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

RE: [textualcriticism] Luke 7:31 Vulgate and textus receptus

Expand Messages
  • Wieland Willker
    ... Thanks! So the reading in the Vulgate predates Erasmus. I think that the addition of the words has to do with the question if the words of vss. 29-30 were
    Message 1 of 13 , Mar 6, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      > According to the critical text of the Vulgate, AIT AUTEM
      > DOMINUS was the reading of the Vulgate as printed in
      > every 15th and 16th-century edition.


      Thanks! So the reading in the Vulgate predates Erasmus.

      I think that the addition of the words has to do with the question if the
      words of vss. 29-30 were spoken by Jesus (so most commentaries, e.g. Weiss,
      Zahn) or are an insertion/comment by Luke. Perhaps the words have been added
      by those who understand it as an insertion to make clear that in verse 31 it
      is Jesus again who is speaking.


      Does anybody know what exactly g1 (Sangermanensis) is reading here?


      Best wishes
      Wieland
      <><
      --------------------------
      Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
      http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie
      Textcritical commentary:
      http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/

      Please check out the TC forum:
      http://tcg.iphpbb3.com
    • schmuel
      Hi Folks, Luke 7:31 And the Lord said, Whereunto then shall I liken the men of this generation? and to what are they like? Two Latin versions: Ait autem
      Message 2 of 13 , Mar 6, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Folks,

        Luke 7:31
        And the Lord said,
        Whereunto then shall I liken the men of this generation?
        and to what are they like?

        Two Latin versions:
        Ait autem Dominus: Cui ergo similes dicam homines generationis hujus? et cui similes sunt?
                                      cui ergo similes dicam homines generationis huius et cui similes sunt

        Wieland,
        So you are saying that the Latin words predate the Clementine Vulgate and Erasmus? My initial thought was that the words got into the Vulgate from Erasmus, since the TR of Stephanus was used as a source for the Clementine Vulgate.  But perhaps Erasmus had a Vulgate that already had these words?

        Steven
        My understanding of the Clementine is that it is generally a majority Vulgate text.  And I've never heard of specific editions of Erasmus or Stephanus being a major influence on the Clementine.  However, this is an area where textual writings are sketchy and unreliable.  Do you have any variants or notes that would support the idea of a major Erasmus->Clementine Vuglate influence ?

        On Luke 7:31, John William Burgon says that 1 out of 40 have the words (Causes of the Corruption p. 72, also, earlier, verse referenced Last 12 verses, p. 216) and his position is that the phrase came in from the lectionary introduction, a position also taken by Scrivener. John Scott Porter says that "Scholz informs us that they are also found in some manuscripts" (Principles of textual criticism: p. 48, 1848)

        The section in green can either be Luke, or directly Jesus, depending on text and interpretation.

        Luke 7:21-35 (AV)
        And in that same hour he cured many of their infirmities and plagues, and of evil spirits; and unto many that were blind he gave sight. Then Jesus answering said unto them, Go your way, and tell John what things ye have seen and heard; how that the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, to the poor the gospel is preached. And blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in me. And when the messengers of John were departed, he began to speak unto the people concerning John, What went ye out into the wilderness for to see? A reed shaken with the wind? But what went ye out for to see? A man clothed in soft raiment? Behold, they which are gorgeously apparelled, and live delicately, are in kings' courts. But what went ye out for to see? A prophet? Yea, I say unto you, and much more than a prophet. This is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee. For I say unto you, Among those that are born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist: but he that is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.
        And all the people that heard him, and the publicans, justified God, being baptized with the baptism of John. But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him. And the Lord said, Whereunto then shall I liken the men of this generation? and to what are they like? They are like unto children sitting in the marketplace, and calling one to another, and saying, We have piped unto you, and ye have not danced; we have mourned to you, and ye have not wept. For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine; and ye say, He hath a devil. The Son of man is come eating and drinking; and ye say, Behold a gluttonous man, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners! But wisdom is justified of all her children.

        Notice that if the evangelist Luke did not write "And the Lord said..." that would make, by simple reading:

        But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him."

         
        a part of a "continuous discourse.of Christ" (Cornelius Lapide, 1908, Luke's Gospel, Lapide saying that is also the position of Juan Maldanado 1533-1583). 

