Mark 5:25 - Revision history

Nick at 08:35, 21 December 2024

2024-12-21T08:35:24Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:35, 21 December 2024
Line 25:		Line 25:
	''Principal Textual Discussion'' at '''Mark 5:25a''' {with rating '''A'''}. ''Inside the closed class of Greek and Latin NT sources'' the TR’s Greek, “''tis'' (certain),” in the wider words, “And a <u>certain</u> woman, which had an issue of blood twelve years” (AV), is Majority Byzantine Text e.g., Codices Sigma 042 (late 5th / 6th century), N 022 (6th century), K 017 (9th century), M 021 (9th century), and Pi 041 (9th century); Minuscule 2 (12th century); and Lectionaries 2378 (11th century), 340 (13th century, e.g., Mark 5:24-34; & 15th century), and 1968 (1544 A.D.). It is also supported as Latin, “quaedam (certain),” in old Latin Versions a (4th century) and f (6th century).		''Principal Textual Discussion'' at '''Mark 5:25a''' {with rating '''A'''}. ''Inside the closed class of Greek and Latin NT sources'' the TR’s Greek, “''tis'' (certain),” in the wider words, “And a <u>certain</u> woman, which had an issue of blood twelve years” (AV), is Majority Byzantine Text e.g., Codices Sigma 042 (late 5th / 6th century), N 022 (6th century), K 017 (9th century), M 021 (9th century), and Pi 041 (9th century); Minuscule 2 (12th century); and Lectionaries 2378 (11th century), 340 (13th century, e.g., Mark 5:24-34; & 15th century), and 1968 (1544 A.D.). It is also supported as Latin, “quaedam (certain),” in old Latin Versions a (4th century) and f (6th century).

	And ''there is no good textual argument against the Majority Byzantine Text reading.'' (Compare ''tis'' / “certain” in Mark 5:25a<sup>119</sup>, with ''tis'' / “certain” in [[Mark 14:51]], “And there followed him a <u>certain</u> young man …<sup>120</sup>.” Cf. the plural ''tines''from ''tis'' at [[Mark 2:6]]; [[Mark 7:1\|7:1]]; & [[Mark 11:51\|11:51]]<sup>121</sup>; and ''tinas'' from ''tis'' at [[Mark 12:13]]<sup>122</sup>.) However, a variant omitting Greek “''tis'' (certain)” is a minority Byzantine reading found in Codex A 02 (5th century). The omission is also found in Jerome’s Vulgate (5th century), and old Latin Versions e (4th / 5th century), b (5th century), d (5th century), ff2 (5th century), i (5th century), q (6th / 7th century), aur (7th century), l (7th / 8th century), and c (12th / 13th century); the Book of Armagh (812 A.D.); and the ancient church Latin writer, Cyprian (d. 258). From the Latin support for this reading, it is manifested in the Clementine Vulgate (1592).		And ''there is no good textual argument against the Majority Byzantine Text reading.'' (Compare ''tis'' / “certain” in Mark 5:25a<sup>119</sup>, with ''tis'' / “certain” in [[Mark 14:51]], “And there followed him a <u>certain</u> young man …<sup>120</sup>.” Cf. the plural ''tines''from ''tis'' at [[Mark 2:6]]; [[Mark 7:1\|7:1]]; & [[Mark 11:5\|11:5]]<sup>121</sup>; and ''tinas'' from ''tis'' at [[Mark 12:13]]<sup>122</sup>.) However, a variant omitting Greek “''tis'' (certain)” is a minority Byzantine reading found in Codex A 02 (5th century). The omission is also found in Jerome’s Vulgate (5th century), and old Latin Versions e (4th / 5th century), b (5th century), d (5th century), ff2 (5th century), i (5th century), q (6th / 7th century), aur (7th century), l (7th / 8th century), and c (12th / 13th century); the Book of Armagh (812 A.D.); and the ancient church Latin writer, Cyprian (d. 258). From the Latin support for this reading, it is manifested in the Clementine Vulgate (1592).

