερτψυ θωερτψυιοπασδφγηϕκλζξχϖβνµθωε ρτψυιοπασδφγηϕκλζξχϖβνµθωερτψ υιοπασδφγηϕκλζξχϖβνµθωερτψυιο πασδφγηϕκλζξχϖβνµθωερτψυιοπασ δφγηϕκλζξχϖβνµθωερτψυιοπασδφγ ηϕκλζξχϖβνµθωερτψυιοπασδφγηϕκ λζξχϖβνµθωερτψυιοπασδφγηϕκλζξ χϖβνµθωερτψυιοπασδφγηϕκλζξχϖβWstęp do Nowego Testamentu νµθωερτψυιοπασδφγηϕκλζξχϖβνµθ ωερτψυιοπασδφγηϕκλζξχϖβνµθωερ τψυιοπασδφγηϕκλζξχϖβνµθωερτψυ ιοπασδφγηϕκλζξχϖβνµθωερτψυιοπ ασδφγηϕκλζξχϖβνµθωερτψυιοπασδLeszek Jańczuk φγηϕκλζξχϖβνµθωερτψυιοπασδφγη ϕκλζξχϖβνµθωερτψυιοπασδφγηϕκλ ζξχϖβνµθωερτψυιοπασδφγηϕκλζξχ ϖβνµρτψυιοπασδφγηϕκλζξχϖβνµθω ερτψυιοπασδφγηϕκλζξχϖβνµθωερτ ψυιοπασδφγηϕκλζξχϖβνµθωερτψυι οπασδφγηϕκλζξχϖβνµθωερτψυιοπα σδφγηϕκλζξχϖβνµθωερτψυιοπασδφ γηϕκλζξχϖβνµθωερτψυιοπασδφγηϕ κλζξχϖβνµθωερτψυιοπασδφγηϕκλζ ξχϖβνµθωερτψυιοπασδφγηϕκλζξχϖ βνµθωερτψυιοπασδφγηϕκλζξχϖβνµ θωερτψυιοπασδφγηϕκλζξχϖβνµθωε ρτψυιοπασδφγηϕκλζξχϖβνµθωερτψ υιοπασδφγηϕκλζξχϖβνµρτψυιοπασ δφγηϕκλζξχϖβνµθωερτψυιοπασδφγ ηϕκλζξχϖβνµθωερτψυιοπασδφγηϕκ λζξχϖβνµθωερτψυιοπασδφγηϕκλζξ χϖβνµθωερτψυιοπασδφγηϕκλζξχϖβ νµθωερτψυιοπασδφγηϕκλζξχϖβνµθ ωερτψυιοπασδφγηϕκλζξχϖβνµθωερ τψυιοπασδφγηϕκλζξχϖβνµθωερτψυ ιοπασδφγηϕκλζξχϖβνµθωερτψυιοπ ασδφγηϕκλζξχϖβνµθωερτψυιοπασδ φγηϕκλζξχϖβνµθωερτψυιοπασδφγη ϕκλζξχϖβνµθωερτψυιοπασδφγηϕκλ ζξχϖβνµρτψυιοπασδφγηϕκλζξχϖβν Spis treści Wst ęp ........................................................................................................................................................6 Nazwa Nowego Testamentu .....................................................................................................................6 Autorytet i natchnienie ksi ąg Nowego Testamentu ..................................................................................8 Cz ęść I: Kanon Nowego Testamentu .....................................................................................................14 Formowanie kanonu ...............................................................................................................................14 Termin.................................................................................................................................................14 I połowa II wieku ................................................................................................................................14 Fragment Muratoriego ........................................................................................................................17 Ksi ęgi kwestionowane ........................................................................................................................18 Ustalenie kanonu ................................................................................................................................20 Co zadecydowało o kanoniczno ści .....................................................................................................22 Liczba ksi ąg ........................................................................................................................................22 Zasada wspólnej my śli Nowego Testamentu ......................................................................................23 Cz ęść II: Tekst Nowego Testamentu ......................................................................................................24 Kolejno ść ksi ąg ......................................................................................................................................24 Podział tekstu Nowego Testamentu .......................................................................................................26 Rękopi śmienne świadectwa Nowego Testamentu ..................................................................................29 Jak powstawał r ękopis ........................................................................................................................29 Klasyfikacja r ękopisów.......................................................................................................................30 Papirusy ..............................................................................................................................................31 Majuskuły ...........................................................................................................................................36 Minuskuły ...........................................................................................................................................65 Lekcjonarze .........................................................................................................................................71 Cytaty ojców Ko ścioła ........................................................................................................................72 Staro żytne przekłady Nowego Testamentu .............................................................................................75 Przekłady syryjskie .............................................................................................................................75 Przekłady starosyryjskie..................................................................................................................75 Peszitta ............................................................................................................................................76 Pó źniejsze przekłady syryjskie .......................................................................................................77 Ograniczenia syryjskich przekładów ..............................................................................................77 Przekłady łaci ńskie .............................................................................................................................78 