Jude 1:3 'salvation and life' conflation - Aleph similarity to Codex Athous Lavrensis - Ψ - 044

Steven Avery

Administrator
This is the other thread with 044 homoeoteleuton and/or conflation

Mark 10:7 - Sinaiticus Vaticanus and ( Codex Athous Lavrensis - 044 - Psi ) Mark 10:29 - Burgon on nomina sacra
https://www.purebibleforum.com/inde...4-psi-mark-10-29-burgon-on-nomina-sacra.2876/

============

NA28
1718635021821.png


“The” with P72 (unusual to put in front of the text.)

Infinitive - the one with 1735 -
I propose to write
I intended to start writing - 1735 aorist

Notice that Aleph and Psi agree on 3 or 4 (see below) variants almost alone in verse 3.
More of Jude can be checked to show the connection!

TR
https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/jde/1/1/t_conc_1167003
1:3 Ἀγαπητοί πᾶσαν σπουδὴν ποιούμενος γράφειν ὑμῖν περὶ τῆς κοινῆς σωτηρίας ἀνάγκην ἔσχον γράψαι ὑμῖν παρακαλῶν ἐπαγωνίζεσθαι τῇ ἅπαξ παραδοθείσῃ τοῖς ἁγίοις πίστει

γράφειν - to write
σωτηρίας - salvation
γράψαι


https://www.greeknewtestament.com/B65C001.htm#V3
agaphtoi pasan spoudhn poioumenoV grafein umin peri thV koinhV swthriaV anagkhn escon grayai umin parakalwn epagwnizesqai th apax paradoqeish toiV agioiV pistei

======================

LaParola
1:3

τοῦ γράφειν] p72 ‭א Ψ. - (P72 Reduces significance)

σωτηρίας καὶ ζωῆς] ‭א Ψ

γράφειν] ‭א Ψ 1505


==============

44Z typographical error 2627Z means margin

044 is also labled manuscript ψ - psi

======

Look for 4th variant in any apparatus
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Jude 1:3 (AV)
Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation,
it was needful for me to write unto you,
and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith
which was once delivered unto the saints.


The variant that interests us is "common salvation" where Sinaiticus has "common salvation and life" and both "and life" and "common salvation and life" are late variants (unless you presume Sinaiticus to be early.)

======================================

CSP


LaParola
http://www.laparola.net/greco/index.php?rif1=72&rif2=1:3

σωτηρίας] p72 A B C K L P 049 056 0142 5 6 18 35 61 81 88 93 181 254 307 323 326 431 436 442 453 468 621 623 630 665 808 909 915 1067 1243 1409 1501 1678 1739 1836 1837 1845 1875 1881 2200 2298 2344vid 2374 2805 Byz l596 ς WH
ζωῆς] 1505 1611 syr eth
σωτηρίας καὶ ζωῆς] ‭א Ψ

Na text
Ἀγαπητοί, πᾶσαν σπουδὴν ποιούμενος γράφειν ὑμῖν περὶ τῆς κοινῆς ἡμῶν σωτηρίας ἀνάγκην ἔσχον γράψαι ὑμῖν παρακαλῶν ἐπαγωνίζεσθαιτῇ ἅπαξ παραδοθείσῃ τοῖς ἁγίοις πίστει.


======================================

Facebook - 2014
Jude 1:3
https://www.facebook.com/groups/sinaiticus/permalink/324566504386828/

One of the issues that comes up with Codex Sinaiticus, if it is of 19th century vintage, is:

"where did the text come from".

Since Sinaiticus has textual affinities with Alexandrian mss, including Vaticanus, if it was written in the 1800s, there would have had to have significant input from the minority Alexandrian mss line. And we noted that other Alexandrinan mss have a Mt. Athos heritage (ms. Codex Colbertinus 2844 == ms 33 may have been one that came up in the Pinto-White post-debate discussions, when James Snapp mentioned that certain variants highlighted had agreement wider than Vaticanus and papyri. Maybe Ψ was mentioned, see below. ) This earlier discussion is from memory, also Simonides referenced Alexandrinus, which is also very Alexandrian outside the Gospels. I'll try to check the notes on these notes about possible Alexandrian sources for a Simonides text later.