	Was the variant an accidental omission? In a given manuscript line, possibly coming at the end of a line, was the Greek, ~~“tis~~ (certain),” lost in an undetected paper fade? Or was the variant a deliberate omission? Did an impious and arrogant prunist scribe regard the ~~“tis”~~ as “unnecessarily wordy,” and then prune it away? If at law the courts were required to first locate some kind of “rationalistic” reason why e.g., every act of property vandalism occurred, then there would be many instances of mindless vandalism that could not be prosecuted. So too, some require allegedly “logical” reasons for a prunist scribe to act, and so they might pose the question, “Why would one Greek scribe possibly prune away the ~~‘tis’~~ at Mark 5:25a on the basis of ‘redundancy’ if this was his reasoning, and another not?” To this I reply, “Why does one man rob a shop or bank, and another man of a similar background, e.g., his brother, not?”		Was the variant an accidental omission? In a given manuscript line, possibly coming at the end of a line, was the Greek, “''tis'' (certain),” lost in an undetected paper fade? Or was the variant a deliberate omission? Did an impious and arrogant prunist scribe regard the “''tis''” as “unnecessarily wordy,” and then prune it away? If at law the courts were required to first locate some kind of “rationalistic” reason why e.g., every act of property vandalism occurred, then there would be many instances of mindless vandalism that could not be prosecuted. So too, some require allegedly “logical” reasons for a prunist scribe to act, and so they might pose the question, “Why would one Greek scribe possibly prune away the ‘''tis''’ at Mark 5:25a on the basis of ‘redundancy’ if this was his reasoning, and another not?” To this I reply, “Why does one man rob a shop or bank, and another man of a similar background, e.g., his brother, not?”

	Outside the closed class of NT Greek and Latin sources, at Mark 5:25a the correct reading of the TR, “certain,” in the wider words, “And a certain woman,” is found in the leading representative of the Western Text, Codex D 05 (5th century), (the mixed text type) Codex Theta 038 (9th century), and Codex 0132 (9th century, independent text type with a Byzantine Text influence, Mark 5:16-40). It is also found in Minuscules 565 (9th century, depending on one’s view, either independently corrupted, or “Caesarean” text), 1424 (9th / 10th century, mixed text type in Matthew and Luke, independent in Mark, Byzantine elsewhere), 28 (11th century, which in Mark is independent text i.e., independently corrupted, & Byzantine elsewhere), 700 (11th century, depending on one’s view, either independently corrupted, or “Caesarean” text), 157 (12th century, independent), 1071 (12th century, independent), and 579 (13th century, mixed text); as well as the Family 13 Manuscripts, which contain Minuscules 788 (11th century, independent text), 346 (12th century, independent), 543 (12th century, independent), 826 (12th century, independent), 828 (12th century, independent), 983 (12th century, independent), 13 (13th century, independent), et al. It is further found in the Gothic Version (4th century); the Armenian Version (5th century); and some Syriac Versions (see “Preliminary Textual Discussion,” supra).		''Outside the closed class of NT Greek and Latin sources'', at Mark 5:25a the correct reading of the TR, “certain,” in the wider words, “And a <u>certain</u> woman,” is found in the leading representative of the Western Text, Codex D 05 (5th century), (the mixed text type) Codex Theta 038 (9th century), and Codex 0132 (9th century, independent text type with a Byzantine Text influence, Mark 5:16-40). It is also found in Minuscules 565 (9th century, depending on one’s view, either independently corrupted, or “Caesarean” text), 1424 (9th / 10th century, mixed text type in Matthew and Luke, independent in Mark, Byzantine elsewhere), 28 (11th century, which in Mark is independent text i.e., independently corrupted, & Byzantine elsewhere), 700 (11th century, depending on one’s view, either independently corrupted, or “Caesarean” text), 157 (12th century, independent), 1071 (12th century, independent), and 579 (13th century, mixed text); as well as the ''Family 13 Manuscripts'', which contain Minuscules 788 (11th century, independent text), 346 (12th century, independent), 543 (12th century, independent), 826 (12th century, independent), 828 (12th century, independent), 983 (12th century, independent), 13 (13th century, independent), et al. It is further found in the Gothic Version (4th century); the Armenian Version (5th century); and some Syriac Versions (see “Preliminary Textual Discussion,” ''supra'').

