Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Gal 5:13 has D making what Carlson considers an error:

μόνον μὴ τὴν ἐλευθερίαν εἰς ἀφορμὴν τῇ σαρκί, ἀλλὰ διὰ τῆς ἀγάπης τῇ ἀγάπῃ τοῦ πνεύματος δουλεύετε ἀλλήλοις.

τῇ ἀγάπῃ τοῦ πνεύματος D F G (d b per caritatem spiritus)
διὰ τῆς ἀγάπης P46 B, 01 33, A C 1241S, 1739 Ψ Chrys pesh hark 1611 Byz

You can see the "error" in D here:

Line 8 up from the bottom reads: εἰς ἀφορμὴν τῇ σαρκί
Line 7 up from the bottom reads: ἀλλὰ τῇ ἀγάπῃ τοῦ πνε
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b ... /f544.item

Carlson comments: This Western form of the text, “by the love of the spirit,” is striking. The only other occurrence of “the love of the Spirit” in Paul’s letters is Rom 15:30 Παρακαλῶ δὲ ὑμᾶς, ἀδελφοί, διὰ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ διὰ τῆς ἀγάπης τοῦ πνεύματος, where the Romans were encouraged to pray on Paul’s behalf as he goes to Jerusalem. In this case, the immediately preceding mention of the flesh (τῇ σαρκί) and the subsequent contrast of the spirit and the flesh in vv.16-26 appears to have induced a scribe to introduce an explicit reference to the spirit.

On the opposite page, the Latin d, parallel text is similar:

Line 7 up reads: sed per caritatem spir
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b ... /f545.item

gryan wrote: ↑Wed Jun 21, 2023 9:05 am Gal 3:3 Nestle-Aland and Carlson
οὕτως ἀνόητοί ἐστε, ἐναρξάμενοι πνεύματι νῦν σαρκὶ ἐπιτελεῖσθε...

Var. Western branch Eastern branch EDS.
ἐπιτελεῖσθε d b ×vg P46 B A C 1739 Ψ Chrys 1611 Byz
ἐπιτελεῖσθαι D* F G 01 33 ×1175 1241S
? Marc

D* originally read ἐπιτελεῖσθαι, but the αι is marked over with the letter ε, thus conforming to the Eastern Text.

line 14: νῦν σαρκὶ ἐπιτελεῖσθαιε
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b ... .item.zoom

The Vulgate of Gal 3:3 has these words:
sic stulti estis, ut cum Spiritu cœperitis,
nunc carne consummemini

By contrast, d has some differences. I'm particularly interested in this:

line 7 up from the bottom: nunc carne perf_cil__n
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b ... .item.zoom

this seems to be a translation of the Greek with a form of the Latin word perficere (to perfect, to complete)

Cf Phil. 1:4
Confidens hoc ipsum, quia qui cœpit in vobis opus bonum,
perficiet usque in diem Christi Jesu :

I wonder what that word or form of the word is.

Gal 4:13 Carlson sees error in D*, but agrees with the correction of D.

οἴδατε δὲ ὅτι δι’ ἀσθένειαν τῆς σαρκὸς εὐηγγελισάμην ὑμῖν τὸ πρότερον,
− D* F G d b

δέ ×vg; P46 B, 01 33, A C 1241S, 1739 Ψ Chrys pesh hark 1611 Byz50

Carlson comments: Like the omission in Gal 3:16, the asyndeton created by the omission of δέ creates a closer connection to the preceding verse.

Five lines up from the bottom: οἴδατε [de] ὅτι δι’ ἀσθένειαν
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b ... /f530.item

Five lines up, the latin also lacks a trans of "de": Scitis quid...
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b ... /f531.item

Gal 2:19-20
ἐγὼ γὰρ διὰ νόμου νόμῳ ἀπέθανον, ἵνα θεῷ ζήσω. Χριστῷ
συνεσταύρωμαι · ζῶ δὲ οὐκέτι ἐγώ, ζῇ δὲ ἐν ἐμοὶ Χριστός · ὃ δὲ νῦν
ζῶ ἐν σαρκί, ἐν πίστει ζῶ τῇ τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ Χριστοῦ τοῦ ἀγαπήσαντός με
καὶ παραδόντος ἑαυτὸν ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ.

