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
I may add that Bickel concludes his short article in the _Zeitschrift
für kath. Theol._, iii. 467-469, entitled, “Die Lucianische
Septuagintabearbeitung nachgewiesen,” by saying: “In establishing the
recensions of Lucian and Hesychius for the Septuagint, we may be held
as settling the question whether traces of these may not also be found
in the New Testament.”
In his _Einleitung_, ii. 240, Zahn says: “Without a doubt many
readings which had a considerable circulation in the second and third
centuries, some of them being of no small importance and extent, were
gradually ousted from their place in the text from the fourth century
onwards, and some of them dropped out of the later tradition
altogether. And it is equally true that many interpolations were
current in these later centuries which were unknown in the second. But
whatever our judgment be in doubtful cases, we are still always in a
position to support it with extant documents.”
Footnote 170:
Rahlfs cannot, of course, assent to this supposition, seeing that he
regards Codex B as depending on the Festal Letter containing the Canon
of Athanasius, which was not written till the year 367.
Footnote 171:
See especially Lagarde, _Sept.-Studien_, 1892, and Moore’s _Commentary
on Judges_, 1895, p. xlvi.
Footnote 172:
See above under Λ, p. 72.
Footnote 173:
There is no need to discuss here the other expressions used by Jerome
in his letter of the year 403 to the Gothic priests Sunnia and
Fretela, seeing that these relate only to the Old Testament. But the
words themselves may be quoted: “Breviter admoneo ut sciatis, aliam
esse editionem, quam Origenes et Caesariensis Eusebius omnesque
Graeciae tractatores κοινήν, id est communem appellant, atque
vulgatam, et a plerisque nunc Λουκιανός dicitur, aliam septuaginta
interpretum quae in ἑξαπλοῖς codicibus reperitur, et a nobis in
latinum sermonem fideliter versa est, et Jerosolymae atque in orientis
ecclesiae (so Lagarde, _Librorum V. T. can. pars prior_, p. xiii. from
_Vallarsi_, i. 635?) decantatur ... κοινή autem ista, hoc est
communis, editio ipsa est quae et septuaginta, sed hoc interest inter
utramque quod κοινή pro locis et temporibus et pro voluntate
scriptorum vetus corrupta editio est, ea autem quae habetur in
ἑξαπλοῖς et quam nos vertimus, ipsa est quae in eruditorum libris
incorrupta et immaculata septuaginta interpretum translatio
reservatur” (_ibid._, 637). For Λουκιανός Oikonomos (iv. 499) would
read Λουκιανίς.
Footnote 174:
A. D. Loman would emend this passage by reading εἴτε ἀπὸ μοχθηρίας τῆς
διορθώσεως τῶν γραφομένων εἴτε καὶ ἀπὸ τόλμης τινῶν τῶν τὰ ἑαυτοῖς
δοκοῦντα (_Leiden. Theol. Tijdschr._, vii., 1873, 233).
Footnote 175:
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