Does the Codex Sinaiticus omit the phrase "but by every word of God" in Luke 4:4? From: Maurice A. O'Sullivan (mauros@iol.ie) Date: Mon Dec 04 1995 - 13:51:36 EST Next message: Edgar M. Krentz: "Re: Standardized Transliteration" Previous message: rlb4651@televar.com: "Luke 4:4 Byzantine text vs Alexandrian text" Alexandrian Text (or "Neutral" Text) The Alexandrian text, which Westcott and Hort called the Neutral text (a question-begging title), is usually considered to be the best text and the most faithful in preserving the original. ), 616, 618, 620, 622, 624, 625, 626, 627, 628, 632, 633, 634, 637, 638, 639, 640, 642 (except Cath. It typically suppresses the deity of Christ and the ministry of the Holy Spirit, turning the Bible into a social gospel. It is identified with Origen, Westcott-Hort, and Aland., also called the Novum Testamentum Graece or Critical Text. Nevertheless, instances of distinctive Byzantine readings are not unusual in the earliest texts—even though they otherwise conform more to other text-types or none. Von Soden divided manuscripts of the Byzantine text into five groups: Since the discovery of the Papyrus 45, Papyrus 46, and Papyrus 66, proof is available that occasionally the Byzantine text preserves a reading that dates from early witness. The second earliest translation to witness to a Greek base conforming generally to the Byzantine text in the Gospels is the Syriac Peshitta (though it has many Alexandrian and Western readings);[4] usually dated to the beginning of the 5th century;[5] although in respect of several much contested readings, such as Mark 1:2 and John 1:18, the Peshitta rather supports the Alexandrian witnesses. Karl Lachmann (1850) was the first New Testament textual critic to produce an edition that broke with the Textus Receptus, relying mainly instead on manuscripts from the Alexandrian text-type. There can, therefore, be no agreement among critics as to which reading may have been … 5) MS 383 ±1250 A.D. But in this sample at least, the Byzantine text obviously does not show the sort of massive inferiority implied by Hort. H. Tasker: Editors. The Byzantine text-type (also called Majority, Traditional, Ecclesiastical, Constantinopolitan, or Syrian) is one of several text-types used in textual criticism to describe the textual character of Greek New … The So-Called Mixed Text: An Examination of the Non-Alexandrian and Non-Byzantine Text-Type in the Catholic Epistles Studies in Biblical Literature: Amazon.es: Baldwin, … The Alexandrian text-type (also called Neutral or Egyptian), associated with Alexandria, is one of several text-types used in New Testament textual criticism to describe and group the textual characters of biblical manuscripts. Dating from the fourth century, and hence possibly earlier than the Peshitta, is the Ethiopic version of the Gospels; best represented by the surviving fifth and sixth century manuscripts of the Garima Gospels and classified by Rochus Zuurmond as "early Byzantine". Mark 1:13 looks like a combination of the Alexandrian and the Caesarean text. ), 2139, 2140, 2141, 2142, 2144, 2160, 2172, 2173, 2175, 2176, 2177, 2178, 2181, 2183, 2187, 2189, 2191, 2199, 2218, 2221, 2236, 2261, 2266, 2267, 2273, 2275, 2277, 2281, 2289, 2295, 2300, 2303, 2306, 2307, 2309, 2310, 2311, 2352, 2355, 2356, 2373, 2376, 2378, 2381, 2382, 2386, 2389, 2390, 2406, 2407, 2409, 2414, 2415, 2418, 2420, 2422, 2423, 2424, 2425, 2426, 2430, 2431, 2437, 2441, 2442, 2445, 2447, 2450, 2451, 2452, 2454, 2455, 2457, 2458, 2459, 2466, 2468, 2475, 2479, 2483, 2484, 2490, 2491, 2496, 2497, 2499, 2500, 2501, 2502, 2503, 2507, 2532, 2534, 2536, 2539, 2540, 2545, 2547, 2549, 2550, 2552, 2554, 2555, 2558, 2559, 2562, 2563, 2567, 2571, 2572, 2573, 2578, 2579, 2581, 2584, 2587, 2593, 2600, 2619, 2624, 2626, 2627, 2629, 2631, 2633, 2634, 2635, 2636, 2637, 2639, 2645, 2646, 2649, 2650, 2651, 2653, 2656, 2657, 2658, 2660, 2661, 2665, 2666, 2671, 2673, 2675, 2679, 2690, 2691, 2696, 2698, 2699, 2700, 2704, 2711, 2712, 2716, 2721, 2722, 2723, 2724, 2725, 2727, 2729, 2746, 2760, 2761, 2765, 2767, 2773, 2774, 2775, 2779, 2780, 2781, 2782, 2783, 2784, 2785, 2787, 2790, 2791, 2794, 2815, 2817, 2829. Two broad explanations have been offered for this observation: In Mark 6:33 and Luke 24:53 the Byzantine text-type looks like a combination of the Alexandrian and the Western text. This paper. ), 379, 380, 381, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 390, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 398 (except Cath. When compared to witnesses of the Western text-type, Alexandrian readings tend to be shorter and are commonly regarded as having a lower tendency to expand or paraphrase. Basically, the Byzantine text is fuller. It is the text type favored by textual critics and it is the basis for most modern Bible translations. It is an excellent example of the Alexandrian text type, but with Byzantine influence in Acts and the Pauline epistles. The work required a keen understanding of language and an eye for detail; texts were grouped with others based on the presence (or absence) of certain words or phrases, and in a couple of cases, entire passages—the famous Gospel pericope of the adulteress (John 7:53-8:11) or the longer ending of Mark’s Gospel (Mark 16:9-20)—both absent from the chief manuscripts of the Alexandrian text. The Byzantine Priority Hypothesis. ), 614 (in Cath. Thread starter selenah; Start date Jan 20, 2012; Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. The Alexandrian text-type is so named because it is generally associated with the Church at Alexandria. In Biblical textual criticism, the Byzantine text-type (also called Majority Text, Traditional Text, Ecclesiastical Text, Constantinopolitan Text, Antiocheian Text, or Syrian Text) is one of several text-types of the Greek New Testament manuscripts. "Weighed Rather than Counted" To evade the vast numerical superiority of the Byzantine manuscripts, CT scholars will try to "lump" them together so that they are in effect only one witness rather than many. The suggestions that have been put forward are: The standard Byzantine text used by the Eastern, Greek-speaking Greek Orthodox Church is supported by late minuscule manuscripts dating after the 4th century. Hence, many (and possibly most) distinctive Byzantine readings are