	And the erroneous variant which omits “certain,” is found in the two leading Alexandrian text’s Codices Vaticanus (4th century) and Sinaiticus (4th century). It is further found in (the mixed text type) Codex C 04 (5th century), Codex W 032 (5th century, which is Western Text in Mark 1:1-5:30), (the mixed text type) Codex L 019 (8th century), and (the independent) Codex Delta 037 (9th century); and Minuscule 33 (9th century, mixed text type); as well as the Family 1 Manuscripts, which contain Minuscules 1 (12th century, independent text in the Gospels, Byzantine elsewhere), 1582 (12th century, independent Matt.-Jude), 209 (14th century, independent in the Gospels and Revelation, Byzantine elsewhere), et al. It is also found in the Egyptian Coptic Bohairic Version (3rd century); Ethiopic Version (Dillmann, 18th / 19th centuries); and Ciasca’s Latin-Arabic Diatessaron (Arabic 12th-14th centuries; Latin 19th century) (Diatessaron chapter xii). As recorded in support of its Neo-Alexandrian School text in the NU Text of Nestle-Aland’s 27th edition (1993), the erroneous variant is further found in the so called “Archaic Mark” Minuscule 2427 dated to “the 14th century,” although this neoAlexandrian much coveted “Archaic Mark” Minuscule 2427 was later shown to be “a booby-prize” as it was a forgery which was possibly made after 1874, but which could not have been made earlier than 1874. But knowledge of this came in 2006 to 2009 which was too late for so many of the neo-Alexandrian translators to know about. The erroneous variant was adopted by the NU Text et al. And thus at Mark 5:25a the ASV reads, “And a woman” in the wider words, “And a woman, who had an issue of blood twelve years.” So too the erroneous variant is followed in the NASB, RSV, ESV, NRSV, NIV, TEV, NEB, REB, TCNT, and Moffatt.		And the erroneous variant which omits “certain,” is found in the two leading Alexandrian text’s Codices Vaticanus (4th century) and Sinaiticus (4th century). It is further found in (the mixed text type) Codex C 04 (5th century), Codex W 032 (5th century, which is Western Text in Mark 1:1-5:30), (the mixed text type) Codex L 019 (8th century), and (the independent) Codex Delta 037 (9th century); and Minuscule 33 (9th century, mixed text type); as well as the ''Family 1 Manuscripts'', which contain Minuscules 1 (12th century, independent text in the Gospels, Byzantine elsewhere), 1582 (12th century, independent Matt.-Jude), 209 (14th century, independent in the Gospels and Revelation, Byzantine elsewhere), ''et al''. It is also found in the Egyptian Coptic Bohairic Version (3rd century); Ethiopic Version (Dillmann, 18th / 19th centuries); and Ciasca’s Latin-Arabic Diatessaron (Arabic 12th-14th centuries; Latin 19th century) (Diatessaron chapter xii).

	So also the erroneous variant was followed by the post Vatican II Council new neo-Alexandrian Papists’ Roman Catholic RSV, JB, and NJB. In this they resembled the old Latin Papists of post Trent Council (1546-1563) and pre-Vatican II Council (19621965) times, who on the basis of its strength in the Latin, also followed the variant in the Clementine Vulgate and Douay-Rheims Version. Hence at Mark 5:25a the DouayRheims reads, “And a woman” in the wider words, “And a woman who was under an issue of blood twelve years.”		As recorded in support of its Neo-Alexandrian School text in the NU Text of Nestle-Aland’s 27th edition (1993), the erroneous variant is further found in the so called “Archaic Mark” Minuscule 2427 dated to “the 14th century,” although this neoAlexandrian much coveted “Archaic Mark” Minuscule 2427 was later shown to be “a booby-prize” as it was a forgery which was possibly made after 1874, but which could not have been made earlier than 1874. But knowledge of this came in 2006 to 2009 which was too late for so many of the neo-Alexandrian translators to know about.

			The erroneous variant was adopted by the NU Text ''et al''. And thus at Mark 5:25a the ASV reads, “And a woman” in the wider words, “And a woman, who had an issue of blood twelve years.” So too the erroneous variant is followed in the NASB, RSV, ESV, NRSV, NIV, TEV, NEB, REB, TCNT, and Moffatt.

			So also the erroneous variant was followed by the post Vatican II Council new neo-Alexandrian Papists’ Roman ''Catholic RSV'', JB, and NJB. In this they resembled the old Latin Papists of post Trent Council (1546-1563) and pre-Vatican II Council (19621965) times, who on the basis of its strength in the Latin, also followed the variant in the Clementine Vulgate and Douay-Rheims Version. Hence at Mark 5:25a the DouayRheims reads, “And a woman” in the wider words, “And a woman who was under an issue of blood twelve years.”

