Conflicting results -?

Page 1 of 1 (3 items)
This post has 2 Replies | 0 Followers

Posts 1649
Room4more | Forum Activity | Posted: Tue, Feb 28 2012 10:19 PM

For those more learned than myself, I feel like I am getting conflicting results here:

Search ALL BIBLE TEXT in MARK in ALL BIBLES [you can narrow the search by choosing a specific Bible]

Using:

(1)[<g2117>]: <lemma = lbs/el/εθύς>, <lemma = lls/el/εθύς>, <lemma = fe/el/εθύς>, <lemma = mr/el/εθύς>, <lemma = js/el/εθύς> [view the results]

-and-

(2)[<g2112>]: <lemma = lbs/el/εθέως>, <lemma = lls/el/εθέως>, <lemma = fe/el/εθέως>, <lemma = mr/el/εθέως>, <lemma = js/el/εθέως> [view the results]

Now (1) is the lemma[ROOT] and (2) is a COGNATE {LGRCANLEX, and others, both report under forms of- B(2)/(1) and B(33)/(50)}, the verse list according to LN 67.53 matches (1) but apparently not (2). Since the definition of both are congruent, why are the result seemingly conflicting?

Did I miss something?

DISCLAIMER: What you do on YOUR computer is your doing.

Posts 15805
Forum MVP
Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :) | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Feb 28 2012 11:10 PM

Using Logos Greek Morphology (lbs), noticed some resources do not have <lemma = lbs/el/εθέως> in Mark 7.35

      7:35      καὶ [εὐθέως] {C}

Mark’s fondness for εὐθύς (which sometimes appears as εὐθέως in various manuscripts) makes it probable that the adverb was employed either here or before ἐλύθη. The external support, however, for εὐθύς before ἐλύθη is extremely weak, whereas it is relatively strong for including εὐθέως here. At the same time, the combination of witnesses that lack εὐθέως (א B D L Δ al) is so impressive that a majority of the Committee considered it advisable to enclose εὐθέως within square brackets.

Metzger, B. M., & United Bible Societies. (1994). A textual commentary on the Greek New Testament, second edition a companion volume to the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament (4th rev. ed.) (82–83). London; New York: United Bible Societies.

- - - - - - -

Edit: added Lexham Analytical Lexicon to the Greek New Testament entries:

Bible Grid search shows variance between families of Greek New Testament text:

Looking at Bible Grid Search results, wonder about Lexham Analytical Lexicon to the Greek New Testament missing some verse reference(s) ? (e.g. Mk 1:23, 1:28, 1:29, 7:35)

Keep Smiling Smile

Posts 1649
Room4more | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Feb 29 2012 6:28 AM

Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :):

Using Logos Greek Morphology (lbs), noticed some resources do not have <lemma = lbs/el/εθέως> in Mark 7.35

      7:35      καὶ [εὐθέως] {C}

Mark’s fondness for εὐθύς (which sometimes appears as εὐθέως in various manuscripts) makes it probable that the adverb was employed either here or before ἐλύθη. The external support, however, for εὐθύς before ἐλύθη is extremely weak, whereas it is relatively strong for including εὐθέως here. At the same time, the combination of witnesses that lack εὐθέως (א B D L Δ al) is so impressive that a majority of the Committee considered it advisable to enclose εὐθέως within square brackets.-Metzger

Looking at Bible Grid Search results, wonder about Lexham Analytical Lexicon to the Greek New Testament missing some verse reference(s) ? (e.g. Mk 1:23, 1:28, 1:29, 7:35)

Keep Smiling Smile

Correct. I was wondering the same here. Should the verbage be that it could/would be considerably interchangeable, especially in the writings of Mark, then would it not be applicable to have the same verse list?

I did the same as you and after going through the data reported, I was left wondering if I had missed something.

Reading some of the outlines given for Mark[L4 and other software], most are fluent in stating the keyword: Immediately thus supplying the root(1) whilst others quote the cognate(2). Further study would show that many manuscripts give one or the other in the original form, thus making a final determination questionable.

Going thru the report , you will notice some GNT's have the results reversed, giving (1)LESS and (2)MORE. Thus creating a higher percentage for confusion: So the question changes to 'Where did they get their information and at what point did they decide to switch? Was there some form of a bias present in the translational writings on behalf of the Author(s)?

[[EDIT: Doing an EGuide of 7.35 and looking at the Apparatuses, we can see manuscripts cited.]]

DISCLAIMER: What you do on YOUR computer is your doing.

Page 1 of 1 (3 items) | RSS