likely to be early in date. that the Byzantine text-type transmits a text closest to the primary form of the New Testament books; whose early manuscript witnesses have not survived, as this text-type predominated in regions where the climate did not favour the preservation of papyrus; that the Byzantine text represents a consistent exercise in textual compilation and correction from around the 4th century, the editors having eclectically selected those readings from a range of early manuscripts, that best conformed to their presupposed standards of the characteristics to be expected in the New Testament text. Even though the Textus Receptus (basically a Byzantine text) was the basis for the Westminster Confession, there is not a single point in the entire confession that would change if it were based upon a modern eclectic text rather than upon the Byzantine text! This article is continued from The Majority Text vs. the Critical Text - Part Two. The leading scholarly Greek NT text is that published by the United Bible Societies. Let’s test that claim, comparing the text that was written by the copyist of Sinaiticus ( À ) – before anyone came along later and made corrections – and the Byzantine Text as found in the Robinson-Pierpont compilation . All the New Testament manuscripts are compiled from the original 5366's writings, which are written on … At the time of the Reformation, almost all of the available Greek manuscripts of the New Testament were Byzantine in character. ), 1577, 1583, 1594, 1597, 1604, 1605, 1607, 1613, 1614, 1617, 1618, 1619, 1622, 1628, 1636, 1637, 1649, 1656, 1662, 1668, 1672, 1673, 1683, 1693, 1701, 1704 (except Acts), 1714, 1717, 1720, 1723, 1725, 1726, 1727, 1728, 1730, 1731, 1732, 1733, 1734, 1736, 1737, 1738, 1740, 1741, 1742, 1743, 1745, 1746, 1747, 1748, 1749, 1750, 1752, 1754, 1755a, 1755b, 1756, 1757, 1759, 1761, 1762, 1763, 1767, 1768, 1770, 1771, 1772, 1800, 1821, 1826, 1828, 1829, 1835, 1841 (except Rev. If R-P is a good representation of the typical Byzantine tradition, then your analysis says that the typical Byzantine manuscript will likely … (Even those who prefer the Alexandrian text are forced to admit this.) The Lucian Recension Theory. Re:Luke 4:4 Byzantine text vs Alexandrian text. ), 093 (Acts), 0103, 0104, 0105, 0116, 0120, 0133, 0134, 0135, 0136, 0142, 0151, 0197, 0211, 0246, 0248, 0253, 0255, 0257, 0265, 0269 (mixed), 0272, 0273 (?). know as the Byzantine text is from John Chrysostoam in the late 4th Century. The Text. This is absolutely incorrect; there are ~5,000 MTs of which the oldest date even into the 2nd century while the TR is only 12 manuscripts that date no later than the 1100's ce. ), 1360, 1362, 1364, 1367, 1370, 1373, 1374, 1377, 1384, 1385, 1392, 1395, 1398 (except Paul), 1400, 1409 (Gospels and Paul), 1417, 1437, 1438, 1444, 1445, 1447, 1448 (except Cath. Yes. On the one hand, the debate And if it is related to usage, then it cannot be restricted to Greek. It is commonly accepted as standard Byzantine text. The Textus Receptus was compiled and edited by Erasmus in the 16th century. In the discussion that follows, they reason that the "incalculable and fortuitous complexity of the causes here at work" in the transmission of the text leads them to the conclusion that "every ground for expecting 'a priori' any sort of correspondence of numerical proportion between existing documents and their less numerous ancestors in any one age falls to the ground."[16]. Depending on one's perspective, the Alexandrian text omits or the Byzantine text adds quite a few words here and there, as well as whole clauses, verses, and even two long passages (Mark 16:9-20; John 7:53-8:11). All extant manuscripts of all text-types are at least 85% identical and most of the variations are not translatable into English, such as word order or spelling. It is argued that the Byzantine text looks like a conflation of the Alexandrian and Western texts. Price, who does not support the TR, when writing about recent progress in textual criticism, said, "The Westcott-Hort 'Neutral' text was found to be practically without support in the earliest fathers.". Since the quotation introduced is partly from Malachi, the Byzantine form of the verse avoids the difficulty that might be adduced were it to be concluded that Mark was presenting a factual inaccuracy. 2. According to the preface to the New King James Version of the Bible, the Textus Receptus, the Alexandrian text-type and the Byzantine text-type are 85% identical (that is, of the variations that occur in any manuscript, only 15% actually differ between these three). [12] For example, Mark 1:2 reads "As it is written in the prophets..." in the Byzantine text; whereas the same verse reads, "As it is written in Isaiah the prophet..." in all other early textual witnesses. Westcott and Hort Only. Although the majority of New Testament textual critics now favor a text that is Alexandrian in complexion, especially after the publication of Westcott and Hort's edition, there remain some proponents of the Byzantine text-type as the type of text most similar to the autographs. The earliest Church Father to witness to a Byzantine text-type in substantial New Testament quotations is John Chrysostom (c. 349 – 407); although the fragmentary surviving works of Asterius the Sophist († 341) have also been considered to conform to the Byzantine text,[2] and the incomplete surviving translation of Wulfila (d. 383) into Gothic is often thought to derive from the Byzantine text type or an intermediary between the Byzantine and Western text types. The Byzantine text is also found in a few modern Orthodox editions, as the Byzantine textual tradition has continued in the Eastern Orthodox Church into the present time. Most of the manuscripts there display a mixed text type, although there is evidence of distinctively Alexandrian texts (p75) and some distinctively Byzantine texts. 