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

Reading in Acts 3:20

Expand Messages
  • Martin Arhelger
    In Acts 3:20 the common reading has appointed (Greek PROKECEIRISMENON). But the Texts Receptus has preached (PROKEKHRUGMENON). This reading of the Texts
    Message 1 of 3 , May 15, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      In Acts 3:20 the common reading has "appointed" (Greek PROKECEIRISMENON).
      But the Texts Receptus has "preached" (PROKEKHRUGMENON). This reading of the
      Texts Receptus is different from the Majority-text. Is not mentioned in the
      footnotes of Nestle-Aland.



      My question: What is the manuscript basis for the reading of the Textus
      Receptus (if there is any)?



      Thanks for help!



      Martin Arhelger, Germany
    • Stephen C. Carlson
      ... Tischendorf says it is found in hardly any minuscules ( cum minusc vix ), which indicates to me that he looked and couldn t find any. The basis for the
      Message 2 of 3 , May 15, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        At 09:04 PM 5/15/2004 +0200, Martin Arhelger wrote:
        > In Acts 3:20 the common reading has "appointed" (Greek PROKECEIRISMENON).
        >But the Texts Receptus has "preached" (PROKEKHRUGMENON). This reading of the
        >Texts Receptus is different from the Majority-text. Is not mentioned in the
        >footnotes of Nestle-Aland.
        >
        >My question: What is the manuscript basis for the reading of the Textus
        >Receptus (if there is any)?

        Tischendorf says it is found in hardly any minuscules ("cum minusc vix"),
        which indicates to me that he looked and couldn't find any. The basis
        for the reading according to Tischendorf is QUI PRAEDICATUS EST in the
        Vulgate.

        Stephen Carlson
        --
        Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
        Weblog: http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/hypotyposeis/blogger.html
        "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35
      • Jan Krans
        ... Tischendorf actually notes cum minusc[ulis] vix mu[ltis] ( with hardly many minuscules ), but Stephen is correct on its meaning: Tischendorf can use it
        Message 3 of 3 , May 15, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          Martin Arhelger wrote:
          >> In Acts 3:20 the common reading has "appointed" (Greek
          >> PROKECEIRISMENON).
          >> But the Texts Receptus has "preached" (PROKEKHRUGMENON). This reading
          >> of the Texts Receptus is different from the Majority-text. Is not
          >> mentioned in the footnotes of Nestle-Aland.
          >>
          >> My question: What is the manuscript basis for the reading of the Textus
          >> Receptus (if there is any)?

          To which Stephen Carlson answered:
          > Tischendorf says it is found in hardly any minuscules ("cum minusc vix"),
          > which indicates to me that he looked and couldn't find any. The basis
          > for the reading according to Tischendorf is QUI PRAEDICATUS EST in the
          > Vulgate.

          Tischendorf actually notes "cum minusc[ulis] vix mu[ltis]" ("with hardly
          many minuscules"), but Stephen is correct on its meaning: Tischendorf can
          use it to express the fact that he did not find any Greek manuscript
          source for a given reading.
          The origin of PROKEKHRUGMENON is found in Erasmus' Novum Instrumentum
          (1516). According to AJ Brown in volume VI-2 of Erasmus' Opera Omnia
          (Amsterdam edition), PROKEKHRUGMENON is a pro-Vulgate conjectural
          emendation made during the preparation of that first edition. It may have
          been made by the proofreaders, for Erasmus writes in the second edition of
          his Annotationes (see volume VI-6 a.h.l.), in 1519: 'In nonnullis
          Graecorum exemplaribus pro PROKEKHRUGMENON scriptum erat PROKECEIRISMENON,
          id est, praeparatum.’ The Greek text of his edition was not changed, not
          even in later editions when the reading of the Complutensian Polyglot (the
          normal PROKECEIRISMENON) had become known. Stephanus' first two editions
          adopted the Complutensian reading, but Stephanus reverted to the Erasmian
          reading in the third edition (1550), though in the small apparatus of that
          edition it is indicated that "all" codices read PROKECEIRISMENON. Beza
          mentioned this piece of information in his annotationes, but nevertheless
          retained the Erasmian reading. It was finally taken over in the Elzevir
          editions, and thus became a firm part of the Textus Receptus both on the
          continent and "overseas".

          Greetings,
          Jan Krans
          Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.