Haran

Let me first state that I think Ehrman does good research and is as honest as any of us. That said, I do not agree with the conclusions that he draws from his research, and I am not convinced by many of his arguments.

You have to do a lot of searching, I'm afraid. As a textual critic, Ehrman knows all the sources to go to. Unlike most of us who only use NA27 or UBS4, Ehrman almost definitely used many other sources like Von Soden.

P75 is deficient at Luke 3:22, containing only the first part of the verse.

1574, judging by the number, is a Miniscule. Miniscules are late and were probably not considered in his book for this reason. I could not find a date with a quick search, but it is more than likely medieval.

Can't find the dating of the Coptic at the moment...

It may have been the only one on his, but 3rd century p4 is on my list and is mentioned in passing by Ehrman.

Metzger in his Commentary on the NT also mentions that the Psalm 2:7 quote here was popular in the 1st 3 centuries. Metzger believes it was an interpolation from Psalm 2:7, however.

The verse is, I think, identical to Psalm 2:7 in the LXX and Hebrew. I think, like Metzger that this was probably an interpolation. It is interesting to note, however, that Mark 1:11 was not changed by Bezae. However, it looks like Matthew 3:17 might have been changed.

Steven Carr

I wouldn't mind somebody explaining to me what bo(pt) means.

Haran

Aw, man! Sorry, I edited my original post rather than quoting it. *sigh*

Anyway, this thread is supposed to be a continuation of a discussion from the Secret Mark thread...

Haran

bo(pt)

Bohairic is a Coptic dialect, so bo is a Coptic version in the Bohairic dialect.

pt is an abbreviation for the latin word partim meaning partly/some.

Together, according to the NA27, they mean:
"Five or more Bohairic witnesses support the particular reading."

This, however, does not include versions in other Coptic dialects such as Akhmimic and Sahidic. Metzger's book on Versions is best for helping to understand this, as are both Texts of the New Testament - the one by the Alands and the one by Metzger.

Iasion

Greetings Haran,

Your detailed and informative post was much appreciated - thanks :-)

I have learnt a great deal,
I retract my comment,
I spoke out of ignorance.

I previously brought this subject up and was apparently refuted by the claim that P75 disagreed with Ehrman.

Now it appears this is not the case, and that the manuscript evidence (apart from P4) is late and/or weak, so his comment was not so mis-leading at all.

I wish I could personally check such issues in more detail -

Are there any comprehensive references online for specific manuscript readings?
Or facsimiles?
I see a few isolated images such as this one :
http://www.earlham.edu/~seidti/iam/tc_pap75.html


Speaking of manuscript facsimiles -

They say you're truly famous when you are known by just your first name :-)

Here is the famous book that is known as

"B"

Deluxe High Resolution Facsimile edition of Codex Vaticanus B

Only US$5710.

Iasion

Steven Carr

http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/index.html is very good

Haran

I would not say weak and the evidence for the supposed "anti-adoptionist" reading is only slightly later and involves the "heavy-hitter" MSS like Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. Metzger rated the reading a B probably for these reasons.

There are some (in addition to the great resource Steven provided - W. Willker's). The following is a great resource for investigating MSS (I've used it for many things including looking things up in Codex Bezae):

Biblical Manuscripts Project

If you want access to some text critical works that Ehrman probably used, you can find Tischendorf and Von Soden at this next link:

Tischendorf and Von Soden, etc.

For a list of critical editions of the Greek New Testament (probably used by Ehrman):

Critical Editions of the New Testament

My favorite critical edition is Swanson's. Instead of the cumbersome NA27 and UBS4 apparatus, you get the text of major MS witnesses laid out one on top of the next for comparison. You can almost read along as if you were reading the particular MS you are interested in (if you read Greek that is). Indispensable!

If it's pictures of early NT papyri, Willker's page is great:

W. Willker's links to papyri images

Unfortunately, these links aren't necessarily to images of the entire designated MS.

If you want to see how early papyri read, I suggest Philip Comfort's The Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts (one of the glowing amazon.com reviews is by John Lupia, known for his early picture analysis of the James ossuary's patina). Anyway, this book is excellent and is how I was able to look up the exact Greek text of p4 and p75. The MS dates are on the conservative side, but having this reference in your library is worth it!

If you want to see entire early NT papyri in pictures, well, they are scattered throughout specialized books (that you might only be able to find at a seminary libarary), unless you happen to live in a city where they have a special textual criticism library with facsimilies (like in New Orleans among others).

To the earlier conversation, Steven appears to have been right when he wrote that MS 1574 is a 14th century MS.

If you want to learn more about New Testament versions (i.e. early translations into other languages), I suggest Critical Editions of NT Versions and Versions of the New Testament.

And if you want to know more about the Coptic Bohairic Version.

Links to most of these websites can be found under the Biblical Textual Criticism and Biblical Papyri sections of my own website.

Good luck! For the few that find it interesting, textual criticism can be a wonderful hobby!