C
COPLAND_3
Guest
Here is a short article I just wrote concerning why there are some variant readings in our Bibles, litteralchristianlibrary.wetpaint.com/page/My+Theory+About+Variant+Readings
- Status
P
Pete_Holter
Guest
Hey COPLAND. I enjoy your posts. 
In terms of your theory, what are your thoughts on Acts in Codex Bezae?
May God bless you!
In terms of your theory, what are your thoughts on Acts in Codex Bezae?
May God bless you!
C
COPLAND_3
Guest
Thanks!Hey COPLAND. I enjoy your posts.
In terms of your theory, what are your thoughts on Acts in Codex Bezae?
May God bless you!
I love the codex Bezae, I have done some study on it off and on for a few years, it is unique in many ways. Are there any specific questions about the Acts portion of Bezae? One of the things about Bezae that I have found is that it has lots of characteristics that are similar to the Aramaic versions such as the Peshitta, Harclean, Sinaitic,etc. Some believe that it is a Greek translation from the Aramaic, with of course the Latin is a translation of the Greek text. If it is true that Bezae is a Greek translation of the Aramaic then that goes hand and hand with my theory.
As you may know there are those who hold the position that the entire NT was originally written in Aramaic and that all the Greek manuscripts are translations from the Aramaic. There are some very good arguements made to support an Aramaic original, but again I think it only strengthens my theory even more because there are enough weaknesses to the Aramaic only arguement.
P
Pete_Holter
Guest
I had heard that a few scholars thought that the great number of interpolations made to Bezae warranted thinking that it was a manuscript for a second edition of Acts. When I saw your idea about the extended ending to Mark’s gospel, it made me think of this example. And so I wondered if you thought similarly in this case. Also, I wonder if you know the level of certainty scholars give to Acts 11:17 as we have it when compared with Bezae (I include verse 16 to point out the difficulty): “And as I began to speak to them, the Holy Spirit fell on them, even as on us at the beginning. And I remembered the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit. If then [God] gave unto them the like gift as he did also unto us, when we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could withstand God? that I should not give them the Holy Spirit when they believed on him.”
It’s this last addition that I’m curious about. It seems like a difficult reading given that Peter has just said that the Holy Spirit had already fallen on them apart from his doing anything. It seems to refer back to the water baptism of 10:47 since that’s what Peter “gave them” after they believed, and it agrees with 2:38 where we are told that people receive the Holy Spirit when they get baptized. What do you think of it and do you know if there is any other textual evidence for it?
No, I didn’t know that. I had only heard of this possibility in the case of Matthew. Do you have any good links about the possibility of an Aramaic original New Testament? I feel drawn to textual criticism, but I haven’t really spent any time on it yet.
Thanks a lot!
J
Jim_Baur
Guest
As an hypothesis, it sounds most interesting.
I have had many similar thoughts for the last thirty years.
I have not had that one, but I really like it.
I have thought that they wrote early.
There are many Christians who think that they wrote early.
Your idea, more than once.
Maybe they wrote early and often.
I hope and pray that you have the means to publish this idea to other scholars.
I wish you the best of God’s blessings in sharing it.
Is your idea original?
Have you had the time to chech that out?
You need not answer my questions, just try to spread your idea.
Thanks!
I have had many similar thoughts for the last thirty years.
I have not had that one, but I really like it.
I have thought that they wrote early.
There are many Christians who think that they wrote early.
Your idea, more than once.
Maybe they wrote early and often.
I hope and pray that you have the means to publish this idea to other scholars.
I wish you the best of God’s blessings in sharing it.
Is your idea original?
Have you had the time to chech that out?
You need not answer my questions, just try to spread your idea.
Thanks!
C
COPLAND_3
Guest
I can’t wait to tackle the first part of your post, but right now I am on my way to bed so I will get back to this tomorrow evening. But as for the quote above, here is a link that goes into great detail aramaicpeshitta.com/Was%20the%20New%20Testament%20Really%20Written%20in%20Greek%20-%20Edition%201b.pdf
C
COPLAND_3
Guest
Thanks for your kind words!