        John Gill takes a similar position:
        "This clause is not in the Syriac, Arabic, Persic, and Ethiopic versions, nor in some copies, nor in Beza's most ancient copy; and being omitted, more clearly shows, that the two former verses are the words of Christ, and not an observation the evangelist makes, on the different behaviour of Christ's hearers, upon the commendation he had given of John"

        This is a very difficult understanding of the two verses in green above.

        Interestingly, the NETBible, and the NIV and the Holman and the NRSV, agree with the interpretation of the two verses as in the TR and AV, as a comment from Luke, against the "continuous discourse" interpretation, the plain text reading of the Critical Text.  They are looking at verses 29 and 30 as parenthetical.  

        For comparison:

        Matthew 11:7-19
        And as they departed, Jesus began to say unto the multitudes concerning John, What went ye out into the wilderness to see? A reed shaken with the wind? But what went ye out for to see? A man clothed in soft raiment? behold, they that wear soft clothing are in kings' houses. But what went ye out for to see? A prophet? yea, I say unto you, and more than a prophet. For this is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee. Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force. For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John. And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear. But whereunto shall I liken this generation? It is like unto children sitting in the markets, and calling unto their fellows, And saying, We have piped unto you, and ye have not danced; we have mourned unto you, and ye have not lamented. For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He hath a devil. The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children.

        Jan Krans
        > They actually represent a typical pro-Vulgate correction  through (rather straightforward) retranslation, by either  Erasmus or his assistants.

        Daniel Buck
        According to the critical text of the Vulgate, AIT AUTEM DOMINUS was the reading of the Vulgate as printed in every 15th and 16th-century edition. So yes, Erasmus surely had this text before him, whether in printed or manuscript form. Obviously, this is a reading that goes way back, if it's found in the Old Latin.....

        Steven
        It would be nice to have much more Latin info.  Bede does not have the phrase in his commentary.

        Wieland
        Thanks! So the reading in the Vulgate predates Erasmus. I think that the addition of the words has to do with the question if the words of vss. 29-30 were spoken by Jesus (so most commentaries, e.g. Weiss, Zahn) or are an insertion/comment by Luke. Perhaps the words have been added by those who understand it as an insertion to make clear that in verse 31 it is Jesus again who is speaking.

        Steven
        Or perhaps the evangelist Luke placed in those words for the same purpose.  And it was dropped out of most of the Greek line by the various methods that text drops out.  Scribal fatigue and error, harmonization, perhaps some scribes liked the idea of Jesus speaking the full section.

        Jan Krans
        > Erasmus' first edition. They actually represent a typical pro-Vulgate correction through (rather straightforward) retranslation... the obvious difference emerging then may have prompted the decision. [So much for the providential nature of the TR ...]

        Steven
        Jan, do you actually have a theory of the providential nature of the preservation of the Bible text ? 
        And does your theory disallow informed preservation of the pure Bible text that draws from both the historic Greek and Latin text lines ? 

        Jan Krans
        > We will have to wait for vol. VI-1 of the Amsterdam Opera Omnia of Erasmus for more information. There is no annotation by Erasmus on these words.

        I noticed this online.

        Erasmi Opera Omnia - S. Dresden, J. Trapman, C. Augustijn, Ch Bene, Desiderius Erasmus, V. Branca, Jacques Chomarat -
        http://books.google.com/books?id=XIhiAAAAMAAJ&q=%22++cui+ergo+similes+dicam+homines+generationis+%22&dq=%22++cui+ergo+similes+dicam+homines+generationis+%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=izZWT-nQLKH00gGw9biiCg&ved=0CEAQ6AEwAw
        Emacs!

        Presumably that is a note of the later editors, perhaps it can help lead to more info.

        Jan Krans
        > Though absent in the Complutensian Polyglot, and marked in Stephanus' 1550 edition as lacking in all manuscripts consulted for that edition, the words remained part of the TR, at least partly because Beza, already in his 1556 edition, wrote: "Haec verba deerant in omnibus vetustis codicibus, quae tamen prorsus videntur requiri, …" [So much for those who think that 16th-century editors followed some kind of majority principle …]

        Steven
        And I think anybody informed about the decisions of Erasmus, Stephanus and Beza are aware of the fact that internal evidences and consistency aspects were a part of their textual analysis, and also the ECW verse usages (often basically ignored today)..   They were much more "majority" oriented than modern critical text theories, but would never ascribe to a one-dimensional majority text, neither Greek nor some sort of combo Greek-Latin, as being the finality of evidences.

