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

See Blass, _Lucae ad Theophilum liber prior_, p. vi. f., _Philology of
  the Gospels_, p. 75 f., where three of Lippelt’s numbers are corrected
  with the help of Harris. See also _Expository Times_, Nov. 1897, p. 92
  f. I cannot understand why Wendt, in the new edition of his Commentary
  on the Acts, should take not the slightest notice of this far-reaching
  discovery. On the spelling in the Latin manuscripts, see W.-W.,
  _Epilogus_, 776.

Footnote 138:

  _Der Schluss des Markus-Evangeliums, der Vier-Evangelien-Kanon, und
  die kleinasiastischen Presbyter_ (Berlin, 1894).

Footnote 139:

  _Expositor_, Dec. 1894.

Footnote 140:

  _Einleitung_, ii. 221.

Footnote 141:

  See Coxe’s _Catalogue of Greek MSS. in the Bodleian Library_, 1854.

Footnote 142:

  On _cata_ or _kata_ in the subscriptions, titles, prefaces, etc., of
  Latin manuscripts, see the index in W.-W., to which add the remarkable
  phrase _cata tempus_, which codex e gives in John v. 4, in place of
  _secundum tempus_ in the other manuscripts.

Footnote 143:

  See Field, _Hexapla_, i. p. lxxii.

Footnote 144:

  The order, πραεῖς ... πτωχοί ... πενθοῦντες, in Baljon is due to a
  strange oversight which is not corrected in the Addenda et Corrigenda.

Footnote 145:

  To the passages which may be adduced in support of the reading, add
  Clement, _Hom._ η 32 (Lagarde, 92, 35), ια 32 (118, 31).

Footnote 146:

  Codex D and Syr^{sin} also agree in omitting v. 30, but this is
  probably no more than a remarkable coincidence.

Footnote 147:

  See _Urt._, 55 ff., where works on this subject are cited.

Footnote 148:

  See also Linwood, _Remarks on Conjectural Emendations as applied to
  the New Testament_, 1873.

Footnote 149:

  On the symbol m, see above, p. 114.

Footnote 150:

  The converse occurs in Eusebius, _Eccl. Hist._, iv. 15, in the address
  of Polycarp’s _Martyrium_. There the reading κατὰ Πόντον, which is
  also found in the Syriac, should, according to Harnack’s _Chronologie
  der altchristl. Lit._, i. 341, be replaced by κατὰ πάντα τόπον, or
  rather by κατὰ τόπον which is found in 1 Macc. xii. 4; 2 Macc. xii. 2.
  Compare also the variation found in the manuscripts in 2 Cor. x. 15
  between κοποις, πονοις, and τοποις, and between ποτος and τοπος in
  Judith vi. 21. See also Eusebius, _Eccl. Hist._, v. 15, 23.

Footnote 151:

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

See Blass, _Lucae ad Theophilum liber prior_, p. vi. f., _Philology of
  the Gospels_, p. 75 f., where three of Lippelt’s numbers are corrected
  with the help of Harris. See also _Expository Times_, Nov. 1897, p. 92
  f. I cannot understand why Wendt, in the new edition of his Commentary
  on the Acts, should take not the slightest notice of this far-reaching
  discovery. On the spelling in the Latin manuscripts, see W.-W.,
  _Epilogus_, 776.

Footnote 138:

  _Der Schluss des Markus-Evangeliums, der Vier-Evangelien-Kanon, und
  die kleinasiastischen Presbyter_ (Berlin, 1894).

Footnote 139:

  _Expositor_, Dec. 1894.

Footnote 140:

  _Einleitung_, ii. 221.

Footnote 141:

  See Coxe’s _Catalogue of Greek MSS. in the Bodleian Library_, 1854.

Footnote 142:

  On _cata_ or _kata_ in the subscriptions, titles, prefaces, etc., of
  Latin manuscripts, see the index in W.-W., to which add the remarkable
  phrase _cata tempus_, which codex e gives in John v. 4, in place of
  _secundum tempus_ in the other manuscripts.

Footnote 143:

  See Field, _Hexapla_, i. p. lxxii.

Footnote 144:

  The order, πραεῖς ... πτωχοί ... πενθοῦντες, in Baljon is due to a
  strange oversight which is not corrected in the Addenda et Corrigenda.

Footnote 145:

  To the passages which may be adduced in support of the reading, add
  Clement, _Hom._ η 32 (Lagarde, 92, 35), ια 32 (118, 31).

Footnote 146:

  Codex D and Syr^{sin} also agree in omitting v. 30, but this is
  probably no more than a remarkable coincidence.

Footnote 147:

  See _Urt._, 55 ff., where works on this subject are cited.

Footnote 148:

  See also Linwood, _Remarks on Conjectural Emendations as applied to
  the New Testament_, 1873.

Footnote 149:

  On the symbol m, see above, p. 114.

Footnote 150:

  The converse occurs in Eusebius, _Eccl. Hist._, iv. 15, in the address
  of Polycarp’s _Martyrium_. There the reading κατὰ Πόντον, which is
  also found in the Syriac, should, according to Harnack’s _Chronologie
  der altchristl. Lit._, i. 341, be replaced by κατὰ πάντα τόπον, or
  rather by κατὰ τόπον which is found in 1 Macc. xii. 4; 2 Macc. xii. 2.
  Compare also the variation found in the manuscripts in 2 Cor. x. 15
  between κοποις, πονοις, and τοποις, and between ποτος and τοπος in
  Judith vi. 21. See also Eusebius, _Eccl. Hist._, v. 15, 23.

Footnote 151:

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