We found that some questions on this source ms point were interesting (e.g. Scrivener raised it as a primary consideration) while others were totally bogus (the thousands of variants in the papyri only claim of James White).

Since so many Sinaiticus variants are omission and chopped-off text and singular blunders, variants that would indicate a later origin would be the exception. (Since omissions and blunders are trivially easy to occur.)
Today I want to look at one that is supposed to be a very unlikely and puzzling conflation, in Sinaiticus, where one of the texts that was supposedly conflated into the Sinaiticus combined reading has no early support!
.
Jude 1:3
Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation,
it was needful for me to write unto you,
and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend
for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

Sinaiticus has "common salvation and life". This is an unusual conflation of mss that have either "common salvation" or "common life" .

And, putting aside Sinaiticus, any variant with "life" is late.

The "common salvation and life" variant is seen earliest in Greek in Codex Ψ (psi - also 044) - a late uncial ms from the 9th-10th century. Source of the ms. - Mt. Athos. ... hmmm

Also note that "life" is attested by the later Syriac mss, principally the Harklean (possibly the Philoxenian). And late Greek minuscules. And that the theory of a later Sinaiticus works with both Mt. Athos mss and Syriac mss (per Simonides).

Here is Ψ - 044.

Codex Athous Lavrensis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Athous_Lavrensis
.
Now, this was not found by a search of the ms. And some apparatuses (e.g. LaParola) do not even have the variant. There is a recent discussion on the NT Textual Criticism forum, that shows the variants, and an earlier post on:
.
================================

[textualcriticism] How Old Is the Harklensis Group's Text?
James Snapp - May 29, 2014
(no longer online)

Tommy Wasserman Jude p. 247

"Codex Sinaiticus' text of Jude verse 3 reads, KOINHS HMWN SWTHRIAS KAI ZWHS. ("Our common salvation and life.") Wasserman commented about this: "A few witnesses, including the nucleus HK group, replace SWTHRIAS with ZWHS (1505 1611 2138 S:HPh), whereas a few important MSS attest a conflation, THS KOINHS HMWN SWTHRIAS KAI ZWHS (01 044 2627Z). The attestation of ZWHS by 01 shows that the substitution is early."

[textualcriticism] Jude v. 3: Old MS w/Young Reading; Young MSS w/Old Reading
James Snapp - March 28, 2013
"an excellent example of a conflation in a flagship Alexandrian manuscript (Sinaiticus)"

James Snapp
"However, there is no evidence that "and life" even existed as a variant until long after Sinaiticus."

"This raises a question: should all of the readings shared by 3-out-of-4 of these four manuscripts in the General Epistles be considered older than Codex Sinaiticus?"


Daniel Buck
> I'd certainly be willing to entertain that thought.

Steven
Definitely, and I entertain this as well. And for the simple and special reason that this is additional evidence that Codex Sinaiticus is not a fourth century ms. How could it conflate a reading that becomes a variant "long after Sinaiticus?" And the idea that this was an orphan addition that was then repeated by an unrelated scribe centuries later, while surely possible, is exceedingly difficult and unlikely.
.
================================

Text and Translation Note on Jude 1:3
Jeff Riddle
http://www.jeffriddle.net/2011/05/textual-and-translation-note-on-jude-13.html

Two other codices (1505 and 2495) read humon zoes, also making it a second person plural pronoun and changing the noun, so “your common life.”

Then, most interestingly, Codex Sinaiticus (along with codex Psi) provides the harmonizing reading, hemon soterias kai zoes, so “our common salvation and life.”

This variation is noteworthy on several levels. First, it demonstrates again that codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, though often presented as putting forward a unified alternative to the traditional text, are very often, in fact, at odds with one another. Second, this example shows that Sinaiticus can bear a tendency to harmonize and conflate variant readings. This undermines its reliability as a clear witness to the “original text.”