	* 119 “''tis'' (‘certain,’ masculine singular nominative, enclitic pronoun, from ''tis'').”		* 119 “''tis'' (‘certain,’ masculine singular nominative, enclitic pronoun, from ''tis'').”

Nick: /* Commentary */

2024-12-21T07:09:11Z

Commentary

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:09, 21 December 2024
Line 18:		Line 18:

	==Commentary==		==Commentary==
			===Gavin McGrath===
			''Preliminary Textual Discussion'' for '''Mark 5:25a'''.

			Outside the closed class of sources, Tischendorf’s 8th edition (1869-72) shows the variant followed by the Syriac Harclean Version; whereas Nestle-Aland’s 27th edition (1993) shows all extant Syriac versions following the TR’s reading. Manuscripts outside the closed class of sources have no impact on the formation of the New Testament Greek Received Text, and so on the principles of the Neo-Byzantine School of textual analysis they may be totally disregarded. Thus from the Neo-Byzantine School perspective endorsed in these Textual Commentaries, what these Allophylian Syriac versions do or do not say is not of any consequence for the purposes of determining the New Testament Greek text. Nevertheless, they are itemized in these textual commentaries in order to consider the types of manuscripts used by the Neo-Alexandrian School of textual criticism. But on this occasion no reference will be made to the Syriac Harclean Version, and in the section dealing with manuscripts outside the closed class of sources, an unclear reference to “some Syriac Versions” will be made with regard to those following the TR, ''infra''.

			''Principal Textual Discussion'' at '''Mark 5:25a''' {with rating '''A'''}. ''Inside the closed class of Greek and Latin NT sources'' the TR’s Greek, “''tis'' (certain),” in the wider words, “And a <u>certain</u> woman, which had an issue of blood twelve years” (AV), is Majority Byzantine Text e.g., Codices Sigma 042 (late 5th / 6th century), N 022 (6th century), K 017 (9th century), M 021 (9th century), and Pi 041 (9th century); Minuscule 2 (12th century); and Lectionaries 2378 (11th century), 340 (13th century, e.g., Mark 5:24-34; & 15th century), and 1968 (1544 A.D.). It is also supported as Latin, “quaedam (certain),” in old Latin Versions a (4th century) and f (6th century).

			And ''there is no good textual argument against the Majority Byzantine Text reading.'' (Compare ''tis'' / “certain” in Mark 5:25a<sup>119</sup>, with ''tis'' / “certain” in [[Mark 14:51]], “And there followed him a <u>certain</u> young man …<sup>120</sup>.” Cf. the plural ''tines''from ''tis'' at [[Mark 2:6]]; [[Mark 7:1\|7:1]]; & [[Mark 11:51\|11:51]]<sup>121</sup>; and ''tinas'' from ''tis'' at [[Mark 12:13]]<sup>122</sup>.) However, a variant omitting Greek “''tis'' (certain)” is a minority Byzantine reading found in Codex A 02 (5th century). The omission is also found in Jerome’s Vulgate (5th century), and old Latin Versions e (4th / 5th century), b (5th century), d (5th century), ff2 (5th century), i (5th century), q (6th / 7th century), aur (7th century), l (7th / 8th century), and c (12th / 13th century); the Book of Armagh (812 A.D.); and the ancient church Latin writer, Cyprian (d. 258). From the Latin support for this reading, it is manifested in the Clementine Vulgate (1592).

			Was the variant an accidental omission? In a given manuscript line, possibly coming at the end of a line, was the Greek, “tis (certain),” lost in an undetected paper fade? Or was the variant a deliberate omission? Did an impious and arrogant prunist scribe regard the “tis” as “unnecessarily wordy,” and then prune it away? If at law the courts were required to first locate some kind of “rationalistic” reason why e.g., every act of property vandalism occurred, then there would be many instances of mindless vandalism that could not be prosecuted. So too, some require allegedly “logical” reasons for a prunist scribe to act, and so they might pose the question, “Why would one Greek scribe possibly prune away the ‘tis’ at Mark 5:25a on the basis of ‘redundancy’ if this was his reasoning, and another not?” To this I reply, “Why does one man rob a shop or bank, and another man of a similar background, e.g., his brother, not?”

