Freethought & Rationalism Archive

vid · 03-01-2009, 02:33 PM

Can somebody please explain how did second sentence in this verse get into King James bible and some subsequent translation? Digital Nestle-Aland seems to omit it in both 01 and 03. Thanks

(various translation found at http://bible.cc/mark/6-11.htm)

Sheshbazzar · 03-01-2009, 08:47 PM

The king James follows the "Textus Receptus", some non-KJV versions choose to follow the "Alexandrian" text.
This is one of those instances where there are varying MSS. Ya gets ta take yer choice.

andrewcriddle · 03-02-2009, 02:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vid

Can somebody please explain how did second sentence in this verse get into King James bible and some subsequent translation? Digital Nestle-Aland seems to omit it in both 01 and 03. Thanks

(various translation found at http://bible.cc/mark/6-11.htm)

The parallel passage in Matthew 10:14-15 has the sentence about Sodom and Gomorrah. Later copyists (familiar with the Matthew passage) added this sentence from Matthew into Mark.

Andrew Criddle

avi · 03-02-2009, 03:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

...The parallel passage in Matthew 10:14-15 has the sentence about Sodom and Gomorrah. Later copyists (familiar with the Matthew passage) added this sentence from Matthew into Mark.
Andrew Criddle

I do not dispute your assertion, Andrew, but, may I inquire about a source of authority for this conclusion? How do we know, for example, that the source was Matthew, destination Mark, and not vice versa, else, some third source finding its way into both Mark and Matthew? Which ancient manuscript has been employed for this analysis? It is my understanding that both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are replete with multiple instances of recopying, erasures, insertions, additions and redactions. Am I wrong about this generalization? Perhaps these specific passages are regarded as unmodified from the original scribes' effort?
avi

andrewcriddle · 03-02-2009, 03:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

...The parallel passage in Matthew 10:14-15 has the sentence about Sodom and Gomorrah. Later copyists (familiar with the Matthew passage) added this sentence from Matthew into Mark.
Andrew Criddle

I do not dispute your assertion, Andrew, but, may I inquire about a source of authority for this conclusion? How do we know, for example, that the source was Matthew, destination Mark, and not vice versa, else, some third source finding its way into both Mark and Matthew? Which ancient manuscript has been employed for this analysis? It is my understanding that both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are replete with multiple instances of recopying, erasures, insertions, additions and redactions. Am I wrong about this generalization? Perhaps these specific passages are regarded as unmodified from the original scribes' effort?
avi

It is formally possible that an (unknown and hypothetical) source has influenced both Matthew and (later texts of) Mark. However, it seems simpler here to explain things without such hypothetical sources.

As to the manuscript evidence. The phrase is not just missing in Mark in Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. It is also absent in Codex Bezae, Codex Washington, various Latin witnesses, the Sinaitic Syriac etc.
See Mark

Andrew Criddle

vid · 03-02-2009, 05:42 AM

Andrew: Where can I find list of manuscripts with names as used in that PDF? I tried lists and links at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...tament_uncials and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...tament_uncials, but neither of them contained for example "pc" or "bo".

andrewcriddle · 03-02-2009, 06:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vid

Andrew: Where can I find list of manuscripts with names as used in that PDF? I tried lists and links at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...tament_uncials and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...tament_uncials, but neither of them contained for example "pc" or "bo".

pc is an abbreviation of latin pauci (few) and means in effect and a few more
bo means the bohairic dialect of coptic
sa means the sahidic dialect of coptic

You may find helpful
NT TC
Nestle Definitions
Manuscripts Uncials

Andrew Criddle

vid · 03-02-2009, 07:18 AM

oh... thanks a lot

03-01-2009, 02:33 PM	#1
vid Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Myjava, Slovakia Posts: 384	Sodom and Gomorrah in Mark 6:11 Can somebody please explain how did second sentence in this verse get into King James bible and some subsequent translation? Digital Nestle-Aland seems to omit it in both 01 and 03. Thanks (various translation found at http://bible.cc/mark/6-11.htm)

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-01-2009, 08:47 PM	#2
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	The king James follows the "Textus Receptus", some non-KJV versions choose to follow the "Alexandrian" text. This is one of those instances where there are varying MSS. Ya gets ta take yer choice.

03-02-2009, 05:42 AM	#6
vid Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Myjava, Slovakia Posts: 384	Andrew: Where can I find list of manuscripts with names as used in that PDF? I tried lists and links at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...tament_uncials and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...tament_uncials, but neither of them contained for example "pc" or "bo".

03-02-2009, 07:18 AM	#8
vid Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Myjava, Slovakia Posts: 384	oh... thanks a lot

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.