================================

Note this Sinaiticus variant is discussed in commentaries by Lewis R. Donelson, 2010 and Philip W. Comfort, 2008.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/267050166805129/user/100000786212850/

================================

Lewis R. Donelson
http://books.google.com/books?id=FWACViVPKCMC&pg=PA173

======================================

Facebook - New Testament Textual Criticism - 2014
https://www.facebook.com/groups/NTTextualCriticism/permalink/690340371052966/

James Snapp
For example: consider the following six rival readings in Jude, verse 3.
(1) peri ths koinhs hmwn swthrias
(2) peri ths koinhs swthrias
(3) peri ths koinhs umwn swthrias
(4) peri ths koinhs hmwn zwhs
(5) peri ths koinhs umwn zwhs
(6) peri ths koihnhs hmwn swthrias kai zwhs

that is, in English:

(1) concerning our common salvation
(2) concerning the common salvation
(3) concerming your common salvation
(4) concerning our common life
(5) concerning your common life
(6) concerning our common salvation and life (is this a GSR construct)

Which reading seems to you to be original? Which reading seems most likely to be dependent upon at least one of the others? (And please try to present your impressions from the *internal* evidence; no fair consulting a GNT to see what witnesses support which variants.)

======================================


1671546467010.png


====================

Vaticanus is the later cursive hand.

====================

1671552841029.png
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
CARM
https://forums.carm.org/threads/codex-sinaiticus-the-facts.12990/page-5#post-997365

Jude 1:3 (AV)
Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation,
it was needful for me to write unto you,
and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith
which was once delivered unto the saints.


Sinaiticus has a conflation of the two variants::
Sinaiticus -> ”salvation and life” - σωτηρίας καὶ ζωῆς
Salvation - σωτηρίας - the well supported common text
Life - ζωῆς - is only in a couple of late minuscules, 1505 from … Mt. Athos, and 1611 now at the Athens library (source, LaParola apparatus.)
Salvation and life - is in one other majuscule, Ψ (psi) (044) from Mt. Athos.

Codex Athous Lavrensis

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Athous_Lavrensis

In our studies we will find Ψ having additional interesting connections with Codex Sinaiticus (Simoneidos).

hmm …

===============================================


CARM - cjab
https://forums.carm.org/threads/codex-sinaiticus-the-facts.12990/post-997743

The Epistle of Jude: Its Text and Transmission (2006)
https://books.google.com/books?id=uGgRAQAAIAAJ

Tommy Wasserman again on Jude 1:3 more recent than James Snapp TC-Alternate above.

"A few witnesses, including the nucleus HK group, replace σωτηρίας with ζωής (1505 1611 2138 S:HPh), whereas a few important MSS attest a conflation, τής κοινής ήμών σωτηρίας και ζωής (01 (א) 044 2627Ζ). The attestation of ζωής by 01 (א) shows that the substitution is early. Sakae Kubo suggests that a scribe made the change “because σωτηρία did not cover the things which the scribe wrote" (A textual commentary on P72 at p.226)"

p.247, The Epistle of Jude: Its Text and Transmission,
Tommy Wasserman
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
Jude 1:3 - James Snapp
https://www.thetextofthegospels.com/2021/12/seven-interesting-variants-in-jude.html


● In Jude verse 3, there is a contest, mainly between κοινῆς σωτηρίας (favored by a majority of manuscripts) and κοινῆς ἡμῶν σωτηρίας. Although the latter was adopted in Nestle-Aland (and by Tregelles and Souter – but not by Scholz,), it is not easy to discern why any scribe whose exemplar had the longer reading here would omit ἡμῶν. The sentence is easier to understand with ἡμῶν included – which is a point in favor of the shorter reading.

