Mark 16:4

[] MK 16:4 Stuart pinellaspt at verizon.net
Mon May 2 18:26:27 EDT 2005

[] Antiquities 18.64 [] MK 16:4 Greetings;I am currently interpreting Mark 16:4, and would appreciate any insight as to a discrepancy between texts. Westscott-Hort has “anakulio”, the stone was “rolled up”, but UBS and BYZ have “apokulio”, it was “rolled away”. Since, if it is the former, only Mark mentions this, it would bear on the exposition; I can find no textual commentary or information regarding WHO’s unique use, if anyone has such information, I would appreciate a response.Thank you in advance;Stuart WolfPastor-TeacherHope Bible Church

[] Antiquities 18.64[] MK 16:4

[] MK 16:4 William Warren wfwarren at aol.com
Mon May 2 20:46:36 EDT 2005

[] MK 16:4 [] Antiquities 18.64 Stuart, here is some textual info on the word in question (with the Greek in SPIonic, a free SBL Greek font):Mark 16:4-9 S 0 apokekulistai Œ A C E G Kc M S U Y ¶ ¹ ´ · 1 2 13 28 33 118 124 157 346 579 700 788 1424 1582 2358 ì1 ì13 TR c ff2 k q 1 E apokulistai K* 1 O apokekulustai 69 1 O apokekuliste 1071 R 2 anakekulistai B L W 9 lac. ¸45 F H N P Q a b e f iAs you can see (hopefully), B, L, and W have ANAKEKULISTE, while the others have various forms using APO. W-H chose to follow B here, while UBS and N-A follow the other mss. such as 01, A, C, D, E, G, Pi, Psi, Omega, and the overall Kappa Byz. tradition.paz,Bill WarrenDirector of the Center for New Testament Textual StudiesLandrum P. Leavell, II, Professor of New Testament and GreekNew Orleans Baptist Theological SeminaryOn May 2, 2005, at 5:26 PM, Stuart wrote:> Greetings;> I am currently interpreting Mark 16:4, and would appreciate any > insight as to a discrepancy between texts. Westscott-Hort has > “anakulio”, the stone was “rolled up”, but UBS and BYZ have > “apokulio”, it was “rolled away”. Since, if it is the former, only > Mark mentions this, it would bear on the exposition; I can find no > textual commentary or information regarding WHO’s unique use, if > anyone has such information, I would appreciate a response.> Thank you in advance;> Stuart Wolf> Pastor-Teacher> Hope Bible Church> —> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/

[] MK 16:4[] Antiquities 18.64

[] MK 16:4 Jim West jwest at highland.net
Mon May 2 20:28:48 EDT 2005

[] MK 16:4 [] MK 16:4 Perhaps the scribes of B and L assimilated the prefix to the prefix of the preceding word- anablepsasai. From a text critical standpoint apokekulistai is better attested. BestJimStuart wrote:> Greetings;> I am currently interpreting Mark 16:4, and would appreciate any > insight as to a discrepancy between texts. Westscott-Hort has > “anakulio”, the stone was “rolled up”, but UBS and BYZ have > “apokulio”, it was “rolled away”. Since, if it is the former, only > Mark mentions this, it would bear on the exposition; I can find no > textual commentary or information regarding WHO’s unique use, if > anyone has such information, I would appreciate a response.> Thank you in advance;> Stuart Wolf> Pastor-Teacher> Hope Bible Church> —> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/> — Jim WestBiblical Studies Resources – http://web.infoave.net/~jwestBiblical Theology Weblog – http://biblical-studies.blogspot.com

[] MK 16:4[] MK 16:4

[] Re: MK 16:4 Wieland Willker willker at chemie.uni-bremen.de
Tue May 3 03:22:40 EDT 2005

[] Antiquities 18.64 [] I Tim 3.16 :: Why “seen of Angels” Jim West wrote:> Perhaps the scribes of B and L assimilated the prefix to > the prefix of the preceding word- anablepsasai. OTOH it is possible that APOKEKULISTAI has been inspired from the parallels (Mt 28:2, Lk 24:2) or the previous verse 3 (so Weiss). > From a text critical standpoint apokekulistai is better > attested. a) 01, B, and L are THE leading witnesses in Mk (only Psi comes near). b) D, Theta, 565 harmonize with Lk, so cannot really be counted here fully. We are then left with 01, B, L against C, Delta, Psi, 892, 1342 plus the Byz text. In my online commentary I have rated it “indecisive”. Best wishes Wieland <><————————————————Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germanymailto:willker at chemie.uni-bremen.dehttp://www.uni-bremen.de/~wieTextcritical commentary: http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/index.html

[] Antiquities 18.64[] I Tim 3.16 :: Why “seen of Angels”

[] MK 16:4 Ben Crick ben.crick at argonet.co.uk
Tue May 3 18:10:44 EDT 2005

[] Word Studies [] OT: SPIonic and Windows XP (urgent help please) On Mon 2 May 2005 (18:26:27), pinellaspt at verizon.net wrote:> I am currently interpreting Mark 16:4, and would appreciate any insight> as to a discrepancy between texts. Westscott-Hort has “anakulio”, the> stone was “rolled up”, but UBS and BYZ have “apokulio”, it was “rolled> away”. Since, if it is the former, only Mark mentions this, it would > bear on the exposition; I can find no textual commentary or> information regarding WHO’s unique use, if anyone has such> information, I would appreciate a response. Dear Stuart, The only commentator accessible to me here that mentions ANAKULIEIN at Mark 16:4 is HB Swete in his /The Gospel According to Mark/ (Greek Text), Macmillan, London, 3rd Ed. 1920, page 396. “… The change from APOKULIEIN to the rarer and more difficult ANAKULIEIN is evidence for Mark’s care for accuracy in detail; the stone was not rolled right away, but rolled back so as to leave the opening free; cf Ev. Petr. [Gospel of Peter] 9 hO DE LIQOS … AF’ hEAUTOU KULISQEIS EPEXWRHSE PARA MEROS, KAI hO TAFOS HNOIGH. The Perf., as in 15:44, 47, adds to the vividness of the narrative: we hear the women exclaim ‘ANAKEKULISTAI — their TIS ‘APOKULISAI? has been answered, and their wish, idle as it had seemed, is realised. …”. HTH ERRWSQE Ben– Revd Ben Crick, BA CF ZFC Lu <ben.crick at NOSPAM.argonet.co.uk> 232 Canterbury Road, Birchington, Kent, CT7 9TD (UK)*Acorn RPC700, RO4.03+Kinetic Card, 126MB, 4.3GB HD, x32CDROM*Castle Iyonix X100, RO5.06, 600MHz XScale processor, 512MB DDR RAM, 114GB HD, CD-RW, etc. *Ethernet networking.

[] Word Studies[] OT: SPIonic and Windows XP (urgent help please)