Przekłady starołaci ńskie ..................................................................................................................78 Wulgata ...........................................................................................................................................79 Ograniczenia łaci ńskich przekładów ...............................................................................................81 Przekłady koptyjskie ...........................................................................................................................82 Dialekt saidzki .................................................................................................................................82 Dialekt bohairski .............................................................................................................................83 Dialekty środkowo-egipskie............................................................................................................83 Ograniczenia dialektów koptyjskich ...............................................................................................84 Przekład gocki ....................................................................................................................................84 Przekład ormia ński .............................................................................................................................85 2 Przekład gruzi ński ..............................................................................................................................85 Przekład etiopski .................................................................................................................................86 Przekład perski ....................................................................................................................................86 Przekład arabski ..................................................................................................................................87 Przekład sogdiana ...............................................................................................................................87 Przekład nubijski ................................................................................................................................87 Przekład staro-cerkiewno-słowia ński .................................................................................................87 Inne przekłady ....................................................................................................................................88 Pomyłki kopistów ...................................................................................................................................89 Zmiany nie świadome ..........................................................................................................................89 Podobie ństwa graficzne ..................................................................................................................89 Podobie ństwa fonetyczne ................................................................................................................89 Haplografia ......................................................................................................................................90 Dittografia .......................................................................................................................................90 Metateza ..........................................................................................................................................90 Homoioarcton ..................................................................................................................................90 Homoioteleuton ...............................................................................................................................90
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Text of the Gospel of Mark: Lake Revisited
    BABELAO 3 (2014), p. 145-169 + Appendix, p. 171-289 © ABELAO (Belgium) The « Caesarean » Text of the Gospel of Mark: Lake Revisited By Didier Lafleur IRHT - Paris n the field of history and practice of New Testament textual criticism, two major stages were initiated during the last cen- tury by Kirsopp Lake. The first of these was the publication, Iin 19 02, of a survey concerning Codex 1 of the Gospels and its Allies, in the Texts and Studies series (7:3). The second stage was the pub- lication, in 1928, with Robert P. Blake and Silva New, of « The Caesarean Text of the Gospel of Mark » in the Harvard Theological Review (21:4). For the first time, the authors emphasized the exist- ence of such text on the basis of three major pieces of evidence: the Greek manuscripts, the patristic witnesses and the Oriental versions. Since then, the question of the « Caesarean » text-type has been a very disputed matter. It still remains an important tex- tual issue.1 1 This paper was first presented during the Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting 2012, Chicago, November 18. 146 D. LAFLEUR Our plan is not to discuss here about the « Caesarean » text and its subsequent developments, but to mainly focus the genesis of Lake’s publication. The survey of his preliminary works will help us to better consider, after a short account of Lake’s biobibliography, the way he followed until the 1928 « Caesarean Text of the Gospel of Mark » and which methodology he used. We will then emphasize one of the three pieces of evidence quot- ed by the authors, the evidence of the Greek manuscripts as de- scribed in their tables of variants.
