DOCSLIB.ORG

194 Matt. 23:3B

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
194 Matt. 23:3B 194 Matt. 23:3b “observe” (TR & AV) {B} Preliminary Remarks. In some ways I would prefer to discuss Matt. 23:3b and Matt. 23:3c in the same section; but in other ways it is easier to subdivide it up into two sections due to the diverse readings of the manuscripts’ break-ups. Though generally making a distinction between Matt. 23:3b and Matt. 23:3c, I may sometimes consider both (for instance, on the possible origins of Variant 1 , infra ). Moreover, looked at corporately, I would here note two issues. For these purposes I shall use the break of words as, “terein (‘to observe’ = ‘observe,’ AV, word 1) tereite (‘[that] ye observe’ = ‘[that] observe,’ AV, word 2) kai (‘and,’ word 3) poieite (‘ye do’ = ‘do,’ AV, word 4a, imperative active present, 2nd person plural verb, from poieo),” i.e., in the wider words (following the AV’s italics for any added word), “whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do” (AV). Issue 1: The contrast between standard seminary Greek in neatly typed books with spaced out words and standard spellings, compared with “the real world” of Greek manuscripts again confronts us here at Matt. 23:3. The issue of using “ai ” suffixes in place of “ e” suffixes as part of a local revowelling again appears in both W 032 and Lectionary 2378. In W 032 this is found in both words 2 and 4. But for those familiar only with standard seminary Greek, the matter takes on an even more difficult twist in Lectionary 2378 where word 2 does not make this change, but word 4 does. Such inconsistencies certainly make the matter harder for those unfamiliar with such possibilities. (Cf. my comments in Commentary Vol. 2, Matt. 15-20, at Matt. 16:8b, “Preliminary Textual Discussion,” “The First Matter.”) Issue 2: A similar issue arises with “ poieite (‘ye do,’ word 4a)” and “ poiete (‘ye do,’ word 4b).” Although prima facie the declension of word 4a could also be an indicative active present 2nd person plural verb, from poieo, context requires that it is here understood as an imperative, i.e., “ poieite (‘ye do,’ word 4a, imperative active present, 2nd person plural verb, from poieo).” In standard seminary Greek the rule is absolute with regard to declining a contracted verb with a stem in e i.e., one which is written in lexicons as an indicative active present 1st person singular verb ending with eo, such as poieo. The rule is that when adding a suffix starting with an e, e + e = ei , and so an “ ete ” suffix (active present 2nd person plural verb, for both indicative and imperative), will always become “ ei ” as in “ poieite (ye do) 1.” But there is a problem when we come to the Greek manuscripts. It is this. Not 1 Whittaker’s New Testament Greek Grammar , SCM, London, England, UK, 1969, 1975, p. 15. 195 all scribes followed the standard seminary Greek rules taught in modern day Colleges / Seminaries / Universities. The practical effect of this for our purposes is that the e + e = ei rule that I was taught as a Greek College student in my late teens and early 20s was an absolute rule, in fact is not always followed by all scribes . Thus according to Tischendorf (but not Swanson) at Variant 1 we here find a spelling variant to “poieite (‘ye do,’ word 4a)” of “ poiete (‘ye do,’ word 4b)” in Gamma 036. Thus as with Issue 1 , so with Issue 2 (cf. Tischendorf at Matt. 5:44; 21:3; 26:26- 28), (and other such issues,) namely, standard seminary Greek does not prepare one for such serpens in herba 2. Preliminary Textual Discussion. Some disagreement appears to exist about the reading of old Latin f (6th century) at Matt. 23:3b. On the one hand, Tischendorf’s 8th edition (1869-72) says the most probable reading of old Latin f is that of the TR, (i.e., presumably the same Latin reading as old Latin q, infra ,) although the manuscript’s state of preservation makes complete verification of this uncertain. By contrast, Julicher (1938-63) shows old Latin f as supporting Variant 2 ; and von Soden (1913) likewise shows all old Latin versions except q following Variant 2 . I have no direct access to this manuscript