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

Dogma also infected the lectionary text with the Comma Johanneum

Expand Messages
  • tvanlopik
    So we know how the Comma Johanneum crept in the Textus Receptus. In a similar way dogma brought the CJ in the lectionaries of the (Byzantine) Orthodox Church.
    Message 1 of 45 , May 6, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      So we know how the Comma Johanneum crept in the Textus Receptus.
      In a similar way dogma brought the CJ in the lectionaries of the (Byzantine) Orthodox Church. In his Prolegomena tot the NT John Mill already indicated that the CJ was included in the lesson to be read Thursday of the 35th week after Pentecost (or the week of Carnival, Apokreo), as printed in the Apostolos of Venice, 1602. (Mill, Kuster, 1710, p. 581).
      Griesbach (in Diatribe in loc. I Joann. 5,7-8, NT, vol. II, 1806, p. 12) knew that the CJ is printed in the Greek lectionaries of the 16th century. The CJ is not in mss lectionaries (p. 2-3).
      This image is confirmed by UBS/TGNT4: the text without CJ is witnessed by (all!) Lect, with the CJ is witnessed by lAD, the modern current lectionary as editied by the Apostoliki Diakonia, Athens. The CJ is also in the Patriarchal edition of the NT of B. Antoniades, 1904, but printed in a smaller font. Metzger (in: Greek lectionaries, in : Die alten Uebersetzungen des N.T.s, ed. Aland, 1972, p. 486: <Curiously enough, although the editor confesses that it did not appear possible on scholarly grounds to include the passage of the "three witnesses" in John 5,7-8 it was fully retained on the basis of the wishes of the Holy Synod.>
      The CJ is exported to Eastern Europe by "Roman Catholic" editions of lectionaries and liturgical books of Venice and Rome in the 16th and 17th century, but also by the "Lutheran" edition of the Wittenberg TR of 1622, printed for the Greek market and a similar "Calvinistic" edition of the TR, Geneva 1638, with a translation in New Greek.