2306 (composite of parts from the 11th to the 14th centuries), 665, 657, 660, 1013, 1188, 1191, 1309, 1358, 1340, 1566, 2389, 2415, 2784, 2e, 2ap, 3, 9, 11, 15, 21, 32, 44, 46, 49, 57, 73, 76, 78, 80, 84, 95, 97, 105, 110, 111, 116, 119, 120, 122, 129, 132, 134, 138, 139, 140, 146, 156, 159, 162, 183, 187, 193, 196, 199, 202, 203, 217, 224, 226, 231, 240, 244, 245, 247, 261, 264, 267, 268, 269, 270, 275, 280, 281, 282, 297, 304, 306, 319, 320, 329, 334, 337, 347, 351, 353, 355, 356, 366, 374, 387, 392, 395, 396, 401, 407, 408, 419, 438, 439, 443, 452, 471, 485, 499, 502, 505, 509, 510, 514, 518, 520, 524, 529, 531, 535, 538, 550, 551, 556, 570, 571, 580, 587, 618, 620, 622, 637, 650, 662, 673, 674, 688, 692, 721, 736, 748, 750, 760, 765, 768, 770, 774, 777, 778, 779, 782, 787, 793, 799, 808, 843, 857, 860, 862, 877, 893, 896, 902, 911, 916, 922, 924, 936, 950, 967, 971, 973, 975, 980, 987, 993, 998, 1007, 1046, 1081, 1083, 1085, 1112, 1169, 1176, 1186, 1190, 1193, 1197, 1198, 1199, 1200, 1217, 1218, 1224, 1231, 1240, 1301, 1315, 1316, 1318, 1323, 1350a, 1355, 1360, 1364, 1375, 1385, 1437, 1539, 1583, 1673, 1683, 1714, 1737, 1752, 1754, 1755a, 1755b, 1800, 1821, 1826, 1872, 1889, 1914, 1915, 1917, 1926, 1951, 1970, 1971, 1974, 1986, 1988, 2013, 2096, 2126, 2135, 2139, 2173, 2177, 2189, 2191, 2289, 2282, 2426, 2437, 2445, 2459, 2490, 2491, 2507, 2536, 2549, 2550, 2552, 2562, 2639, 2650, 2657, 2671, 2700, 2712, 2725, 2727, 2781, 2785, 2791, 2794 Dempsey Hill Map, Bible Word Count Search, Entry Level Marketing Resume, What's Left Of Me Book 2, School Term Dates 2020/21, Crystal Hot Springs Death, Jquery Navbar Toggle, Wizened Town Meaning, Ashoka University Mba Fees, André Aciman Find Me, Bibliography For Project Class 10, " /> Does the Codex Sinaiticus omit the phrase "but by every word of God" in Luke 4:4? From: Maurice A. O'Sullivan (mauros@iol.ie) Date: Mon Dec 04 1995 - 13:51:36 EST Next message: Edgar M. Krentz: "Re: Standardized Transliteration" Previous message: rlb4651@televar.com: "Luke 4:4 Byzantine text vs Alexandrian text" Alexandrian Text (or "Neutral" Text) The Alexandrian text, which Westcott and Hort called the Neutral text (a question-begging title), is usually considered to be the best text and the most faithful in preserving the original. ), 616, 618, 620, 622, 624, 625, 626, 627, 628, 632, 633, 634, 637, 638, 639, 640, 642 (except Cath. It typically suppresses the deity of Christ and the ministry of the Holy Spirit, turning the Bible into a social gospel. It is identified with Origen, Westcott-Hort, and Aland., also called the Novum Testamentum Graece or Critical Text. Nevertheless, instances of distinctive Byzantine readings are not unusual in the earliest texts—even though they otherwise conform more to other text-types or none. Von Soden divided manuscripts of the Byzantine text into five groups: Since the discovery of the Papyrus 45, Papyrus 46, and Papyrus 66, proof is available that occasionally the Byzantine text preserves a reading that dates from early witness. The second earliest translation to witness to a Greek base conforming generally to the Byzantine text in the Gospels is the Syriac Peshitta (though it has many Alexandrian and Western readings);[4] usually dated to the beginning of the 5th century;[5] although in respect of several much contested readings, such as Mark 1:2 and John 1:18, the Peshitta rather supports the Alexandrian witnesses. Karl Lachmann (1850) was the first New Testament textual critic to produce an edition that broke with the Textus Receptus, relying mainly instead on manuscripts from the Alexandrian text-type. There can, therefore, be no agreement among critics as to which reading may have been … 5) MS 383 ±1250 A.D. But in this sample at least, the Byzantine text obviously does not show the sort of massive inferiority implied by Hort. H. Tasker: Editors. The Byzantine text-type (also called Majority, Traditional, Ecclesiastical, Constantinopolitan, or Syrian) is one of several text-types used in textual criticism to describe the textual character of Greek New … The So-Called Mixed Text: An Examination of the Non-Alexandrian and Non-Byzantine Text-Type in the Catholic Epistles Studies in Biblical Literature: Amazon.es: Baldwin, … The Alexandrian text-type (also called Neutral or Egyptian), associated with Alexandria, is one of several text-types used in New Testament textual criticism to describe and group the textual characters of biblical manuscripts. Dating from the fourth century, and hence possibly earlier than the Peshitta, is the Ethiopic version of the Gospels; best represented by the surviving fifth and sixth century manuscripts of the Garima Gospels and classified by Rochus Zuurmond as "early Byzantine". Mark 1:13 looks like a combination of the Alexandrian and the Caesarean text. ), 2139, 2140, 2141, 2142, 2144, 2160, 2172, 2173, 2175, 2176, 2177, 2178, 2181, 2183, 2187, 2189, 2191, 2199, 2218, 2221, 2236, 2261, 2266, 2267, 2273, 2275, 2277, 2281, 2289, 2295, 2300, 2303, 2306, 2307, 2309, 2310, 2311, 2352, 2355, 2356, 2373, 2376, 2378, 2381, 2382, 2386, 2389, 2390, 2406, 2407, 2409, 2414, 2415, 2418, 2420, 2422, 2423, 2424, 2425, 2426, 2430, 2431, 2437, 2441, 2442, 2445, 2447, 2450, 2451, 2452, 2454, 2455, 2457, 2458, 2459, 2466, 2468, 2475, 2479, 2483, 2484, 2490, 2491, 2496, 2497, 2499, 2500, 2501, 2502, 2503, 2507, 2532, 2534, 2536, 2539, 2540, 2545, 2547, 2549, 2550, 2552, 2554, 2555, 2558, 2559, 2562, 2563, 2567, 2571, 2572, 2573, 2578, 2579, 2581, 2584, 2587, 2593, 2600, 2619, 2624, 2626, 2627, 2629, 2631, 2633, 2634, 2635, 2636, 2637, 2639, 2645, 2646, 2649, 2650, 2651, 2653, 2656, 2657, 2658, 2660, 2661, 2665, 2666, 2671, 2673, 2675, 2679, 2690, 2691, 2696, 2698, 2699, 2700, 2704, 2711, 2712, 2716, 2721, 2722, 2723, 2724, 2725, 2727, 2729, 2746, 2760, 2761, 2765, 2767, 2773, 2774, 2775, 2779, 2780, 2781, 2782, 2783, 2784, 2785, 2787, 2790, 2791, 2794, 2815, 2817, 2829. Two broad explanations have been offered for this observation: In Mark 6:33 and Luke 24:53 the Byzantine text-type looks like a combination of the Alexandrian and the Western text. This paper. ), 379, 380, 381, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 390, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 398 (except Cath. When compared to witnesses of the Western text-type, Alexandrian readings tend to be shorter and are commonly regarded as having a lower tendency to expand or paraphrase. Basically, the Byzantine text is fuller. It is the text type favored by textual critics and it is the basis for most modern Bible translations. It is an excellent example of the Alexandrian text type, but with Byzantine influence in Acts and the Pauline epistles. The work required a keen understanding of