Different Readings in Luke 1:5

[Theophilos78]

While doing a research on the Greek Majority text (known as the Byzantine text), I realized that the definite article preceding the word "Basileos" in Luke 1:5 was dropped/omitted in the Alexandrian text.

Ἐγένετο ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις Ἡρῴδου τοῦ βασιλέως τῆς Ἰουδαίας ἱερεύς τις ὀνόματι Ζαχαρίας ἐξ ἐφημερίας Ἀβιά, καὶ γυνὴ αὐτῷ ἐκ τῶν θυγατέρων Ἀαρών, καὶ τὸ ὄνομα αὐτῆς Ἐλισάβετ.

Ἐγένετο ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις Ἡρῴδου βασιλέως τῆς Ἰουδαίας ἱερεύς τις ὀνόματι Ζαχαρίας ἐξ ἐφημερίας Ἀβιά, καὶ γυνὴ αὐτῷ ἐκ τῶν θυγατέρων Ἀαρών, καὶ τὸ ὄνομα αὐτῆς Ἐλισάβετ.

People who are not familiar with the Greek alphabet can see the difference in Latin letters on this website: http://www.greeknewtestament.com/B42C001.htm

I wonder what caused this minor variance. Why does the definite article not occur in the Alexandrian text? Would its omission cause a difference in the meaning of the verse or constitute a grammatical mistake? Why is it preserved in the Byzantine majority text? Is the reason related to stylistics?

Thanks from now for your answers and help.

Peace,
Theophilos

[Theophilos78]

*BUMP* 

[witega]

I wonder what caused this minor variance.

It's almost certainly a simple scribal error. Scribe reads "ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις Ἡρῴδου τοῦ βασιλέως", writes "ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις Ἡρῴδου βασιλέως " without realizing he made an error. (or vice versa, he reads 'ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις Ἡρῴδου βασιλέως and inadvertently adds a τοῦ while he's at it). Later scribes only have access to the manuscript with the error and simply copy it as is.

That's the source of well over 95% of the differences between the various textual traditions.

[Kasatkin fan]

I'm curious why you bring up that error of all the scriptural variations? I'm by no means up on my Koine, but it seems to me the only difference between the two lines is one has better grammar, on par with saying "I bought a dog" vs. "I bought dog".

[ialmisry]

While doing a research on the Greek Majority text (known as the Byzantine text), I realized that the definite article preceding the word "Basileos" in Luke 1:5 was dropped/omitted in the Alexandrian text.

Ἐγένετο ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις Ἡρῴδου τοῦ βασιλέως τῆς Ἰουδαίας ἱερεύς τις ὀνόματι Ζαχαρίας ἐξ ἐφημερίας Ἀβιά, καὶ γυνὴ αὐτῷ ἐκ τῶν θυγατέρων Ἀαρών, καὶ τὸ ὄνομα αὐτῆς Ἐλισάβετ.

Ἐγένετο ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις Ἡρῴδου βασιλέως τῆς Ἰουδαίας ἱερεύς τις ὀνόματι Ζαχαρίας ἐξ ἐφημερίας Ἀβιά, καὶ γυνὴ αὐτῷ ἐκ τῶν θυγατέρων Ἀαρών, καὶ τὸ ὄνομα αὐτῆς Ἐλισάβετ.

People who are not familiar with the Greek alphabet can see the difference in Latin letters on this website: http://www.greeknewtestament.com/B42C001.htm

I wonder what caused this minor variance. Why does the definite article not occur in the Alexandrian text? Would its omission cause a difference in the meaning of the verse or constitute a grammatical mistake? Why is it preserved in the Byzantine majority text? Is the reason related to stylistics?

Thanks from now for your answers and help.

Peace,
Theophilos

the usage of the definite article had not completely solidified in Koine Greek as it would later (and in Modern Greek).

[Theophilos78]

Thank u all for your interest and help.   

As I guessed, it is down to stylistics again. The Greek majority text has better grammar with regard to the use of the definite article. I see that in a similar case (Luke 3:1) all versions attach a definite article to the phrase "hrwdou filippou de tou adelfou".

[Theophilos78]

I'm curious why you bring up that error of all the scriptural variations? I'm by no means up on my Koine, but it seems to me the only difference between the two lines is one has better grammar, on par with saying "I bought a dog" vs. "I bought dog".

Well, it is actually a long story, but I shall try to summarize it.

I am an author contributing to a website defending Christian faith against Islam. I wanted to write a rebuttal to an Islamic academician who dedicated a website to the so-called numerical/mathematical miracles of the Qur'an. In order to show him how easy it was to make use of numerical coincidences and present them as miracles, I tried to invent similar "miracles" from the Gospels. While checking the Greek New Testament used by goarch.org, I discovered interesting numerical connections related to the number of words in the Gospel of Luke. However, the omission of the definite article in Luke 1:5 destroys my numerical "miracle". I definitely need that article so as to make Zechariah the 55th word in that chapter. 