But there are couple of other horses in the race. Κοινῆς ἡμῶν σωτηρίας has the support of P72, Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, 1739, 2200 et al; κοινῆς σωτηρίας is supported by 018 020 025 049 and hundreds of minuscules, but what does א‎ say? Something very different: κοινῆς ἡμῶν σωτηρίας και ζωης – that is, “our common salvation and life.” (This reading also turns up in 044!) And nestled in the text of some members of the cluster of manuscripts known as the Harklean Group (a.k.a. family 2138 – MSS 206, 429, 522, 614, 630, 1292, 1505, 1611, 1799, 1890, 2138, 2200, 2412, and 2495 – but especially 2138) are the readings κοινῆς ἡμῶν ζωης (1611 2138) and κοινῆς υμῶν ζωης (1505 2495). Putting א‎’s reading alongside the others, it looks very, very much like a conflation of the readings in B and in family 2138.

In which case, in order for the conflation to have been made in א‎’s text, the Harklean Group’s text of this passage had to already exist before א‎ was made, even though the Greek manuscripts which attest to it are medieval. This is an instructive demonstration of how precarious it is to assume that the readings in later manuscripts must themselves be later.

An instructive demonstration of how precarious it is to assume the Sinaiticus faux 4th-century date!

Conflations: What They Are and What They Mean - 2019
James Snapp
https://www.academia.edu/38955079/Conflations_What_They_Are_and_What_They_Mean
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
David Robert Palmer
https://bibletranslation.ws/trans/judewgrkbyz.pdf

1718638620924.png


1718638635124.png


https://bibletranslation.ws/trans/GenEpistlesByz.pdf

507 Jd 3 txt σωτηριας K L P 049 056 0142 18 35 1175 TR AN BG RP ‖ ημων σωτηριας A B Cvid 5 81 93 307 323 442 621 665 915 1243f 1739 2344vid TH TW SBL NA28 ‖ υμων σωτηριας 6 2298 2805 ‖ ημων σωτηριας και ζωης א Ψ ‖ ημων ζωης 1611 ‖ omit by homoioarcton 1241 (γραφ...γραφ) ‖ hiat C 78 0251 0316 33 1852. The reading ζωης was early, cf. eth, syr, conflated by א Ψ with σωτηριας. Sakae Kubo suggests ζωης was substituted for σωτηριας because the latter did not cover all the topics hereinafter.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
John Gill

of the common salvation; which designs either the Gospel, sometimes called salvation, in opposition to the law, which is a ministration of condemnation; and because it is a declaration of salvation, and a means of it; and may be said to be "common", because preached to all, Jews and Gentiles: or Jesus Christ the Saviour himself, who is also sometimes called "salvation", because he was called and appointed to it, and undertook it, and is become the author of it; and may be said to be a "common" Saviour, not of all men, but of all his people; of his whole body, the church, and every member of it, and of all sorts of men, in all nations: or else that spiritual and eternal salvation wrought out by him, which is common, not to all men, for all are not saved with it, but to all the elect of God, and true believers in Christ; the love of God is common to them all alike; the choice of them to eternal salvation is the same; the covenant of grace, the blessings and promises of it, are equally shared by them; and they are bought with the same price of Christ's blood, and are justified by the same righteousness, and are regenerated, sanctified, and called by the same grace, and shall possess the same glory: there is but one way of salvation, and that is not confined to any nation, family, community, or sect among men. The Alexandrian copy and two of Beza's, and the Syriac version, read, "our common salvation"; and two other of Beza's copies and the Vulgate Latin version read, "your common salvation"; the sense is the same: it was

Randolph Yeager
1718649169636.png

1718649213185.png

1718649238371.png
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
LaParola and NA28 compare
‭א Ψ

1:3
τοῦ γράφειν] p72 ‭א Ψ

σωτηρίας καὶ ζωῆς] ‭א Ψ

γράφειν] ‭א Ψ 1505
 

Maprchr

Administrator
The definite article does not appear with the infinitive in KOINE Greek. it did at time in Homeric Greek. For that reason and its sparce appearance in the Manuscript evidence א and ψ (044 - from Athos) with one miniscule 1735 stand against the vast majority of manuscripts
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
Die Lesarten mit der 2. Pers. des Personalpronomens (2C, 3B)
würden das Heil oder Leben, das den Christen allgemein verhei-
ßen ist (Koivf) acoTTipia oder Cwi^), als gemeinsames Gut nur der
Adressatengruppe ansprechen und sind daher sicher itazistische
Bildungen.