    [Show full text]
  • Making Sense of the End of Mark Pastor Russ Reaves Immanuel Baptist Church, Greensboro, NC January 27, 2009
    Making Sense of the End of Mark Pastor Russ Reaves Immanuel Baptist Church, Greensboro, NC January 27, 2009 Anyone who has ever read the Gospel of Mark carefully has likely noticed that most Bibles contain a footnote, a marginal note, or some other device or feature to indicate that there are questions about the authenticity of Mark 16:9-20. Almost every modern English version does in some way. Following are some examples of how this is done: • A bracketed heading before verses 9-20 which states, “The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20.” 1 • A footnote containing explanations similar to the following: “Some of the earliest manuscripts (or “mss.”) do not contain verses (or “vv.”) 9-20.” 2 • A footnote that reads, “Verses 9 through 20 are not found in the most ancient manuscripts, but may be considered an appendix giving additional facts.” 3 • A heading before verses 9-20 which reads, “An Ancient Appendix” or something similar. 4 • A footnote that offers a more detailed description of the situation, such as the following or similar: “Vv. (verses) 9-20 are bracketed in NU (an abbreviation for the Greek text known as Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament and United Bible Societies Greek New Testament ) as not original. They are lacking in Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus (two Greek manuscripts dating to the fourth century), although nearly all other mss. (manuscripts) of Mark contain them.” 5 • Bracketing around verses 9-20, with an explanatory notation in the footnotes stating, “Mark 16:9-20 [the portion in brackets] is contained only in later manuscripts,” or similar.
    [Show full text]
  • The Ending of the Gospel of Mark
    The ending of Mark A Textual Commentary on the Greek Gospels Vol. 2b The various endings of Mk BY WIELAND WILLKER Bremen, online published th 12 edition 2015 © all rights reserved Contents: The manuscript evidence ...................................................................................................... 3 Discussion of the external evidence ................................................................................. 4 Introductory comments in the manuscripts .................................................................... 6 Church fathers evidence ...................................................................................................... 8 Arguable evidence from the fathers .............................................................................. 13 Can a book end with ga.r? .................................................................................................... 17 Excursus: Attempts to reconstruct a lost ending ....................................................... 18 General Discussion .............................................................................................................. 22 Important literature .......................................................................................................... 24 Other various literature ................................................................................................... 25 The short ending ................................................................................................................. 27
    [Show full text]
  • Pericope Adulterae 1/20
    András Handl: Tertullianus on the Pericope Adulterae 1/20 TERTULLIANUS ON THE PERICOPE ADULTERAE (JOHN 7,53–8,11) Abstract Although Terullianus is deeply engaged in discussions on Christian marriage, adultery, and on the remission of (grave) sins, he never addressed the story of the woman caught in adultery known today from the Gospel of John. This essay argues that his silence cannot be explained by suppression because of the explosive nature of the story in relation to penitential discipline and to his own views and arguments. Rather, it proposes that the pericope adulterae was unknown in Carthage at his time. 1. Introduction The story of the woman caught in adultery in the Gospel of John (7,53–8,11) represents one of the most mysterious New Testament passages. Omitted in early manuscripts, the circulation and dissemination of the pericope adulterae (henceforth the PA) is controversially discussed. Already C. R. Gregory (1846–1917) claimed that the PA had been “very often read, and especially at a very early time.”1 H. Riesenfeld (1913–2008) assessed that the Latin translation of the passage ”appears sporadically before the Vulgate and then in the entire Vulgate tradition.”2 This judgement has been criticised by T. O'Loughlin. Based on the number of extant Vetus Latina fragments, he came to the conclusion that the PA “was more likely [included] than not to have been present [in the Vetus Latina] prior to the dominance of the Vulgate.”3 According to J. W. Knust, “the pericope was present only in a few copies of John in the early second century―which seems to be a likely conclusion given the patristic and manuscript evidence.”4 In a statement―often considered as the actual communis opinio―, B.