[Melodist]

One of the "miracles" of the Quran requires misspelling the name of the city of Mecca. This is a "wrong" spelling and an "imperfection" in a supposedly "perfect" book. They need the error to keep the miracle, and they would lose the miracle if they were to correct the error.

To quote Fr Hopko, "we have a Bible, not a Quran". Trying to use the Bible as a Quran (whether on purpose or not) has lead some Protestant groups to strictly hold Bible inerrancy (because God's Word can't be wrong) to the point of inventing nonsense heretical doctrines for the purpose of supporting their claims. I've seen this range everywhere from the pre-existence of the soul to claims that Christ did not receive His Flesh and human nature from His Mother.

The Quran is nothing more than a demonic imitation of what is God-inspired. There just might be some "miracles" in the Quran, but demons can do all kinds of miracles in order to give the appearance of what is holy. I don't base my relation to God based on how well it squares with human scientific understanding, whether it be how bones or formed in a fetus, the exact shape of the earth, or a scientific explanation of "how" God created all that exists and brought into being. Faith is to bring us close to God, not teach us science.

Sorry for the rant, I hope you find a way to make whatever he claims to be "important" to be not so important when it comes to what really matters.

[Theophilos78]

Thanks for your response.

One of the "miracles" of the Quran requires misspelling the name of the city of Mecca. This is a "wrong" spelling and an "imperfection" in a supposedly "perfect" book. They need the error to keep the miracle, and they would lose the miracle if they were to correct the error.

I was not aware of this. What kind of a spelling mistake is it? Mecca written as Becca? Is this what you mean?

To quote Fr Hopko, "we have a Bible, not a Quran". Trying to use the Bible as a Quran (whether on purpose or not) has lead some Protestant groups to strictly hold Bible inerrancy (because God's Word can't be wrong) to the point of inventing nonsense heretical doctrines for the purpose of supporting their claims. I've seen this range everywhere from the pre-existence of the soul to claims that Christ did not receive His Flesh and human nature from His Mother.

Heretics can always find an easy way of working out their own destruction.

The Quran is nothing more than a demonic imitation of what is God-inspired. There just might be some "miracles" in the Quran, but demons can do all kinds of miracles in order to give the appearance of what is holy. I don't base my relation to God based on how well it squares with human scientific understanding, whether it be how bones or formed in a fetus, the exact shape of the earth, or a scientific explanation of "how" God created all that exists and brought into being. Faith is to bring us close to God, not teach us science.

I agree with most of the things you stated here. However, there is not even a demonic miracle in the Qur'an.

Sorry for the rant, I hope you find a way to make whatever he claims to be "important" to be not so important when it comes to what really matters.

I hope I shall do that soon.

[Melodist]

I was not aware of this. What kind of a spelling mistake is it? Mecca written as Becca? Is this what you mean?

That is the one I was referring to.

I agree with most of the things you stated here. However, there is not even a demonic miracle in the Qur'an.

I was referring to the "miracle" of the number thing that is used as "proof" of divine authorship. Whether or not it is a real miracle doesn't really matter because even if it is, that doesn't mean it's from God. Just a thought.

[Theophilos78]

That is the one I was referring to.

The author of the Qur'an probably made that spelling mistake on purpose in order to conform Mecca to the Hebrew Becca. 

I was referring to the "miracle" of the number thing that is used as "proof" of divine authorship. Whether or not it is a real miracle doesn't really matter because even if it is, that doesn't mean it's from God. Just a thought.

Ah, ok. Yes, some so-called numerical miracles look impressive indeed and are difficult to refute, but they are far from perfection.

[Kasatkin fan]

I'm curious why you bring up that error of all the scriptural variations? I'm by no means up on my Koine, but it seems to me the only difference between the two lines is one has better grammar, on par with saying "I bought a dog" vs. "I bought dog".

Well, it is actually a long story, but I shall try to summarize it.

I am an author contributing to a website defending Christian faith against Islam. I wanted to write a rebuttal to an Islamic academician who dedicated a website to the so-called numerical/mathematical miracles of the Qur'an. In order to show him how easy it was to make use of numerical coincidences and present them as miracles, I tried to invent similar "miracles" from the Gospels. While checking the Greek New Testament used by goarch.org, I discovered interesting numerical connections related to the number of words in the Gospel of Luke. However, the omission of the definite article in Luke 1:5 destroys my numerical "miracle". I definitely need that article so as to make Zechariah the 55th word in that chapter. 

Ahh, that makes sense.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Foreign Language Forums > Foreign Languages Forum > Greek (Moderator: serb1389) > Topic: Different Readings in Luke 1:5