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
What is here said as to the close affinity of Origen’s Bible with
Codex D is corroborated by the testimony of the Athos manuscript
discovered by von der Goltz (see above, p. 90). This manuscript
confirms what we knew before—viz. that Marcion’s text had χριστὸν
and not κύριον or θεὸν in 1 Cor. x. 9. But it also tells us what we
did not know—viz. that χριστὸν was the only reading known to Origen,
and that κύριον in the _Synodical Epistle_ addressed to Paul of
Samosata, published by Turrianus (in Routh’s _Reliquiæ Sacræ_,
iii.^2 299), is not the original reading but a later substitute for
χριστόν. This is made out by Zahn in the _ThLbl._, 1899, col. 180,
who concludes by saying that Clement, _Ecl. Proph._, 49, should not
be omitted in a proper apparatus, and that κύριον ought never again
to be printed in the text. Our most recent editors, Tischendorf,
Westcott and Hort, Weiss, and Baljon, put κύριον in their text
without so much as mentioning χριστόν in the margin, or among the
Noteworthy Rejected Readings, or in the list of Interchanged Words
(Weiss, p. 7). In the Stuttgart edition the text is determined by a
consensus of previous editions, and I was obliged to let κύριον
stand in the text, but I have put χριστόν in the margin, as
Tregelles also did. In this instance the _textus receptus_ is
actually better than our critical editions. The rejected reading is
again the Western, and Zahn, in commenting on the newly-discovered
testimony as to the text of 1 John iv. 3 (see below, p. 327),
pertinently remarks that “here again it is perfectly evident, as any
discerning person might have known, that many important readings
which were wont to be contemptuously dismissed as Western, were long
prevalent in the East as well, not only among the Syrians but also
among the Alexandrians, and were only discarded by the official
recensions of the text that were made subsequent to the time of
Origen.” These illustrations will serve to show that not only is the
editing of the Patristic texts no easy matter, but also that the
employment even of the best editions is not unaccompanied with
risks. See Koetschau, _Bibelcitate bei Origenes_, _ZfwTh._, 1900,
pp. 321-378.
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