Wed Nov 13 17:39:35 1996
From owner-tc-list Wed Nov 13 17:39:35 1996
Return-Path:
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id RAA04369; Wed, 13 Nov 1996 17:38:25 -0500
Message-ID: <328A4BEF.59E9DC7B@repurk.mw.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 14:30:07 -0800
From: Alan Repurk
Organization: I do not speak for my organization
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (X11; I; Linux 1.2.8 i586)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
CC: lars@repurk.mw.com
Subject: Re: John 1:3 Punctuation
References:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 2983
DC PARKER wrote:
>
> There is no punctuation in Alexandrinus before or after ho gegonen. I
> have just checked the reduced collotype facsimile.
> DC PARKER
> DEPT OF THEOLOGY
> UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM
> TEL. 0121-414 3613
> FAX 0121-414 6866
> E-MAIL PARKERDC@M4-ARTS.BHAM.AC.UK
Thanks, I checked that yesterday too. I have summarized the information
on the site, to make it easier for someone to help me with this
question. Please let me know if this issue is not one of interest
to the list.
I guess my question now relates to how does one determine if a correction
made to a manuscript is to be prefered to the original and how much
weight is to be given to the fact that Anti-Nicene Fathers (on both sides of
the Christology issue) took 'hO GENOMEN' to be part of John 1:4 ?
I summarize the 8 manuscripts that they compare. The issue is
how to translate based upon if 'hO GENOMEN' is taken with John 1:3
or John 1:4.
Punctation
Century Codex before Two Witnesses ?
'hO GEGENON' ? (changes made)
-------------------------------------------------------
200CE P66 N N
175-225CE P75 Y Y
350CE Vaticanus N N
350CE Sinaiticus Y Y
500CE Bezae Y Y
400/600CE Washintonesis Y Y
400CE Alexandrinus N N
1100/1200 666 Y Y
In none of these manuscripts, except for Codex 666 which is a miniscule
from the 12th or 13th century did the original punctuation support
the KVJ rendering (with 'hO GENONEN taken with John 1:3). This was
corrected to put a stop before 'HO GENOMEN'. If Bruce Metzger is
correct as to the ancient interpretation, this manuscript was clearly
written in disregard of older manuscripts and later corrected to
conform to the proper translation. Interestingly, the corrector did not
bother to remove the 'offending' punctuationm, and as it stands this
manuscript cannot be translated in any meaningful way.
In the Washingtonesis the punctuation is clearly the original with
plenty of space around it (which shows it was originally placed),
although the portion of this manuscript for the book of John was
added in the seventh century and is later that the rest of the text.
This punctuation corresponds to the NRSV translation which takes
'hO GENOMEN with John 1:4.
As to the punctuation in the Bezae (corresponds to NRSV) it is not
certain if it was the original or whether it was corrected. From the
GIF, by my eye, it looks like it matches the previous text quite well.
The P75 appears to have been corrected to correspond to the NRSV
rendering because there is not much space between the letters as
if it was inserted at a later date. ( It is concievable that it was
punctuated by the original scribe )
-lars
Back