    [Show full text]
  • Kilpatrick' Greek New Testament Edition of 1958
    Early Readers, Scholars and Editors of the New Testament Texts and Studies 11 Series Editor H. A. G. Houghton Editorial Board Jeff W. Childers Christina M. Kreinecker Alison G. Salvesen Peter J. Williams Text and Studies is a series of monographs devoted to the study of Biblical and Patristic texts. Maintaining the highest scholarly standards, the series includes critical editions, studies of primary sources, and analyses of textual traditions. Early Readers, Scholars and Editors of the New Testament Papers from the Eighth Birmingham Colloquium on the Textual Criticism of the New Testament Edited by H. A. G. Houghton 2014 Gorgias Press LLC, 954 River Road, Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA www.gorgiaspress.com Copyright © 2014 by Gorgias Press LLC All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise without the prior written permission of Gorgias Press LLC. 2014 ܚ ISBN 978-1-4632-0411-2 ISSN 1935-6927 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Birmingham Colloquium on the Textual Criticism of the New Testament (8th : 2013 : University of Birmingham) Early readers, scholars, and editors of the New Testament : papers from the Eighth Birmingham Colloquium on the Textual Criticism of the New Testament / edited by H.A.G. Houghton. pages cm. -- (Texts and studies, ISSN 1935-6927 ; 11) Proceedings of the Eighth Birmingham Colloquium on the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, held in the Orchard Learning Resource Centre at the University of Birmingham, March 4-6, 2013.
    [Show full text]
  • Manuscript 2193 and Its Text of the Gospel According to John
    Concordia Seminary - Saint Louis Scholarly Resources from Concordia Seminary Master of Sacred Theology Thesis Concordia Seminary Scholarship 5-1-2013 Manuscript 2193 and its Text of the Gospel According to John Timothy Koch Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.csl.edu/stm Part of the Biblical Studies Commons Recommended Citation Koch, Timothy, "Manuscript 2193 and its Text of the Gospel According to John" (2013). Master of Sacred Theology Thesis. 27. https://scholar.csl.edu/stm/27 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Concordia Seminary Scholarship at Scholarly Resources from Concordia Seminary. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master of Sacred Theology Thesis by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Resources from Concordia Seminary. For more information, please contact [email protected]. © 2013 by Timothy A. Koch. All rights reserved. CONTENTS ILLUSTRATIONS v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS vi ABSTRACT vii Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION 1 2. MANUSCRIPT 2193 7 Description of the Manuscript 7 Abbreviations and Contractions 8 Ligatures 11 Spacing 12 Classification of 2193's Minuscule Script 12 Nomina Sacra 24 Punctuation 27 The Corrector(s) 30 3. FAMILY 1 36 Family 1 introduction 36 Kirsopp Lake and the Beginnings of the Family 1 Label 37 Current Status of Disparities of Family 1 Members 42 Inherent Problems with Family 1 Label: A Case Study of Manuscript 565 46 Manuscript 2193 and Family 1 51 4. THE TEXT OF THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN IN MANUSCRIPT 2193 53 Grouping manuscripts based on their texts 53 iii Family 1 Readings 56 Singular Readings 68 Other Textual Features 69 5.