since I generally use Julicher to learn what the old Latin Gospel readings are. Under the circumstances, I shall make no reference to old Latin f, infra . Principal Textual Discussion. At Matt. 23:3b the TR’s Greek, “ terein (‘to observe’ = ‘observe,’ AV, active present infinitive verb, from tereo),” i.e., “observe” in the wider words, “whatsoever they bid you observe” (AV), is supported by the majority Byzantine text e.g., Codices W 032 (5th century, which is Byzantine in Matt. 1-28; Luke 8:13-24:53) and Sigma 042 (late 5th / 6th century); and Lectionaries 2378 (11th century) and 1968 (1544 A.D., twice in two different readings). It is also supported as Latin, “ servare (‘to observe,’ active present imperative verb, from servo ),” in old Latin Version q (6th / 7th century). It is further found in the early mediaeval church Greek writer, John of Damascus (d. before 754). Variant 1 reads, “poiein (‘to do,’ active present infinite verb, from poieo),” i.e., “do” in the wider words, “whatsoever they bid you do.” This is a minority Byzantine reading found in Codex Gamma 036 (10th century). Variant 2 omits “ terein (to observe),” and so reads simply, “whatsoever they bid you.” This is a minority Byzantine reading found in Minuscule 924 (12th century). This omission is also found in Jerome’s Latin Vulgate (5th century), and old Latin Versions a (4th century), e (4th / 5th century), b (5th century), d (5th century), ff2 (5th century), h (5th century), aur (7th century), 1 (7th / 8th century), g1 (8th / 9th century), 2 Latin, “A snake in the grass,” i.e., a hidden danger. 196 ff1 (10th / 11th century), and c (12th / 13th century); as well as the Book of Armagh (812 A.D.) and Sangallensis Latin Diatessaron (9th century). From the Latin support for this reading, it is manifested in the Clementine Vulgate (1592). It is also found in the ancient church Greek writer, Eusebius (d. 339); the ancient church Greek writer, Irenaeus (2nd century) in a Latin translation; the ancient church Greek writer, Origen (d. 254) in a Latin translation; the ancient church Latin writer, Hilary (d. 367); and the early mediaeval church Latin writer, Gregory the Great (d. 604). There is no good textual argument against the representative Byzantine text which thus must stand. The origins of the variants are speculative. Was Variant 1 an accidental alteration? In Codex Freerianus (W 032), we find at Matt. 24:15 (p. 89) that an attempt was made to squeeze in, “ anaginoskon (readeth) noeito (let him understand),” so as to start the following verse 16 on a new line. Thus the scribe has the last 3 to 4 letters of “anaginoskon” protruding to the right; but upon realizing that he had miscalculated and could not get the “ noeito” in, he then put the “ noeito” on the next line by itself; and started the next page (p. 90) with the start of Matt. 24:16. The matter is of particular interest in showing how the last word of a verse or other subdivision being used by a scribe, might be inadvertently lost. W 032 sometimes also abbreviates “kai ” to a “ K” coming off the bottom of it, and so only taking up one م with a squiggle something like a letter space (e.g., at Matt. 26:51, p, 102). With regard to Variant 1 , see also discussion on Variant 1a at Matt. 22:3a, infra . Looking at both Matt. 23:3b and Matt. 23:3c corporately, the TR reads, “terein (observe) tereite ([that] ye observe) kai (and) poieite (ye do),” in the wider words (following the AV’s italics for any added word), “whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do” (AV). By contrast, Gamma 036 reads, “ poiein (to do) poieite (‘ye do,’ imperative active present, 2nd person plural verb, from poieo),” i.e., “whatsoever they bid you do, ye do.” Therefore, did a scribe wish to make a stylistic “verse” division ending with “ poieite ”? If so, possibly with “ kai ” written as a one letter space abbreviation, did he seek to squeeze in “ terein tereite kai poieite ,” but running out of space due to miscalculation, have to put “ poieite ” on a new line, with “ tereite kai ” jutting out to the right of the normal right-hand justification line of the page? (I.e., something like W 032 at Matt. 24:16.) Due to a later paper fade / loss, did the original, “ terein tereite kai ” on the first line, come to look something like “ :::ein:::::::::::: ”? With reference to the “ poieite (‘ye do,’ from poieo),” at the start of the next line, did the scribe then “reconstruct” this as “poiein (‘to do’ from poieo),” i.e., “ poiein (to do) poieite (ye do)”? Was Variant 1 a deliberate alteration? Did a scribe, seeking a reading that was both “more concise” and also “better stylistically balanced” with regard to poieo, deliberately alter the reading? 