Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

8320Re: [textualcriticism] James 4:6 omitted

Expand Messages
  • tvanlopik
    May 20, 2014
    • 0 Attachment

      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; με­ζονα δ. δ­δωσι χ.ριν. .ποτ.γητε οEν

      Erasmus' translation:

      in nobis? Maiorem autem dat gratiam. Subditi

      Brown's annotation:

      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

    • Show all 7 messages in this topic