When Luke 14:5 was originally written, do you think it had:
"his son or his ox"? (had by the Peshitta and the Diatessaron)
"an ass or an ox"?
The Diatessaron has 98 instances of "answered and said." Both the Peshitta and the Diatessaron have merely "And he said to/unto them" for Luke 14:5. When Luke 14:5 was originally written, do you think it had:
"answered and said"?
merely "said"?
Luke 14:5 (based on Younan) And he said to them,
"Who among you if his son or his ox falls into a well on the day of the Shabbata
and does not immediately pull (and) bring him up?"
Diatessaron, Section XXIX
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/te...saron.html
[~47] And he said unto them,
Which of you shall have his son or his ox fall on the sabbath day into a well,
and not lift him up straightway, and draw water for him?
Text Note: Luke 14:5
http://www.jeffriddle.net/2013/10/text-n...e-145.html
There are at least two significant textual variations:
First: Should the participle “answering [apokritheis]” be included in the text along with the verb “he said [eipen]”?
The traditional text includes the participle and the modern critical text excludes it. This is reflected in modern translations (emphasis added):
KJV [traditional text] Luke 14:5 *And answered them, saying,* Which of you shall have an ass or an ox fallen into a pit, and will not straightway pull him out on the sabbath day?
Note on KJV: Interestingly, the translators make the participle the finite verb and the finite verb the participle. A literal rendering of the Greek would be: “And answering, he said….”
NASB [modern critical text] Luke 14:5 *And He said to them,* "Which one of you shall have a son or an ox fall into a well, and will not immediately pull him out on a Sabbath day?"
External evidence: The inclusion of the participle has peculiarly strong external support, including the original hand and the second corrector of Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Theta, Psi, family 13, and the vast majority of manuscripts.
The omission of the participle, on the other hand, is supported by p 45, p 75, the first corrector of Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and family 1, among others.
This is another place where Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are not clearly on the same side.
....
Second, and most significant (and much more complicated), is whether or not the text should read “ass [onos]” or “son [huios].”
The Textus Receptus reads “ass” and the modern critical text reads “son.” Interestingly, the Byzantine text also reads “son.” This difference is reflected in modern translations (emphasis added):
KJV [traditional text] Luke 14:5 And answered them, saying, Which of you shall have *an ass or an ox* fallen into a pit, and will not straightway pull him out on the sabbath day?
NASB [modern critical text] Luke 14:5 And He said to them, "Which one of you shall have *a son or an ox* fall into a well, and will not immediately pull him out on a Sabbath day?"
External evidence: The reading of the Textus Receptus is supported by Sinaiticus, K, L, Psi, family 1, family 13, and others. The reading of the Majority Text, in this case followed by the modern critical text, is supported by p 45, p 75, Vaticanus, W, and the vast majority of Byzantine manuscripts. Codex D reads probaton, “sheep.”
This is another example of lack of agreement between Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Luke 17:36 is in the Peshitta and in the by-A.D. 175 Diatesseron. Do you think it belongs in the Bible?
Luke 17:36 (NIV)
[36] [a: Some manuscripts include here words similar to Matt. 24:40.]
Luke 17:36 (HCSB)
[36 Two will be in a field:
One will be taken,
and the other will be left.]"[a: Other mss omit bracketed text]
As of A.D. 175, the text was present:
Diatesseron 42:49
And two shall be in the field;
one shall be taken,
and another left.
The original Aramaic of the Peshitta has the complete text:
Luke 17:36 (Younan)
Two will be in the field;
one will be taken
and the other will be left.
Text Note: Luke 17:36
http://www.jeffriddle.net/2014/01/text-n...-1736.html
Should Luke 17:36 be included in the text of Scripture (as in the traditional text) or omitted (as in the Majority and modern critical text)?
External evidence:
The verse is omitted in a number of significant manuscripts, including some that regularly support the Majority and traditional texts in Luke: p 75, Sinaiticus, A, B, L, W, Delta, Theta, Psi, and family 1.
On the other hand, the verse is included in D, family 13, and in some Latin and Syriac manuscripts.
There is another key piece of external evidence: In the original hand of Sinaticus and some Latin Vulgate manuscripts, the preceding verse (Luke 17:35) is also omitted. Most agree that in this case the verse was accidentally omitted through homoeoteleuton. But this omission raises the question as to whether it might not be equally possible that the omission of v. 36 also came through scribal error.
