Missing 2Pe 3:10 in Vulgate?

[countach]

The bibleworks Vulgate reads at 2Pe 3:10

adveniet autem dies Domini ut fur in qua caeli magno impetu transient elementa vero calore solventur

The neo-Vulgate reads:

Adveniet autem dies Domini ut fur, in qua caeli magno impetu transient, elementa vero calore solventur, et terra et opera, quae in ea invenientur.

I know there's a textual variant here, but Bibleworks seems to be missing half the verse. I can't find any documentation that says any Vulgate omits part of this verse. Is this a bibleworks error? If so can anyone provide me with the correct wording in Jerome's Vulgate?

[Joe Fleener]

First notice that the source information for the VUL in BW states:

Copyright and Source Information:

VUL - Biblia Sacra Iuxta Vulgatam Versionem, Vulgate Latin Bible (VUL), edited by R. Weber, B. Fischer, J. Gribomont, H.F.D. Sparks, and W. Thiele [at Beuron and Tuebingen] Copyright © 1969, 1975, 1983 by Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft (German Bible Society), Stuttgart. Used by permission. ASCII formatted text provided via University of Pennsylvania, CCAT. Textual variants not included.

"Textual Variants not included"

The only eddition of the Vulgate I have been able to find containing the longer reading is:

Biblia Sacra IUXTA Vulgatam Clementinam Nova Editio

Logicis Partitionibbus ALIISQUE SUBSIDIIS ORNATA

A

R. P. ALBERTO COLUNGA, O. P.

ET

DR. LAURENTIO TURRADO

BIBLIOTECA DE AUTORES CRISTANOS

MCMLIII

Here is the reading:

, terra autem et quae in ipsa sunt opera, exurentur.

Also one should take not of the Apparatus of NA27 along with Metzger's Textual Commentary.

Some claim that the variant here is one of the most complex and difficult in the entire NT.

[Adelphos]

Also one should take not of the Apparatus of NA27 along with Metzger's Textual Commentary. Some claim that the variant here is one of the most complex and difficult in the entire NT.

I collated Vaticanus B, Sinaiticus Aleph, and various other manuscripts about 10 years ago. I also compared my data with the Critical Apparatus of NA/UBS and was shocked -- and I said so at the time, and was ridiculed for it back then -- at how many errors there are in the Critical Apparatus of NA/UBS.

But I knew I would be vindicated, and I have been -- in spades.

Another individual who is well respected in the scholastic community and who has made and published a detailed collation of B, Aleph, and a number of other manuscripts, agrees with me. Reuben Swanson, the author of "New Testament Greek Manuscripts: [bookname]," in a very meticulous demonstration of the evidence, made this statement with regard to the INaccuracy of NA/UBS --

"IT IS DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND HOW SO MANY ERRORS IN THE REPORTING OF THE DATA CAN HAVE OCCURRED. And this number is the sum total ONLY FROM THOSE MANUSCRIPTS used by this editor for this edition of Romans. HOW MANY MORE ERRORS there may be in the reporting of the evidence from the other sources, i.e., the versions, the lectionaries, and the patristic writers, USED FOR THE UBS4 AND THE NESTLE-ALAND27 EDITIONS but not used for this work is the problem... It has been the view of some scholars that NUMEROUS ERRORS in the reporting of the evidence exist in current editions of the Greek New Testament. BUT THIS WRITER IS JUSTIFIABLY ASTOUNDED AT THE MAGNITUDE OF THE PROBLEM." Reuben Swanson, New Testament Greek Manuscripts--Romans, p xxxiii (emphasis added)

Swanson, who made the same statement in his other collations of the various books, then continues with another prescient observation --

"The editor of "New Testament Greek Manuscripts" [i.e., Reuben Swanson] has long held the view that the selection of variant readings SHOWN IN THE CURRENT CRITICAL EDITIONS of the New Testament HAS NOT GENERALLY BEEN REPRESENTATIVE OF THE DIVERSITY AND EVEN THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE ACTUAL STATE OF THE PHENOMENA. It is true that the most widely used critical editions, UBS4 and Nestle-Aland27, are entitled handbooks, meaning that they are not intended to be exhaustive presentations of the evidence. Nevertheless, the question arises WHETHER OR NOT THE SELECTION OF READINGS CHOSEN FOR THE APPARATUSES represents the most significant and meaningful possible... THE MEANING OF SOME PASSAGES IS DEFINITELY SKEWED IN THE VIEW OF THIS WRITER BECAUSE OF THE PARTIAL REPORTING OF VARIANTS... Through the visual representation of the evidence, as in this appendix, it becomes apparent that a MINIMAL REPRESENTATION of the variant readings IS A SERIOUS DISTORTION of the problem of the text AND CAN BE MOST MISLEADING to those who rely only on handbooks for exegetical hermeneutical studies." Reuben Swanson, New Testament Greek Manuscripts--Romans, p xxiv (emphasis added)

Though I could write volumes on this passage and this topic, as I am EMINENTLY FAMILIAR with the inaccuracties of NA/UBS and with the depraved and blasphemous text of B and Aleph -- such as Jesus being killed by someone with a SPEAR in Matthew 27:49; such as Jesus praying for the disciples to remain in the power of SATAN in John 17; such as death being swallowed up in CONTROVERSY in 1 Corinthians 15; such as having PRIESTS around the throne instead of a rainbow in Revelation; such as having the Sea of Galilee in JUDEA instead of Galilee, ad infinitum, with literally scores upon scorse of other such ridiculous assertions throughout, and with SERIOUS grammatical-syntactical abortions in every book, in every chapter, on every page, in approximately every third verse, along with geographical and historical absurdities, and along with doctrinal absurdities and overt blasphemies, such as the ones above, ad infinitum == and thus having lived with this text, the text of B and Aleph, for several years, day in and day out, I'll nevertheless stop here, though I could write page upon page on this one verse alone.

