Introduction to the textual criticism of the Greek New TestamentNestle, Eberhard
Religion
Introduction to the textual criticism of the Greek New Testament
Nestle, Eberhard
Bible. New Testament -- Criticism, Textual
Our third source of material for the restoration of the text of the New
Testament is =Quotations= found in other books. These are of great
value, because they represent, for the most part, definite manuscripts
existing in certain places at the time of the writer quoting them, and
also because a large number of them belong to a time from which no
codices have come down to us. The value of their testimony depends, of
course, on the conditions already mentioned (p. 32)—viz., that the
author quoted accurately, and the copyist copied faithfully, and the
editor edited correctly. Quotations made by _Jewish_ writers as well as
by Christian will fall to be considered, only it is doubtful if in their
case we have more than one or two uncertain allusions to Matthew v. 17.
So, too, will the quotations made by _pagan opponents_ of Christianity,
particularly those of _Celsus_ in the second century, and of the Emperor
Julian. But here again we are not in possession of their complete works,
which can only be restored by a similar process and with more or less
uncertainty from the quotations from them found in the writings of the
Apologists.[114] The books of those Christian Churches which were
isolated from the main church will also be valuable. Even a verse of
Scripture carved upon a stone in an old ruin may have something to tell
us.
Brief quotations were usually made from memory. It was not so convenient
to turn up the passage in an old manuscript as it is now in our handy
printed editions.[115] In the case of longer passages and verbal
quotations generally, indolent copyists were sometimes content with
simply adding καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς. In the _Apostolic Constitutions_, ii. 22, for
example, where the entire prayer of Manasses was meant to be given, the
copyist of a certain manuscript,[116] after writing the opening words
from Κύριε down to δικαίου, omitted all the rest, amounting to
thirty-one lines of print, substituting simply καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς τῆς εὐχῆς ἃ
ὑμεῖς οὐκ ἀγνοεῖτε. (See further, _Apost. Const._, i. 7, Lagarde, p. 8,
23; ii. 14, p. 28, 7. 11; 29, 2). This, however, is not without its
parallel in modern times. As late as 1872, an Oxford editor, in bringing
out Cyril of Alexandria’s Commentary on the Gospel according to St.
John, wrote down only the initial and final words of the quotations in
his manuscript, and allowed the compositor to set up the rest from a
printed edition of the Textus Receptus. Another editor in Vienna, in
preparing an edition of Cyprian’s Works, preferred those very
manuscripts in which the Scriptural quotations had been accommodated to
the current text of later times. Only when a quotation is given by an
author several times in exactly the same form is it safe to depend on
the actual wording, or when in a Commentary, _e.g._, the context agrees
with the quoted text. Collections of Scriptural passages like the
_Testimonia_ of Cyprian and the so-called _Speculum_ of Augustine are
also taken directly from manuscripts of the Bible.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account