197 The likely originator of Variant 2 is unclear. Prima facie it may have been Irenaeus or Origen, but since we are reliant in both instances on later Latin translations of their Greek texts, it is possible that the Biblical citation in one or both of these sources was modified by the Latin translators. The likelihood for this is stronger than normal here at Matt.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • University of Birmingham the Garland of Howth (Vetus Latina
    University of Birmingham The Garland of Howth (Vetus Latina 28): A Neglected Old Latin witness in Matthew Houghton, H.A.G. License: Other (please specify with Rights Statement) Document Version Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Citation for published version (Harvard): Houghton, HAG 2019, The Garland of Howth (Vetus Latina 28): A Neglected Old Latin witness in Matthew. in G Allen (ed.), The Future of New Testament Textual Scholarship From H. C. Hoskier to the Editio Critica Maior and Beyond. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, vol. 417, Mohr Siebeck, pp. 247-264. Link to publication on Research at Birmingham portal Publisher Rights Statement: Checked for eligibility: 25/02/2019 Houghton , H. A. G. (2019) The Garland of Howth (Vetus Latina 28): A Neglected Old Latin witness in Matthew. In G. V. Allen (Ed. ), The future of New Testament textual scholarship (pp. 247-264). Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck. For non commercial use only. General rights Unless a licence is specified above, all rights (including copyright and moral rights) in this document are retained by the authors and/or the copyright holders. The express permission of the copyright holder must be obtained for any use of this material other than for purposes permitted by law. •Users may freely distribute the URL that is used to identify this publication. •Users may download and/or print one copy of the publication from the University of Birmingham research portal for the purpose of private study or non-commercial research. •User may use extracts from the document in line with the concept of ‘fair dealing’ under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (?) •Users may not further distribute the material nor use it for the purposes of commercial gain.
    [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]
  • A Textual Commentary on the Greek Received Text of the New Testament, Volume 2 (Matthew 15-20), 2009
    i A TEXTUAL COMMENTARY ON THE GREEK RECEIVED TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT Being the Greek Text used in the AUTHORIZED VERSION also known as the KING JAMES VERSION also known as the AUTHORIZED (KING JAMES) VERSION also known as the KING JAMES BIBLE also known as the SAINT JAMES VERSION by Gavin Basil McGrath B.A., LL.B. (Sydney University), Dip. Ed. (University of Western Sydney), Dip. Bib. Studies (Moore Theological College). Formerly of St. Paul’s College, Sydney University. Textual Commentary, Volume: 2 St. Matthew’s Gospel Chapters 15-20. Verbum Domini Manet in Aeternum “The Word of the Lord Endureth Forever” (I Peter 1:25). ii McGrath, Gavin (Gavin Basil), b. 1960. A Textual Commentary on the Greek Received Text of the New Testament, Volume 2 (Matthew 15-20), 2009. Available on the internet http://www.gavinmcgrathbooks.com . Published & Printed in Sydney, New South Wales. Copyright © 2009 by Gavin Basil McGrath. P.O. Box 834, Nowra, N.S.W., 2541, Australia. Dedication Sermon, preached at Mangrove Mountain Union Church, Mangrove Mountain, N.S.W., 2250, Australia, on Thursday 5 November, 2009. Oral recorded form presently available at http://www.sermonaudio.com/kingjamesbible . This copy of Volume 2 (Matt. 15-20) incorporates corrigenda changes from Appendix 6 of the Revised Volume 1 (Matt. 1-14) © 2010 by Gavin Basil McGrath, Appendix 6 of Volume 3 (Matt. 21-25) © 2011 by Gavin Basil McGrath; Appendix 6 of Volume 4 (Matt. 26-28) © 2012 by Gavin Basil McGrath; Appendix 6 of Volume 5 (Mark 1-3) © 2015 by Gavin Basil McGrath; and Appendix 6 of Volume 6 (Mark 4 & 5) © 2016 by Gavin Basil McGrath.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter Divisions, Capitula Lists, and the Old Latin Versions of John Houghton, H.A.G