language and an eye for detail; texts were grouped with others based on the presence (or absence) of certain words or phrases, and in a couple of cases, entire passages—the famous Gospel pericope of the adulteress (John 7:53-8:11) or the longer ending of Mark’s Gospel (Mark 16:9-20)—both absent from the chief manuscripts of the Alexandrian text. The Byzantine Priority Hypothesis. ), 614 (in Cath. Thread starter selenah; Start date Jan 20, 2012; Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. The Alexandrian text-type is so named because it is generally associated with the Church at Alexandria. In Biblical textual criticism, the Byzantine text-type (also called Majority Text, Traditional Text, Ecclesiastical Text, Constantinopolitan Text, Antiocheian Text, or Syrian Text) is one of several text-types of the Greek New Testament manuscripts. "Weighed Rather than Counted" To evade the vast numerical superiority of the Byzantine manuscripts, CT scholars will try to "lump" them together so that they are in effect only one witness rather than many. The suggestions that have been put forward are: The standard Byzantine text used by the Eastern, Greek-speaking Greek Orthodox Church is supported by late minuscule manuscripts dating after the 4th century. Hence, many (and possibly most) distinctive Byzantine readings are likely to be early in date. that the Byzantine text-type transmits a text closest to the primary form of the New Testament books; whose early manuscript witnesses have not survived, as this text-type predominated in regions where the climate did not favour the preservation of papyrus; that the Byzantine text represents a consistent exercise in textual compilation and correction from around the 4th century, the editors having eclectically selected those readings from a range of early manuscripts, that best conformed to their presupposed standards of the characteristics to be expected in the New Testament text. Even though the Textus Receptus (basically a Byzantine text) was the basis for the Westminster Confession, there is not a single point in the entire confession that would change if it were based upon a modern eclectic text rather than upon the Byzantine text! This article is continued from The Majority Text vs. the Critical Text - Part Two. The leading scholarly Greek NT text is that published by the United Bible Societies. Let’s test that claim, comparing the text that was written by the copyist of Sinaiticus ( À ) – before anyone came along later and made corrections – and the Byzantine Text as found in the Robinson-Pierpont compilation . All the New Testament manuscripts are compiled from the original 5366's writings, which are written on … At the time of the Reformation, almost all of the available Greek manuscripts of the New Testament were Byzantine in character. ), 1577, 1583, 1594, 1597, 1604, 1605, 1607, 1613, 1614, 1617, 1618, 1619, 1622, 1628, 1636, 1637, 1649, 1656, 1662, 1668, 1672, 1673, 1683, 1693, 1701, 1704 (except Acts), 1714, 1717, 1720, 1723, 1725, 1726, 1727, 1728, 1730, 1731, 1732, 1733, 1734, 1736, 1737, 1738, 1740, 1741, 1742, 1743, 1745, 1746, 1747, 1748, 1749, 1750, 1752, 1754, 1755a, 1755b, 1756, 1757, 1759, 1761, 1762, 1763, 1767, 1768, 1770, 1771, 1772, 1800, 1821, 1826, 1828, 1829, 1835, 1841 (except Rev. If R-P is a good representation of the typical Byzantine tradition, then your analysis says that the typical Byzantine manuscript will likely … (Even those who prefer the Alexandrian text are forced to admit this.) The Lucian Recension Theory. Re:Luke 4:4 Byzantine text vs Alexandrian text. ), 093 (Acts), 0103, 0104, 0105, 0116, 0120, 0133, 0134, 0135, 0136, 0142, 0151, 0197, 0211, 0246, 0248, 0253, 0255, 0257, 0265, 0269 (mixed), 0272, 0273 (?). know as the Byzantine text is from John Chrysostoam in the late 4th Century. The Text. This is absolutely incorrect; there are ~5,000 MTs of which the oldest date even into the 2nd century while the TR is only 12 manuscripts that date no later than the 1100's ce. ), 1360, 1362, 1364, 1367, 1370, 1373, 1374, 1377, 1384, 1385, 1392, 1395, 1398 (except Paul), 1400, 1409 (Gospels and Paul), 1417, 1437, 1438, 1444, 1445, 1447, 1448 (except Cath. Yes. On the one hand, the debate And if it is related to usage, then it cannot be restricted to Greek. It is commonly accepted as standard Byzantine text. The Textus Receptus was compiled and edited by Erasmus in the 16th century. In the discussion that follows, they reason that the "incalculable and fortuitous complexity of the causes here at work" in the transmission of the text leads them to the conclusion that "every ground for expecting 'a priori' any sort of correspondence of numerical proportion between existing documents and their less numerous ancestors in any one age falls to the ground."[16]. Depending on one's perspective, the Alexandrian text omits or the Byzantine text adds quite a few words here and there, as well as whole clauses, verses, and even two long passages (Mark 16:9-20; John 7:53-8:11). All extant manuscripts of all text-types are at least 85% identical and most of the variations are not translatable into English, such as word order or spelling. It is argued that the Byzantine text looks like a conflation of the Alexandrian and Western texts. Price, who does not support the TR, when writing about recent progress in textual criticism, said, "The Westcott-Hort 'Neutral' text was found to be practically without support in the earliest fathers.". Since the quotation introduced is partly from Malachi, the Byzantine form of the verse avoids the difficulty that might be adduced were it to be concluded that Mark was presenting a factual inaccuracy. 