I couldn't help notice the differences between Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, which remind me of those between Greek Thomas and its emendations. An example of Vaticanus versus Sinaiticus for this single column right here in this thread
Consult
https://outils.biblissima.fr/fr/eulexis ... k&dict=LSJ
Starting from the top, this concerns verbs
δο
ξαζων με · ον υ
μειϲ λεγεται · οτι
θϲ ϋμων εϲτιν ·
και ουκ εγνωκα
ται αυτον
V: pres ind mp 3rd sg : λέγεται
S: pres ind act 2nd pl : λέγετε
From the verb γιγνώσκω, the next one:
V: εγνωκαται - can't find that, but:
pres ind mp 3rd sg :
γιγνώσκεθ'
γιγνώσκεται
γινώσκεθ' (ionic)
γινώσκετ' (ionic)
γινώσκεται (ionic)
I know, not even close
S: perf ind act 2nd pl : ἐγνώκατε
John8:54 Ἀπεκρίθη (Answered) Ἰησοῦς (Jesus), “Ἐὰν (If) ἐγὼ (I) δοξάσω (glorify) ἐμαυτόν (Myself), ἡ (the) δόξα (glory) μου (of Me) οὐδέν (nothing) ἐστιν (is);
ἔστιν (it is) ὁ (the) Πατήρ (Father) μου (of Me) ὁ (-) δοξάζων (glorifying) με (Me), ὃν (of whom) ὑμεῖς (you) λέγετε (say) ὅτι (-), ‘Θεὸς (God) ἡμῶν (of us)d ἐστιν (He is).’ 55 καὶ (And) οὐκ (not) ἐγνώκατε (you have known) αὐτόν (Him), ἐγὼ (I) δὲ (however) οἶδα (know) αὐτόν (Him). κἂν (And if) εἴπω (I say) ὅτι (that) οὐκ (not) οἶδα (I know) αὐτόν (Him), ἔσομαι (I will be) ὅμοιος (like) ὑμῖν (you), ψεύστης (a liar). ἀλλὰ (But) οἶδα (I know) αὐτὸν (Him), καὶ (and) τὸν (the) λόγον (word) αὐτοῦ (of Him) τηρῶ (I keep). 56 Ἀβραὰμ (Abraham) ὁ (the) πατὴρ (father) ὑμῶν (of you) ἠγαλλιάσατο (rejoiced) ἵνα (in that) ἴδῃ (he should see) τὴν (-) ἡμέραν (day) τὴν (-) ἐμήν (My), καὶ (and) εἶδεν (he saw) καὶ (and) ἐχάρη (rejoiced).”
Note also that Sinaiticus has umwn, of-you, versus hmwn, of-us.
There's something intriguing going on here, and I'll wrap up for now with some from the Commentary (I'm on mobile as usual):
Logion 3
λέγει ι[ης ἐὰν] οἱ ἕλκοντες ⟨ὑ⟩μᾶς [εἴπωσιν ὑμῖν ἰδοὺ] ἡ βασιλεία ἐν οὐρα[νῷ ὑμᾶς φθήσεται] τὰ πετεινὰ τοῦ οὐρ[ανοῦ ἐὰν δ’ εἴπωσιν ὅ] τι ὑπό τὴν γήν ἐστ[ιν εἰσελεύσονται] οἱ ἰχθύες τῆς θαλά[σσης προφθάσαν] τες ὑμᾶς καὶ ἡ βα[σιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν] ἐντὸς ὑμῶν[ἐσ]τι [κἀκτός ἂν ἑαυτὸν] γνῷ ταύτην εὑρή[σει καὶ ὅτε ὑμεῖς] ἑαυτοὺς γνώσεσθ⟨ε⟩ [εἴσεσθε ὅτι υἱοί] ἐστε {ὑμεῖς} τοῦ πατρὸς τοῦ [ζῶντος εἰ δὲ μὴ] γνώσ⟨εσεσ⟩θε ἑαυτοὺς ἐν ̣ [τῇ πτωχείᾳ ἐστὲ] καὶ ὑμεῖς ἐστε ἡ πτ[ωχεία]
Note that the cheeky bastards even change hmeis to umeis while alleging that it's such a common mistake, but focus on the γνώσεσθ⟨ε⟩ and such: they emend everything everywhere and so does Gathercole and chums and there's not a single particular comment to anything. Most hilariously, DeConick and Plisch just transcribe the MS yet translate it as if it were amended...