			Outside the closed class of NT Greek and Latin sources, at Mark 5:25a the correct reading of the TR, “certain,” in the wider words, “And a certain woman,” is found in the leading representative of the Western Text, Codex D 05 (5th century), (the mixed text type) Codex Theta 038 (9th century), and Codex 0132 (9th century, independent text type with a Byzantine Text influence, Mark 5:16-40). It is also found in Minuscules 565 (9th century, depending on one’s view, either independently corrupted, or “Caesarean” text), 1424 (9th / 10th century, mixed text type in Matthew and Luke, independent in Mark, Byzantine elsewhere), 28 (11th century, which in Mark is independent text i.e., independently corrupted, & Byzantine elsewhere), 700 (11th century, depending on one’s view, either independently corrupted, or “Caesarean” text), 157 (12th century, independent), 1071 (12th century, independent), and 579 (13th century, mixed text); as well as the Family 13 Manuscripts, which contain Minuscules 788 (11th century, independent text), 346 (12th century, independent), 543 (12th century, independent), 826 (12th century, independent), 828 (12th century, independent), 983 (12th century, independent), 13 (13th century, independent), et al. It is further found in the Gothic Version (4th century); the Armenian Version (5th century); and some Syriac Versions (see “Preliminary Textual Discussion,” supra).

			And the erroneous variant which omits “certain,” is found in the two leading Alexandrian text’s Codices Vaticanus (4th century) and Sinaiticus (4th century). It is further found in (the mixed text type) Codex C 04 (5th century), Codex W 032 (5th century, which is Western Text in Mark 1:1-5:30), (the mixed text type) Codex L 019 (8th century), and (the independent) Codex Delta 037 (9th century); and Minuscule 33 (9th century, mixed text type); as well as the Family 1 Manuscripts, which contain Minuscules 1 (12th century, independent text in the Gospels, Byzantine elsewhere), 1582 (12th century, independent Matt.-Jude), 209 (14th century, independent in the Gospels and Revelation, Byzantine elsewhere), et al. It is also found in the Egyptian Coptic Bohairic Version (3rd century); Ethiopic Version (Dillmann, 18th / 19th centuries); and Ciasca’s Latin-Arabic Diatessaron (Arabic 12th-14th centuries; Latin 19th century) (Diatessaron chapter xii). As recorded in support of its Neo-Alexandrian School text in the NU Text of Nestle-Aland’s 27th edition (1993), the erroneous variant is further found in the so called “Archaic Mark” Minuscule 2427 dated to “the 14th century,” although this neoAlexandrian much coveted “Archaic Mark” Minuscule 2427 was later shown to be “a booby-prize” as it was a forgery which was possibly made after 1874, but which could not have been made earlier than 1874. But knowledge of this came in 2006 to 2009 which was too late for so many of the neo-Alexandrian translators to know about. The erroneous variant was adopted by the NU Text et al. And thus at Mark 5:25a the ASV reads, “And a woman” in the wider words, “And a woman, who had an issue of blood twelve years.” So too the erroneous variant is followed in the NASB, RSV, ESV, NRSV, NIV, TEV, NEB, REB, TCNT, and Moffatt.

			So also the erroneous variant was followed by the post Vatican II Council new neo-Alexandrian Papists’ Roman Catholic RSV, JB, and NJB. In this they resembled the old Latin Papists of post Trent Council (1546-1563) and pre-Vatican II Council (19621965) times, who on the basis of its strength in the Latin, also followed the variant in the Clementine Vulgate and Douay-Rheims Version. Hence at Mark 5:25a the DouayRheims reads, “And a woman” in the wider words, “And a woman who was under an issue of blood twelve years.”

			* 119 “''tis'' (‘certain,’ masculine singular nominative, enclitic pronoun, from ''tis'').”
			* 120 “''tis'' (‘certain,’ masculine singular nominative, enclitic pronoun, from ''tis'').”
			* 121 “''tines'' (‘certain,’ masculine plural nominative, enclitic pronoun, from ''tis'').”
			* 122 “''tias'' (‘certain,’ masculine plural nominative, enclitic pronoun, from ''tis'').”