2. According to the preface to the New King James Version of the Bible, the Textus Receptus, the Alexandrian text-type and the Byzantine text-type are 85% identical (that is, of the variations that occur in any manuscript, only 15% actually differ between these three). [12] For example, Mark 1:2 reads "As it is written in the prophets..." in the Byzantine text; whereas the same verse reads, "As it is written in Isaiah the prophet..." in all other early textual witnesses. Westcott and Hort Only. Although the majority of New Testament textual critics now favor a text that is Alexandrian in complexion, especially after the publication of Westcott and Hort's edition, there remain some proponents of the Byzantine text-type as the type of text most similar to the autographs. The earliest Church Father to witness to a Byzantine text-type in substantial New Testament quotations is John Chrysostom (c. 349 – 407); although the fragmentary surviving works of Asterius the Sophist († 341) have also been considered to conform to the Byzantine text,[2] and the incomplete surviving translation of Wulfila (d. 383) into Gothic is often thought to derive from the Byzantine text type or an intermediary between the Byzantine and Western text types. The Byzantine text is also found in a few modern Orthodox editions, as the Byzantine textual tradition has continued in the Eastern Orthodox Church into the present time. Most of the manuscripts there display a mixed text type, although there is evidence of distinctively Alexandrian texts (p75) and some distinctively Byzantine texts. 2306 (composite of parts from the 11th to the 14th centuries), 665, 657, 660, 1013, 1188, 1191, 1309, 1358, 1340, 1566, 2389, 2415, 2784, 2e, 2ap, 3, 9, 11, 15, 21, 32, 44, 46, 49, 57, 73, 76, 78, 80, 84, 95, 97, 105, 110, 111, 116, 119, 120, 122, 129, 132, 134, 138, 139, 140, 146, 156, 159, 162, 183, 187, 193, 196, 199, 202, 203, 217, 224, 226, 231, 240, 244, 245, 247, 261, 264, 267, 268, 269, 270, 275, 280, 281, 282, 297, 304, 306, 319, 320, 329, 334, 337, 347, 351, 353, 355, 356, 366, 374, 387, 392, 395, 396, 401, 407, 408, 419, 438, 439, 443, 452, 471, 485, 499, 502, 505, 509, 510, 514, 518, 520, 524, 529, 531, 535, 538, 550, 551, 556, 570, 571, 580, 587, 618, 620, 622, 637, 650, 662, 673, 674, 688, 692, 721, 736, 748, 750, 760, 765, 768, 770, 774, 777, 778, 779, 782, 787, 793, 799, 808, 843, 857, 860, 862, 877, 893, 896, 902, 911, 916, 922, 924, 936, 950, 967, 971, 973, 975, 980, 987, 993, 998, 1007, 1046, 1081, 1083, 1085, 1112, 1169, 1176, 1186, 1190, 1193, 1197, 1198, 1199, 1200, 1217, 1218, 1224, 1231, 1240, 1301, 1315, 1316, 1318, 1323, 1350a, 1355, 1360, 1364, 1375, 1385, 1437, 1539, 1583, 1673, 1683, 1714, 1737, 1752, 1754, 1755a, 1755b, 1800, 1821, 1826, 1872, 1889, 1914, 1915, 1917, 1926, 1951, 1970, 1971, 1974, 1986, 1988, 2013, 2096, 2126, 2135, 2139, 2173, 2177, 2189, 2191, 2289, 2282, 2426, 2437, 2445, 2459, 2490, 2491, 2507, 2536, 2549, 2550, 2552, 2562, 2639, 2650, 2657, 2671, 2700, 2712, 2725, 2727, 2781, 2785, 2791, 2794 Dempsey Hill Map, Bible Word Count Search, Entry Level Marketing Resume, What's Left Of Me Book 2, School Term Dates 2020/21, Crystal Hot Springs Death, Jquery Navbar Toggle, Wizened Town Meaning, Ashoka University Mba Fees, André Aciman Find Me, Bibliography For Project Class 10, " />

byzantine text vs alexandrian text

), 1855, 1856, 1858, 1859, 1860, 1861, 1862, 1869, 1870, 1872, 1874 (except Paul), 1876, 1877 (except Paul), 1878, 1879, 1880, 1882, 1883, 1888, 1889, 1891 (except Acts), 1897, 1899, 1902, 1905, 1906, 1907, 1911, 1914, 1915, 1916, 1917, 1918, 1919, 1920, 1921, 1922, 1923, 1924, 1925, 1926, 1927, 1928, 1929, 1930, 1931, 1932, 1933, 1934, 1936,1937, 1938, 1941, 1946, 1948, 1951, 1952, 1954, 1955, 1956, 1957, 1958, 1964, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1974, 1975, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1986, 1988, 1992, 1997, 1998, 2001, 2003, 2007, 2009, 2013, 2048, 2096, 2098, 2111, 2119, 2125, 2126, 2127 (except Paul), 2132, 2133, 2135, 2138 (only in Rev. The names indicate that these text types are related to geographical areas, though it should not be assumed that all Alexandrian manuscripts come from Alexandria, nor all … (Indeed, the truly bad text, with an extreme degree of assimilation, appears … Ernst Boogert. The first printed New Testaments were all primarily Byzantine. Although the Byzantine text would be written later than the texts of Alexandria (the Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus), so it does not prove that it is not the original text. All extant manuscripts of all text-types are at least 85% identical and most of the variations are not translatable into English, such as word order or spelling. This papyrus text dated to cAD50, a mere 20 years after the crucifixion, seems to provide proof that at least the Gospel of Matthew was an eyewitness account, written by a disciple who lived during the days when Christ Himself was on earth. The New Testament of the King James Version of the Bible was translated from editions of what was to become the Textus Receptus. [22] Many of these readings have substantial support from other text-types and they are not distinctively Byzantine. I will set out two such hypotheses below, one assuming that the Alexandrian text type is closest to the originals, the other assuming that the Byzantine text type is closer to the originals 2.5.1 Alexandrian text type closer to originals For the purpose of this hypothesis, we assume that the autographs were fairly similar to the Alexandrian text type. Examples: Other examples of Byzantine readings were found in p66 in John 1:32; 3:24; 4:14.51; 5:8; 6:10.57; 7:3.39; 8:41.51.55; 9:23; 10:38; 12:36; 14:17. The fact that the Latin Vulgate looks more like the Alexandrian text than the Byzantine text means that Christians in the West never had ready access to the so-called pure text. In light of this, it … … Claims such as that one unrealistically minimize the differences between the Alexandrian text and the Byzantine Text, and downplay the mistakes made by copyists. The oldest manuscripts reflect this text-type. The Byzantine type is also found in modern Greek Orthodox editions. This supports the views of scholars such as Harry Sturz (1984) and Maurice Robinson (2005) that the roots of the Byzantine text may go back to a very early date. Aland placed all manuscripts with standard Byzantine text into Category V. The first printed edition of the Greek New Testament was completed by Erasmus and published by Johann Froben of Basel on March 1, 1516 (Novum Instrumentum omne). To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser. Modern Bible translations have now turned to the newer discoveries of the Alexandrian text-types, namely the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus. To learn more, view our, Festschrift for Prof. Maurice Robinson on Textual issues of the New Testamant, The Origin of the Byzantine Text: New Perspectives in a