Var. Western branch Eastern branch EDS.
τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ Χριστοῦ D* F G d P46 B
τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ ×vg 01 33 A C 1241S 1739 Ψ Chrys 1611 Byz

six up from the bottom: ἐν πίστει ζῶ τῇ τοῦ υ-ῦ τοῦ θ-ῦ
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b ... .item.zoom

critics discern the hand of a corrector writing in υ-ῦ τοῦ θ-ῦ in the place that originally read something like this: θ-ῦ καὶ Χ-ῦ

In support of this critical claim that "God and Christ" was original, on the opposite page, the Latin d reads "God and Christ".

six up from the bottom: in fide vivo...
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b ... .item.zoom

gryan wrote: ↑Wed Jun 21, 2023 8:42 am As in the Vulgate, the Old Latin, d, mistranslated the Greek the part of Gal 1:16 which reads εὐθέως οὐ προσανεθέμην (Immediately I did not consult):

Here is the Greek, D:
line 2: εὐθέως οὐ προσανεθέμην
line 3: σαρκὶ καὶ αἵματι
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b ... .item.zoom


Here is the Old Latin, d:
line 2: continuo non acquievi (Immediately I gave no rest)
line 3: carni et sanguini (to flesh and blood)
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b ... .item.zoom

Scrolling down from
line 3: σαρκὶ καὶ αἵματι
To line 4: οὐδὲ ἀπῆλθον εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα
line 5: πρὸς τοὺς πρὸ ἐμοῦ ἀποστόλους
line 6: ἀλλὰ ἀπῆλθον εἰς Ἀραβίαν
line 7: καὶ πάλιν ὑπέστρεψα
line 8: εἰς Δαμασκόν
line 9: Ἔπειτα μετὰ ἔτη τρία
line 10: ἀνῆλθον εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b ... /f498.item

Gal 1:17 , Carlson's critical text
οὐδὲ ἀπῆλθον εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα πρὸς τοὺς πρὸ ἐμοῦ ἀποστόλους, ἀλλὰ
ἀπῆλθον εἰς Ἀραβίαν καὶ πάλιν ὑπέστρεψα εἰς Δαμασκόν. 18 Ἔπειτα
μετὰ ἔτη τρία ἀνῆλθον εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα …

Var. Western branch Eastern branch EDS.
ἀπῆλθον D F G B SCC BW TM
ἦλθον (d b ×vg veni) P46
ἀνῆλθον 01 33 A C P 1241S 1739 Ψ Chrys 1611 Byz

Against Nestle-Aland, Carlson prefers the Western reading, ἀπῆλθον εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα (“leave for Jerusalem”). He comments:

"The reading ἀνῆλθον enjoys the support of the Eastern branch plus 01 and 33, but the reading ἀπῆλθον is also ancient, being supported by B and the Greek-Latin diglots D, F, and G. The oldest witness, P46, has another reading ἦλθον due to the scribe’s tendency to simplify prefixed words, so either ἀνῆλθον or ἀπῆλθον could have stood in P46’s exemplar. Thus, resolution of this variation unit requires
an examination of the internal evidence.

The meanings of the verb phrases ἀπῆλθον εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα (“leave for Jerusalem”) and ἀνῆλθον εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα (“went up to Jerusalem”) are almost the same, but the emphases are different. On the one hand, ἀνῆλθον with its prefix ἀνα- (“up”) is commonly used for the hilltop city of Jerusalem (e.g. 2:1 ἀνέβην εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα). On the other hand, ἀπῆλθον keeps the topic of Damascus in mind (“nor did I leave [Damascus] for Jerusalem”), minimizing the importance of Jerusalem and consequently that of the Jerusalem apostles."

