Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm sure this is James Ussher, primate (!) of Ireland at the time if the UK civil war. The one who dated the creation to 4004 BC. Apparently he is quoting Pope (or Bishop) Peter of Alexandria who was Pope of Alexandria (300–311). I have been unable to find out why Peter thought that John meant the third hour when the generality of texts say the sixth hour. It could be that it said so in whatever Gospels he was using.
It might be useful to track down what Ussher actually wrote. If he was making a point of reconciling the discrepancy, that might shed some light on the matter.
If it demonstrable that the earliest texts (Sinaiticus seems to) write 'sixth hour' in full, then the misread numeral is valid in that one example but the sixth hour is the general term in all the early texts. Eusebius is very welcome to provide a counter, but it seems that the misread numeral is trumped by the Codex Sinaiticus.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 02-08-2011 at 12:17 PM..
I imagine this is getting a bit boring as I am having to use circumstantial evidence because I have only been able to get access to a translation of the Sinai codex re. John 19.
This chap argues that the anwer is different ways of reckoning times of day
I don't know what he bases that on but obviously I shall have to look. When I checked some time last year the Roman and Jewish reckoning seemed to match. This website may hint that he is supposing this because he says the Jewish timing was not set in stone until the 18th century, which implies that he is giving himself wiggle - room.
"Adam Clarke argues for the textual corruption - The sixth hour - Mark says, Mark 15:25, that it was the third hour.the third, is the reading of DL, four others, the Chron. Alex., Seuerus Antiochen., Ammonius, with others mentioned by Theophylact. Nonnus, who wrote in the fifth century, reads the third. As in ancient times all the numbers were written in the manuscripts not at large but in numeral letters, it was easy for three, to be mistaken for six. .. The major part of the best critics think that the third, is the genuine reading.”
(but...)
"Among the Bible translations that correctly leave the Greek texts intact with no interpretation, but merely read “and about the sixth hour” are Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale, the Bishops’ bible, the Geneva Bible, the RV, ASV, NKJV, NASB, NIV, RSV, Darby, Youngs, Green, Hebrew Names Version, and the Third Millenium Bible.
However several recent modern paraphrases have come out which INTERPRET what they think it means and they end up contradicting not only the rest of Scripture but each other. Here are some of them."
This site slyly notes that some translations evade the issue by giving what they think is the (correct) moderm time (6 am.)
"But there are several fatal problems with this solution. First, there is no evidence whatever that the Romans counted their daytime hours any differently than did the Jews."
That's what I though. We cannot wriggle out of it that way. It really does seem (using the 300 AD Sinai codex) that John does place the trial at the sixth hour (Roman or Jewish) and the synoptics make the later crucifixion at the 3rd hour.
I'm sure this is James Ussher, primate (!) of Ireland at the time if the UK civil war. The one who dated the creation to 4004 BC. Apparently he is quoting Pope (or Bishop) Peter of Alexandria who was Pope of Alexandria (300–311). I have been unable to find out why Peter thought that John meant the third hour when the generality of texts say the sixth hour. It could be that it said so in whatever Gospels he was using.
It might be useful to track down what Ussher actually wrote. If he was making a point of reconciling the discrepancy, that might shed some light on the matter.
If it demonstrable that the earliest texts (Sinaiticus seems to) write 'sixth hour' in full, then the misread numeral is valid in that one example but the sixth hour is the general term in all the early texts. Eusebius is very welcome to provide a counter, but it seems that the misread numeral is trumped by the Codex Sinaiticus.
RESPONSE:
Is he really quoting Peter of Alexander or merely attributing something to him?
I have no doubt that Eusebius will come up with something, probably a "commentary"
>>a.w. if every translation other than the Concordant Literal New Testament translated John 19:14 so as to contradict Mark's account, then, well, of course they are wrong and the CLNT is the only one correct.
The Concordant Literal has these accounts thus:
John 19:14 Now it was the preparation of the Passover; the hour was about the third. And he is saying to the Jews, "Lo! your king!"
Mark 15:25 Now it was the third hour, and they crucify Him."
No contradiction.<<
RESPONSE:
The Codex Sinaiticus is the oldest extant complete New Testament. It dates from 325 AD and is written in Greek. Bothe the original Greek and a translation from the original Greek are available on the web.
You can see the actual text. If you go to the right side you will see the "Transcription" box. Go down to "14" and note the Greek word in blue "εκτη" which shows there is an editors correction for that word. Click on that word and it will pop up the editor's correction of "ca: triteh" for "third."