From page 51-52:
The transcription of G & H is most interesting as they didn't have any knowledge of Thomas, and the ⟨corrections⟩ above are those of Gathercole, and again G & H falsify the transcription by having it say γνώσεσθε instead of what it really says, γνώσεσθαι, whereas Gathercole at least marks it as having emended it: once again, G & H correct a grammatical "error" without even as much as a note. They do comment on (and leave intact) the peculiarity that οἱ ἕλκοντες is followed by ἡμᾶς whereas (καὶ) ἡ βα[σιλεία is preceded by ὑμᾶς and ascribe that (page 16) to "the common confusion of ὑμεῖς and ἡμεῖς in papyri of that period" and it is highly likely that they refer solely to Christian manuscripts as I have never seen any confusion whatsoever in the Greek texts that I got served at Grammar School, and they would seem to generalise a highly specific feature that only occurs in Christian writings - but since they don't supply their argument with any examples or context, their statement would have to be interpreted as a general statement on all Greek writings "of that period", whichever that period may be, and it would mean (not merely imply) that Greek scribes didn't know the difference between 'us' and 'you (plural)'. In reality it is far more likely that G & H would like to wish that "seemingly inappropriate use" of 'you' versus 'us' and vice versa is caused by scribal errors so that contemporary "translators" are able to make the text wrong (yet befitting their personal agenda) where it is right, as for instance is the case in Justin Martyr's First Apology Chapter 16 (top third line on the left).
To continue with the remaining evidence of illiteracy, γνώσεσθε is a correct form of the 2nd person plural (middle voice future indicative) "you(PL) will know" whereas γνώσεσθαι is the infinitive (middle voice future infinitive) "will know" - none of the 222 occurrences of this verb in the NT are similar to the latter. Plisch transcribes it as the last form, seemingly blissfully unaware of it all, and starts with remarking (page 45) that the Greek "again contains some stronger deviations" and that "the text however is hardly more reliable" (schwerlich zuverlässiger) and it is ambivalent what he means with der Text, yet given the absence of any argument it is likely that he expresses a feeling rather than a fact. The last "emendation" by Gathercole is the only one attested by G & H, and it is the alleged omission of ⟨εσ⟩ in the word γνώσ⟨εσ⟩θε, and in all the logia from the Greek thus far the number of alleged scribal errors is higher than those in all of the Coptic. But that is not all, far from it.
It is very valuable that G & H translated these fragments without knowledge of Thomas, and even though they "fixed" the grammar, mostly using "silent emendation", they do for instance translate τὰ πετεινὰ with 'fowls' and it is a peculiar phrase, used among others by Herodotus (1.140) 'καὶ ὄφις καὶ τἆλλα ἑρπετὰ καὶ πετεινάπετεινά' where it says 'flying things' and he uses the exact same phrase in 2.123. G & H also comment on the peculiar use of the word οἱ ἕλκοντες (ἡμᾶς), 'the drawing (us), and it is entertaining to see that they do use the proper literal translation and stick to 'draw us' with the translation of the verb matching verbatim with that of the Coptic, and again it is evident that the Coptic makes very good sense (because the verb there is an intransitive one and accompanied by the proper preposition, as such meaning 'go before you') whereas the Greek doesn't do so at all, and G & H rightfully label it as 'the greatest crux of all' and 'difficult' (page 16).
The emended translation reads, in Gathercole's words:
3.1 Je[sus] said, ‘[If] those who drag us away [say to you, “Behold,] the kingdom is in heav[en]”, then the birds of hea[ven would precede you!
3.2 If they say th] at it is under the earth, then the fish of the se[a would precede] you and [enter it]!
3.3 But the kin[gdom of heaven] is inside you [and outside of you. 3.4 Whoever] knows [himself] will find it [and when you]
know yourselves, [you will know that] you are [sons] of the [living] Father.
3.5[But if you do not] know yourselves, [you are] in [poverty], and you are pover[ty].’
The original text says, in my words:
- Says Je[sus if] they dragging
us [should-tell you behold] the kingdom in heav[en you they-would-precede] the flying-things of-the hea[ven
- if however they-tell th-] at under the earth i[s they-will-enter] the fishes of-the se[a they-outrun] ning
- and the kin[gdom of-the heavens] inside you [ i]s [...
- if self] knows this-her [will-find and when you] yourselves
will-know(infinitive!) [??? that sons] are {you} of-the father of-the [living
- if however not]
you-have-known yourselves in [the poverty you-are] and you are the po[verty]
Cringing Greek is getting fixed behind our backs in front of our face, yet the differences between Vaticanus and Sinaiticus seem to be about something even different
To be continued