Nach den Lesarten mit fipüi» ist das Heil oder Leben uns Christen
gemeinsam, nach der Mehrheitslesart entfällt auch diese Beschrän-
kung und das Heil erscheint als universal gegeben. Diese Wen-
dung paßt kaum dazu, daß die Adressaten in V. 1 als k\t|to( ange-
sprochen wurden und nun in V. 3 der Gegenstand des Briefes, die
Aufforderung zum Kampf für die duaf napa6o0claa -röis’ dYloi?
rricm?, in den Zusammenhang einer beständigen Mühe des Autors
gestellt wird, denselben Adressaten das gemeinsame - natürlich
das uns Christen gemeinsame Heil schreibend zu verkünden.
In Lesart 3 erscheint mit Curns* anstelle von oo)Tnptas‘ das Gemein-
deleben bzw. das gemeinsame Leben aller Christen als Thema die-
ses und früherer Briefe des Autors. Dies ist, bezogen auf den vorlie-
genden Brief, jedenfalls nicht unpassend, geht es in ihm doch
wesentlich um die wahrhaft christliche Lebensführung und das
richtige Verhalten gegenüber Irrlehrem. Somit liegt es nahe, Lesart
3 als Präzisierung der Lesart 2 zu erklären. Lesart 5 schließlich ist
unsinnig.
Die Lesarten 2C (<2) und 3B (<3) sind auf Itazismus zurückzu-
führen und wurden wohl deshalb weiterüberliefert, weil es sich
um Entstellungen handelt, die in einem Brief kaum auffallen.
Auch bei Lesart 5 dürfte es sich um eine itazistische Schreibung
von tt\s Koivns* handeln; wegen der Endung -tis* darf man vermu-
ten, daß eine Lesart mit Cwffc am Ende zugrundeliegt.
Hinsichtlich des Kontextes ist zweifellos die Mehrheitslesart
Lectio difficilior: die (möglicherweise spontane) Ergänzung und
mehrheitliche Reproduktion von liegt entschieden näher als
die Auslassung. Möglicherweise liegt aber der Mehrheitslesart die
auch in der Neuzeit noch gelegentlich vertretene Auffassung zu-
grunde, der Autor sei durch die aktuelle Notwendigkeit einer
Ermahnung der Adressaten bei der Abfassung einer Schrift uept
t% kchaojnpta? unterbrochen worden291. In diesem Falle wäre
allerdings nicht nur f|p<3v sondern auch üpiv nach ypdcfieiv über-
flüssig. Daher ist unklar, warum das Personalpronomen in der
Mehrheitslesart ausfiel; daß es ausfiel, ist jedoch aus der überle-
genen Bezeugung der Lesarten mit fipüv oder updiv nach Koii/fj? zu
schließen, auch wenn innere und äußere Kriterien in verschiedene
Richtungen weisen.

Die Bezeugung der Mehrheitslesart beschränkt sich fast aus-
schließlich auf Koinehandschriften. 2B ist wegen der Koinebe-
zeugung eher als Subvariante zu Lesart 1, also als spontane Ergän-
zung des kontextgemäßen Personalpronomens zu erklären, nicht
als Umstellung aufgrund von Lesart 2.

Die Lesarten 3 und 3B sind Sondergut des Kerns der Gruppe Hk
(übrige Mitglieder, gestaffelt nach Entfernung von der Koine, bei 2
und 1). Die Bezeugung der Mischlesart 4 durch 01 erweist die
Lesarten 3 und 3B als alt.
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
The readings with the 2nd person of the personal pronoun (2C, 3B) would refer to the salvation or life that is generally promised to Christians (Koivf) acoTTipia or Cwi^), as a common good only to the addressee group and are therefore certainly itazist formations.