	==Greek==		==Greek==

Nick at 03:07, 21 December 2024

2024-12-21T03:07:00Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:07, 21 December 2024
Line 11:		Line 11:
	{{King James Version Pure Cambridge Edition Footer}}		{{King James Version Pure Cambridge Edition Footer}}

	* '''[[Mark 5:25 (TRV)\|Mark 5:25]]''' Now a certain woman had a flow of blood for twelve years,		* '''[[Mark 5:25 (TRV)\|Mark 5:25]]''' [[2532\|Now]] [[5100\|a certain]] [[1135\|woman]] [[5607\|had]] [[1722\|a flow]] [[129\|of blood]] [[1427\|for twelve]] [[2094\|years]],

	{{King James Version 2016 Edition}}		{{King James Version 2016 Edition}}

Nick at 03:05, 21 December 2024

2024-12-21T03:05:55Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:05, 21 December 2024
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{Verses in Mark 5}}		{{Verses in Mark 5}}

			<center><< - [[Mark 5:24]] - [[Mark 5:26]] - >></center>

	* '''[[Mark 5:25 Greek NT: Beza's Textus Receptus (1598)\| ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ 5:25]]''' [[2532\|Καὶ]] [[1135\|γυνὴ]] [[5100\|τις]] [[5607\|οὖσα]] [[1722\|ἐν]] [[4511\|ῥύσει]] [[129\|αἵματος]] [[2094\|ἔτη]] [[1427\|δώδεκα]],		* '''[[Mark 5:25 Greek NT: Beza's Textus Receptus (1598)\| ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ 5:25]]''' [[2532\|Καὶ]] [[1135\|γυνὴ]] [[5100\|τις]] [[5607\|οὖσα]] [[1722\|ἐν]] [[4511\|ῥύσει]] [[129\|αἵματος]] [[2094\|ἔτη]] [[1427\|δώδεκα]],

	{{Textus Receptus 1598 Footer}}		{{Textus Receptus 1598 Footer}}

	* '''Mark 5:25''' [[2532\|And]] [[5100\|a certain]] [[1135\|woman]], [[5607\|which had]] [[1722\|an]] [[4511\|issue]] [[129\|of blood]] [[1427\|twelve]] [[2094\|years]],		* '''Mark 5:25''' [[2532\|And]] [[5100\|a certain]] [[1135\|woman]], [[5607\|which had]] [[1722\|an]] [[4511\|issue]] [[129\|of blood]] [[1427\|twelve]] [[2094\|years]],

	{{King James Version Pure Cambridge Edition Footer}}		{{King James Version Pure Cambridge Edition Footer}}

	* '''[[Mark 5:25 (TRV)\|Mark 5:25]]''' Now a certain woman had a flow of blood for twelve years,		* '''[[Mark 5:25 (TRV)\|Mark 5:25]]''' Now a certain woman had a flow of blood for twelve years,
	{{~~Progressive~~ King James Version}}
			{{King James Version 2016 Edition}}

	==Interlinear==		==Interlinear==

Beza 1598: /* Foreign Language Versions */

2018-06-07T15:11:40Z

Foreign Language Versions

Show changes

Beza 1598: /* English Translations */

2018-06-04T16:58:59Z

English Translations

Show changes

Textus Receptus: /* External Links */

2018-01-17T17:46:01Z

External Links

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:46, 17 January 2018
Line 283:		Line 283:

	==External Links==		==External Links==

			{{Donate}}

Textus Receptus at 15:47, 8 May 2017

2017-05-08T15:47:57Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:47, 8 May 2017
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{Verses in Mark 5}}		{{Verses in Mark 5}}
	* '''[[Mark 5:25 Greek NT: Beza's Textus Receptus (1598)\| ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ 5:25]]''' ~~καὶ~~ γυνὴ τις οὖσα ἐν ῥύσει αἵματος ἔτη δώδεκα		* '''[[Mark 5:25 Greek NT: Beza's Textus Receptus (1598)\| ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ 5:25]]''' [[2532\|Καὶ]] [[1135\|γυνὴ]] [[5100\|τις]] [[5607\|οὖσα]] [[1722\|ἐν]] [[4511\|ῥύσει]] [[129\|αἵματος]] [[2094\|ἔτη]] [[1427\|δώδεκα]],

	{{Textus Receptus 1598 Footer}}		{{Textus Receptus 1598 Footer}}

	* ''' Mark 5:25 ''' And a certain woman, which had an issue of blood twelve years,

			* '''Mark 5:25''' [[2532\|And]] [[5100\|a certain]] [[1135\|woman]], [[5607\|which had]] [[1722\|an]] [[4511\|issue]] [[129\|of blood]] [[1427\|twelve]] [[2094\|years]],
	{{King James Version Pure Cambridge Edition Footer}}		{{King James Version Pure Cambridge Edition Footer}}