      Teunis van Lopik
      Leidschendam, The Netherlands



      --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "Bart Ehrman" <behrman@...> wrote:
      >
      > Yes, this is a difficult issue, as it turns out. When I was doing the
      > fourth edition of The Text of the New Testament with Metzger I suggested
      > that we take the story out, because of the de Jonge article. Metzger
      > thought, though, that even though there was no record of Erasmus explicit
      > vowing to put the comma back in if a Greek mansucript could be produced that
      > had it, that was clearly the backstory as implied by Erasmus's comments and
      > subsecquent actions. So we modified the story a bit and left it in. I
      > think in the first draft of Misquoting Jesus I indicated that the story may
      > have been apocryphal -- in fact I thought that is how I left it (untill I
      > reread the passage just now); it appears that I ended up casting doubt on it
      > more subtly, simply by saying "as the story goes....". If I do a new
      > edition, I may want to return to my original wording. (Ah, but which *is*
      > the original text?)
      >
      > -- Bart Ehrman
      >
      > Bart D. Ehrman
      > James A. Gray Professor
      > Department of Religious Studies
      > University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
      >
      >
      > _____
      >
      > From: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
      > [mailto:textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of tvanlopik
      > Sent: Sunday, April 26, 2009 10:34 AM
      > To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: [textualcriticism] Re: Doctrines, Difficulties, and NTTC
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Snapp asked Ehrman:
      > ++++++++++++
      > And why is the story of Erasmus' rash promise in the book? Didn't H. de
      > Jonge
      > expose that story as a fabrication?
      > ++++++++++++
      >
      > From H.J. de Jonge's article { https://openaccess.
      > <https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/dspace/bitstream/1887/1023/1/279_050.pdf>
      > leidenuniv.nl/dspace/bitstream/1887/1023/1/279_050.pdf } is clear that the
      > current view that Erasmus promised to insert the Comma Johanneum if it could
      > be shown him in a single Greek mansuscript, has no foundation in Erasmus'
      > work.
      > From the article is also clear that the real reason wich induced Erasmus to
      > include the Comma Johanneum was his care for his good name and for the
      > success of his Novum Instrumentum (p. 385-386). His good name was threatened
      > by insinuation of Arianism, for example by Edward Lee. "... a truly
      > quarrelsome individual, myopically conservative theologian, ..., who
      > troubled and pestered Erasmus for several years with his criticism ...".
      > Erasmus inserted the Comma Johanneum in his edition of the NT of 1522. In
      > the Annotations he stated the the Comma was missing from the Codex
      > Vaticanus, according to a transcript which Paul Bombasius (secretary of the
      > cardinal Lorenzo Pucci) made at Erasmus' request. It is with Erasmus that
      > the Vaticanus began to play a role in the textual criticism of the NT! (De
      > Jonge, p. 389, and Erasmus, Apologia ad Annotationes Stunicae (ed. De Jonge,
      > 1983) p. 257, note 505.)
      >
      > Recently on this forum is discussed on the nonsensical stories on Tregelles
      > when he tried to inspect codex B in the Vatican library. This kind of
      > tendentious stories (on Erasmus and Tregelles) can be developed when
      > doctrine and passion overrule the scholarly craft of textual criticism.
      > Heated discussions, larded with insinuations and half-true stories, were not
      > fruitful in the sixteenth century and are not in the 21st.
      >
      > Teunis van Lopik
      >
      > --- In textualcriticism@ <mailto:textualcriticism%40yahoogroups.com>
      > yahoogroups.com, "James Snapp, Jr." <voxverax@> wrote:
      > >
      > > Dear Dr. Ehrman:
      > >
      > > If I may chime in: at http://www.curtisvi
      > <http://www.curtisvillechristian.org/Misquoting.html>
      > llechristian.org/Misquoting.html I present a review of "Misquoting Jesus;"
      > it includes several disagreements with your critical decisions.
      > >
      > > But there is something else in "Misquoting Jesus" that, while not
      > technically a text-critical issue, is a legitimate concern: spin. The blurb
      > for "Misquoting Jesus" stated you make "the provocative case that many of
      > our cherished biblical stories and widely held beliefs concerning the
      > divinity of Jesus, the Trinity, and the divine origins of the Bible itself
      > stem from both intentional and accidental alterations by scribes -
      > alterations that dramatically affected all subsequent versions of the
      > Bible."
      > >
      > > So which of the c. 40 variants that you focus upon in "Misquoting Jesus"
      > are the ones upon which the divinity of Jesus, the Trinity, and the divine
      > origins of the Bible itself pivot? Which ones have drastically affected all
      > subsequent versions?
      > >
      > > When you mentioned (p. 10) that there are more textual variants than there
      > are words in the NT (137,490, by Morgenthaler's count), you immediately
      > clarified that "Most of these differences are completely immaterial and
      > insignificant." You do well. But then you raised the question, "Even so,
      > what is one to make of all these differences?" - and moved on. Would it not
      > better serve the reader to explain in a bit more detail *why* insignificant
      > variants (itacisms, movable nu, most transpositions) are really and truly
      > insignificant, and that the thing that we are to conclude from them is that
      > they do not affect the meaning of the text? Isn't it at least worth
      > mentioning that, instead of looking at textual variants and concluding that
      > God did not inspire the NT writers, an alternative interpretation is that
      > God inspired the NT writers and providentially guided His people to convey
      > the message in those texts that He wanted them to convey, and that the
      > /message,/ not the precise construction of the words, is God's greater
      > concern?
      > >
      > > As you moved rapidly from the reference to
      > more-variants-than-words-in-the-NT to statements such as, "We don't even
      > know what they [i.e., the original words of the NT] are," the
      > nigh-irresistible conclusion that the average person who knows nothing about
      > textual criticism (i.e., the targeted readers, as you explained on p. 15)
      > will reach is that this uncertainty applies to a substantial amount of the
      > NT text.
      > >
      > > Similarly, non-scholars are bound to get the impression that the Textus
      > Receptus has no better basis than the late MSS used by Erasmus. A more
      > balanced presentation would make some attempt to give readers some idea of
      > what percentage of the TR has no early support.
      > >
      > > And, similarly, since you refer to Codex Bezae as "one of our oldest
      > witnesses" on p. 134, what are non-scholars bound to conclude about the
      > contents of D at the end of Mark when you state (on p. 82) that Mark 16:9-20
      > cannot be found in the oldest and superior MSS of the Greek New Testament?
      > This sort of thing only misleads the absorbent reader.
      > >
      > > (And why is the story of Erasmus' rash promise in the book? Didn't H. de
      > Jonge expose that story as a fabrication? Metzger seems to admit this in a
      > footnote in the 3rd edition of TotNT; see p. 291 note 2.)
      > >
      > > "Misquoting Jesus," used discerningly, can be used positively as a
      > platform to raise awareness of the ways in which some textual variants can
      > affect the message of Scripture. The variants reviewed in "Misquoting Jesus"
      > don't shake the tenets of Christianity, but they do affect interpretations
      > and exegesis, and I think it is a good thing to make people aware of them -
      > particularly the cases where the evidence is finely balanced, the better to
      > appreciate the contrast with firmly resolved variant-units.
      > >
      > > Nevertheless, there's a good reason why there was not a "NTTC for Dummies"
      > book before "Misquoting Jesus." It's essentially the same reason why there
      > has not been a "Brain Surgery for Dummies" book: superficial acquaintance
      > with the subject, without an appreciation of its intricacies, is only likely
      > to get people hurt, which is likely, in the long run, to cause people to see
      > NTTC itself as something hurtful. This should be a concern to all of us.
      > >
      > > Btw, a solution to the question, "On which day was Jesus crucified?" which
      > you mentioned in "Misquoting Jesus" and again in "Jesus, Interrupted," is
      > suggested in Margaret Gibson's preface to the Gospel-Commentary of Ishodad
      > of Merv.
      > >
      > > Yours in Christ,
      > >
      > > James Snapp, Jr.
      > >
      >
    • Daniel
      ... When we study the topic of blank spaces deliberately left in a ms, we keep coming back to the PA. W has an unusual blank space between John and Luke that
      Message 45 of 45 , May 7, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "James Snapp, Jr." wrote:
        > In Codex L there is a blank space after John 7:52, but the blank space is not large enough to contain the PA. Do you think the scribe might have been replicating some leftover space, maybe at the end of the first volume of a two-volume copy of John, rather than indicating an awareness of a textual variant?<