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by University of Birmingham Research Portal Chapter Divisions, Capitula Lists, and the Old Latin Versions of John Houghton, H.A.G. DOI: 10.1484/J.RB.5.100457 License: Creative Commons: Attribution (CC BY) Document Version Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Citation for published version (Harvard): Houghton, H 2011, 'Chapter Divisions, Capitula Lists, and the Old Latin Versions of John', Revue Bénédictine, vol. 121, no. 2, pp. 316-356. https://doi.org/10.1484/J.RB.5.100457 Link to publication on Research at Birmingham portal Publisher Rights Statement: Eligibility for repository : checked 17/07/2015 General rights Unless a licence is specified above, all rights (including copyright and moral rights) in this document are retained by the authors and/or the copyright holders. The express permission of the copyright holder must be obtained for any use of this material other than for purposes permitted by law. •Users may freely distribute the URL that is used to identify this publication. •Users may download and/or print one copy of the publication from the University of Birmingham research portal for the purpose of private study or non-commercial research. •User may use extracts from the document in line with the concept of ‘fair dealing’ under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (?) •Users may not further distribute the material nor use it for the purposes of commercial gain. Where a licence is displayed above, please note the terms and conditions of the licence govern your use of this document.
    [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 Newly Identified Old Latin Gospel Manuscript: Würzburg Universitatsbibliothek M.P.Th.F.67 Houghton, Hugh
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by University of Birmingham Research Portal University of Birmingham A Newly Identified Old Latin Gospel Manuscript: Würzburg Universitatsbibliothek m.p.th.f.67 Houghton, Hugh DOI: 10.1093/jts/flp030 Citation for published version (Harvard): Houghton, H 2009, 'A Newly Identified Old Latin Gospel Manuscript: Würzburg Universitatsbibliothek m.p.th.f.67', The Journal of Theological Studies, vol. 60, no. 1, pp. 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1093/jts/flp030 Link to publication on Research at Birmingham portal General rights Unless a licence is specified above, all rights (including copyright and moral rights) in this document are retained by the authors and/or the copyright holders. The express permission of the copyright holder must be obtained for any use of this material other than for purposes permitted by law. •Users may freely distribute the URL that is used to identify this publication. •Users may download and/or print one copy of the publication from the University of Birmingham research portal for the purpose of private study or non-commercial research. •User may use extracts from the document in line with the concept of ‘fair dealing’ under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (?) •Users may not further distribute the material nor use it for the purposes of commercial gain. Where a licence is displayed above, please note the terms and conditions of the licence govern your use of this document. When citing, please reference the published version. Take down policy While the University of Birmingham exercises care and attention in making items available there are rare occasions when an item has been uploaded in error or has been deemed to be commercially or otherwise sensitive.
