More than once a great number of different readings of the same text can be found. If one wants to find the authentic text, one should look according to Griesbach for the reading 'e qua caeterarum ortus facillime ex plicetur', the reading that easily explains the rise of the others. However, textual criticism involves more than simply determ ining the original text. It also entails seeing how that text came to be modified over time. In addition, one may think of the efforts of Amphoux who distinguishes several 'editions' of the gospels before the text of the great uncials of the fourth century. In this study I will expose my method and illustrate my way of handling textual variants by five texts from the first chapter of the gospel of Mark. The Bezan Codex D.05 is evidently an important witness for this gospel.
While traditionally grammarians have understood the Greek verbal system as grammaticalizing time and/or Aktionsart, there is growing acknowledgment that the Greek verbal system is fundamentally aspectual. There is also increasing recognition that verbal aspect can function to provide the author with the subjective choice to define discourse prominence within any given context. Much of the scholarship done on the subject of verbal aspect with regard to discourse prominence has been done at a theoretical level leaving the majority of the New Testament open for the application of the theory. It is the purpose of this study to apply the results of verbal aspect theory articulated by Stanley E. Porter to the pericope found in Matthew 20,1-16 in order to test the viability of aspect functioning to indicate prominence.
In a contaminated manuscript tradition there is no such thing as a 'good' manuscript or a 'good' group of manuscripts. The right reading may be found anywhere in this tradition, even in the smallest parts. There is no other means of deciding between different readings than the tools of philology, and every variant of the text must be considered as a unique case. This will be demonstrated in 33 variants of the text of Matthew's Gospel.
On the basis of observations to the syntactical structure and the literary style of Mk 1:1-15 as well as to the literary genre of the Markan Gospel, this paper questions those concepts of subdividing Mk 1 according to which Mk 1:1-13/15 is classified as a 'Markan prologue'. It is argued instead, that already Mk 1:4 opens up the Gospel narration and that only Mk 1:1-3 has to be regarded as a literary unity: Mk 1:1-3, however, is in no case part of a 'Markan prologue' or a 'prologue' in itself. These verses are rather more to be understood as a prooemium to the overall prose-text of the Gospel narrative, consisting of a 'Buchüberschrift'/title (1:1) and an opening introductory close (1:2-3).
Acts 14:1-27 continues the story of the mission of Paul and Barnabas among the Gentiles, illustrating what happened when they had decided to turn from the Jews (cf. 13.46-47) to devote their attention to the Gentiles. Following an account of Paul's initial struggle with this decision, brought out more clearly in Codex Bezae, Luke describes the mitigated success of his first deliberate attempts to talk with the Gentiles about the gospel. The establishment of the first churches as a result of the missionary work of Paul and Barnabas is described as the passage concludes by bringing the missionaries back to Antioch of Syria, where Luke is careful to maintain the focus on the Gentiles.
There is 'consensus' that the composed words epigignoskein / epignosis would be synonymous with the simple gignosko / gnosis in the sense of 'to know'. But the preposition epi always indicates a special connotation, e.g. 'clear, fully or 'additional knowledge'. In the three cases in which it appears in Rom, the sense is the following: in Rom 1,28 underlines, after what has been said in Rom 1,18-27, that there is a clear natural knowledge of God and therefore also knowledge of good and evil. Rom 3,20 says that God gave by the Law an additional knowledge of sin. Finally Rom 10,2 says that the Jews have religious zeal, but not in the sense of that additional knowledge that is now given in Christ. So Paul does not say they would have no knowledge at all, but only that they have not got this specific additional knowledge (German: Zu-Erkenntnis)1.
According to a certain lexicographical consensus the phrase oi ek peritomes is interpreted either as meaning Jewish Christians or simply Jews. A closer observation of the verses shows that in all cases oi ek peritomes means 'circumcised people,' 'Jews'. When New Testament authors refer to Christian Jews it is always indicated by special reference markers in the context. The same is the case in Gal 2:12. While the meaning of oi ek peritomes is Jews, the reference demanded by the context are James-people as Christian Jews. Moreover, Paul used this particular phrase because of its special semantic extension. In the Pauline corpus constructions with oi ek … either mean the social or ethnic origins of a person or a basic theological orientation. The latter meaning fits best in Gal 2:12 because the following context shows a strong contrast between oi ek pisteos and osoi ... ex ergon nomou and its synonym oi ek peritomes. Therefore oi ek peritomes in Gal 2:12 means Jews, refers to the James-people and characterises them as zealous observers of Torah.