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. 41. The remarkable “Western reading” ὀργισθείς is dismissed by Swete
with a reference to W-H, who call it “a singular reading, perhaps
suggested by v. 43 (ἐμβριμησάμενος), perhaps derived from an extraneous
source.” In my _Philologica Sacra_, p. 26, I have expressed the opinion
that it is impossible to suppose a copyist altered σπλαγχνισθείς to
ὀργισθείς, even though ἐμβριμησάμενος does follow two verses further
down.[271] Either ὀργή, ὀργίζεσθαι has another meaning in Biblical
Greek, which is quite possible, or we have here an instance of a
difference in translation. The confusion of the gutturals, _e.g._, is
very common. Compare Ps. xii. 6, יפיח, Gr. יפיע; Ps. xiv. 6, עני = liii.
6, חנך; וישמח in Isa. xxxix. 2 for וישמע in 2 Kings xx. 13; Ps. xxii.
25, ענות, where Gr. has δέησις = תחנות; Ps. xcvii. 11, זרע, Gr.
ἀνέτειλεν = זרח; and especially Mark ix. 19 in the recently-published
Evangeliarium Hierosolymitanum of Lewis-Gibson, where Cod. B has מרחית
for מרעת found in A B. Compare also חד, Matt. vii. 11 (p. 68), and עד
(p. 135). A glance at the _Thesaurus Syriacus_ 3953 shows that רעם is
used, not only for βροντᾶν, but also for σπλαγχνίζεσθαι, στέργειν, and
συμπαθεῖν, while אתרעם stands for χαλεπαίνειν, ἀγανακτεῖν, and
γογγύζειν. Payne-Smith gives no instance of ὀργίζεσθαι. The usual Syriac
word for it even in Syr^{sin} and Syr^{hier} is רנז or אתחמת; both verbs
are found together in 1 Macc. vi. 59 for the simple ὠργίσθησαν (אתחמתו
ורגזו). It is worth noting that in Col. iii. 13, ὀργήν is read by F G,
where D* has μέμψιν, and the other authorities μομφήν.
On the reading in Mark i. 41, see Harris, _Fragments etc._ (1895), p. 6.
He shows that Ephraem had ὀργισθείς in his text alongside of
σπλαγχνισθείς. The Arabic Diatessaron, in which the pericope does not
come till § 22, follows the usual text, and so, too, does Syr^{sin}.
ii. 14. Zahn (_Einl._, ii. 263) holds that “Levi son of Alphaeus” is the
original reading here and not “James,” and that it was taken from Mark
into the Gospel of Peter. The reading “Jacobum” was also taken into the
first hand of the Vulgate manuscript G from D 13, 69, 124, a b c d e
ff_{2} r. In Koetschau’s new edition of Origen, the name is no longer
spelt Λεβής but Λευής (i. 113, 19; Cod. P: Λευίς).
iii. 17. Our expositors might tell us where Luther got his “Bnehargem,”
which is retained in the German Revised Version. On Daniel ii. 7 Jerome
has “Benereem.” I have looked in vain in Lyra, Pole’s _Synopsis_, Calov,
and Wolf.
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