8320Re: [textualcriticism] James 4:6 omitted
- May 20 12:41 PM
Do always have Tischendorf in your system:
L P al5 om, transilientes quippe ab charin ad charin.
And I will add: read about the textcritical labour before Tischendorf.
In the recent Amsterdam edition of Erasmus' NT, as text is given:
.ν žμ/ν; 6 μεζονα δ. δδωσι χ.ριν. 7 .ποτ.γητε οEν
in nobis? 6 Maiorem autem dat gratiam. 7 Subditi
6 gratiam χ.ριν (.gratiam. Propter quod dicit,
Deus superbis resistit, humilibus autem dat
gratiam. Vg.). The Vulgate reflects the addition
of δι. λ.γει, (Ο θε.j .περηφ.νοιj .ντιτ.σ-
σεται, ταπεινο/j δ. δδωσι χ.ριν, attested by
P74vid À A B and most later mss., including
codd. 1, 2816 (in cod. 2816*, the spelling of
the second verb is .ντιτ.σεται). Erasmus fol-
lows cod. 2815, with support from only a few
other late mss. In 1519 Annot., he speculates
that the additional words were not originally
part of the text, but that they were first placed
in the margin (based on the similar words at
1 Petr. 5,5) and later imported into the text
itself by an ignorant copyist. In 1516 Annot.,
he refers to the textual variation in a confusing
way, seeming to imply that some Greek mss.
had μεζω in place of ταπεινο/j: what he
should have said was that those mss. omitted
the whole sentence δι. ... χ.ριν, but that they
agreed with most other mss. in retaining the
previous sentence, μεζονα δ. δδωσι χ.ριν.
His reference to μεζω (rather than μεζονα)
continued through all five editions of Annot.
In 1519 Annot., Erasmus added to the confusion
by mistakenly suggesting that some Greek mss.
added δι. ... χ.ριν before μεζω, whereas he
should have said that these words were added
after μειζονα δ. δδωσι χ.ριν. A further
distortion arises in 1519 Annot. from Eras-
mus. new insistence that the shorter reading
(i.e. omitting δι. ... χ.ριν) was attested by
"most". of the Greek mss. (.plerisque.), after
his 1516 edition had mentioned only .some.
mss. (.nonnullis.). Whether he was actually
aware of any mss. other than cod. 2815, as
favouring this omission, is open to question.
Then in 1522 Annot., without correcting the
previous misstatements, he cited the 1518 Aldine
Bible as adding δι. ... χ.ριν after μεζω δ.
δδωσι χ.ριν, a word order which differed
from that which he reported (or misreported)
from Greek mss.: this gave the misleading im-
pression that the witnesses for the longer reading
disagreed with one another as to the position
where δι. ... χ.ριν should be placed in the
text. A better explanation of the textual dis-
crepancy at this passage could be that a few late
scribes omitted δι. ... χ.ριν by a simple error
of homoeoteleuton, jumping from the first
χ.ριν to the second, and hence omitting all
the words that lay in between. It remains to be
mentioned that, in the additional clause, the
Aldine edition and also the mss. cited by Eras-
mus have κAριοj (omitting .), with support from
cod. 3 and some other late mss., while
codd. 1, 2816 and most other mss. read . θε»j.
Manetti.s translation of this whole verse was
Maiorem autem gratiam largitur, propter quod
dicit, Deus superbis resistit, humilibus vero gratiam
Read also Mill's textcritical comment ad loc. (referring to Grotius and stating Oecomenius did not translate the string.
Teunis van Lopik
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>