I'll simply say in closing that this verse is not a problem in the SLIGHTEST to those of us who are familiar with the depravities of B and Aleph -- those of us who have actually collated these and other manuscripts, along with studying the collation masterpieces of Hoskier, Burgon, and others, and who can DEMONSTRATE THIS DEPRAVITY IN SPADES, and finally, who also know that that the FASTEST way to get INACCURATE information with regard to textual criticism is to consult the Critical Apparatus of NA/UBS.

Scott
http://www.lamblion.net

[countach]

This has nothing to do with 2 Pe 3:10, and even less to do with the Vulgate reading thereof.

[Adelphos]

This has nothing to do with 2 Pe 3:10, and even less to do with the Vulgate reading thereof.

Did you not read the quote admonishing people to refer to the Critical Apparatus of NA/UBS?

I RESPONDED to that admonition. I believe that's how proper discussion interchanges work.

And I am absolutely certain that the data I presented was unknown and appreciated by at least one or two people who read these messages.

I also might add that the BW staff might want to think long and hard before they decide to cough up money to include the Critical Apparatus of NA/UBS in the BW program. I suspect that more accurate and more relevant data will make its way into both the print and electronic domains in the future.

Scott
http://www.lamblion.net

[Joe Fleener]

Did you not read the quote admonishing people to refer to the Critical Apparatus of NA/UBS?

I RESPONDED to that admonition. I believe that's how proper discussion interchanges work.

Just to attempt to make things a bit more clear.

1. I did not "admonish" anyone to refer to the Apparatus. I merely suggested that one should. The fact is one should. Even give all the information you shared, it would still be illogical to not refer to a tool that is so readily available, even with its limitations. I did not nor would I suggest that this is all the study that is needed.

2. I am not familiar with the individual who asked the question. Although I am a seminary librarian and I have 75,000+ books sitting just outside my office door including many of the tools and access to the manuscript evidence you referred to, most pastors do not have such a luxury. However, most pastors have a copy of the NA27. Again, my suggestion was not intended to be a summary of all the necessary study required to do sufficient textual criticism, but a helpful start not knowing the resources available to the individual who posted the question.

3. Even so, my suggestion was even tangential to the question. The question had to do with a variant within the Vulgate. So really, I didn’t even need to include the suggestion to reference the apparatus in NA27.

4. Finally, I don’t think any of us have to worry about BW getting the Apparatus for the NA27 or BHS, since they are under copyright by the German Bible Society and the GBS has chosen to make then exclusively available to Logos. Some of us will see this as greatly unfortunate (I am one of those), other for various reasons will be thankful for this.


Beyond those point...thank you for your passion on this subject and the helpful tools/resources you mentioned in your post.

[Adelphos]

I did not "admonish" anyone to refer to the Apparatus.

I didn't mean to put any kind of spin on the word "admonish," it just happened to be the word that suggested itself to me at the time, so please don't read anything into it.

Also, as Swanson said, the data in NA/UBS is erroneous and misleading, therefore I would not counsel anyone to rely on anything in there without confirming that it's accurate. If they can't confirm that it's accurate because they don't have the resources, then they're better off leaving it alone, for it will absolutely mislead very, very often, as Swanson and others have noted.

Here's just one example out of literally scores upon scores of examples --

http://www.lamblion.net/Articles/Sco..._citations.htm

In fact, people who can't check the accuracy of the NA/UBS due to lack of resources would be far better off consulting the older commentaries and other material, which often discusses the text critical aspects of a passage.

Furthermore, within BW, they will be far better off consulting Tischendorf than NA/UBS -- although Tischendorf also has his fat share of inaccuracies and misleadings, but not to the exent of NA/UBS -- although the Latin may be a hindrance to many in Tischendorf, yet with a little effort one can make out fairly well.

Secondly, I would love to be able to sit next to a room that contained 75,000+ books, articles, and so forth. That would be my heaven on earth! My personal library is quite a bit smaller.

You have a great job.

Scott
http://www.lamblion.net

[countach]

Scott, if 1 Ti 3:16 is your great proof that NA27 is inaccurate then I'm not impressed. One might grant you that there has been some scholarly debate about the original readings, but that is not inaccuracy so much as mere difference of opinion. I wouldn't mind laying down some good money that you know of no undisputable error in the NA27 apparatus.

[Joe Fleener]

This kind of debate, etc. is probably best accomplished off forum. It certainly is not a "General BibleWorks Discussion."

Enjoy...

[Adelphos]

I wouldn't mind laying down some good money that you know of no undisputable error in the NA27 apparatus.

Buy any one of Swanson's collations and you will see errors of pure fact layed out in a very nice format. These are indisputable errors of fact.

And as Swanson stated, the manitude of the problem is astonishing.

Of course, the only people who would ever dispute the errors are those who have never collated a manuscript.

I'm through with this topic here. If anyone wants to dicuss it privately, email me next week. I'm headed out of town tomorrow and should be back midweek.

Scott
http://www.lamblion.net