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
(3) Speaking of the Marcosians,[201] Irenæus says (92):—Ἔνια δὲ καὶ
τῶν ἐν Εὐαγγελίῳ κειμένων εἰς τοῦτον τὸν χαρακτῆρα μεθαρμόζουσιν ...
ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐν τῷ εἰρηκέναι· πολλάκις ἐπεθύμησα ἀκοῦσαι ἕνα τῶν λόγων
καὶ οὐκ ἔσχον τὸν ἐροῦντα, ἐμφαίνοντός φασι δεῖν διὰ τοῦ ἑνὸς τὸν
ἀληθῶς ἕνα Θεόν. This seems to contain a reference to Matt. xiii.
17, but what is complained of is a false interpretation of the words
of Scripture rather than an actual alteration of the text
itself.[202] The still earlier passage, Polycarp vii. 1, is also to
be taken as referring to this practice, ὃς ἂν μεθοδεύῃ τὰ λόγια τοῦ
Κυρίου πρὸς τὰς ἰδίας ἐπιθυμίας καὶ λέγῃ μήτε ἀνάστασιν μήτε κρίσιν
[εἶναι], οὗτος πρωτότοκός ἐστι τοῦ Σατανᾶ. For the exposition of the
passage see Zahn, _GK._ i. 842.
[Sidenote: Basilides.]
(4) That Basilides[203] altered the text of the Gospels as received
by the Church in accordance with his own religious and ethical
views, and incorporated them in their altered form in his
_Evangelium_, is shown by Zahn on Matt. xix. 10-12 (_GK._ i. 771).
He shows also that the form into which Basilides cast the Synoptic
narrative may have prepared the way for the belief that Simon the
Cyrenian was crucified instead of Jesus, if this was really his
doctrine.
[Sidenote: Noëtus.]
(5) Hippolytus says of Noëtus (Lagarde’s edition, 45, 19): ὁπόταν
γὰρ θελήσωσιν πανουργεύεσθαι, _περικόπτουσι_ τὰς γραφάς. He means by
this, according to Zahn, that the Noetians garbled their quotations,
and made selections of Scriptural sayings without paying regard to
the context. But compare _ibid._, line 7 ff., αἱ μὲν γὰρ γραφαὶ
ὀρθῶς λέγουσιν, ἀλλὰ ἂν καὶ Νόητος νοῇ· οὐκ ἤδη δὲ εἰ Νόητος μὴ
νοεῖ, παρὰ τοῦτο _ἔκβλητοι_ αἱ γραφαί.
[Sidenote: Valentinians.]
(6) Heracleon,[204] the Valentinian, is said to have read πέντε
instead of ἕξ in John ii. 20, but whether he made the alteration
himself or found the former reading in his exemplar is not clearly
made out. There is no notice of the variant in Tischendorf, Baljon,
or in our commentaries. It is mentioned by Scrivener, _Introd._, ii.
260, n. 3, where reference is made to Lightfoot’s _Colossians_, p.
336, n. 1. Origen, commenting on John i. 28, cites Heracleon in
support of the reading “Bethany,” which, he says, “is found in
almost all the manuscripts.”
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