	* '''[[ Mark 5:25 ~~King James Version 2016~~\|Mark 5:25]]''' Now a certain woman had a flow of blood for twelve years,		* '''[[Mark 5:25 (TRV)\|Mark 5:25]]''' Now a certain woman had a flow of blood for twelve years,
			{{Progressive King James Version}}
	{{King James Version ~~2016 Edition~~}}
	==Interlinear==		==Interlinear==

Beza 1598 at 06:27, 8 April 2017

2017-04-08T06:27:12Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:27, 8 April 2017
Line 2:		Line 2:
	* '''[[Mark 5:25 Greek NT: Beza's Textus Receptus (1598)\| ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ 5:25]]''' καὶ γυνὴ τις οὖσα ἐν ῥύσει αἵματος ἔτη δώδεκα		* '''[[Mark 5:25 Greek NT: Beza's Textus Receptus (1598)\| ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ 5:25]]''' καὶ γυνὴ τις οὖσα ἐν ῥύσει αἵματος ἔτη δώδεκα

	~~<small>''([[~~Textus Receptus (1598~~)\|Textus Receptus]], [[Theodore Beza]], [[1598 AD\|1598]])''</small>~~		{{Textus Receptus 1598 Footer}}

	* ''' Mark 5:25 ''' And a certain woman, which had an issue of blood twelve years,		* ''' Mark 5:25 ''' And a certain woman, which had an issue of blood twelve years,

	~~<small>''([[~~King James Version~~]], [[~~Pure Cambridge Edition~~]] [[1900 AD\|1900]])''</small>~~		{{King James Version Pure Cambridge Edition Footer}}

	* '''[[ Mark 5:25 ~~(TRV)~~\|Mark 5:25]]''' Now a certain woman had a flow of blood for twelve years,		* '''[[ Mark 5:25 King James Version 2016\|Mark 5:25]]''' Now a certain woman had a flow of blood for twelve years,

	~~<small>''([[Textus Receptus Version]])''</small>~~

			{{King James Version 2016 Edition}}
	==Interlinear==		==Interlinear==

Beza 1598 at 11:03, 12 October 2016

2016-10-12T11:03:30Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:03, 12 October 2016
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Verses in Mark 5}}
	* '''[[Mark 5:25 Greek NT: Beza's Textus Receptus (1598)\| ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ 5:25]]''' καὶ γυνὴ τις οὖσα ἐν ῥύσει αἵματος ἔτη δώδεκα		* '''[[Mark 5:25 Greek NT: Beza's Textus Receptus (1598)\| ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ 5:25]]''' καὶ γυνὴ τις οὖσα ἐν ῥύσει αἵματος ἔτη δώδεκα

Line 49:		Line 50:
	* [[1590 AD\|1590]] (Beza Octavo 4th)		* [[1590 AD\|1590]] (Beza Octavo 4th)
	* [[1598 AD\|1598]] (Beza 4th)		* [[1598 AD\|1598]] (Beza 4th)
	''See Also [[~~Matthew 1~~:1 Beza 1598]] ([[Theodore Beza\|Beza]])''		''See Also [[Mark 5:25 Beza 1598]] ([[Theodore Beza\|Beza]])''
	* [[1604 AD\|1604]] (Beza Octavo 5th)		* [[1604 AD\|1604]] (Beza Octavo 5th)

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:03, 12 October 2016
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Verses in Mark 5}}
	* '''[[Mark 5:25 Greek NT: Beza's Textus Receptus (1598)\| ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ 5:25]]''' καὶ γυνὴ τις οὖσα ἐν ῥύσει αἵματος ἔτη δώδεκα		* '''[[Mark 5:25 Greek NT: Beza's Textus Receptus (1598)\| ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ 5:25]]''' καὶ γυνὴ τις οὖσα ἐν ῥύσει αἵματος ἔτη δώδεκα

Line 49:		Line 50:
	* [[1590 AD\|1590]] (Beza Octavo 4th)		* [[1590 AD\|1590]] (Beza Octavo 4th)
	* [[1598 AD\|1598]] (Beza 4th)		* [[1598 AD\|1598]] (Beza 4th)
	''See Also [[~~Matthew 1~~:1 Beza 1598]] ([[Theodore Beza\|Beza]])''		''See Also [[Mark 5:25 Beza 1598]] ([[Theodore Beza\|Beza]])''
	* [[1604 AD\|1604]] (Beza Octavo 5th)		* [[1604 AD\|1604]] (Beza Octavo 5th)