Deadlocked Debate, (1998) "En Epheso" and the Destination of the Ephesian Letter (Master's Seminary: NT Department), A Form of Reasoned Eclecticism: The Correct Method of Textual Criticism. ), 1296, 1297, 1298, 1299, 1300, 1301, 1303, 1305, 1309, 1310, 1312, 1313, 1314, 1315, 1316, 1317, 1318, 1319 (except Paul), 1320, 1323, 1324, 1328, 1330, 1331, 1334, 1339, 1340, 1341, 1343, 1345, 1347, 1350a, 1350b, 1351, 1352a, 1354, 1355, 1356, 1357, 1358, 1359 (except Cath. Almost all of the oldest manuscripts we have are of the Alexandrian text type, probably due to the climate in the location where they are typically found (Alexandrian is in Egypt, and their dry climate is ideal for preservation.) The other text types include the Western, the Caesarean, and the most important, the Alexandrian. Is the only reason these … Some of the manuscripts representing the Alexandrian text-type have the Byzantine corrections made by later hands (Papyrus 66, Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Ephraemi, Codex R… Vogels uses the two texts when deemed necessary to clarify what he saw as difficult English passages. When we put the notes together we were surprised to find there were no surprises. Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer. of the Alexandrian type, … Some say that the Byzantine text is even older than the Alexandrian texts. THE TRADITIONAL TEXT LINE VS THE ALEXANDRIAN TEXT LINE: Share this: Share This entry was posted in Articles, Charts, ... United Bible Society Greek Text (UBS4) Nestle Aland Greek Text (NA28th) Textus Receptus Greek Text (TR) Some Differences Between the KJV & the ESV Part 1; Some More Differences Between the KJV & the ESV Part 2 ; Some More Differences Between the KJV & the … Since we don't have the originals, one now has to appeal to other sources, perhaps, for the answer. ), 256 (except Paul), 259, 260, 261, 262, 263 (except Paul), 264, 266, 267, 268, 269, 270, 272, 275, 276, 277, 278a, 278b, 280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289, 290, 291, 292, 293, 297, 300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 308, 309, 313, 314, 316, 319, 320, 324, 325, 327, 328, 329, 330 (except Paul), 331, 334, 335, 337, 342, 343, 344, 347, 350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359, 360, 361, 362, 364, 365 (except Paul), 366, 367, 368, 369, 371, 373, 374, 375, 376, 378 (except Cath. The Alexandrian text-type is one of several text types found among New Testament manuscripts. Re: [textualcriticism] Comparing Byz and TR in the Gospels Msg #6251 02/04/2011 ), 207, 208, 209 (except Gospels and Rev. Because there are differences between the Majority/Byzantine manuscripts, there are disagreements even among Majority Text advocates about what the proper reading in individual passages ought to be, and a variety of methods have been proposed to determine the original reading of the text, but all Majority Text advocates would agree that the original reading of each passage is found … However, often this claim is made under the naive assumption that the new translators just took the old English Bible & rewrote it with newer, more up to date words. The Alexandrian text-type (also called Neutral or Egyptian) is one of several text-types used in New Testament textual criticism to describe and group the textual character of biblical manuscripts.The Alexandrian text-type is the form of the Greek New Testament that predominates in the earliest surviving documents, as well as the text type used in Egyptian Coptic manuscripts. He placed some of them into Category III of the Greek New Testament manuscripts. Although the majority of New Testament textual critics now favor a text that is Alexandrian in complexion, especially after the publication of Westcott and Hort's edition, there remain some proponents of the Byzantine text-type as the type of text most similar to the autographs. The form of the Byzantine text found in the earliest witnesses is not a monolithic whole; but sometimes differs consistently from the form of text found in the most common sub-group of Byzantine manuscripts as they proliferated after the 11th century. [] For example, Mark 1:2 reads "As it is written in the prophets.." in the Byzantine text; whereas the same verse reads, "As it is written in Isaiah the prophet.." in all other early textual witnesses… Depending on one's perspective, the Alexandrian text omits or the Byzantine text adds quite a few words here and there, as well as whole clauses, verses, and even two long passages (Mark 16:9-20; John 7:53-8:11). Critics note, however, that none of the earliest manuscripts or translations were Byzantine in form. This is even recognized by those who do not support the Traditional Text / Textus Receptus (TR). Whilst varying in at least 1,830 places,[1] it also underlies the Textus Receptus Greek text used for most Reformation-era translations of the New Testament into vernacular languages. Update 3: As to your … ), 1854 (except Rev. [snip] >Does the Codex Sinaiticus omit the phrase "but by every word of God" in Luke 4:4? From: Maurice A. O'Sullivan (mauros@iol.ie) Date: Mon Dec 04 1995 - 13:51:36 EST Next message: Edgar M. Krentz: "Re: Standardized Transliteration" Previous message: rlb4651@televar.com: "Luke 4:4 Byzantine text vs Alexandrian text" Alexandrian Text (or "Neutral" Text) The Alexandrian text, which Westcott and Hort called the Neutral text (a question-begging title), is usually considered to be the best text and the most faithful in preserving the original. ), 616, 618, 620, 622, 624, 625, 626, 627, 628, 632, 633, 634, 637, 638, 639, 640, 642 (except Cath. It typically suppresses the deity of Christ and the ministry of the Holy Spirit, turning the Bible into a social gospel. It is identified with Origen, Westcott-Hort, and Aland., also called the Novum Testamentum Graece or Critical Text. Nevertheless, instances of distinctive Byzantine readings are not unusual in the earliest texts—even though they otherwise conform more to other text-types or none. Von Soden divided manuscripts of the Byzantine text into five groups: Since the discovery of the Papyrus 45, Papyrus 46, and Papyrus 66, proof is available that occasionally the Byzantine text preserves a reading that dates from early witness. The second earliest translation to witness to a Greek base conforming