On the opposite page, the Latin d text reads veni which,
according to Carlson, corresponds to ἦλθον
[ἦλθον (d b ×vg veni) P46]
The Latin d reads something like
line 4: neque veni Jerosolymama
line 5: ad antecessores meos Apostolos
line 6: sed abii in Arab...
line 7: et iterum reversus sum Damasco
line 8: deinde post annos tres
line 9: veni Jeros...
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b ... /f499.item

"Veni" is the first-person singular form of the Latin verb "venire," which means "to come." It indicates the action of coming or arriving at a specific place. In the passage, when it says "neque veni Jerosolymam," it means "nor did I come to Jerusalem." It suggests that the speaker did not travel to Jerusalem during that particular time.

"Abii" is the first-person singular form of the Latin verb "abire," which means "to go away" or "to depart." It implies moving away from a location or leaving a place. In the passage, when it says "sed abii in Arabiam," it means "but I went away to Arabia." It indicates that the speaker departed from their current location and traveled to Arabia.

So, "veni" refers to the act of coming or arriving at a place, while "abii" refers to the act of going away or departing from a place.

RE: line 7: et iterum reversus sum Damasco

"Et" means "and" in Latin and is a conjunction used to connect phrases or clauses.

"Iterum" means "again" or "a second time." It signifies that the speaker returned to Damascus for a subsequent visit or after being away.

"Reversus sum" is the first-person singular form of the Latin verb "revertere," which means "to return." The addition of "sum" indicates that the action is in the past and that the speaker is the subject. So, "reversus sum" translates to "I returned."

"Damasco" refers to Damascus, a city in Syria. It is the location to which the speaker returned.

--------

Re: "nor did I leave [Damascus] for Jerusalem”

Unlike Carlson (and scholarly consensus), I do not assume that Damascus was the place Paul left from. My exegetical thesis is that he left from an unspecified location where his initial revelation occurred. He left from there, not to Jerusalem, but to Arabia and, specifically, Damascus, a city which was in some sense in the region of Arabia. He "returned back" in the sense that he had been living in Damascus when he first started pursuing the assembly with intent to destroy it.

The Acts narrative does not contradict this profile: Paul's place of revelation was an unspecified place (on the road) from which he departed immediately, not to Jerusalem, but to Damascus.

Given the emphasis on leaving from rather than going toward, the repetition of ἀπῆλθον in Carlson's critical text, imho, subtly supports my exegetical thesis. Paul was leaving from an unspecified location of intense personal crisis and revelation. The first place he went to was Damascus, and then three years later, he went to Jerusalem.

Thus, my translation:

-I departed to Jerusalem... [not immediately]
-I departed to Arabia [immediately] and returned back to Damascus [immediately].

Gal 2:1
ἔπειτα διὰ δεκατεσσάρων ἐτῶν πάλιν ἀνέβην πάλιν εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα μετὰ Βαρναβᾶ
ἀνέβην πάλιν D F G d b
πάλιν ἀνέβην ×vg; P46 B, 01 33, A C P 1241S, 1739 Ψ (pesh) hark 1611 Byz

See line 2 after the Chap 2 heading:
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b ... /f500.item

Carlson commented: "This transposition could be the result a corrected leap, from the nu of ἐτῶν to the nu of πάλιν, but the movement of the adverb πάλιν to a post-verbal position has the effect of deemphasizing it. [Stephen H. Levinsohn, Discourse Features “Any emphasis on an element in the sentence causes that element in the sentence to be moved forward.”]

Berean Literal Bible
Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, having taken with me Titus also.

When examining this passage from the writer's perspective in Acts, I can't help but wonder if the wording suggests that Barnabas was with Paul during his previous visit to Jerusalem.

Acts 9:26-27
When Saul arrived in Jerusalem, he tried to join the disciples, but they were all afraid of him, not believing that he was a disciple. Then Barnabas brought him to the apostles...