This is not an original idea, but it is one that has not been taken anywhere by scholars, but I think it should be. I had first had it introduced to me by Sharon Pace Jeansonne in her book on the Old Greek Translation of Daniel 7-12. She said quote,
“Text-critics are not wont to consider the possiblity that an author or editor could have written more than one version of any individiual work. We suggest that this should be considered. The existence of more than one version of a work occurs in other fields of artisitic endeavor. George Fredrick Handel and Thomas Cole, for example, composed and painted 2 versions of their works very close in time. Their 2nd “copied” should not be considered revision; rather, they simply fulfilled the demand for another exemplar. Since the ability to write was such a prized skill, it is concievable that the authors of books of the Hebrew Bible themselves wrote more than one version. Thus, especially when variants do not preserve noteworthy alterations of meaning, 2 distinct readings could come from the same author, and both could be considered “original,” or with equal claims as “preferable.” In addition, if we think of the author as an editor or redactor of oral traditions, or of various written traditions, or a combination of these 2, or more than one version of the text, both with equal claim of being preferable, may indeed have come from the author’s hands.”
Of all the textual critics that I have study from over the years she is the only one that I have ever seen who actually thought that it was a fair possibility. She wrote that book in 1988, it is the first and last time I have ever had that idea thrown at me.
C
COPLAND_3
Guest
While looking to find some similar readings among the ancient manuscripts concerning Acts 11:17 and the addition in Bezae, I have found some other manuscripts that do have it, they are some Latin Vulgate codices and Aramaic.
I’ll be back a little later to comment, wife is calling
I’ll be back a little later to comment, wife is calling
C
COPLAND_3
Guest
Like I had mentioned before the Bezae has got connections to an Aramaic tradition, and in that passage it agrees with some Aramaic manuscripts as well as some Vulgate manuscripts. Obviously it has not been placed among the received text, but there is some sort of early manuscript tradition that has it. I have also found a source that says that St. Augustine had even made a citation of it (Codex Bezae : a study of the so-called Western text of the New Testament page 217) as well as a Bohemian manuscript.
So, with the manuscript evidence, though it is not overwelming, it could very well play a part in the theory that I support. As for how to interpret that extra part of the verse is another issue all together. I would like to find where St. Augustine quotes it and see what he has to say about it, I trust his understanding better than my own (by far!!!). I may search his citations of Act 11:17, I have most of his writings with a Scritpure citation index.
So, with the manuscript evidence, though it is not overwelming, it could very well play a part in the theory that I support. As for how to interpret that extra part of the verse is another issue all together. I would like to find where St. Augustine quotes it and see what he has to say about it, I trust his understanding better than my own (by far!!!). I may search his citations of Act 11:17, I have most of his writings with a Scritpure citation index.
C
COPLAND_3
Guest
I just found an Augsutine quote that is very very similar, in his writing on the Trinity 15.19.35, I bet this is it!
The only thing that Augustine seems to miss from the Bezae is the last 3 words: πιστεύσασιν ἐπ’ αὐτῷ = they having believed on him
P
Pete_Holter
Guest
P
Pete_Holter
Guest
Great! I’ll have to make a note of that.
The citation index. Is this something you’ve been constructing as you’re doing your research?
I’m tempted to learn Latin just so I can read all of Augustine’s writings (well, as many as I can
). I named my son Roman Augustine after him. I probably wouldn’t be Catholic right now without Augustine’s help!Thanks a lot for looking into this.
J
Jim_Baur
Guest
Deuteronomy
C
COPLAND_3
Guest
I read some of it and it made some great points, I plan to look at it again soon. I have a translation of the Aramaic Peshitta by George Lamsa and he has an introduction where he makes his case about an Aramaic original NT, I can scan it for you if you like, but I think that the link that I gave you is actually better.November 2008. Do you have anything more recent?
Thanks a lot!