        When we study the topic of blank spaces deliberately left in a ms, we keep coming back to the PA. W has an unusual blank space between John and Luke that may have been left for the PA--or might it be a relic of W's exemplar in which the gospels ended at John?

        Delta is an intersting study in blank spaces. Delta's scribe left a blank space for a variant reading that s/he:
        1) Later appears to have filled in from another exemplar (Mark 9:29);
        2) Never did end up filling in (Mark 10:19);
        3) Remembered was supposed to be there only after writing the rest of the line omitting it(PA).

        At John 7:52, Delta reads, on the fifth line of page 348:
        EGEIRETAI. PALIN. OUN.AUTOIS O _IS_.ELALHSEN LEGWN.
        But then the scribe stops before even reaching the margin, lines out all but the first word, and, leaving the entire rest of the page blank (with an asterisk at the front of the last line), starts back up at the top of page 349 with:
        PALIN.OUN AUTOIS O _IS_.ELALHSEN LEGWN.EGW.EIMI.TO.FWS.
        (with an obelus taking the place of the second EST above ELALHSEN!)

        images here:
        http://www.e-codices.unifr.ch/en/csg/0048/167/medium
        http://www.e-codices.unifr.ch/en/csg/0048/170/medium
        http://www.e-codices.unifr.ch/en/csg/0048/348/medium

        Another explanation, I suppose, is that Delta's scribe had heard of the PA's existence at the end of a book of the gospels, and was therefore replicating the corpus-ending blank space in that hypothetical exemplar.

        Daniel Buck
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.