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

Re: [textualcriticism] Reading in Acts 3:20

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 3 , May 15, 2004
      Martin Arhelger wrote:
      >> In Acts 3:20 the common reading has "appointed" (Greek
      >> 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".

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