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
=Parchment= derives its name from Pergamum, where it was introduced in
the reign of King Eumenes (197-159 B.C.). But prior to the use of
parchment, and to a certain extent alongside of it, =papyrus= was used,
especially in Egypt, down to the time of the Mohammedan Conquest.
Papyrus books were originally in the form of rolls (_volumina_). Only a
few fragments of the New Testament on papyrus remain. The use of
parchment gave rise to the book or Codex form. In the case of parchment
codices, a further distinction is drawn between those made of vellum
manufactured from the skins of very young calves, and those made of
common parchment from the skins of sheep, goats, and antelopes.
[Sidenote: Paper.]
As early as the eighth century (not the ninth), the so-called =cotton
paper= (_charta bombycina_) was introduced from the East. This, however,
never consisted of pure cotton, but rather of flax and hemp. It had been
in use for a long time in China and the centre of Eastern Asia, but
seems to have been unknown in Syria and Egypt till after the fall of
Samarcand in 704. From the thirteenth century onwards, paper made of
linen was employed.
In the New Testament, both papyrus and parchment are referred to. In 2
Tim. iv. 13, Paul asks that the φελόνης he had left at Troas might be
brought to him, and τὰ βιβλία, but specially τὰς μεμβράνας. Here,
φελόνης means cloak rather than satchel; τὰ βιβλία are the papyrus
books, possibly his Old Testament, while τὰς μεμβράνας are clean sheets
of parchment. In 2 John 12 the word χάρτης is used of papyrus. There,
and in 3 John 13, τὸ μέλαν is the ink, and the κάλαμος (_lat._ canna) is
the reed pen, still used for writing in the East. The quill pen, strange
to say, is not mentioned prior to the time of Theodoric the Ostrogoth in
the sixth century. The size of a sheet of writing paper may be inferred
from the passages in 2nd and 3rd John alluded to above.
[Sidenote: Scriptio continua.]
In order to economize space, the writing was continuous, with no break
between the words (=scriptio continua=), breathings and accents being
also omitted. This is a frequent source of ambiguity and
misunderstanding. In Matt. ix. 18, _e.g._, ΕΙΣΕΛΘΩΝ may be either εἷς
ἐλθὼν or εἰσελθὼν. In Mark x. 40, ΑΛΛΟΙΣΗΤΟΙΜΑΣΤΑΙ was rendered “aliis
praeparatum,” ἄλλοις being read instead of ἀλλ’ οἷς. In Matt. xvi. 23,
ΑΛΛΑ may be taken either as ἀλλὰ or ἀλλ’ ἃ. In 1 Cor. xii. 28, again,
the Ethiopic translator read οὖς instead of οὓς. The Palestinian-Syriac
Lectionary translates 1 Tim. iii. 16 as though it were ὁμολογοῦμεν ὡς
μέγα ἐστίν. There is something to be said for this, but Naber’s proposed
reading of Gal. ii. 11, ὅτι κατέγνωμεν ὃς ἦν, cannot be accepted.
[Sidenote: Columns, Lines.]
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.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account