"his son or his ox"? (had by the Peshitta and the Diatessaron)
"an ass or an ox"?
The Diatessaron has 98 instances of "answered and said." Both the Peshitta and the Diatessaron have merely "And he said to/unto them" for Luke 14:5. When Luke 14:5 was originally written, do you think it had:
"answered and said"?
merely "said"?
Luke 14:5 (based on Younan) And he said to them,
"Who among you if his son or his ox falls into a well on the day of the Shabbata
and does not immediately pull (and) bring him up?"
Diatessaron, Section XXIX
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/te...saron.html
[~47] And he said unto them,
Which of you shall have his son or his ox fall on the sabbath day into a well,
and not lift him up straightway, and draw water for him?
Text Note: Luke 14:5
http://www.jeffriddle.net/2013/10/text-n...e-145.html
There are at least two significant textual variations:
First: Should the participle “answering [apokritheis]” be included in the text along with the verb “he said [eipen]”?
The traditional text includes the participle and the modern critical text excludes it. This is reflected in modern translations (emphasis added):
KJV [traditional text] Luke 14:5 *And answered them, saying,* Which of you shall have an ass or an ox fallen into a pit, and will not straightway pull him out on the sabbath day?
Note on KJV: Interestingly, the translators make the participle the finite verb and the finite verb the participle. A literal rendering of the Greek would be: “And answering, he said….”
NASB [modern critical text] Luke 14:5 *And He said to them,* "Which one of you shall have a son or an ox fall into a well, and will not immediately pull him out on a Sabbath day?"
External evidence: The inclusion of the participle has peculiarly strong external support, including the original hand and the second corrector of Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Theta, Psi, family 13, and the vast majority of manuscripts.
The omission of the participle, on the other hand, is supported by p 45, p 75, the first corrector of Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and family 1, among others.
This is another place where Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are not clearly on the same side.
....
Second, and most significant (and much more complicated), is whether or not the text should read “ass [onos]” or “son [huios].”
The Textus Receptus reads “ass” and the modern critical text reads “son.” Interestingly, the Byzantine text also reads “son.” This difference is reflected in modern translations (emphasis added):
KJV [traditional text] Luke 14:5 And answered them, saying, Which of you shall have *an ass or an ox* fallen into a pit, and will not straightway pull him out on the sabbath day?
NASB [modern critical text] Luke 14:5 And He said to them, "Which one of you shall have *a son or an ox* fall into a well, and will not immediately pull him out on a Sabbath day?"
External evidence: The reading of the Textus Receptus is supported by Sinaiticus, K, L, Psi, family 1, family 13, and others. The reading of the Majority Text, in this case followed by the modern critical text, is supported by p 45, p 75, Vaticanus, W, and the vast majority of Byzantine manuscripts. Codex D reads probaton, “sheep.”
This is another example of lack of agreement between Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Luke 17:36 is in the Peshitta and in the by-A.D. 175 Diatesseron. Do you think it belongs in the Bible?
Luke 17:36 (NIV)
[36] [a: Some manuscripts include here words similar to Matt. 24:40.]
Luke 17:36 (HCSB)
[36 Two will be in a field:
One will be taken,
and the other will be left.]"[a: Other mss omit bracketed text]
As of A.D. 175, the text was present:
Diatesseron 42:49
And two shall be in the field;
one shall be taken,
and another left.
The original Aramaic of the Peshitta has the complete text:
Luke 17:36 (Younan)
Two will be in the field;
one will be taken
and the other will be left.
Text Note: Luke 17:36
http://www.jeffriddle.net/2014/01/text-n...-1736.html
Should Luke 17:36 be included in the text of Scripture (as in the traditional text) or omitted (as in the Majority and modern critical text)?
External evidence:
The verse is omitted in a number of significant manuscripts, including some that regularly support the Majority and traditional texts in Luke: p 75, Sinaiticus, A, B, L, W, Delta, Theta, Psi, and family 1.
On the other hand, the verse is included in D, family 13, and in some Latin and Syriac manuscripts.
There is another key piece of external evidence: In the original hand of Sinaticus and some Latin Vulgate manuscripts, the preceding verse (Luke 17:35) is also omitted. Most agree that in this case the verse was accidentally omitted through homoeoteleuton. But this omission raises the question as to whether it might not be equally possible that the omission of v. 36 also came through scribal error.