        Here you can see that the issues were well understood in the 1500s, from Cornelius Jansen (1510–1576).

        Continens acta Christi, à secundo paschata usque ad tertium, hoc est, acta secundi anni praedicationis eius (1571)
        Cornelius Jansenius
         
        http://books.google.com/books?id=5wtEAAAAcAAJ&pg=PT118
        Emacs!
         

        ==============================================================

        Erasmus and the 1519 Greek text.

        Novum testamentum omne, iuxta Graecorum emendata volumina, interprete Erasmo Roterodamo
        http://books.google.com/books?id=bHBOAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA136
        Emacs!

        ==============================================================

        Shalom,
        Steven Avery
         
      • TeunisV
        An example of a printed (pre Erasmus) edition with is Sacon s of 1506:
        Message 3 of 13 , Mar 7, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          An example of a printed (pre Erasmus) edition with <ait autem dominus> is Sacon's of 1506:
          http://books.google.nl/books?id=aDBJAAAAcAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=biblia+summariorum+sacon&hl=nl#

          Have in mind: the Greek text <eipe de o kurios> can be indicated as a glos and can not be the incipit of a lectionary pericope. There the standard phraze is: <eipen o kurios>.

          Teunis van Lopik

          --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "Wieland Willker" <wie@...> wrote:
          >
          > > According to the critical text of the Vulgate, AIT AUTEM
          > > DOMINUS was the reading of the Vulgate as printed in
          > > every 15th and 16th-century edition.
          >
          >
          > Thanks! So the reading in the Vulgate predates Erasmus.
          >
          > I think that the addition of the words has to do with the question if the
          > words of vss. 29-30 were spoken by Jesus (so most commentaries, e.g. Weiss,
          > Zahn) or are an insertion/comment by Luke. Perhaps the words have been added
          > by those who understand it as an insertion to make clear that in verse 31 it
          > is Jesus again who is speaking.
          >
          >
          > Does anybody know what exactly g1 (Sangermanensis) is reading here?
          >
          >
          > Best wishes
          > Wieland
          > <><
          > --------------------------
          > Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
          > http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie
          > Textcritical commentary:
          > http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/
          >
          > Please check out the TC forum:
          > http://tcg.iphpbb3.com
          >
        • Daniel Buck
          In Sacon s Vulgate, it is printed as Ait at dns. (with overscoring) in line 15 of the left column of digital page 652.   Daniel Buck
          Message 4 of 13 , Mar 7, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            In Sacon's Vulgate, it is printed as "Ait at dns." (with overscoring) in line 15 of the left column of digital page 652.
             
            Daniel Buck

            From: TeunisV <tvanlopik@...>
            To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
            Sent: Wednesday, March 7, 2012 4:18 AM
            Subject: [textualcriticism] Re: Luke 7:31 Vulgate and textus receptus

             
            An example of a printed (pre Erasmus) edition with <ait autem dominus> is Sacon's of 1506:
            http://books.google.nl/books?id=aDBJAAAAcAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=biblia+summariorum+sacon&hl=nl#

            Have in mind: the Greek text <eipe de o kurios> can be indicated as a glos and can not be the incipit of a lectionary pericope. There the standard phraze is: <eipen o kurios>.

            Teunis van Lopik
          • Ted Clore
            What is known about this particular text? Are there online copies of it that can be examined? Thank you for any discussion. Ted
            Message 5 of 13 , Mar 7, 2012
            • 0 Attachment
              What is known about this particular text?  Are there online copies of it that can be examined?
               
              Thank you for any discussion.
               
              Ted
            • Jan Krans
              What you put together here has very little to do with analysis. At least try to find out which texts and editions you copy-paste from google books snippets.
              Message 6 of 13 , Mar 13, 2012
              • 0 Attachment
                What you put together here has very little to do with analysis. At least try to find out which texts and editions you copy-paste from google books snippets.

                And no, I do not have a "theory" of providential preservation of any text in human history. The very idea is aprioristic (whether or not that is an English word) and has nothing to do with research itself; at best it evaporates when the simple facts pile up, at worst it becomes a permanent blindfold.

