matthieumarc
Hello,
I'm french. Sorry for some mistakes in english language.
I found in the south of France a text in latin I date around 320. The interesting part is :
"Marcum evolue / Jesu natio / Maria de qua ecce nasquit//
Arrii annota / Filius /secundus domini" (\*)
(could be "Matre qua.." instaedt of "Maria de qua..")
Considering the context the author would write 2 concise sentences to memorise the 2 main principles of arianism.
So I understand this text as 2 independant following sentences:
1-You could find in the book of Marc about the "origin" of Jesus that from Maria this one was born.
2- The main writing of Arrius is that the Son is under the orders of the Master (= God)
The problem is that the words "Jesu natio/ Maria de qua ecce nasquit" are directly inspired by the book of Matthew, as you could see in the following process :
Start of process
From Codex Sinaiticus (arround 330)with accents added
Ματθαίος
1- βίβλος γενέσεως Ίεσου Χριστού, υίού Дαυίδ, υίού Άβραάμ.…
16- Ἰακώβ δέ έγέννησεν τόν Ίωσήφ τόν άνδρα μαρίας έζ ής έγεννήθη Ίησούς ό λεγόμενος Χριστός.
The same in latine letters
Matthaeos
1-biblos geneseōs iēsou christou uiou daueid uiou abraam.
16-iakōb de egennēsen ton iōsēph ton andra marias ex ēs egennēthē iēsous o legomenos christos.
Suppose the author extracted what he wanted to use:
"...geneseōs iēsou... marias ex ēs egennēthē iēsous..."
Suppose some one (the author, or somebody else author of a version of the Bible existing before year 320) translated that in latin.
And suppose that the author made a small adaptation for future lectors; result could be:
" Jesu natio ...Maria de qua ecce nascit"
or " Jesu natio ...Matre qua ecce nascit"
I tried to find in Vetus latina a Matthew's fragment with exactly the terms "natio" and "nascit", but I didn't find them (perhaps some body will have a better access than me on Vetus latina).
But I'm sure that "natio" (old "gnatio") was choosed because it is the same etymology that "γενέσεως/geneseōs"; and "nascit" because it is exactly "έγεννήθη/egennēthē".
End of process
All this explanation implies that the author of the 2 sentences had had an access to a Bible (we know they where rare at that time, but he was probably a rich and well educated man).
My problem is "why the author wrote "Marcum evolue" instaedt of "Mattheum evolue". And I know that it couldn't be an error by a copist. Because the text was not writted on paper, but was uses to give names to villages. A savant process to memorise main idees concerning the first generation of christians in that part of France.
My question is : is it possible that the Bible used by the author (in grec or in latin) was very old at that time (320) and was a Bible were the live of Jesus was not distributed between Matthew and Marc like in the Codex Sinaiticus?
I red that during the 2nd and 3th centuries there were various versions of the Bible, and i red the theorie about the 2 manuscrits M and Q from where the 4 Gospels could have been created.
Could a old Marc version with genealogy of Jesus have existed till 320 without problem because christians communauties were splitted in various cities during these times, and because a lot of Bibled were destroyed during Diocletian persecutions?
(\*) the first sentence is recontructed by me, starting from some medieval names of the villages : "Marcevolo° / Elzina° / Madrequexanas°"
It is very complex to explain to you all the proves I have and the details of my long study about the complete text.
I hope you will be confident about that. I can only tell you that if you translate "Matre qua ecce nasquit" into actuel catalan language, the result is "d'una mare aqueix nasché" . Compare to the actual catalan name of the village "Marqueixanes".
Thanks for those who will think about my question.
Best Regards
Michel
I'm french. Sorry for some mistakes in english language.
I found in the south of France a text in latin I date around 320. The interesting part is :
"Marcum evolue / Jesu natio / Maria de qua ecce nasquit//
Arrii annota / Filius /secundus domini" (\*)
(could be "Matre qua.." instaedt of "Maria de qua..")
Considering the context the author would write 2 concise sentences to memorise the 2 main principles of arianism.
So I understand this text as 2 independant following sentences:
1-You could find in the book of Marc about the "origin" of Jesus that from Maria this one was born.
2- The main writing of Arrius is that the Son is under the orders of the Master (= God)
The problem is that the words "Jesu natio/ Maria de qua ecce nasquit" are directly inspired by the book of Matthew, as you could see in the following process :
Start of process
From Codex Sinaiticus (arround 330)with accents added
Ματθαίος
1- βίβλος γενέσεως Ίεσου Χριστού, υίού Дαυίδ, υίού Άβραάμ.…
16- Ἰακώβ δέ έγέννησεν τόν Ίωσήφ τόν άνδρα μαρίας έζ ής έγεννήθη Ίησούς ό λεγόμενος Χριστός.
The same in latine letters
Matthaeos
1-biblos geneseōs iēsou christou uiou daueid uiou abraam.
16-iakōb de egennēsen ton iōsēph ton andra marias ex ēs egennēthē iēsous o legomenos christos.
Suppose the author extracted what he wanted to use:
"...geneseōs iēsou... marias ex ēs egennēthē iēsous..."
Suppose some one (the author, or somebody else author of a version of the Bible existing before year 320) translated that in latin.
And suppose that the author made a small adaptation for future lectors; result could be:
" Jesu natio ...Maria de qua ecce nascit"
or " Jesu natio ...Matre qua ecce nascit"
I tried to find in Vetus latina a Matthew's fragment with exactly the terms "natio" and "nascit", but I didn't find them (perhaps some body will have a better access than me on Vetus latina).
But I'm sure that "natio" (old "gnatio") was choosed because it is the same etymology that "γενέσεως/geneseōs"; and "nascit" because it is exactly "έγεννήθη/egennēthē".
End of process
All this explanation implies that the author of the 2 sentences had had an access to a Bible (we know they where rare at that time, but he was probably a rich and well educated man).
My problem is "why the author wrote "Marcum evolue" instaedt of "Mattheum evolue". And I know that it couldn't be an error by a copist. Because the text was not writted on paper, but was uses to give names to villages. A savant process to memorise main idees concerning the first generation of christians in that part of France.
My question is : is it possible that the Bible used by the author (in grec or in latin) was very old at that time (320) and was a Bible were the live of Jesus was not distributed between Matthew and Marc like in the Codex Sinaiticus?
I red that during the 2nd and 3th centuries there were various versions of the Bible, and i red the theorie about the 2 manuscrits M and Q from where the 4 Gospels could have been created.
Could a old Marc version with genealogy of Jesus have existed till 320 without problem because christians communauties were splitted in various cities during these times, and because a lot of Bibled were destroyed during Diocletian persecutions?
(\*) the first sentence is recontructed by me, starting from some medieval names of the villages : "Marcevolo° / Elzina° / Madrequexanas°"
It is very complex to explain to you all the proves I have and the details of my long study about the complete text.
I hope you will be confident about that. I can only tell you that if you translate "Matre qua ecce nasquit" into actuel catalan language, the result is "d'una mare aqueix nasché" . Compare to the actual catalan name of the village "Marqueixanes".
Thanks for those who will think about my question.
Best Regards
Michel