You can see the actual text. If you go to the right side you will see the "Transcription" box. Go down to "14" and note the Greek word in blue "εκτη" which shows there is an editors correction for that word. Click on that word and it will pop up the editor's correction of "ca: triteh" for "third."
So it does, but so far as I can see what is in the codex is the word 'ekte' (sixth). 'Trite' is a gloss. A correction by the person doing the translation.
What I would like to know is, what (apart from a need to reconcile John with Mark) is the reason or validation for the editorial gloss? The Vaticanus is going online but is not available. I cannot find the Codex Alexandrinus anywhere. Nor can I track down translations (or facsimiles, which I could read) of the Bodmer papyrus or early papyrus fragments of John 19.14. Those would certainly settle the matter one way or the other.
I imagine this is getting a bit boring as I am having to use circumstantial evidence because I have only been able to get access to a translation of the Sinai codex re. John 19.
This chap argues that the anwer is different ways of reckoning times of day
I don't know what he bases that on but obviously I shall have to look. When I checked some time last year the Roman and Jewish reckoning seemed to match. This website may hint that he is supposing this because he says the Jewish timing was not set in stone until the 18th century, which implies that he is giving himself wiggle - room.
"Adam Clarke argues for the textual corruption - The sixth hour - Mark says, Mark 15:25, that it was the third hour.the third, is the reading of DL, four others, the Chron. Alex., Seuerus Antiochen., Ammonius, with others mentioned by Theophylact. Nonnus, who wrote in the fifth century, reads the third. As in ancient times all the numbers were written in the manuscripts not at large but in numeral letters, it was easy for three, to be mistaken for six. .. The major part of the best critics think that the third, is the genuine reading.”
(but...)
"Among the Bible translations that correctly leave the Greek texts intact with no interpretation, but merely read “and about the sixth hour” are Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale, the Bishops’ bible, the Geneva Bible, the RV, ASV, NKJV, NASB, NIV, RSV, Darby, Youngs, Green, Hebrew Names Version, and the Third Millenium Bible.
However several recent modern paraphrases have come out which INTERPRET what they think it means and they end up contradicting not only the rest of Scripture but each other. Here are some of them."
This site slyly notes that some translations evade the issue by giving what they think is the (correct) moderm time (6 am.)
"But there are several fatal problems with this solution. First, there is no evidence whatever that the Romans counted their daytime hours any differently than did the Jews."
That's what I though. We cannot wriggle out of it that way. It really does seem (using the 300 AD Sinai codex) that John does place the trial at the sixth hour (Roman or Jewish) and the synoptics make the later crucifixion at the 3rd hour.
RESPONSE:
Yes. The Sinaticus is probably as close as we can get to the originals of Mark 15:45 and John 19:14.
Unfortunately, later interpolators tried to remove contradictions and even adjust scripture to support their beliefs.
In doing so, they make the scriptures progressively less reliable historically.
You can see the actual text. If you go to the right side you will see the "Transcription" box. Go down to "14" and note the Greek word in blue "εκτη" which shows there is an editors correction for that word. Click on that word and it will pop up the editor's correction of "ca: triteh" for "third."
RESPONSE:
Thank you for admitting that a transcriber (not the original writer) changed the "sixth hour" to the "third hour.'
However, it would also be useful know when this occurred.
I had spent some time last night checking translations.
The usual one is hora en os ekta (hour was about sixth)
But some greek texts, including Sinaiticus, have hora de odei ekta. (hour now 'odei'..I suppose that is related to 'odeia 'procession', so implying 'proceeding towards)' sixth.
In both versions the sense is the same - getting towards the sixth hour.
So it does, but so far as I can see what is in the codex is the word 'ekte' (sixth). 'Trite' is a gloss. A correction by the person doing the translation.
What I would like to know is, what (apart from a need to reconcile John with Mark) is the reason or validation for the editorial gloss? The Vaticanus is going online but is not available. I cannot find the Codex Alexandrinus anywhere. Nor can I track down translations (or facsimiles, which I could read) of the Bodmer papyrus or early papyrus fragments of John 19.14. Those would certainly settle the matter one way or the other.
RESPONSE:
I haven't tried this, but I wonder if one wrote to the present owners (or holders) of the ancient fragments if they would provide a translation???
(I guess I'd have to write Pope Benedict [or more realistically the Vatican Archieves] for Codex Vaticanicus material)
On the other hand, maybe I'll panic my librarian by requesting the original on inter-library loan.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
