tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8353719.post8766120782635839902..comments2024-02-02T09:08:38.643-05:00Comments on The White Man Blog: News, Views, and Reviews on topics of ancient and contemporaty interest: Part V, Variants: 1 Jn 5:7-8 and Matt 21:29-31: Is 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 an interpolation?The White Manhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06732782601569135839noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8353719.post-34612877599296582052021-01-22T19:16:54.372-05:002021-01-22T19:16:54.372-05:00Good call. 1522 then.Good call. 1522 then.The White Manhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06732782601569135839noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8353719.post-85519094040693561582020-12-23T14:28:58.740-05:002020-12-23T14:28:58.740-05:00Hi,
Interesting analysis. Some tweaks, starting ...Hi, <br />Interesting analysis. Some tweaks, starting with:<br /><br />"1. Erasmus 1516, 1519, 1521: 1 John 5, without the Comma, has articles in front of each of the three witnesses"<br /><br />In 1521 the Erasmus edition was Latin only, and is said to include the heavenly witnesses.<br /><br />StevenSteven Averyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18019556495973817763noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8353719.post-8263191345947575512013-11-27T06:53:54.275-05:002013-11-27T06:53:54.275-05:00Many moons ago, I tried to re-typeset Ranke's ...Many moons ago, I tried to re-typeset Ranke's Latin analysis of the Codex Fuldensis. This was after I had translated, by fragment substitution, the Gospel found in ms Cod. Sang. 56.<br />I am now, having obtained a microfilm copy of F, "re-typesetting" that manuscript, and translating, again, by fs, the document into Douay-Rheims English.<br />In this work, strange things have come to light.<br />1/ There is a deep suspicion that Cod Bon 1, or Codex Fuldensis is not the actual Viktor Codex, but a copy which was made new for Boniface.<br />2/ When St Jerome 'updated' the Gospels, he was working fron Greek texts, but following the style of VL Gospels, and indeed, the, the likelyhood is that he had before him, the Latin Diatessaron, now found in F, and SG56. This possibility would explain how it is that large sections of Luke are an exact copy of Matthew, even to chapter, and verse breaks, even following verse numbers.<br />3/ From the occurrence of haplographies, it would appear that F was copied from SG56, even though the time line seems to make that impossible.<br />4/ What is definite is that SG56 was not copied from F.<br />I would welcome direct contact on this subject, and indeed help, as my Latin is not fantastic.<br />My eMail is:<br />daveat168@btinternet.com<br />or<br />daveat168@gmail.comDeghebhhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11896198242926183276noreply@blogger.com