    [Show full text]
  • The Significance of Split Text-Types for the Recovery of the Original Text of the Greek New Testament
    THE SIGNIFICANCE OF SPLIT TEXT-TYPES FOR THE RECOVERY OF THE ORIGINAL TEXT OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT LESLIE McFALL* The significance of splits in text-types has been overlooked in Majority text (hereafter MT) studies. It will be shown in this paper that when any text-type splits, one party to the split will retain the reading of the Majority text (MT), at the place where the other party diverges from it. List 1 was the key research that led to this paper. It gives every instance in the Gospel of Matthew where the unsplit Caesarean text-type is different from the Majority text. The Caesarean text is made up of two families of manuscripts, Family 1 and Family 13. List 1 is a register of 176 differences which gives us the earliest state of the Caesarean text in Matthew before the split occurred.1 It so happens that the Egyptian text fully agrees with the Caesarean text in these 176 differences.2 Given that the Egyptian text-type (as represented by the Aleph-B text) differs from the Byzantine text (as represented by von Soden’s Koine text and Robinson-Pierpont’s text), and that the Caesarean text agrees fully with the Egyptian in List 1, it would appear from this list, taken on its own, that the Caesarean text is a strong supporter of the Egyptian text. However, this would be a misleading conclusion to draw from this one list. Elsewhere, the united Caesarean text agrees with the Byzantine text in opposition to the Egyptian text-type, 1,629 times, in the Gospel of Matthew, showing just how close the Caesarean text was, and is, to the Byzantine text.3 * Leslie McFall resides at 25 Hillfield Road, Comberton, Cambridgeshire, England CB23 7DB.
    [Show full text]
  • Scribal Habits in Selected New Testament Manuscripts, Including Those with Surviving Exemplars
    SCRIBAL HABITS IN SELECTED NEW TESTAMENT MANUSCRIPTS, INCLUDING THOSE WITH SURVIVING EXEMPLARS by ALAN TAYLOR FARNES A thesis submitted to The University of Birmingham for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Institute for Textual Scholarship and Electronic Editing Department of Theology and Religion College of Arts and Law The University of Birmingham April 2017 University of Birmingham Research Archive e-theses repository This unpublished thesis/dissertation is copyright of the author and/or third parties. The intellectual property rights of the author or third parties in respect of this work are as defined by The Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 or as modified by any successor legislation. Any use made of information contained in this thesis/dissertation must be in accordance with that legislation and must be properly acknowledged. Further distribution or reproduction in any format is prohibited without the permission of the copyright holder. Abstract In the first chapter of this work, I provide an introduction to the current discussion of scribal habits. In Chapter Two, I discuss Abschriften—or manuscripts with extant known exemplars—, their history in textual criticism, and how they can be used to elucidate the discussion of scribal habits. I also present a methodology for determining if a manuscript is an Abschrift. In Chapter Three, I analyze P127, which is not an Abschrift, in order that we may become familiar with determining scribal habits by singular readings. Chapters Four through Six present the scribal habits of selected proposed manuscript pairs: 0319 and 0320 as direct copies of 06 (with their Latin counterparts VL76 and VL83 as direct copies of VL75), 205 as a direct copy of 2886, and 821 as a direct copy of 0141.
    [Show full text]
  • THE LATIN NEW TESTAMENT OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 1/12/2015, Spi OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 1/12/2015, Spi
    OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 1/12/2015, SPi THE LATIN NEW TESTAMENT OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 1/12/2015, SPi OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 1/12/2015, SPi The Latin New Testament A Guide to its Early History, Texts, and Manuscripts H.A.G. HOUGHTON 1 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 14/2/2017, SPi 3 Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, OX2 6DP, United Kingdom Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries © H.A.G. Houghton 2016 The moral rights of the authors have been asserted First Edition published in 2016 Impression: 1 Some rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, for commercial purposes, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. This is an open access publication, available online and unless otherwise stated distributed under the terms of a Creative Commons Attribution –Non Commercial –No Derivatives 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), a copy of which is available at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press 198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Data available Library of Congress Control Number: 2015946703 ISBN 978–0–19–874473–3 Printed in Great Britain by Clays Ltd, St Ives plc Links to third party websites are provided by Oxford in good faith and for information only.