generally to the Byzantine text in the Gospels is the Syriac Peshitta (though it has many Alexandrian and Western readings);[4] usually dated to the beginning of the 5th century;[5] although in respect of several much contested readings, such as Mark 1:2 and John 1:18, the Peshitta rather supports the Alexandrian witnesses. Karl Lachmann (1850) was the first New Testament textual critic to produce an edition that broke with the Textus Receptus, relying mainly instead on manuscripts from the Alexandrian text-type. There can, therefore, be no agreement among critics as to which reading may have been … 5) MS 383 ±1250 A.D. But in this sample at least, the Byzantine text obviously does not show the sort of massive inferiority implied by Hort. H. Tasker: Editors. The Byzantine text-type (also called Majority, Traditional, Ecclesiastical, Constantinopolitan, or Syrian) is one of several text-types used in textual criticism to describe the textual character of Greek New … The So-Called Mixed Text: An Examination of the Non-Alexandrian and Non-Byzantine Text-Type in the Catholic Epistles Studies in Biblical Literature: Amazon.es: Baldwin, … The Alexandrian text-type (also called Neutral or Egyptian), associated with Alexandria, is one of several text-types used in New Testament textual criticism to describe and group the textual characters of biblical manuscripts. Dating from the fourth century, and hence possibly earlier than the Peshitta, is the Ethiopic version of the Gospels; best represented by the surviving fifth and sixth century manuscripts of the Garima Gospels and classified by Rochus Zuurmond as "early Byzantine". Mark 1:13 looks like a combination of the Alexandrian and the Caesarean text. ), 2139, 2140, 2141, 2142, 2144, 2160, 2172, 2173, 2175, 2176, 2177, 2178, 2181, 2183, 2187, 2189, 2191, 2199, 2218, 2221, 2236, 2261, 2266, 2267, 2273, 2275, 2277, 2281, 2289, 2295, 2300, 2303, 2306, 2307, 2309, 2310, 2311, 2352, 2355, 2356, 2373, 2376, 2378, 2381, 2382, 2386, 2389, 2390, 2406, 2407, 2409, 2414, 2415, 2418, 2420, 2422, 2423, 2424, 2425, 2426, 2430, 2431, 2437, 2441, 2442, 2445, 2447, 2450, 2451, 2452, 2454, 2455, 2457, 2458, 2459, 2466, 2468, 2475, 2479, 2483, 2484, 2490, 2491, 2496, 2497, 2499, 2500, 2501, 2502, 2503, 2507, 2532, 2534, 2536, 2539, 2540, 2545, 2547, 2549, 2550, 2552, 2554, 2555, 2558, 2559, 2562, 2563, 2567, 2571, 2572, 2573, 2578, 2579, 2581, 2584, 2587, 2593, 2600, 2619, 2624, 2626, 2627, 2629, 2631, 2633, 2634, 2635, 2636, 2637, 2639, 2645, 2646, 2649, 2650, 2651, 2653, 2656, 2657, 2658, 2660, 2661, 2665, 2666, 2671, 2673, 2675, 2679, 2690, 2691, 2696, 2698, 2699, 2700, 2704, 2711, 2712, 2716, 2721, 2722, 2723, 2724, 2725, 2727, 2729, 2746, 2760, 2761, 2765, 2767, 2773, 2774, 2775, 2779, 2780, 2781, 2782, 2783, 2784, 2785, 2787, 2790, 2791, 2794, 2815, 2817, 2829. Two broad explanations have been offered for this observation: In Mark 6:33 and Luke 24:53 the Byzantine text-type looks like a combination of the Alexandrian and the Western text. This paper. ), 379, 380, 381, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 390, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 398 (except Cath. When compared to witnesses of the Western text-type, Alexandrian readings tend to be shorter and are commonly regarded as having a lower tendency to expand or paraphrase. Basically, the Byzantine text is fuller. It is the text type favored by textual critics and it is the basis for most modern Bible translations. It is an excellent example of the Alexandrian text type, but with Byzantine influence in Acts and the Pauline epistles. The work required a keen understanding of language and an eye for detail; texts were grouped with others based on the presence (or absence) of certain words or phrases, and in a couple of cases, entire passages—the famous Gospel pericope of the adulteress (John 7:53-8:11) or the longer ending of Mark’s Gospel (Mark 16:9-20)—both absent from the chief manuscripts of the Alexandrian text. The Byzantine Priority Hypothesis. ), 614 (in Cath. Thread starter selenah; Start date Jan 20, 2012; Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. The Alexandrian text-type is so named because it is generally associated with the Church at Alexandria. In Biblical textual criticism, the Byzantine text-type (also called Majority Text, Traditional Text, Ecclesiastical Text, Constantinopolitan Text, Antiocheian Text, or Syrian Text) is one of several text-types of the Greek New Testament manuscripts. "Weighed Rather than Counted" To evade the vast numerical superiority of the Byzantine manuscripts, CT scholars will try to "lump" them together so that they are in effect only one witness rather than many. The suggestions that have been put forward are: The standard Byzantine text used by the Eastern, Greek-speaking Greek Orthodox Church is supported by late minuscule manuscripts dating after the 4th century. Hence, many (and possibly most) distinctive Byzantine readings are likely to be early in date. that the Byzantine text-type transmits a text closest to the primary form of the New Testament books; whose early manuscript witnesses have not survived, as this text-type predominated in regions where the climate did not favour the preservation of papyrus; that the Byzantine text represents a consistent exercise in textual compilation and correction from around the 4th century, the editors having eclectically selected those readings from a range of early manuscripts, that best conformed to their presupposed standards of the characteristics to be expected in the New Testament text. Even though the Textus Receptus (basically a Byzantine text) was the basis for the Westminster Confession, there is not a single point in the entire confession that would change if it were based upon a modern eclectic text rather than upon the Byzantine text! This article is continued from The Majority Text vs. the Critical Text - Part Two. The leading scholarly Greek NT text is that published by the United Bible Societies. Let’s test that claim, comparing the text that was written by the copyist of Sinaiticus ( À ) – before anyone came along later and made corrections – and the Byzantine Text as found in the Robinson-Pierpont compilation . All the New Testament manuscripts are compiled from the original 5366's writings, which are