C
COPLAND_3
Guest
I have 2 collections of the Early Church Fathers, one by Phillip Schaff and the other by the Catholic University of America Press, and they have all the citations of Scripture indexed which makes it very nice!Great! I’ll have to make a note of that.
The citation index. Is this something you’ve been constructing as you’re doing your research?
I’m tempted to learn Latin just so I can read all of Augustine’s writings (well, as many as I can
Thanks a lot for looking into this.
Most of St. Augustine’s writings have been translated into English, which I have on my website litteralchristianlibrary.wetpaint.com/page/Early+Church+Fathers+Collection
I also have his commentary on Galatians here litteralchristianlibrary.wetpaint.com/page/Letters+of+St.+Paul
St. Augustine has also played a role in my conversion to Catholicism as well as the rest of the Early Church Fathers. Augustine has a special place in heart though!
P
Pete_Holter
Guest
Do you know Latin? Can you translate from it?
C
COPLAND_3
Guest
I can but I am not great at it. I have taken a couple of Latin courses and I have spent some time studying the ancient Latin manuscripts, but Greek is what I am best at.
I have a Latin Vulgate, and I also have a transcript of an Old Latin manuscript called the Usserianus II, I have also requested the Codex Bezae transcript for Christmas which has arrived but I am not allowed to get it till Christmas Eve. But right now I do have it online, Greek and Latin! It is the forth one down on this page litteralchristianlibrary.wetpaint.com/page/Ancient+Bible+Manuscripts
A
annem
Guest
Copland 3
God bless, Annem
Hi, maybe you can answer a question that’s always puzzled me. Origen and Jerome said they had copies of Matthew’s gospel in …what? Was it Hebrew or Aramaic? Does anyone know? What is most likely?
God bless, Annem
C
COPLAND_3
Guest
This is questionable to me but most scholars agree that Aramaic is meant when they refer to Hebrew because Aramaic was the native tongue of the Jews during that time. Personally I would not doubt that Matthew wrote it in Hebrew too, as well as in Aramaic and Greek.
There is a so-called Pseudo-Gospel of Matthew that St. Jerome supposedly translated from Hebrew into Latin, here is the document ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf08.vii.v.i.html The introduction claims that St. Matthew is the author of this and wrote it without intending on publishing it but he only wanted to give details about the birth of Mary and the infancy of Jesus. It is very interesting!
R
Ron_Conte
Guest
Some variants are a result of translation: e.g. a word in Aramaic (the main language used by Jesus) has two possible meanings. In various Greek manuscripts, some have the one meaning and others have the other meaning (since Greek does not have the same one word with two meanings).
Some variants are due to fortuitous copyist errors: e.g. the copyist tends to err not randomly, but errors that make a coherent sentence. Sometimes such errors make the meaning of the text clearer, and so such errors are retained by subsequent copyist, where as errors that do not make sense are not retained.
John’s Gospel was written by John, but edited and added to by his disciples. In my view, this occurred when they translated it from Aramaic to Greek.
One theory on the ending of Mark was that Mark himself added it at a later date. But there is not much support for this theory. Mark went to northern Africa after he wrote his Gospel, and manuscripts from that area are the ones that lack the ending.
There does not seem to be much support for the idea that the sacred authors wrote repeated versions, with the variants (which altogether number in the high hundreds of thousands, if not more).
Some variants are due to fortuitous copyist errors: e.g. the copyist tends to err not randomly, but errors that make a coherent sentence. Sometimes such errors make the meaning of the text clearer, and so such errors are retained by subsequent copyist, where as errors that do not make sense are not retained.
John’s Gospel was written by John, but edited and added to by his disciples. In my view, this occurred when they translated it from Aramaic to Greek.
One theory on the ending of Mark was that Mark himself added it at a later date. But there is not much support for this theory. Mark went to northern Africa after he wrote his Gospel, and manuscripts from that area are the ones that lack the ending.
There does not seem to be much support for the idea that the sacred authors wrote repeated versions, with the variants (which altogether number in the high hundreds of thousands, if not more).
- Status