Introduction to the textual criticism of the Greek New Testament

Name: Introduction to the textual criticism of the Greek New Testament
Author: Nestle, Eberhard

Nestle, Eberhard

Bible. New Testament -- Criticism, Textual

What is Apollos called in Acts? He is mentioned by D only in ch. xviii.
24, where he is called Ἀπολλώνιος. א* calls him Ἀπελλῆς in xviii. 24 and
xix. 1. This reading is supported in the former passage by the
minuscules 15 and 180, and in the latter by 180 alone. Wendt now agrees
with Blass in thinking it probable that the original form in Acts was
Ἀπελλῆς, which was altered in the main body of manuscripts in conformity
with 1 Corinthians, just as ἀπὸ Καρυώτου in John was accommodated to
Ἰσκαριώτης given by the Synoptics. But what about D? I must ask with
Salmon. Even Weiss says in this connection (_Codex D_, p. 18): “The most
that can be said for Ἀπολλώνιος is that this form, differing as it does
from that prevailing in the Pauline Epistles, has the presumption of
originality, seeing that there was always a temptation for the scribes
to accommodate it to the latter.”[261] In his earlier work on the text
(p. 9) he seems not to have considered this point.

I cannot understand how Weiss could at first explain Ἰωνάθας, which is
found in D (Acts iv. 6) in place of Ἰωάν(ν)ης read by the other
witnesses, as a “clerical error,” whereas now (_Cod. D_, p. 108) he
deems it more natural to suppose that a corrector inserted the name of
the son of Annas and the successor of Caiaphas mentioned by Josephus
(_Antiq._ xviii. 4, 3) in place of that of the entirely unknown John,
than that the name of Jonathan, even supposing it was unknown to the
copyist, which applies equally to that of Alexander mentioned along with
him, was replaced by John, which was a very common name, the name of the
Apostle so frequently mentioned before. It could, therefore, be only a
purely accidental clerical error. Headlam, in his article on John
(Hastings’ _Dictionary of the Bible_, ii. 676) seems to know nothing of
all this. But perhaps Weiss sees on the same page of the aforesaid book
that the mistake of Johanan and Jonathan occurred elsewhere also, and
remembering Bengel’s principle, considers that Ἰωνάθας is the _scriptio
ardua_, and, therefore, the _praestantior_.[262]

Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.

Opening the text

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 Apollos called in Acts? He is mentioned by D only in ch. xviii.
24, where he is called Ἀπολλώνιος. א* calls him Ἀπελλῆς in xviii. 24 and
xix. 1. This reading is supported in the former passage by the
minuscules 15 and 180, and in the latter by 180 alone. Wendt now agrees
with Blass in thinking it probable that the original form in Acts was
Ἀπελλῆς, which was altered in the main body of manuscripts in conformity
with 1 Corinthians, just as ἀπὸ Καρυώτου in John was accommodated to
Ἰσκαριώτης given by the Synoptics. But what about D? I must ask with
Salmon. Even Weiss says in this connection (_Codex D_, p. 18): “The most
that can be said for Ἀπολλώνιος is that this form, differing as it does
from that prevailing in the Pauline Epistles, has the presumption of
originality, seeing that there was always a temptation for the scribes
to accommodate it to the latter.”[261] In his earlier work on the text
(p. 9) he seems not to have considered this point.

I cannot understand how Weiss could at first explain Ἰωνάθας, which is
found in D (Acts iv. 6) in place of Ἰωάν(ν)ης read by the other
witnesses, as a “clerical error,” whereas now (_Cod. D_, p. 108) he
deems it more natural to suppose that a corrector inserted the name of
the son of Annas and the successor of Caiaphas mentioned by Josephus
(_Antiq._ xviii. 4, 3) in place of that of the entirely unknown John,
than that the name of Jonathan, even supposing it was unknown to the
copyist, which applies equally to that of Alexander mentioned along with
him, was replaced by John, which was a very common name, the name of the
Apostle so frequently mentioned before. It could, therefore, be only a
purely accidental clerical error. Headlam, in his article on John
(Hastings’ _Dictionary of the Bible_, ii. 676) seems to know nothing of
all this. But perhaps Weiss sees on the same page of the aforesaid book
that the mistake of Johanan and Jonathan occurred elsewhere also, and
remembering Bengel’s principle, considers that Ἰωνάθας is the _scriptio
ardua_, and, therefore, the _praestantior_.[262]

Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.

Introduction to the textual criticism of the Greek New Testament

Introduction to the textual criticism of the Greek New Testament

No reviews yet