    [Show full text]
  • A Genealogical History of the Greek Text of the New Testament Volume
    A Genealogical History of the Greek Text of the New Testament Volume 1 A Genealogical History of the Greek Text of the Gospel of Matthew By James D. Price Copyright © (2013) James D. Price, all rights reserved. ii Table of Contents Table of Contents ................................................................................................................... iiiii List of Figures .......................................................................................................................... ix List of Tables and Charts ......................................................................................................... xi Preface.................................................................................................................................... xiii Acknowledgments................................................................................................................... xv CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1 The Work of Textual Scholars .............................................................................................. 2 The Methods of Textual Scholars ......................................................................................... 5 Configuring a Genetic Code for Manuscripts ....................................................................... 8 CHAPTER 2: A GENEALOGICAL THEORY OF TEXTUAL CRITICISM ...................... 13 The Genealogical Principle ................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Family 13 in St. John's Gospel
    Jac D. Perrin Jr., Family 13 in St. John’s Gospel: A Computer Assisted Phylogenetic Analysis, NTTSD 58; Leiden: Brill, 2018. Pp. xiv + 378. ISBN: 9789004377561. Hardcover, €138.00 / USD $166.00. [1] It has been long recognised that some Greek New Testament minuscules are closely related. One of the well-known groups is “Family 13,” named after the primary witness minuscule 13 in the current Gregory-Aland numbering. For New Testament textual scholars, a challenging task is to find proper criteria to distinguish the members in the family. To reply this task, the current volume offers an innovative approach by applying phylogenetic software for analysing the text of the Gospel of John. [2] This book is a revised edition of the author’s dissertation, supervised by David C. Parker and defended in 2012 at the University of Birmingham.1 It contains a general introduction and five chapters (the last chapter presenting a critical apparatus of John), followed by three appendices, a bibliography, and four indices. [3] In the “Introduction” (pp. 1–6), the author defines the purpose of this study and sets up his plan. According to Perrin, previous scholarship mainly applies a single criterion to define whether one manuscript belongs to Family 13, that is, the relocation of the Pericope Adulterae to somewhere after Luke 21. Such a shaky basis is unsatisfactory, the author claims, and thus he proposes to employ “computing tools to evaluate the previously intuitive assertions of both Ferrar and Lake with respect to ten other manuscript candidates which were incorrectly assigned to F13” (p.
    [Show full text]
  • Tas (-) Cheiras (Hands) Auton ('Of Them
    1 Matt. 15:2 “their” (TR & AV) {A} The Greek of the Textus Receptus (TR), “ tas (-) cheiras (hands) auton (‘of them,’ or ‘their’),” in the words, “for they wash not their ( auton) hands ( tas cheiras ),” is supported by the majority Byzantine text e.g., Codices W 032 ( Codex Freerianus , 5th century, which is Byzantine in Matthew 1-28; Luke 8:13-24:53), the purple parchment Sigma 042 ( Codex Rossanensis , late 5th / 6th century), and the purple parchment N 022 ( Codex Petropolitanus Purpureus , 6th century). It is further supported as Latin, “ manus (hands) suas (their),” by Jerome’s Latin Vulgate (5th century for earliest Vulgate Codices in the Gospels), and old Latin Versions a (4th century), e (4th / 5th century), b (5th century), d (5th century), ff2 (5th century), q (6th / 7th century), aur (7th century), 1 (7th / 8th century), ff1 (10th / 11th century), and c (12th / 13th century); as well as the Sangallensis Latin Diatessaron (9th century). From the Latin support for this reading, it is manifested in the Clementine Vulgate (1592). However, a variant omits “their (Greek, auton; Latin, suas ),” thus making this read, “for they wash not the (Greek, tas ) hands (Greek, cheiras ; Latin, manus ).” This reading is found in old Latin versions f (6th century) and g1 (8th / 9th century). It is also found in the ancient church Greek writers, Origen (d. 254), Chrysostom (d. 407), and Cyril of Alexandria (d. 444). There is no good textual argument against the representative Byzantine reading which is therefore correct. The origins of the variant are speculative. Was its loss accidental? Certainly Manuscript Washington (W 032) shows that such short words could sometimes be accidentally omitted, since e.g., at Matt.
    [Show full text]