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

Re: [textualcriticism] Luke 7:31 - "And the Lord said" - Vulgate and TR and 1500s textual analysis

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 13 , Mar 14, 2012
      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.