According to the readings with fipüi», salvation or life is common to us Christians, according to the majority reading this restriction also ceases to apply and salvation appears to be universally given. This turn of phrase hardly fits with the fact that the addressees in verse 1 were addressed as k\t|to( and now in verse 3 the subject of the letter, the call to fight for the duaf napa6o0claa -röis’ dYloi? rricm?, is placed in the context of the author's constant effort to proclaim to the same addressees the common salvation - of course the salvation common to us Christians. In reading 3, with Curns* instead of oo)Tnptas', community life or the common life of all Christians appears as the theme of this and earlier letters by the author. In relation to the present letter, this is certainly not inappropriate, as it is essentially about the truly Christian way of life and the correct behavior towards false teachers. It is therefore obvious to explain reading 3 as a clarification of reading 2. Finally, reading 5 is nonsense.

Readings 2C (<2) and 3B (<3) are due to itacism and were probably passed down because they are distortions that are hardly noticeable in a letter. Reading 5 is also likely to be an itacist spelling of tt\s Koivns*; because of the ending -tis*, one can assume that a reading with Cwffc at the end is the basis. With regard to the context, the majority reading is undoubtedly lectio difficilior: the (possibly spontaneous) addition and majority reproduction of is definitely closer than the omission. However, the majority reading may be based on the view, still occasionally held in modern times, that the author was interrupted by the current need to admonish the addressees when writing a document uept t% kchaojnpta?291. In this case, however, not only f|p<3v but also üpiv after ypdcfieiv would be superfluous. It is therefore unclear why the personal pronoun was omitted in the majority reading; that it was omitted can, however, be concluded from the superior attestation of the readings with fipüv or updiv after Koii/fj?, even if internal and external criteria point in different directions.
Send feedback

The attestation of the majority reading is almost exclusively limited to Koine manuscripts. Because of the Koine attestation, 2B is to be explained as a sub-variant of Reading 1, i.e. as a spontaneous addition to the contextual personal pronoun, not as a change due to Reading 2.

Readings 3 and 3B are special property of the core of the group Hk (other members, staggered according to distance from the Koine, at 2 and 1). The attestation of the mixed reading 4 by 01 proves that readings 3 and 3B are old.
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
Important thread, covers a lot, so moved to

Facebook - NT Textual Criticism - 2024 - Jude 1:3 conflations and Harklean Group
 
Last edited:

Maprchr

Administrator
Tommy Wasserman again on Jude 1:3 more recent than James Snapp TC-Alternate above.

"A few witnesses, including the nucleus HK group, replace σωτηρίας with ζωής (1505 1611 2138 S:HPh), whereas a few important MSS attest a conflation, τής κοινής ήμών σωτηρίας και ζωής (01 (א) 044 2627Ζ). The attestation of ζωής by 01 (א) shows that the substitution is early. Sakae Kubo suggests that a scribe made the change “because σωτηρία did not cover the things which the scribe wrote" (A textual commentary on P72 at p.226)"
1505 - XII Lavra Athos
1611 - X Lavra Athos
2138 - not listed in NA 28 table
 

Maprchr

Administrator
● In Jude verse 3, there is a contest, mainly between κοινῆς σωτηρίας (favored by a majority of manuscripts) and κοινῆς ἡμῶν σωτηρίας. Although the latter was adopted in Nestle-Aland (and by Tregelles and Souter – but not by Scholz,), it is not easy to discern why any scribe whose exemplar had the longer reading here would omit ἡμῶν. The sentence is easier to understand with ἡμῶν included – which is a point in favor of the shorter reading.