                Jan Krans

                From: schmuel <schmuel@...>
                Reply-To: "textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com" <textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com>
                Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2012 21:04:28 -0500
                To: "textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com" <textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com>
                Subject: [textualcriticism] Luke 7:31 - "And the Lord said" - Vulgate and TR and 1500s textual analysis

                 

                Hi Folks,

                [snip]

                Shalom,
                Steven Avery
              • schmuel
                Hi Folks, Luke 7:31 And the Lord said, Whereunto then shall I liken the men of this generation? and to what are they like? Jan Krans is responding to this
                Message 7 of 13 , Mar 14, 2012
                • 0 Attachment
                  Hi Folks,

                  Luke 7:31
                  And the Lord said,
                  Whereunto then shall I liken the men of this generation?
                  and to what are they like?

                  Jan Krans is responding to this post:

                  [textualcriticism] Luke 7:31 - "And the Lord said" - Vulgate and TR and 1500s textual analysis
                  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/textualcriticism/message/7088

                  Jan Krans
                  What you put together here has very little to do with analysis.

                  Steven
                  My analysis perspective includes a lot of discussion of the form of the verses, especially who is speaking and what makes sense in that context.

                  From the textual and historical analysis perspective, probably the most important element was Cornelius Jansenius (1510-1576), since Jansen specifically references the earlier commentary of Dionysius Carthusiensis (1402-1471) and editions of the Complutensian, Aldus and Froben, as well as the early church writer Ambrose, as well as giving textual and contextual analysis.
                   
                  Continens acta Christi, à secundo paschata usque ad tertium, hoc est, acta secundi anni praedicationis eius (1571)
                  Cornelius Jansenius
                   
                  http://books.google.com/books?id=5wtEAAAAcAAJ&pg=PT118
                  []

                  (continues)

                  Surely, this gives us a window into the scholarship thinking of the 15oos. 
                  In addition to Jansenius, there is an even earlier commentary by Juan Maldonado (1533-1583) with the text available.
                  Here is the beginning of Maldonado.

                  Commentarii in Quatuor Evangelistas: ad optimorum librorum fidem accuratissime recudi curavit Conradus Martin: Tomus I: Qui complectitur Evangelium Matthaei et Marci integrum Tomus II: Qui complectitur Evangelium Lucae et Joannis integrum  (c. 1560, 1863 edition)
                  Juan Maldonado
                  http://books.google.com/books?id=MUI3ltzkXbUC&pg=RA1-PA162
                  Emacs!

                  (continues)

                  Cornelius Lapide  (1567-1637) says that he agrees with Maldonado on omission, based on the textual situation, and that this is a "continuous discourse of Christ". I noted earlier that modern translators often take the omission, yet deny the "continuous discourse" aspect that should be the force of the omission.

                  The great commentary of Cornelius à Lapide (c. 1620 .. 1887 edition)
                  http://books.google.com/books?id=vvspAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA196
                  There is a question whether this verse and the one following give the words of the Evangelist or of our Lord Himself. But as the opening words of the 31st verse, "and the Lord said," are absent from the best MSS., we may conclude, with Maldonatus, that these two verses are a part of the continuous discourse of Christ.

                  Also Francisco Toledo (1532-1596) has a section in 1600, with about 3 pages on the 3  verses.

                  D. Francisci Toleti e Societate Iesu ... Commentarii in sacrosanctum Iesu Christi D.N. Euangelium secundum Lucam ...
                  http://books.google.com/books?id=vKWDWTKO968C&pg=PA480

                  Since you only mentioned that we did not have, so far, any commentary from Erasmus, I would think that these resources would be helpful as a window into the textual decisions of the Reformation Bible editions.

                  And if I have misrepresented any of these writings above, any correction is appreciated.

                  Jan Krans
                  And no, I do not have a "theory" of providential preservation of any text in human history. The very idea is aprioristic (whether or not that is an English word) and has nothing to do with research itself; at best it evaporates when the simple facts pile up, at worst it becomes a permanent blindfold.

                  Steven
                  And I just wanted it to be clear that your opposition is against the general concept of the providential preservation of the Bible text.   Thanks for assisting in making that very clear.  Any issues with Erasmus are only auxiliary, your fundamental position is simply a severe opposition to providential preservation. Personally, I do not believe that a priori opposition to scripture preservation is a prerequisite to sound textual studies.

                  Shalom,
                  Steven Avery
                  Queens, NY
                   
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.