    [Show full text]
  • A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, Vol. I. by Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener
    The Project Gutenberg EBook of A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, Vol. I. by Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at http://www.gutenberg.org/license Title: A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, Vol. I. Author: Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener Release Date: June 28, 2011 [Ebook 36548] Language: English ***START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK A PLAIN INTRODUCTION TO THE CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, VOL. I.*** A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament For the Use of Biblical Students By The Late Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener M.A., D.C.L., LL.D. Prebendary of Exeter, Vicar of Hendon Fourth Edition, Edited by The Rev. Edward Miller, M.A. Formerly Fellow and Tutor of New College, Oxford Vol. I. George Bell & Sons, York Street, Covent Garden Londo, New York, and Cambridge 1894 Contents Preface To Fourth Edition. .5 Description Of The Contents Of The Lithographed Plates. .9 Addenda Et Corrigenda. 30 Chapter I. Preliminary Considerations. 31 Chapter II. General Character Of The Greek Manuscripts Of The New Testament. 54 Chapter III. Divisions Of The Text, And Other Particulars. 98 Appendix To Chapter III. Synaxarion And Eclogadion Of The Gospels And Apostolic Writings Daily Throughout The Year. 127 Chapter IV. The Larger Uncial Manuscripts Of The Greek Testament.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 4. the Gospel of Luke in the Palimpsest (H.A.G
    CHAPTER 4. THE GOSPEL OF LUKE IN THE PALIMPSEST (H.A.G. HOUGHTON AND D.C. PARKER) The biblical text of the Gospel according to Luke expounded in the palimpsest catena of Codex Zacynthius appears in larger letters in the middle of each page. The eighty-nine surviving folios of the catena contain much of the first eleven chapters of the gospel, from the beginning to Luke 11:33, although there are three missing half-pages (the top sections of folios VII, LXVIII and LXXXIX) and over twenty other folios absent from this portion, resulting in gaps of several verses at a time in the biblical text and commentary.1 A total of 359 of the first 545 verses of the gospel are wholly or partially present in the manuscript, a proportion of two-thirds of the text. If the whole of Luke had been treated in a comparable way to the distribution of text on the extant leaves, it would have occupied around 240 folios in total. The presence of the initial introduction and other prefatory material suggests that the original manuscript began with Luke. While this single gospel and its commentary would have made for a fairly substantial volume in itself, it cannot be entirely ruled out that another text may have followed in this document. Equally, while it is possible that the manuscript may have been part of a set treating all four gospels, in the absence of evidence this remains speculation. The manuscript appears to have contained the full text of the gospel. This is supported by the two folios which only feature biblical text (folios XXXv and LXIv): even though a notional margin is left where the catena normally appears, the unusually large amount of biblical text on these pages suggests that there was no intention of supplying commentary: folio XXXv consists of seventeen lines of text, covering Luke 4:39b–43a, while folio 61r has twenty lines with Luke 9:7–11a.
    [Show full text]
  • Rethinking the Western Non-Interpolations: a Case for Luke Re-Editing His Gospel
    Rethinking the Western Non-interpolations: A Case For Luke Re-editing His Gospel by Giuseppe Capuana BA (Mus), GradDipEd, BTheol (Hons) A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Philosophy University of Divinity 2018 Abstract This thesis presents a new paradigm for understanding the Western non-interpolations. It argues that when Luke originally wrote his Gospel it did not contain 22:19b–20; 24:3b, 6a, 12, 36b, 40, 51b and 52a. However, at a later time, around the time Luke wrote Acts, he returned to his Gospel creating a second edition which contained these readings. My thesis makes the case that the paradigm of scribal interpolation is problematic. Working under this paradigm the results of external and internal evidence appear conflicting and scholars are generally forced to give greater preference to one set of evidence over the other. However, a balanced weighting of the external and internal evidence points us towards the notion that Luke was responsible for both the absence and the inclusion of 22:19b–20; 24:3b, 6a, 12, 36b, 40, 51b and 52a. Chapter one introduces the Western non-interpolations. It also makes the case that the quest for the original text of Luke’s Gospel should not be abandoned. Chapter two is on the history, theory and methodology of the Western non-interpolations. It begins with an overview of the text-critical scholarship emerging during the nineteenth century, particularly the influence of Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort. It also covers the period after Westcott and Hort to the present.
    [Show full text]
  • The Text of the New Testament 2Nd Edit
    THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration BY BRUCE M. METZGER Professor of Mew Testament Language and Literature Princeton Theological Seminary SECOND EDITION OXFORD AT THE CLARENDON PRESS Preface to the Second Edition During the four years that have elapsed since the initial publication of this book in 1964, a great amount of textual research has continued to come from the presses in both Europe and America. References to some of these publications were included in the German translation of the volume issued in 1966 under the title Der Text des Neuen Test- aments; Einftihrung in die neutestamentliche Textkritik (Kohlhammer Verlag, Stuttgart) . The second printing of the English edition provides opportunity to introduce a variety of small alterations throughout the volume as well as to include references to more than one hundred and fifty books and articles dealing with Greek manuscripts, early versions, and textual studies of recently discovered witnesses to the text of the New Testament. In order not to disturb the pagination, most of the new material has been placed at the close of the book (pp. 261-73), to which the reader's attention is directed by appropriate cross references. BRUCE M. METZGER February ig68 Preface The necessity of applying textual criticism to the books of the New Testament arises from two circumstances : (a) none of the original documents is extant, and (b) the existing copies differ from one another. The textual critic seeks to ascer- tain from the divergent copies which form of the text should be regarded as most nearly conforming to the original.