... Κοινῆς ἡμῶν σωτηρίας has the support of P72, Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, 1739, 2200 et al; κοινῆς σωτηρίας is supported by 018 020 025 049 and hundreds of minuscules, but
what does א‎ say? Something very different: κοινῆς ἡμῶν σωτηρίας και ζωης – that is, “our common salvation and life.” (This reading also turns up in 044!)
And nestled in the text of some members of the cluster of manuscripts known as the Harklean Group (a.k.a. family 2138 –

These dates come from NA 28 Table

MSS 206
429 - XIV
522 -
614
630 - XII-XIII
1292 -
1505 - XII Lavra Athos
1611 - X
1799 - X Lavra Athos
1890
2138
2200 - XVI
2412 -
2495 - XV - St Katherines
especially 2138 -
are the readings κοινῆς ἡμῶν ζωης (1611 2138)
κοινῆς υμῶν ζωης (1505 2495).
Putting א‎’s reading alongside the others, it looks very, very much like a conflation of the readings in B and in family 2138.

I
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
UNDERLINED LIFE IN YELLOW

but there is an undefined abbreviation in there
will have to chase it down
let me check א might give me the answer

044 - Ψ
Codex Athous Lavrensis

https://manuscripts.csntm.org/manus...t6EGBTR3ww9Q0Y41p6SHOXp-DNzVUddRuSJMH_N1Zk15k

abbreviation of salvation
so reads same as א
except aleph spells it out


=======================================

question to be asked. Why is the reading missing for 600 years? (from 375 til the 10th century
how many read "salvation and life"
especially since there would be some indication that Aleph was used as an exemplar when that is dismissed by almost everyone of note
 

Attachments

  • 1718711194250.png
    1718711194250.png
    324.5 KB · Views: 36
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Why Codex Sinaiticus Doesn't Say What Its Website Says It Says
Tuesday, August 9, 2016
https://www.thetextofthegospels.com/2016/08/why-codex-sinaiticus-doesnt-say-what.html




● Jude verse 3a: Beloved, giving all diligence to write to you concerning this common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you.”
The actual reading of Codex Sinaiticus is different: instead of referring only to salvation, the text of Codex Sinaiticus refers to “our common salvation and life.” This is a remarkable reading, because it is a conflation, or combination, of two other readings: σωτηρίας (salvation, the reading found in most manuscripts) and ζωης (life, the reading found in a group of medieval manuscripts known as family 2138, also called the Harklean Group because the text in these manuscripts frequently agrees with the Harklean Syriac version). Although the Greek manuscripts in this group are not particularly ancient, the reading of Codex Sinaiticus in this verse suggests that ancestor-manuscripts with a text of the General Epistles similar to what is attested by the members of family 2138 – minuscule manuscripts such as 1505, 1611, 2138, and 2412 – existed prior to the production of Codex Sinaiticus.

As you can see, as a representation of the contents of Codex Sinaiticus, the translation made by H. T. Anderson is highly inaccurate. If the Codex Sinaiticus website is going to continue using Anderson’s translation, its creators should take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that visitors cannot use Anderson’s translation without being informed that it is provided for navigation-purposes only and that it deviates frequently from the actual text of the manuscript. There is no good reason to hide this important explanation on a secondary webpage. (Another option, of course, is to adjust the translation so as to accurately conform to the contents of the manuscript.)
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Scott May 30, 2023 at 2:13 pm
https://trinities.org/blog/jude-5-did-jesus-deliver-the-people-out-of-egypt/

likely ... Scott Williams, Professor at Asheville NC, PhD Oxford

Further the text of Codex Sinaiticus in Jude seems to have been produced via a comparison of multiple manuscripts. That is apparent from verse 3, where almost all manuscripts and versions read “our common salvation,” 1505, 1611, Syriac and Ethiopic read “our common life,” and Sinaiticus and Athous Laurae read “our common salvation and life,” a conflation.

Academia.edu
https://unca.academia.edu/ScottWilliams

UNC Asheville
https://www.unca.edu/person/scott-williams-ph-d/

LinkedIn
 
Last edited:
Top