written on … At the time of the Reformation, almost all of the available Greek manuscripts of the New Testament were Byzantine in character. ), 1577, 1583, 1594, 1597, 1604, 1605, 1607, 1613, 1614, 1617, 1618, 1619, 1622, 1628, 1636, 1637, 1649, 1656, 1662, 1668, 1672, 1673, 1683, 1693, 1701, 1704 (except Acts), 1714, 1717, 1720, 1723, 1725, 1726, 1727, 1728, 1730, 1731, 1732, 1733, 1734, 1736, 1737, 1738, 1740, 1741, 1742, 1743, 1745, 1746, 1747, 1748, 1749, 1750, 1752, 1754, 1755a, 1755b, 1756, 1757, 1759, 1761, 1762, 1763, 1767, 1768, 1770, 1771, 1772, 1800, 1821, 1826, 1828, 1829, 1835, 1841 (except Rev. If R-P is a good representation of the typical Byzantine tradition, then your analysis says that the typical Byzantine manuscript will likely … (Even those who prefer the Alexandrian text are forced to admit this.) The Lucian Recension Theory. Re:Luke 4:4 Byzantine text vs Alexandrian text. ), 093 (Acts), 0103, 0104, 0105, 0116, 0120, 0133, 0134, 0135, 0136, 0142, 0151, 0197, 0211, 0246, 0248, 0253, 0255, 0257, 0265, 0269 (mixed), 0272, 0273 (?). know as the Byzantine text is from John Chrysostoam in the late 4th Century. The Text. This is absolutely incorrect; there are ~5,000 MTs of which the oldest date even into the 2nd century while the TR is only 12 manuscripts that date no later than the 1100's ce. ), 1360, 1362, 1364, 1367, 1370, 1373, 1374, 1377, 1384, 1385, 1392, 1395, 1398 (except Paul), 1400, 1409 (Gospels and Paul), 1417, 1437, 1438, 1444, 1445, 1447, 1448 (except Cath. Yes. On the one hand, the debate And if it is related to usage, then it cannot be restricted to Greek. It is commonly accepted as standard Byzantine text. The Textus Receptus was compiled and edited by Erasmus in the 16th century. In the discussion that follows, they reason that the "incalculable and fortuitous complexity of the causes here at work" in the transmission of the text leads them to the conclusion that "every ground for expecting 'a priori' any sort of correspondence of numerical proportion between existing documents and their less numerous ancestors in any one age falls to the ground."[16]. Depending on one's perspective, the Alexandrian text omits or the Byzantine text adds quite a few words here and there, as well as whole clauses, verses, and even two long passages (Mark 16:9-20; John 7:53-8:11). All extant manuscripts of all text-types are at least 85% identical and most of the variations are not translatable into English, such as word order or spelling. It is argued that the Byzantine text looks like a conflation of the Alexandrian and Western texts. Price, who does not support the TR, when writing about recent progress in textual criticism, said, "The Westcott-Hort 'Neutral' text was found to be practically without support in the earliest fathers.". Since the quotation introduced is partly from Malachi, the Byzantine form of the verse avoids the difficulty that might be adduced were it to be concluded that Mark was presenting a factual inaccuracy. 2. According to the preface to the New King James Version of the Bible, the Textus Receptus, the Alexandrian text-type and the Byzantine text-type are 85% identical (that is, of the variations that occur in any manuscript, only 15% actually differ between these three). [12] For example, Mark 1:2 reads "As it is written in the prophets..." in the Byzantine text; whereas the same verse reads, "As it is written in Isaiah the prophet..." in all other early textual witnesses. Westcott and Hort Only. Although the majority of New Testament textual critics now favor a text that is Alexandrian in complexion, especially after the publication of Westcott and Hort's edition, there remain some proponents of the Byzantine text-type as the type of text most similar to the autographs. The earliest Church Father to witness to a Byzantine text-type in substantial New Testament quotations is John Chrysostom (c. 349 – 407); although the fragmentary surviving works of Asterius the Sophist († 341) have also been considered to conform to the Byzantine text,[2] and the incomplete surviving translation of Wulfila (d. 383) into Gothic is often thought to derive from the Byzantine text type or an intermediary between the Byzantine and Western text types. The Byzantine text is also found in a few modern Orthodox editions, as the Byzantine textual tradition has continued in the Eastern Orthodox Church into the present time. Most of the manuscripts there display a mixed text type, although there is evidence of distinctively Alexandrian texts (p75) and some distinctively Byzantine texts. 2306 (composite of parts from the 11th to the 14th centuries), 665, 657, 660, 1013, 1188, 1191, 1309, 1358, 1340, 1566, 2389, 2415, 2784, 2e, 2ap, 3, 9, 11, 15, 21, 32, 44, 46, 49, 57, 73, 76, 78, 80, 84, 95, 97, 105, 110, 111, 116, 119, 120, 122, 129, 132, 134, 138, 139, 140, 146, 156, 159, 162, 183, 187, 193, 196, 199, 202, 203, 217, 224, 226, 231, 240, 244, 245, 247, 261, 264, 267, 268, 269, 270, 275, 280, 281, 282, 297, 304, 306, 319, 320, 329, 334, 337, 347, 351, 353, 355, 356, 366, 374, 387, 392, 395, 396, 401, 407, 408, 419, 438, 439, 443, 452, 471, 485, 499, 502, 505, 509, 510, 514, 518, 520, 524, 529, 531, 535, 538, 550, 551, 556, 570, 571, 580, 587, 618, 620, 622, 637, 650, 662, 673, 674, 688, 692, 721, 736, 748, 750, 760, 765, 768, 770, 774, 777, 778, 779, 782, 787, 793, 799, 808, 843, 857, 860, 862, 877, 893, 896, 902, 911, 916, 922, 924, 936, 950, 967, 971, 973, 975, 980, 987, 993, 998, 1007, 1046, 1081, 1083, 1085, 1112, 1169, 1176, 1186, 1190, 1193, 1197, 1198, 1199, 1200, 1217, 1218, 1224, 1231, 1240, 1301, 1315, 1316, 1318, 1323, 1350a, 1355, 1360, 1364, 1375, 1385, 1437, 1539, 1583, 1673, 1683, 1714, 1737, 1752, 1754, 1755a, 1755b, 1800, 1821, 1826, 1872, 1889, 1914, 1915, 1917, 1926, 1951, 1970, 1971, 1974, 1986, 1988, 2013, 2096, 2126, 2135, 2139, 2173, 2177, 2189, 2191, 2289, 2282, 2426, 2437, 2445, 2459, 2490, 2491, 2507, 2536, 2549, 2550, 2552, 2562, 2639, 2650, 2657, 2671, 2700, 2712, 2725, 2727, 2781, 2785, 2791, 2794

Dempsey Hill Map, Bible Word Count Search, Entry Level Marketing Resume, What's Left Of Me Book 2, School Term Dates 2020/21, Crystal Hot Springs Death, Jquery Navbar Toggle, Wizened Town Meaning, Ashoka University Mba Fees, André Aciman Find Me, Bibliography For Project Class 10,

Gọi ngay
TƯ VẤN tu-van