    [Show full text]
  • A Newly Identified Old Latin Gospel Manuscript: Würzburg Universitatsbibliothek M.P.Th.F.67 Houghton, Hugh
    University of Birmingham A Newly Identified Old Latin Gospel Manuscript: Würzburg Universitatsbibliothek m.p.th.f.67 Houghton, Hugh DOI: 10.1093/jts/flp030 Citation for published version (Harvard): Houghton, H 2009, 'A Newly Identified Old Latin Gospel Manuscript: Würzburg Universitatsbibliothek m.p.th.f.67', The Journal of Theological Studies, vol. 60, no. 1, pp. 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1093/jts/flp030 Link to publication on Research at Birmingham portal General rights Unless a licence is specified above, all rights (including copyright and moral rights) in this document are retained by the authors and/or the copyright holders. The express permission of the copyright holder must be obtained for any use of this material other than for purposes permitted by law. •Users may freely distribute the URL that is used to identify this publication. •Users may download and/or print one copy of the publication from the University of Birmingham research portal for the purpose of private study or non-commercial research. •User may use extracts from the document in line with the concept of ‘fair dealing’ under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (?) •Users may not further distribute the material nor use it for the purposes of commercial gain. Where a licence is displayed above, please note the terms and conditions of the licence govern your use of this document. When citing, please reference the published version. Take down policy While the University of Birmingham exercises care and attention in making items available there are rare occasions when an item has been uploaded in error or has been deemed to be commercially or otherwise sensitive.
    [Show full text]
  • The Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20
    The Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20 © 2007 James Edward Snapp, Jr. [Permission is granted to reproduce this material, except for the essay by Dr. Bruce Terry in chapter 15, in electronic form (as a computer-file) and to make printouts on a computer-printer.] Considerable effort has been made to accurately cite sources throughout this composition, including materials in the public domain. If somehow an author’s work has not been adequately credited, the author or publisher is encouraged to contact me so that the oversight may be amended. - J.E.S. Be sure to consult the footnotes as you go. Some of them significantly clarify or reinforce the text. TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER ONE: Preface (and Notes About Canonicity and Earlier Studies) PART ONE: EXTERNAL EVIDENCE CHAPTER TWO: External Evidence: A Panoramic View CHAPTER THREE: Patristic Evidence CHAPTER FOUR: Lectionary Evidence CHAPTER FIVE: Versional Evidence CHAPTER SIX: A Review of External Evidence CHAPTER SEVEN: Vaticanus and Sinaiticus CHAPTER EIGHT: Codex Bobiensis and the Short Ending CHAPTER NINE: The Long Ending’s Presence in Separate Text-types CHAPTER TEN: The Close Relationships of Witnesses Against the Long Ending CHAPTER ELEVEN: Sixty Early Witnesses PART TWO: MISCELLANEOUS OBSERVATIONS CHAPTER TWELVE: How to Lose an Ending CHAPTER THIRTEEN: Explaining the External Evidence PART THREE: INTERNAL EVIDENCE CHAPTER FOURTEEN: “Efobounto Gar” CHAPTER FIFTEEN: The Style of the Long Ending of Mark (by Dr. Bruce Terry) CHAPTER SIXTEEN: A Detailed Look at Internal Evidence Appendix One: A List of Technical Terms and an Explanation of Some Symbols Appendix Two: Mark and Proto-Mark Appendix Three: Some Doctrinal Facets of the Issue Footnotes CHAPTER ONE: Preface For centuries, the Christian church has regarded Mark 16:9-20, the “Long Ending” of Mark (a.k.a.
    [Show full text]